This morning, the Los Angeles Times gave the most behind the scenes story to date (that I’ve see at least), about the second bomber cell in London, the one that failed to carry out it’s mission:
The suspects had sharpened their radicalism in the streets, mosques and housing projects of rough ethnic neighborhoods, investigators, witnesses and friends say. They were brazen voices in an unsuspecting city, marginalized East Africans who lived by their wits, dabbling in street crime and reportedly manipulating the immigration and welfare systems. During workouts at a West London gym, they channeled their private rage into public diatribes.
Brothers Ramzi and Wharbi Mohammed sold Islamic literature and recited religious verses on a gritty North Kensington street of antiques stores and cafes, skirmishing with a shop owner who chased them away. Hamdi Issac, now jailed in Rome, belonged to a gang of extremists who waged a belligerent campaign to take over a mosque in South London. Roommates Muktar Said Ibrahim and Yasin Hassan Omar were loud militants, praising Osama bin Laden to neighbors at the rundown building where Ibrahim is accused of preparing five backpack bombs.
Their agitation allegedly gave way to action after July 7, when four young British Muslims, three from the northern city of Leeds, ignited bombs on three subway cars and a bus, killing themselves and 52 others. Issac claims that his group struck two weeks later in an improvised, independent tribute to the dead bombers. Despite similar methods and targets, British authorities say they have found no link between the two plots.
That last sentence is the most chilling. This wasn’t a second Al Qaeda cell activated and timed to strike a couple weeks after the first. The second group was simply “inspired” by the first to act on their own. In case there is any doubt as to what they claimed their motivation was, Italian investigators provide the answer:
“He’s calm — he seems scared,” said the Italian official, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons. “He’s open, gentle, polite; he doesn’t get mad even when you provoke him. But when you ask him why he did it, he starts with the speech about Iraq: They are killing women and children, no one’s doing anything about it, on and on. That’s when you can see there has been a brainwashing.”
As I recall, this was one of the reasons many moderates who despised Saddam and wanted him dead, nonetheless disagreed with the Neocons and their pre-war “swamp draining” arguments. You can’t change the culture and habits of people at the barrel of a gun and spread democracy like you are Johhny Appleseed spreading apple trees. The Neocons thought a regime change in Iraq would help start a chain reaction. They were right. They have provided the enemy with enough propaganda to recruit for a generation. I don’t advocate pulling out of Iraq with our job left unfinished, but hopefully Neocons and their hubris have now been defeated for at least one generation.
There was another story last week that I noticed didn’t get much press. On August 9th the China Daily reported that a suicide bomber blew up a bus in East China’s Fujian Province:
The suspected bomber, Huang Maojin, died on the spot.Huang, 42, was a farmer from Fujian’s Gutian County.
According to a suicide note found by police, he had been suffering from lung cancer for about two years.
In the letter, Huang said he had a dispute with one of his neighbours in 2002. He claimed he had been unfairly treated by the local public security department and was sentenced to jail until the end of 2003.
Now this worries me greatly. The idea of suicide bombing has so saturated the public consciousness that it has become “the thing to do.” Obviously this had nothing to do with Iraq, but stemmed from a local dispute. Because all reports in the Chinese media are censored we’ll never know what inspired him to go out the way he did. It’s pretty obvious though that bus bombings seem to get one noticed.
Huang Maojin… Further reporting on the background of the suicide bomber, how he built his bomb and what drove him to despair, appears to have been quashed in national media… The curious case has generated a stream of comments on the Internet, which serves as an office water cooler in China. Some chat-room posts blamed the rising cost of health care in China and the widening gap between rich and poor. Others paint Huang simply as a madman… Further reporting on the background of the suicide bomber, how he built his bomb and what drove him to despair, appears to have been quashed in national media. [Link]
=>”This wasn’t a second Al Qaeda cell activated and timed to strike a couple weeks after the first. The second group was simply “inspired” by the first to act on their own.”
That’s the whole problem. Targetting just the Al Qaeda leadership in its organised form isn’t necessarily going to solve the issue; this has become an ideology, some would say “cult”. Discrediting the ideology may be the only viable way forward, whether that “discrediting” comes from within (preferable) or from an outside source.
It’s even more worrying that apparently Iran is now openly recruiting for state-sponsored suicide bombers against supposed “Enemies of Islam”; refer to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4718873.stm
suicide-bombers + reactivating nuclear power plants = war
Ok I maybe over-reacting but it is very disturbing.
But why do you speak like suicide attacks are something new? Haven’t Indians been at it for a long time? Master-da, Kshudiram, Binoy-Badal-Dinesh, Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh.
During the Indo-Pak ’71 war, the Indian Army asked for voluteers to run up to Pakistani tanks and drop grenades down the turrets. I believe that had a 100% casualty rate.
I don’t know about the other individuals you’ve mentioned in your first paragraph, but Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh’s actions were not “suicide missions” in the same sense as the current trend amongst Islamist terrorists. They knew they would probably be captured and executed as a result of their actions, but deliberately killing themselves was not the aim of what they did. There is a subtle but significant difference here.
I do know that the example of the Indian army you’ve given does indeed fall into the category of “suicide bombing” but bear in mind that in all these cases, including the examples of Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh, they were not deliberately targetting innocent civilians.
Huh? You’re not aiming the gun at the people who will participate in the democracy, but the people who were impeding it.
The Brits seem to disagree…
I would think they would have more of a stake in getting this right.
Was there some shortage beforehand? So all those rallies after 9/11 supporting bin Laden, all those t-shirts sold, all those opinion polls saying he’s a hero, all the previous terrorist attacks… that was all some kind of timewarped result of the invasion of Iraq right?
If the London bombers hadn’t used Iraq as an excuse, they would have used Afghanistan. If not Afghanistan, then Palestine. If not Palestine, then Andalusia. You do remember.. don’t just cherry pick their justifications.. listen to them all. They want it all back and then some. Why didn’t they go attack a terrorist camp in Iraq where they are sending out people to blow up kids getting candy from soldiers if they “cared about the kids” so much?
Try not to sound so gleeful. Well most of us are actually cheering for democracy and change. We’re encouraged by the changes in Lebanon, the apparent change in the WMD/terrorist policies of Libya, the smaller changes in Egypt, Kuwait, etc. Of course, it’s not going to be perfect. These are long term changes we need to make.
Hubris? How are you going to look back on this 20 years from now when it all turns out to be a success? How are you going to look those people in the eyes?
Yea man f’ those dopey dreams of democracy. How very liberal! Gawd! You sound like Nancy Soderberg “we still have Iran and North Korea”.
We’re all in this together, y’know?
Weekly Standard on how Al Qaeda’s terrorism isnt necessarily motivated by Iraq (includes sepia content) and WaPo piece on US lowering its sights in Iraq (this one’s depressing).
When is someone gonna teach all these religiously zealots muslims that it is much harder to live for your cause than to die for it????
Yeah, good luck telling the difference.
Yes. Most recruitment efforts before Iraq centered on the Israeli/Palestine issue. That’s the issue that needed solving. I am encouraged by recent progress.
Yes, but many of those causes simply inspired whining and rhetoric, not action. Iraq inspired action because we didn’t understand the power and ability of the enemies propaganda machine or their culture.
Please don’t resort to stupidity when attempting to make an argument. It doesn’t come across well on this site.
I hope you aren’t implying they had anything to do with Iraq?
Again, please save your rhetoric. I can go to a Neocon website for that.
Honestly, go watch FOXNEWS please. I’m tired of your lame “arguments” already.
Abhi, you just lost all credibility with me with the above response. “go watch foxnews” ?? You’re kidding me right?
Why? What’s wrong with saying that?
Foxnews has reputation for being neither accurate, nor objective. Abhi, while I do strive to be moderate enough to listen to both conservative and liberal arguments, sources like Foxnews(conservative) and Newsweek(liberal) are clearly examples of propaganda journalism.
Unbelievable. Is everybody here sarcasm-impaired?
Relax guys. I was telling IreneFingIrene to go watch FoxNEWS which is an echo chamber for the type of crap he was saying. Rest assured that I would never watch it. 🙂
The failed second set of London bombings were most likely a setup by Pakistan to defuse popular perception that Pakistanis are behind every terrorist act – hence the choice of people of African/Caribbean stock as scapegoats.
M. Nam
Actually Abhi, I was dismayed that your response consisted of typical knee-jerk reactions by liberals to any sort of argument from a conservative. “GO WATCH FOX NEWS!” “BUSH IS A NAZI!” I really expected you to adress some of the fine points Irene made in her comment, instead you responded with the following example:
“I’m tired of your lame “arguments” already.”
I’m one of those Neo-cons and I’m looking for honest debate even on Sepia Mutiny, not typical sniping as we see on the major networks.
To sum it up, in retrospect, you really didnt lose credibility with me, I was just annoyed that you responded that way. Wow.. I don’t think I’ve written this much on SM before. I’m falling into the comment trap!! AHHHH!
Not true at all. I had nothing which I could argue against. Go look at what I was responding to. There is no argument there at all, simply “knee jerk” reactions from a neocon who was basically accusing me of being unpatriotic. If someone wanted to actually have an argument based on facts I’d be willing. It would have to be at the end of the day when I have time to type though 🙂 I too don’t like to fall into comment traps.
Abhi writes:The Neocons thought a regime change in Iraq would help start a chain reaction.
Correction. The Neocons told us they thought a regime change in Iraq would help start a chain reaction.
What the neocons actually think is a big unknown. I don’t think they are stupid to believe that they can bring democracy to an Islamic country.
M. Nam
I respect your opinions abhi, but there was plenty of substance to deal with in that post should you have wanted to do so. Telling someone to go watch Fox News is not a substantive response. You’re smarter than that.
Your first attempt at a ‘rebuttal’ – good luck telling the difference – implies there is no difference between a US soldier, marine, etc. and someone who blows up a bomb in front of a line of Iraqi army recruits or in a mosque or a school, killing children. The insurgency could have been stopped in it’s tracks now if the US military was as indiscriminate of civilian deaths as you, inadvertantly I’m sure, claim. And you yourself point to your own cousin who treated both insurgents and US soldiers in another post. You can do better.
Second, there were activists prominent in the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon who did relate Iraq and the changes that subsequently happened in Lebanon. Berlosconi, that old rascal, has said that the Libyans told him they were backing down because of Iraq (although I’m a bit sceptical of what he says, my Italian friends who voted for him notwithstanding 🙂 But they voted for him because they thought he would lower their taxes…). Michael Totten’s website has a lot of links to Lebanese democracy activists who connected Iraq and Lebanon; some he met on his trip there. Lebanese Political Journal is also a site you can visit for a similar view. It may not be accurate, and it may not be the majority, but people who were there say it, so that’s not a point of view that is made up (yes, I know I should link but I’m rushed today and honestly, I am an old lady fuddy-duddy with the computers. Let that detract from my arguments, then, dear commenters).
Third, most recruitment efforts were related to Palestine/Israel? (and I’m going to shock right and left here both by saying I’m just not interested in those shenanigans and I can’t understand why the world is held hostage to a relatively low level conflict in terms of deaths, especially when we have Darfur. Far more bloody, far more damaging. I think Palestine/Israel serves as a scapegoat and proxy, the least of which is as a pressure valve for dictatorial regimes who seek to turn attention elsewhere, and the traditional anti-imperialist arguments of some of the left). Bin Laden himself said US troops in Saudi was the main motivation….the Palestian thing was tacked on to later statements. Echo chamber indeed.
I could go on, but you get where I’m going with this….
Moor nam, so what Neocons are saying is not what they are thinking? Oh dear….Muslims simply can’t handle democracy, can they? Well, par for the course for an Indian-American website, eh?
Sorry MD. I disagree with you. There was NOTHING in IreneFingIrene’s post worth responding to and I have too much patience to be baited by conservatives who post on this site. I always drop the F-bomb (FoxNEWS) and will continue to do so with impunity when I am met with specious arguments like the one below.
