Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, Page 30
national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an
audience. ―International terrorism‖ means terrorism involving citizens or the
territory of more than one country. On the other hand, the definitions used by
scholars tend to place more emphasis on the intention of terrorists to cause
fear and terror among a target audience with the aim of persuasion that
transcends the harm caused to the immediate victims.3
If we stick to this term, ―terrorism,‖ and forget about denial, which usually comes when
things go wrong or a noisy journalist swims against the current and reveals the truth, or at
least part of the truth, then we can call some political organizations and many governments,
including some Western governments, terrorists. Therefore, I am going to separate an act
of terrorism from labeling an organization as a terrorist group.
I will call an organization a terrorist organization if its only tactic, or at least its main tactic,
for reaching its goal is an act of terrorism. According to this definition, I will not call any
government or popular political organizations, even if they use terrorism to deal with their
enemies, terrorists because they are dealing with other problems of society as well
terrorism is not their sole tactic or the pillar of their actions in dealing with their daily
problems and objectives.
Terrorist Organizations versus Popular Organizations
To have a terrorist organization, you need two main ingredients: 1) injustice, and 2) a
leader—or better yet, a charismatic leader: ―Injustice emerges when the development of the
freedom of an individual or group of individuals is being constrained by another or others,
without the existence of a morally justifiable necessity.‖4
In the world in which we live, there is no shortage of serious injustice everywhere we look
still, injustice does not need to be real to actually exist, as long as your audience accepts it
as real and serious enough to fight for. Therefore, what is important is not injustice by
itself, but the relationship between your audience and their perception of injustice. If you
can convince your audience to accept that an injustice exists, and that it is serious enough,
then you are on but the pool you can fish from (i.e., for potential supporters) is limited to
those who believe there is injustice and that it is very serious. Therefore, I can say that the
difference between different organizations and individuals who feed on the misery of people
or on injustice depends on the pool that they fish from.
So here is the main difference between a terrorist organization and a popular one that has
used or uses tactics of terrorism, but at the same time is dealing with other people‘s
problems: A terrorist organization is bound by the morality of its leader, while a popular one
is bound to the popular view and the morality of the greater society.
When you intend to have the moral and financial support of the majority of ordinary people
in your country or within your religion, you must abide by their moral code, and if you
intend to take power and rule them, you must have some answers for their other problems,
apart from the issue of injustice. The majority of ordinary people do not condone terrorism
in all situations, and when they do condone it, it must be within certain norms and
conditions. For example, all, or at least most, Muslims accept defensive Jihad.5 Most people
anywhere in the world accept this policy in defense of their country against foreign
aggression or occupation. And when the country is occupied by outsiders, its people might
even accept any kind of defensive method, including terrorist suicide attacks, even against
noncombatant occupiers. But they will not always accept such actions, and will not
automatically accept the actions without any reservations. This explains why, when we are
dealing with Palestinian suicide actions, many Muslims, and even non-Muslims, say they
understand why such actions have been taken, although they generally condemn the killing
of ordinary people. And they might neither condemn the organization that has committed
national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an
audience. ―International terrorism‖ means terrorism involving citizens or the
territory of more than one country. On the other hand, the definitions used by
scholars tend to place more emphasis on the intention of terrorists to cause
fear and terror among a target audience with the aim of persuasion that
transcends the harm caused to the immediate victims.3
If we stick to this term, ―terrorism,‖ and forget about denial, which usually comes when
things go wrong or a noisy journalist swims against the current and reveals the truth, or at
least part of the truth, then we can call some political organizations and many governments,
including some Western governments, terrorists. Therefore, I am going to separate an act
of terrorism from labeling an organization as a terrorist group.
I will call an organization a terrorist organization if its only tactic, or at least its main tactic,
for reaching its goal is an act of terrorism. According to this definition, I will not call any
government or popular political organizations, even if they use terrorism to deal with their
enemies, terrorists because they are dealing with other problems of society as well
terrorism is not their sole tactic or the pillar of their actions in dealing with their daily
problems and objectives.
Terrorist Organizations versus Popular Organizations
To have a terrorist organization, you need two main ingredients: 1) injustice, and 2) a
leader—or better yet, a charismatic leader: ―Injustice emerges when the development of the
freedom of an individual or group of individuals is being constrained by another or others,
without the existence of a morally justifiable necessity.‖4
In the world in which we live, there is no shortage of serious injustice everywhere we look
still, injustice does not need to be real to actually exist, as long as your audience accepts it
as real and serious enough to fight for. Therefore, what is important is not injustice by
itself, but the relationship between your audience and their perception of injustice. If you
can convince your audience to accept that an injustice exists, and that it is serious enough,
then you are on but the pool you can fish from (i.e., for potential supporters) is limited to
those who believe there is injustice and that it is very serious. Therefore, I can say that the
difference between different organizations and individuals who feed on the misery of people
or on injustice depends on the pool that they fish from.
So here is the main difference between a terrorist organization and a popular one that has
used or uses tactics of terrorism, but at the same time is dealing with other people‘s
problems: A terrorist organization is bound by the morality of its leader, while a popular one
is bound to the popular view and the morality of the greater society.
When you intend to have the moral and financial support of the majority of ordinary people
in your country or within your religion, you must abide by their moral code, and if you
intend to take power and rule them, you must have some answers for their other problems,
apart from the issue of injustice. The majority of ordinary people do not condone terrorism
in all situations, and when they do condone it, it must be within certain norms and
conditions. For example, all, or at least most, Muslims accept defensive Jihad.5 Most people
anywhere in the world accept this policy in defense of their country against foreign
aggression or occupation. And when the country is occupied by outsiders, its people might
even accept any kind of defensive method, including terrorist suicide attacks, even against
noncombatant occupiers. But they will not always accept such actions, and will not
automatically accept the actions without any reservations. This explains why, when we are
dealing with Palestinian suicide actions, many Muslims, and even non-Muslims, say they
understand why such actions have been taken, although they generally condemn the killing
of ordinary people. And they might neither condemn the organization that has committed
