Does the US share some blame for the London Bombings?

Great Debates
141

Iskander,

I pretty much agree with everything you said in your last post, with the following exceptions/querries.

I do not believe that there is a wide support base for AQ. But I do believe that the premise that they start from, which is frustration at the West and a wish to give Muslims greater say in the way they are governed, is shared by many Muslims. The problem with that approach is that it looks at Muslims’ problems and pins the blame on the West. (We can talk about my post on America’s role later, I’m sure it would be a good discussion) Had they attempted to give the Muslims a better voice without resorting to violence and mutating Islam -as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, in its opposition to Mubarak, is doing these days- they would find a far wider support base. I’m glad to see that Muslims, mostly, resent AQ’s violence. But to assume that they have no support base leaves one wondering where are these suicide bombers coming from.

Allow me to expand on a previous post, in response to your point on Russian revolutionsaries.
I had said that Ayman Zawahir found that the support in Afghanistan was waning. What had happened was that they failed to win the support of the Afghani Muslims, and that of Muslims in general. Their radicalism was too much, and is not what Muslims were seeking. They had hoped that after the establishment of an Islamic government in Afghanistan, Muslims would migrate to it, train in AQ’s camps, and take the fight to other Muslim nations. Very, very few responded to their call. Just as any human being, a Muslim would seek to improve his/her life, get an education, lead an easier life. Not return to the stone age, which is what Taliban’s doctrine was all about. Zawahiri did not see that, but he did see that his movement was not getting anywhere, and was rejected by mainstream Muslims, the majority of Muslims.

Hence the turn to violene, and the attempt to appear as the ones saving the Muslim nations, both from the West and from the corrupt governments that oppress them. Both Muslim governments and the US, the primary Western target, are unpopular among Muslims, and so they got some sympathy. America’s reaction ensured that they received more support (Iraq far more than Afghanistan. Afghanistan was accepted, and would’ve gone down far more smoothly had it not been for Al Jazeera. Still, as journalists, they had a right to report what they saw. But I digress). From trying to save the Muslims through waiting for them to join them in their radicalism, they transformed the fight into a violent one and exported it as far as they can go. All to win support, expand ‘save the Muslims’, and establish the new Caliphate. Your parallel to the Russian case is head on. From trying to appeal to the masses by giving them what they supposedly wanted, to going into terrorism and violence.

I have a question about your move from Sayyid Qutb’s quote to ‘So Islamic Jihaad is only the weapon to free a man from oppression by man and establish God justice on Earth.’ How did you make that jump? Did Qutb say that? I have not read Milestones, though I hear that compared to his other books it’s overrated. Sort of the Manifesto and Marx (short version that does not fully explain the ideas but jumps straight to conclusions. In the longer version, one would find the logic far more appealing than the conclusions)

In defining Jihad, keep in mind, there’s a Jihad against the self, and a Jihad against the aggressor. Which one was he referring to?

In any case, Jihad, in the violent sense of the word, is not the answer to any problem. It has not worked anywhere for Muslims (in the past couple of hundred years, with the exception of maybe Sudan under the Mehdi). The Afghani case would’ve been just as bad had it not been for American and Saudi guns and money.

But, among radical Muslims, there is the assumption that the Islamic state is the natural state of being, irrelvent of the faith of the population. After all, Islam enshrines the protection of People of the Book, and reminds everyone that there is no coercion in religion. Thus they assume that by default an Islamic state is better than any other state . How they make the jump from Islamic governance is good and tolerant to Islamic government for all is beyond me. Then again we wouldn’t be calling them fanatics if they didn’t. If that’s what you were implying, with the Qutb to Jihad, I agree completely. But I’d still argue with them that this is not Jihad as defined the Koran. Not by a long shot.

142

It seems to me that the US bears at least some blame for the London bombings. After all, the US did invade Afghanistan and Iraq. And I think it is illuminating to remember that, by all available evidence, the bombings were triggered by the invasion and overthrow of the Taliban as much as by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Of course, by that standard the voters of the UK bear more responsibliity for the London bombings. After all, they could have kicked out Blair and others who supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, but didn’t.

It would seem that the US bears about as much responsibility for the London bombings as the UK does for 9/11. After all, the UK participated in the first Gulf War, supported the presence of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia, is not a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy, is an ally of Israel, does not restrict its women, allows gambling and homosexuality, and there were many British citizens who participated in the world economy that bin Laden hates and who were working in the World Trade Center.

In other words, the West is going to be attacked almost no matter what. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are just the latest excuse.

Regards,
Shodan

143

The US bares the blame only insofar as it’s war on terror been so ineffectual and arbitrary, run from the top as a political campaign rather than a sincere attempt to confront Islamic terrorism ideologically rather than with a lot of flag waving. Instead of demonstrating how powerful the US was, we’ve instead demonstrated how weak we are, which has only been encouraging and moralizing to Islamic jihaidists. The only reason there haven’t been more bombings in the West is that there are very few potential terrorists who are actually competant and willing to do these sorts of things who are in a position to do anything about it. The idea that Iraq could be tangentially strategically justified as a move in the war on terror by attracting terrorists to where they could kill US troops instead, supposedly, US citizens, was always laughable, but the recent London bombings (now apparently done by British nationals) only underscore how laughable it truly is.

In that sense, a failed war on terror is certainly responsible.

Of course, the idea that the West is going to be attacked no matter what is also patently absurd. Playing directly into the enemy’s own propaganda is not something that can be without any affect whatsoever on their appeal to wider audiences, or even for their own resolve. This is simply fatalism used as a pathetically self-serving excuse for strategic and tactical inadequacy.

144

Not so much blame, but the London (and Spanish) bombings were a forseeable result of retaliatory strikes by Muslim Frootcaques resulting from the War on Terror, which is somewhat American led.

Of course, the War on Terror is the result of the successfull attacks on the WTC, and the attacks of the WTC were the result of Muslim intolerance of Democratic Secular Western Civilization, with Mild-to-Aggressive Capitalist Economies, of which the USA is the 500 lb. Gorilla of an example.

145

I only read few excerpts from Qutb, such as:

This is typical millenial, universal and liberating message, big on promise and short on specifics. I don’t know if Qutb ever advocated actual killing or his concept of Jihad was entirely spiritual.

In a nutshell, I can see how young Muslim radicals with modicum of high education would become fascinated with such message to the point of attempting to pledge their lives to work toward such noble goal. So they go into the world, and the world greets them with scorn and indifference, while they know that all they want is to liberate those people. Sooner or later, some radicals conclude, “Those who don’t want to be liberated may not deserve to live…”

146

This raises an interesting half-theory I’ve always had. For some reason, these, “And we shall sweep the world clean of the non-believer, blah blah blah,” messages always sound like those bad fantasy novels so adored by mis-understood 15 year old boys (and college age geeks). The intellectual types who always yearn for something bigger, more idealistic, and epic than the mundane world seems interested in.

This fits a bit with the “bright, young, and quiet” descriptions that are so often given of the fundamentalist terrorists.

Are fundamentalist Islamic terrorists the equivalent of the black shirt wearing, goth-obsessed western kids who freak people out as well?

P.S. I was a college age geek. I am now a non-college age geek. Take no offense.

147

And commit occasional massacres like in Littleton, CO?

I’d say Islamic radicals are still more revolutionary and hopeful, not sulky, pessimistic and withdrawn, like Goths. If all goes well they might get there in time. Some hope, huh?

148

This is just a short post. I found some very interesting pieces on the BBC. Take a look

149

I sure wouldn’t want to be member of their families…

150

One of their relatives has already been speaking publicly.

151

GorillaMan, I see a lot of resemblances with those 4 kids and Mohammed Bouyeri [Theo van Gogh’s killer] Although Bouyeri only killed one person.

The same background; Good students from decent families who, for some reason, suddenly radicalize.

I DON’T think it has to do with the war in Iraq. Mohammed Bouyeri went nuts [IMO] long before Iraq. Theo van Gogh was just a catalyst.

