[smart (OP)]

The spectacle of terrorism is being deliberately promoted by mass media. But very little is known on the relationship between medias and terrorism. My hypothesis is that medias may promote artificial terrorism through fear-based narratives and violence to justify offensive military operations in Syria and Iraq. Furthermore, artificial terrorism may warrant unilateral military operations in foreign nations as retaliatory measures.Therefore, is the audience of synthetic terrorism taken in hostage to believe in the war propaganda ? How can civilians be excluded from war ? 

[Ophiolite]

The spectacle of terrorism is being deliberately promoted by mass media.

Do you have any evidence for this? I don't mean anecdotal evidence, or appeals to "common sense", I mean do you have citations to any academic studies that support your assertion?

And in what way do you mean the spectacle is promoted? Do you simply mean, given undue emphasis? Or what?

But very little is known on the relationship between medias and terrorism.

That seem unlikely to be true. A search on google scholar for "media terrorism" returns 3/4 million hits. A search for "media terrorism relationship" returns over 300,000. A quick scan of a few of the bits reveals that we actually know quite a lot about the relationship between the two.

My hypothesis is that medias may promote artificial terrorism through fear-based narratives and violence to justify offensive military operations in Syria and Iraq.

Sorry, what is artificial terrorism? Do you mean terrorism that exists only on the pages of the papers, or screens of the TV news? And are you not, perhaps, confusing the intent of some governments to justify military engagement with the actions of the media reporting on them.

(Side Note: media is plural, medium is singular, medias does not exist as a word)

Furthermore, artificial terrorism may warrant unilateral military operations in foreign nations as retaliatory measures.Therefore, is the audience of synthetic terrorism taken in hostage to believe in the war propaganda ?

No idea what that means! I'm afraid it doesn't parse very well. And what's the difference between artificial terrorism and synthetic terrorism, not that I know what either of them are.

How can civilians be excluded from war ? 

Unfortunately they can't be.

[evan_au]

George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty Four" was written after his ideological involvement and subsequent disillusionment in the Spanish Civil War, where he witnessed propaganda at work first hand. Germany used this war to test their aerial warfare before WW2, and civilians were definitely the victims, as shown in Picasso's portrayal of the shattered town of Guernica.

Tribes, governments, religions and political parties have long sought to demonize those who they see as obstructing their goals; this is then used as an excuse for physical attacks. And sometime later they change their tune, perhaps because they see an even larger threat; their enemies are now their friends while their previous friends become their enemies (and they hope that their citizens have short memories). 

Unlike Orwell's novel "1984", we now have a fairly free press, the ability to self-publish on the internet, and search engines with a long memory, so we can see some of these flip-flops in public policy. (Some aspects of the modern TV spectacle "Big Brother" were derived from this book.)

I think that some of the most hypocritical examples are where a nominally democratic nation uses non-democratic means to install a puppet government in another country; when the puppet subsequently displays the same anti-democratic attitudes as his trainers, he suddenly becomes an evil empire.

In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

I think you would enjoy reading Orwell. If "1984" seems too realistic, "Animal Farm" has some of the same ideas, but is written more like a childrens story.

[evan_au]

How is artificial terrorism different than conventional warfare?

I think that modern terrorism (real or artificial) is not fundamentally different from conventional warfare (real or artificial).

But there are some subtle differences:

• Terrorism tends to be smallish groups, rather than a whole nation. This means that terrorists have less resources than traditional warfare. It also means that there is no single, large target to attack, so conventional warfare does not work as a response.
  
• We now have better education, and better access to scientific data and home-brew recipes via the internet. So small, untrained groups can now access the work of research groups around the world.
  
• Upcoming accessibility of gene editing tools raises the specter of home biological labs. But this is a weapon that cannot be aimed, and will backfire on any group who dabbles in it. 

[smart (OP)]

My hypothesis is that medias may promote artificial terrorism through fear-based narratives and violence to justify offensive military operations in Syria and Iraq.

Sorry, what is artificial terrorism? Do you mean terrorism that exists only on the pages of the papers, or screens of the TV news? And are you not, perhaps, confusing the intent of some governments to justify military engagement with the actions of the media reporting on them.

From the book "Synthetic Terror", by Webster Griffin Tarpley, synthetic (artificial) terrorism is defined as: "a strategy used by oligarchs for the purpose of waging war on the people".

