The “lone wolves”, that is, the terrorists without structure, terrorism without a scheme, but with an individual project, attributable to a confused vision of the world, easily defined as “mad”. It is a kind of terrorism which is difficult to foresee and, above all, to prevent. The analysis that follows in an examination of the lessons learned from terrorist acts carried out by individuals with no history, no ties, apart from those that they themselves have created, at times, unbeknown to their interlocutors. The intermediary is Internet, a virtual space where persons of like thinking can be found. The “wolf” performs an individual action, but can be an expression of a group, of a widespread feeling, not yet perceived or externally expressed. A factor that fuels the uncertainty over the possibility and the ability of avoiding other similar massacres in the future.

They call them “lone wolves”. They appear suddenly, strike with great violence and leave behind them a trail of victims and questions. Actions which are pure terrorism. Because the protagonists use subversive systems and modus operandi, finalized to cause so much damage so as to inculcate fear in the society. One more problem for the security Forces, concentrated as they are in these years, in warding off the threat of structured terrorist organizations.
In this analysis, we shall begin with the episode – devastating – which took place on the 22^nd July in Norway. A double attack carried out first with a car bombing outside of the Government headquarters in Oslo, and then with the shooting on the Island of Utoya, during a meeting of young socialists. Dozens of dead, mowed down by the hand of the xenophobic extremist, Anders Breivik. A rare episode for Europe, but which has extensive ramifications. And, which places the authorities before a new challenge.
In an epoch of strong economic crisis, the subjects of immigration and a presumed foreign “invasion” are easy to exploit. Piercing questions which gather consensus also from the most unsuspected quarters and lend themselves to manipulation. All the more so, if it is a single – or very small nucleus – which use these contentions as justification to strike indiscriminately.
A study has calculated that there have been only 72 attacks attributable to “lone wolves”; just 1.28% of the total. Therefore, a small phenomenon, but destined to grow. The United States is the most “hospitable” geographic area for this form of terrorism. Nevertheless, the Norwegian episode signals how also Europe is a hunting ground for these “predators”.


The wolf
Anders Breivik corresponds, in part, to the definition of “lone wolf”: an individual who acts on his own will, without receiving orders from outside organizations; a man capable of acting alone, while remaining immersed in the reality that surrounds him. Political affiliation or religious faiths are of no importance. The Oslo strategist had a job, few friends and programmed his plan to the minutest detail. A project pursued for years. The fact of moving by himself did not impede his maintaining contacts with movements and extreme right groups or xenophobes. This is proved by his extremely numerous contacts via Internet and his trips and visits to extremist formations, particularly, in Great Britain. Ninety minutes before slaughtering many innocent people, Breivik sent 1003 e-mails to as many electronic post addresses throughout Europe (including Italy). Messages that contained only one thing. His 1500 page manifesto. This does not mean that all those who received the e-mail are supporters of the killer. Furthermore, some of the recipients were far from the world of extremism. However, it is evident that the Norwegian had developed relationships, in his search of eventual followers for his war project. He himself maintained that there were cells ready to make other attacks: a boast which is, nevertheless, tied to the way of thinking of the “lone wolf”. He does not consider himself as such and the very relationships established with sympathizers convince him that he is part of a larger design.
A scenario which emerged also for the “do-it-yourself terrorists” inspired by Bin Laden.
For Breivik, in the same way it was for the Qaedists, the access to Internet turned into a virtual space (but also real) where one could find people who thought as he did. The killer performs an individual action, but it can be the expression of a group, and is not as isolated as it appears at first sigh. In some situations, in fact, the presence of accomplices cannot be excluded. Perhaps in the initial phase of the project, or simply in the role of supporters. To unite them, there are ideological or logistic ties.
The experts maintain that there is no “precise” profile of the solitary terrorist. Certainly, there are two points of contact and lines of tendency. Particulars that can put on the same line as persons like Breivik – moved by an extremist ideology – and the insane shootings of the American schools.
Let us clarify.
They are different categories, but the effects – even if the Americans pretend not to see this point – are identical. To transform your university friends into targets is an act of terrorism. To fire on a crowd gathered in a meeting in Arizona, as Jared Loughner did, is an act of terrorism. And if the spark that triggers the action of the attacker is only paranoia, then it becomes less disturbing and less important. A strange reasoning prevails in this dimension. To stamp the protagonist as a “madman” is, perhaps, more reassuring and avoids the complex search for an answer. Certainly, those who commit these massacres are ‘out of their head’. Or are “also” ‘out of their head’.
But if one examines the cases carefully, it is possible to make out signs that are not only of a medical competence. Indicators which, if heeded, could prevent new massacres, i.e. behaviour, writings entrusted to the Internet, disproportionate reactions: before each butchery, the deranged shooter has followed a path, leaving traces which could be picked up. To continue to ignore these facts is doubly guilty.
But let us return to the “common” characteristics which allow us to fix certain boundaries. It concerns non-rigid categories which, however, help us to understand the phenomenon. Let us look at them in synthesis.

