At the time of writing, and as the death toll rises to 50+, no group has yet claimed the responsibility for the London bombings. I'm sure somebody will eventually attempt to offer their 'reasons', but no language can rationalise this sort of random carnage. Arbitrarily setting bombs in public places cannot be justified by anyone who claims to be participating in any political dialogue. It is killing for the sake of killing. Any explanation will not, cannot, be based on reason, but on an absurd, fundamentalist dogma that shows no sympathy for any man, woman or child who does not share those twisted beliefs. This has been described, by some, as an attack on our values. It needs to be remembered, as we respond to this, that key amongst those values is a tolerance and respect for those of other cultures, religions and beliefs. The fundamentalists' hateful belief that people of different faith or ethnicity cannot coexist peacefully must not prevail.
We'll be hearing a lot this week about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to our world. However,to say that these extremists represent Islam is like saying that those who carried out the massacre of thousands of muslims at Srebrinica - the worst terrorist atrocity Europe has seen since the Second World War, 10 years ago this month, to our great shame - somehow represent Christianity. To do so would be just what the terrorists - and the worst of the 'hawks' - would want.
It's been well documented that Al-Qaida was a creation of western security agencies, I'll not go over old ground here. But, to respond to events like the London bombings through confrontation and military action, will surely compound this gravest of mistakes. To speak of war merely gives succour to the terrorists, and denies more moderate elements in the Muslim world a stage. We need to isolate the terrorists from their support, from new funds and recruits. To do this we have to cooperate with the Muslim world, not concentrate on what divides us, and start to do something about the poverty and misery, and other wider issues, that provide the breeding ground for terrorism and fundamentalism. It's ironic, then, that as world leaders meet in Scotland to discuss such things, Muslim countries are excluded from those meetings. In my view, a war on poverty would do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.
I don't believe we will ever totally eradicate terrorism. Some terrorists - and Bin Laden could be cited as an example of this - are disaffected intellectuals, often from wealthy families, educated in Europe, with a good understanding of the tactics and politics they employ. Even if grievances were met, some people would go on with terrorism for it's own sake. In general, though, those who carry out killings come from the sort of background where poverty and, often, genuine injustice have fed their discontent. This is the root cause of much of today's terrorism. Of course, there is no single, comprehensive explanation for terrorism. No scientific sociopolitical theory of terrorism exists, since there is such a wide range of motives, intentions, participants and organisational structure involved. There is no profile of the typical terrorist and no typical motive beyond unrequitted dissent. What is clear, though, is that no solution to the problem is conceivable that does not reconnect disaffected, politicised young adults with society. The answer to that lies in the political process, and not in military retaliation. Those world leaders at Gleneagles (and elsewhere) need to me made to realise this, and we should demand that they begin to take some real action to alleviate the very problems they've helped to create in our names. At the end of the day, it's us who end up paying the price, and not them. (I appreciate that sounds a little trite, but there you are).
Besides, whatever the justifications given for the invasion of Iraq - and the wider war on terror - it can no longer be defended on the grounds that, in fighting the terrorists abroad, we are protecting ourselves from terrorism at home.
We'll be hearing a lot this week about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to our world. However,to say that these extremists represent Islam is like saying that those who carried out the massacre of thousands of muslims at Srebrinica - the worst terrorist atrocity Europe has seen since the Second World War, 10 years ago this month, to our great shame - somehow represent Christianity. To do so would be just what the terrorists - and the worst of the 'hawks' - would want.
It's been well documented that Al-Qaida was a creation of western security agencies, I'll not go over old ground here. But, to respond to events like the London bombings through confrontation and military action, will surely compound this gravest of mistakes. To speak of war merely gives succour to the terrorists, and denies more moderate elements in the Muslim world a stage. We need to isolate the terrorists from their support, from new funds and recruits. To do this we have to cooperate with the Muslim world, not concentrate on what divides us, and start to do something about the poverty and misery, and other wider issues, that provide the breeding ground for terrorism and fundamentalism. It's ironic, then, that as world leaders meet in Scotland to discuss such things, Muslim countries are excluded from those meetings. In my view, a war on poverty would do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.
I don't believe we will ever totally eradicate terrorism. Some terrorists - and Bin Laden could be cited as an example of this - are disaffected intellectuals, often from wealthy families, educated in Europe, with a good understanding of the tactics and politics they employ. Even if grievances were met, some people would go on with terrorism for it's own sake. In general, though, those who carry out killings come from the sort of background where poverty and, often, genuine injustice have fed their discontent. This is the root cause of much of today's terrorism. Of course, there is no single, comprehensive explanation for terrorism. No scientific sociopolitical theory of terrorism exists, since there is such a wide range of motives, intentions, participants and organisational structure involved. There is no profile of the typical terrorist and no typical motive beyond unrequitted dissent. What is clear, though, is that no solution to the problem is conceivable that does not reconnect disaffected, politicised young adults with society. The answer to that lies in the political process, and not in military retaliation. Those world leaders at Gleneagles (and elsewhere) need to me made to realise this, and we should demand that they begin to take some real action to alleviate the very problems they've helped to create in our names. At the end of the day, it's us who end up paying the price, and not them. (I appreciate that sounds a little trite, but there you are).
Besides, whatever the justifications given for the invasion of Iraq - and the wider war on terror - it can no longer be defended on the grounds that, in fighting the terrorists abroad, we are protecting ourselves from terrorism at home.