Hence, I think the symbiosis between mass media and artificial terrorism to be a sophisticated use of technology to create fear-based narratives:

without the media’s coverage, the act’s impact is arguably wasted, remaining narrowly confined to the immediate victim(s) of the attack, rather than reaching the wider ‘target audience’ at whom the terrorists’ violence is actually aimed.
...
That is to say, for terrorists, the media functions as a tool to shrink the power asymmetry between them and the entity they fight against in an actual and ideological warfare, create an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, legitimize their acts, and reach greater audiences

http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/22/terrorism-and-the-media-a-dangerous-symbiosis/

How can civilians be excluded from war ? 

Unfortunately they can't be.

I though the Geneva convention would protect civilians from war in Syria and Iraq. It seems likely that artificial terrorism is a method to avoid international treaties and to allow unilateral military operations in civilians zones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#Asymmetric_warfare_and_terrorism

[smart (OP)]

• Terrorism tends to be smallish groups, rather than a whole nation. This means that terrorists have less resources than traditional warfare. It also means that there is no single, large target to attack, so conventional warfare does not work as a response.
  

Are you sure of this? International terrorist organizations like Al-Qaida or ISIS are supported by a range of private individuals, not to say corporations, according to Vladimir Putin.

I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,”
"I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products,"
“The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon."

We now have better education, and better access to scientific data and home-brew recipes via the internet. So small, untrained groups can now access the work of research groups around the world.

Again, I seriously doubt that high-end scientific data can be used to develop weapons of mass destruction without financing and political support.  Moreover, the Internet don't distribute highly sensitive research data; theses are classified informations and are intended for private/military use...

Upcoming accessibility of gene editing tools raises the specter of home biological labs. But this is a weapon that cannot be aimed, and will backfire on any group who dabbles in it. 

Is CRISPR really a biological weapon ? I doubt genome editing is designed to be a weapon rather than a scientific tool. In either case, I suspect that biological weapons may be designed to allow artificial terrorism to create the illusion of genocide.

[smart (OP)]

Artificial terrorism (AT) is the fabrication of terrorism by the state.

AT is defined as the use of narrative structure and refering expressions to generate synthetic terror in media.

9/11 and the emergence of artificial terrorism: The psychological war on terror is a fabrication of the state to invade foreign nations based on the false evidences of Islamic terrorism.

Al-Qaida and ISIS terrorist organizations are pure propaganda created by the state to act as a proxy, the invisible enemy waging asymmetric warfare on America and it's allies. Hence, will the Syrian conflict engage the world into a proxy war against terrorists ?

[alancalverd]

Al-Qaida and ISIS terrorist organizations are pure propaganda created by the state to act as a proxy, the invisible enemy waging asymmetric warfare on America and it's allies.

I don't think the governing regime in Syria would be classed as an American ally. Times do change, however, as any erstwhile brave Mujahaddeen freedom fighter will testify on suddenly finding himself rebranded as a Taliban terrorist. Not that it matters: as long as there is a fight going on, Chinese and American arms suppliers will have a market - they just swap customers from time to time.

That said, "terrorism" in inverted commas is as important a tool in the politician's kit as climate change, and gives governments unlimited freedeom to do whatever they think will get then re-elected (e.g. the nonsensical "war on terror") or increase taxes and control over possible democratic opposition.

You may recall that Tony Bliar said that the invasion of Iraq was not about regime change, and his Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said it was. It would be interesting to know which as telling the truth, but more importantly, a heckler was arrested at the Labour Party Conference for asking that question, and charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (now more honestly entitled the Terrorism Act) for daring to question the integrity of two professional liars. 

It is of interest to note that terrorism is not defined in the Act. It is, broadly, anything the State says it is, until such time as the judiciary establishes useful precedents. So Her Majesty's Government can have you arrested for pencilling a moustache on Mr Cameron's photograph. The charge probably won't stick (very few prosecutions under the Act have resulted in a conviction) but the mere threat of such disproportionate disruption to your life is sufficient to suppress political dissent - which is quite a neat definition of terrorism in my book. 

The fact that real activism is not taken seriously is shown by the handwringing attitude of government to people leaving the UK to join ISIS. A robust response would be to encourage anyone who wants to go by offering a free one-way ticket, and tearing up their passports on exit. 

Anyway, the spread of asymmetric warfare is beginning to affect strategic thinking to some extent. When a bunch of morons decides to bomb Birmingham for the greater glory of Allah, where will the government aim those wonderful Trident missiles in response?  Wolverhampton?   

[chiralSPO]

Propaganda is as old as news (maybe older), but we should consider the sources before judging. tk, I don't know where you live, so I don't konw the quality of the media available to you, but here in the US, there is a wide range of media, few of which are under much control of the govt, and certainly not aligned with one another.

