The following comment came from an article discussing the conflict between Iran and the United States:
“First, Iran is not the leading sponsor of terrorism” …. Prithee, then, who is? Johnson blithely tosses out that statement which then leaves the rest of the article in serious doubt. Poorly written and dubious.
Who is the leading sponsor of terrorism? Is this the right question or another attempt to divide us? Let’s start by Grok’s answer to my question to define terrorism in modern terms:
What the Concept Means in Today’s Practical Terms:
Terrorism is premeditated violence (or credible threat of it) by non-state actors (or clandestine state agents) directed at civilians or symbolic targets to generate fear far beyond the immediate victims, with the goal of forcing political, ideological, or social change. Key modern distinctions:
- Not ordinary crime: Motive must be political/ideological, not personal gain.
- Not legitimate warfare: Excludes acts in recognized armed conflicts governed by the laws of war (those can be war crimes instead).
- Evolving scope: Includes lone actors (“lone wolves”), cyber-enabled attacks, and ideologically driven domestic violence. Recent data (Global Terrorism Index 2026) notes a rise in politically motivated attacks amid global fragmentation. visionofhumanity.org
- Applies across ideologies: Right-wing, left-wing, religious, ethno-nationalist, environmental—any motive qualifies if it meets the criteria.
In short, the contemporary concept boils down to weaponized fear through unlawful violence against the innocent to achieve a political outcome. This framework guides counter-terrorism laws, prosecutions, and intelligence worldwide in 2026.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Based on the clarification above, Iran’s actions may be war crimes but not terrorism. But the trap is set: is terrorism the primary concern for the world at this point? Or should we limit the geography to the United States? Based on the news we see everyday, Americans are more concerned by attacks from black criminals than the actions of Iran. But even this type of terrorism is enabled and encouraged by the two-tiered justice system.
According to Grok, this is not even terrorism:
The alleged soft-on-crime approach is not terrorism under any current legal or operational definition. It lacks the required violent act by the enablers themselves. At most, it’s accused of facilitating ordinary crime for political ends—closer to dereliction, corruption, or strategic malpractice than terrorism. Terrorism is a tool of the powerless or ideological outsiders; this critique paints it as a tool of the powerful operating from within the system. Both seek fear-driven change, but one operates through the rule of law’s loopholes, the other by shattering it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s regroup and ask this question: what group or nation is most responsible for bringing about global economic change by destroying cultures, genocide and wars? When you consider this question, think about the following list:
- Development of the SARS-COV2 virus.
- Development of the gene therapies to treat COVID-19.
- The color revolutions to overthrow governments around the world including the United States.
- Manipulation of stock markets, commodities and foreign exchanges.
- Wars since WWII and false flags.
- Open borders in the West to destroy cultures and seize power in nations.
- Voter fraud to select candidates and to implement a specific agenda.
- Inflation, taxes and regulations to erase the wealth of the middle class.
- Coverups: Epstein files, JFK and RFK assassinations, USS Liberty and the 2020 Presidential election.
- Who funded the 911 attacks.
One group’s terrorism is another group’s freedom fight. See Israel’s formation. This approach to clarify our objectives is a start but not an end to a dystopian future. What if we define our true enemy, their agenda and actively start implementing a course of action to regain our fallen Republic and restore Liberty for our children?
Or we can continue to let false information and lies direct our actions.
Leave a Reply