We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. But do we know how to recognise an act of terrorism when we see it?
The massacre at Fort Hood is definitely not being treated as terrorist attack in the US. Investigators have concluded that there were no co conspirators either inside or outside the US military and so they are content to treat this as the act of a crazed lone gunman.
The fact that they intend to try Major Nidal Malik Hasan in a military court, not a civilian one, further confirms that they don’t think anyone else will be charged and that they don’t consider this terrorism.
In the UK we clearly find the idea of anyone running rampage with guns terrifying in any circumstances. But in the US it’s too horribly familiar. There are all the very high-profile incidents we can instantly recall – from Virginia Tech to Columbine – and there are other incidents that don’t make huge headlines happening all the time.
Even whilst we were reporting the Fort Hood killings on Friday, there was another gunman on the loose in Florida – but I bet you hardly even heard about that one. And the Texas town where Fort Hood is located, Killeen, has seen this before. In 1991 a gunman killed 24 people in a cafe there for no apparent reason before he shot himself.
Mad men who are – legally – armed to the teeth shooting innocent victims is not unremarkable in America. Because it’s not unusual, it isn’t too scary. Not like terrorism – the most frightening word in American-English language.
But why is what happened at Fort Hood definitely not a terror attack? The more we find out about Major Hassan’s internet posts and emails to a radical jihadist, the more it seems there is at least the possibility he was politically motivated.
The Collins dictionary says terrorism is the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal. And that a terrorist is a person who employs terrorism, especially as a political weapon. It doesn’t say they have to come from abroad, be working with others, have met Osama Bin Laden or have strapped on a suicide vest before they attack.
According to the New York Times, investigators have not ruled out the possibility Major Hassan “believed he was carrying out an extremist’s suicide mission,” but so far they have no evidence he was directed into violence or “ever travelled overseas to meet with extremist groups”.
Senator Joe Lieberman is the only person I’ve heard in America call Hassan a terrorist. He calls him a “self-radicalised, home-grown terrorist” and therefore concludes this was “the most destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11″.
I suspect the reason you have not heard others condemn this as a heinous terrorist act is because America is very uncomfortable with the very idea of home-grown terrorists.
They can’t deal with the idea that people born and raised in the US want to attack it. Or work out how to identify the so called “clean skin” operatives who carry passports with the Stars and Stripes on them.
Najibullah Zazi, the terrorist suspect arrested just before 9/11 this year and accused of plotting to bomb New York, is a naturalised US citizen but he is originally from Afghanistan.
If the authorities are right about what he was planning, then that would have indisputably been a home grown terror attack on America, carried out by a man who passed the vetting process to work as a shuttle driver at Denver airport.
But at his trial I am sure we will hear plenty about his Afghan and Pakistani connections, as well as his life in the US.
The idea that a major in the US army could have become radicalized to the point of committing terrorism is too much to bear. Much easier to conclude that no-one noticed he’d been driven to such desperation that he committed an act of mass murder than to think of using the “T” word.
- Get new posts from the world news blog emailed to you. Sign up here for free (link takes you to Google’s Feedburner service)
Commentsoldest first
This has been the major problem in the UK too. When people are asked ‘what is a terrorist’? they usually answer: ‘a religious brainwashed muslim’. This is the problem. Those who control the media have stereo typed this particular section of society, post 911 into the sole perpetrators.
Just like the US, and UK, they just choose to ignore the fact that they are the cause of hatreds that lead to radicalization, whether this be home or abroad. Unrestrained Capitalism is the root cause of hatreds, poverty, inequality, corruption, dominance, control, greed & evilness and, this is what people hate to address… why? because they are part of it.
I don’t believe in terrorists, only in acts of terrorism whether they are carried out by an individual, a group or a government. I think it comes down to motive and intent. If someone comits mass murder because they feel wronged or are suffering from a psychotic delusion and their sole intent is to kill as many people as possible then its murder. However if it is coupled with some other motive, such as highlighting a cause or to influence public opinion then its an act of terrorism. One of the reasons I think the American military has such difficulty with definition of terrorism is that its awfully close to the definition of the tactic “shock and awe” used in the Iraq war.
I find it strange that anyone can link terroism to Capitalism.Why not to Communism?Russia has had its fair share of terroism of late Have terroist acts been committed in the name of Mugabe,and Sadam before he was deposed? So can terroism be said to come from dictatorship or the attempt to dictate.
I believe the chief cause of terroism is religion in its myriad forms and a reluctance to accept anyone elses view,and a refusal to accept and live in harmony with others .Yes terroists are brain washed by dogma and exploitation
Major Hassan may not have been linked to a terrorist group, but he did, as per some definitions, commit and act of terror in that he terrorised people by an act of extreme violence.
America, now under a liberal government. has a growing list of un PC terms politicians and many journalists are hesitant to use. Terrorism and Muslim Terrorist are just two. The powers-that-be fear a violent backlash against Muslims similar to what would happen to Americans in Muslim countries if they committed terrorist acts..
Leave a comment
* Required field.