America+-+'Terrified+or+Terrorist?'

America: "Terrified or Terrorist?" I remember the Fort Hood incident, granted it wasn't too long ago, but nonetheless, it wasn't much in the news, but questions were definitely raised that day, and a little reflection; "no one thought the battle between the West and radical Islam was going to be fought like a traditional war (28)." This stuck out to me, Gibbs didn't say "war between the West and terror" or "the war on terrorism", she specifically calls it a battle between the West and //radical Islam//. To some, I suppose it's calling it like it is, to others, a great misnomer, but I think Gibbs provides some ground to support her use of terms. For one thing, it's best to avoid "war on terrorism" because we don't have a set definition of "terrorism"; "one government study found 109 different definitions (28)." That's been a common thing in all of this terrorism talk, a lack of a solid definition, which then leads to countless debates over what is and what isn't, and that just leaves everyone in a mess. It doesn't help that the "official" FBI definition is "a crime that endangers ... or is violent with a broader intent to intimidate, influence, or change ... opinion (28)." Well with that definition, anything could really be considered "terrorism". Then there's an interesting dilemma raised by this definition too: where do we draw the line between crimes that committed with a broader intent and crimes that are just crimes. To the average on-looker, the answer it right there in the definition; a killer who kills for, essentially, political goals is a terrorist, and those who kill for non-political reasons, like crimes of lust, are just crimes. Except, when looked at further, that means that events like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, much of the proxy wars with the U.S.S.R., Vietnam and Korea, a majority of World War II, and much more is then considered "terrorism". That doesn't sit well with people who'd like to believe "war is war, and war is hell", but it reveals an interesting reason why the "war on terrorism" isn't really on terrorism, but radical Islamist terrorists. Take for example the recent Tuscon shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, and the Norwegian shooter, Anders Behring Breivik; both fall under the set definition of "terrorism" that the government uses, but why didn't we invade or go into an investigation into Norway or Arizona? To some, if not most, it seems down-right ridiculous to even think about doing such things, it just doesn't seem to "fit" with the way we see terrorism. Besides, they may argue, Norway is on our side. Alright, so then Norway should've begun an immediate response, like the U.S. would, against it's own citizens, but it didn't. Granted, both sides will get more and more ridiculous with their arguments untill, at last, someone would throw up their hands and say "we have our crazies, so what?" That so what is pretty important, it basically shows that we're okay with Western terrorism, because it's rare, but not Islamic terrorism, because it's everywhere. Yet in the middle east, I guarentee you that the reverse ideaology is true: they see us as a bunch of loons and they have their few crazies who are doing what they believe is right. Ultimately, it boils down to one thing specifically: Loughner and Breivik were with "us", the people behind 9/11 were with "them", and "they" are radical Islamists.

Hasan's actions at Fort Hood also revealed some disturbing trends of the way radical Islam, and terrorists in general, are acting; alone as individuals. Terrorist groups have adapted to the new environment and have moved onto the internet, where their messages do get around. This means that a person can read a forum that discusses a topic, do a little research, watch a video, and because the internet isn't exactly a well-rounded thing, plant and spread radical ideas in the minds of those who choose to pursue any of these ideas; "if "leaderless resistance" is the wave of the future, it may be less lethal but harder to fight; there are fewer clues to collect and less chatter to hear (28)." I'm torn on this statement. In one way to look at it, individualizing terrorism does not make anything less lethal, it only appears that way. We've become so accoustomed to groups and organizations like Al-Qæda that seem to have an infinite number of roots everywhere and whose tendrils can grasp anywhere that we think a single person couldn't possibly have the power to do the same kind of damage. The problem is that's wrong; Loughner and Breivik were solo-attackers, and they caused plenty of damage, 90 plus people in Breivik's case. Let's not forget the Unabomber and McVeigh, loners who also wrought a good deal of destruction. At first glance, it does seem like there'd be less intelligence to go off of; a lone killer can keep everything to himself, no need for trails or evidence outside of the person's personal life. Yet, there always seems to be signs that the events would happen. After researching these people's histories, authoritites always find signs that are considered "red flags" to their mental conditions, so much that it almost seems as though the event was preventable if only people had noticed. Of course, this is in hindsight, and it's easy to say the event is obvious now, but that doesn't mean we'll be preventing future attacks. People said that the recent Wall Street meltdown had obvious red flags, yet no one saw it coming at the time. The Columbine shooters were loaded with these little red flags, yet, again, no one could believe or understand why someone would do such awful things. It's a conflict in sight, we can't forsee so when an event occurs, we're amazed, but then in hindsight, we're angry because "everyone should've seen it coming, why did the people in charge let it happen?"

So that leads to the question: was Nidal Hasan a crazy radical; or was he just a mental mess? It'd be wrong to cast aside the deaths of all fhose people at Fort Hood by simply saying Hasan had been thrown under too much stress and finally cracked, that would be too generous. Then again, it'd also be wrong to say he was just a cold-blooded killer, no one starts out that way. I think there was more to him, the man that "when he rolled over during a nap and accidentally crushe it [his pet bird] to death, he visited the bird's grave for months afterwords (29)." That statement was just totally gut wrenching, and I think it's saying that Hasan wasn't just someone people could throw under a label and move on with. I think Hasan was looking for something, got lost in this big world, and it got him no where but a dead end. The statement demonstrated that terrorism was now seeping into new crevises of the world, via human emotions. It's becoming a way to lash out against "the system", no one knows what it is exactly, but they want to attack it anyway to feel justified. I don't think Hasan was crazy, he was over zealous and quite radical, yes, but he took every step knowing confidently where he was going. It all means a new system of handling the terrorism problem is in order, including a redefining and what we consider "terrorism", in other words, it's time for a paradigm shift; and if we don't, we might be facing something we don't recognize.