Monday, 19 August 2013

Are the UK government "TERRORISTS"?

Image courtesy of Kurt Haskell and his Victim Impact Statement
Well the answer has to be a resounding "YES".  The world is clearly going mad.  Well the world of government is clearly going mad.  Terrorism is fairly well known to have undergone a metamorphosis over the last few decades.  Some long time ago 'terrorism' was a tactic used by fringe groups to bring their particular beef to public attention and to get some leverage with the powers that be.  'Terrorism' as a term is, arguably, one side of the coin with 'freedom fighter' on the other side.  Just because a kidnapper terrorises the victim and their loved ones to elicit funds does not quite categorise them as terrorists.  But to terrorise a population for your own objective is fairly described as 'terrorism' nowadays.  So what of kidnapping and threatening a loved one of someone who threatens to reveal your own malicious and aberrant behaviour.  According to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist, even the Mafia drew the line at threatening loved ones to terrorise individual enemies.  But that is exactly what the UK government has been indulging in.  They kidnapped - sorry that would be 'detained' - a certain Brazilian by the name of David Miranda.  They detained this individual "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."  So one would suppose they had reason to believe that this person had some connection with terrorism.  No - that appears to have had nothing to do with it.  They - the UK government - are simply 'terrified' by what David's partner is up to.  David's partner is Glen Greenwald.  Yes the same Glen Greenwald mentioned previously in this text - the journalist.  Glen Greenwald has been working extensively on the subject of the NSA and its British counterpart the GCHQ.  This is presumably prompted by the recent revelations by Edward Snowden of their illegitimate activities.

Let's not beat around the bush here - The UK and the US governments are being entirely irrational in objecting to people who blow the whistle on their disgusting and - by their own definitions - unacceptable behaviour.  It is almost unbelievable that when they act illegally they can utilise the tax payers money to illegitimately pursue, hound and terrorise people who expose them.  They can be indignant that someone has told someone else that they are lying.  Would someone please make explicit what exactly is wrong with that.  Why do I ask?  Because IF anyone tried to 'explain' what was apparently so obviously wrong with that they would find themselves disappearing up their own backside in their attempt to justify some action by explaining that the action was not justifiable.

It appears that terrorism is only terrorism when 'they' don't agree with you.  So in the case of Egypt 50% of the population are clearly terrorist which seems to justify shooting them in the streets.  In the UK it is perfectly fine to kidnap someone in order to frighten their journalistic partner who is obviously a terrorist because they are exposing your lies.  And it is perfectly fine for the American government to give a terrorist a bomb and put him on a plane to create a false flag terrorist act to justify giving themselves more powers to defend the population ... FROM WHAT?

'Nuf said - goodnight cruel world.

No comments:

Post a Comment