On the Abuse of the Word “Terrorism”

41 to go on trial for planning attacks on US forces, primarily in Qatar but also in Kuwait. American morons are really brainwashed about this “terrorist” word. I’ve found that almost 100% of White Americans believe that any attack by any non-state force opposed to US interests is automatically a terrorist attack, and that all non-state actors opposed to US interests are automatically terrorists. Amazingly, the Libyan NATO rebels and the Syrian rebels are somehow not terrorists, but everyone else is. Who are terrorists, according to the lying American state?

  1. FARC and ELN in Colombia
  2. Sendero Luminoso in Peru
  3. All armed groups in Palestine
  4. The Taliban in Afghanistan
  5. The NPA and MILF in the Philippines
  6. The Islamist Chechens, Dagestanis and others in the Caucasus
  7. The ETA in Spain
  8. The IRA in Ireland (there’s no such thing as “Northern Ireland”)
  9. The Kurds in Turkey and Iran
  10. The Maoists in India
  11. Various Islamist groups around the world.

Granted, most of these forces utilize terrorism in some cases, and others do in many cases. But by the rules of war and logic, any attack on security forces and in particular military forces anywhere on Earth cannot possibly be a terrorist attack.

I have had many long and exasperating arguments with staunch US liberals that the attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen, the attack on the Marines in Lebanon and the attack on the military barracks in Saudi Arabia simply was not terrorism.

The attempt to assassinate George Bush in Kuwait in the 1990’s and the attempt by the Iraqi rebels to assassinate Paul Wolfowitz in 2003 were not terrorist attacks in any way, shape or form. Wolfowitz was a deep part of the state apparatus that was persecuting the war against the Iraqi people. He’s clearly a military target. The execution of the US CIA agent in Lebanon was not terrorism either. He’s a spy. Spies are military targets, especially in wartime.

Neither was the attack on US troops at the US base by the US military psychiatrist a terrorist attack. Apparently this guy felt he was at war with the US. Operating as a deep agent for some of the enemies of the US (in his case, apparently Yemeni Al Qaeda), Hassan penetrated deeply into US forces, then used his US military uniform and gun to perpetrate an attack on our own soldiers in the waiting room of a hospital at a US base. Hassan was an enemy soldier, an armed man fighting the US for an enemy army. That’s all he was. Nothing terrorist about it.

The attackers of the Marine barracks, the barracks in Saudi Arabia and the Cole all said that they were at war with the US at the time. These were acts of war during wartime by non-state military actors who were at war with the US. Since they were at war with the US, they have a right to attack our troops anywhere they want to by the rules of war. There’s nothing terrorist about attacking US soldiers.

Now, when you get down to attacking embassies, I agree that things get a lot stickier.

The word “terrorism” really got started, I believe, in 1970’s. Guess who dreamed it up? The Israelis! As with so many forms of lying, devious bullshit in our modern world, there was a Jew behind it. Or a bunch of Jews in this case.

There is good evidence that this word was popularized by Israelis as a way to refer to all of the Arab irregular forces who were attacking Israel. Since then, it quickly spread to the Israeli colony known as the US. After that, it was quickly picked up by every state on Earth as a way to refer to all non-state armed actors that they did not approve of. For some reason, non-state armed actors that they approve or are never terrorists. Instead, they are always “revolutionaries.”

Getting back to the link at the top. These guys are members of an enemy army that is at war with the United States. As a consequence of their war on us, they were planning attacks on our military forces in Qatar and possibly in Kuwait. Nothing terrorist about it. It’s just war, plain and simple.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “On the Abuse of the Word “Terrorism””

  1. Do you consider killing military commanders and activists of separatist regimes overseas to be legitimate like the Israelis did to the Hamas commander in Dubai?

    Personally I think it is 100% legitimate even if they are given political asylum to fund raise and organise attacks against civilian or military targets again their targeted nation state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.