A Response to the Opiated: The Contingency Test of Hypocrisy in its very Essence – Part Two

As I have promised, I have now posed the second question of my formulated contingency test that is in response to the opiated people whom seem to rather plead ignorance than illuminate their minds and engage in free thinking as opposed to the media hyperbole and divisive Daily Mail/Sun rhetoric.

The second question is as follows:

2. Can the label still be applied to so-called terrorist acts committed by non-Moslems?

In answering this question, it should be noted that previously in part one of the contingency test we established the intrinsic definition of terrorism as so provided by the government legislation (UK Terrorism Act 2000), the acts that it encompasses/includes and if this same epistemology of reasoning can be applied to far right organisations who partake in the same actions of those ironically they condemn especially when committed by participants belonging to the Moslem faith.

Upon establishing this, we now move on as to whether this label can be applied to terrorist acts committed or perpetuated by non Moslems – but before doing so, let’s look at some historical case studies and statistics:

Case study 1

Name: Andres Brevik

Religion: Christian (Anglican – Church of Norway)

Act of Terror: 2011 Norway Massacre shooting

Instant facts:

  • Breivik, dressed in a police uniform and presenting himself as “Martin Nilsen” from the Oslo Police Department, boarded the ferry MS Thorbjørn at Utøykaia in Tyrifjorden, a lake some 40 kilometres (25 mi) northwest of Oslo, to the island of Utøya, the location of the Norwegian Labour Party’s AUF youth camp, which is organised there every summerand was attended by approximately 600 teenagers.
  • When Breivik arrived on the island, he presented himself as a police officer who had come over for a routine check following the bombing in Oslo. He was met by Monica Bøsei, the camp leader and island hostess. Bøsei probably became suspicious and contacted Trond Berntsen, the security officer on the island, before Breivik killed them both. He then signalled and asked people to gather around him before pulling weapons and ammunition from a bag and indiscriminately firing his weapons, killing and wounding numerous people. He first shot people on the island and later started shooting at people who were trying to escape by swimming across the lake.
  • Some witnesses on the island were reported to have hidden in the undergrowth, and in lavatories, communicating by text message to avoid giving their positions away to the gunman.The mass shooting reportedly lasted for around an hour and a half, ending when a police special task force arrived and the gunman surrendered, despite having ammunition left, at 18:35. It is also reported that the shooter used hollow-point  bullets which increase tissue damage. Breivik repeatedly shouted “You are going to die today, Marxists!”

Case study 2:

Name: Eric Robert Rudolph (aka the Olympic Park Bomber)

Religion: Christian (Roman Catholic)

Act of terrorism committed: Series of anti-abortion and anti-gay-motivated bombings across the southern United States between 1996 and 1998, which killed two people and injured at least 150 others.

Facts of the Instant Case:

  • Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta which occurred on July 27, 1996, during the 1996 Summer Olympics. He called the police, warning about the bomb before it detonated. The blast killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Melih  Uzunyol a Turkish cameraman who ran to the scene following the blast, died of a heart attack. Rudolph’s motive for the bombings, according to his April 13, 2005 statement, was political.
  • In the summer of 1996, the world converged upon Atlanta for the Olympic Games. Under the protection and auspices of the regime in Washington millions of people came to celebrate the ideals of global socialism. Multinational corporations spent billions of dollars, and Washington organized an army of security to protect these best of all games. Even though the conception and the purpose of the so-called Olympic movement is to promote the values of global socialism as perfectly expressed in the song “Imagine” by John Lennon, which was the theme of the 1996 Games — even though the purpose of the Olympics is to promote these ideals, the purpose of the attack on the 27th July was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand. The plan was to force the cancellation of the Games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested.
  • Rudolph confessed to the bombings of an abortion clinic in the Atlanta suburb of Sandy Springs on January 16, 1997; the Otherside Lounge of Atlanta lesbian bar on February 21, 1997, injuring five; and an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama on January 29, 1998, killing Birmingham police officer and part-time clinic security guard Robert Sanderson, and critically injuring nurse Emily Lyons. Rudolph’s bombs were made of dynamite surrounded by. 

I could advance further examples of terrorist atrocities/acts committed by non-Moslems, but that allow the likelihood of digression to occur. However I will point out that the common factor with all of these perpetrators: is that the media never once labelled them terrorists. Rather labels such as “serial killer” were applied with excuses often advanced to attempt the mitigate their wrong doing such as “being of unsound mind” or having their familial background contextualised to perhaps create a sense of sympathetic undertone to try and explain why they did what they did.

Nevertheless, these techniques of neutralisation would never be advanced in attacks or incidents where a Moslem was the active participant of the incident – therefore (at least at a societal level) the label won’t be made applicable as the image of what a terrorist is assumed to be is that of a Moslem.

See…the irony here – as I am sure you are now understanding from the cases studies advanced and analysed – is that terrorism and more specifically the label of a terrorism is very much selectively applied to mainly (if not exclusively)

There are a plethora of reasons to account for this: firstly, to label attacks done by Muslims as ‘terrorist’ and make these acts synonymous is within the media’s interest. Why? Well….it would very much improve sales of newspapers, and in making this improvement of sales, it would involve capitalising upon the fears and suspicions of the general public. Another reason I postulate would be how making the label of terrorism only applicable to Moslems, it gives particularly Western governments more scope i.e. more of reason to further their foreign policy interests as exemplified in the countless (and often pointless) military wars and expeditions undertaken to achieve their own person, hedonistic gains.

All in all, through both parts I have discussed at fair length the various inconsistencies of the term ‘terrorist’ and its biased application when deciding what amounts to terrorism and who may be encompassing of this label. Personally, I can only hope and anticipate that it enlightens some people of their ignorance – and that is my purpose fulfilled.

You do the rest.

N. AbdurRahman