Mon. Mar 4th, 2024

By: Jennifer Lawson-Zepeda

This week the FBI finally took action against Nakoula-Basseley Nakoula, who defines the basic ideas behind two concepts of thought:  Freedom of Speech and Terrorist Hate Speech.

What is Terrorism?

What exactly is terrorism?  And who controls how much terrorism is allowed inside of the U.S.?



The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

Terrorism has been described as:

a tactic and strategy

a crime and a holy duty

a reaction to oppression and inexcusable abomination.

There are many definitions of terrorism, all generated to suit who ever is arguing that terrorism is being used.  But what are the standard definitions?  Here’s a few:

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as:

“the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Within this definition, there are three key elements—violence, fear, and intimidation—and each element produces terror in its victims.

The FBI defines terrorism as:

“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and 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.”

The U.S. Department of State defines “terrorism” as:

“premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The United Nations produced this definition in 1992, which gets more to the development of terrorism:

“An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.

(Source: Terrorism Research)

How is terrorism developed?

One way is through influencing an audience, as in films, literature, art and many other ways.

For instance, the anti-Islamic movie inflaming protests across the Middle East , ‘Innocence of Muslims‘ would be aperfect definition of developing and using media to influence an audience to dislike Muslims under the following definition:

Terrorism is a criminal act that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim.

The strategy of terrorists is to commit acts of violence that draws the attention of the local populace, the government, and the world to their cause. The terrorists plan their attack to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that symbolize what they oppose.

The effectiveness of the terrorist act lies not in the act itself, but in the public’s or government’s reaction to the act. For example, in 1972 at the Munich Olympics, the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis. The Israelis were the immediate victims. But the true target was the estimated 1 billion people watching the televised event.

(Source: Terrorism Research)

Homeland Security…BOOM!!

So, one wonders why the creator of this film wasn’t arrested until a few days ago?  Especially, since this film generated so much animosity and potential danger towards the U.S.

Who should be held accountable for holding off this arrest?  After all, this was what most of us would call a ‘no-brainer’ under the new definitions of “terrorist threat.”

Not only that, but the idiot who created this film had other reasons to be questioned, LONNNGGGG ago.

Let’s get right to the point!  Nakoula-Basseley Nakoula was a convicted felon for bank fraud charges who was on parole.  And part of the conditions of his parole were that he was banned from using computers or the Internet as part of his sentence.  And yet, The Innocence of Muslims showed up on  Another condition of his parole was that he was forbidden from using pseudonyms.  And yet, Nakoula-Basseley Nakoula was using the pseudonym of Sam Bacile, to create this anti-Islamic film.

Boom!   This shouldn’t even be a question.  You break the conditions of your parole…you go back to jail.

So…the logical question is…Why has this man been allowed to remain free for so long?

After all, it took time to create this film, no? Are we to believe that his parole officer never took the time to question what this man was doing?

And if so, what the fuck do we have parole officers for?  And who is being held accountable for the four deaths created by this film and the attacks on numerous American Embassies?

Hypocrisy in Action

How many times do we hear about people being arrested for making ‘terrorist threats’ against others?  And do these threats only apply when they aren’t made against people we fear?

Three adults and two juveniles were arrested Wednesday for allegedly terrorizing a Jewish camp in Pennsylvania.

Spencer allegedly drove a white Ford pickup truck “recklessly” through the camp, “narrowly missing several campers and staff” and damaging fields, yards, buildings and fences, the police criminal complaint said. The group also allegedly used paintball guns to shoot Jewish campers and staff, hitting one 18-year-old camper leaving a synagogue, according to the complaint.

(Source: Five arrested, accused of terrorizing Jewish camp in Pennsylvania)

Exactly what does it take for Homeland Security to determine someone is making a terrorist threat?

Does it have to do with racist assumptions?

Is it only when its offensive tosome religions?

Do some get a free pass?

For instance, let’s explore a few arrests for terrorist threats:

Rapper Juelz Santana Arrested for making a terrorist threat

Sarasota Springs man arrested for alleged terrorist threats

Man arrested at Miramar for alleged terrorist threats 

Massapequa HS Student arrested for alleged terrorist threats

Is this one of those ‘gray areas,’ where they can determine, willy-nilly, who is making a terrorist threat, depending upon their feelings about the material and their own prejudices?

After all, Homeland Security has been set up as a fairly autonomous agency.

So is there ANY policy that defIines when and if they should act upon a terrorist threat?

Because, if there is…why on earth wouldn’t a film that had the potential to spark world hate and threats of violence against the U.S. be considered actionable?

Franky, as sick as I am of the people like people like this self described ‘coptic Christian’ Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who spreads hate propaganda; I’m actually intrigued with this case for so many other reasons.  Why?  Because it exposes the hypocrisy of our ‘terrorist threat’ statute and how it is applied.

After all…we have manufactured an environment where it is acceptable to hate Muslims ever since the 2001 event of 911.  And sadly, none of the innocent Islamic – American victims who have suffered endless persecution, including the loss of jobs after being harrased, have been compensated or even asked for compensation.  That’s why this wasn’t handled by Homeland Security or any of the other agencies that are supposed to protect our country.
For more from Jennifer Lawson-Zepeda visit her blog

Related Post

4 thoughts on “Insulting Religion and Homegrown Terrorism”
  1. I argue that there is no “terrorism” – there is only political violence society approves os and political violence it does not approve of” there latter being designated as “terrorism” by default.

  2. I do not know anything about the background of the maker of the film. I did subject myself to 14 minutes of the film and frankly I would think based solely on the film anyone with any sense could “turn the other cheek” it was incredibly insipid. I fail to see how the film itself is a terrorist threat.

    By definition terrorism occurs when someone has a response to an action. A “terrified” response. So, doesn’t that make individuals, leaders and countries somewhat responsible for themselves? There is an easy way to avoid terrorism; Don’t allow yourselves to be terrified-especially by incredibly bad, awful, stupid “film”.

    That is not to say I don’t feel for those who follow Islam. They believe absolutely that no image of their prophet should be shown. I get that. I respect that. But, everyone needs to be less reactive to people baiting them.

    That goes for the U.S. too. “Suicide by cop”- (an instance in which you are too scared or religious to shoot yourself so you set up a situation in which a cop has to shoot you.) is not terrorism. It is fucked-up suicide. But anymore these instances are being treated as and reported as terrorist acts. Using the word terrorism invokes terror. Let’s cut it out. All of it.

    Cease to be afraid and acknowledge that some people will do dastardly things sometimes with reason and sometimes without and maybe we can get past all this terrorism.

    But clearly our leaders don’t want to let go of that word yet. It is too useful for them.

  3. I think the film was nothing more than a tool deliberately employed, not so much to stir up anti- Muslim sentiments, as to stir up Muslims in general. The film was a total flop in the US, but behold! As soon as some Mid-Eastern groups got wind of it, they exploded into violence. Now the film has International attention, and murder follows in its wake. How convenient for those who want war against the Muslim countries. And that’s the part that’s utterly intriguing; the convenience. How did a flopped film with mysterious financial backing, receive any attention at all, unless somebody deliberately directed attention to it? Reactive, emotive manipulation is the true terrorism.

  4. Not only was it a “total flop” it was never released anywhere, not to theatres, not to DVD. It’s sole purpose was to be put on the internet via youtube in order to stir up a shit storm and to that end, it worked.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.