[tombert]

The killings are horrifying in their own right, but the most disturbing part to me is how quickly the Trump administration will just declare these people as "terrorists" before any kind of investigation has happened.

This suggests to me there is some level of systemic intent (or at least ambivalence) with this administration's use of ICE's use of lethal force. It is beyond concerning. This admin is now very literally murdering us and will immediately try to justify it.

[fallinghawks]

It's appalling how they go straight to making things up to suit their narrative, as if video evidence doesn't exist. They know the MAGAs will believe them, and may shed doubt on interpretation for people who aren't that curious about truth. A lie can travel halfway around the world, as they say.

[michaelbarton]

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

I remember reading 1984 when I was a kid and enjoying it, at no point did I think it was more than sci-fi though. I suppose it goes to show how much we took for granted the last 80+ years.

It also makes me respect Orwell so much more. Which was already very high based on how he makes tea. How was he able to see you presciently?

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...

[drcongo]

If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend the documentary film "Orwell: 2+2=5", it's considerably better than its IMDb rating would suggest and frames a lot of his writing around recent / current events. It also gives a little insight into his prescience.

[michaelbarton]

Sounds doubleplus good! Will try to find it streaming somewhere!

[tim333]

Like a lot of 'sci-fi' it's really about the time it was written in, extrapolated a little. Orwell came up with 1984 in around 1943 when Hitler and Stalin were hard at it.

[tombert]

I find it so surreal that people are so willing to believe the lies of someone who was literally convicted of lying in order to make himself look better.

[gorbachev]

There's nothing surprising about it given US history.

The US administration has always labeled any resistance against it as terrorism at least ever since 9/11. You might remember the justification of killing young Afghani males, who were posthumously labelled as terrorists. They drone strike an apartment complex and report 25 dead terrorists, conveniently omitting to report on dead children or women, because there were 25 males between the age of 15 - 25 among the dead. No evidence of terrorist activity required.

The only change is that the same justification is now being used within the US borders.

The dead are still, however, The Other, which is how it's being justified now as it was when the dead were foreigners in a war zone.

[scarecrowbob]

Since before then, as well.

think of ELF/Earth First in the 90s with "ecoterrorism"... plenty of stops between that and, say, the Haymarket affair. Or hell, much of the anti-indigenous genocide could probably be described using the term "counter-insurgency", which is closely related to how the US gov. thinks of terrorism.

[mickle00]

>some level of systemic intent

It's 100% the intent of this admin to use their secret police to drive fear and terror

[C6JEsQeQa5fCjE]

> the most disturbing part to me is how quickly the Trump administration will just declare these people as "terrorists" before any kind of investigation has happened

Imperial boomerang. After enabling Israel/IDF which routinely just shoots unarmed people and officials on all levels simply justify it with "Terrorists.", and also routinely denies ambulance access to victims shots, it was only a matter of time until such and similar tactics come back home. Because politicians back home saw that the world was okay with it, so why not do it home.

People are supposed to defend their rights from far away, so that they don't have to defend them uncomfortably close when it's too late to avoid many casualties.

[midlander]

Well done on finding a way to link this story to your favorite scapegoat.

[falseprofit]

The U.S. itself has been engaging in similar behavior around the world for a long time. The specific relevance of Israel may only be a combination of recency and amount of U.S. attention.

But “scapegoat”?

“Israel did 9/11” is treating them as a scapegoat. “IDF often calls men they killed terrorists with no justification” is just stating a fact.

[scarecrowbob]

Yeh, the poster should have also at least name checked the administrative detention system of CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam, which seems like a reasonable test-bed for many of the recent and horrific systems and a kind of common ancestor to both of the US ICE agency and its cousins in the Levant.

Leaving that bit of history out certain seems like a missed point of history, and absent that your parent post's point might indeed seem a little reach-y.

[C6JEsQeQa5fCjE]

When going back into history, examples become too abstract, a thing that other people did, in different times. The example I used is not only recent, it is still ongoing. It is right there in front of domestic authoritarians, showing them how it can be done in this day and age. And it is right there in front of the general population, showing them what can and will be done to them if they do not make it clear to their governments that they will not tolerate such conduct. Therefore I insist that I used the correct example.

[scarecrowbob]

I think I agree with you- I was just adding in some context because, from my position your point is very fair.

[tim333]

It's not just declaring them terrorists before investigating - it's persisting after evidence is out that they are blatantly not. An unarmed mum and a male nurse assisting someone in recent cases.