Lone Wolf Terrorism (19 page)

Choudhry was the eldest daughter of a poor family struggling to make ends meet. Her father was an unemployed Bangladeshi tailor. Her mother was born in Britain. Both her parents were living off benefits from the state and whatever income the children could raise through work. Choudhry was determined to make her life better than her parents', attending the prestigious King's College in London, where she studied English and communications and attained high grades. She also volunteered at an Islamic school. However, she inexplicably dropped out of college toward the end of her final year,
despite the fact that she was expected to achieve a first-class degree, which is the highest level in the British university system.
⁶⁷

Unbeknownst to anybody, the model student began downloading the sermons of al-Awlaki in November 2009. She had given no prior indication of being sympathetic to those who espoused Islamic extremist views. But that is exactly what al-Awlaki did in his sermons. He preached “the need for violent action to combat the atrocities of the West against Muslims around the world, and urged followers to do what they could, when they could, no matter how small.”
⁶⁸
Choudhry downloaded and listened to more than one hundred sermons by al-Awlaki between November 2009 and May 2010. She would later tell police that she “became interested in Anwar al-Awlaki's lectures because he explains things really comprehensively and in an interesting way so I thought I could learn a lot from him and I was surprised at how little I knew about my religion so that motivated me to learn more.”
⁶⁹

Choudhry's praise of al-Awlaki was similar to how Italian anarchists in the United States described the influence of another charismatic leader, Luigi Galleani, who, after coming to America in the early 1900s, became a lightning rod for the anarchist movement. His voluminous writings and spellbinding speeches quickly won him a loyal following. Those who heard him speak described him as a “forceful orator,” “most effective debater,” and the “soul of the movement.” One anarchist recalled that “you hung on every word when he spoke,” while another said that “he spoke directly to my heart.” Other testimonials said that “he expressed what I wanted to say but couldn't because I didn't have the words” and that “you heard Galleani speak and you were ready to shoot the first policeman you saw.”
⁷⁰
The same could be said for al-Awlaki, who was able to do all of this over the Internet.

Choudhry didn't shoot a policeman. Instead, she targeted Stephen Timms, a member of parliament (MP) who supported the war in Iraq. She found a website that described his voting record and how he was among the most consistent supporters of the war. “That made me feel
angry,” Choudhry told police, “because the whole Iraq war is just based on lies and he just voted strongly for everything as though he had no mercy.” She added, “I just felt like if he could treat the Iraqi people so mercilessly, then why should I show him any mercy?”
⁷¹

Having decided to assassinate Timms, Choudhry purchased two knives and made an appointment to visit with him at one of his constituency meetings on May 14, 2010. Prior to the meeting, she paid off her student loan, relieving her parents of liability for the debt. After walking into Timms's office, she stated that she had to see the MP and not one of his assistants. Even though the security guard noticed that she seemed anxious, she was still allowed to wait for Timms. When Timms came out to greet her, he was surprised at what he saw. Choudhry, who was dressed in black and wearing traditional Muslim clothing, walked up to him as though wanting to shake his hand. He thought that was strange, since Muslim women dressed the way Choudhry was would not normally take the initiative to shake a man's hand. Choudhry then pulled a knife from her bag and stabbed him twice in the stomach. The security guard and one of Timms's assistants immediately restrained her until police arrived.
⁷²

Timms recovered from his wounds, and Choudhry was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of fifteen years. Like most religious extremists, Choudhry showed no remorse and simply smiled when the sentence was announced. Timms expressed sympathy for the young woman, stating, “I think she wanted to be a teacher. Throwing all of that away because of what she saw on the web. I think that's tragic.”
⁷³
Choudhry thought it was noble: “I feel like I've ruined the rest of my life,” she told police. “I feel like it's worth it because millions of Iraqis are suffering and I should do what I can to help them and not just be inactive and do nothing when they suffer.”
⁷⁴

What baffled authorities was how Choudhry could fly so low under the radar. After her arrest, they searched her computers for contacts with Islamic extremists but found none. She had no connection to any Islamist group and had not attended any meetings.
⁷⁵
She did not go to any mosque but instead prayed at home. One of the
detectives questioning her could not believe she acted totally alone. “Forgive me,” he said. “I just find it a little bit strange that you're doing all this on your own and not speaking to anyone else about [it].” Choudhry explained why she didn't talk to anybody about her militancy: “Because nobody would understand. And anyway, I didn't wanna tell anyone because I know that if anybody else knew, they'd get in trouble 'cos then they would be like implicated in whatever I do, so I kept it a secret.”
⁷⁶

