takeliberty

Do You Know What You’re Saying?

In Uncategorized on November 7, 2013 at 4:03 am

The “seed” of this post was planted when I came across the headline: “Americans Disillusioned With Government May Be The New Face Of Domestic Terrorism”. (I’ve already posted about this article, and another involving misused, misconstrued – and misappropriated – words, on f*c*book.)  The subtitle, “Does the string of mass killings reflect the government’s all-time low approval ratings?”, was no less alarming.  How, exactly, do “mass killings” equate to “terrorism”?  I don’t recall Tend Bundy, BTK, or Daumer, or any of a number of serial killers, being characterized as “terrorists”.

What, then, is meant by the word “terrorism”?  (Note: “terrorist” is defined as one who engages in terrorism; not helpful.)

If you websearch the term, you’ll find that Wikipedia says “There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term “‘terrorism’”.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism. Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia hyperlinks the term to a generally-accepted (and profoundly more elaborate) definition:

“Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes. In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

The “legal” definition (remember, Wikipedia says “There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term “‘terrorism’”) used by the United States Government is in relative agreement with Wikipedia’s generally-accepted (and profoundly more elaborate) definition.  It’s on FBI’s website:

“There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005.”

In order to “qualify”, if you will, as “terrorism”, an act must be, at least, “unlawful use of force and violence…in furtherance of political or social objectives”, 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85, and, as more generally accepted, “violent acts…intended to create fear (terror)… for a religious, political, or ideological goal…[that] deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).”

Which brings us back to my initial question:  How, exactly, do “mass killings” equate to “terrorism”?

As clearly intended, based upon the url http://www.mintpressnews.com/lax-shooting-prompts-questions/171956/, the “conversation” was supposed to relate to the shooting of three uniformed government employees (does that make them “civilians”?).  The article goes on to discuss Miriam Carey, a reportedly “delusional” woman of color (curiously, this is never mentioned) shot to death in the District of Columbia for ramming White House entrance barricades and police cars; and Aaron Alexis, a Navy contractor (also a term that has been tortured) of color (also, curiously, never mentioned) who was allowed (the facts indicate that “allowed” is the only proper term) to “shoot up” the Washington Navy Yard.

These, then, these three events, criminal tragedies that they are, form the entire foundation for the headline, “Americans Disillusioned With Government May Be The New Face Of Domestic Terrorism”.

But “terrorism” had nothing to do with these crimes.  I know that, WE know that, because we have the one thing that neither the columnist, nor, apparently, his editor, had; knowledge that neither Paul Ciancia (LAX),  Miriam Carey (D.C.), nor Aaron Alexis (D.C.) committed these “violent acts…[with the] inten[t] to create fear (terror)…for a religious, political, or ideological goal…[by] deliberately target[ing] [although they apparently disregarded the safety of] non-combatants (civilians)” (paraphrasing Wikipedia’s definition).  

Not one of them committed their “[] unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).”

Unless it has gone unreported (and one would be wont to believe so given the obvious political capital to be derived), none of the three sought any “change”, or made any demands.  That, alone, strips the crimes of any connection to “terrorism”; not one of them acted, or used their “weapon of choice” (one was a car!) “for a religious, political, or ideological goal”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism, or “in furtherance of political or social objectives” as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).” http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005.

In fact, the article appears to clearly establish that Ciancia, Carey, and Alexis were the ones who were terrorized.

Ciancia allegedly had “an explanatory note [“on his person”] ranting against the New World Order…” http://www.mintpressnews.com/lax-shooting-prompts-questions/171956/, “…as well as anti-government and anti-TSA claims.”   The article relates “According to multiple reports [from New Jersey Newsday, and who would know better what happened in La than a New Jersey source?)  the note indicated that Ciancia wanted to ‘kill TSA’ and ‘pigs.’”

Carey and Alexis were, respectively, convinced that “the president…had her home under electronic surveillance…” (maybe she didn’t vote for him?), and “he was being controlled or influenced by extremely low frequency electromagnetic waves” (maybe he did?).

If “terrorism” – as defined – is afoot, what “religious, political, or ideological goal”; what political or social objectives”, were sought?  And by whom?

 

The other misused, misconstrued – and misappropriated – word that gave me pause today (and it has since October, 2001), is “insurgent”.  Posted on f*c*book by Ron Paul  (and thank you, sir, for YOUR service!), http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/givevetsavoice/, was an excerpt from a Marine who did his time in Iraq:

“I was beginning to question the logic behind what we were doing there in the first place shortly after arriving in Iraq. What I realized is that if some occupying power greater than the US arrived on our shores and did the same thing we were doing to Iraq, that I would be the first to become an insurgent, just as the Iraqis had done in response to our presence.”

“Insurgent”.  The term has, alternately, confused and irritated me.  Just as a “terrorist” is one who engages in terrorism, “insurgent” can only mean “one who participates in an insurge”.

As I commented on Ron Paul’s post, “If we don’t comprehend words, and their true meaning, all verbal and written communication is gibberish. “Insurge” is not even a word in English. But it is in French, and has an interesting meaning: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/…/insurg%C3%A9

Actually, the French word is “insurgée”, and its English translations are “adjective: insurgent, rebel”; and “masculine noun, feminine noun” insurgent, rebel”. (the colons are added)

Perhaps now you grasp why I found the meaning interesting.  An “insurgent” is a “rebel”, i.e.,

“opposing or taking arms against a government or ruler”, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebel;

“a person who refuses allegiance to, resists, or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebel;.

 Can anyone remind me which Iraqis were “opposing or taking arms against…”, “refus[ing] allegiance to, resist[ing], or ris[ing] in arms against…”, or “refus[ing] allegiance to and oppos[ing] by force…” – after March, 2003 – the elected President of Iraq?

Because those were the only people who could have been, by definition, “insurgents”. 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: