Definitions of terrorism       war terror

1. The Terrorism Research Center provides the following Definitions: 

2. A friend defines it from Israel

3. How Moslems define terrorism.

4. Saudi Arabia terror


Terrorism Research Center:

Terrorism by nature is difficult to define. Acts of terrorism conjure emotional responses in the victims (those hurt by the violence and those affected by the fear) as well as in the practioners. Even the U.S. government cannot agree on one single definition. The old adage, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is still alive and well. Listed below are several definitions of terrorism. For the purposes of the Terrorism Research Center, we have adopted the definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change.
--Brian Jenkins

Terrorism consitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted.
--Walter Laqueur

Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience.
--James M. Poland

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.
--Vice-President's Task Force, 1986

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
--FBI Definition





A friend from Israel states:

Dear  Bruce,
The first great act of terrorism in the 20th Century was the
Nazi air raid on Guernica in 1936 during the Spanish civil war.
It caused an outcry throughout the world and was denounced
as terrorism because it was a planned, armed, attack on non-combatant
CIVILIANS.   F.D.R. and other world leaders declared attacks on civilians
as a crime, calling it “Terrorism”.  


 A mere four years later Churchill ordered the RAF to bombard CIVILIAN targets in Berlin in order to provoke Hitler to retaliate by bombarding CIVILIAN targets in London (thus “The Blitz” began).. Churchill did this because Lord Trenchard, Commander of the RAF, told  him that in 24 hours all RAF airfields will be unusable due to German bombing. He decided to divert the Luftwaffe from attacking RAF airfields by provoking
Hitler to retaliate for the RAF bombing Berlin.  Churchill succeded. Thus began

”The Blitz”.

You quote Buchanan saying:”Japan’s sneak attack was one of the great
acts of state terror “   It was a certainly treacherous attack as Japan was
not in a state of war with the US.  But it was an attack on a MILITARY target,
not on CIVILIANS.  Describing it as an act of terrorism blurrs the difference
between two crimes –

1. A planned, armed, attack on non-combatant civilians.  [Terrorism]
2. An attack on soldiers without declaring war.

Today many governments denounce terrorism endlessly without any hint
what that term means.   Why dont they say what they mean by ‘terrorism” ?  Because they themsleves committed many terrorist acts.

The greatest act of terrorism in history is the bombardment of Hiroshima
and Nagassaki.  Both cities were not military targets and were not bombarded
during the war.  This made them ideal targets for A-bombs.
Pure A-bomb damage could be measured as there was no earlier damage
from ordinary bombs. 

 Churchil too, having ordered the bombardment of
Berlin - and later of Dresden, is guilty of terrorism. 

So is Sharon who on the night of Oct.15, 1953 commanded an Israeli Army attack on the Palestinian village of Kiblah, killing 70 civilians, mostly women and children. 

 Mr Shamir, Israel’s former premier, was a known terrorist in Palestine during the 1940s,
and was responsible for planning many attacks on Palestinian civilians.
Terrorism must be denounced and combated (not in the manner Bush suggests)
but unless we have a clear idea what terrorism is we shall be misled by
leaders and governments who are themselves terrorists.
                                                                           ATB,  Aki

How Moslems see it:  http://Government Insite

Message: 4
   Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 19:06:33 -0000
Subject: Al-Irhab (terrorism)

Linguistically, Al-Irhab (terrorism) is a noun derived from the verb
Arhaba (to terrify) with the meaning to frighten or scare. Allah
(SWT) said:

"(Liturhibo) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy." [Al-
Anfal: 60]

i.e. you should frighten the enemy.

However, this has been altered to give a new meaning to the word. In
a seminar in 1979 both the American and British intelligence services
agreed to redefine terrorism as 'the use of violence against civil
interests to achieve political objectives.'

Thereafter, many international conferences and seminars have been
held and legislation and canons passed to define those actions which
can be described as terrorism, clarifying the types of movements,
organizations and parties which practice terrorism and highlighting
those states supporting terrorism. The Kufr states contend that this
was done to adopt the necessary measures to fight terrorism and to
control its spread.

It is clear from the legislation and laws relating to terrorism that
they are not accurate. These anti-terrorist laws are subject to the
political bias of the states that enacted them. For example, we see
that the United States considered the assassination of Indira Ghandi
as a terrorist act, but not the assassination of King Faisal nor the
murder of Kennedy.

At first, she described the blowing up of the FBI building in
Oklahoma city as a terrorist act, but when it became clear that those
behind the explosion were American militias they changed their
portrayal of it from being an act of terrorism to a simple criminal

The United States in particular describes certain movements as
popular opposition movements like the rebels of Nicaragua and the IRA
and others. She considers the fighters of these movements, when
arrested, as prisoners of war according to Protocol (1) of the 1977
Geneva Convention. On the other hand, every movement opposing
American interests or the interests of its agents is considered a
terrorist movement and is placed on the list of terrorist
organisations. This list, periodically issued by the US State
Department, regularly includes most of the Islamic movements in
Egypt, Pakistan, Palestine, Algeria etc.

