| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| Al-Qaeda, Victorian style |
| 2005-08-06 |
| Not sure it is a valid comparison; Imho, muslim terror has much deeper roots than a simple secular ideology, and AQ type terror is just one "military" arm of the global jihad, which is also economical, ideological, demographic,... and is not going to wither away all by itself. Still, the nihilist undertone is the same. Graham Stewart A bomb on the Underground was only one of the anarchist outrages that shook Europe a century ago AL-QAEDAâS international terror network is not unrivalled in history. A little over a century ago, anarchist cells, operating throughout the Western world, caused havoc. In the space of nine years between 1892 and 1901, anarchists assassinated the President of the United States, the President of France, the Prime Minister of Spain, the Empress of Austria and the King of Italy. As scalp hunting goes, this was an impressive collection. In London, post offices were blown up and public figures were targeted. A bomb went off on an Underground train as it was passing from Farringdon into what was then the Aldersgate Tube station. The carriage was shredded. Miraculously only one man was killed. Bombs were lobbed from upper galleries on to the floors of the Paris stock exchange and the French Chamber of Deputies. Army barracks were attacked. A bomb was detonated in a café near the Gare Saint-Lazare. Another device was tossed into a Madrid theatre, killing 20 people. These indiscriminate acts caused widespread alarm. Dark and shadowy bearded figures, with capes concealing orb-shaped bombs with fizzing fuses, stalked the popular imagination. The Times warned its readers of the âanarchist epidemicâ and told the Home Secretary, Herbert Asquith, to quit his âmasterly inactivityâ and get a grip on the problem. For a brief moment in the mid-1890s, the Western world shook before this new enemy within. And yet, where is the anarchist terror network now? Are there lessons in its rise and fall for todayâs war on terror? The militant atheists of late 19th- century Europe would have found little common intellectual ground with 21st-century Islamists. Yet, both were ascetic movements whose followers were repelled by the decadence and thoughtless exploitation they believed inherent in Western bourgeois society. Both movements turned away from the world as it was in favour of an idealised world as it might be. Like the Islamists, the anarchists rejected the political compromises of the democratic process. The more desperate among them put their point across with dynamite instead. Anarchists justified terrorism with the euphemism âpropaganda by the deedâ. The argument was lucidly expressed by Emile Henry when he stood in the dock during his trial for bombing the Parisian station café: âI wanted to show the bourgeoisie that their pleasures would no longer be complete, that their insolent triumphs would be disturbed, that their golden calf would tremble violently on its pedestal, until the final shock would cast it down in mud and blood.â These sentiments are reminiscent of those believers in American hubris who applauded when the mighty twin towers came tumbling down. Like al-Qaedaâs operatives, anarchists thrived on the cult of death. The 30,000 killed in the suppression of the Paris Commune in 1871, the hanging of four anarchists on flimsy evidence for a Chicago bomb explosion and even the death of three protesters at the hands of the police trying to prevent an illegal demonstration in Trafalgar Square in 1887 (the original âBloody Sundayâ): all were co-opted as martyrs to the cause whose deaths should be avenged. Unlike nationalist terrorist groups, such as the IRA or ETA, the gripe of anarchists and al-Qaeda was not confined to a specific grievance against a single country and its government. Rather, the grievance was international in reach and fundamental in ideology. Many of the anarchist outrages were committed by terrorists who were not of the same nationality as their target. A high proportion came from immigrant communities, often those who had arrived as political asylum-seekers through Victorian Britainâs open door. It was widely assumed in Europe that there was a tacit understanding that the anarchist cells could remain unmolested in Britain so long as they carried out their attacks abroad. In an echo of todayâs scathing criticism of âLondonistanâ, such tolerance infuriated European neighbours who believed London was becoming a base for terrorist strikes on the Continent. When the terror came to London, the foreign press could scarcely conceal its relief. In 1898 the Italian Government called an international conference to address the anarchist threat. The intention was to reach agreement for each country to frame laws that banned anarchist publications and publicity of anarchist trials and that all anarchists