Red tide rising
IN the wake of the most recent mass killing in the United States, several people tweeted that they hoped the Colorado killer wasn’t a Muslim. Some asked on email why James Holmes wasn’t being referred to as a ‘terrorist’ instead of as a ‘gunman’.
Although the semantic difference means little to the victims, the generally accepted meaning of a terrorist is somebody who targets civilians indiscriminately to spread mayhem and fear. His purpose is to make a political statement. A lone gunman, on the other hand, kills at random for largely irrational, non-political reasons. Often, he is a lone wolf with paranoid fantasies.
Although terrorism is not a new phenomenon, it is being deployed across the world by a growing number of violent but dedicated groups and individuals ranging from neo-Nazis in Germany to Islamist extremists in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Recently, a BBC special report focused on a German group calling itself the National Socialist Underground that killed seven Turks, plus a Greek and a German police officer over a 10-year murder spree. Despite the similarity in its methods, police failed to make a connection between these killings until a botched bank robbery last November revealed the truth.
It appears that the German police had barely tried to investigate the murders, attributing them to an unknown Turkish mafia. In the subsequent uproar, federal agents discovered that some documents had been destroyed, leading to suspicions of a cover-up by right wing sympathisers.
In the BBC report, one racist activist said that he could understand – and sympathise with — the motive behind these killings. He then trotted out the same drivel about the need for racial purity that so many extreme nationalist right-wing groups use. The term ‘Nazi’, of course, is the abbreviation for National Socialist German Workers Party, the formal name given by Adolf Hitler to his party.
It is useful to recall that the rise of the Nazi Party coincided with a period of acute economic misery in Germany after its defeat in the First World War. Hyperinflation reached such a level that it took a suitcase full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Unemployment was rife, and middle-class Germans found themselves fighting for survival.
Much of this economic shambles was caused by the harsh reparations forced on Germany by the victorious allies. Billions flowed out of the exchequer in Berlin to London, Paris and Washington. The resultant anger that built up was channelised by Hitler against the allies abroad, and the Jews at home. Millions of Germans flocked to Hitler’s banner, and the National Socialists won 37.3 per cent of the votes in the 1932 elections that propelled Hitler to the position of Chancellor. In the following year, the Nazis had upped their share to 43.9 per cent following a campaign marred by extreme violence and bullying. Thousands of Communists were locked up, and several left-wing candidates murdered.
The point here is that a sudden economic collapse and a feeling of resentment against the ‘other’ can trigger a transformation in political and social attitudes. This lesson from history is relevant in an era of a crisis of capitalism. As unemployment in many European countries soars and social benefits are slashed, right-wing forces expand by focussing public anger against immigrants.
In France, the National Front gained its highest number of votes ever, with close to 20 per cent. Once widely rejected as a gang of racist goons, the party has now attained a level of support and respectability. If Hollande’s Socialist Party has to impose unpopular spending cuts, Le Pen and her National Front would be the major beneficiaries of the ensuing backlash. Needless to say, the party stands for severe restrictions on immigration.
In Greece, months of fiscal belt-tightening imposed by the EU and the IMF has resulted in shocking levels of poverty in a well-off European country. Almost overnight, millions of Greeks see an uncertain future as jobs and pensions disappear. Here again, attacks against immigrants have risen sharply, with the neo-Nazi group Golden Dawn leading the way.
In a post-religious Europe, extremism takes the path of violence against non-white foreigners. Here, because race and colour is the defining identity of many, anger is directed against those from other ethnic groups. In Muslim countries where all too often, faith forms the first and most important layer of identity, those not subscribing to the majority creed are being increasingly targeted.
In Pakistan, for instance, Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus and also Shia Muslims are being attacked and killed in growing numbers. In Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Christians have had to flee their homes. In Egypt, Copts have been discriminated against for decades. And now in northern Mali, we have the spectacle of people being lashed by extremist thugs.
It seems that rising intolerance, fuelled by a variety of causes, is leading to increasing violence. In some cases, as in Kashmir and Chechnya, nationalism feeds freedom movements. In Balochistan, state repression has sparked off a low-level but deadly separatist struggle.
After the collapse and break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, many of us had expected a safer and saner world to emerge. Over two decades later, we learned to our cost that actually, the stand-off between the two superpowers acted as a force for stability, barring in the areas where they clashed through proxies.
Now, in a world awash in weapons, it seems that violence is the first — and not the last — recourse to settle any difference of opinion. All manner of ideologues want to impose their ideologies on the rest of us. Sadly, it is a warped belief in political Islam that motivates so many of these extremist groups. But religion is not the only motive for violence. As we have seen all too often, people like the Norwegian killer Anders Breivik can slaughter 77 people in cold blood without claiming any divine right to kill.