The society
In the eyes of the “wolf”, society is speeding towards the abyss. The causes of the catastrophe can be different, depending on the political formation or on contingent situations. The conditions of the economy can be influential. For the killer the disaster that affects the society is, however, favoured, or worse still, piloted by a hidden entity, almost always the State or a “class”. Only a few realize what is happening and are able to give the alarm to the community until it reacts: the ever vigilant sentinel is the role that the “wolf” wishes to assume.

The State
It is inevitable for the “wolf” to be in contrast with the State and, therefore, over time, develops an extreme form of antagonism. The State is seen as an oppressor that slows down or impedes reaction. In fact, in certain cases, it is considered accomplice of the enemy. The Police, the Army and any entity connected with the institutions are adversaries. The censuses of the population or the taxes – other big matters – are the pretexts to prime a reaction. The moderates take to the streets, the militia pulls out a gun. This vision of the State often feeds conspiracy theories and, in the end, leads the extremists to acts of violence. Including forms of generalized terrorism. They hit the policeman or the entire federal building. It is a fact that, since the 80’s, has emerged very clearly in the United States and has had its most serious episode in the massacre of Oklahoma City (1995), planned by two right extremists.

The front
For the “wolves” it is a total war, without limits and boundaries. One must fight on any front, trying to mobilize others. The web, obviously, widens the spaces.

Ability
In this particular world, there is no room for amateurs, since mistakes cannot be made. It is a fight waged by professionals. The “wolves” are wary of those looking for adventure, of those who will leave, spear at the ready, without any preparation. Breivik is the perfect demonstration of the professional: he studied, took his time, created his military structure and gave thought to coverage and financing. And the results were deadly.

The drive
The attacker superimposes the personal over the social. He mixes his own frustrations (or anger) with some form of ideology. This allows him to be self-motivated and to individuate in others (colleagues, school friends, prominent personalities) the origin of his malaise. Physical or political. At times, he creates his own “system” and explains it. This cocktail of emotions and mental conditions often make the analysis of the criminal episodes more difficult.

Support
The “wolf” acts alone or in pairs. But, as soon as possible, he seeks comprehension and support. Internet is important: it acts as a mirror; relaunching the message to infinity and helps to constitute – at least at a virtual level – a pack. There are, of course, those individuals who have no intention of passing to violence. Nevertheless, they support the initiatives of the “wolf”. Perhaps even only by keeping silent. On some occasions, the killers in the school shootings have confided their intentions to others. And we cannot forget the family environment. A mother or a brother can reveal much about their relatives.

Space
Some “wolves” tend to isolate themselves. Mentally and physically. The most renowned case is that of Ted Kaczynski, the American Unabomber who, for 17 years sent parcel bombs to university professors. A neo-luddite who wanted to punish his former-colleagues. He carried out everything from a small shack in Montana. He was a real “lone-wolf”. But others, however, seek contact. They do not act in a “vacuum”; they conduct a normal, or almost normal, existence.

The message
The “wolves” often write a lot. Long “manifestos” that must recount the “why” and the “origins” of their gestures. Once again, Internet favours the circulation. Unabomber sent his manuscript to the newspapers until they published it and, in the end, he was discovered because his brother recognized the style and reported it to the FBI. In February 2010, Joseph Stack III, owner of a company in crisis, deliberately crashed his small plane against the Federal Building in Austin, Texas. A kamikaze action. He left a letter on the web, accusing the USA fiscal system, which he held responsible for the failure of his business.

The inspiration
Some “wolves” go into action without any precise point of reference. They decide it is the moment and execute what they have established to do. Others, instead, follow almost a script based on actions of their predecessors. In the environment of the xenophobic extreme right, a book entitled “The diaries of Turner” is never lacking. A text written over thirty years ago by a member of the “white supremacy”, William Luther Pierce. A novel that describes the struggle of an extremist, followed by independent cells, against the American State. The protagonist explodes a car bomb constructed with fertilizer. He participates in the clandestine activities of a movement that calls itself “The Order”. Their objective is to eliminate Afro-Americans and Hebrews.
The investigations into the Oklahoma City massacre showed how Timothy McVeigh – the man subsequently condemned and executed for the crime – had the “Diaries” and had used the same method of attack as described in the novel: a vehicle filled with home-made explosives (made with fertilizer). The target was also the same: a Federal building. But, in the opinion of many experts, also the analogies with Anders Breivik are very strong. Once again, the weapon is the same and, like Pierce, the Norwegian followed the insane Utopia of a world where there is no place for Jews and non-whites.
Another aspect to underline is more strictly operational. In the “Diaries”, it is imagined that the armed activity against the State is conducted by autonomous formations. It is the “resistance without chiefs” concept, very dear to the hearts of American extremists. Louis Beam, ex-member of the Ku Klux Klan, explained it well: “All the individuals or groups operate independently of one another. They never contact a central command or single leader to have instructions”. The thought was taken up again in the 90’s by other neo-Nazi ideologies for which it is necessary “to carry out violent acts also alone”. Breivik, in his document, considers himself a “Knight of Justice”. A fighter who must protect the society in an autonomous way. A resumption of the “Phineas Priest” idea, an American supermacist project, where the “resistance without a leader” is exalted. These warrior-priests feel chosen by God and see themselves as “Agents of Vengeance”. The attacks must lead to a wider racial war, which will conclude with the salvation of the whites.
At this point, we cannot but make a comparison with the individual Jihad, a phenomenon that has grown in the West in the last three or four years. As we have written in another number of Gnosis, the Qaedists are inspired by the monumental work – circa 1,600 pages, consultable on the Internet – written by Abu Musab Al Suri, a Syrian who collaborated extensively with the Bin Laden movement. Having lived for a long time in Europe (Great Britain and Spain) and having witnessed repeated failures of the structures created in the West, he theorized the action of the individual, dictating rules, behaviour and tactics. The purpose – as the expert, Bruce Hoffman well underlined – is that of motivating and spurring on an individual until he organizes an attack independently and outside of any chain of command. And there have been various examples. Some have been successful, others less so.
It is significant how Anders Breivik did not deviate from this type of project. In his manifesto, there are meticulous instructions on how to store the explosives, create the base, invent a cover for yourself, calculate the cost etc., Questioned after the attack, he claimed that “another two cells” were ready. And the investigation brought to light many contacts throughout Europe. But in the preparation phase and then the attack, Breivik acted like a true “lone wolf”: The Norwegian Police are convinced of this.
Another aspect is that of the plagiarism. The Norwegian drew heavily on the document written by the American Unabomber, even though he took positions which were not right wing. But it is evident that Breivik had no wish to pass for a man of action only. He needed to explain his steps and also to leave something for the others. And so the result is his “Declaration of European Independence”.
While there were no political motivations, also the two of Columbine High School, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had written a diary preceding the carnage: 13 dead in April 1999. Seung Hui Cho, a student of South Korean origins publicized himself through a video. He was responsible for the massacre at the Virginia Tech University (16^th April 2007: 32 victims).
If these documents are interesting to those who are trying to cope with this phenomenon, they are also, unfortunately, for the imitators. These manuals are “immortal” in the epoch of the Internet and circulate with enormous speed. And in their turn become sources of inspiration. Other mass-murderers have killed in the name of Eric and Dylan. Still others can study what Breivik left in inheritance. And in the same way as for the individual Qaedists, the web becomes the umbilical cord that feeds them with ideologies and extreme tendencies. It is, again, thanks to the digital network that the “wolves” believe themselves to be a “pack”. With this, one cannot criminalize the Internet – one cannot repeat this more often – but it would be naïve to ignore its fundamental use for those who have criminal projects in mind.

