If, as in the case of Hasan, McVeigh, and others, we are dealing with a 'lone wolf' type, I think we should be less concerned about ISIS, etc and more concerned about the causes of self-radicalization. 37 of the 68 (54.41%) attacks in Canada between 1970 and 2013 were committed by individuals without any threat group affiliation. The targets for these attacks included, among other things, the Cuban embassy, an abortion clinic, a Kurdish cafe, oil and natural gas infrastructure, and a TV station. The most deadly attack in Canada was carried out by Sikhs while the most deadly 'lone wolf' attack in the U.S. was by a right-wing extremist (McVeigh). So ISIS (or Islamic groups in general) have no clear monopoly on 'lone wolves'. That's a threat that will exist with or without radical Islam's exhortation for violence.
Bill remarks about the 'general loser', 'mentally ill', 'drug abuse' - all of these are contributing factors and while I can't speak for Canada, the U.S. does not have any meaningful process for handling these problems in a constructive way. We think the 'general loser' "deserves it", while the mentally ill are often left to their own devices, and we lock up drug users to alienate them from the legal economy. We should not be surprised that in the social dysfunction and disolocation created as a result that there occasionally emerges a murderous rage in response. Whether it's dressed in white hate or radical Islam does not matter. We could do a better job in preventing violence than responding to it.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks