An unfortunate incident hit the usually peaceful city of Christchurch, New Zealand last Friday. The attacker Brenton Tarrant, a 28 years old Australian, was responsible for carrying out the attacks in the mosques, resulting in the deaths of at least 50 people. A global debate has risen on the fact that the charge merely speaks of the killer being accused of murder and not terrorism, which is another debate. The event has sprung up international attention, with gun-laws of New Zealand being revised, investigations underway with compassionate gestures and actions taken by the Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern. Such an incident in New Zealand after almost 30 years took the world by surprise. Live video of the attack was broadcast, which aired for almost 17 minutes- making plenty of room for criticising the social media outlets allowing it to happen. Tarrant, described by Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison as an “extremist, right-wing, violent terrorist”, expressed admiration for other violent white nationalists and his intention to “create an atmosphere of fear” and to “incite violence” against Muslims . In a 74-page manifesto, Tarrant wrote: “My language originated in Europe, my culture is European, my political beliefs are European, my identity is European, and, above all, my blood is European.”It details an anti-immigrant, neo-fascist ideology and deplores the decline of European civilisation. He described himself as an “ordinary white man.” Tarrant did not have a criminal history and was not on any watch lists in New Zealand or Australia. A set of questions that arose in the wake of this unfortunate condition are: Who is responsible for the massacre of 50 people- The man behind the attack? The social media platform that aired live the attack for 17 minutes? The 26-minute delayed response from the New Zealand police or the immigrants who have been a source of the highly debated emerging “Islamophobia” globally. Moreover, why did the attacker conducted such an heinous attack and under what influence? A lone wolf is someone who prepares and commits violent acts alone, outside any order structure and without any group aid material A possible explanation to these questions can be given by a phenomenon given under the area of terrorism and counter-terrorism. By definition, the attack was all that defines a “terrorist attack” but the attacker is slightly different to what a “terrorist” is defined as- rather, is a “lone wolf”. A lone wolf is someone who prepares and commits violent acts alone, outside any order structure and without any group aid material. They can be influenced or motivated by the ideology and beliefs of an external group and can act in support of this group. These people do not have connections to any organisation, but are self-autorotated through the construction of a certain ideology from the accumulation and assimilation of knowledge by their own. Lone wolves are hard to identify. They are normal people dwelling in normal conditions, usually showing no signs of violent behaviour. Keeping such people under check is as hard as recognising their lethal abilities. They tend to be more dangerous than terrorist organisations since they use an element of surprise. The attacker- a lone wolf- was not known to police in Australia for violent extremism or serious criminal behaviour. Three other suspects were detained along with Tarrant, but the police now say he acted alone. Responding to his own question “Is there a particular person that radicalised you the most?”, Tarrant wrote: “Yes, the person that has influenced me above all was [US conservative commentator] Candace Owens… Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness”, having an “unhealthy narcissism” common among “terrorists”. People with firm ideologies- as Tarrant- believe they are correct and it is hard to convince them otherwise (as religious ideologies e.g. Muslim ideology or nationalistic ideology e.g. Hindutva, Zionism etc). All writing over the attacker’s weapons, if read, explained and translated signify a certain incident where immigrants (particularly Muslims) have been a threat to the white, in acts of violence against the white race, justifying the attacker’s action for fighting against a group that threatens the existence of the white race. In this situation, neither social media for airing live (not enough evidence on the attacker’s social media outlet to take prior action) nor the government (informed 9 minutes prior to attack, too small a gap for preventing) can be blamed for the incident as identification and keeping check is almost impossible. In the case of the attacker, even after being convicted,he was smirking throughout the process of his detainment whilst making a hand gesture of white supremacy. The key reason of this radicalisation is unchecked information.Quick and easy access has led to the production of numerous such lone wolves, who will unleash their preposterous ideologies into violent acts if the content that is available is not censored. Another step that may prove helpful is the production of correction centres as a strategy towards counter terrorism since just convicting and killing the terror mongers does not kill an ideology they were triggered by, but only glorifies and promotes it. These centres are particularly necessary in educational institutes, weapon clubs, online portals, social media and mainstream media. Immediate action is required globally with amendments in counterterrorism strategies reverting to psychological correction rather aggression against the violator, elsewise, the world has no less Tarrants currently to deal with. The writer is a student of International Relations at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad Published in Daily Times, March 25th 2019.