I have been fulsomely and repeatedly criticised by visitors to this site for my remarks about 'Politicians and bombs' (see below). As one of my critics has rightly said, this is outside my area of expertise. I can't claim to be knowledgeable about the views of Islamic terrorists. However I am reluctant - as most people are - to give way and say I was wrong.
There has been a large amount of terrorism during and just before my life. I also have come to have a certain view of human nature. I think it takes quite a lot to make someone take the trouble to give up normal life and relative security in order to make a bomb to kill others. I am sceptical of the idea that dislike of another culture is enough to cause people to do this.
I think it usually takes something else. Most terrorists in history certainly have thought they had some more pressing grievance or ambition other than cultural loathing. In Ireland, they wanted the British out. So too in Cyprus and India. In Algeria, they wanted the French out.
Some centuries have passed without Islamic terrorism against Western countries. It would be remarkable if it were merely a co-incidence that this terrorism has flared up after Britain and America have become so heavily involved in Middle Eastern affairs.
(I probably should emphasise that I am not in any way seeking to justify the terrorist attacks or to argue that we should pull out of the Middle East entirely - although there may well be a good argument for that. I merely seek to suggest that terrorists are human beings and that it takes more than a cultural difference to induce them to go to such lengths and put their own lives at risk.)
I certainly am no political bedfellow of Tariq Ali, but he very probably has an more intimate understanding of the mindset of Islamic terrorists than I do. He apparently wrote this in the Guardian:
"The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Just because these three wars are reported sporadically and mean little to the everyday lives of most Europeans does not mean the anger and bitterness they arouse in the Muslim world and its diaspora is insignificant. As long as western politicians wage their wars and their colleagues in the Muslim world watch in silence, young people will be attracted to the groups who carry out random acts of revenge."
This is quoted in a posting on Tech Central Station which has other comments from George Galloway and an American academic, Juan Cole, who all see the motivation of the terrorist as deriving from grievances. The posting also quotes Amir Teheri, in The Times, who takes a different view.
I never thought the day would come when I would quote George Galloway and Tariq Ali to try to support one of my views. Dear, oh dear. Perhaps I should keep away from the subject after all.
UPDATE:
I am afraid I have not approved some of the comments that have been made on this posting and the other one on 'Bombs and politicians'. This is a pity because the comments have been particularly interesting. But unfortunately they have either involved commenters insulting others who have commented or else making remarks which I know people who are closely involved in the long-running Arab/Israeli conflict will find extremely offensive. I don't want to quash free speech but, for anyone looking to re-run the Arab/Israili argument in such aggressive terms, this is not the website on which the debate will be allowed to take place. Similarly, I don't mind people criticising each other's arguments, but I won't have personal abuse.
On this website, please think of yourself as having to abide by the courtesies of Parliament.
There was also one case where a remark was made that was probably libellous.
I tried simply to edit the comments and thus keep the interesting parts but sadly my blog does not seem to allow me to do that. So I have just had to delete. I am sorry.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Politics
Comments (3)
TrackBack (4)
Comments
James,
With regard to the recent rise of terrorism, I believe the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are part of the process of what is happening, and not the cause. The west has invaded and conquered many Arab states since the crusades without the all out Jihad we appear to be experiencing today.
The recent violence goes deeper than current events, and to the heart of Islam itself. It owes much more to the fear of the Islamic religion itself of Western culture, capitalism, and freedom. The old order in Islam has seen the writing on the wall. Young, educated people previously under the control of the mullahs have been attracted to freedom and prosperity in their millions. Islam, just like communism, can only thrive in ignorance and isolation. We are now witnessing the death throes of a primitive patriarchal religion which is more proselytising and bloodthirsty than most, hence the violent nature of recent events.
The suggestion from Tariq Ali, “The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.” is a solution which would probably buy peace in the short term, but could lead to confrontations with nuclear armed, fanatically driven expansionist regimes in one or two generations time. Wars would be inevitable between Islam and the West, or between moderate and fanatical Islam. I agree more with Christopher Hitchens when he recently expressed the views to the effect that the Jihadists cannot be placated because they are not making any specific demands, they simply want a world ruled by Islam and Sharia law.
A better solution is to do what we can to help secular, capitalist regimes in Africa, the middle east and the far east to erode support for fanaticism.
Posted by: John East at July 9, 2005 02:25 PM
Hi James,
I still respectfully disagree with you. I like John East's explanation above, but I also think many people here in the UK and Europe do not understand the power that blind faith can hold over people in a religious context. God has been dead here since about World War One.
Many Americans, particularly those in the "Red States" of the last election get to see faith at work everyday (whether they are believers or not; I'm an agnostic myself.) It is an incredible psychological change that a living breathing faith can bring. It can make a junkie stop using drugs, make an alcoholic stop drinking, make someone drink poisoned kool-aid, etc....
I think Americans (particularly Red Staters) have a visceral reaction to attacks of a religious nature because they understand that there doesn't have to be a reasonable reason for a person of faith to commit an act in the name of that faith. Note, too, most of the recent death cults have been American or started by Americans.
Anyway, just a few thoughts.
Regards,
Posted by: James G. at July 14, 2005 08:15 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/07/i_have_fulsomel.php on line 321
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2005/07/i_have_fulsomel.php on line 321
I think that anyone who argues that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is less to do with religion and more to do with economics has got the gist of it. Religion is a good excuse, as when Osama bin Laden calls on Muslims to rise up he is appealing to a wider audience than the poor and fundamentally oppressed refugees of the Middle East, particularly in Palestine. The biggest terrorist attack we have witnessed by these people in recent times was the World Trade Centre - a symbol not of America or of Christianity, but a symbol of prosperity and capitalism. That is what they really hate. They hate the gulf between the rich west and their poor homeland. Then they find all kinds of other excuses to go on hating the rich west (continued western support for the state of Israel; US troops in Saudi Arabia; US occupation of Middle Eastern nations). But this all revolves around the fact that the west is rich and powerful and the Middle East is not.
The only danger in putting forward that kind of argument is that it is rather unpalatable just a day after the worst attack on British lives since the Second World War. It would be easier just to promise to fight them back and burn them to ash. The position you take is reasonable. But who wants to hear a reasoned answer to murder?
Posted by: Mark O'Brien at July 8, 2005 06:25 PM