The modus operandi
The attack of the solitary extremist can be made in different forms. Simple or sophisticated. It depends very much on military capacity and the available means.

The shooting
The aggressor attacks the “enemy” with a firearm. A pistol, a hunting rifle loaded with buckshot or a rifle with telescope etc. In Countries like the United States, where the law is very liberal with gun permits, it is not difficult to purchase assault rifles. But also a semi-automatic pistol equipped with a longer magazine is sufficient. By now, the Glock has become famous, used in many of these attacks, including the Norwegian one or the attack on the Tucson rally, where the parliamentarian, Gaby Giffords was wounded. The pistol is compact, “manageable” and can be equipped with a magazine of thirty bullets. Enough for a massacre.
In this type of attack, the “wolf” can perform a prior reconnaissance of the place or, simply act at random. A concentration of people is all that is necessary. The same goes for the target: on some occasions, the killer chooses, makes his “reconnaissance” and then performs. For three weeks in 2002, the Washington suburbs constituted the theatre of the ambushes of a deadly sniper, John Allen Muhammad. From the inside of a specially modified vehicle, and with the help of a minor, killed 10 people and severely injured three others. A jihadist motive was rumoured, but in reality, Muhammad wanted only to provoked chaos and panic in the U.S. capital. A bizarre – and incomprehensible – retaliation for trouble connected with the custody of his children.

Remote attack
This was the method chosen by Unabomber, who for seventeen years sent out small parcel bombs composed of tubes and gunpowder. The “wolf” had a prolonged campaign in mind. Not wanting to be discovered, he, therefore, relied on the method of long-distance attacks by explosive devices. Or, the poisoning of products in a supermarket chain. He makes his presence known through messages to the press or to the victims themselves. If he is really alone, finding him becomes near to impossible. Remaining virtually invisible also has a greater impact at a psychological level. Also, by making long intervals between incidents – tactical pauses, or for reasons of security – the tension of uncertainty grows.

The massacres
The attacker pursues the massacre; he wants a great spillage of blood. Perhaps, firearms alone are not enough. Although the fact of the dozens of victims on the Island of Utoya and those in the corridors of the Virginia Tech speaks otherwise. The “wolf”, if he has the skill, prepares a large explosive device to be hidden in a vehicle or in a public means of transport (trains, underground, ferries and airplanes). The use of fertilizers and chemical products which are easily found in ordinary shops facilitates his task. If he intends to use a car bomb against a precise target, he is obliged to prepare his plan with extreme care to avoid being blocked during the approach and to overcome eventual controls. Breivik, although he had prepared his D day for years, he successfully constructed the car bomb, but fortunately, the outcome was not what he had hoped for. There were very few people in the offices and the government building took the blow. In Oklahoma City, instead, the pick-up gutted the Federal Headquarters.

The mixed attack
The “wolf” targets selected objectives with explosive devices sent through the mail or he carries out acts of sabotage. Direct attacks are made in crowded places. For example, the case of Eric Rudolph: Christian, anti-gay and anti-abortionist extremist. Between 1996 and 1998, he was responsible for a series of attacks causing two deaths and 150 injured. He hit a gathering of people in a park during the Olympics of Atlanta; organized dynamite attacks against abortionists and places frequented by homosexuals. He was caught in 2003, after years in hiding in the North Carolina forests. Trained in survival techniques, he moved like a soldier, covering his tracks by wearing the same boots as the special units hunting him. He was, indeed, a lone wolf of the woods. However, the FBI believes that he was helped by sympathizers of the area, who supplied him with food and clothing. Nevertheless, he was caught while rummaging through trash cans for food.

