Why is it that "terrorist" acts evoke much more fear and anxiety than "normal" acts of violence? On my way home from my Uncle's farm back to Paris, a number of people sent Fianna and I messages asking if we were all right. I was a bit puzzled until I found out that a man had wielded a knife and killed one passer by in an area that is about 15 mins away from my house in Paris! I have a feeling that if it had been a standard act of violence people would have reacted differently. For some reason attacking people for your ideas or religion is deemed to be more frightening than if it is for economic (theft) or emotional (passion) reasons. I'm not sure using the Terrorism label is actually useful. I think it would be better to refer to an attack by deranged person or a lost soul. If the reaction to terrorist attacks was sadness for the victims and pity for the attacker, the impact might be reduced. Instead of being treated as a political and religious issue which requires state intervention and appropriate response, it would be discussed as a medical and psychological event. Only doctors, psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists and therapists would get involved in the debate and comment on the individual's motivations. I'm not sure there would be as many candidates for institutional acts of violence if they knew that their actions would be seen and analysed as a personal problem rather than a broader statement.
I think most western countries now encourage public officials to avoid the "terrorism" label for that strategic reason. Admittedly, It took me a long time to come to terms with this.
ReplyDelete