One can only imagine the discipline required for a young woman to keep to herself her journey from a diligent, top-of-her class student at a prestigious university to a fervent believer in jihad with the need to kill a politician based on his voting record in Parliament. Her suddenly dropping out of college, however, could have been a warning sign that something was amiss, similar to the practice of many suicide bombers who cut all ties with their families and friends weeks before they commit their attacks. But Choudhry's attack caught everyone by surprise. Not surprising, though, was the reaction of the British government, which called for websites hosting al Qaeda videos to be taken down. Security Minister Baroness Neville-Jones stated that the websites would be banned in Britain. “They incite cold-blooded murder,” she said. “And as such are surely contrary to the public good.”
⁷⁷

The Internet, however, is an irreversible fact of life in the twenty-first century, and for every militant site that is taken down, another one appears somewhere else in cyberspace, able to elude the authorities and appeal to impressionable and inquisitive people around the world. The void created by the killing of influential terrorists such as Anwar al-Awlaki and Osama bin Laden is quickly filled by others ready and willing to fan the flames of hatred and intolerance.

The Internet is also doing its part to convince some women that the risks of lone wolf terrorist activity are worth taking. In addition to offering valuable information on potential targets, weapons, tactics, and causes, it is also providing them with human interaction. Whether it is in the case of LaRose, who felt connected with others around the world through e-mails and other online activity, or in
the case of Choudhry, who felt inspired by a voice and face that was always just one click away on her computer, nobody has to feel alone anymore when planning and implementing a lone wolf terrorist attack. The experiences of LaRose and Choudhry may just be the tip of the iceberg of more women joining the ranks of the lone wolves.

Long before the word
terrorism
was introduced to the world during the French Revolution,
¹
another term associated with violence was already entrenched in the public's mind. The word
assassination
had its origins in a militant group, the Assassins, who were active in Persia and Syria between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. Led initially by a charismatic figure, Hasan Sabbah, also known as the “Old Man of the Mountain,” the group spread terror and fear throughout the region.

The Assassins came from the ranks of the Ismailis, a Shi'a Islamic sect, and were willing to die for their cause, which was to overthrow the Sunni establishment. They usually made no attempt to escape after thrusting daggers into their victims, who included princes, officers, and religious dignitaries.
²
The Assassins were fiercely loyal to their leader, who promised them entry into paradise if they obeyed his every command. As Bernard Lewis notes in his classic book
The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam
, the legend of the Assassins spread to Europe, where they caught the interest of poets, who became fascinated with the Assassins' devotion to their leader. “Just as the Assassins serve their master unfailingly, so I have served Love with unswerving loyalty,” a Provençal troubadour told his lover. Another says: “You have me more fully in your power [than] the Old Man has his Assassins, who go to kill his mortal enemies.”
³

Assassination as a tactic of terrorists actually preceded the era of the Assassins. Jewish extremist groups—the Zealots and the Sicarii—used assassinations and other forms of violence as a
means for provoking a revolutionary uprising against Roman rule in Palestine during the first century. That revolt failed, with more than nine hundred extremists taking their own lives rather than surrender to Roman forces, which were about to enter their fortress at Masada in the year 73 CE. Many other terrorist groups throughout history also employed assassination as a terrorist tactic, including Narodnaya Volya, which, as we saw earlier, waged an assassination campaign against the Russian government in the late-nineteenth century.

