When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.

Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

Hassanbutt1@gmail.com

*applause*

Would that there were more Muslims at BrainMeta. But hopefully this laudable meme will be readily distributed around the internet.

Rescinding one's crimes is one of those strange phenomena that occurs when the police are seen to have great success in apprehending criminals committing related offenses. But unlike Catholics, many do not believe that waving a magic wand will provide forgiveness for such humanity-debasing crimes, or those crimes associated with the procurement of terrorism, many of which are themselves punishable by law, at least in the UK. Hassanbutt1@gmail.com should truly repent by giving up themselves to the police, admitting terrorism-related activities and take their punishment by the ass for at least a lifetime!

Hassan Butt seems already to have repented, and to be acting to try and heal the hurt that his previous allegiances caused. Punishment by incarceration would seem only to be motivated by a desire for retribution. It would also prevent him from taking the positive actions he's currently taking. So I'm not sure I agree.

So you're saying that all criminals of this magnitude should be able to commit crimes and then get away with it by just saying sorry? You'll get a good majority as the leader of the "Commit A Serious Crime And Get Away With It" Party! I can only think that anyone supporting this would be a criminal or ex-criminal themselves. Also, I repeat, this change of mind is probably stimulated by the several and increasing successes in apprehending terrorists that only serves to emphasise the cowardice their character is based upon. They should all serve a long and miserable incarceration when caught, or preferably a death sentence by hanging. Remember, innocent children, pregnant females and the disabled are included as victims of injury and death due to the use of such methods as nail bombs, corrosive chemicals, microbiological flesh eating diseases and tissue destructive radioactivity. SORRY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. So think before you get involved!

I'm discouraged by the sheer number of times that a statement of mine has been met with a response beginning "So you're saying that... [misstatement or exaggeration of my position]".

If you go back and read my post again, carefully this time, you'll see that I made three observations and then said that I wasn't sure I agreed with you. If one holds strongly and emotionally to a particular view then it's understandable that one could see someone who hesitates to agree with one and makes contrary noises as holding a view diametrically opposed to one's own - but that is a mistake. In fact I didn't say what you represent me as having said.

Amazingly enough, I actually don't agree that "all criminals of this magnitude should be able to commit crimes and then get away with it by just saying sorry."


I agree. I'm not a terrorism apologist. All those things you list are very undesirable. But although it is exactly that sentiment (that terrorism and murder are awful) that guides our debate, the arguments we use to discuss crimes and punishments ought to be rational ones and not emotive ones. When people start to use emotive language, attack the holders of viewpoints rather than the viewpoints themselves, and misstate their opponents' positions, those are signs that careful thought is slipping by the wayside. And careful thought is particularly important in cases like this one, which are very relevant in the present day and also very fraught with emotion.


This is the point I was getting at. It seems (and please set me right if I'm wrong here) that you are in favour of punishment as retribution for the terrible acts that the criminals committed (above and beyond punishment as prevention or as rehabilitation, both of which I would support). If this is correct, then we disagree on a fundamental point: whether retribution is an appropriate motivation for punishment. I don't think it is...

Actually, YOU should read my comment, carefully this time - it is a QUESTION that I asked you!

The effects of nail bombs, corrosive chemicals, microbiological flesh eating diseases and tissue destructive radioactivity tend to make potential victims (includes you and me) rather emotional. Although politicking might attempt to avoid responses based on emotions, it is driven by the emotions drawn from events that the served populations' encounter emotionally.

I'm correcting you, because you are wrong, although I cannot think why, unless you are being emotional rather than obvious . The methods I support are meant as deterrents to future terrorists. Perhaps you could name some alternatives that will stop the often sane but inhuman perpetrators of terrorism from continuing this, essentially incarceration (mentally or physically) through fear, of the innocent million. Then let the world leaders know, for they have obviously neglected to think about this adequately.

Hassan Butt former Muhajiroun who recruited for Jihad and lived in Pakistan is alive, well, and granting interviews in UK

Pakistan accuses Britain of harboring terrorists
July 31, 2005

MIM: Hassan Butt should be in jail- not granting interviews. But he continues to provide the radical Islamist groups in Britain with a the chance for them to claim that they are moderates.