If a news story is being reported by FOX News and the New York Times and Al Jazeera and BBC and the AP, there's probably truth to it.

If a news story is run by SANA (the Syrian govt's news) or the Russian or North Korean equivalents, and not covered by other outlets.....yeah it's probably just propaganda....

Also, the ability of people other than reporters to post what's going on around them in social media (facebook, twitter, etc.) it is much harder for governments to control (even in places like Syria, Egypt, Iran, Russia, China...)

[evan_au]

the invisible enemy waging asymmetric warfare on America and it's allies

Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" waged an asymmetric war against the British regular army.

Today we would call him a Terrorist if we were British, but US citizens would still call him a Patriot.

So "Terrorist" is just a label of convenience, applied by the government as an excuse to take military action. In a totalitarian state (and "1984"), the media always echoes the government line; in a country with a free press, there will be some dissenting voices.

How can civilians be excluded from war?

Both regular and irregular fighters attack civilians; this can be in the form of targeted attacks or merely "collateral damage".

Individual terrorist attacks gain most attention by primarily targeting civilians. So two teenagers in Boston with internet access but no direct external backers could make a considerable impact on the Western world because it was broadcast live on national TV, and then echoed multiple times in the following hours and months in news broadcasts.

• This attack had no military value (maybe a policemen standing nearby may have been injured?)
  
• It was designed to maximize harm to civilians
  
• The media made the most of it - grabbing eyes on screens
  
• The impact was mostly psychological
  
• The government made the most of it - gaining support for tougher actions against terrorists 

On the other hand, the group who targeted the World Trade Center were well-organized, with rich backers who paid for pilot training.

• The WTC itself had no military value (but the near-simultaneous Pentagon attack was a military target)
  
• It was designed to maximize harm to civilians
  
• The media made the most of it - grabbing eyes on screens
  
• The impact was mostly psychological
  
• The government made the most of it - gaining support for tougher actions against terrorists 

The bombing of London, Tokyo and Berlin in the second world war was conducted by states against the population and military of the country. It's just that the public are a bigger target with less protection, so they suffer the most casualties.

International terrorist organizations like Al-Qaida or ISIS are supported by a range of private individuals, not to say corporations

When organizations take control of an area by power, they also take over its industries - whether it be oil in the Middle East, Cocaine in Columbia or Diamonds in the Congo. They become the corporations.

There is no doubt that Islamic organizations consist of individuals, but they have the goal of forming an Islamic State that obliterates all current national borders, emulating the life work of Mohammad. They aspire to become a superpower. Individuals with similar aspirations far from the Middle East may then wage asymmetrical warfare within their own nation.

Whether you call them "Terrorists" or "Patriots" is determined by which side you are on.

My hypothesis is that medias may promote artificial terrorism through fear-based narratives and violence

I suggest an alternative view: terrorists get the most "bang for the buck" by targeting civilians and exploiting the media to get their message to people far beyond those involved. This causes psychological damage (including depression and even death) far beyond the blast radius.

Governments then use this emotional outburst to divert attention from real "us" problems to what is presented as a "them" problem.

For example, major action over more than a decade was taken by the US government after the death of around 3,000 people in the WTC attacks. Last year, around 32,000 died in gun-related incidents in the USA, but it seems that little action has been taken beyond a few speeches by the current President; government-funded scientific research into gun deaths is still banned in the USA.

[smart (OP)]

So "Terrorist" is just a label of convenience, applied by the government as an excuse to take military action. In a totalitarian state (and "1984"), the media always echoes the government line; in a country with a free press, there will be some dissenting voices.

I agree. The relation between the media and the propaganda appears profitable for the state. Military occupation of Paris creates revenues for security businesses. A 1984-like hijack of cities by the military appears as a probable case of the militarization of the state and police for political reasons.

[smart (OP)]

I don't think the governing regime in Syria would be classed as an American ally. Times do change, however, as any erstwhile brave Mujahaddeen freedom fighter will testify on suddenly finding himself rebranded as a Taliban terrorist. Not that it matters: as long as there is a fight going on, Chinese and American arms suppliers will have a market - they just swap customers from time to time.

The military occupation of Syria won't help. Syria is no American enemy. The fundings and arms suppliers of ISIS should be investigated.

[alancalverd]

But it was only a couple of years ago that the British government was considering arming ISIS in its brave fight against the evil Assad regime which was being propped up by the Russians! The Russian Ambassador explained their position succinctly: "we may not agree with everything Assad does, but the government is at least stable and predictable - better the devil you  know." Pretty much the same with Saddam Hussein.

[alancalverd]

The fundings and arms suppliers of ISIS should be investigated.

