Terrorism: A New Definition

...and so it begins.
Terrorism. No longer an act of unmitigated violence against an unsuspecting populace for the purpose of instilling fear and terror, but...

this.

Speeches by more than a dozen imams in a mixture of Arabic, Urdu, and English urged Muslims to honour the name of the Prophet and not to back down in the face of Google’s continuing reluctance to act, and were met with passionate cries of “God is Great” and “Mohammad is the Prophet of God” in Arabic.

One of the speakers, Sheikh Faiz Al-Aqtab Siddiqui, told The Daily Telegraph: “Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people.

News sources estimate that 10,000 muslims demonstrated outside Google HQ in London... with this being the motive.

"Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well."

Awwwwww. Somebody bring out the kittens.
I mean, SERIOUSLY.

source: The Daily Telegraph

The man has a point, however awkwardly stated or quoted. You cannot, by definition, terrorize the dead. Terrorism is the act of instilling fear or demoralization into an enemy through heinous or atrocious acts.

I disagree that any single piece of media can be construed as terrorism however. In that instance the correct term would be propaganda... and the reader can decide if propaganda and terrorism are the same thing - or are related.

~Heff

I think the word is supposed to be dignity not feelings.

Did someone have their feelings hurt?

The biggest problem is when people believe that freedom exists on it's own. If you want freedom then you need to take responsibility as a part of the package.

Same with freedom of speech. There is an underlying concept to free speech that includes the requirement to listen to the others point of view and consider it. Otherwise you are just a jabber jaw.

P

Originally posted by Awen24

"Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well."

everybody on earth has killed my feelings, you are all terrorists, now please self destruct so i can have this place all to myself

Originally posted by Hefficide
Terrorism is the act of instilling fear or demoralization into an enemy through heinous or atrocious acts.

it is my opinion that your postings on the internet, are heinous acts, and have instilled fear into me, therefore you must all self destruct (see last post want this place all to myself )





just a note - my point is feelings are subject to interpretation as are words and we are now using that to define what makes someone convict-able under terrorism laws, shame shame

Originally posted by Hefficide
The man has a point, however awkwardly stated or quoted. You cannot, by definition, terrorize the dead. Terrorism is the act of instilling fear or demoralization into an enemy through heinous or atrocious acts.

...this being the point. The terror isn't intended to be inflicted upon the dead, but those who remain.
Terrorism isn't just about "heinous or atrocious acts", and I'd be surprised to find a definition stating that it is. Most definitions of terrorism are specifically about VIOLENCE...

such as:

ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

source:google

OR

terrorism

ter·ror·ism   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

source: dictionary.com

...both of these definitions specifically refer to "violence".

I would challenge you to inflict a dictionary-sanctioned definition of "terrorism" upon anyone by using words alone. I think you'd find it a little too challenging to accomplish, unless of course you took a copy of said Quran, and bashed someone over the head with it repeatedly, causing brain damage leading to death...
in which case you would bring us full circle, by inadvertently "killing the feelings" of Muslims everywhere, which would, ironically, make you a terrorist by your own definition.

It's a tough call.

reply to post by Awen24


Non violent terrorism? Sure I can handle that one.

Cyber Terrorism:

Cyberterrorism is the use of Internet based attacks in terrorist activities, including acts of deliberate, large-scale disruption of computer networks, especially of personal computers attached to the Internet, by the means of tools such as computer viruses.
Cyberterrorism is a controversial term. Some authors choose a very narrow definition, relating to deployments, by known terrorist organizations, of disruption attacks against information systems for the primary purpose of creating alarm and panic. By this narrow definition, it is difficult to identify any instances of cyberterrorism.
Cyberterrorism can be also defined as the intentional use of computer, networks, and public internet to cause destruction and harm for personal objectives. Objectives may political or ideological since this is a form of terrorism.
There is much concern from government and media sources about potential damages that could be caused by cyberterrorism, and this has prompted official responses from government agencies.

Power projection:

Power projection (or force projection) is a term used in military and political science to refer to the capacity of a state to conduct expeditionary warfare, i.e. to intimidate other nations and implement policy by means of force, or the threat thereof, in an area distant from its own territory. This ability is a crucial element of a state's power in international relations. Any state able to direct its military forces outside the limited bounds of its territory might be said to have some level of power projection capability, but the term itself is used most frequently in reference to militaries with a worldwide reach (or at least significantly broader than a state's immediate area). Even states with sizable hard power assets (such as a large standing army) may only be able to exert limited regional influence so long as they lack the means of effectively projecting their power on a global scale. Generally, only a select few states are able to overcome the logistical difficulties inherent in the deployment and direction of a modern, mechanized military force.
While traditional measures of power projection typically focus on hard power assets (tanks, soldiers, aircraft, naval vessels, etc.), the developing theory of soft power notes that power projection does not necessarily have to involve the active use of military forces in combat. Assets for power projection can often serve dual uses, as the deployment of various countries' militaries during the humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake illustrates. The ability of a state to project its forces into an area may serve as an effective diplomatic lever, influencing the decision-making process and acting as a potential deterrent on other states' behavior.

