| Letter From The Public: Let's Define Terrorism |
|
|
| Tuesday, 27 May 2008 | |
 Bismillah ir rahman ir raheemI have just read your site relating to Media Jihad (as I subscribe to the email...Jazak alla khair for that) and wonder if there is a way to get 'terrorism' categorised the way it was during the Northern Ireland troubles...Why do we give more 'free' publicity to the 'fundamentalists' when that is not what they are..they are terrorists....
The hanging about around perpetrators flats' by the BBC this last week has been a case in point...
Where were we, explaining that if the perpetrator did rightly suffer from Aspergers Syndrome, which means that he was an easy target for manipulation, was he not better identified by the Ummah...Any wrongdoing of Human Rights and it's Liberty called out all the time (the family relationship with a BBC Journalist is not unnoticed but still...) So why can't we do something similar? I don't care about the didactics over Sects/Fiqhs etc but the leader of the Portsmouth Islamic Centre was hardly prepared for the role... If media was forced to treat it in a different way (ie not the new Northern Ireland and a good story) then perceptions can be altered. The public needs to know the 'conditions' for fighting 'lesser Jihad' (the Greater according to the Prophet (SAW) being the keeping alive of Iman). It's a cycle we haven't learnt from...by giving publicity we are promoting publicity...It's no use just sitting back when there are people who are being affected by this...(sorry, rant over...) Also is there a way for the intelligence services to use Tariff Codes (I used to work in Customs & Excise) to help identify the importation of supportive material (Difficult with the web downloads etc) relating to Political Islam (contentious issue relating to Civil Liberties and Freedom of Informations I know...). Just some different strategies that could be of use as well as tackling the media...This is not a didactic tautology just a few questions that I feel could be considered... Thank you for listening wa asSalaam Yr Sister in alIslam Haneefa Amu'Tullah    Readers have left 4 comments.
Maxine:
Quote
A somewhat confused analysis.
However, try this: Terrorism - deliberate instilling of fear(terror)into non-combatants, outside a theatre of war by perpetration of planned acts of violence with no regard for anyone, even for babies. Also persuading/teaching/inciting/inducing others to carry out such acts. By the way its not 'political Islam'; rather it is 'KHILAFA-ISM', which is not intrinsic to Islam as a faith (otherwise one muslim on his/her own, i.e. alone in a town could not practise Islam) . All literature/material/sermons calling for the re-establishment of a 'Khilafat' should be made illegal. 'KHILAFA-ISM' is at the root of the so-called 'Islamic' terrorism.
(2)
2008-05-27 08:41:28
shan:
Quote
Maxine since the iraqis did not attack britain or america then according to your definition,britain and america are comitting terrorism do you agree.
Since the american and british governments incited-deceived and seduced other nations to attack iraq then do you not agree they are terrorists. since millions of iraqi babies-chidlren-women and men have been killed-maimed or made refugees in the attack and occupation of iraq,do you not agree that the british and americans are committing terrorism in iraq. So what should we do with these christian terrorists,how do we eliminate them from ever attacking other nations and having a orgy of slaughter and torture.
(3)
2008-05-28 18:01:51
muzzylogic:
Quote
However, try this: Terrorism - deliberate instilling of fear(terror)into non-combatants, outside a theatre of war by perpetration of planned acts of violence with no regard for anyone, even for babies. I notice that you add the caveat "outside a theatre of war". Is this not a simple get-out clause to justify exactly what you defined above as terrorism when it happens to be carried out by an army? Do you not think that terrorists regard themselves as being at war? Your definition does not offer any clarification beyond what is currently understood by most people as terrorism, namely any act of violence carried out by someone not in uniform. When 10 innocent people die and dozens more are traumatiesed when a bomb dropped by an aircraft detonates in their midst, it's collateral damage caused by an act of war. When 10 innocent people die and dozens more are traumatised when a bomb strapped to a suicide-bomber's chest detonates in their midst, it's cold-blooded murder caused by an act of terror. If you remove your caveat, this hypocritical asymmetry is eliminated and you get a definition of terrorism that holds water. Unfortunately, you then have to face up to the fact that declaring war on a country that has done nothing to provoke it makes those responsible terrorist too.
(4)
2008-05-29 21:40:12
|
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
