One thought on “US unending war on terror made world less safe: British journalist”
” so many crimes are now being described as acts of terrorism when in fact they are merely criminal,[. ..] The way forward would be for the UN to determine an exact and definitive definition for terrorism”
You couldn’t come up with an abstraction covering it that didn’t also expose the intent of the category. I’ve believed since about 2001 that you couldn’t come up with a definition that both captures what people want out of it (what they accept it ‘is’ generally according to images they’re fed—and people really will ‘define’ with images) and excludes actions/purposes they approve of and/or prevents the label being applied to people they approve of. An explicit definition would have to specify either a speshul victim- or perp- -class, and maybe implicitly specify both. A recent ‘surprise’ for me was that ‘Federal Crime of Terrorism’ fits that idea by specifying the gov’t itself as the victim class. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b e.g.:
“(C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States;”
So how the hell does anyone miss it? Or, hey, what am I missing?
Therefore we’d be right to be very skeptical if it seemed to be applied one perp class over and over again. One might’ve reasonably assumed motive to provoke them…
It’s essentially a thought-criminalization / caste-system label. As a Jew thing, it succeeds insofar as you more or less approve of caste and/or of ‘naughty-fying’ thought … ‘Terrorism’ will probably be remembered the way we remember ‘witchcraft’ … and it’ll be noted as an absurd and redundant crime/enemy category as soon as Jews can pin the promotion of the irrational fixation on it on someone else and walk away clean.
” so many crimes are now being described as acts of terrorism when in fact they are merely criminal,[. ..] The way forward would be for the UN to determine an exact and definitive definition for terrorism”
You couldn’t come up with an abstraction covering it that didn’t also expose the intent of the category. I’ve believed since about 2001 that you couldn’t come up with a definition that both captures what people want out of it (what they accept it ‘is’ generally according to images they’re fed—and people really will ‘define’ with images) and excludes actions/purposes they approve of and/or prevents the label being applied to people they approve of. An explicit definition would have to specify either a speshul victim- or perp- -class, and maybe implicitly specify both. A recent ‘surprise’ for me was that ‘Federal Crime of Terrorism’ fits that idea by specifying the gov’t itself as the victim class. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332b e.g.:
“(C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official, officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States;”
So how the hell does anyone miss it? Or, hey, what am I missing?
Therefore we’d be right to be very skeptical if it seemed to be applied one perp class over and over again. One might’ve reasonably assumed motive to provoke them…
It’s essentially a thought-criminalization / caste-system label. As a Jew thing, it succeeds insofar as you more or less approve of caste and/or of ‘naughty-fying’ thought … ‘Terrorism’ will probably be remembered the way we remember ‘witchcraft’ … and it’ll be noted as an absurd and redundant crime/enemy category as soon as Jews can pin the promotion of the irrational fixation on it on someone else and walk away clean.