Unconventional Warfare:

The general objective of unconventional warfare is to instill a belief that peace and security are not possible without compromise or concession. Specific objectives include inducement of war weariness, curtailment of civilian standards of living and civil liberties associated with greater security demands, economic hardship linked to the costs of war; hopelessness to defend against assaults, fear, depression, and disintegration of morale.
The ultimate goal of this type of warfare is to motivate an enemy to stop attacking or resisting even if it has the ability to continue. Failing this, a secondary objective can be to emasculate the enemy before a conventional attack.

And the United Nations General Assembly current definition:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."

Terrorism is a highly symbolic system and needs only have implied threat to be effective. That threat need not even be a threat against life. Cyber terrorists, for example, only threaten data. Yet that threat is sufficient for the label.

~Heff

Terrorism is mainly designed to have a psychological effect. To instill fear and effect people mentally, thus having an effect on their ability to make objective decisions. Therefore indirectly allowing someone to control your views/opinions.

As it is has a mainly psychological effect, it does indeed involve feelings.

Originally posted by Awen24
...

ter·ror·ism/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun:
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

source:google

OR

terrorism

ter·ror·ism   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

source: dictionary.com

...both of these definitions specifically refer to "violence".

Both of those definitions specifically refer to "political aims/purposes", yet you seemed to have ignored that.

What is the political aim of some guy in a cave who will know all too well if he does what he is supposed to have done, he would have the worlds most powerful military hunting his butt?

Politically who has achieved more since the events of 9/11, governments of the western world, or "cave dwellers"?

It's really not difficult to see where the real problems are.

OH

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


If your feelings are hurt, then terrorism may or may not apply - and to varying degrees. It's not a matter of thin skin versus thick skin in reality. When applied in a big picture? Like say convincing an entire nation that a religion is out to get them... or an entire religion that a nation is out to get them?

To manipulate an entire culture or region into a false belief that leads to war?

That's terrorism to me. Oh and the ironic part? Both sides engage in it.

~Heff

Both of those definitions specifically refer to "political aims/purposes", yet you seemed to have ignored that.

What is the political aim of some guy in a cave who will know all too well if he does what he is supposed to have done, he would have the worlds most powerful military hunting his butt?

...actually, that one's easy. Islam doesn't separate politics and religion. It's an entire worldview. Striking against the 'Great Satan' is indeed both politically and ideologically motivated - both in terms of undermining the West, striving toward a global Islamic Caliphate, and in terms of fighting "in the way of Allah" against the evildoers and the Infidel.


Regarding a definition of terrorism as being violent -
I didn't ask for definitions of cyber-terrorism (which is not the same thing and is implicitly non-violent), nor anything else. Point being, if you remove the violence from terrorism, what does it become? Mildly-scary-ism?

not so much.

Anyone can commit an act of terrorism. But only muslims engage in Jihad.

Jihad is the process by which muslims propagate their culture, faith, and laws and colonize new lands. Jihad is not a response to any perceived slights suffered by the muslims at the hands of non-muslims. Jihad is a process not a response. Google is an innocent, non-muslim, victim of jihad.

Jihad is a mechanical process employed by muslims to colonize new lands, replacing whatever culture with which they interface, with the Allah deity, Islamic culture, and Sharia law.

Again, Jihad is a process not a response.

reply to post by Awen24

Originally posted by Awen24

Regarding a definition of terrorism as being violent -
I didn't ask for definitions of cyber-terrorism (which is not the same thing and is implicitly non-violent), nor anything else. Point being, if you remove the violence from terrorism, what does it become? Mildly-scary-ism?

not so much.

Economic embargoes can be seen as a form of terrorism. Not any violence at all, and yet people suffer. People become afraid.

If one could hack the stock exchange and cause a major crisis - one could destabilize the entire world economy. Pretty terrifying.

More to point... if you remove the violence from terrorism it's still terrorism. The word terror is the root - not violence, death, or any other physical act. Terrorism is asymmetrical mental warfare. Any act done with the intent of causing fear. This is why we have the crime of terroristic threat..

Think about it... how can something be terrifying if it's already been done? It's the threat and the fear produced by that threat that is the act of terrorism.

~Heff

The definition of terrorism appears to be a debate I seem to be seeing more and more on ATS, so much so that I wrote this thread on the subject to try to inform members about the true definition of terrorism.


