The subject of terrorism is a thorny one for most people in the modern western world. We see little of it (unlike such countries as Yemen), but from what we know of it, it is a most unpleasant act. Most Americans can vividly recall watching hijacked jetliners piloted by Sunni Muslim radicals working for Al Qaeda, smash one by one into the World Trade Center, and subsequently the Pentagon. They may also remember the bombings in Oklahoma City, carried out by anti-Federalist Gulf War veteran, Tim McVeigh. The British will remember the attacks carried out by Al Qaeda on 7/7, targeting public transport. A Norwegian Labour Party Youth island retreat was just recently the target of a mass shooting by an anti-multiculturalism terrorist.
Terrorism comes in all forms, from all sides of what we call ‘the political spectrum’. In Italy during the 70s, the so-called ‘Years of Lead’, pseudo-fascists bombed several targets including police stations and trains. Some ways away in South Africa, Nelson Mandella’s acolytes (mostly of a Marxist stripe) engaged in a bombing campaign that hit discotheques and malls under the Apartheid regime, killing men, women, and children, mostly black as it turned out.
This thing, though it is rarely seen from our perspective, is jolting to our senses. It is completely out of the ordinary for the modernist political system to be opposed with violence. The elites of modernity simply cannot fathom how anyone could oppose their tolerant, liberal utopias, and go as far as resorting to violence to destabilize them, but what exactly is ‘terrorism’.
But was Roeder a religious terrorist? A religious man who happened to be a terrorist for sure, but was religion truly the central motivating factor of his terrorism? No. Roeder was not seeking some supernatural change, he was seeking a political one, or perhaps a judicial one. He wished to carry out a just execution of a murderer that the government refused to conduct, but also no doubt sought to use fear to prevent men like George Tiller from taking up the practice of child murder elsewhere in the country, at least to some degree. Under the first judicial motivation, the assassination was not terrorism, but rather vigilante justice.
What of Islamic terrorists, do they not terrorize for supernatural goals? First, it must be said that often a distinction is not made between Islamic militants and Islamic terrorists. Most of the men whom the United States military killed in Afghanistan were not primarily terrorists, but militants, engaged in combat against an invading army. Singling out actual terrorists, who plot in the shadows against civilian targets, it seems clear that the promise of the Jihadist’s ensured eternal salvation should he die in the course of Jihad is not the real cause of this terrorism. It may be an additional motivation, a kind of side-reward (especially to the suicide bomber), but at the core are always the political goals of Islam, which are far more important than any single Muslim’s salvation. Muslims are commanded to further expand the Dar Al-Islam (House of Submission), into the theater of the Dar Al-harb (House of War), to further the political authority of Islamic rulers, the expansion of the Caliphate. All Islamic terrorism is primarily party to this effort.
(To Be Continued…)