The evidence (this is John O'Sullivan from the Chicago Sun-times)
They bought return railway tickets. Their bombs were not strapped to their bodies but carried in knapsacks as if to be left behind on the trains. None of them was heard to shout the customary ''Allah Akhbar'' before the bombs exploded. Unusually for suicide bombers, they left identification on their bodies. And surveillance videotapes show them laughing and joking casually -- rather than grimly determined or prayerful -- as they caught the Underground train.
The suggestion by some, almost sounds sympathetic:
"The bombers' masters might have thought that they couldn't risk the four men being caught and spilling everything to British interrogators," an official said. "The stakes were too high, so they could have lied to them and deliberately sent them to their deaths."
But the most dizzying suggestion comes from the family of one of the terrorists. From the National Post (subscribers only):
The wife of Germaine Jamal Lindsay, 19, the Jamaican-born Muslim convert who killed 26 people on the Piccadilly Line near Russell Square, insisted he was not a suicide bomber.
"Lindsay would never have killed himself and left me alone to bring up our children," said Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, who has a 15-month-old son and is eight months pregnant with the couple's second child.
So, Lindsay would have boarded a crowded train, dropped off a knapsack filled with explosives and blown up as many innocent strangers as he could -- but he was too decent a fellow to leave his wife and children widowed and orphaned.Forgive me for being insensitive, but exactly how would not wanting to kill himself make him any less vile, any less guilty, any less of a terrorist?
Apparently the British and American governments worry more about suicide bombers than the run- of-the-mill terrorist. They are more determined, more radical, less easily deterred etc.
I don't see it. Even within radical Islam, I suspect that fewer people are willing to blow themselves up, than to dump a bomb somewhere and make haste. Neither takes any great amount of courage -- one is a coward who murders innocent people, the other is a coward who murders innocent people and believes he will be rewarded -- doesn't take a lot of guts to do something when you figure your god is going to see you as a hero. Either way, their victims are maimed and dead -- so who cares?
Anyone who plans to murder other people -- whether they are IRA or al-Qaida is a shell without a soul. If they happen to decide to eliminate themselves in the process, I don't see how that can be a bad thing.
canadianna
17 comments:
Did I stumble into Warwicks blog? Nope - hey C, a little angry today?
Excellent post, C-A.
The interesting point vis-a-vis if the bombers knew they were soon to be debris, or not, is that if that point is true this event will make it more difficult for the master plotters to obtain voluntary mules again, at least in the English speaking world. That is mules who are literate, semi-intelligent, and can follow basic instructions in extended locations while out of the sight or control of their handlers.
Anything that makes the Imans' jobs more difficult should be greeted as a positive development. Of itself it may not completely stop those whose intellects "live on the other side of the river", but it should increase the improbability of many of their potential success.
Ruth -- True, but my thought is that even with extreme Islam it is easier likely easier to recruit people willing to kill for a cause, than to die for one -- meaning you'd have more regular murderers available than 'martyring' murderers.
Interesting points, C... I wonder if recruiting WILL be more difficult, if these four truly were not expecting to die.
The difference between more typical terrorists and suicide bombers is that the latter utterly refuse to play by our rules.
Everything about our society is geared towards a "zero death" outcome; suiciders step outside this. They break the rules and in doing so, launch a devastating symbolic attack on the West.
Is there a moral difference? Nah. But let's not pretend that "all terrorists are the same," because we need to have specific methods of dealing with specific types of terrorists.
CA,
Could I possibly commend this excellent article to your readers?
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/whyallah.shtml
It might open some of their eyes.
Best,
GG
For those who are concerned that about the Islamos not playing by our rules, let's not forget that we've faced this before on an enormous scale. The average Japanese soldier in WW2 was completely conditioned to die. As a result, we had to exterminate virtually all of them. For example, on tiny Tarawa Atol, there were 12 prisoners taken out of about 4700 Japanese defending it. Once the US figured out what kind of brainwashed human-bots they were fighting, the problem became less difficult. They just killed them all.
Once the West gets righteously and justifiably angered enough, the Jihadists will be doomed, because we will kill them all. If the terrorist attacks continue at a slow rate, as is happening now, then this situation will go on for years and years. These scum have Saudi Wahabi money behind them, so they can keep it up forever.
Once the West gets righteously and justifiably angered enough, the Jihadists will be doomed, because we will kill them all.
This is totally impractical; it's the same mindset that tried to bomb Vietnam back into the stone age.
Right Mike, it's also the same mindset that beat Hitler and the Japanese. And Vietnam, the analogy doesn't fit because Vietnam was not attacking the west directly. Vietnamese sappers weren't blowing up buildings and people in Bali, New York, London, etc. Vietnam was a cold-war issue, and was fought completely on those terms.
I'll stand by my assertion, that you can't win a fight unless you are committed, wholly, to winning it.
If you think this isn't a fight of sufficient magnitude, then of course feel free. I suggest you study up on demographics a bit and on the very swift spread of Wahibism that is sweeping the moderate Muslim world. Why not learn about the religious shift in Africa over the last 30 years, and about birth rates and comparitive immigration rates in Europe. And while you're at it, teach yourself about the shift of Islamic thinking all over the world. The religion of peace is going be extinct in 20 years at this rate, and will be the religion of Wahabism.
