Terrorists not Lone Wolves by Gary Platt


After reading Boaz Ganor's Commentary "Lone wolf terrorism.." (November 16), I must hasten to define the term lone wolf and point out how it is not applicable here; in fact, it is counter-productive. 

A lone wolf is an animal or person that generally lives or spends time alone instead of with a group. The term originates from wolf behavior. Normally a pack animal, wolves that have left, or been excluded from, their pack are described as lone wolves.

These terrorists have not been excluded from the pack and acting alone but rather are all part of the greater Palestinian society that encourages and rewards this behavior.

More practically, a lone wolf is essentially a criminal; the shooters at Columbine, or Sandy Hook, or South Carolina. They are criminals without any leadership or incitement behind them. There is no anticipation of reward or adulation post-crime. They are lone wolves. 

Also, using the term lone wolf minimizes the terrorist implication. If a Palestinian murders someone in a personal dispute, is that criminal? Yes. He is not terrorist. 

Would you consider Nidal Malik Hasan in Fort Hood a lone wolf? (the obama administration wanted to label it a criminal act and not terror because he was perceived a lone wolf) but we all know it wasn't a lone wolf but rather an act as part of the greater cause that he was acting on. 

Focusing on the stabbers, they are being encouraged, prodded and made into heroes by the political machine of the Palestinian authority. These are not lone wolfs, but rather soldiers for the cause. A very different perspective. 

Using the term lone wolf lessens the perception of terrorism to the American public.  They should all be considered terrorists and soldiers for the cause.