Is ‘Islamic’ the only adjective that modifies ‘terrorist’?
I found this post among the Daily Kos diaries, and it stuck with me because it’s asking a question that, while it deserves to be asked, never is. Indeed…why Is “Islamic” followed so closely by “terrorist” to the exclusion of all other flavors of terrorism, as if the radicalized Islamofascisti have a monopoly of sensless ideologically- and politically-fueled violence.
I don’t know that I’ve ever heard Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, or Timothy McVeigh described as “Christian Terrorists”, and some so-called “Christians” would have us believe that there is no such thing as “Christian terrorism”. SInce peace and non-violence are at the core of Christian beliefs, Christians are somehow incapable of engaging in senseless thelological/ideological/political violence. Well, that’s easy to believe, and it may even theoretically be true, but so many Right-wing nutjobs have spread the banner of Christianity over themselves and their movements that violence has long been associated with intolerant Christian zealots. And it’s not as if there aren’t historical examples of Christians killing for their beliefs…do the Crusades ring a bell?
If you put your mind to it, it would be possible to quickly come up with an impressive collection of non-Islamic groups that could and should reasonably be tarred with the “terrorist” label. Of course, it IS easier, and it does fit the agenda of the Bush Administration to focus on Islamofascists. They’re swarthy, they’re nasty, they don’t think like us…and best of all, they’re phenomenally easy to demonize. Could the American government have asked for a better and easier to hate Bogeyman than swarthy men wearing beards, carrying Kalashnikovs, and spouting a religion and ideology so diametrically opposed to everything America stands for?
Until, and unless, we learn to address the threat of terrorism for what it truly is, we are only deluding ourselves. Terrorism- the use of senseless violence for political, theological, or ideological ends, is not the province of Islamofascists. Christians- or at least those who view themselves as representatives of The One True Faith- are every bit as capable of murder and mayhem in support of their agenda as radical Muslims. It’s easy to forget that peace and non-violence are also important parts of Islam. Christians need to remove their blinders and admit to themselves that there are terrorists right here in this country who claim the mantle of the teachings of Jesus Christ as their inspiration and justification.
Murder is murder, and until Americans lose their selectivity and denounce all flavors of it, we will never truly have any hope of being safe.
I think one of the criteria for being properly labeled a terrorist is *repeated* terror attacks by the same or similar groups, or at least the threat of repetition. One-time attacks are not as effective--once it has happened, it has happened.
So, for example, 9-11 obviously qualifies, since possible repetition was all people talked about. And the unibomber (which was later misspelled unabomber). But Timothy McVeigh, monster that he was, is harder for me to consider a bona fide terrorist, since after his one-and-only attack no one felt particularly in terror of him or his idiot buddies.
Also: the very structure of your original question misses the point: the very *reason* terrorist is sometimes preceded by "Islamic" is because "Islamic" is a modifier, to *distinguish* from other terrorists. Historical perspective helps: "Islamic" and "terrorist" are now linked so often right now is merely due to the nature of current international news.
And it will pass. Thirty years ago it was "Basque terrorist" or "IRA terrorists". In the 1890s it was anarchists. Thirty years from now it will be some other sort--"Wal-mart terrorists" or "hurricane-refugee terrorists", perhaps.