The west made terrorism, not Islam

[dawoco]

Creating the enemy

How a risk-averse West has inflamed the terrorism it fears.

 

by Brendan O'Neill

 

 

In March 2004, following the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 civilians, I wrote an essay for spiked in which I argued that contemporary nihilistic terrorism has its origins in moral and political crises within the West, not in the hotheaded fanaticism of faraway lands. I argued that, if you strip away all the talk about a 'clash of civilisations', the real problem of terrorism - in terms of both its origins and the massive impact that such small-scale and disparate acts can have on our societies - begins at home, in the profound uncertainty about values today and in the West's obsession with risk-aversion. The four explosions in London that killed over 50 people on 7 July 2005, and the response to them, starkly illustrate the central points of the essay:

 

 

Today's terrorists defy political labelling:

 

Despite the increasingly desperate attempts to link the London bombs to the war in Iraq, the truth is we don't know why these four young Britons killed themselves and many others on a sunny morning in July. Like Madrid, it looked like terror for terror's sake, the use of violence as an incoherent lashing out rather than as part of an ideological campaign. In the past, debates about terrorism focused on whether the means justified the ends; for terrorists in our post-political, post-ideological times, the means are the ends: the use of shocking violence for its own sake. In this sense, the bombing of London has more in common with something like the Columbine school massacre than with political violence of old.

 

 

Terrorists tend to be made in the West:

 

It is widely believed that terrorism is a foreign threat. Indeed, US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a war against a foreign land - Afghanistan - in an attempt to destroy terrorism. The attack on London shows that the origins of terrorism are far closer to home: it was carried out by four young Britons, three of whom were born, raised and educated here and the other of whom was born in Jamaica and moved to the UK when he was a child. Some of the worst terror acts of recent years - including 9/11 and Madrid - were also carried out by Westernised and often middle-class young men. Terror seems to emerge from within our own atomised and alienated societies, rather than from 'over there'.

 

 

Al-Qaeda is a brand name of the West's own making:

 

The London attack shows that the West's obsession with terrorism has helped to turn 'al-Qaeda' into an international brand name, under which anybody - even three lads from Leeds and their mate in Huddersfield - can vent their frustrations and make an instant global impact. As my essay pointed out, some experts doubt whether al-Qaeda even exists as a structured organisation. But by launching wars and reorganising life in the West around this tiny and possibly non-existent group, Western leaders made 'al-Qaeda' into a terrifying symbol of global terror. So, in recent years, various terrorist outfits and disgruntled individuals have been able to claim the al-Qaeda mantle, as a shortcut to grabbing the world's attention and scaring us senseless.

 

 

Society's response to terrorism determines its impact:

 

However horrific their attacks, terrorists are incapable of changing societies. They can, as the London bombers showed, inflict terrible fatalities and casualties, but they cannot have a long-lasting impact - unless, that is, we allow them to. The impact of terrorism is inherently dependent on the institutional and moral coherence of its target society. And the problem today is that our fragile and disorientated societies often react to terrorism in a way that further exposes our vulnerability and, in the words of one author, 'amplifies the impact' of acts of terror.

 

This can be glimpsed in the response to the London bombs: on the day of the attacks Londoners and the emergency services showed real resilience and solidarity; but more recently, various medical experts, media commentators and officials have claimed that such an attack will inevitably have long-lasting ill-effects on individuals and society. They risk turning our initial resilient response into a drawn-out obsession with possible long-term damage caused by the bombs. In short, fearful officialdom has effectively amplified the impact of the bombs. Such a response on the part of Western societies can also inflame terrorism. By advertising that we are terrified of these nameless, faceless bombers, we inadvertently encourage them to take a pop at us. This gives rise to a form of terrorism that thrives on tapping into and feeding off our fears.

 

 

The 'war on terror' is no solution:

 

One question that should be asked after the London attacks is: what is the point of the 'war on terror'? In the face of disparate acts of terrorism that emerge from within our own societies - and which are carried out by individuals who live among us - the 'war on terror' is a deadly distraction. It internationalises what are in essence domestic problems. After London, our time would be better spent having a serious debate about our own societies than inflicting further hardship on societies in the Middle East and Central Asia.

 

 

*There is also another essay on the Madrid bombings on the same page, under the essay I posted here. Here is the link.

[Haaraahur.]

Al-Qaeda is a brand name of the West's own making:

 

This explains why the Western rulers know so much about this al qaeda than the muslims.

[Proud_Muslimah2]

Originally posted by Roob:

Al-Qaeda is a brand name of the West's own making:

 

This explains why the Western rulers know so much about

this al qaeda

than the muslims.

Assalamu Alaikum,

 

LOL...you can say that again!!!

 

What I find really odd is how, straight after sept 11, these groups came to exist or we started to hear of them after the 9/11 bombings...quite strange if you ask me