1. Oil.  2. China. As always, except when the CIA provides both.

[smart (OP)]

1. Oil.  2. China. As always, except when the CIA provides both.

In simple terms, the CIA may steal the election...

[smart (OP)]

ISIS and Al Qaida are creations of the CIA. Artificial terrorism is the emergence of cooperation between the media
industry and the state: The engineering of fear-based narratives is pure propaganda.   

[Aemilius]

The spectacle of terrorism is being deliberately promoted by mass media.

Do you have any evidence for this? I don't mean anecdotal evidence, or appeals to "common sense", I mean do you have citations to any academic studies that support your assertion?

Multiple documented precedent setting examples of these tactics having been employed over a span of at least fifty years. All the information anyone needs to aquire a good understanding of the False Flag process is right here (along with a number of other informative accompanying links describing other documented examples). Operation Northwoods....

[puppypower]

I think the media is partly responsible for terrorism, because it helps to subjectively escalates the terror, so people will stayed tuned so they can sell commercial time. This extra attention indirectly helps to promote those who engage in terrorism, but making them believe that have an extrapolated fear impact.

If there was a terrorist act, but I was on vacation away from the TV, radio and internet, I would not know enough to be afraid, especially if it occurs thousand of miles away. My terror will not begin until I see that terror act reinforced over and over. Now the terrorist has me in his audience.

As an analogy, when there is a jet airliner crash, the media coverage becomes exhaustive, with experts and analysis. Many people  will irrationally conclude that planes are falling from the sky left and right based on the amount of attention given. The fear is compounded beyond reason. Politicians will feel the political heat to do something to appease the compounded fear. This requires an investigation and maybe even a shake down of the airlines to appease the fear that is terrorizing the people. The airlines become terrorists until they can prove otherwise.

Hypothetically, say the goal of the airlines was that of a terror organization; scare millions of people. Based on media history, all they needed to do was down one plane, and let the media and politicians inflate the situation. They could pay pennies on the dollar for a full terror impact. They will get free help from media and politicians who benefit.

The reason is, the media makes money through advertising and commercials. One test proven formula is people will stay tuned longer if there is fear in the news; fake, inflated or real. You will get the rubber necker audience who likes to look at blood and gore connected to fear. You will also get those who can be easily induced to fear and like to hate others. Once these people know about the latest fear, they cannot become settled until they are reassured all is well and/or all the blood is wiped up. In the mean time, they will sit and watch a parade of experts, while also watching all the commercials generating revenue. Good news causes people to feel good, so they don't need to stay tuned all day. If we do a weighed average of good and bad news, most people assume there is mostly bad news, due to weighted average. 

If you look in Syria, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost due to the war. Yet more TV time will be given to the smaller number of deaths due to terrorists car bombs. If people weight the data, based only on the media time given per death, one would need to conclude the terrorist are the more potent source of fear. One rag tag car bomb is100 time scarier than a cruise missile that can take out a city block.

If you look at the total terrorist related deaths in US since 911, this is less than the annual deaths due to murder in the city of Chicago. Yet people are conditioned to think less is more. The data is not being weighted properly; science. There is no outcry to deal with the Chicago more, more than the terrorism, less. There is no sense of proportion in terms of data weight because of political and media reasons.

Politics can also define how the media will weight data, so they can help promote or protect political interests. The main stream media is the propaganda wing of the democratic party. We all know that. While the democrats control politics in Chicago, therefore this data will be weighed light by the mainstream media. It will be periodically reported, but this report will not last all week and force action.

Terrorism can be big business for many special interests, like the military supply industries. It can also help either political party; D or R, against the current administration; D or R. In this election cycle, terrorism benefits the republicans. If an republican is elected, mainstream will push terror more, so it benefit the D's.

Mass shootings are also connected to the media. The shooters is often disgruntled people who at looking to be noticed in a big way. The media rewards the bad boy with extended coverage. If they does really good, the media might give them a minute at the end of a broadcast. But if you do bad, you are guaranteed a week up front, and possible months of trial. If fame is the goal of the suicidal loner, bad behavior is better for the media, so they will reward one for that with much more coverage.

[Ophiolite]

So rather than blame the media and politicians, why not blame Joe Public for being so irrationally foolish, uninformed and innately cowardly as to be scared/terrified by such events?

[smart (OP)]

So rather than blame the media and politicians, why not blame Joe Public for being so irrationally foolish, uninformed and innately cowardly as to be scared/terrified by such events?

There's a difference between being uninformed and disinformed. Disinformation is not the public fault: it is the media who create the illusion of artificial terrorism.