Terror spreads to London

Every visitor or resident from Bangladesh knows that underground trains are the best way of getting around London and its suburban areas. The trains are efficient, quick, and run with great speed, and they have been a part of life in London since 1893. Of the 12 underground train lines, the Piccadilly line is the deepest one and one of the explosions occurred in this line. The rescue efforts have, therefore, been difficult.

The victims of the London's bombings belong to a multi-cultural group, almost drawn from all continents. The horrors created among innocent civilians are terrible and deserve condemnation in the strongest terms.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Among the missing persons, two are reportedly from South Asia. One is a Bangladeshi young girl born in Britain. She is Sharara Akhter Islam, 20 years of age, and a bank employee. Another one is of Indian origin, Neetu Jain, 37, a computer analyst.

It is reported that Ms Islam left her home (where she lives with her parents Shamsul Islam and Rumana, 17-year old brother and 13-year old sister) for a dentist's appointment before going to her job at the bank. She never arrived at the bank. Her family fears that she might have been caught up in the explosion that wrecked the underground train just beyond Aldgate station in East London at 8.51.

Although she was known to be a devout Muslim and regularly had been going to the mosque every Friday with her close-knit family, she loved designer handbags, clothes, and going out with friends. Shahara Islam embodied as much as anyone multicultural Britain and the way in which younger generations of Muslims are embracing both their own and Western cultures.

Her uncle Nazmul Hassan reportedly said about the bombing: "If there was a word to describe them, I would use it but there isn't. Inhuman doesn't come close to it, the word terrorist doesn't come close to it. These people are not Muslims. No Muslim in this God-given world who has an iota of compassion or humanity would do this."

Why London?
Many, including noted political analyst, Tariq Ali, say that the London bombing is a payback for the Iraq war supported by Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister. London's Mayor Ken Livingstone appealed to Tony Blair not to support the war in Iraq and he arguments are prophetic: "An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation, and global stability."

Others disagree with such assessment because the 9/11 attacks in the US took place before the Iraqi war. Terrorist attacks occurred in Paris in 1995 and in Nairobi in 1998. They argue that it is an ideological war, launched much before the Iraqi war. It is an orthodox Islamic ideology that attempts to impose a way of life that severely restricts social freedom of Muslim women, brutalises dissent, and suffocates moderate interpretation of Islam.

Last year, London's retired police commissioner said that it was only the question when terrorist attacks would occur, not if. It is true that in a big city, like London, with population of 10 million, where 3 million take public transport daily, it is difficult to protect people from such attacks. It seems that the perpetrators were very sophisticated in their deadly business and they knew thoroughly the London transport system and the stations that would have most devastating impact on commuters.

Perpetrators are non-state actors
The question is how the London bombings occurred in a city that was prepared for such attacks for a long time. London is reported to be the best protected city in the world because it had the experience of IRA bombings in the 70s and 80s. IRA attack came close to blowing up the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Brighton.

A deadly phenomenon in national and international security has emerged from anonymous people who wear no uniforms, have no support from any nation-state, who do not play by the warfare rules, and who remain elusive. The non-state actors pose a grave threat to international stability. Such phenomenon has not been thought of or conceived in the UN Charter. The non-state actors remain outside nation's defence strategy and deterrence.

Fanatics in every religion
Although all religions profess peace, tolerance, and compassion to uplift moral and spiritual stature of human beings, each religion has a minority of fanatics.

Some Jews think that Christians and Muslims are perverts because they have departed from their religion. Furthermore, they want their "Biblical" state as large as from the Red Sea to Tigris River. They want to build a Jewish temple on the site of Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest place among Muslims.

Some radical Christians accuse Jews of murdering Jesus Christ and think Islam is an religion of the sword that advocates "jehad." The meekness taught by Jesus was thrown out during the aggressive wars of the Crusades (1095 to 1272 AD), supported by Pope Urban II. Nor was the tolerance taught by Jesus visible in the ruthless inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church launched to suppress "heresy" in the mid-13th century or to combat Protestantism in the mid-16th century.

Even among most peaceful Buddhists in Sri Lanka, some have demonstrated their revenge mentality when they refused to support the government in providing relief money to tsunami victims in the rebel-held area in northern Sri Lanka.