We should all be worried about this trend. In the West, security forces are so preoccupied by the Islamist threat that they often overlook the far deadlier danger posed by home-grown nuts like James Holmes who, with easy access to arms, regularly gun down so many innocent people.
Bravo, What an analysis? I liked it. Thanks
Lets take it from the perspective of the ones suffering. Be it a man woman or child who died at the hands of a single gun man, a group of men or in an air raide in the name of collateral damage I think the logic and drive is a mute point. To me there is only a distinction from the perspective of those who survive or live on, for those who perished it doent matter who the killer is and what theri motive was and hence what title to give them.
I would also like to state more innocent people have died in the name of sense less wars and collateral damage at the hands of people for whom their country or land or ego is bigger than any religion or ideology or faith in the world.
Because James is not quoting bible/talmund to justify his killings, something every muslim terrorist do to justify why they killed. They perceive some imagined war against islam.
So what? Net result is the same isn’t it? Lots of dead innocents.
Terrorists who use Islam are not Muslims, just clever exploiters.
If James Holmes had been Muslim he would have been referred to as the "Islamist Terrorist". Since he is either nominally Christian or Jewish he will never be referred to as the "Jew Terrorist" or "Christian Terrorist" or even a "Colorado Terrorist" or American Terrorist. Why not?
Dr.Imran, I understand your pain. Muslims have outnumbered others in terrorism, and taking the advantages of a free society, muslims take to the streets and denounce the very community who gives them shelter and all forms of hospitality which is available to all.
@gary- Should we start counting deaths of innocent people at the hands of Western militaries from World War Two or World War One?
I believe the answer is in the article. If someone goes crazy and shoots a lot of people, he is not a terrorist. If he says that he is doing it for Christianity and to kill infidels or to teach Americans a lesson or any such political/ ideological reason, then he is. Each terrorist has a purpose, even if it is misguided and irrational.
he has very clearly differentiated between a terrorist and a gunman
This is exactly what is making us terrorist. We simply don't listen to saner part in us and bandwagon only the obscurantist appeals, hence unable to plan anything constructive.
Terrorists use a strategy of terror as a political tool to bend weak people to their will..
"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives
people harder than a fear of sudden death."
— Adolf Hitler
The Taliban are terrorists. Osama bin Laden was an outlaw who sought their protection. He was also a useful religious tool to the Taliban. He was not a terrorist. Osama sought revenge against the United States.
James Holmes also sought revenge against the world. He was not trying to convert anyone to his way of thinking.
Really? Osama sought revenge against the United States and hence wasn't a terrorist?? That is some level of warped thinking mate! And what were his methods of extracting revenge against the United States? Bring down aircrafts full of civilians, bring down buildings full of civilians, bomb embassies full of civilians. But of course, he was just extracting revenge! Those men, women and children were just a means to his noble end.
This kind of Alice in Wonderland logic doesn't help anybody, my friend. Man up, and call this freak for what he was.
As a Canadian, I fully agree with the following conclusion of Irfan Husain:
"…security forces are so preoccupied by the Islamist threat that they often overlook the far deadlier danger posed by home-grown nuts like James Holmes who, with easy access to arms, regularly gun down so many innocent people."
We need to collectively take effective measures against this nefarious trend.
Very good points. One thing, there is a fine line that distinguishes a terrorist from a lone extremist or gunman. The latter can strike randomly without any ideology or due to mental illness or alienation from his fellow citizens. A terrorist on the other hand, could have recourse to aid in information casing/sharing, training, ideological buttressing, arms training, user manuals to maximize casualties, web-content – basically a "support group" of like-minded individuals and perhaps, even state-actors! That is why, when it comes to rare, lone white Caucasians committing terror acts, the west consciously distinguishes them as "lone gunmen". This is a parallel here with the one-off 'Samjautha express' incident, but then when have saner minds prevailed in finger-pointing and equalizing when it comes to sub-continental one-upping.
Very right assessment. In the end all this violence is due to greed of few with ability to indoctrinate many and make use of faliures in state machinery. In all these countries that the author has mentioned the state policing has degraged to such a level due to lack of resources and fundamentalism that violence has become common place. Sadly we lack leaders to can put both the wprld economy and the world politics right.
In a population of 7,000,000,000, a sychopath killing a few scores, in 6 months or so is not a big deal. You can't call it a trend, It is fast travelling news through TV and radio and computers that we even know about them. The odds are as remote as being hit by a meteorite.