Secondly,
Your kidding right? II’ve read it again three times now and I’m not how could you have possibly interpreted it that way? I have more than one family member who has served in the military. I said you couldn’t tell the difference between a rebel and the person you are trying to bring democracy to. That is because you are trying to bring democracy to the people/insurgents. You can’t tell THEM apart. My argument was in no way related to Americans or American troops.
Most recruitment efforts before Iraq centered on the Israeli/Palestine issue.
So, in your opinion, 9/11 was caused by Palestine conflict? A certain Mr Bin Laden begs to differ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1636782.stm
Let me reproduce some sections of his speech, which was basically a statement on his justification for the 9/11 attacks:
“…
War fundamentally religious
This clearly indicates the nature of this war. This war is fundamentally religious. The people of the East are Muslims. They sympathized with Muslims against the people of the West, who are the crusaders.
Crusade against Chechens
Let us examine the recent developments. Take for example the Chechens.
They are a Muslim people who have been attacked by the Russian bear which embraces the Christian Orthodox faith.
Crusade against Bosnia
This was followed by a war of genocide in Bosnia in sight and hearing of the entire world in the heart of Europe.
Kashmir and Chechens
Our brothers in Kashmir have been subjected to the worst forms of torture for over 50 years. They have been massacred, killed, and raped. Their blood has been shed and their houses have been trespassed upon.
East Timor and Somalia
Let us examine the stand of the West and the United Nations in the developments in Indonesia when they moved to divide the largest country in the Islamic world in terms of population.
Palestinians and Iraqis
But when we move to Palestine and Iraq, there can be no bounds to what can be said.
Over one million children were killed in Iraq. The killing is continuing.”
Yes, but many of those causes simply inspired whining and rhetoric, not action.
Of course…what’s a few hundred thousand Kashmiri Hindus or a few hundred children killed in Beslan in the name of Islam? Who cares about the 3000-odd dead on 9/11? We’ll all be smoking a peace pipe together if only we could get those undemocratic oppressive Israelis to get out of Palestiana nd make way for a beautiful utopian Ummah.
Again, please save your rhetoric. I can go to a Neocon website for that.
Sure, with such brilliant and insightful arguments coming from you, perhaps even those neocons may just begin to sound sensible.
Peace be upon you, Abhi.
Thanks Gujjubhai, no matter the post I can always count on you too be a consistent nonsensical ass who loves putting words in my mouth and following up with personal attacks.
Let me correct your ignorance of the matter. Bin Laden’s main motivation for 9/11 (no matter what he states for recruitment purposes) was Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That’s why he hates Americans. The majority of jihadists prior to 9/11 however were recruited because their was the perception of Americans and “Zionists” occupying Muslim lands. The focal point of that issue was the Israeli/Palestine conflict. That is where Al Jazeera broadcast most of its footage from. All other conflicts were mere blips on the map by comparison. They each contributed to the recruitment effort no doubt but not nearly as much as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You are naive if you think differently.
Now what the hell was the point of that rant? Again, you simply demonstrate what an ass you are. Did you lose friends on 9/11? I unfortunately did. Don’t try and lecture me from behind your computer screen. If you want to argue on our website please use facts and not rants.
I can see that this post is going to turn into a Left vs. Right foodfight. It’s a shame since the main issue in the post about the motivations of the London bombers and the unusual bus bombing in China. Maybe we can save our left vs. right material for another website.
I wrote a post on this recently on my blog, because I think it is important as a progressive to support democracy in Iraq (or at least the semblace of stability and peace for a short time, which seems the only plausible option that an informed person can actually cheer for right now) given that the alternative, for the people of Iraq and possibly the whole region (and possibly the world…it kind of reminds me of the Balkans during the early 20th century), is an absolute disaster. That’s a very difficult position to come to and to know what to do with because:
I’m not going to support the people who created this monstrosity of a war, who haven’t admitted that their strategy was flawed, that their approach was idiotics, that they have a poor understanding of democracy and how it works (if not societies altogether), and that things are about to go to hell in Iraq and possibly the whole region and they’re going to pull their troops out without doing a damn thing about it (perhaps because it’s geopolitically impossible by now).
