Anti-governmentalist – the new terrorists?

So much is going on in this unstable world, but one thing getting clearer every day is that the word terrorist has been turned upside down. Have we reached to a point where all that fights for their freedom are regarded terrorists, unless they basically are just mercenaries for big banks etc. to take over their country? (Look at this newsarticle/film. See the words used)

I think about that while seeing Syria and remembering Libya. I think about that while thinking about Libyan Islamic fighters, regarded as terrorists in a Iraq and freedom fighters in Libya. That they were fighting for the same cause (Islam/Sharia), and the same way did not seem that much to the global powers that be.

But most of all I am thinking about how a new surveillance society, where we all are asked to report on each other are developing in the west. Especially important here is of course the indefinite detention act ((NDAA)) and in fact the ((ACTA)) law over in the US. What has made things possible to develop like this. It is very hard not to see that the elected are fighting through proxy tooth and nail their own electors.

How can I write, and maybe even think this? We must of course fight terror with all the resources we have?

What is terror?
Before I answer this it is important to get back to the questions that started this little article. What is terror, and even more what is the difference between terror and legitimate freedom fight? Before we have good answers to that any use of the word terror becomes meaningless.

We have had our terror in Norway, like the US had. But have we forgotten what happened in Europe in the 70s? Have we forgotten the almost constant bloodshed in the Middle-East? The terror of 2001-2011 has the same spirit? Who is behind? Are we told the truth? A good old phrase says: Follow the money. Who benefits?

Divide and conquer
There are a lot of clues/articles pointing at the old ((Gladio)) networks here in Europe, if we talk about what happend in Italy and maybe Germany. Gladio was established by Western powers as stay behind groups if communism should succed in taking over Europe. Several articles and TV documentaries are openly available pointing at terror as a result of some of their work. Terror for political purposes that are very different than what is officially said. It may be about creating new enemies, and govern through  fear and divide and conquer.

We have another example for the US, in the early 60s. ((Operation Northwoods)) was stopped by president Kennedy, vbut would have been a very nasty terror incident if the Joint Chief of Staff had been able to push it through. The wanted to make a terror attack by alleged Cuban terrorists, that probably would have lead to the death of 50-60 people. The reason was the Joint Chiefs wanted an excuse to attack Cuba.

I do not say that all terror incidents are made by «our own» leaders, as is the case with Gladio. Hopefully most of them are not. But I am saying that we should think very carefully about the words terror and terrorist, and see through the way they are used in the medias. The words creates a lot of negative emotions. And when they now are used on non-violent people opposing their own governments waste of the peoples money big warning lights should be lit in all of us.

Legg inn en kommentar

Dette nettstedet bruker Akismet for å redusere spam. Lær om hvordan dine kommentar-data prosesseres.