It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Senior officers also want powers to attack and close down websites, and a new criminal offence of using the internet to prepare acts of terrorism, to "suppress inappropriate internet usage".
The statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” has become not only a cliché, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism. The matter of definition and conceptualization is usually a purely theoretical issue—a mechanism for scholars to work out the appropriate set of parameters for the research they intend to undertake. However, when dealing with terrorism and guerrilla warfare, implications of defining our terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussions. In the struggle against terrorism, the problem of definition is a crucial element in the attempt to coordinate international collaboration, based on the currently accepted rules of traditional warefare.
Definition of Terrorism - Wiki
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. According to expert Walter Laqueur, "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence."
This criterion alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism—war, organized crime, revolution, or even a simple riot. Typically, further criteria are imposed to narrow the definition down, but what these critera are chosen to be varies widely. One 1988 study by the US Army discovered that over 100 definitions have been used.
The most common criteria are that:
The motive is political or religious
The target is civilian/noncombatant
The objective is to intimidate
The perpetrator is non-governmental
The act was unlawful
The act was violent
The act was premeditated
None of these is universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficent.
"Peter Taylor's three part series examines the new al-Qaeda which has emerged and the threat it poses to the West. The first part, jihad.com explores how the internet has become the lifeblood of the new al-Qaeda.
He says: "The only safe haven that remains for al-Qaeda is the virtual realm. It is one that we all should be worried about.""
Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
And of course "Al Qaeda is not an organisation it is a way of working" (Tony Blair) so if you say anything they don't like then you are Al Qaeda?
The underlying theme is G Bush's statement that "if you are not with us you are with the terrorists" . . . . this fascist idea means that anyone who declines to support him is a terrorist, and so even the mildest opinions could be seen as terrorism.
It doesn't look good.
Originally posted by CTID56092
With ECHELON, Menwith Hill, GCHQ, Hanslope Park, Hunters Stones they can sniff e-mails, boards etc etc. Blocking sites seems counter-productive, better to be able to track them.
Menwith Hill etc:
(great site BTW)
i agree CTD they will use the info to track suspects rather than supress all info IMO..they need all the intelligence they can get in this situation rather than block the info..they may come up with new ways of monitoring but i think they will always keep the channels open if they can glean some info from it