What I’d like to know is: WHY do these guys take their religion suddenly so serious? Here’s a bit of an article from the paper:


AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS - The Muslim extremist on trial in the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed Tuesday, saying he was driven by religious conviction. "I don't feel your pain," he told the victim's mother.

Mohammed Bouyeri stunned the courtroom when he declared: "If I were released and would have the chance to do it again ... I would do exactly the same thing. What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith."

Bouyeri, 27, faces life imprisonment in the killing of Van Gogh, who was shot, stabbed and nearly beheaded on an Amsterdam street. A verdict is expected this month.

At one point, he addressed the victim's mother. "I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever," he said.

The killing is believed to have been an act of retribution for Van Gogh's film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women under Islam.

~~~~~ 

I don't understand.  Nor do I think the US is to blame for this, or the London bombings.
152

Mohammed B. started his radicalisation process after the death of his mother.
That apparently was the catalist, it didn’t come out of the blue.

I think radicalisation stems from actual grievances, there is discrimination.

Whether on a national level or personal one, for those living in the west, Arabs/Muslims feel held back in their devellopment by the west, they are not viewed as ‘full’ and only secularised/westernised muslims are considered to be able to interact with westerners on a civilised level.

There still is no place for a true muslim identity in western/modern society.

Enter the fundamentalist preacher looking for recruits.
He gives the dissapointed and lost a new identity to be proud of, that of a devout muslim. I suppose it’s quite easy to latch on to this wave of fundamentalism for a young man. There’s interesting discussion groups, excursions, readings by important men and the feeling of being part of a real international, divine cause.

Mohammed B.'s ‘spiritual teacher’ has been arrested in Syria, BTW.

153

Originally posted by Latro

That is by their wish, isn’t it?
They say that democracy and Islam are incompatible.

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/dutchaffairs/ned050712?view=Standard&version=1

"The accused murdered Theo van Gogh, not with a shot to the throat, but by almost ritual slaughter with 15 bullets, a sabre and a knife; a murder which deeply shocked society. The accused consciously accepted that he would hit bystanders. Two were actually hit. He also aimed and shot at two police officers. Finally, he also made it impossible for [Ayaan] Hirsi Ali to carry out her work as a member of parliament for a prolonged period. He made a serious threat on her life. The accused wanted to make many people scared, and in this he succeeded. This was supposed to be the beginning of the end of Dutch democracy."

154

The Independent published profiles on each of the three suicide bombers. Here are the links. Read this one, second column. The bombers are said to discuss their anger at Muslims, and the injustices against them inIraq. If there’s nothing you will remember from this debate, please remember the last sentence from this one.

155

You mean this sentence? :

“The imams have told us that everything they have done is not Islamic. Simply being a Muslim does not make him Islamic. In Islam even animals have rights, so how can it be right to kill a human being?”

That is so cool.
I haven’t heard that one before.
Nuh-uh.
Imans saying that killing isn’t Islamic. Wow!
After beheadings, blowing up innocents and slaughtering an artist, Imams saying that?
Totally news to me.

Do me a favor… :rolleyes:

156

Yes Gum? What can I do for you?

There are criminal Imams, advocating violence and destruction. They use Islam to justify their acts. But that does not make their actions Islamic. Every verse of Islam starts with in the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate (depending on the translation). This is not Islam, no matter what some deranged fanatic says. That’s what I wanted you to remember.

Anything else I can help you with?

157

Returning to the OP for a moment, there’s an interesting piece over at Juan Cole this morning:
The Ghost of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan

If true, the US definitely shares some blame for the London bombings.

158

What do you call the bloodbath released by the pious duo of Bush/Blair in Iraq, where the equivalent of 7/7 takes place just about everyday?

I find your unabashed bigotry on this matter disgusting.

159

Oh, ditto.

160

It’s a bloodbath because terrorists are blowing people up. They are trying to deny the right of the Iraqi people to determine their own future. Do you think there’d still be a bloodbath over there every day if they stopped blowing up children and other innocents? Do you thiink the US and British forces are going to keep killing people for the hell of it?

The war is over. Iraq is ow under siege by terrorists. Do you not see this?