| abstract | - In recent years, terrorism in the Middle East has been brought to Western attention through many tragic events, with 9/11 being at the forefront (although, to be sure, Middle Eastern terrorism has been a tempest in a teapot at least since the 1970s). Similar actions would resonate with viewers as the acts of villains. However, there is the fear that depictions of Muslim terrorists would be unfair to all the non-terrorist Muslims in the viewing audience, not to mention religiously intolerant -- and if there's anything the masters of Executive Meddling are dead scared of, it's offending a potential rating point. This is further complicated by the fact that most Muslims disapprove of the tactics used in the War on Terror, now known as "Overseas Contingency Operations" under the Barack Obama administration. Some even support the mujahideen, seeing them as freedom fighters. During the Cold War, Ronald Reagan even dedicated a shuttle launch to the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan, calling them "brave freedom fighters". The solution in television seems to be to make all the movers and shakers behind terrorist acts Westerners. While one would be wise not to ignore such individuals as Timothy McVeigh, it can lean so far in that direction as to be unrealistic, since the vast majority of American news stories about terrorism in the past fifteen years, as well as by any measure of casualties or number of incidents, even aside from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, have been about Muslim terrorists. This, however, can also be seen as an example of political bias in the media. An incident of a person going into a building and shooting wildly are often defined as "criminal" if the perpetrator is white or black, and terrorism if they are Muslim or Arab. Also, attacks that are carried out against American soldiers in Iraq by former members of the Iraqi army are perfectly legal under international law - they are defined as partisans (if and only if they have a chain of command, some means of identification from a distance, and carry their weapons openly; otherwise, they are unlawful combatants). That doesn't prevent the media from calling their attacks terrorism despite their legal legitimacy. Some groups of Western Terrorists that have appeared in media and news are the ELF and radical(er) factions of PETA, whose actions have been dubbed eco-terrorism. (PETA, for one, is more infamous for acts of bizarre street theater, although even these are often so obnoxious and cruel that they could qualify as terrorism.) The Unabomber, Lucas Helder, and Lee Malvo are other examples of Westerners whose criminal actions have been described as terrorism. There are also militia groups with ideologies similar to Timothy McVeigh's, though they have committed far more heinous crimes in fiction than in Real Life. In general, terrorists most frequently attack and are most effective in areas they are familiar with, and where their presence is less likely to raise suspicion. Even terrorist attacks on American interests by Arab Muslims occur more often (though perhaps less spectacularly) in Arab countries like Iraq or Muslim countries like Indonesia. In that regard, for decades, The Troubles in Northern Ireland were a perfect alternative for TV to use; a definitely European dispute, with white Christians involved in sectarian violence which included riots, shootings and bombings violent enough to satisfy any action show. Naturally some writers still managed to get it wrong - Tom Clancy has portrayed the left-wing nationalist Provisional IRA as Commies more than once, when that is the very issue over which they split with the genuinely communist Official IRA and although remaining secular and left-wing the Provos are by no means Marxist. In point of fact, there are still a few Irish separatist attacks each year, and other separatist organizations in Europe are still alive and kicking. In 2006, Europol noted 498 terrorist attacks within the EU. Of these, three were classed as Islamist, 55 “left-wing and anarchist”, and 424 “ethno-nationalist and separatist”. Yes, that’s more than one separatist terrorist attack per day, mostly in Spain and France. You don’t hear much about about them because a) they have few casualties and b) they’re so common they aren’t newsworthy. More recent Europol reports have similar proportions, but less accessible executive summaries. Another good source of Euro-villainy is the post-Soviet weaponmonger. This person may be a fascist, but usually they serve no cause other than the creation of chaos, a self-sustaining market for their endless supplies of nukes, viruses, and other deadly toys for their more ideologically minded customers to use on each other. In series where such black-market dealers and Corrupt Corporate Executives exist, they inevitably prove to be more dangerous than the Islamists/neo-Nazis/revolucionistas/etc. to whom they're selling weaponry. Newer ones however prefer to reinstall the old Soviet Regime without the communist ideals and instead aim for a rule that will combine the "best" of Ivan and Stalin. In an ironic way, one could consider this more discrimination, suggesting that Islamic terrorists are not capable of being true Big Bads. The above examples are actually unusually detailed. Many Western Terrorists are also Terrorists Without a Cause. Note also that they rarely have much in common with the original meaning of "terrorism". Often overlaps with Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters, especially when the Western Terrorists are portrayed as Irish or white supremacist. See also White Gang-Bangers. Ironically, the first people to systematically employ what we would today call "terrorist" tactics (random bombings, assassinations, etc.) were Westerners (okay, white, but it's close enough): the dreaded narodniki (Russian anarchist-communists) of the nineteenth century, who targeted the Russian royal family at least once. Examples of Western Terrorists include:
|
