| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| London Analysis - Killer Bees |
| 2005-07-15 |
| I arrived in London the morning after the bombings. I wasn't there to do any reporting, but when a city is attacked in such a way, every stroll amounts to newsgathering. All in all, the city was pleasantly empty and the people didn't seem particularly terrorized. Then again, the fact that the city was pleasantly empty was perhaps the best proof that the "7/7" murderers had some of their intended effect. This was a Friday in a normally bustling city and many Londoners simply opted to wait until Monday before trying the bus or subway again. Obviously, modern terrorism is a psychological weapon more than an overtly military one. Its aim is to persuade civilian populations to surrender where military forces never would. And alas, it often works. Europe has become steadily more pro-Palestinian in no small part because of Palestinian terrorism. The French abandoned Algeria because of terrorism. The Irish Republican Army has had mixed success from terrorism. And of course the most strikingly successful terrorist attack in recent years was the Madrid bombing which — accompanied with some political incompetence — resulted in the Spanish withdrawal from Iraq. And here in the United Kingdom, there are those who believe Tony Blair should have followed Spain's lead into similar retreat. George Galloway, the British MP who has been embroiled in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, immediately called on the British to follow Spain's example and respond to the bombings by immediately pulling all of its troops out of "harms way" in Iraq. It was unclear whether he thought Tony Blair should bend over and let Osama Bin Laden smack him with a paddle while the Prime Minister shouted "Thank you sir! May I have another?" The peculiar irony of the British Left's position is that they are so keen to "blame the victim" — normally a major left-wing no-no. Gary Younge, a writer for the execrably anti-American newspaper The Guardian, proclaimed that the attacks were a direct result of the war in Iraq and that they never would have happened otherwise. The war, Younge writes, "diverted our attention and resources from the very people we should have been fighting — al-Qaida." So Al-Zarko-Boy represents who, again? Of course, the same Mr. Younge believed that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and, after the 9/11 attacks, he wrote eloquently about why so many Arabs, Muslims and anti-American Europeans had legitimate reasons to cheer. How many folks do you suppose will cheer when you die, weasel? How about you come to Ground Zero and cheer, eh? In their caricatured asininity, Young and Galloway are extreme examples of a more widespread mindset which assumes that America (along with Britain and its other allies) is the problem. And if we would just stop bothering the beehive, the bees would just stop stinging us. I can understand that. Works with bees. This is nonsense. Everything we've learned about the Jihadis in recent years points to the fact that they are more like killer bees than conventional ones. They spread. They're aggressive. And they seek to replace the traditional population wherever they appear. Regardless, the real danger isn't from a tiny rabble of Jihadi-useful idiots, but from the great mass of the British public. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, The Independent ran a splashy frontpage story on the "backlash" against Muslims. Keep in mind that this was the worst assault on London since the Blitz and the "backlash" amounted to little more than a broken window and a man getting roughed up in a pub. One has to wonder how many more pub-beatings took place that same weekend because some idiot said something unkind about Manchester United. The scandal wasn't that there was a "backlash" against the Muslim community; the outrage was that there wasn't more of a backlash within the Muslim community. We now know that the attackers were British-born and raised Muslims. And yet, there's precious little evidence that the Muslim community is eager to turn on the enemy within with any admirable enthusiasm. And there are even fewer signs that the British media has any interest in contributing to a "climate" which would encourage such a development. This is a recipe for unmitigated disaster. Obviously, it makes terrorism more likely. And it also creates precisely the sort of climate the press and moderate Muslims fear most. If normal Muslims can't be counted on to turn in terrorists in their midst, how can a nation avoid taking measures which will seem unfair to normal Muslims? Already, nine out of ten Brits support sweeping new powers for the police. If Jihadists can hide among the larger Muslim population, it's obvious that the larger Muslim population will come under greater scrutiny. The logic of the cancer cell kicks in and even more young Muslims feel "oppressed" and the number of Jihadis will grow. It's called positive feedback, I think. But even if the number doesn't grow, the danger is already enormous. The official number of British Muslims is 1.6 million, although most observers say it's closer to 2 million or so. The "official" guess at how many of these Muslims are Jihadists is 16,000, based on the assumption that no more than 1 percent could be extremists. This, of course, could be wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is the enemy's greatest asset. Examiner columnist Jonah Goldberg is editor at large at the National Review Online and a syndicated columnist. |
| Posted by:Bobby |