Last week, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, a woman working at a food distribution center was beheaded by a former co-worker. Witnesses said that the killer had been trying to convert other employees to Islam, and his Facebook page included a photo of Osama bin Laden and a picture of a beheading.
And now the media is engaged in a debate: should the killing be described as an act of terrorism, or as the deranged action of a disturbed guy who just went “postal” after his firing? An interesting piece in the Christian Science Monitor poses that question and wonders just how terrorism should be defined. Is premeditation required? Does a terrorist act have to be part of achieving some larger terrorist goal?
In some respects, this seems like a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. After all, it’s not as if all terrorist acts are carefully calibrated to achieve some larger and rational geopolitical objective. The Boston Marathon bombings, for example, weren’t designed to take out American leaders or discourage American actions in some faraway land, they were simply designed to terrify random people — which seems like a pretty good definition of terrorism to me.
By that definition, a beheading of an innocent former co-worker by an Islamic man who has tried to convert co-workers and apparently follows the teachings of terrorists falls comfortably within the ambit of terrorism. The depredations of ISIS and other Islamic terrorists have made beheadings — as opposed to other methods of killing — a form of terrorist political statement, and I don’t think it’s far-fetched to conclude that the Oklahoma City killer chose his approach with that understanding in mind.
If we can’t recognize terrorism for what it is, how can we hope to defeat it?