Are You A Terrorist? or The Church Of The Capitalist Police State Of America

What the hell is a "terrorist"?

I went online to try to get at least a broad definition of what constitutes a "terrorist" and the best I could come up with was something to the effect of "someone or some group that uses violent means on a—sometimes civilian—population in order to utilize fear in the spread of some ideology or crusade. Then I went to a real world context and tried to remember how "terrorists" have been presented to me in the media and in my own social interactions. I figured maybe I could find some common denominator there.

The media was the easy one. Every station or outlet already has some well-defined political leaning and cannot see the greater context of socio-political events because they are an essential part of it; no one notices something cultural until someone draws attention to it. (That's how we figure out our paradigms.) By and large the right and left wing organizations will both call lots of people terrorists whether they be ISIS soldiers in Iraq; "extremists" from Pakistan; Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Sometimes though you will have some talking head on a 24 hour news channel who will get so riled up by a guest or off their own ego (I'm looking at you O'Reily and Hannity) that they call anyone they disagree with a "terrorist."

When Occupy Wall Street was filling parks from the Shore to the Bay they were deemed terrorists by the right-wing media; The Tea Party has more than once been labeled a "terrorist organization" on MSNBC. They spew shit at each other like they are both ends of the Human Centipede. Apparently to cable news networks a "terrorist" is defined as a politically or socially motivated group or individual who engages in some form of public display to make a point or demand a change, whether it be rallies and protests or jihad and suicide bombings. Now I hope I don't have to point out the quite sizable distance between a protest and a suicide bombing, but it needs to be considered that pundits of both sides of a very influential form of media get away with lumping social activists in with jihadis.

What surprises me most is the trickle down name-calling. I hope that I have presented a good enough case to convince you of the conniving nature of the cable news narrative so that you understand just how much of a population control experiment it is. Our cultural paradigm has such a thick skin that we cannot see past the source of our angst.

I recently wrote a piece about the conflict in Gaza and how I could not believe the depths of morality that a government can sink to in purposefully wiping out civilians in its expansion effort. I also noted in that piece that the Israel/Palestine conflict has colonial roots and how it was only after a western occupation—aka at the barrel of a western tank—that the Israeli government was able to even establish a state. The US has then been propping up that occupation for more than half a century. So, according to the US narrative Israel is the good guy, right?

Now if we go back to the beginning of this piece we can figure out who in this scenario fits the description of terrorist. Israel is this situation a) is a group, b) that is politically and/or religiously motivated, c) uses violence in the forms of a relentless air and ground assaults, d) uses that violence on civilians, and e) uses fear of its superior arms to intimidate the occupants of the world's largest prison cell.  Sure, Hamas fits most of that same description, but they are barely able to put up a fight in the first place. They are so desperate that they have even taken to firing from civilian areas to keep Goliath off the scent. That's shameful, but I also understand because I can see that a true Gazan defense or assault is a joke. In case you weren't aware Gaza doesn't have a military. The only resistance at all to a massacre by a western devil are these men with rockets. If your husband or wife was buried under rubble 100 ft. deep then you might reconsider whom you support too. Either way Hamas is no match for the mighty Israel sitting tight inside their iron dome with Netanyahu on his iron throne with his iron will bringing iron obedience. So, who are the terrorists?

Would you not resist such an occupation? I bet you would and I even have a good ol' fashioned anecdote to illustrate my point: Cliven Bundy. Here we have an old white man who wears a cowboy hat and stirrups, waves an American flag while refusing to acknowledge its referents existence, and talks about race relations like he lives in the eighteenth century. This man grazed his cattle on public land for decades without paying the mandated grazing fees. He figured if he didn't acknowledge the existence of the federal government then he didn't owe it any money. (If only we all lived in such a fantasy world.) Now when he refused the pay the fees federal officers planned to come to his ranch to confiscate his cattle as payment. This story got out on right wing television and consequently the Internet. When it got to Fox News there was a torrent of support flooding in from all over the country (and magnified by the mouths of the talking heads) from self-proclaimed resistors who would be willing to take up arms to keep the federal government off their "friend's" land. The feds showed up and so did the "freedom fighters". The government backed down and the white dissidents celebrated their manly show of strength, but what they failed to realize is that they had become the very thing they always claimed to detest— extremists. Who were the terrorists in this situation?

Now think about Afghanistan. The entire justification of the war was to neutralize Al-Qaeda and Taliban networks. Who was in that terrorist network? Men (by and large) who had been leading a tribal life for centuries and succeeding until this western style government-at-the-edge-of-a-sword oligarchy came in to their land to demand allegiance. When they resisted they became part of a wider population of people who have been faced with a choice: assimilate or die. When they declined our offer of western "enlightenment"  (through the mouths of marionettes) then they instantly become part of the enemy. Who are the great enemy? The terrorists. Oh, and they are Muslim too? Perfect! That'll make a great headline. "The Islamic Extremists Strike Again!" it'll say on the Cooper Blitzer O'Hannity Report.

The definition of "terrorist" that we have been fed by the media doesn't seem to incorporate the seismic shift in power that results when an invading army or a central government invades a relatively unarmed country. What once was your land isn't anymore. Now someone else claims to own it and he has a gun pointed at you if you disagree. It was ok for Cliven Bundy and his bunch to raise arms against the federal government of the United States of America; it is apparently not ok to be a poor brown farmer whose only choice is "give up the way you have lived for centuries and live like us. If you don't we'll kill you, your family, and your village and spin it as "collateral damage" on the evening news." Between the Afghan oppressed and the privileged horse riding, gun-totting, NRA card-carrying, living-in-a-dream-world conservative cattle rancher who is the real extremist?

It seems to me that the real terrorists are those who use their overwhelming force to intimidate populations into submission and using fear as the balancing factor of dissent. This is consistent in Israel, Syria, Egypt, and the good ol' United States of America. That's right folks we have a whole branch of order bringers right here at home that are state sponsored and funded —the police.

They maintain an order that is defined by them (often times in conflict with the actual law), is profitable, and based on fear. Modern police tactics are more military than protection these days. And why wouldn't they want to be? They are supplied with military surpluses such as riot gear and tanks and are dressed up like they are auditioning for RoboCop. It's a basic principle of bored humans that if you have a toy you want to play with it. So they use their power and ability to circumvent the law to harass and imprison entire people groups for offenses no more harmful than drinking a beer. Yet the means used to arrest and incarnate this person more often than not looks more like a UFC match than a civil restraint. And they get away with it with impunity. So they cruise through the streets in their new air-conditioned American made pigmobiles like a possessed wolf sniffing out his kill. Why do they hide in darkness to surprise you? Because they want you to be afraid.

"That's right, you've heard the stories! You know all those stories about black and brown boys and men being viciously beaten and sometimes killed by an army designed to make you afraid of it… and we got away with it. So watch your back."

Signed sincerely, The Undercurrent Of Every Police Interaction You Have Ever Had.

That's what you get to do when you are police: you get to go to work, put on battle armor, and cruise the streets in fast fancy cars to search for prey to try out your new toys out on. And god help anyone who makes them mad because they have a blank check and will write your name in at any time. That's a real base of fear and it is all courtesy of the Church of the Capitalist Police State. Like the Afghan farmer if you disagree with the new order then you can get ready to have hell and all its army descend on your house, kick your door in, and black bag you down to a dark alley where you will never been seen again. That's fear; that's power; that's terrorism.

The eternal civilized conflict is pitted between an invading force against a person who stands their ground. That's the way it has been and that's the way it always will be and if you resist you will be given a scarlet letter—a red crescent— to inform the watching world what you have been labeled as—a terrorist.

PS- I wonder how long it will take for this post to get me on that terror watch list? Am I the millionth-and-first customer? Do I win the prize? My picture in the cross hairs of a flying robot of death?

Addendum: I do want to acknowledge that there are people in this world—truly evil people—who indeed terrorize peoples, villages, cities, and countries with the reckless abandon that is nothing short of the possession of the devil himself. I acknowledge that these people exist and deserve the name and to be treated as such. I just don't think that every Muslim or farmer who resists central control of his families land should be lumped into the same category. There is a sizable gap between a resistor and a terrorist. The reason for so much hate in the world—especially in the American narrative—is the failure to notice the distinction. Great change is hindered by blind obedience to dogma. My thesis is simple: be wise and discern your enemy and so that you learn to recognize friend from foe.

Israel/Gaza: #NotInMyName Or An American Perspective On The Gazan Massacre

Let me start by establishing my angle. I am not an Israeli, I am not Jewish, and I am not Palestinian. Though I am not directly linked to any of the groups involved in this current war, I am a hardworking American citizen whose tax dollars in part funded the Goliath known as the IDF. With that said I will say here at the outset that I intend to shame Israel for its current slaughter of Palestinian civilians while at the same time calling my own government to account for its unilateral support of this evil. I do not intend on justifying Hamas or their actions, but I would ask you to consider one question no matter who and/or where you are: if your families' livelihood, home, drinkable water, power, and access to food were being systematically demolished by a foreign invader would you too not put up a fight, even if they outmatched your military might a thousand to one? 

One holocaust is not justification for another. 