These are the realities of life that a fringe of minority fanatics believe in something that has been interpreted by them to be the "authentic version" of their religion.

Likewise there exists Islamic fanatics who firmly hold the view that their version of Islamic way of life has been ordained by God at the beginning of time and will continue to remain so, without any change whatsoever until the end of time and any deviation from their interpretation of Islamic way of life is a mortal sin. It is a belief held by them that cannot be shaken.

Such interpretation of Islam is not new. Many Islamic scholars did not support such rigid interpretation of Islam. In South Asia, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Justice Syed Ameer Ali, philosopher Mohammad Iqbal, and intellectual Abul Hashim advocated "liberal" interpretation of Islam.

Are there possible reasons for such cowardly attacks?
Many political observers attempt to analyse why do some people carry out such callously inhuman attacks? After such deadly attacks, the question that largely dominates is: "Who did it?" not "Why did they do it?"

The horrific events that have occurred since 2001 require an examination of issues that existed before such criminal activities, issues that would have continued to exist irrespective of such crimes.

It appears that orthodox interpretation of Islam has existed all through the centuries. Why is that fanatics have been able to recruit "jehadis" to carry out such deadly attacks on innocent civilians?

Some authors have described certain reasons for this evil phenomenon and even Tony Blair talked about the elimination of root causes of terrorism as he admitted that it was very difficult, if not impossible for the government, to protect the British people from such future attacks.

First, the central problem lies in the Middle East. For the last 38 years, Israel has run havoc with lives of Palestinian people. No Western country did anything substantial to prevent Israel from conducting its senseless atrocities with impunity on Palestinians. The weapons used by Israel are acquired from Western countries, notably from the US.

The desperation out of the reckless conduct of Israel is not a matter of few years. It started intensively from 1967 when Israel defeated Arabs in a six-day war. The defeat has humiliated Arabs and they cannot forget it. The big powers at the UN Security Council did not condemn or deplore Israeli actions because of veto power exercised by a permanent member of the council.

The anguished feelings of rage and desperation of the deprived Palestinians have reverberated through the Arab world. This provided a golden opportunity for Islamic fanatics to exploit and recruit them to create mayhem principally in the Western world.

All talk of freedom and democracy by the Bush administration seems hollow to the Muslim victims of Israeli aggression as well as to victims of unrelenting war on Muslims in Chechnya, Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Second, the Iraqi war has been a principal incubator of terrorism. Many militant Arabs feel humiliated by the occupation of an Arab country by Christian forces. The possible analogy would be if the Vatican was occupied by Muslim soldiers, how some orthodox Christians would feel about it.

Furthermore, Muslim fanatics got what they wanted. Because of the on-going Iraqi war, they are able to recruit and deploy suicide bombers in Iraq to kill Muslims, Christians, and others. The Iraqi government supporters are perceived as "traitors" to Islam.

For example the statement, posted on the Internet on July 8 announcing the murder of the Egyptian Ambassador to Iraq, Ihab el-Sharif, said everything about their mind: "We, al-Qaeda in Iraq, announce that the judgment of God has been implemented against the Ambassador of the infidels. Oh! Enemy of God, Ihab el-Sharif, this is your punishment."

Third, many political leaders including Pakistan's President Musharraf have said in many forums that poverty is one of the causes of recruitment of young people to militant Islam. In the Palestinian territory, 60 percent of youths are unemployed, helpless, and hopeless. Not to address poverty in the Middle East is one of the reasons for easy recruits. Otherwise how can one reason with the willingness of a suicide bomber when he/she knows of his/her death in doing such an act? To a suicide bomber, it appears living or dying does not make such difference.

Finally, act of terrorism is an asymmetrical war. The fanatics know very well that they cannot fight against superior power of states. In such circumstances it is the weak power that engages in guerilla tactics -- hit and run. Vietnam war is a classic example to demonstrate this power by the weaker party.

Conclusion
Many say that war on terrorism is a misplaced term. Terrorism is a tactic to achieve the goals of the fanatics. If it is a war, it is against the firmly held belief of fanatics. It is not an ordinary war and one does not know how long it will take to eliminate the extremist ideology. But one fact on which many agree: fighting terrorism with war is like fighting fire with petrol. War is fuel to terrorism, not a deterrent. Violence begets violence.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.