Commentary Magazine


Was the Charleston Shooting Terrorism?

“The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart has called the Charleston shooting which murdered nine worshippers terrorism. It certainly was a hate crime, but was it terrorism? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It all depends on what the definition of terrorism is, and that is something surprisingly unresolved after decades of fighting terrorism. In 1988, Western countries used more than 100 different definitions of terrorism; 25 years later, they used 250 different definitions. Today, there are even more. The international community and the United Nations have not agreed on a single definition. President Barack Obama, for his part, has simply sidestepped the issue. His 2011 “National Strategy for Counterterrorism” avoids defining terrorism, even as it defined other terms such as “affiliates” and “adherents.”

University of North Carolina sociologist Charles Kurzman (who also happens to be a leading scholar of the Islamic Revolution) penned a thought-provoking op-ed along with Duke University analyst David Schanzer in the New York Times earlier this week. They argued that fear of Islamist terrorism against the United States homeland is overblown, and that the numbers suggest a far greater threat from “right-wing” terrorism:

The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police. In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism….

Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years. In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.

Now, I happen to disagree with Kurzman and Schanzer in downplaying the threat of Islamist terrorism, and much hinges on definitions. A right-wing militiaman (or a left-wing activist, for that matter) shooting at a policeman or police station) isn’t seeking murder and mayhem on the same scale as detonating a car bomb in Times Square or blowing up an airliner over Detroit. Not every shooting is a terrorist attack, just like not every incident of domestic violence is an honor killing. That doesn’t make the crime or the attack any less noxious, but the terrorism label is a powerful thing, and applying its use everywhere and to everything as increasingly happens simply erodes its meaning.

Either way, it’s long past time to standardize the definition of terror in U.S. policy circles. In 1975, the British journalist and writer Gerald Seymour coined the phrase, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” in his novel Harry’s Game, set during the height of the British conflict with the Irish Republican Army. In the decades since, it has become the catch phrase for proponents of moral equivalence. Many countries to which the United States gives counterterrorism assistance—Turkey, for example—have an à la carte approach to terrorism, where they will condemn it when it occurs in their own country, but endorse and even support it when it targets Syrians and Israelis. That sort of nonsense should never be tolerated.

If policymakers adopted a short, clear, and concise definition of terrorism, for example, “The deliberate hijacking, kidnapping, or murdering of civilians for political gain,” and insisted anyone receiving U.S. assistance sign onto that definition as a prerequisite, the fight against terrorism could be advanced, and the notion of excusing or even financing terrorism out of sympathy to its cause (think Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Qatar) could be confronted.

When it comes to domestic terrorism, the same definition might and should apply. Perhaps the church shooting by an avowed racist should equate to terrorism. The goal was not simply murder, but to terrorize a community. But it is unclear whether the shooter had a political agenda he really wanted to advance, or whether he was simply motivated by his own brainwashing into an ideology of hate. It’s understandable to say, “Who cares?” After all, it’s a tragedy, and too many lives were cut short. The danger is, however, simply leaving such issues of domestic terrorism undefined also makes it easier to hijack them for political purposes on either side of the political spectrum. Think the silly attacks on conservatives in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting, when the shooter was suffering from mental illness and not motivated by politics. Or how some parsed Norwegian mass murder Anders Breivik’s writing to castigate selectively some of those whom he had read, but did not apply the same standard to those whom Usama Bin Laden had in his library.

Simply put, whether Islamist terrorism, right wing terrorism, or left wing terrorism is the paramount threat (or any terrorism regardless of its political flavor), it’s crucial to define the target of the fight. With all due respect to the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, we can’t kick the can down the road on an issue of growing importance and just say, “We know it when we see it.”

Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »

3 Responses to “Was the Charleston Shooting Terrorism?”

  1. K T NOELL says:

    An act of terrorism has the purpose of intimidation.
    An act of murder may have one, or more than one motive.
    The Charleston murders were not ipso facto terrorism, despite Mr. Rubin’s assertion.

    The devious PC logic that led us into the land of “hate crimes” is to be decried (as, incidentally, is the M’Naughton Rule, perhaps a PC forerunner). There is no ethical or moral basis for differentiating between first-degree murder and “hate-crime” murder. Both have motives and both utilize forethought. Both should have the same penalty. Why should it matter if a man kill a black because he’s black, or kill his wife because she is unfaithful?

    Murder is murder.

    • IKE BASMAN says:

      I disagree with most of what you say.

      Your definition of terrorism is inadequate. It’s more than intimidation. It’s something like terrorizing civilians to further a political agenda.

      Rubin nowhere asserts, as your comment implies, unless I missed it, that these latest killings in SC were terrorism, ipso facto or otherwise.

      Why is the logic behind hate crimes devious and what has that logic to do with Political Correctness? Murder is murder true, but killing out of racial or ethnic or some other fundamentally human hatred is a unique and superadded dimension to murder that ought to and does engage the state in a specific way to bring the murderer(s) to justice. Hate crimes are a blow against the very fragile threads binding the state, where all are presumed equal, together.

      Finally you lose me in positing the rules for criminal insanity as a forerunner of Political Correctness. These rules want to lay down the conditions for pleading the lack of intent due to insanity. They have plenty of critics but none I’ve ever seen grounded in anything like Political Correctness.

  2. JOHN BURKE says:

    Wait…right wing extremists in the US killed 254 people in the decade after 9/11?! How did I miss that carnage? Why did CNN miss it? Surely they would have had wall to wall live coverage?

    Well, if you did down into that “West Point study,” which is long detailed and quite impressive with lots of charts and graphs, you find that the authors have assembled a database of thousands of “attacks” drawn from various sources including internet searches and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s database of “hate crimes.” Alas, this new database is not accessible online with the study and I’ll bet it’s just as hard to obtain as Hillary’s emails.

    My guess is that since the authors classify as “right wing extremists” a huge array of groups and types that these attacks include beat downs by skinheads and biker gangs, prison murders by Aryan Brotherhood members, random gay bashing and just about any attack on non-whites by whites that the SPLC categorized as a hate crime.

    This is not to say I think there is no problem of right-wing violence. But it doesn’t add up to a “terrorist” threat five times as lethal as jihadism. This is just another attempt — a sophisticated one — to downplay the threat of Muslim terrorism.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
for full access to
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
Don't have a log in?
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.