There is no generally accepted definition of terrorism but the factors typically mentioned in definitions usually include:
- Unlawful
- Use of violence or intimidation
- Against civilians
- With political objectives
Webster’s definition is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”.
Hence my question. Was the guy driving his van into a group of people coming out of a mosque in Finsbury Park in North London and shrieking “I want to kill more Muslims” committing an act of terrorism? He’s apparently being charged with terrorism.
I don’t believe it is terrorism because there are no indications it had the political objectives associated with a terrorist attack. I also don’t think the guy was crazy. I think he was angry.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think that the attacks in Westminster, Manchester, or London Bridge were terrorist attacks either because I don’t think they were intended to produce political results, at least not political results within the United Kingdom. I think that more than anything else they are intended to signal the virtue of the perpetrators to other Muslims, perverse as that may sound, although they might have been expressions of anger, too, or hatred or just plain crazy.
So, that’s my question. Was it terrorism? If you think it was, please supply your definition of terrorism, taking care that your definition does not overflow its banks and drown any meaningful use of the word.
I think its terrorism in the sense of “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” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
I think the man was angry at Muslims and wants Muslims as a group to be afraid. The key to me is whether the target of violence is greater than the individuals harmed. Was the Muslim community made to be afraid, will they be encouraged to retreat from public space, perhaps leave the country?
It doesn’t matter. This wasn’t a personal attack. The guy just picked a mosque and went. Randomness is the political cause.
What’s terrifying about our world is that it’s possible that anybody anywhere can feel oppressed and targeted, and wish, for whatever unbalanced reason, to give it back. Look at America–people complain about this country as if it’s an Orwellian state in which the media controls everything, silences speech, and tells one what to do. This is nonsense: it literally does not. But metaphorically it makes a lot of sense to certain people who have authoritarian tendencies, and who really can’t handle anything else except their own voices. There’s also a huge market to feed rage. Murdoch Inc. in both England and America is based upon individuating conformists and authoritarians through rage and grievance.
BTW/ My daughter texted a message from Paris yesterday that she was safe. We had to look up information about the terrorist attack because the news was so full of violence (including in Mali) and inane political commentary that an attack that only killed the terrorist was minor. Still the new French President is seeking some emergency powers to be made permanent, an extension of the existing state of emergency and new emergency powers. The target of the attack appeared to be the police, though the stores in the vicinity like Disney and Abercrombie & Fitch made it seem like a shopping area for tourists who could have been caught in the explosion. There is a pernicious cycle at work here, but I don’t think its reasonable to expect onlookers not to react as if something bad could have happened to them when their group is indiscriminately targeted.
Yes, it was terrorism. So were the other attacks you mentioned. Here’s why.
1) Random civilians were targeted.
2) In both cases, there was a political objective. In the case of the London Bridge attacks, the objective was to make life in the UK intolerable, increase the dominance of Muslims politically and punish Dar harb (literally, the House of War, the part of the world not yet ruled by Islam) and thus fulfill a religious obligation as well as inspiring others to do the same.
In the case of the Finsbury mosque, it was a copy cat quid pro quo attack to seek revenge for Muslim terrorism, to frighten Muslims in the UK, and to take matters into the attackers own hands that they felt the UK government wasn’t.
Since the UK government isn’t providing basic safety, one of the chief requirements for any government, I think this could be the start of an unfortunate new trend.
http://www.watcherofweasels.org/another-london-terrorist-attack/
On this we are in complete agreement. As the number of attacks rises, even serious post hoc responses will not be seen as enough by some fraction of the population. And some of that fraction will be motivated to retaliate, leading to a vicious cycle.
I have always preferred a more narrow definition of terror. From the CIA website…..
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
The term “international terrorism†means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
The term “terrorist group†means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
This guy was not a clandestine agent or, AFAICT, part of any group. Just some guy who was pissed. I think we use this term so broadly it is pretty meaningless.
Steve
That’s the view to which I’m inclined as well. IMO the British government’s reaction to the Finsbury Park incident has been pretty darned PC. Maybe I’m seeing a distinction without a difference but I think that one angry guy is different from a criminal conspiracy that’s inspired by foreign Islamists if not actually assisted by them.
I think it fits the US legal definition for domestic terrorism, assuming the intent was to target Muslims:
I’d call it terrorism. It was an act of violence aimed at a specific racial/cultural/social group, intended to harm individuals for no reason other than their membership in that group.
It’s as simple as that, as simple as “2 + 4 = 6”, and I don’t think we have any need to push our analysis much further.
This does not appear to be a religious nut claiming to be directed by the Prophet Elijah. This is not someone maintaining that persons transported beyond this mortal earth enjoy a happier more fulfilling relationship with God so he was just doing his victims a favor. This was just an ordinary violence-prone thug doing something that made him happy.
Maybe this driver had Daddy issues. Maybe his girlfriend rejected him for a more appealing bedmate. Maybe someone promised him a million pound book contract for an exclusive account. Maybe he flipped a coin and it came up “Moslem” this time rather than “Mormon.” None of these things matter in the end. He wished to harm Moslems, he drove into a group of them with intent to harm, and he did commit harm. Period.
Let’s not waste emotional or intellectual effort on psychoanalysis. Give him a trial, so the facts are documented for posterity; convict him of murder or whatever other verdict seems most proper, then execute him or lock him up for the rest of his life. Period. Don’t waste an unnecessary thought on his behalf, or an unnecessary word.