Being a Terrorist by Implication in a Terrific Environment

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 15 Sep 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Celebrating Complicity in the Terrifying Experience of Gaza

Introduction

How will the future describe a period in which the major strategic determinant was held to be the response to terrorism — following the instigation of the Global War on Terror (Timeline of the War on Terror, Wikipedia; Promoting a Singular Global Threat — Terrorism: strategy of choice for world governance, 2002)?

Curiously however many of those righteously preoccupied with this destabilizing anti-social dynamic are themselves righteously framed as terrorists by others and — as such — to be reasonably described as “evil” by the highest authorities (Existence of evil as authoritatively claimed to be an overriding strategic concern, 2016; Framing by others of claimants of evil as evil, 2016). The articulations of strategic priorities do not however include any provision for the response to “evil”. There is no research or other surveys of its prevalence and how it might be counteracted, as in centuries past. The focus is reframed as a response to “terrorism” and ensuring the urgent security provisions. Arguably this is now reframed in terms of identifying and criminalizing misinformation (Towards a Science of Misinformation and Deception, 2021).

As with “evil”, “terrorism” has now become strangely elusive. In times past those responsible for “evil” could be sought out, precisely identified, subject to interrogation under forms of torture (now held by some to be unacceptable), and appropriately disposed of by burning at the stake and other techniques. In the case of “terrorism” there are however problems to replicating the process, despite evocation of the term “witch hunts”, tweeted by Donald Trump nearly 300 times since first becoming president and leader of the free world (Alice Markham-Cantor, What Trump Really Means When He Cries ‘Witch Hunt’, The Nation, 28 October 2019; Ankush Khardori, Trump Seems to Be the Victim of a Witch Hunt. So What? Politico, 20 March 2023).

As with “evil” it can easily be claimed, notably by those of religious persuasion, that anything with which they disagree is appropriately recognized as a manifestation of “evil” — whatever the implications for the purveyor. This tendency is increasingly evident with respect to “terrorism”, with any authority righteously labelling any strategy not aligned with its own as being misguided to a degree which merits its qualification as complicity with terrorism, enabling terrorism or terrorism itself.

A major difficulty is that authorities have framed iconic figures of the past as terrorists — only to recognize their legitimacy as leaders of an independent country and to reframe them with the highest honours. This is most evident in the case of Nelson Mandela as a Nobel Laureate. In sum, historical and political leaders can be — and sometimes have been — labeled “terrorists” by their opponents or colonial powers during conflicts or insurgencies. Such designations are fluid and politically charged, with many figures later regarded as liberators or founders of nations rather than terrorists. Several countries have been effectively founded or significantly shaped through the activities of groups or leaders who were at times labeled as terrorists, or engaged in what would today be called terrorism — including Israel and Ireland, if not the United States.

No effort is made to ask which world leaders have (not) been labelled “evil”? (2015) — and which countries were (not) engendered by “terrorists”? (2015) — or would be so labelled at this time.

As with those framed as “evil” by the Catholic Church, the “terrorist” label is employed flexibly to frame opponents whenever this is strategically convenient. As with witchcraft, the label is unquestionably justified by events characterized by tragic fatalities. Questioning the label is then framed as misguided sympathy for terrorism. Ironically this evokes speculation regarding icons of society, such as Jesus (Josiah R. Daniels, Jesus Was a Terrorist, Sojourners, 17 April 2025; Jeremy Bouma, Did You Know Jesus Died a Terrorist’s Death? BibleGateway, 18 September 2017). Given the fatalities arising from natural disasters — so-called “Acts of God” — the question can be taken further, especially in the light of the “fear of God” long promoted and exploited by religions (Is God a Terrorist? Definitional game-playing by the Coalition of the Willing, 2004). Indicative of the confusion, the question has variously been raised regarding Donald Trump (Lino Matteo, Is Donald Trump a Terrorist?).

The challenge of “terrorism” is notably clarified by the fact that — despite widespread use of the label — the United Nations has been unable to define it after many years of effort. There is no legal or scientific consensus on the definition of terrorism. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism, and governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon legally-binding definition. The same could be said of the definition of “evil” by religious authorities.

Despite the fatal consequences to which terrorism is held to give rise, the world is witness to what is appropriately described as definitional game-playing (Ubiquity of “terrorism” and definitional game-playing, 2001; Terrorism and terminological game-playing, 2011; Terror as Distractant from More Deadly Global Threats: Bewitching world of definitional game-playing, 2009). The definitional focus on “non-state actors” curiously recalls the difficulties of the United Nations — as “We the Peoples” — in engaging effectively with “non-governmental organizations” over past decades.

