The oldest kind of terrorism aims not to petrify, but to provoke

In a recent piece in the Guardian, Glenn Greenwald questioned whether the horrific murder of British soldier Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich constituted an act of terrorism.[1] The piece raised a number of important points about what terrorism was, for example stating that many argue for an act of violence to be classed as terrorism, it must deliberately target civilians. If this were the case, did Lee Rigby’s status as a soldier make this an act of war, rather than terrorism? Certainly Michael Adebolajo’s claim that the killing of ‘this British solder is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ would suggest that is how he and his fellow killer saw it. Greenwald does go on to identify that the victim was not on duty, not armed nor in uniform, but then highlights the same is true for the vast majority of those killed by the US and its allies in the past decade through drone strikes and other counterterrorism operations.

This link to American and British actions is the crux of Greenwald’s argument, suggesting that if an act of terrorism means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence, then the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade could also be accurately labeled as terrorist acts. 2003’s “shock and awe” assault upon Baghdad is used as an example – a massive show of violence designed to intimidate the Iraqi population into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam’s regime.

Greenwald went on to argue that ‘an act can be vile, evil, and devoid of justification without being terrorism’, and suggests the term is being used due to the political, cultural and emotional punch that it provides. He also suggests that the term is specifically used to describe violence perpetrated by Muslims. Greenwald is entirely right to highlight what is often an extremely hypocritical use of the term terrorism by Western governments, and a sensationalisation of the term by the media. In this instance however, it is entirely accurate to call the murder of Lee Rigby an act of terror, and this should be done for a very important reason.

Terrorism is not, as Greenwald’s article suggested, necessarily about inducing a population or its government to change policies through fear. Since its earliest incarnations, it has also been about provoking conflict, and inspiring others to rise up against a real or perceived oppressor. It is for this reason that we must recognise the murder in Woolwich as an act of terrorism – because we have to understand when we are being provoked. The approach taken by the killers dates back to the earliest days of terrorism, and represents it in its most primitive form. This is best illustrated by the Sicarii in ancient Judea in approximately 50CE. These Jewish bandits would use concealed daggers to murder men in broad daylight in the heart of Jerusalem. Their targets would be Romans, or Jews who collaborated with Romans.[2] While the public killings were partly intended to create a climate of fear, the killers also sought to provoke a large scale Jewish revolt in order to eliminate Roman influence from Judea entirely.[3]

One significant difference between the Sicarii and Lee Rigby’s killers was that the Sicarii would kill by stealth, joining in the cries of indignation in order to avoid discovery, and slipping away to kill again. By making their killing so visible and then waiting for the armed response units to arrive at the gruesome scene, the Woolwich killers were drawing upon the behaviour of another terrorist group – the Assassins. This religious sect, based upon an offshoot of the Muslim Shi’ite tradition was formed in the Holy Land shortly before the First Crusade in 1092. Striking from mountain strongholds, the members of the Assassins would target Sunni religious and political leaders, whom they believed had usurped and corrupted Islam.[4] As with the Sicarii before them, the Assassins aim was to provoke an uprising, in this case of Shi’ites against Sunni Muslims with the hope of reforming the faith. After killing their target with a dagger, the Assassin would wait for capture and execution, believing that their martyrdom would grant them access to paradise. Adebolajo and his accomplice’s behaviour after the murder of Lee Rigby would suggest that they too, like the Assassins, were looking for martyrdom after their attack.

Whilst the killers may not have gained the martyrdom they sought having been incapacitated and captured alive by the armed police, they have certainly managed to provoke the sort of backlash their actions were no doubt intended to generate. This makes their attack not just an act of terrorism, but a very effective one at that. Those whom are marching, taking to social networks with anti-Islamic rhetoric or attacking mosques must realise that every action they take which worsens relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim population of this country – due to the actions of a tiny and twisted minority – simply enhances the success of the terrorist’s attack. Over 200 Islamaphobic incidents have been reported since Lee Rigby’s killing, including 10 attacks on mosques.[5] A YouGov Poll conducted in the wake of Lee Rigby’s murder revealed that nearly two thirds of those polled believed a ‘clash of civilisations’ between British Muslims and white Britons will occur.[6] Such a clash is exactly what the terrorists who perpetrated this attack sought. To give it to them is simply playing into the hands of the extremists.

History holds a warning for those who seek to provoke a clash of civilisations. For the Sicarii, the uprising eventually came, and was a disaster, leading to their brutal suppression at the hands of Vespasian’s Roman legions, the destruction of their temple and the Jewish diaspora. For the Assassins, the clash never materialised, and all the members of the sect were eventually wiped out or dispersed, but not before leaving their dark legacy of suicide attacks on the Muslim faith. In the case of this latest terror attack, the government clearly has work to do in identifying those that are preaching hate and radicalising Muslims. But the general public too have a role to play in not allowing the actions of a tiny minority to distort their views of the millions of innocent Muslims in this country. The most effective counterterrorism action undertaken by the citizens of this country in the wake of the attack has not been the bellicose and prevocational marching of the English Defence League (EDL), nor the aggressive and nationalistic posting on the social networks. Instead, the best defence against this terrorist attack has come in the form of tea and biscuits, served by members of a York mosque to EDL demonstrators. Once a dialogue was initiated between the two groups, tensions were rapidly defused – even enough for an impromptu game of football.[7]As with all terrorism, succumbing to it is a choice. In this instance however, it is not bravery and determination that is required, but tolerance and understanding. The best way to ensure Michael Adebolajo and his accomplice Michael Adebowale come to be seen as murders, and their callous and horrific act classified a crime rather than an act of terror, is not to allow it to fan the flames of hatred and split people who are united in their abhorrence of the heinous murder of a fellow British citizen.