COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS AND TIME WARNER COMMUNICATIONS ( Archived) (7)

Before the Internet, television, telephones, and automobiles all had their turn at being ridiculed by people afraid of social change brought on by new technologies. However, these criticisms did not include the accusations of bringing about or inspiring terrorist attacks, jeopardizing the safety of American law enforcement, and thwarting the agendas of the mainstream narrative. There has always been a real conspiracy against the free flow of information on the Internet. Lawmakers have always expressed concern about web content and how it may allow the easy access to radical viewpoints that may inspire terrorism. People believe what they want to believe and sometimes reality is harsh especially when it goes against the perceived bias that is fueled by disinformation. The reality, at least what we have been told is the incident in San Bernardino, was an act of terrorism that may or may not have been directed from overseas. A small Christmas party hardly seems like the sort of target ISIS or al-Qaeda would zero in on. It would be silly to think that a huge operation like ISIS would order a hit on a small group drinking egg nog and exchanging white elephant gifts. It is also interesting they call it a Christmas party when the token Muslim was attending. It was probably an informal holiday party as political correctness provided by the HR department would have shunned any and all Christmas themes. It is also interesting to note that there have been no reports or claims of responsibility by the overseas terror groups they were in contact with or even word of an organized Jihad against the United States. But of course, our confirmation bias is building all sorts of hysteria regarding what has happened. Yes it was an act of terror, but what motivated it?

There will be many religious fanatics using violence in order to show their dissatisfaction with the power elite, however, radicalization in its proper perspective is and should be associated with politically motivated terrorism that disguises itself or is perceived to be motivated by religious beliefs. Radicalization is complex. Yet a thinly-sourced, reductionist view of how people become terrorists has gained unwarranted legitimacy in some counter-terrorism circles. This view corresponds with and seems to legitimize “counter-radicalization” measures relying heavily on non-threat-based intelligence collection, a tactic that has proven to be ineffective and even counterproductive. Only by analyzing what we know about radicalization and the government’s response to it can we be sure these reactions are grounded in fact rather than stereotypes and truly advance our efforts to combat terrorism. What is religious terrorism? What are its fundamental attributes? Religious terrorism can be defined as a type of violence motivated by an absolute belief that an otherworldly power has sanctioned and commanded terrorist violence for the greater glory of the faith. Acts that are committed in the name of the faith or of God are assumed to be forgiven by the otherworldly power and perhaps rewarded in an afterlife.

Terrorism, like war, is the continuation of politics by other means. If there is a declaration of Jihad, we can contend the motivation of Islamic terror is religious in nature. However, while we are always being told that Jihad is the motive for all terror attacks, the true test of effective terrorism is whether or not it changes the political landscape. That is why the attacks of 9/11 were so effective because it changed the way the United States government handled its citizens. Terrorism’s effectiveness does not change the religious landscape, it will not convert us to any religious ideology – it is effectively changing us politically. Many types of terrorism exist, but each of these have the same objective of effecting change within, or in respect of, a political system through the threat or use of violence. It remains to be seen just how the terrorist event in San Bernardino changes America and what rights will be taken away because of it. There are indications this act of terror will somehow give President Obama the ability to circumvent the second amendment. However, it is crucial to point out that while we are hearing about the guns and the pipe bombs as the weapons used, the primary weapon of terrorism is fear, not the bomb, or the gun.

The terrorist event should not shape the future. It is the response to the event that shapes future outcomes. So it is with terrorism as well. As long as oppression or the perception of oppression remains, and as long as there is a militant sect in the parties on the various sides of the political argument, there will be those who choose violence as a means of advancing their aims. It is a low blow to shame people who want to pray. It is equally low to see people being shamed because they believe in constitutional rights. We are losing our social cohesion. If God doesn’t fix things, the mainstream and social media outrage doesn’t either. Political exploitation of a tragedy to push gun agendas doesn’t fix things either. The events of the past few months, all of the shootings and spiking events tell me that we continue to cover the same old ground and we still are angry and afraid. Withholding information keeps others in the dark and at best, is irritating to them. Withholding information breeds conspiracy theory. Intentionally withholding information has a negative impact on others while simultaneously giving the person withholding that information power. The person who determines who needs to know has the power; the person who wants to know has a feeling of being annoyed. Ever since the Sandy Hook shootings that happened three years ago this month, police have withheld information about the incident to the point there is a contingency of Americans who say the event never happened.

This climate of anger, fear, and misunderstanding will continue to get worse until American society can recognize this problem and begin to honestly address it, even if it is uncomfortable, or even if many of us struggle to look past skin color headscarves and prayer rugs to see human beings that bleed like we do. We know that ISIS has been brutal and have committed crimes against humanity, but must we continue to punish all Muslims for the actions of these bloodthirsty degenerates? Bigotry, prejudice, and scapegoating, like most social pathologies, is an irrational social force that is dragging us into an abyss. We now normalize the unthinkable. It can easily be defined as a political malevolence fomented by a far-reaching conspiracy of cultural terrorists. There is no coup or overreaching surveillance program or false flag event that can remedy what is happening. We can’t let the hateful subcultures and the media shape our collective perception of who or what the enemy is. You cannot help but question the objectivity and motive of a government that is known for its ability to destabilize other countries to further their ambitions of empire building. What makes us think that their ambitions for global oligarchy wouldn’t include creating a way by which every citizen would turn on each other and create a civil war remedied by a paramilitary death squad? As we shall soon see, one need not stockpile weapons or espouse reactionary beliefs to fall under the watchful eye of a government that is contributing to the fall of a once thriving and efficient constitutional republic. And out of all they are doing, and plan to do, what is desired most is the complete removal of each and every America's guns. They even plan to pass more and more bills to restrict Americans from getting guns until it reaches a point where their police forces can take on the few who they haven't been fortunate of snatching up guns from. The entire mission behind the so-called war on terrorism is to take away guns from all Americans! Doesn't this seem a bit strange to any of you? You have been warned...


Latest news: