Interesting--parts of it read kind of like a Jeff Foxworthy routine: If you believe in property rights, or that you are the militia, or that people should influence the government, you may be a terrorist. And naturally, their tips for protecting yourself in a Homeland emergency, or items to include in your disaster preparedness inventory, make no mention of firearms.
As a caveat, I have not personally verified the authenticity of the brochure, but if it is genuine, I have a question for the state of Virginia, and governor Mark Warner, under whose imprimatur the brochure purports to be released: Is it really your position that defenders of their homeland--resisting brutal foreign invaders who had conquered and subjugated their people--were "terrorists"?
2 comments:
Other than the fact that they don't recommend firearms in a disaster preparedness kit (not surprising from a democrat administration), I don't get your criticism.
The text clearly defines terrorism as acts of violence against non-combatant targets.
If you believe in property rights (and perhaps fight the authorities to protect your property) you are not a terrorist. If you intentionally kill innocents in order to influence governmental policy regarding property rights, you ARE a terrorist.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. What makes one a terrorist is not the political positions one supports, it is the actions taken in order to effect change in regard to your political position.
One can be as ardent an opponent to abortion as one wants. But when that opposition manifests itself in killing doctors or bombing abortion clinics that opposition becomes terrorism. The actions define the terrorist...not the cause.
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that a protector of their property against "the authorities" would quickly be labeled a "criminal". But I doubt that they would be classified as a terrorist unless they started killing innocents in order to draw attention to their position.
I'm not specifically defending Virginia's governmental policies or this document. It seems like a pretty effective waste of taxpayer money to me. But it doesn't strike me as particularly egregious either.
Actually, sailorcurt, my main original point was to call attention to the portrayal of Jews fighting Roman invaders as "terrorists" in an official state document.
However, I will pose the following, since the state defining "noncombatant targets by subnational groups" as qualifying for the label of "terrorist" seems to me to be a form of intellectual stoop tag that gives all the advantage to a tyrannical government. Note the document said "noncombatants," not, what you term "innocents." There can be a difference, for instance, the body disposal workers at Dachau were, technically, noncombatants.
How much of the success of winning WWII was due to the calculated attack on noncombatant infrastructure? Roads, bridges, factories, administration buildings, supply lines, docks, convoys, communication facilities, warehouses, utilities...
Is it your contention that--if a rebellion to restore liberty ever forms (and the rebels will, by definition, just like the Patriots at Lexington, be a "subnational group")--the only legitimate targets will be armed soldiers in the field? And do you believe a tyrannical government bent on reestablishing its supremacy in a given geographical area will limit itself to such rules of engagement?
And I have no doubt the government and media would happily portray American insurgents in the most vile manner imaginable. Case in point: Randy Weaver is still--in most minds--a "white supremacist" in a "compound". Look at how gun owners are routinely portrayed. The demonization has already begun.
If it were a fight to the finish, I don't get your (apparent--unless I'm misreading you?) faith that we could rely on accuracy in government communiques or establishment media propaganda. The rebels would be terrorists, plain and simple.
What war has ever been fought where the oppposing side was NOT portrayed as monsters?
Post a Comment