Today it was confirmed that it was indeed suicide bombers that committed the atrocities in London. It's a very scary thought that there are people walking among us who are willing to die for their cause. A cause which most of us wouldn't even call a cause but just an expression of madness. However, even if it is madness the sad truth is that these events have been instigated by a number of reasons and situations, causes that will never justify what happened but which can give a partial explanation as well as point to solutions.
With the confirmation that the responsible for the attacks were born and raised in Britain (and British citizens) comes the realisation that solutions must also be found at home, not just in the Middle East or further away. It's an internal and a societal problem. It's not enough to chase terrorists who are plotting terrible deeds but also to stop terrorists in the making.
In an op-ed in the New York Times a few days ago, Peter Bergen attempts to explain why British society creates terrorists. He points mainly to the young age profile of British Muslims (a third are under 16), unemployment (22 % in the 16-24 age group), and poor integration into society. This makes them prone to extremism. Bergen also points to polls that have shown that British Muslims are angry. 80 % equate the war of terror with war on islam, and 13 % said last year that a terrorist attack on the USA would be justified (however, it did not ask about terror on British soil).
In his article Bergen goes on saying that many British potential terrorists could easily come to the States as they are British citzens and don't need any special visas. He finishes with, but doesn't stress this point enough, that hardening visa regulations or introducing stricter rules and checks on other aspects of life, is one way to deal with it, but one which does not solve the deeper problem of certain groups' structural segregation, not just in Britain but globally.
In a way, even though these tragic events overshadowed a very important summit, G8 on Africa and climate change, it was perhaps "good" that it happened at this particular time (if it had to happen), since the reasons for such atrocities are intrinsically linked to the equalities of the world. We cannot address terrorism without looking at our societies and the injustices that exist, be they social, economic, religious, etc. And we need to do it together. Britain (or any other state subject to terror) cannot turn inwards, and especially not in this case since the responsible didn't come from the outside.
Thomas Friedman, in another NYTimes op-ed, writes that it takes a village to get to the root of the problem: "the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed." He also says "if it's a Muslim problem, it needs a Muslim solution". That is true but I'd like to think that the rest of the global village has a part in it too.
Interesting comments but it is also those highly and well educated within the British muslim society who commit atrocities. I have been speaking to representatives of the Muslim community in London since the news were revealed that the attackers are British born and muslims and they gave the example of Omar Sheikh, the British person said to have beheaded the journalist David Pearl. Omar Sheikh was from a public school and had studied at LSE, and still he commited such a crime that is inconceivable. So the scary thing is that there are well educated persons who are willing and ready to explode themselves for a cause that not necessarily is a cause like you said.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are just some people who are not interested in whether the causes which they are using to send these people to their deaths are "fixed" or not. There was a bombing in Israel this week which killed five people, this is a month before what would be Israel's first withdrawal from the territories captured in the '67 War. Now, if the people who sent this young man to blow himself up really cared about ending the occupation, improving the economic situation of the Palestinians, and building a viable state there, this would be the last thing that they would do. Obviously, they know that such an action will result in a severe Israeli response and the chain reaction will continue. Their goal is the same as the goal of the extreme right in Israel: to stop the withdrawal. Because if it happens, then there will be less to complain about and they will lose some of their influence. And in Britain, there is a segment that is simply not interested in young Muslims integrating into British society and with this act, it will be even harder for them to do so than in the past. As for education, I agree with anonymous, it has not stopped people from doing things that we would like to think only the uneducated and unenlightened (to our way of thinking) are capable of.
ReplyDeleteHope you had a great time during your holidays!
ReplyDeleteWell, the idea of terrorism caused by injustice in the world just makes me sick to dead. It reminds me of The entire article Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero published in the Financial Times on the massacre in London.There was one particularly awful paragraph. In keeping with criminal left-wingers’ finest tradition, Zapatero “explained” terrorism was due to some supposed “sea of universal injustice”, a claim above and beyond progressive multi-culturalists´ usual stupidities. It insulted the dead and, moreover, the poor. Not everyone suffering injustice plans to butcher people riding the Tube or the bus.
On the other hand, the world’s terrorists are almost never poor, but rather comfortable and radical bourgeoisie with a total disdain for workers, who they have no qualms about killing in order to “save” them from bourgeoisie exploitation. From Lenin and Trotsky to Pol Pot and Abimael Guzmán, the history of communism, the most lethal of all terrorisms, is a grab bag of university students, criminals and slackers: few, if any, proletariats. As far as current Islamic terrorism goes, the best explanation is the life of multi-millionaire Bin Laden, from one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families whose doctrinal brutality is equaled only by his luxurious existence.
The first suicide terrorist in London was the perfect model of the Western terrorist: two Mercedes in his garage, university degree, his family’s love and caprices, born in Leeds and a British citizen… exactly what injustice had Shehzad Tanweer been subject to during his lifetime? How had his fellow British citizens humiliated him? What material and moral misery brought him to kill people in such brutal fashion?
The answer is quite simple: none. He did it because there are wicked Muslims capable of convincing young people that dying while slaughtering innocents is the way to Paradise. And he did it because there are wicked young people who find in this religion the excuse they are looking for to indulge in crime or reasons for not committing suicide alone, but instead by taking others with them, thus making them feel more important. Then, there is the responsibility, or better put, the irresponsibility, of those who instead of hunting terrorism, justify it referring to that sea of golden, comfortable injustice; that sea where fanatics prosper in the shadow of idiots.