Since the 1970s, America has generated national and international
public opinion according to her viewpoint of what constitutes
terrorism. She has consistently exploited actions aimed at civil
targets for her own ends, whether these actions came from political
or military movements not linked to America, or from movements
connected to the intelligence services of America. For example, many
reports have indicated that some actions described as terrorist were
backed by personnel from the CIA, like the hijacking of the TWA
aeroplane at Beirut at the beginning of the 1980s. The United States
also exploited the explosion that occurred at the American al-Khobar
base in Saudi Arabia. In 1996, at the G7 Conference in Paris she made
forty recommendations regarding the fight against terrorism. Even
before knowing the identity of the bombers, she used the incidents of
the World Trade Centre bombing in New York and the bombing of the FBI
offices in Oklahoma to promote anti-terrorism legislation approved by
the US Senate in 1997.

The G7 recommendations and the anti-terrorism legislation gave the
United States the authority to pursue any suspected terrorists
worldwide. The United States believes she has the right to arrest and
kidnap any person she considers guilty of any terrorist act and
implement any punishment she deems appropriate, for example, prison,
exile, withdrawal of residential and/or national rights and so on.
All this can be done without giving the accused the right to defend
himself or to be represented before a civil court or jury.

In addition, the United States regularly stereotypes those countries
opposing US interests as terrorist states, for example North Korea,
China, Iraq and Libya. She has accused many Islamic movements of
terrorism; movements like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Jama'ah Islamiyyah in
Egypt and FIS in Algeria. In this manner, she has also exploited
bombings against the Jews in Palestine and the acts that took place
in Algeria on the eve of the military's abolition of the
parliamentary elections.

According to these laws, resolutions and recommendations, the United
States can pursue and attack anyone she considers to be a terrorist,
whether individual, organisation, party or state, by using her
military forces or political influence to impose economic sanctions,
as was seen in Iraq and Libya. This viewpoint was expressed by her
former Secretary of State George Schultz when he said: 'However much
terrorists may try to escape they will not be able to hide.'

Thus, the anti-terrorism law adopted by the United States is one of
the strategic weapons she uses to tighten her hold on the world,
especially with respect to those countries which have the capacity to
rebel against US policy.

Since the United States has identified Islam as her greatest enemy
after the fall of communism, the Islamic countries are now seen as
strategic areas in which she will use the anti-terrorism law in order
to increase her influence and keep them under control. This is
because Muslims are now seeking the path of revival to re-establish
the Khilafah, which the United States and other Kufr nations know to
be the only State capable of destroying the capitalist ideology,
which America heads.

This is why we will find no Islamic movements that have not been
labelled as terrorist by the United States. Even political parties
and movements that do not use material actions to realise their
objectives are not exempt from this label. Thus the United States
considers the activity of any movement, party or state calling for
the return of Islam as a terrorist action breaching international
law. With this justification, and by compelling those nations who
have adopted the anti-terrorism legislation, she is able to mobilise
the forces of these nations under her leadership to strike these
movements, parties or states.

Therefore it has become incumbent on those Muslims working for the re-
establishment of the Khilafah, being a direct target of the so-called
policy of anti-terrorism, to expose the reality of this law to
Islamic and global public opinion. They must also expose the reality
of US policy which works to dominate the world through this law, and
that she is the real perpetrator of many of the bombings and
explosions worldwide that have been attributed to Muslim individuals,
groups or states.

It is also incumbent on the Muslims to be Islamic in their actions
and behaviour. Islam has a specific way of realising its aims and
objectives. This is manifested in carrying the call to resume the
Islamic way of life by re-establishing the Khilafah. Adherence to
this method, which relies on intellectual and political struggle to
the exclusion of material actions, is adherence to the Shara'i method
ordered by Islam, and not out of fear or desiring to escape from the
label of terrorism.

It is incumbent on Muslims to be clear that the task of the Islamic
State after its establishment is restricted to Shar'a. Whether it is
internal such as looking after the affairs of the people and
implementing the Hudood (penal code), or external such as conveying
Islam though Jihad to the all mankind and destroying the material
obstacles that are a barrier to the implementation of Islam.

The Muslims must be clear that the comprehensive implementation of
Islam by Muslims on themselves and others does not originate from the
whims of Muslims nor does it aim at realising certain specific
interests. Rather it is in compliance with the orders of Allah (SWT)
who created man, life and the universe and ordered man to organise
his life in accordance with the rules of Islam, which He (SWT)
revealed to Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (SAW).

Thus the description of Islam and the Muslims as terrorist by the
United States and other countries is a biased description. It is
contrary to the reality and contradicts what Allah (SWT) wishes from
Islam. He (SWT) said:

"And We have sent you (O Muhammad) not but as a mercy for
the 'Alameen (worlds)." [Al-Anbiya: 107]

Allah (SWT) also said:

"And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition
of everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who
have submitted themselves to Allah." [Al-Nahl: 89]

This mercy is clearly shown by the implementation of the rules of
Islam. There is no difference between prayer (Salah) and Jihad,
between Du'a and frightening the enemy. There is no difference
between Zakah and cutting the hand of the thief, nor is there a
difference between helping the grieved and killing those who commit
aggression against the sanctities of the Muslims. All of them are
Shara'i rules which the Muslims or the State will implement in
practice and when its time comes.

Excerpt taken from book 'Dangerous Concepts' by Hizb ut-Tahrir
Source:  Kcom Journal


Back to top