1
0
When one hears the term ‘lone wolf,’ the picture imagined is that of an isolated creature, independent in its survival and navigation, with all ties to its former pack severed. Applied to a terrorist, the term suggests a solitary individual who radicalised alone and evaded intelligence services in their attack plot. This was the immediate framing for the 2017 Westminster attacker.
In the short term, such language encourages society to shift the blame onto the individual’s isolationist lifestyle or their psychological state, but this is often superficial. Just as the lone wolf relies on behaviours learned from its former pack, the isolation of the lone attacker becomes challenged. This dependency is often mirrored in evidence later coming to light that aided the attacker’s plans, such as extremist associations or other criminal links that are connected to the offender.
Blame Shifting Through the ‘Lone Wolf’ Narrative
The term ‘lone wolf’ points to other causes such as the isolation of the individual or their mental health following an attack, shifting responsibility on the attacker. However, the term inherently encourages blame to shift elsewhere.
Concerning the solitary nature of the attacker, the term invokes the idea of less opportunity to prevent the attack for intelligence agencies, and more to private connections of the individual. This could range from the family of the attacker, if communication was minimal leading up to the attack, to educational institutions, if the solitary behaviour was already observed in these grounds. Nonetheless, the term implies the responsibility of the individual’s violent actions lies wholly with themselves, which could impede improving preventative capabilities, especially as radicalisation is a social process.
This blame shifting, seen from the isolationist perspective, could also happen if the psychological state of the attacker becomes the immediate focus. The media often takes this narrative following attacks, most notably after the 2024 Southport stabbings. While not classed as terrorism, the attacker Axel Rudakubana was discharged six days prior to the attack from mental health services and considered not a threat to public safety. Resultantly, public opinion on where the responsibility lay varied, with 64% of Britons claiming that mental health services were either ‘fairly’ or ‘greatly’ responsible for the attack. This blame-shifting narrative, adopted by the media and in subsequent public discussion, risks framing mental health services as having counterterrorist responsibilities. This reduces institutional trust and increases unfair pressure on these services.
After lone actors commit violent attacks, society should ask questions not to blame but to seek solutions, in order to improve preventative measures.
How Alone is the ‘Lone Wolf?’
Preventing future attacks, however, differ on a case-by-case basis and this brings into focus the plausibility of the term:
For instance, the 2008 stabbing of MP Stephen Timms involved Roshonara Choudhry self-radicalising by browsing jihadi websites, which likely led to her feeling a sense of community by aligning with the websites values. Here, Choudhry became less isolated than the traditional lone wolf, with the extent of her connections (to propaganda) encouraging her desire to become a martyr for Iraq during the Iraq war. This challenges the solitary nature of the lone wolf, raising questions as to the role of elements like propaganda in individual cases.
The recent Synagogue attack in Manchester on 2 October 2025 by Jihad Al-Shamie revealed the attacker to act alone. However, investigations later revealed a Facebook post of Al-Shamie’s supporting the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas in Israel. Furthermore, while the Synagogue attack took place, the perpetrator was on bail after a rape arrest, being investigated at the time. These instances further cast doubt on the reclusive lifestyle of lone wolf terrorists, with these affiliations helping mould our understanding of their behaviour.
Lone actor terrorism is anticipated to rise across Europe and the US, following developments in propaganda and political violence. This reinforces the need for increased vigilance, both by counterterrorist forces in intervening in the radicalisation process, illustrated by the Online Safety Act, and by individuals to monitor relatives who they perceive to be becoming more isolated. However, preventing these attacks means understanding the complexity of so-called lone wolves, and must not be influenced by narratives of blame.
Edited by: Evangeline Shankland
Image: Andres Ramos // CC BY-NC 4.0
Average Rating