Non-conventional weapons
’Do-it-yourself’ terrorists and right wing extremists have long considered the use of non-conventional weapons for their attacks. And, there have been cases – in the United States – of attempts to use toxins. The anthrax letters in the USA in 2001 are an example. There is also the case of another guilty party – a scientist, who committed suicide – but in this instance, there are still many unanswered questions. The experts claim that for this form of terrorism considerable expertise is needed to overcome the technical obstacles. In fact, Breivik made some research in the field, but had to abandon the idea due to insufficient knowledge.

The opportunity
A form of attack used by militant Palestinians in recent years must not be underestimated. Instead of resorting to bombs, the extremist uses his means like a battering ram to launch against the crowd or a demonstration. In Jerusalem, diggers and simple vehicles were employed, running them at full speed against people waiting at a bus stop. In Holland, in April 2009, a man deliberately ran down a group of people who were watching a royal parade. Five dead and 15 injured.

The critical infrastructures
Not only people are targets, but also things. The solitary attacker can include in his line of fire, the route of a pipeline, a railway line, a factory or some kind of installation he considers, in his particular way of thinking, as a threat to society or to his own environment. He many also try to exploit popular resentment against certain projects of great impact, and present himself as the avenger of same. Hypothetical actions which could occur on the ground or in the Internet space. Today, the data banks, personal information, codes and so on, are burgled by criminals in search of easy money or by hackers who are enthusiasts of the challenge to the system. The next step is that of the solitary attacker who wants to “blow-up” the network.

The suicide action
The suicide action is thought to be a prerogative of certain groups only. The Qaedists, the Curds, the Palestinians or the Tamils. But precisely these models, together with the will to strike at any cost and in a spectacular way, lead to certain surprises. Previously, we cited the case of the man who crashed his Piper aircraft against the Government Headquarters in Texas. Always apropos aircrafts: in a report written by the US Homeland Security on the 10^th Anniversary of the 11^th September, there is a warning of the danger represented by tourist airplanes. Terrorists can use them in surprise, low cost, attacks. The note regards the Qaedists, but how can we forget what happened in September 1994: Frank Eugene Corder, 38 years of age, stole a Cessna and launched it against the White House. He had alcohol and drug problems, suffered with depression, but was very impressed by the undertaking of Mathias Ruth, the German who had been able to land in Red Square in Moscow. The term “martyr” has appeared in many texts of xenophobic extremists. Hopefully, it is only a matter of suggestions, but they can lead to new types of action. And, it must be noted, that some of the shooters of the schools, once they had committed the massacre and were surrounded by Police, they ended their own lives with a shot to the head. Nothing prohibits them from imitating the kamikaze of the Jihad, taking with them the largest number of people possible.