So tell me what to do. I support people not getting killed and not being slaughtered and not getting blown up and the creation of the semblance of a functioning society in Iraq.
who loves putting words in my mouth
Well, I quoted you directly and attacked your argument by presenting evidence and facts that contradict your premise.
Bin Laden’s main motivation for 9/11 (no matter what he states for recruitment purposes) was Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That’s why he hates Americans.
Sorry, I was unaware of your clairvoyance. I’d still prefer to take a reality-based view rather than buy into your faith-based view of the world that keeps getting shattered with every act of Islamofascist terrorism. Between your words and Bin Laden’s acts, I think it’s more rational for me to use the latter as primary evidence.
Again, you simply demonstrate what an ass you are.
Wow, I am moved by your eloquence.
Did you lose friends on 9/11?
As a matter of fact, I did. I guess that makes us connected in some unfortunate sense. That’s why I want us to get them and not have to live through anything like that ever again. Meanwhile, thank you for awakening painful personal memories.
Thank you for saying this. I’d add to your list of things that are possibly of more concern than Iraq: the dying babies in Niger (and neighboring countries soon, from what I hear) and that there’s really bad news about global warming.
I wish those of us who aren’t enslaved to American broadcast and cable news weren’t so myopic about the world.
I have nothing in common with someone who thinks in black/white terms like this. I say we call it a truce by agreeing that we don’t view the world in the same way. I can live with that.
Abhi, I can understand your frustration given the tone of this thread so far (thanks Irene), but I’m not sure that your case is so cut and dry here. The creation of Israel and its subsequent actions have been a huge trigger in the Arab world, but I think it’s hard to say that the “majority” of jihadists were recruited for this particular reason above all others. Most of them were allegedly recruited through personal ties with other jihadists and had a variety of backgrounds and objections including the U.S. troop presence in what they considered their holy land, the discrimination some of them faced in France, their desire to overthrow the government in Egypt, the existence of a training school in Southeast Asia–these were all reportedly motivating factors for different folks who got involved in this. Check out this source.
Gujjubhai,
BinLaden’s turning point towards terrorism came when SaudiArabia let the US forces use its soil for army bases against Iraq during/after the Kuwait war. This was the single most grievance – that his motherland/holyland had foreign soldiers stationed on it. That’s what made him hate the US and turn against it. Until then, he was actually pro-US and received US help in Afghanistan.
However, his anger should have been directed against the Saudi leadership – not the US.
And this is why I think(reply to MD) that islamic societies are not amenable to democracy(Yes, Saurav. Like you I too want them to be democracies, but then I want to win the lottery as well!). Islamic philosophy has consistently tried to blame others for their predicament – never their own. BinLaden should have directed his anger against Saudis – but he chose to blame the infidel US, because fellow muslims were misled by the Satanic US.
Before I continue, let me build the groundwork for an analogy….
In the late 80’s, to reduce rampant crime in Brooklyn and Queens, the mayor had a stupidly brilliant idea: Bring big business there. The prosperity would automatically bring small business and consequently, peace. So they started building MetroTech in Brooklyn and Citicorp Center in Queens. Once they were operational, it quickly became apparent that it was a bad idea. People from all over came to work in these buildings which were self-sufficient(cafeteria etc). So they never ventured out. I used to work in Citicorp center briefly – I would run out the door at 4:59PM, because I knew that after 5:15Pm, the subway at the bottom of the building would be deserted except for goons. The so called “prosperity” has not materialised in either place after 15 years.
Point being: Change cannot come from outside. It has to come from within.
Islamic societies have not emerged from their 7th century mindset. They are not tolerant towards dissent – a key ingredient for democracy. The Islamic version of the European Enlightnment has yet to see the light of the day. The focus on religion is too hard. Just today Manish posted humour on plastic Vishnus in SM, including a song. Try doing something like that to Islam, and Manish’s life-insurance premiums will shoot up.
For democracy to take root, Islam needs to be modified and refined by moderate Muslims. But these are few and far between, and outnumbered by fanatics. Hence, there is no hope for it.