Borrowing from “gerrymandering” — as a corruption of the democratic process involving the political manipulation of electoral boundaries to advantage a group within the constituency — an analogous process can be recognized with respect to terrorism (Systematic Gerrymandering of Declared Threats and Legality of Response, 2013). The process can be see as characterized by public relations and narrative “spin” on the part of authorities (Spin and Counter-spin: Governance through Terrorism, 2002).

Missing from the many debates on the nature of terrorism is what tends to be excluded and why — as discussed separately (Varieties of Terrorism extended to the experience of the terrorized, 2004). Somehow the experience of those being “terrified” is excluded from debate in preference to the focus on those perpetrating acts which authorities deem not to be in the best interests of society as they define them — and typically those which call into question the interests they favour.

Most obviously excluded is any form of terror enabled by institutional policies negligent of any form of bullying — whether in educational, military, hospital, workplace, or prison contexts. Curiously (and with few exceptions) bullying, to the extent it is addressed, is systematically disassociated from terrorism — whether or not it is associated with physical violence (N. M. Floyd, Terrorism in the Schools, School Safety, Winter 1987; From Bullying to Terrorism: violence in the workplace, The New Reality of Risk, March 2016; Bullying: An Act of Terrorism, Bullying is Terrorism, 23 June 2013; Ben Wadham, Crossing the line: why the royal commission examined initiation rituals and defence abuse, The Conversation, 1 July 2016; Royal Navy probing claims of marine ‘beasting’ initiations at Trident base, The Independent, 19 January 2016).

Somehow terrorism is only exceptionally recognized within institutions for which governments are in some way responsible. Ironically the focus may be on the impact of those incarcerated as terrorists on other prisoners, as in the UK for example (Jonathan Hall, Terrorism in Prisons, UK Parliamentary Presentation, April 2022; New drive to tackle terrorism in prisons, Gov.UK, April 2022). Especially intriguing is the manner in which hazing rituals are tolerated within some institutions — irrespective of the terror which they may be deliberately designed to engender (Robin Levinson-King, The brutal secret of school sport initiations, BBC, 10 January 2019; ‘Swedish Eton’ Shut Down Over Bullying Rituals, Sky News, 29 August 2013; Lorna Knowles, Shocking college hazing rituals at prestigious Australian university revealed in report, ABC, 25 February 2018; Leen Dorsman, Hazing: from beast to man or vice versa, Urecht University, 30 August 2023).

Perhaps most ironic is the extensive phenomenon of “domestic abuse” by which many are systematically terrified. This is totally disassociated from “domestic terrorism“, or (even more ironically) “homegrown terrorism”, namely a form of terrorism in which victims within a country are targeted by a perpetrator with the same citizenship as the victims (although those targetted may well not have citizenship of that country). Distinguished as “domestic violence“, this occurs in a domestic setting, such as in a marriage or cohabitation. It may be more broadly framed as including including nonphysical abuse in such settings — then to be termed “domestic abuse”. In practice it may include spousal abuse, wife beating, marital rape, female genital mutilation, and honour killings — none of which are seemingly deemed to evoke terror in the victim.

Bullying, as experienced by many, helps to clarify a distinctive characteristic attributed uniquely to “terrorism”. Despite its prevalence in bullying, terrorism is particularly characterized by physical violence — whether against a person or property. No physical violence, no terror, no terrorism? This may however be extended to the planning of such acts, or possibly even to a degree of complicity in enabling them or advocating them. From this perspective, many forms of bullying and harassment — notably of verbal form (as threats, insults, and the like) — are excluded from any sense of terrorism, however terrified the victim may be deliberately made to be (even to the point of suicide)..

The problematic framing invites further critical extension to include structural violence, as formulated by Johan Galtung. This recognizes — controversially from many conventional perspectives — that a social structure or social institution may harm people insidiously by preventing them from meeting their basic needs or rights. As with bullying and domestic violence, the relation between structural violence and terrorism is only exceptionally explored (Khan Zeb, et al, Structural Violence and Terrorism in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Civil Wars, 21, 2019, 1; Richard A. Couto, The Politics of Terrorism: Power, Legitimacy, and Violence, Integral Review, 6, 2010, 1).

Again it is bullying, especially in hazing rituals in key institutions, which clarifies the flaws in the argument. Also termed “beasting” (with its connotations of anal rape), its ubiquity frames the unasked question as to “who has been beasted by whom”, and how does this affect the decision-making of those involved in their subsequent institutional lives — including their direction of the institutions in which hazing rituals are tolerated. Questionably “beasting” may be euphemistically reframed as “beating” in any reporting of the matter. Are the practices characteristic of Abu Ghraib to be recognized as both a consequence and an exemplification of beasting — in my name?

