The Terrorist Police. . . .

I have never really bought the prevailing definition of terrorism because it seems slippery and self-interested on the part of those who generally use it. It seems to me that people who represent the establishment refer to almost anything that doesn't have state sanction and questions that establishment as 'terrorism.' At the very least people think that the realm of violence is solely legitimate when it is sanctioned by the state and all other politically motivated violence is 'terrorism.' The problem with this definition is, of course, that if a state carpet bombs a country like, say, Vietnam, that is the legitimate violence; but if people in that country defend themselves with any form of violence once their state apparatus has failed suddenly they are terrorists. Thus by the standard definition, George Washington and Nelson Mandela were both terrorists and Arthur 'Bomber' Harris and Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer were both noble soldiers. Anyone who doesn't have a problem with this should reexamine their ethical framework.

(This definition of terrorism is really about power. It is like trying distinguish between legitimate 'religions' and so-called 'cults.' Cults become religions as soon as they have a large enough following and enough money to be called a religion.)

Now, the G20 and the primary countries of that institution have long pursued policies which have knowingly caused terrible suffering, starvation, and environmental disaster. Everything from the so-called EU Common Agriculture Policy which involved food dumping in Africa to Trade Policies which have specifically aimed at maintaining the advantage over less-developed nations have resulted in continued suffering and starvation in the "third world." Meanwhile countries like the US have pursued military efforts in countries like Iraq which have resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Other people define terrorism more simply  as the use of violence to gain a political end. I think this is a better, and certainly more functional definition because it does not fall victim to the dubious question of  the state having the sole legitimacy in the use of violence.

Meanwhile, democracy is slowly being eroded in our own country and elsewhere in the Western world  and our so-called leaders increasingly gain and maintain their power through the undue influence of money and an elite controlled media. And the recent events in Toronto demonstrate that they seek to further legitimize and maintain their power through indiscriminate violence perpetrated by para-military police units. These para-military units knowingly and willfully attacked peaceful, middle-class folks who did nothing but sit on the grass and calmly voice their concern over the kinds of policies that the G20 pursue. It takes little imagination to understand why they did this; to foster fear and terror among the general population and squash political dissent. Many people define terrorism as the indiscriminate use of violence to spread fear in the population to for a particular political purpose. By this definition the police units operating at Toronto were simply terrorists. Their goal was to intimidate people from questioning the legitimacy and morality of the G20, the policies they pursue, and the elites who call the shots.


I have said it before and it needs reiterating; if democracy survives and flourishes it is those that have actively opposed the G20 who will be the historical heroes and the police who will be cast in the role of historical villains much like the Swiss Grenadiers who guarded the Bastille from the Paris Peasants.

Violence in the Streets. . . . .

Dateline - July 14th 1789, Paris France.

Early reports are emerging of lawless groups of thugs wearing red 'phrygian' caps, known locally as the red-bloc, making violent assaults on the Bastille. It seems that these groups, consisting of ragtag numbers of young terrorists, began gathering early and milling about the grounds outside the prison. Apparently they harbor a number of complaints against the government including the conditions of hygiene in their environs, the discrepancies between rich and poor, the restrictions on media, and other things.

Word is that after some hours of gathering the groups eventually coalesced and attacked the ancient fortress which was being protected by 82 soldiers and several dozen Swiss Grenadiers. An exchange of gunfire went on for several hours and eventually the red-bloc entered the Prison fortress. At least a hundred were killed in the incident, including one soldier.

"These are simply lawless thugs," one Swiss Grenadier was heard saying. "They are useless, violent, anarchists who have freed the inmates and put us all at risk." An official government spokesman defended the use of deadly force in the protection of the Bastille saying, "Our soldiers acted with complete professionalism in defending a public building. The violence was instigated entirely by the red-bloc, who have no respect for law and order and have decided to pursue their political goals through violent means. If some of them died it was entirely their fault."

When questioned about the outrageous cost of maintaining and defending a fortress like the Bastille in the middle of France's most populous city, another government spokesperson told us that "the cost was entirely appropriate for such a facility, particularly when it is clear that there are violent thugs like these who are ready to cause trouble." When asked about the red-blocs concerns over human-rights abuses by the government and fundamental injustices in the system, the government spokesperson waived off such concerns saying that "France is the greatest country in the world and should be a showcase to other nations, and the red-bloc was simply putting a stain on the country's international reputation."

Few of the so-called 'red-bloc' could be found to comment but one young women who held a small child in her arms told us that "people everywhere are suffering and the government spends millions of Francs on these types of things. There is no justice here and generations from now people will thank us for standing up for what it right."