Assassinations can take many different forms. The Assassins and the Zealots stabbed their victims to death, while Narodnaya Volya used dynamite to kill its targets. Today's assassins can choose from a variety of weapons, ranging from assault rifles and sophisticated improvised explosive devices to secretive weapons such as poison-tipped umbrellas.
⁴
Yet, despite the widespread use of assassinations by groups, individuals, and states, it is not always accepted that this is indeed an act of terrorism. For example, one author writes: “The violence I discuss involves in most instances politically motivated activity by groups, not individuals…. [Terrorism is not] the isolated assassination of a government leader.”
⁵

However, the killing of a government leader, whether by a group, state, or individual, is never an “isolated” event, since it can have profound effects not just in the targeted country, but also around the world. “Among those who have fallen victim to the assassin's dagger, poison, bullet, or bomb are Roman tribunes, Arab caliphs, Ottoman sultans, European monarchs, US presidents, and scores of prime ministers and leading public figures,” writes terrorism scholar R. Hrair Dekmejian. “All such assassinations, even those without a political motive, constitute acts of political violence because they have political consequences that alter the course of history. Although assassinations represent a micro-level technique of violence against state power, their impact often transcends the state to affect the international order.”
⁶
Historian Franklin L. Ford further notes that assassinations have “demonstrated the capacity for affecting, often in
the most dramatic fashion, situations which, in the absence of lethal violence, might conceivably have developed very differently.”
⁷

The idea of assassinations changing the course of history, or at least allowing us to speculate whether things would have indeed been different had a particular assassination not taken place, is a fascinating one. It is the reason why assassinations are a special form of terrorism. Whereas some terrorist incidents, such as the 9/11 attacks, can affect world events for many years afterward, most terrorist attacks have a short shelf life. A car bombing or hijacking, for example, can be quickly forgotten just months or even weeks after it occurs. Not so for most assassinations, which, even if they do not alter the future course of history, can still have a major impact on governments and societies. The fact that lone wolves are as capable as states and terrorist groups of perpetrating a major assassination is yet another reason why the individual terrorist demands our attention.

THE IMPACT OF LONE WOLF ASSASSINATIONS

What, then, have been some of the more notable lone wolf assassinations in history, and what have been the motivations and characteristics of these assassins? Before we can discuss this we have to first acknowledge the always interesting and controversial tendency for many people to see a “conspiracy” whenever a major event occurs in the world of terrorism. The Internet has given fuel to skeptics everywhere who can post their blogs and offer “credible” evidence that things did not really happen the way most people were led to believe they occurred. These blogs then get circulated around the world via the Internet, with countless others adding new “information” to the conspiracy. Among the far-flung conspiracy theories are those that claim it was elements within the US government—and not al Qaeda—that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks in order to build support for its own agenda, including a war on terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan. Another revolves around the notion that it was a
controlled demolition that brought down the Twin Towers and not structural failure due to the fire from the jet fuel of the hijacked planes that had crashed into the buildings.
⁸

Assassinations, in particular, are favorite topics for conspiracy theorists. It is as though some people cannot accept the idea that a lone wolf, a virtual “nobody,” can all by himself or herself kill a powerful leader. Surely, the thinking goes, it had to take elaborate planning, resources, strategy, and other coconspirators to successfully assassinate a president, king, or other ruler. Accepting the fact that a lone individual could kill a nation's leader also somehow psychologically makes that leader's death seem meaningless for many people. William Manchester, author of the bestselling book
The Death of a President
, put it best in a 1992 letter to the
New York Times
concerning the conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: “If you put the murdered President of the United States on one side of a scale and that wretched waif [Lee Harvey] Oswald on the other side,” he wrote, “it doesn't balance. You want to add something weightier to Oswald. It would invest the President's death with some meaning, endowing him with martyrdom. He would have died for
something
. A conspiracy would, of course, do the job nicely.”
⁹
Or as Jackie Kennedy said of her husband's death: “He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights…it had to be some silly little Communist.”
¹⁰

The lone wolf assassin has one major advantage over conspiratorial groups in committing an assassination—namely, the element of secrecy. The lone assassin “possesses his own secret which he will not consciously betray.”
¹¹
Groups or cells, on the other hand, have to worry about one of their members being arrested and revealing the plot before it can be carried out. “The critical facts are that very few lone assassins are apprehended before reaching the scene of the crime,” writes terrorism expert David C. Rapoport, “while most conspiracies fail long before that point.”
¹²
There have, of course, been many successful conspiratorial assassinations, including the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary,
by a member of the Serbian nationalist movement “Union or Death” (also known as “The Black Hand” to its enemies) in Sarajevo in 1914, which was a major factor in the outbreak of World War I. But, as Ford points out, “conspiracy is certainly not the more common…[type of assassination] despite the eagerness of many observers to find elaborate collusion even in cases where little or no evidence for it exists.”
¹³