Let me begin with history. I am not a scholar on mid-twentieth century world politics, but am familiar enough with the general outline of post-WW2 events to understand the main events of the so-called "reconstruction". It was during this time that Israel was established as a state in the middle of a settled land. The victors of the War decided that they would give the Jews this land because it was currently under British occupation anyway. In this way they could guarantee that Israel could defend itself in the event of another major clash of civilizations. What is rarely talked about in the media is that evil already pervaded this region even before Israel was established--it was colonized. Lest we forget the conquering kings did not just lie in Germany. Britain, the US, France and a host of other Anglo descendants. They had been carving out lands, setting up artificial borders (defined by western sensibilities), and propping up marionette warlords for centuries. It was these original foreign invaders who decided that Israel should have a state in that area. The local population was not consulted; they were thrown into exile. 

In the time that followed the new marionette warlords--under the auspice of democracy--built up an empire with American aid. Nowadays Israel is tauted as an oasis in the midst of chaos because it is a "democracy" and capitalist, which is code for America's pet project in the Middle East. The problem is that is was western influence that burned the desert down in the first place. The same thing is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan: tribal peoples existed in relative peace, warring only with each other when necessary, until propped up western-friendly governments came in at gunpoint to demand allegiance to a central oligarchy. Would you not fight back if this happened in your city? If Mexico decided that they were going to take Texas (back, for the record) and started building settlements across the border the full weight of the American military would meet them head on and probably take some of their land for the trouble. Why is it any different in Palestine? 

When the US Federal government came in to enforce laws that had been broken for decades by a man in Nevada, armed militias intimidated Federal officers into backing down. So, self-determination is ok if you are white, wear a cowboy hat, and saunter around in stirrups waving an American flag, but if you are a poor oppressed people who have been kicked out of your home by an invading giant with overwhelming force then you are an infidel deserving of death? This is propaganda at its finest. And if you are reading this with anger and disdain I would ask: where are you getting your news? From pro-Israel funded media conglomerates or from the wails of children and innocent civilians crying out in the night for relief?

And this is all propped up by American might. Israel and the US have such a cozy relationship that they will both turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by each other. Though it really wouldn't matter if Israel disagreed with the US-though it is worth noting that this offensive in Gaza comes shortly after the US sought to make a deal with Israel's mortal enemy Iran on its nuclear program--if the US disagreed with Israel the political fallout would be devastating. Why? Because the pro-Israel lobby provides so much of the funds for election campaigns. It is atrocious how much influence Israel-friendly dollars have on foreign policy. 

No one should support this. Pro-Israel supporters with ties to the region I can understand. I think they are deceived and have been lied to by a corrupt and bloodthirsty government who has linked a national identity to a ethnic heritage, but I can at least understand the deception. Non-Jewish Americans--especially on the conservative side--are even more deceived however. They have zero reason to justify this massacre. They gain nothing by sending their tax dollars to fund machines of death in the Middle East. They have simply been convinced by right wing media and corrupt politicians such as Lindsey Graham, Bob Corker, and John McCain that they have some stake in the conflict. No! They don't! All the United States of America risks is its "influence in the region" which we have no business being in anyway. What right do rich white men from Arizona, South Carolina, and Tennessee have to direct the future of a people who have inhabited a region for thousands of years? None. They don't even have a right to dictate the future of the soil they are occupying, yet they still lord their influence like a divine right here at the site of the old Massacres and now--by proxy--the new. 

Now I would like to address those who argue that such sentiments are "anti-Semitic". Non-sense. And if anyone confuses racial hatred and bigotry with righteous indignation of a war machine on automatic then those same people are going to end up causing an actual rise in anti-Semitism with their ignorance. People like me who accuse Israeli government members, soldiers in the IDF, US gov't officials who prop up these warlords, and their supporters of being criminals and war profiteers are not accusing any person of Jewish heritage as being such. We are accusing those responsible with their hands in their wallets and their fingers on their triggers. However, as Howard Zinn said you cannot be neutral on a moving train. Anyone who supports these war crimes should not only be ashamed of themselves but should look into the eyes of those babies with their heads blown off (literally) whether they be Israeli, Jewish, American, or any other. Bolivia has and they have designated Israel a terrorist state. 

What then shall we do? The massacre must stop. Protests have erupted all over the world and will continue to do so, but they must be escalated, especially here in the US. Recently, in New York City a brave bunch of individuals of Jewish heritage under the name of "IfNotNow" delivered letters to the heads of major Jewish organizations demanding the end of the occupation. The action then resulted in a sit-in after they read the names of the dead. Some of these folks, like most people who take a stand for justice by sitting down, were arrested. However, their action was poignant, self-sacrificial, and to the point. We need more people who can commit themselves to direct action and escalate until our message of dissent resonates through city, corporate, and congressional halls. 

