Credit: Facebook
The word 'terrorism'. It breeds fear in all of us. But what does it actually mean?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as thus: 'The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims'.
Perhaps the most interesting part of this definition is the word 'political'. It appears that there has been a shift away from this over the years and I would certainly include 'religious' in that list. But, for me personally, as well as that, it's also crucially missing 'socially'. In fact, I'd go further and say 'any' aim.
'The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of any aim'. That sounds perfect to me, yet there's this inextricable link between religious extremism and terror, as if they are the only two factors that can be bound.
Yesterday, British Labour MP Jo Cox was shot dead by a man purporting to be shouting 'put Britain first' at her while committing the atrocity, with more than one eyewitness making this claim. He was also strongly linked with the National Alliance in the USA and, with this all in mind, it's safe to say he was a Neo-Nazi. Right wing group Britain First has vehemently denied any connection and, as of yet, there's no concrete evidence to suggest otherwise. It does appear it may have been a coincidental turn of phrase that connected him to Britain First. Not that I'm defending the abhorrent fear-mongering and primitive fear tactics Britain First exploits for its aims. Media reports, including ours at LADbible yesterday, have not been reporting it as an act of terrorism. It's been seen as one rogue madman doing something abhorrent. A 'terrible' act, or a 'crazed gunman' or an 'abhorrent act'. Not, crucially, an act of terrorism.
Looking at the official definition of a terrorist, Tommy Mair, the 52-year-old man arrested for Cox's murder, is the embodiment of a terrorist. It was an unlawful use of violence, against a civilian, and, if reports are correct, had a political, or at least social, motive. He is a former psychiatric patient, but does this mean his actions were not terrorist motivated? Not for me. It was an act of terror - as simple as that.
Reports suggest he calmly reloaded between shots and continued kicking MP Cox as she lay bleeding. The BBC has reported him as an 'attacker'. It also alludes in another piece to it being an 'horrific act'. That's all well and true, but surely it should have been reported as an 'horrific act of terrorism'?
The Independent simply put that a man "fatally attacked Cox", and the New York Times, across the pond, stated: "A 52-year-old man was arrested in Ms. Cox's killing, and the police said they were not looking for any other suspects. No motive has been established, officials said". It's all very factual, and the report alludes to his connection with US far right group the National Alliance, but stops short of calling Mair a terrorist.
IS 'TERRORISM' JUST A RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED THING NOW?
On the other hand, Omar Mateen, the man who killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub last week, continues to be labelled a terrorist. It's quite simple: they are both terrorists.
Omar Mateen. Credit: Myspace
Advert
Mateen also had mental health issues, was possibly a homosexual and yet he's been branded as a terrorist, doing ISIL's work, whereas Mair's actions seem to have brought up a grey area. There are parallels between his mental state and Mair's. And although ISIL, IS, ISIS, Islamic State, Daesh - whichever you choose - claimed responsibility, the likelihood seems to be that the group just jumped on the news. Undoubtedly he would have taken inspiration from the fundamentalists, but that doesn't mean he took direction from them too. This was a crazed man who perpetrated an unthinkable act of terror on a community, just like Mair. Even as I'm writing this, the word 'terror' and 'terrorist' is flowing off the keyboard far easier than writing about Mair. The Evening Standard ran with senator Ron Johnson's comments about his Facebook posts being 'terror related'; David Shariatmadari, at The Guardian, wrote an interesting piece explaining that Mateen wasn't your 'normal terrorist', but he still used the word. There are also scores of articles linking Mateen to Islamic extremism and, by extension, branding him a terrorist. His actual link to Daesh, other than being an admirer, is tenuous at best.
Credit: Getty Images
Advert
Perhaps the difference lies in the official line from terrorist organisations? Although Mateen had few, if any, link to Deash, the group was happy to claim it as a victory. As of yet, no far-right Neo-Nazi group has claimed responsibility for Mair's act. Perhaps it is the fact a group is so quick to congratulate or claim responsibility for an abhorrence that propels the act to terrorist status? With that in mind, perhaps it's how terrorist organisations work, how they recruit, and how they implement their barbaric strategies that make it 'more' of a terrorist act.