Elena.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletesorry, it was not my intention to post it three times!!!!
ReplyDeleteElena
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism makes me sick too and I totally agree that these individuals are lunatics. However, I don't think the "tough" method is the (or only) solution. As Hanne Kjöller at Dagens Nyheter put it: "We cannot solve problems in our open societies with the solutions of a closed society." I.e. creating some sort of police state by increasing legislation, curtailing rights, etc. is not the solution. Of course, we'll have to legislate as well in order to target already existing terrorists who are about to commit atrocities or have already done so. But like I said before, it's about working with the Muslim communities both in affected countries and in the Muslim world to prevent such activities and change people's attitudes regarding jihad.
ReplyDeleteI think Elena's response demonstrate the ongoing debate about the reasons for terrorism/jihad between Left and Right, as discussed by Niklas Ekdal in today's Dagens Nyheter. "Evil ideas", says the Right and blames the (Middle)East. "Social and political explanations", says the Left and looks for explanations within our own societies. But instead of debating who is to blame, because that's where the terrorists want us to get stuck, we should unite and try to solve this together. Even Tony Blair says that we need to be tough on both terrorism and the causes of terrorism, "Both self-confidence and self-examination." I agree with Ekdal's analysis that "the fundamental problem is the lack of political freedom in the Middle East and in Central Asia, but the segregation in the immigrant ghettos in Europe, as well as the American and Israeli security policies, have not made things any better".
It's a very complex picture and the solutions won't be easy. For example, while it might be true that a number of attempted and successful suicide bombers have been well-educated and well off, the fact remains that they live or come from areas in Europe where Muslims live segregated, sometimes poor, and are discriminated against. As long as that situation remain, people who are dissatisfied, whether they themselves are poor or rich, will just become more and more. We cannot just focus on the symptoms, we need to target the actual disease.
I heard an expert on the BBC a few mornings ago. He said that when IRA first came into being and started attacking Britain, they were demonised and statements such as "we will never negotiate with terrorists" were common. While the problems of Northern Ireland remains to be fully solved, negotiation nevertheless turned out to be the solution. The expert wanted us to stop forever ruling out the negotiation option. Even if it takes 30 years, negotiation and compromise might be our only real options. Interesting thought, in my opinion.
I'll end with a quote from Ekdal's article: "It is fear which is the real Devil. The one who does not let him/herself be terrorised can never be beaten by terrorists."
Do you really think so? Do you believe we should keep ignoring it? All right, we could keep faking, as if nothing were going on; that good intentions can fix everything; that armed with patience and a strong dose of understanding, Islamic radicals will stop slaughtering innocent people. We could keep dreaming up fantastic plans for a dialogue between “civilizations” in the hopes the other party might participate and reconcile itself with reason. We could even unconditionally surrender and hand ourselves over to these barbarians. We could, in sum, continue acting like ostriches until it is too late. The painfully certain thing is that while we spend our time deciding among the above mentioned options, our day to day lives could quickly take a turn for the worse… much worse.
ReplyDeleteThe massacre Al-Qaeda just committed in Egypt is not the first and won’t be the last. It is in its nature. Less than a year ago it murdered 34 Israelis on vacation at a hotel and it will do so again when it has a chance. Islamic terrorism has inaugurated a new type of war in which the enemy is not standing in a trench on the other side of no-man’s-land, following some captain’s orders, but rather moves among us, watching us, accumulating hate and patiently waiting for the moment to strike at those he considers responsible for his wretchedness.
When faced with such a challenge, good intentions are not enough; negotiations are no good because Islamic radicals have nothing to negotiate. Their intentions are clear; the world they hope to create is a hybrid between the Taliban’s Afghanistan and the Ommiad empire. This delirious vision, this senseless fantasy can only be laid claim to through butcher jobs like in New York, Madrid and London. Knowing a good chunk of the West, their enemy, is cowardly and scared, they persist along their homicidal path while it keeps offering good results. Moreover, knowing they have powerful allies among our politicians, our intellectuals and our artists, they realize they only need to keep raising the volume until Western civil society, which they so despise, ends up giving way.
Against this threat we can do little more than confide in the unbending determination of those few who have correctly understood the problem facing us; a problem with two fronts: the domestic, which lashes us most directly; and the foreign, which each week fills Iraqi streets with cadavers, fuels the Palestine conflict, holds immature Arab civil society captive and fearful. The West must guarantee its cities are safe, yes. But it must not forget spreading democracy in the Arab world is essential if it hopes to neutralize the Islamic threat. If Iraq, Iran, Syria or other Magreb countries manage to prosper and access the freedoms they have always been denied, the dark Islamic shadow looming over our present will quickly fade into the past.
Elena
I think this is interesting and could help us somehow clarify the problem we are facing. A survey published in The Daily Telegraph a few days ago is enough to show us, once again, that Europe opens the door and encourages hate of Western civilization. According to the survey, a quarter of the British Muslim population “sympathizes with the motives” of the suicide terrorists; almost a third believe Western society is “decadent and immoral” and must be stopped –although “only” one percent of this group advocates violence to bring about this end; sixteen percent of British Muslims feel “absolutely no loyalty” to the country that has taken them in and of which they are citizens. Very interesting!!!!
ReplyDeleteElena