Secondly, we must continue to share the story. Mass media has been covering the story in an incredibly propogandic and one-sided manner. They may have even deceived some of you reading this story. Just yesterday I saw a story out of Israel about an owl who died as a result of Hamas rocket fire while ignoring the more than a thousand deaths of Palestinians most of whom were innocent civilians. Thankfully, we have alternative on-the-ground sources from outlets such as Facebook, twitter, and other social media platforms; we have petitions that can be filed through WhiteHouse.Gov that we can sign and share (one of which is available here); we can blitz the phone lines of our (supposed) representatives and demand that the federal government cease its unilateral support of this massacre (phone lines available here and here); we can occupy offices of Congresspeople (locations available in last two links); and we can chain ourselves to the government fences to symbolize the constrains of living in a walled up warzone. There is no limit to how we can creatively engage those here at home who make the decisions to send our hard earned tax dollars to fund massacre; we just need to commit ourselves to action and hop to it. This slaughter is being done in your name. No more.

#notinmyname

If you are in Philadelphia there is a rally on Friday August 1st @ 4pm at Love Park and there is also a bus leaving Saturday August 2nd to head to DC for a mass protest in support of Gaza. Be silent no more; its time to get involved.

Anxiety in the US or One More Rodeo with Iran

The current state of anxiety in the US and the Middle East regarding a potential military strike on Iran is well warranted. The Israeli government seems committed to, if not longing for, a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. However, surgical strikes on Iranian facilities are not as easy as attacking other Middle Eastern targets. Iranian nuclear sites are spread across the entire country and most of the facilities are under ground. So even the most precise bombings could not guarantee that the sites would be damaged beyond repair. Even more so damaging their technological capabilities would only at best delay their pursuit of a bomb; not suppress the program. On the contrary, a military strike could signal the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the region, which would only heighten tensions and incentivize Iran to redouble their efforts.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Any military intervention on sovereign soil is assured to prompt an immediate response. Israeli cities will almost certainly be dealt blows from a retaliatory strike from Tehran. While Iran's military capabilities are not as modernized as Israel's, lives will still be lost. Also, a strike also risks increased motivation for radical groups such as Al-Qaeda to step up their efforts in planning attacks on American soil. Israel and the United States are inextricably linked in the Persian government's mind and an attack from one is an attack from both. After all where is the "little Satan" without help from the "great Satan?" If Israel attacks then the US attacks as well – whether we like it or not.

However, American complicity does not necessitate American intervention. President Obama has been correct to use the rhetoric he has been using. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "speak softly but carry a big stick." The President has extended the hand of friendship to Israel in its dealing with Iran's ambitions but he is reticent (thank the heavens) to commit to any military intervention. Instead, he has spent his time urging the international community to step up economic sanctions. While these are temporary measures to a more permanent regime problem, they do offer an alternative to bloodshed.

The cultural and socio-political context of Israeli-Iranian relations offers the biggest indicator of intention from the Israeli perspective. During a recent interview in the White House both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu exhibited less than cordial conversation about the topic. Sure, they exchanged pleasantries and smiled for the cameras but one could not miss the slyly indignant, and somewhat condescending, tone of Mr. Netanyahu toward Pres. Obama when he stressed that Israel had "the right to defend itself." (It is no secret that there is no love lost between the Israeli PM and the President.) Mr. Obama, wisely in this reporter's opinion, has been quick to speak and slow to act. Military force should always be a last resort and Mr. Obama is doing a good job, for appearances sake at the very least, of leaning on sanctions and international pressure. But Iran may yet do it for him.

Iran, in an attempt to institute energy-crippling measures on the west, has already stopped oil delivery to France and Germany. Additionally, they have threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping channel out of the Middle East. Consequently, fear and speculation are already playing a role in the global oil price. Their goal, it would seem, is to threaten the world with oil price inflation. They reason that if they could disrupt the flow of oil in and out of the Middle East then they can cripple the world economy. However, Iran has not thought this one through.

By shutting down oil delivery to certain European countries, Iran is effectively starving their own economy of 60% of its GDP, which comes from oil and gas exports in addition to risking a US-Israeli attack. Iran is simply out of options. While Iran, as a sovereign nation, has the right to pursue whatever course of action it chooses, international socio-economic pressure is going to either squeeze the country so hard they will have no choice but to acquiesce or pursue a radical course of retaliation.

The US policy should be one of passive resistance. Continue pressing Iran with economic sanctions and let them implement their own counters. The west will suffer from an increase in oil prices and heightened tension with Israel but we will also avoid another prolonged conflict which will costs billions of dollars and sacrifice many more lives. Have we not learned out lessons in Iraq? Afghanistan?

War is not the solution. Even if an American-Israeli coalition wiped the Iranian nuclear program off the face of the Earth they would still rebuild. They would still pursue the desires of their hearts. Conflict and violence only exacerbate and prolong these issues. If a real solution is to be reached it will have to come willingly from the people and government of Iran. Outside military intervention will only raise the stakes. Energy yields energy. The American government needs to be very careful where it puts its energy because we will reap what we sow.