Terrorism, mass shooting – what’s the difference?
By Danish Zaidi ([email protected]) and Hamza Baloch ([email protected])
Las Vegas shooting initiates a very important debate: whether we should label act of mass shooting as terrorism, and can we label an entire race based on that?
The problem is of course that terrorism as a term is notoriously hard to explain. There is no international consensus on the definition, legally or academically. Majority hold this definition of terrorism:
‘Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence, against non-combatants or civilians, usually motivated by political, religious, or ideological beliefs. This needs to have a pattern/structure in the intents of the perpetrators.’
So, saying ‘I kill you in the name of God’ is different than saying nothing at all while killing.
Terrorism is defined by a motive and pattern of that motive upheld by a vast majority constituted as a certain group will make that group a terrorist outfit. While terrorism is socially or politically motivated, organised crime is profit motivated. However, it can become overlapping in case of Mexican drug cartel – trying to achieve dual purpose.
Also, 48% of lone wolf attacks are mentally ill people. Case in point; Man Haron Monis took hostages in an Australian café in December 2014. He claimed that it is an official attack on Australia by the Islamic state. But later, it was discovered that he was just a mentally ill person, as claimed by the Australian PM himself. Similarly, violence perpetrated by a government against another nation is an act of war, not terrorism. Same goes for the violence executed by the state against own people, is an act of repression. Albeit the violence committed by non-state actors, given it is politically motivated, will be an act of terrorism. Criminology also defines terrorism, mass murder and genocide differently. The key difference is the pattern of intent and motive. While terrorism is something that always has a pattern, genocide and mass murder might not have that. It can be act by an individual and that ends with the individual. For example; Hitler’s holocaust is genocide. However, when the idea of genocide is shared by many, it becomes overlapping with terrorism. Case in point; acts of violence perpetrated against Hazara community in Pakistan who are being killed because of their ethnicity and sect (Shiite/shia-ism). Religion in the form of sectarian hate provides the pattern in motivation of Deobandi terrorist groups in Pakistan. Terrorism and genocide are sometimes overlapping, and they occur under indistinguishable social conditions – vis-à-vis conflicts between socially distant and unequal groups. Conceptually they differ mainly in that terrorism is covert and carried out by civilians, and genocide may not be. The main theoretical difference is that terrorism tends to be upward – against more powerful targets – while genocide tends to be downward – against less powerful targets.
Religion because of its emotional appeal provides the motive in most cases. Political ideology takes the second spot in providing resolute intent. Islam is specific case where it is religio-political in nature because some groups call politics as subset of the superset ‘Islam’. Islam is often associated with the word ‘Violence’ in the western media. While that is not true in entirety, there is no sitting on the fence that certain groups within the fold of Islam promote violence. Islam cannot be and shouldn’t be seen as one unit. There is massive compartmentalisation within Islam. Structural moorings of these groups need to be understood in order to stop falling prey to Islamophobia. Atleast more than five schools of thought exist within Islam. Some are paleo-conservatives and others can represent left of the left.
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi – a Pakistani Islamic scholar – said that Islamists or Political Islam is driven by the religious thought which is being preached in some Madarssahs (Islamic centers) and being propagated through political movements. These four doctrines are commonly taught nowadays:
Polytheism and apostasy are all punishable by death.
Non-Muslims were born to be subjugated. None of them have the right to govern.
Muslims should have only one government in the world named ‘caliphate’ and independent states have no legitimacy
Modern nation-state is a form of Kufr and there is no place within Islam.
Above points make politics an essential part of Islam for certain groups. Some sects and factions separate politics from religion and they are – by and large – peaceful. Ostensibly, fascism and violence were promoted through a carefully crafted slow process of indoctrination. Arab world adopted this idea of European fascism – ideas of super-state and super people known as Ba’athism –superimposed onto religious doctrines. In colonial times, it was used as a form of resistance.
On the other hand, White supremacy when taking the political dimension can provide the intent too if violence is widely taught by most, if not all, white folks. However, no white supremacists today challenge the authority of sovereign nations across the world to establish a Christian dome and rule the world. People get confused when amalgamation of religion and majority privilege provides the intent. Like in a Majority Hindu state under certain governments like Modi’s, the rise in communal violence was seen. It is not motivated by the scripture but it is something that is state level. While certain Hindu groups promote violence because of political reasons. But Hinduism, in of itself, separates politics and religion. So, analyst’s take on level of analysis (Individual, inter-state, domestic or global) dimension for state related activities will provide the base for understanding it. If communal violence ends with Modi’s regime, then Modi (an individual) is a culprit.
There is a genocide taking place in a Buddhist majority country Myanmar. Burmese army and people are killing the Rohingya Muslims – an ethnic and religious minority in Myanmar. Buddhist faith is famous for its non-violent approach – Dalai Lama is the finest face of Buddha’s teachings of peace and non-violence but what is happening in Myanmar today can be termed as an ethnic cleansing or genocide. And it cannot be compared with the widespread terrorism driven by a common purpose. Persecution of Rohingyas is not motivated by common goal shared by all Buddhists; it is communal violence and genocide sponsored by Myanmar as a state.
Distinction between the natures of different crimes is important as it is then reflected in the policy. Even radicalism is different than terrorism. In Pakistan, the state is prioritising radicalisation after decade of internal wars with some battle hardened terrorist groups. Radicalism imbibes the political dimension of the threat and can only be taken care off through non-coercive channel. Another example is Sri Lanka’s counter terrorism policy: Sri Lankan government fought a 30 year war and defeated their most powerful and strong opponents Tamil Tigers, they took the hardened approach against the specific groups of militants – very similar to that of Peru’s Shining Path movement where Peru’s government attacked and arrested the top leadership of the Shining Path movement. ‘Tamil tigers’ was a Hindu militant group motivated by political motives and the ‘Shining Path movement’ was a communist terrorist group again motivated by political motives in Peru. When the underlying problem is identified, rules are defined to uproot the menace.
Underlying problem for mass shooting is different – the second amendment. Mass shooting is driven by the policy of not having gun-control. As of June 2017: 30% of US adults irrespective of race said they own a gun. 44% personally know someone who had been shot. 52% want gun laws to be stricter.
In a nutshell, understanding structure of intent and structuring moorings of the groups lays the outline for the act committed to be called as terrorism. Religion superimposed to political motives can provide motive, same goes for social privilege amalgamated with political cause. But a vast majority of supporters of the cause is needed. State sponsored violence should be separated from the groups operating on their own. Then all of this can be easily reflected in the policy.
