Domestic Terrorism Versus National Militarism

Written by Punkerslut

Domestic Terrorism Versus National Militarism

By Punkerslut

When a person commits an act today that relies on force or violence, without being condoned by a government or established rule, itis commonly call a "terrorist act," committed by "terrorists" or "militants." When a person commits a forceful or violent act, though, underrepparttar rule and order of a government or established rule, condoned byrepparttar 140747 leaders of that government, it is called a "militaristic act." Prior torepparttar 140748 election ofrepparttar 140749 National Socialist Party in pre-Nazi Germany,repparttar 140750 few secluded violent acts committed by anti-semites were considered vulgar acts of injustice, committed by political and religious militants, or "terrorists." Oncerepparttar 140751 National Socialist Party occupiedrepparttar 140752 majority positions inrepparttar 140753 legislature and executive branches of German government, violence committed againstrepparttar 140754 Jews was no longer considered a "terroristic act," -- in fact, it was considered a "militaristic act," accepted, supported, even funded and led byrepparttar 140755 government. Oncerepparttar 140756 Nazi Party was in power, all acts that supportedrepparttar 140757 liberation and welfare ofrepparttar 140758 persecuted Jews was considered an act of terrorism; such people who do this being called "terrorists," "vandals," and even "traitors." Harriet Tubman was also considered a terrorist, whose acts of force were directed towards liberatingrepparttar 140759 enslaved black race. The government would change. Individuals now whose actions are towards murdering or harming blacks are considered "terrorists." To call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist is equally justified as calling Harriet Tubman a terrorist, as much as it may displease people and their cultural prejudice, sincerepparttar 140760 government and media has done all that it can to convince us that terrorism opposes liberty, when one ofrepparttar 140761 greatest terrorists was also oneofrepparttar 140762 greatest liberators. Perhapsrepparttar 140763 best example to illustraterepparttar 140764 point I am making is to describe Adolf Hitler in this way: "A terrorist, until he became accepted -- then just a ruler of a nation."

Understand here, that I am making no pardoning plea for Adolf Hitler and his ways. This is not a pardoning plea for Nazis; it is an indictment of government.

The initial response of anyone to these string of facts is thatrepparttar 140765 term "leader" versus "terrorist" is neither positive or negative, but completely neutral. The only thing these terms can indicate is that an individual does not use passive acts of resistance to accomplishrepparttar 140766 change they desire in society. The government's claims that Osama Bin Laden is a "terrorist" and not a "leader" is not different from stalin's regime callingrepparttar 140767 freedom fighters "terrorists" and not "leaders." Similarly,repparttar 140768 governments' claims that George Bush is a "nation leader" and not a "terrorist" are no different thankrepparttar 140769 claims that Mussolini is "just a military leader" and not a terrorist. The only differente betweenrepparttar 140770 terms is that one is popularly accepted whilerepparttar 140771 other is not.

The unfortunate fact ofrepparttar 140772 matter is that governments have committed just as horrible acts againstrepparttar 140773 innocent and peaceful as terrorists have, and even worse,repparttar 140774 reverse is true. Terrorists have liberated, freed millions, doing all in their power to breakrepparttar 140775 chains of bondage to everyone in any unjust slavery -- as some government's have. It quite simply is a meaningless term.

All of this being understood, we must consider modern acts of "terrorism." While any act committed byrepparttar 140776 popular group, using force, is known as a military act, any act committed by an unpopular, underground group, through force is known as a terroristic act (the underground French army that revolted against German Nazis, for example). So, by wwhat method is one group effectively established? The methods by which a government is chosen hav varied throughrepparttar 140777 ages and diversified throughrepparttar 140778 regions. There isrepparttar 140779 typical method of a leader gaining his support through military power, as a king, monarch, despot, or dictator. The other method of establishing power is through election, wheret he people choose their king, only he is called a president, chancellor, or prime minister. In some cases, these systems are combined, or diversified, or both. A house of representatives or two, may have two ways of being elected (such asrepparttar 140780 U.S. has a Congress and House of Representatives), butrepparttar 140781 central executive power may be a king.

In our civilization, I find it unfortunate that so much trust and loyalty would be placed with government. The reasons why people do so is because their media is draped inrepparttar 140782 cloak of government influence. The reason why anyone doubtsrepparttar 140783 government is also obvious, because some intelligent works slipped throughrepparttar 140784 barriers to willing and open-minded individuals. I can, in fact, throw out a great deal of hypothetical situations, but before I do, one must understand that I am not stretchingrepparttar 140785 rules of relaity or social organization. Harriet Tubman is a terrorist as much as Adolf Hitler was only a military ruler,repparttar 140786 first equalled to Osama Bin Laden andrepparttar 140787 second equaled to George Bush, as far asrepparttar 140788 their titles go.

Throwing in the Towel

Written by Doug Bower

Just when I am ready to give up, call it quits, throw inrepparttar towel with this op-ed writing business someone throws me a curveball and I am back atrepparttar 140746 plate again swinging that computer keyboard.

A friend, who lives inrepparttar 140747 thick ofrepparttar 140748 "illegal alien" situation in Arizona, sent me a web site by this gomer named, are you ready for this, "Frosty Wooldridge".

I am not making this name up!

If you are not familiar with ole Frosty then go to a search engine and type in that name. Never will you spend a more entertaining time. One cannot denyrepparttar 140749 man is a prolific writer. Nor should anyone deny that what this man writes is nothing short of senseless dribble, nonsense, psychotic ramblings, and delusional disinformation.

Here are a few statements in his article, Mexicanization of America,[1] which he contends are true of every so-called "illegal alien" WITHOUT exception. Tell me what you think:

· They’ve run Americans out of countless cities and communities. · They’ve trashed school systems and bankrupted 86 hospitals. · They’ve thrown trash throughoutrepparttar 140750 park systems. · They defy laws by not carrying car insurance, driver’s licenses. · Work offrepparttar 140751 books paying no taxes. · Spread drugs. · More terrifying arerepparttar 140752 thousands of cases of TB and hepatitis they spread into Los Angeles. · Brutalize our schools with their language.

I really like that last highly intelligent and well-reasoned statement: "Brutalize our schools with their language". Who would have thoughtrepparttar 140753 Spanish language was so dangerous? What in God's name were my wife and I thinking in coming to Mexico and becoming fluent in Spanish?

I am wondering why Frosty, and everyone of his ilk, doesn't come right out and call Mexicans vermin? Isn't that what he is describing—the spreading of disease like plague-infected rats?

Let me suggest why he doesn't say what's really on his mind. Were he to come out with direct and honest rhetoric like, "I hate all people of different colored skin and let's kickrepparttar 140754 dirty vermin back acrossrepparttar 140755 border", there would be a backlash fromrepparttar 140756 American people for such blatant and obvious bigotry.

Frosty, as well asrepparttar 140757 other anti-Mexican "disinformationists", well know that if they were to do so, this would not fly inrepparttar 140758 arena of public debate.

So, to what do they resort: DISINFORMATION.

This tactic is nothing new. It is what all souls resort to when they have few, if any, facts to support a dreadful position. Here's a good example:

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use