IS IT THE HELP OR CONDONING OF AN ACT BY TERRORIST GROUPS THAT MAKES CERTAIN ACTIONS AN ACT OF TERROR?
The rules of terror have changed over the years from terrorist groups. Firstly, let me make it clear, bombs are not a new thing. The anarchists in Victorian England used them, the IRA regularly deployed them to devastating effect and bombs will always be used to create terror. Suicide attacks were regularly used by Kamikaze pilots in World War II. Suicide bombing became prevalent in the 1980s. But its history is actually centuries old, started by Christians as part of a crusade. The irony. Although suicide bombings will continue, Mateen showed that you can cause as much horror by legally purchasing a gun.
For those that are groomed by terrorist groups and train up their recruits to commit 'Holy War', there are now different layers in recent history as to the level of training and coordination of attacks. Terrorism has changed. Now groups are using children and women more regularly to achieve their deplorable aims. Soldiers are less likely to shoot a six-year-old boy with a detonator than a grown adult.
They have also used women with Down's syndrome. In Baghdad, Iraq, a coordinated attack on shoppers was carried out. There were remote-controlled explosives strapped to two women with Down's, killing scores of people. These ladies were not terrorists. They would not have known what was happening. Here's what The Guardian reported: "The first targeted shoppers at a pet market in the al-Ghazl area, killing 46 people and injuring 100. About 20 minutes later, a second bomber struck at a smaller bird market in south-eastern Baghdad, killing 27 people and wounding at least 67."
This level of preparation and coordination makes it very difficult for intelligence services to keep us safe, but so is a sporadic, frenzied attack by one person. Both of these are terrorist acts. And Mateen's act didn't need a great deal of preparation: he legally bought a gun and started shooting people. There's not much anyone can do against such evil with the laws that are currently in place on owning a gun. So, in answer, I don't think it should make any difference if a terrorist cell condones an action or not. Terrorism is terrorism, irrespective of the perpetrators' connections to terrorist groups. In fact, I worry that, with firearms in the USA so readily available, Mateen's attack could just be the start of a new terror tactic.
DOES IT MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED AS TO WHETHER IT'S AN ACT OF TERROR OR NOT?
If the media hasn't been quick to portray Mair as a terrorist, perhaps it's due to figures and numbers? That's what went through my head fleetingly. But then I thought, what would happen if, instead of Muir shouting 'put Britain first', he shouted 'Allahu akbar'. This translates to 'God is great' and just because someone is saying that does not mean that person is about to commit an act of terror. It's a turn of phrase. Insha'Allah, 'God willing' is used in every day speech in Arabic as meaning 'hopefully' or 'maybe' or 'I hope so'. It doesn't really mean that much.
Anyway, away from that digression, if he shouted Allahu akbar, I absolutely believe the media would have reported it as an act or terror so the short answer is no, I don't think that numbers of casualties makes any difference.
SO WHY HAS TERRORISM BECOME SO NARROW-MINDED?
The anarchists in the Victorian age were terrorists. There's no doubt about that. Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168 people in Oklohoma in 1995 after detonating a bomb in protest of the government's handling of the Wako Siege, committed an atrocious act of terrorism.
Yet the western world changed forever on September 11, 2001. A group of men, headed up by Egyptian Mohamed Atta, (someone from the middle classes), ploughed two planes into the World Trade Center in New York.
Mohamed Atta. Credit: Getty Images
Advert
It was then that President George Bush called for a 'war on terror'. Here is his most well-known speech on the matter.
it is at this moment, I believe, that 'terror' and religion became intertwined. But this needs to change. Terrorism is an act of terror, not necessarily an act of religiously-motivated terror.
Advert
9/11 changed the dynamics of terror. Credit: Getty Images
In short, what Mair did yesterday was an act of terror. It's time that the media reports any act that intimidates or causes harm to a civilian or civilians for any reason as an act of terrorism. This should start today.
Advert
Unfortunately, I don't see all this madness in the world ending any time soon.
Words Patrick Hulbert
Featured Image Credit:Topics: Attack, terrorism, 9/11, World News, ISIS