One last thing, I understand that the notion of righteous anger is foreign to our way of thinking, because it suggests being completely convinced of ones purpose and of ones cause and of ones right. We allow minorities and fringe groups to feel this way, but oh, not us. I feel truly sorry for the culture that does not feel righteously angry, when faced with a more crude violent culture that does and which is out to destroy it. Eventually I hope, westerners as a group will realize in their hearts that there is an ever growing culture out there which is seeking to ruin us... and that we'll feeled compelled to fight it with whatever means we have. Until then though, we'll just sit back and let the panty-wastes sooth us with Liberal/Socialist platitudes.
Trail:
The Allies defeated Nazi Germany because they killed soldiers, but because they were able to destroy the war machine that kept them armed and fed while sustaining their own resources.
The Allies defeated Japan not because they killed soldiers, but because they used a weapon against which Japan couldn't defend.
"Kill them all" is overly simplistic as a battle tactic. It is especially useless when you're dealing with combatants who hide themselves among the very people you're trying to protect.
The difference between a regular terrorist and a suicide bomber is that the latter is, by definition, declared himself already dead, whereas the former knows the value of his own life and by extension the value of life in general. Dead people only talk to CSI weenies; we need people who can talk with the rest of us.
VW: Yes, I agree that the "kill them all" term is overly simplistic and frankly crude. But, you do minimize the fact that mind boggling numbers of German soldiers and especially Japanese died. In terms of the Japanese, virtually all Japanese troops, where they faced the Allies in combat, were killed. Island after island was taken only by exterminating the defenders. With Germany of course, this was not the case.
Your point about destroying the Axis ability to fight as well, simply underscores the concept of total war. In the case of terrorism though, total war in the WW2 sense is impossible given that the enemy shelters and hides among non-combatants. But, what I am pointing to is that total "commitment" is needed to destroy terrorism, something that we are far from at this time.
As far as the terrorists themselves, the ones who do the killing, I am quite convinced that virtually all of them will have to be killed or captured. Their supporters will likely just melt away, but not the hard core footsoldiers.
One last thing, I understand that the notion of righteous anger is foreign to our way of thinking, because it suggests being completely convinced of ones purpose and of ones cause and of ones right. We allow minorities and fringe groups to feel this way, but oh, not us.
I happen to think that the west's greatest asset is that it can question itself. We're the first civilization in history that has cultivated the ability to second guess itself to this extent.
Of course, we can ask the questions, but that doesn't mean we'll listen to the answers.
Well said C-A.
The history of Iran post-Shah is now being replayed in the world at large: the easy resort to bombings, suicide attacks, assassinations, and, eventually, open lynchings on par with pogroms. The scope is not that of a nationalist cause, it is deliberately internationalist both in form and in purpose.
The use of identity politics -- whether that is based on religion, ethnicity, or ideology -- does not restrict these facists from blackmailing any and all who stand in their way or can be of some utility to the violence on society.
These mules may well have been on-side with the goal of mass murder in the London attacks. They may have been suicidal; they may have been enablers doing their job of supporting assigned suicide killers; they may have been earning a buck on the margins; they may have been dupes, knowingly or unknowingly. Doesn't matter. They associated themselves with murderers and if they were intending to provide assistance rather than sacrifice themselves directly -- doesn't matter. They are mass murderers.
I agree that the fight against these fascists can gain a large advantage from intel on what actually transpired in the London attacks (apart from the slaying and maiming of innocents). I strongly suspect that it will be discovered, if it has not already, that this is the same old same old. The tactics and strategies of political violence that was on display in London has been on display, but largely ignored by the world, within the borders of Iran --- daily.
It is being exported to Europe and beyond, just as it was exported to the Middle East. If you look for "root causes" look to Iran's fascist regime that is the product of the inter-faction turmoil post-Shah.
Mike: Generally I agree that the ability of western democracies to second guess themselves is a strength. But,at what point does second guessing stop and action take place? At what point does second guessing simply become doing nothing and an excuse for dithering?
In harsh situations, you've eventually got to get off the pot. Like my friend always says, F%^#k, fight, or hold the light.
At what point does second guessing simply become doing nothing and an excuse for dithering?
Clarity needs to come before action. The West's knowledge of and interactions with most of the rest of the world is hopelessly muddled and hypocritical. We toss about quioxtic and non-sensical terms like "the war on terror" without ever having clarity on the subject. We go to war against countries, and our governments lie about the reasons. We speak endlessly of democracy, but "democracy" apparently only refers to unrestricted financial opportunities.
We don't need to agree on every detail. But we need to stop the absurd rhetoric and act reflectively - and shouting about a war between civilizations hopelessly muddles the situation.
Mike: So, how do you accomplish "understanidng" when there are two sides fighting for conceptual supremicy within the West? One is the Bush Doctrine (pro-active strike first), the other is basically a pacifist doctrine that will always rationalize it's way out of military or violent action.
Furthermore, what of the responsibility of the other side to, stop the "absurd rhetoric and act reflectively"? There are two sides to this.
And I ask again, at what point is "trying to understand" the other side just an excuse for dithering?
For now, as you can tell, I'm on the side of Bush and forget the dithering.
Post a Comment