As you’ve probably heard, a UK man assaulted pedestrians with a vehicle last night.
What’s new and different is that, instead of the usual Muslim trying to kill infidels, he was an infidel trying to kill Muslims. Needless to say, his murderous actions were wrong and I condemn them.
What amazes me is that this sort of thing hasn’t happened sooner. European and UK authorities have chronically failed to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, prompting citizens to take matters into their own hands. It’s amazing that it took this long for one of their citizens to do so.
As an aside, I’m slightly puzzled by whether this attack should be called “terrorist”. In deciding what to call combatants, I have always used the following matrix:
- Uniformed soldiers attacking uniformed soldiers: Honorable combatants.
- Uniformed soldiers attacking civilians: War criminals.
- Civilians attacking uniformed soldiers: Irregular / guerilla forces.
- Civilians attacking civilians: Terrorists.
The underlying premise is that a war is going on. Islamic terrorists are called terrorists, in part because they are engaged in a war (against the infidels and/or to establish the supremacy of Islam). Or, as they call it, “jihad”.
If we call this UK guy a terrorist, we implicitly acknowledge that the UK (among others) is in a war with Islam and this particular combatant is on “our” side, however wrongly he goes about it. Do we not? Rather than do that, I’m inclined to just call this UK guy a lunatic mass murderer.
Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Again, due to the failure of UK and European authorities to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, a case could be made that the guy is a combatant in an ongoing war with Islam – albeit a degenerate combatant; a civilian attacking civilians – thus a terrorist.
So that’s what I’m stuck on…whether to call him a terrorist or a mass murderer?