This. The point shouldn't be to redefine or recategorize who is considered a "terrorist." It should be to reexamine the framework that determines which individuals fit within this category. And to question which political structures benefit from "terrorism" rhetoric. https://twitter.com/Vicky_ACAB/status/1343626817165533185

I know it's tempting to make a case of who the "actual terrorists" are. Same with the "real criminals."

But these are terms that are necessarily defined by the State, based on the State's assessments of people's actions and identities.

These aren't terms that can be reclaimed.

I see the value in critiquing how the "terrorist" label is applied and exposing how its use is intertwined with race and ideology.

But the goal should be to give the term less power and less weight. Not more.

A very practical impact of broadening the "terrorist" category is to expand the State's power to "fight terrorism."

More "terrorists" means more money, cops, and prosecutors to surveil, charge and incarcerate people. And that won't be limited to who you want them to suppress.

People often forget or underemphasize the fact that COINTELPRO included programs targeting right-wing racist groups.

The inclusion of groups like the KKK didn't benefit the Left. In fact, I would argue that it made COINTELPRO more dangerous to the targeted groups on the Left.

Having represented people charged with "terrorist" offenses or labeled "terrorists" (not necessarily the same thing), I can tell you how much power the label carries.

The entity that wields the power is the government-it's a weight that tips the scales even further toward them.

It’s important to note that the government does label *some* white people as “terrorists.” But it’s people associated with the Left-opposed to exploitation, racism, Capitalism and the State.

Even “colorblind” labeling of “terrorism” reinforces the existing power structure.