What Bush thinks is that if he can bring democracy by force in one Islamic country, it will see progress in a decade or two, thus spurring change in other Muslim countries. Since change is not coming from within, let’s try change from outside(with inside help).
A noble idea. But I’m not buying it.
M. Nam
Saurav, I am mainly arguing in terms of propaganda. Its hard to remember the original post but I made a link between Iraq and propaganda. Opression in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were Bin Laden’s prime motivations for 9/11. As far as recruitment however there was not a lot of TV footage of “repression” taking place in those two countries. The government censored it all. All the dish cities in places like France and the Muslim world, were not getting images from the streets of Saudi Arabia and Egypt broadcast into their television sets. Most images came from the Israel/Palestine region. The fact that there was more freedom of the press in this region actually worked against them.
Yeah, I wasn’t taking issue (as you might imagine) with your argument that the Not-So-Global War In Iraq has helped recruitment. my point was mainly that the people who got recruited into actual al qaeda and similar violence were apparently brought in through friendship circles and the such. I don’t know what videos they used, but the social connection is what I’m emphasizing.
Anyway, it’s not that important. You should really read that article though (if not the whole book)…it’s really interesting.
M.Nam,
Yes, I am in complete agreement with your last post. Islam needs a reform movement to make it compatible with modern society and stop the rhetoric about killing infidels to create Ummah. Muslim countries need to reform their governments and respect the rights of minorities to live as equal citizens. No modern democracy should fall for retrograde legal systems like Sharia.
I also do not support the Iraq war : I think Bush was an idiot to get into it. Strategically, it makes no sense for the US to be there. It is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that need a thorough cleansing from top to bottom, Iraq is just a stupid distraction. A concerted, hardline military strategy needs to be pursued in fighting against Islamic terrorism everywhere around the world – in Kashmir, Chechnya, Israel, Indonesia and so on. The terrorists have gotten away too easily and haven’t paid a high enough price for their crimes against humanity yet. That needs to change, and democracies must inflict sufficient military punishment upon those who support terrorism. After all, Libya and Syria did not turn into doves overnight : they feared American power enough to give up their policies. That is the only language to speak to these despicable enemies of civilization.
Pakistan: has nuclear power plants + schooling ground for fanatic aspirants. Saudi arabia: holy land for 1.2 billion muslims
Bush knew where he couldn’t attack unless he wanted 1.2 billion to wage war against him. Iraq was easier. Arab world hated Saddam anyway.
Wasn’t there an episode of NUMB3RS wherein a sniper attack triggers a string of copycat shootings, their frequency increasing exponentially? The mathematician deduced that the killings in total weren’t increasing, but someone who was looking to kill was increasingly opting to be a sniper instead of a strangler or pipe bomber. The modus operendi was spreading like a virus, proving from the days of Enlightenment that, indeed, ideas are infectious.
Okay, let’s try to take this discussion back to the main topic….
The main problems w.r.t suicide bombings — indeed Western-based terrorist cells — are as follows:
There isn’t enough of an outcry by respected Western-based imams against the incompatibility of suicide bombings (and the targetting of innocent civilians) with the tenets of Islam. Some voices have indeed been raised by various scholars and Muslim groups here in the UK, but some would say it hasn’t been done forcefully enough. Some would also say it’s “too little, too late”.
If the most respected global Islamic authorities, such as the Ayatollah in Iran and the senior clerics in Saudi Arabia, openly condemned suicide bombings as heretical and simultaneously declared fatwahs against OBL and Al-Qaeda as a whole (and any of their supporters), that would certainly go far in derailing the jihadists’ credibility amongst all but the most psychotically die-hard supporters. Unfortunately, this is not happening, and in fact the opposite is presently going on in Iran, as indicated by that BBC article I mentioned earlier.
It’s both mind-boggling and depressing. Just when you think things couldn’t get any worse, Iran actually jumps the shark and openly, actively starts recruiting for “martyrs” against the West. Is this belligerent stubbornness, insane over-confidence, or just a suicidal death wish….?