Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assuming they've caught these bombers ... what now?

Badger Kitten said:
Good point about disengaging from all fundeMENTALISTS.<snip> Can you push for tolerance, non-extremism - a multiple point of view - a multicultural society - as easily as pushing intolerance, extremism? How do you defend your right to say whatever you want and protect yourself from those who abuse that right and preach hate and stir up violence?
Juan Cole has some interesting suggestions about what we're probably dealing with here.
... So the young man goes to the Finsbury Mosque in the old days and hangs out with Imam. And he points out that the Israelis had fired a huge missile into a residential apartment building to get at a Hamas leader, and had killed 16 civilians, including a little baby. And nobody said "boo" to the Israelis. The US actually gave them more money after that. Tony Blair deplored it, but did nothing practical. Then, the Imam will tell him, the Americans destroyed Fallujah and killed hundreds of innocents. He might even have the photograph that circulated last December, of the dead baby at Fallujah. And nobody can say "boo" to the Americans, and they go on killing Muslims. In fact, the Imam intimates, pulling the young man close, almost whispering, tears in his eyes, the West is destroying Islam. Almost nothing is left of Islam, he will say. It will be completely devastated in our lifetimes. Nobody is lifting a finger to stop it.

So the young man says, what could anyone do? And the Imam says, there is something. But it isn't for ordinary people. It isn't for mere show-offs. And the young man says, sticking out his chest, I'm not showing off! I really want to help, to do something that would make a difference. The Imam says, a person who was really committed could change everything. He could save the Muslim Ummma from destruction. But, no, you are not ready. You don't have the training, the commitment. You are useless. And the young man protests, until he is put in touch with the trainer and given the mission. His new friends all agree on this view of the world. He hangs out with them, at the mosque, at the gym, even socially. They reinforce each other. They tell each other the stories of the harm done to Muslims. They get angry. They swear. They are determined not to be like the rest, who just let it happen. The young man gains in determination. The mission inflates his ego. Maybe he had low self-esteem, maybe not. But he is about to save the world, he is told.
Assuming for the moment that this is a useful account of how these young men came to become suicide bombers, the question becomes, how do we prevent the process described above from happening over and over again?
 
Walk away from the Americans? Build hospitals and schools instead of dropping bombs? Send aid? Show by our everyday actions and words that we are not anti-Islam, only against theterrorist tactics which wipe out innocent life?
 
So do we need ideas on how to bring about a "Renaissance" period for Islam, ways of promoting the more liberal thinking clerics. Perhaps a British Islamic University - But would it be Ox-Bridge or LSE?
 
A political scientist at Chicago has recently completed the first comprehensive survey on suicide bombings. He's being interviewed about it here
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Juan Cole has some interesting suggestions about what we're probably dealing with here. Assuming for the moment that this is a useful account of how these young men came to become suicide bombers, the question becomes, how do we prevent the process described above from happening over and over again?
I'd like to see more democracy in the middle east. This would open up political debate, not least within and between 'Muslim' viewpoints. I would expect that the whole discourse within the 'Muslim world' would become far more complex and nuanced, and it would be impossible to sustain simplistic analyses of 'west' versus 'Islam'. If the vast bulk of Muslims got to regularly choose their leaders and vote on their policies without fear of violence and oppression then it would be very hard to sustain or believe in the kind of 'blame america/blame the west' viewpoint that Islamist extremists foster and feed upon.
 
Suppose we accept for a moment the conclusions suggested by the two things I just linked above. That the immediate problem is to prevent more suicide bomber recruitment and that it is likely there is a direct connection between recruitment of suicide bombers and Iraq. Should we pull out of Iraq?

The argument against is that would be "giving in", the argument for is that there is evidence, such as the Pape survey I mentioned above, indicating that withdrawing from Iraq would make more suicide bombings far less likely.

Comparisons with the blitz and WW2 are often used by those who feel that we would be "giving in" by withdrawing. I think there are clear differences though. In the case of WW2 it was very clear why it was in our interests to oppose the Axis powers and it was also very clear that the methods employed were working.

In the case of Iraq it is not a bit clear why it is in our interests to be involved and there significant evidence to suggest that it's not working.
 
Back
Top Bottom