Potentially relevant is how invasion of space (whether territorial or personal) is characteristic of structural violence and bullying — particularly when it evokes a violent response, then only to be potentially framed and deprecated as terrorism. The purportedly non-violent nature of the prelude to such violence can be explored in terms of “encroachment” (Varieties of Encroachment, 2004). Any violence engendered can then be righteously claimed to have been “unprovoked” (Provocation of “Unprovoked Aggression” by Encroachment, 2023). Encroachment is vigorously claimed to be innocent by the practitioner, despite the experience of many subject to harassment.

It is the insidious nature of encroachment, potentially evoking physical violence, which highlights both the cultivated naivety of asserting the “unprovoked” nature of the aggression as well as its purportedly incomprehensible nature (Challenging incomprehensibility of “terrorist violence”, 2010). It may ell be a trigger for “incomprehensible” school shootings. On a larger scale this pattern is evident in the delayed Russian response to NATO-enabled encroachment by Ukraine — a perspective excluded from any reporting by Western media of the Russian invasion.

Especially curious has been the conflation of “radicalisation” with “terrorism” — deriving in part from perceptions of the Islamic world view as being in “radical” contrast to the Christian world view, thereby questionably framed as “unchallenging”. The perception is however also evident in the challenging appreciation of political and ideological “radicals” having no association with Islam. The conflation is all the more curious in that “radical” thinking is a primary characteristic of innovation as variously lauded and rewarded (Arguments questioning the current framing of radicalisation and terrorism, 2016).

Despite it being a recognized characteristic of creativity and innovation, little effort is seemingly made to clarify the nature of “radical” thinking in whatever domain it may be evident — and the threat it is deemed to constitute. In a world which is increasingly “terrifying” for many — if not most — it is remarkable to note the value associated with “terrific”, and even a “terrific idea”, or the possibility of a “terrific life” promised by various contexts. Who can resist what is perceived as “terrifically attractive”? In reimagining reality a physicist is free to have the most radical ideas — potentially held to be “terrifically interesting” by colleagues. In many spiritual traditions, a radical experience inspired by deity may offer a sense of “awe”, which — although “terrific” — may shade into a sense of the “awfulness” and terror of deity, framed by religious as an appropriate “fear of God” (Terror of the sublime, 2005).

In that light, the conventional framing of “terror” as an existential threat is dangerously simplistic through its focus on physical violence — evoking a “war against terror”. How does existential threat relate to the existential implications of any terrifying appeal with the potential of reframing fundamentally any sense of identity — one effectively “not fit for purpose” in a world of polycrisis (Radical identification of the root cause of terrorism, 2015)? How indeed to engage with the many dimensions of an incomprehensible reality, as may be variously speculated (Thinking within a terrifying reality, 2005; Radical Disaffection Engendered by Elitist Groupthink? 2016; Coming Out as a Radical — or Coming In? 2015)? Why are the radical possibilities “terrifically interesting” — if only to myself?

In this context it is appropriate to ask which authorities are now worthy of respect — given the propensity to vigorous denial of any complicity in engendering terror. Government? Bureaucracy? Science? Religion? Military Intelligence services? Technology? Judiciary? Finance? Business? Humanities? Clearly the nations gathered in the G7 or the G20 do not consider themselves to be engendering or enabling terror — however much their empty declarations to the contrary may be called into question as opportunistic virtue signalling. As a “terrific country” in the eyes of many, this is especially the case of the USA. In its existential battle against “terrorism”, this is most obviously true of Israel — in total denial of the terror engendered by the structural violence it has long deployed in relation to Palestine.

Most ironically from a future perspective, it could be argued that the only configuration now “worthy of respect” (as authentic bearer of human values) is the fleet of ships endeavouring to breakthrough the Israeli blockade to deliver resources to Gaza (The Global Sumud Flotilla to Gaza, Aljazeera, 31 August 2025). As a symbolic gesture — a surreal act of imagination — it is curiously prefigured in popular imagination by the “rag-tag” fleet of civilian spaceships that assembled around Battlestar Galactica following the Cylon holocaust. Reminiscent of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, the fleet carried human survivors of the Twelve Colonies of Man on an iconic quest in search of the lost planet — Earth. The “Cylons” of today are readily recognized in that frame.

This exploration continues previous experiments in making extensive use of AI to clarify the themes evoked. For comparative purposes, responses are presented by different AIs (ChatGPT, DeepSeek and Perplexity) to the same questions. The responses have been framed as optionally visible grayed areas — with that form of presentation itself treated as an experiment, in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents and debate. The AI responses are hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Clearly the questions can be asked of other AIs — and framed otherwise — whether at the present time or in the future, when more sophisticated large language models become available.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.