Planning and implementing an assassination is among the least complicated of all existing terrorist tactics. Whereas a kidnapping, hijacking, or other type of hostage situation requires the terrorists to plan for the aftermath of the attack (such as how long to hold the hostages, what demands to make, and so forth), an assassination is over once the bullet leaves the assassin's gun or the knife is thrust into the victim. Unless the assassination involves using an explosive device to kill the target, there is no need for an assassin to prepare the weapon, such as mixing the right ingredients to make a bomb or determining how to transport it to the target area. All of this makes the task much simpler for the lone wolf who wants to eliminate a head of state or some other high-profile individual. The challenge for the lone wolf assassin is to find the right opportunity to gain proximity to the unfortunate target and not have his or her weapon detected by whatever security personnel or devices may be in place.

Who, then, are these lone wolf assassins? A selective look at a few of the more notable ones in history reveals diversity in their backgrounds and motivations. What ties them together, though, is the ability to significantly impact events in a country, and sometimes in a region, by the single act of murder.

CHARLES GUITEAU AND THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JAMES A. GARFIELD (1881)

In 1877, Leo Tolstoy penned one of the most famous opening lines in literature when he began his classic novel
Anna Karenina
by writing: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Little did he know that, at that time, a product of a very
unhappy family in America was well on a path to madness and murder that would transfix a nation and lead to the passage by Congress of one of the most important pieces of legislation in US history.

The usual explanation given in historical accounts for why Charles Guiteau assassinated President James A. Garfield on July 2, 1881, was that he was “a disappointed office-seeker.”
¹⁴
The belief that denial of a request for a patronage job was a major factor in the assassination would play an important role in instituting civil-service reforms after Garfield's death. However, although Guiteau was obsessed with the idea that he should have been given a consular post in Paris for having supposedly once given a speech on behalf of Garfield when he was a presidential candidate, the real reason for the assassination was more complex. In Guiteau's twisted mind, he believed that something drastic had to be done to “remove” the president in order to save the nation from another civil war.
¹⁵

Charles Guiteau was born in Freeport, Illinois, in 1841 to a mentally ill mother and an abusive father. His mother, who barely ventured outside the house, died when he was just seven years old. Her death was attributed to “brain fever,” but she was probably insane. “I always felt I never had a mother,” Guiteau would later say. His father, who one physician also believed was insane, would beat Charles in a vain effort to cure the youngster's speech impediment. The only positive force in his life was his older sister, Frances, who helped raise him and provided him with both moral and financial support throughout his life. However, she, too, would eventually be committed to an insane asylum. Many of Guiteau's other relatives were also mentally ill, including at least two uncles, one aunt, and two cousins.
¹⁶

The young man was finally able to escape his dysfunctional family when he left home to attend college. But after just a couple semesters at the University of Michigan, he quit and went to live at the utopian Oneida Community in upstate New York, which was a religious commune that also practiced free love. It wasn't long before Charles managed to alienate many people at the commune with his belief that only he was divinely ordained to lead the community and
that one day he would become president of the United States and, after that, ruler of the world.
¹⁷

Guiteau left Oneida in 1865 for New York City, where he pursued a variety of failed endeavors, including trying to establish a daily religious newspaper. He also tried to extort money from the Oneida Community by threatening to make public some of the commune's sexual practices and alleged financial improprieties, but that also failed.
¹⁸
For the next fifteen years, Guiteau roamed aimlessly between New York and Chicago, winding up with dead-end jobs, including work as a debt collector. That job didn't work out, as he pocketed for himself all the debts he collected. He next somehow managed to pass the Illinois bar and become a lawyer without ever attending law school, although the bar exam consisted of just three or four questions. Not surprisingly, he was a terrible lawyer. In one case, his client was a petty larcener, and Guiteau made an hour-long speech to the jury, screaming and rambling incoherently and shaking his fists at the startled jurors. The latter rendered a guilty verdict without ever leaving the jury box. Guiteau also tried his hand at evangelism, but that also ended without success. He eventually got married, but his wife soon divorced him after he emotionally and physically abused her.
¹⁹