Silence is Compliance: Terrorized yet?
There probably hasn’t been any single subject that I have invested more time, energy, and effort into than the “War on Terror.” And that’s saying a lot. To say that I have discussed this until I was “blue in the face” would be an understatement. The “War on Terror,” what is it? What is it intended to do? Who are the terrorists? What defines someone as a terrorist?
I have written on all of these aspects extensively, explaining that a terrorist determination is not as simple as just labeling a certain group of people as such for whatever reason and claiming “they are terrorists.” Since that topic is not the primary focus of this article and so as not to spend too much time on it, yet give you a little context, know that YOU very well might be labeled as a “possible terrorist” by the U.S. government. It comes down to certain criteria that have been laid out, and if you meet those criteria, you make that watchlist.
What are those markers? They include supporting the Constitution of the United States, advocating gun rights, being outspoken about the pro-life side of the abortion argument, supporting former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul and/or former presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, believing in “conspiracy theories” (whatever that means), paying for things in cash, having more than seven days’ worth of food in your house . . . and the list goes on and on.
So with that review, I’ll move on. What is “terrorism”? Terrorism is defined by the federal government as “the systematic use of force and violence to create a climate of fear in which a political agenda can be advanced.” Now that we have cited the US government’s definition, I would like to jump straight into the two big stories of the last two weeks: the reported beheadings of two journalists by this group called ISIL/ISIS, and, as usual, I have many questions about these reports. After all, questioning is what journalism is all about, right?
With the quality of the video and software used to make it, that fabrication certainly isn’t outside of the realm of possibilities, but I digress.
The first thing that jumped out at me was how so many people, including the talking heads on the TV, had opinions on how graphic the video was, while in the same breath admitting they didn’t see the video. That would be like being a “witness” to a car accident that you never saw.
So I decided to watch what I anticipated was going to be this terrible video made specifically to strike fear and terror into the hearts of Americans. After all, that is the goal of terrorism, to create a climate of fear to advance a political agenda . . . correct? After watching the first video, I had more questions than when I started. If this video was to be so gruesome, like the corporate-owned stations were reporting, why was it more like a PG-13 movie? Not that I am looking to see someone die or anything morbid at all, but I had to know what I was talking about. I see worse things on my facebook and twitter feeds on a daily basis, and I must stress much worse. So why did this terror group go light on the terror?
Two weeks later the second video was released, although I use that term with great hesitation because that video is nearly impossible to find. After locating and reviewing the second one, I can testify that it was very similar to the first video, in which the footage fades to black without actually showing the murder.
There was a final panning shot of the body with what appeared to be the person’s severed head on it. It could be real, or it could’ve been faked. I don’t know, I’m just raising the possibility. With the quality of the video and software used to make it, that fabrication certainly isn’t outside of the realm of possibilities, but I digress. The point I’m making is for you to understand “terrorism.” Why would this group that we are being told is ten times more hardcore than Al Qaeda decide to make a video that can leave doubt of its authenticity? The Internet is drowning in horrifying images and video, so why did they hold back? These videos don’t even show a drop of blood until the final panning shot.
Furthermore, when the news of Steven Sotloff broke, that a second journalist had been beheaded, every major network was talking about this incident all day. The television actually had words scrolling across it stating that “This video has not been authenticated.” So even though the video wasn’t authenticated, every news outlet across the world was whipping people into a frenzy of fear.
On top of that, the first video, the “James Foley beheading” for lack of a better title, STILL has not been authenticated. If you want to test my theory and see how dangerous this reckless reporting is (and all propaganda, in my opinion), go around and ask people about these events, as I’d be willing to bet that as sure as I’m writing this article most people will tell you that it happened, it’s fact, and that’s that!
When it comes to stories that can sway public opinion and emotion so dramatically — to the point it may prompt a change in foreign and domestic policy and possibly lead the U.S. into more conflicts, both foreign and domestic — is too much to ask that the people who claim to be the “credible” information disseminators make sure that the story is genuine before they allow the whole world to run with it? Let alone fueling the fire to the point at which people are foaming at the mouth, ready to run off and kill . . . ummm, somebody. Get my point?
Unless that’s the plan all along. Either way, knowing the definition of “terrorism,” it’s time to ask aloud who’s really terrorizing the American people. Look at the number of people dead, from among any country or group of your choosing. Compare it to the number of Americans killed and try to think about what the corporate-owned media is doing, again. Stay vigilant and continue to question everything; hopefully,we can figure things out before it’s too late.