The threat
Like the “spontaneous” cells of Jihadist orientation, the “lone wolves” are a serious problem for the security forces. Firstly because, in the majority of the cases, one is aware of them only at the moment of the assault. In the United States, the FBI and the local police forces register those who send threats to the address of the President, and they keep an eye on certain situations. But if the killer has been careful and masked his intentions well, it is possible that he will be successful. Not forgetting that the process of preparation may last for months or even years. A suspect person can be monitored, but it is not said that he will supply judicial and investigative clues sufficient for his incrimination or arrest. In an epoch of austerity, with the budgets of the Police Forces pared to the minimum, the few resources available are directed to the more immediate threats. Or those deemed to be such. Since the “wolf” acts individually, he is protected from the risk of infiltration or betrayal by accomplices. Unabomber was discovered, thanks to his brother recognizing his style. If he had continued to maintain his own strict regulations of conduct, i.e. the isolation of a hermit, they might still be looking for him.
The assailant can have any origin. From extreme right, extreme left, religious fundamentalist or atheist. He can hide behind shared causes – like the defence of the environment – or he might have strictly personal reasons (family or professional problems). There are thousands of possible motives. And when they do not exist, they are invented. For the security apparatuses, it is really an enormous challenge. Where should they look? What scenarios must be considered?
If the attacker is not too ambitious and is satisfied with the weapons he already possesses, it becomes complicated to discover him. He has no need to expose his presence by purchasing prohibited materials; he reduces his contacts to a minimum and has no need of accomplices. His means of transport, his house and a pistol represent his entire arsenal. He can also undergo a search successfully. Eventual mental disturbances – for those who have them – are likely to mislead investigators, who may consider them sicknesses to be cured. In certain cases, it is done – in others, it is not. It is of little importance that the massacre is attributed to the “act of a madman”, what are important are the consequences. A high number of victims, the shock and the fear felt by the society, the inevitable fights over the ‘failure in prevention’ or, ‘whether it could have been stopped’. The after-scene is no different from that of a terrorist attack. The only difference could be is that we file them away as fast as possible.
Another aspect which we have touched on is emulation. The case of Anders Breivik demonstrates how the multiple murderer thinks about how to prolong the devastating effects of his action. His “Declaration” is available to anyone who wishes to study it. It is possible for other “Knights” – if we use the Norwegian term – to take the same path, using the document as a precise “road map”. The critical points are indicated, the difficulties to avoid, the ways to circumvent the surveillance. A manual that combines techniques of resistance and rules of attack. It is also detailed in management accounting. Costs, expenses, economic resources that allow the “wolf” to push ahead for a long time. Who knows how many other extremists have read the manifesto and contemplate repeating the steps of Breivik. The Norwegian could become a symbol. And it will be interesting to see his further appearances in Court. The killer has also prepared himself for this moment. He wants to use the occasion as a podium to launch other messages. The reactions of Jihadist sympathizers to the exploits of Breivik are interesting. In the Qaedist forum someone regretted not having been able to do the same. A disappointment made even worse by the anti-Islamic motives of the Norwegian. But others preferred to look at the conclusions of the Breivik plan: he was able to attack the heart of Oslo and kill dozens of people, using the same systems of the Osama followers. The lesson is simple. Discipline, determination, attention to detail and patience are the necessary ingredients. And, above all, a long preparation. The haste to pass on to the next step could compromise the entire plan.

Conclusion

Not being a group, not having chiefs or networks, the “lone wolf” is an insidious enemy. The researches conducted by prestigious institutes underline this and invite the security forces to pay much attention to these types of risks. At the same time, reports indicate that the solitary assailants are not always successful. In fact, the contrary is true. The failures are many and, on balance, the episodes are few. In addition – others observe – the episode carried out by Anders Breivik was “exceptional”, in the sense that people like the Norwegian are very rare.
Having said this, it would be a mistake to underestimate what this phenomenon represents. Because the “wolf” seems to have been made purposely for the era in which we live. Uncertainty for the future, social tensions, profound sense of injustice, diffidence and hostility towards everything that is establishment. There are many people who no longer identify with parties, movements or, even less, with ideologies.
It is still the United Stated that serves as a workshop. The election of an Afro-American President, combined with a collapse of the economy, has restored voice to groups that seemed to have disappeared. For these environments, the world is experiencing the “perfect tempest”. The West is decadent, the Chinese buy everything and the South invades the North. The advance of immigration – also legal immigration – and the lack of jobs are seen as signs of imminent ruin. In this atmosphere, there could be the temptation to go to war alone. In certain situations earthly questions are linked with apocalyptic prophesies. Jared Loughner, to make an example, was a passionate enthusiast for the theory of the end of the world in 2012.
For years we have thought that certain episodes of individual violence were not possible on the Old Continent. Instead, we have had massacres in series: in Great Britain, Germany, Finland and Norway, to cite just a few in an incomplete list. Different motivations – from madness to racism – the results of which have been identical and devastating.
What should be done? Study. Analyze the single episodes with attention, placing them – when there are the conditions – in a global framework. Monitor certain tendencies: Internet is a fantastic window on realities that
take place outside of the mainstream. With the awareness that everything can be useless if someone has decided, in complete isolation, to carry out a massacre.

OSLO, July 22, 2011 Car bomb explosion at the offices government (Photo by http://static.fanpage.it)

ISLAND UTOYA, July 22, 2011 Massacre at the meeting of Labour Youth (Photo by http://1.bp.blogspot.com)