should be repatriated to their country of origin. This proved too sweeping at the time, although the US Congress responded to the assassination of President McKinley with a law banning entry to the country to anyone âwho disbelieves in or is opposed to all organised governmentsâ. In Britain, the 1905 Aliens Act allowed for the deportation of undesirable immigrants. By then, the anarchist terror threat had already abated. Partly, it was because the forces of law and order made life so difficult for the terrorists and their sympathisers. This was not easy. The decentralised nature of anarchism meant that its terrorist cells were small. It could not be decapitated merely by rounding up the ringleaders. Indeed, many of the atrocities were committed by adherents acting on their own initiative. However, this was not an excuse for doing nothing. Suspected anarchists were watched, their meetings monitored, their clubs closed down. Groups remaining unmolested feared that they had been infiltrated by police informers. This had a corrosive effect on the bonds of trust that underground movements depend upon. Those sent to prison became suspicious on release of those who remained at liberty. Suspicion bred disintegration. The principal cause, though, was the realisation that while other socialist movements were making gains, the anarchists, by refusing to engage and cooperate, were not. Potential converts joined the radical causes that were succeeding instead. This is the problem for âall-or-nothingâ fundamentalism: it usually ends with nothing. Terrorists with specific goals and the nous to make tactical compromises can end up in power. But this imperfect world is not good enough for al-Qaeda. And that profound weakness may yet confine it to the same historical irrelevance as the 1890s anarchists. |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #7 In Terror and Liberalism Paul Berman argues that some of the facist roots of Muslim Brotherhood et al are not just Islamic but European imports, and he makes some links with the anarchist movement. One common theme is that one measure of the validity of a philosophy is how much you are willing to destroy for its sake. Are you willing to die for it? Blow up children for it? |
| Posted by: James 2005-08-06 20:31 |
| #6 The money quote - The principal cause, though, was the realisation that while other socialist movements were making gains, the anarchists, by refusing to engage and cooperate, were not. The so called anarchists were socialists for the most part - revolutionary socialists. They lost ground becuase socialism was gaining ground without terrorism. The article should logically conclude that we can stop islamic terrorism by ensuring enough people convert to Islam. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-06 19:31 |
| #5 A good history argument is ensuing. Good because it cannot be resolved absolutely. Princip was a Serb Nationalixt. He was in the Black Hand. Was he an anarchist? I dunno. I doubt 2005 is like 1905 in that the Wahabbist threat has passed like the anarchist one didt, though. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-08-06 14:07 |
| #4 Really? From what I remember, he's been consistently described as an "anarchist". I could easily be misremembering, though. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-06 13:16 |
| #3 Princip was no anarchist. He was a radical Serbian nationalist. He was not acting alone either, he was one of an organized conspiracy by an irredentist group affiliated with the Serbian secret service, or of a faction therein. Pretty much the opposite of an anarchist, ideologically. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2005-08-06 13:02 |
| #2 In Britain, the 1905 Aliens Act allowed for the deportation of undesirable immigrants. By then, the anarchist terror threat had already abated. WWI was sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. By an anarchist. That threat had really "abated", hadn't it? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-06 12:30 |
| #1 This is the problem for âall-or-nothingâ fundamentalism: it usually ends with nothing. Ain't that the truth. Despite all of the planning, death and destruction, they have gained nothing and lost much. And with each attack, they lose more. You think at some point they'd get a clue - but they won't. Just as an aside, I predict that we will soon see a shift in the rhetoric. Instead of "root causes, oil, poverty and the big bad Dick Cheney" we are going to start seeing the handwringers agonizing if Western decadence is to blame. I almost look forward to the day that the Beserkly crowd blames Bush for moral decay and praising the Islamists for saving them from moral decadence. LOL! It all makes sense when you understand that it's really all about hating America for these people. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-06 11:24 |