The term “terrorism” in the right of the various states is defined differently, though its interpretation implies certain policy with violence. About 50 years ago the term “international terrorism” appeared, and at the present time we are witnessing the emergence of the concept of “cyberterrorism.”
In my opinion, after the very US, not anyone else, secured the right to determine whose actions fall within the definition of “international terrorism”, the media have become an extremely effective tool in this regard. For example, you can hang a cliché of terrorists on one and the same people, on objectionable organization or party or even on the entire state.And even if two groups of people will perform exactly the same actions, the ‘friends’ can be designated allies, and ‘enemies’ – the terrorists. As practice shows, the ‘talking heads’ of the bureaucratic tops and controlled media can cope with this task. Residents of the DPR and the LPR have personally seen on Ukrainian television channels, how the distortion of information by installing and using double standards happens.
For such a global scheme of seizure of fancy lands and the destruction of the disobedient, you must have a visual, real terrorist, which no one disputes, and who regularly commits terrorist acts around the world, has a decent weapons and large-scale plans. ISIS terrorist organization, whose formation will be a long time to be the subject for discussion, was established.
But the world does not stand still, and the forces that are interested in mutually beneficial cooperation (at least, these forces have learned to live this way and consider it a blessing for all of them), united in the struggle, and not in visibility against international terrorism, and one way or another – sooner or later – it can be eliminated. Because it is marked physically, it has channels of financing, supply of weapons and other tools needed to intimidate the international community.
To continue the policy of justifiable intervention and control over the vassals the US hegemony needs a new motive corresponding to the current realities, but excluding the shortcomings of the past. Cyberterrorism. Why not? It has no physical location, which means that its cyber terrorist acts can be attributed to anyone, because it will be difficult to put the source in jail. Rather, conclusively prove who was guilty of it. By and large, it would be impossible to investigate, since it is not possible to find someone to blame in the fictional crime. In general, using accusations of cyber-terrorism, there is no need to provide any evidence, as it may allegedly damage the operation of secret services. That is exactly what happened to the report of the US intelligence services about the “Russian intervention in US elections.” Even in this context, the German media link absolutely illogical things, have put arson of church, migrants, the parliamentary elections in Germany and, of course, Russian hackers in one basket.
Lovely modern circuit, isn’t it? As soon as in your way there is a problem of a separate powerful politician, a company or even a country, you can safely broadcast concocted incriminating evidence accusing these guys of cyberterrorism. Moreover, it is a handy tool for robbery of controlled resources. Let’s say you come across a disloyal owner of the bank, which works under your jurisdiction. Of course, you have access to your security services to the bank’s security system, as this is regulated by law. You easily rob all the customers, and at the briefing, ‘talking head’ states that aliens from the planet Katruk made a hacker attack. What is the result? You have plenty of money, disloyal banker is unable to bring you troubles, and the bank’s depositors alone declare war on the inhabitants of the named planet.
I would like to enlighten inventors of reasons for intervention and their performers that all these machinations will be broken to pieces because of the presence of people on the planet who see the power not in money, but in truth. And these people, as history shows, always win.
Elena Melnik, the DPR People’s Council deputy