Defining Terrorism

Sorry I know posting my own threads is unpopular but…

I am fed up of people using the word “terrorism” or “terrorist” without an appreciation of the word, it is perhaps the second most overused buzz word on ATS, secondly only to “FALSE FLAG”. I must say that the OP has fallen fowl of my biggest peeve, quoting an online dictionary for a definition of terrorism. That’s just not enough it’s an oversimplification I hope the link I have provided above will inform members about the definition of terrorism.

On the issue of the comments made by the gentleman in the OP, all that definition of terrorism is the view of one man and how he views terrorism. It is not a true definition of terrorism, it is not representative of a state it is only his opinion. I would not get myself to excited about it.

It just seems to me that all muslims in the middle east suffer from some mental insecurity issue, where they must always be told how great they are, even when talking about them selves, all while ignoring the fact they are not the only people on earth.

Just for example, every time a muslim makes a speach, to their own people or the UN even it goea as follows: " I am joe blow, most high above all, smartest of who are smart, greatest of all who are great, who serve before any and all others, he who sits on the throne above every throne, that ismaster of all, more powerfual and smarter than any, even the most powerfual and smarest, because ihe is the most wanderful of all. I and from blah blah, the most powerful and gfeatest country of all time, in the best land ever, of all time, with the most powerful people ever because they are the smarest, and most powerful, who sit above all who are smart.

We of blah blah, do not agree with the actions of the security councel, and wish them to reconsider their position. Thank you."

Lol, I did just basically copy and paste every muslim leaders speach I have ever heard. Now they define terrorism as hurting someones feelings, yet they are free to say anything about any group, and that is just fine, because they are the only ones who matter." The holocaust never happened" is far more insulting than "allah is a douche bag".

Yet they would have my imprisoned for my words, and they celebrate the others.

Words can not be terrorism, they are words, if you don't like the words, don't read them, or watch them on TV, or leave the place your at IRL.

Anyone who believes "hurting" someones feelings is terrorism, is an idiot, and a terrorist, because they have hurt my feelings by saying it.

See how I did that? I was a hypocrite and accussed you of being a terrorist in the same sentence, much like the muslims do, but when a white western guy does it, everyone felt angry because I insulted them, but this is nonsense, as I cannot insult you, it is you the decided to be insulted, I cannot cause you to feel this way, only you can.

It is psychology 101, noone can make you mad, you can only allow their words or actions to anger you, the onus is on the individual, not the suppossed guilty party. I can never anger anyone, who isn't looking to be offeded by my words, as one who doesn't wish to take offense from anothers words, will suffer no anger, reguarless of the words spoken.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
It just seems to me that all muslims in the middle east suffer from some mental insecurity issue, ...

How did it come to pass that people attempt to rationalize every single deed in the world through some type of improvised psychobabble?!

They just tend to get whatever they want just by stomping their feet, if that doesn't work, their gangs move onto the scene next and if that doesn't work and they are still capable of escalating (read: smuggled weapons stashes, like in Syria) civil war is clearly inevitable. If it works and it's stupid maybe it isn't that stupid after all. Just stop rewarding militant radicales and life will be better - you do know what the current stance towards Islam & friends is? Appeasement, pure and simple, it works for the aggressor, always has, always will. Rest assured, people when your lives will be on the line, few in the world will care and apologia will be in full swing where the system still works, hooking the blame on the victims, as per usual.

If you want your mutilated corpse to be dragged through the streets somewhere down the line just coddle Islam - if you don't, just ask them to reciprocitate their pleas for tolerance just by refraining to use violence against their own (murder for 'honor', anyone) and third parties.

That is IF they expect that tolerance to extend to themselves. Oh, let me guess it's all 'isolated cases', right? See how easy it is to fool us?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I must say that the OP has fallen fowl of my biggest peeve, quoting an online dictionary for a definition of terrorism. That’s just not enough it’s an oversimplification...

On the issue of the comments made by the gentleman in the OP, all that definition of terrorism is the view of one man and how he views terrorism. It is not a true definition of terrorism, it is not representative of a state it is only his opinion. I would not get myself to excited about it.

While I understand your point, and would agree that "terrorism" requires a much broader definition in a 21st Century world, that does not make the definitions I quoted incorrect. As you yourself state in the thread you linked, such definitions form an integral component of even an expanded concept of what terrorism is.

Regardless, my point is this.

I believe, and my definition of terrorism would implicitly include some kind of existential threat or menace; either (or both) the act of, or threat of physical harm inflicted upon a populace, most often as an act of unconventional warfare.

Now, that's not an all-encompassing definition - and obviously as mentioned above, it doesn't encompass things like cyber-terrorism, which is a different kettle of fish.

However, in no way, in no world, does "hurting someone's feelings" equate to terrorism. Terror and having your feelings hurt are not the same thing.