This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ter·ror·ist (Noun): Anyone Who Disagrees with the Government
I noted in 2009:
The Department of Homeland Security and police forces label anyone who they disagree with – or who disagrees with government policies – as “terrorists”.
Don’t believe me?
Well, according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act, “Anyone who … speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.”
And according to an FBI memo, peace protesters are being labeled as “terrorists”.
***
Anyone who disagrees with the “acceptable” way of looking at things is a terrorist.
How is this different from Stalin or Mao’s use of labels such as “enemy of the state”?
This may have seemed over-the-top to some, but events have proven it true.
For example, the following is considered terrorism or suspected terrorism in modern America:
- Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security; and see this)
- Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)
In fact – since 9/11 – virtually all dissent has been equated with terrorism.
As Paul Joseph Watson notes:
Of course, the vast majority of people who visit Internet Cafes use cash to pay their bill. Who uses a credit card to buy a $2 dollar cup of coffee? A lot of smaller establishments don’t even accept credit cards for amounts less than $10 dollars.
Other examples of suspicious behavior include using a “residential based Internet provider” such as AOL or Comcast, the use of “anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address” (these are routinely used by mobile web users to bypass public Internet filters), “Suspicious communications using VOIP,” and “Preoccupation with press coverage of terrorist attack” (this would apply to the vast majority of people who work in the news or political blogging industry).
Searching for information about “police” or “government” is also listed as a potential indication of terrorism, as is using a computer to “obtain photos, maps or diagrams of transportation, sporting venues, or populated locations,” which would apply to virtually anyone who uses Google Maps or Google Earth.
People who may wish to keep private the contents of a personal email or an online credit card purchase by attempting to”shield the screen from view of others” are also characterized as potential terrorists.
Business owners who spot patrons engaging in these types of activities are encouraged to call the FBI’s Joint Regional Intelligence Center (JRIC), after first gathering information on license plates, names, ethnicity, and languages spoken.
In total, there are 25 different CAT flyers aimed at businesses from across the spectrum – everything from hobby shops to tattoo parlors.
As we have documented on numerous occasions, the federal government routinely characterizes mundane behavior as extremist activity or a potential indicator of terrorist intent. As part of its ‘See Something, Say Something’ campaign, the Department of Homeland Security educates the public that generic activities performed by millions of people every day, including using a video camera, talking to police officers, wearing hoodies, driving vans, writing on a piece of paper, and using a cell phone recording application,” are potential signs of terrorist activity.
The CAT program again underscores how federal authorities are empowering poorly trained citizens to become terrorist hunters, stoking fears that America is sinking deeper into a Stasi-style informant society.
In modern America, curling up in a ball to avoid police violence may also be considered “active resistance” … justifying the use of more force, including baton strikes.
And even pointing out tyrannical trends may be grounds for harassment.
Note: Some also claim that copyright infringers are terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this. I’m not condoning copyright infringement, but merely citing to the all-pervasiveness of the “terror” label. And given that even grandmas and children might innocently and unwittingly download copyrighted content, any tendency to use the terror label is troubling.
»
- advertisements -
An Anon - I am an American citizen. My nature is eternal, I quest for freedom, truth and justice. U.S. citizens are subjects of D.C. There is a difference. One demands loyalty without juristiction, but uses a gun to command loyalty. The other requires no pledge, just a general code of behavior toward truth, freedom and justice.
Striving for the standard of what these eternal concepts represents is what I stand for or use as measuring stick for what another person in America or in Japan stands for. I have choices if I no longer choose to speak or interact with Japanese or Sovereign citizens of D.C. I need not lift a finger against a Japanese or D.C. sovereign to improve my or my families' lives.
A secondary requirement is a sense of humor, for while we can all laugh at one another's follies, accusation of treason without the humor makes needless enemies.
No. US citizens do not strive for freedom truth and justice. And this, from the beginning.
Fabled past.
Please explain, how people strive for freedom could patrol slaves huts to prevent them from escaping as it was done on a voluntary basis during the war of independence?
i do.
and i have only myself to answer for it
now stopping your bogging and drink your good collective slave medicine and stop making statements like you care or maybe take a great leap forward or something - that way you can claim something more noble while 30 million or so starve again.
*fool*
America is FUCKED, have a Plan B!
AnAnonymous is not asking for engagement, civil or otherwise. He is calling for genocide.