It's Terrorism

ter·ror·ism: the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.
-- Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

ter·ror·ism: (threats of) violent action for political purposes.
-- Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

"Terrorism is violence, but not every form of violence is terrorism."
-- Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism


Today a security guard was shot. Not at a mall. Not at a school. The guard went down when an armed man opened fire inside the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Two other security guards returned fire on James W. von Brunn, an 89-year-old World War II veteran who -- in his blog entry dated May 12, 2008 -- published a piece entitled "Hitler's Worst Mistake: He Didn't Gas The Jews."

The accused shooter's writing goes on to articulate his feelings on the Holocaust: "It is now proven - irrefutably - there were no genocidal gas-chambers used during WWII. 6-million Jews were not murdered."

Why reprint the shooter's name, or quote any of the anti-Semitic trash he writes? Simple. To prove that, by combining his hateful prose with his decision to enter the Museum with a gun and pull the trigger, James von Brunn committed an act of terrorism this afternoon. Period.

Though the term terrorism seemed to enter the American vernacular following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the debate over the definition has recently intensified in mainstream media reports. Merriam-Webster dates the word to 1795 during the French Revolution. Today, more than 200 years on, many Americans choose to align terrorism with those who simply practice Islam.

There are people in this country who -- without a legitimate argument -- accuse our president of living a lie as a closeted agenda-driven Muslim. Some even still argue Obama was born in Africa.

These are the same people who will no doubt fight the notion that today's shooting in our nation's capitol was an act of American terrorism. An American -- who openly advertises his disdain for those of the Jewish faith -- committed an act of violence inside a museum dedicated to preserving the memory of those victimized by vile leadership. James von Brunn used his hatred as his motive to terrorize a monument he refuses to acknowledge.

James von Brunn is a terrorist.

The old man sought to provoke fear through his political agenda, a selfish and destructive act that may ultimately prove deadly for both the security guard and for himself.

My college terrorism course in 2002 was instructed by a self-proclaimed "leftist" Palestinian. But his class opened my eyes. He was not a terrorist sympathiser; my instructor simply wanted his students to realize the layers within a phenomenon we typically blame on those who sound and dress funny. Walter Laqueur's The New Terrorism investigates Hamas and the P.L.O., but also thoroughly examines the I.R.A., the Branch Davidians in Waco and Ted "The Unabomber"Kaczynski. Quite a read.

You see, conservative talk radio chalked up last week's shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller to nothing more than a mentally-challenged gunman, who lacked the fortitude to commit murder for political purposes. The doctor was killed inside a Kansas church. This week his family decided to close his clinic. So, once again, the terrorists won this battle.

The right-wing media solely blame hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremists for committing terrorism. Certainly truth exists here, but denying Fascist/white supremacist motives as a platform for domestic terrorism only further exposes American ignorance.

Folks, while terrorism certainly occurs abroad (al-Qaeda remains alive and active), terrorism is regularly happening here at home. The first World Trade Center attacks in New York. The Oklahoma City bombings. The Atlanta Olympics. Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. Columbine in Colorado. All serve as examples of violent intimidation. And all happened during the 1990s. Only a few, however, are officially regarded as terrorism.

The F.B.I. reports more than 9,000 hate crimes were committed in the U.S. in 2007. These facts are based on incidents involving violence toward a person based on his race, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, even disability. Why, then, are these cases not considered acts of terrorism?

While I realize this may be taking too many liberties with the definition of terrorism, why are we still arguing over its meaning two centuries following its first mention?

And why are the terrorists -- at home and abroad -- still getting their way?

--P.F.