Despite being a law abiding citizen who has no desire to hurt anyone, I am terrified of the US government. Specifically it’s defense and law enforcement sectors. I suspect I am not alone in that fear. Yet that government is constantly warning us about terrorism and terrorist. My gut tells me that the police fit the definition of terrorists more completely than anyone the US government has ever called a terrorist. That the US military fits that definition better as well.

I looked up the definition of Terrorism on a couple different dictionary sites to determine if I was missing something, or if the ruling media class is just bold face lying.

  • Merriam-Webster - the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

    • That seems to describe the police pretty well, I’ve always been a bit scared when I interact with police. Even during a traffic I’m handing over driver’s license partially because I’m scared of the cops. The military is designed to terrify people into complying with the goals of the US.

  • Cambridge - someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes

    • I checked the definition of political here and it would appear that enforcing laws would qualify as a political purpose. Attempting control the actions or way another country is run would also qualify as political purpose.

  • Britannica - Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature

    • Considering that police in the US are often found to have done illegal things, I don’t the argument that they aren’t criminals holds much weight. Considering the number of war crimes committed by the US military, it absolutely fits this definition.

  • FBI

    • International - Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored)
      • I think that basically says scary criminals who like people congress wants to destroy. That seems pretty arbitrary to me.
    • Domestic - Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature
      • Sounds like they are say scary criminals who opinions that different the owning class.

As far as I can tell police fit the definition of terrorist listed in 3 out of 3 of the most popular dictionaries better than anyone on the FBI’s list of designated foreign terrorist. This leads me to conclude that when the media uses the term terrorist, the only terror that matters is that of the financial elite and their proxies. When the FBI is drawing up it’s list of designated terrorist, it only considers the politically active billionaires’ fears. Our terror doesn’t matter to them. The billionaires’ terror is the only terror that matters to ones in charge.

The only brown face that comes to my mind when I hear the word terrorist today is Obama’s. The rest are other presidents and law makers.

My apologies for the long rant, and thanks for reading.

  • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    0·
    7 days ago

    The modern dictionary definition of “Terrorism” is divorced from the historical usage, which is also the common, vulgar understanding of the word.

    The term “Terrorism” was invented to describe the tactics of French radicals during and after the Revolution. Essentially, it described asymmetric warfare - wars being fought not between armies in the field but between a traditional army and some sort of guerilla force.

    So the Gunpowder Plot is an archetypical example of terrorism - English Catholics weren’t (at that time) organized to fight the Protestants in the open field, so they resorted to asymmetric warfare - bombings, assassinations, etc. - instead. For Marxists, you could study the Terrorism of the Social-Revolutionaries in Russia.

    Terrorism by it’s common, vulgar definition requires the terrorist to be to some extent an underdog, and does not truly require nor is implied by the instigation of Terror.

    Modern dictionaries need to redefine Terrorism because, if they defined it according to the common definition, people may begin to sympathize more with Terrorists. When the term was coined, its audience was largely Bourgeois and did not sympathize with Terrorists the way the working class may. The disjunction between the common and dictionary definitions allows for the implication that only the underdogs ever engage in the application of Terror, when this is clearly not the case.

    • MarxOverflow@lemmygrad.mlOPEnglish
      0·
      7 days ago

      The Britannica is phrased in a way that makes it impossible or at least extremely difficult to label the creators and enforcers of unjust laws to ever fit it’s definition. A criminal can only be a criminal if they have committed a crime, but it’s legal for a cop to shoot someone on a suspicion of a crime or at least impossible to convict them of that, than they can never be considered criminal.

      There are places in the US where it is illegal to feed homeless people. Feeding the homeless would cause someone to definitionally become a criminal if they are caught and convicted. If one of the people they fed, turned around and say mugged someone, the one feeding the homeless can be called a terrorist. There are also store owners who consider the downward pressure that puts on the price of their wares to be coercive violence. In these twisted minds a cop killing a nurse trying to give aid to someone else, is not a terrorist but the random person feeding the hungry who can’t afford food is.

      Most people hear the word criminal and think that it refers to someone who has broken a just law. However it seems that more and more lately criminal refers to anyone who challenges the status quo or just got too poor. Prisons need their slaves after all.

      The root terror evokes a certain set of emotions, for that reason it’s probably better to just point out that all violence delivered by any government is terrorism.

  • Valarie@lemmygrad.ml
    0·
    8 days ago

    There aren’t really set meanings for words.

    They are just a symbol used to represent something and what that something is depends on who says it and who hears it.

    For example in the United states our current idiot in charge has started saying that being a leftist is terrorism but does not say that states that use terror to rule over their citizens are terrorists.

    This same thing is why words have different meanings in different areas

    Its not like a word is a fundamental part of the universe that just exist they are formed through peoples interactions and needs to communicate either more clearly or in a way that isn’t clear to outsiders

    Idk if this makes sense because it is also a small bit of a rant based on a topic I feel strongly about

    • regular undead@lemmygrad.ml
      0·
      8 days ago

      They’re one and the same; the fact there were so many CEOs and billionaires with Trump at the recent China-USA meeting wasn’t a coincidence.

    • La Dame d'Azur@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      0·
      7 days ago

      US companies are the US government.

      Almost all government offices are staffed by current or former private sector ghouls and it has always been this way. People with money & property have made up the majority of the government for its entire existence and have consistently used this power for their own class interests.

      You can’t separate the oligarchs from the politicians. They’re the same thing.