Radical Muslim questions tactics of bombers
By David Millward
(Filed: 30/07/2005)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

A Muslim who helped recruit young men to fight for the Taliban says that those willing to plant bombs in London were guilty of tactical errors but were not immoral.

Hassan Butt, 25, earned notoriety in January 2002 when he told the BBC's Today programme that Britons who went to fight the West in Afghanistan would return home to launch terror attacks.

Three years on, in an interview given to Prospect magazine some months before the bombings and published this week, he predicted that "a lot of killing" is unavoidable if the world is to come under the banner of Islam.

Formerly the self-styled spokesman for al-Muhajiroun, an Islamic fundamentalist group, he split from the faction over the issue of the "covenant of security", which forbade Muslims living in Britain from engaging in military action within the country.

While al-Muhajiroun supported the concept, Butt said he did not. His opposition to committing acts of violence was, he said, a matter of tactics rather than principle. "Now, I am not in favour of military action in Britain but if somebody did do it who was British, I would not have any trouble with that either. . . It wouldn't necessarily be the wisest thing to do but it wouldn't be un-Islamic."

Anyone who was involved in such attacks would be a "completely and utterly loose cannon", said Butt, who now lives in the Leeds suburb of Beeston. Such "military action" would be unwise because "a bomb in London would be strategically damaging to Muslims here. Immigration is lax in Britain. . . London has more radical Muslims than anywhere in the Muslim world. A bomb would jeopardise everyone's position. There has to be a place we can come."

But he drew a distinction between Muslims who sought refuge in Britain - who would be bound by the covenant - and those who were born here, who would not.

"Most of our people, especially the youth, are British citizens," he said. "They owe nothing to the Government. They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain."

Click me for a surprise!

To your first post: You did ask me a question, and I answered it, but you excluded my answer from the quote that you selected!

To your second post: I'm not proposing to "politick", whatever that means. Again, I agree that terrorist attacks are terrible, and people should be aware of their brutality. But to dwell on that merely incites anger. While anger is an entirely appropriate reaction, it's not a good basis for wise action. Calm and reason are necessary for that.

To your third post: okay, punishment as deterrent. The criminal would be hanged as a means to the end of discouraging further crimes. (That's also pretty brutal.) It may be plausible to use capital punishment as a deterrent, but it could also be argued that it makes those ideologically aligned with the criminal more vehement in their cause.

As regards suggesting alternative strategies to dissuade terrorists... I'm afraid I'm just not knowledgable enough to suggest specific ideas. I tend to disagree with Hassan Butt when he says that Western foreign policy is irrelevant, although I'll bow to his greater experience on that point. Radical Islam is largely to blame, but so are fundamentalist Christianity and imperialistic foreign policies (which endure prominently in the UK and the USA). Ultimately? Greed, ignorance and hatred. If those three things can be lessened, it will make the global environment far less conducive to acts of terror.

I don't think there's any ironclad proof that Hassan Butt committed any crimes, so there's no basis for punishment via legal routes. In terms of his admissions, he can always recant or claim he is just joking. But I think the importance of him speaking out is in providing insight into the causes of terrorism and in trying to convince other terrorists of the errors of their ways.

Hey Hey, I suppose you want to throw this guy in jail or whatever, but that is shortsighted, and you may win this particular battle that way, but not the war. If Hassan Butt has the ability to persuade actual or potential terrorists that there are more productive ways to spend their time and effort, then that is worth something in the long term.

Hassan Butt admits he sent a 17-year-old boy from England to Pakistan to be involved in terrorist training. This "recruitment for terrorism" is a crime in the UK and US. And, even hoaxing about terrorism is likely to be treated as a much more serious offense. ( http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/02terrorsum.htm , http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAc...nth=4&Year=2007 )Then let him do it from jail. There is also, as indicated above, the issue:

"But he continues to provide the radical Islamist groups in Britain with a the chance for them to claim that they are moderates."

What's going on here? Is there some more political correctness madness? Or are the contributers here more braindead than brainmeta? We are talking 9/11, 7/7, 29/6, 30/6! Are you blind? Look at the maimed, dead, threatened and fearful - the innocent! We need to convince these people that terrorism will not be accepted. If they are caught after terror murder they will be jailed for their natural lives or hanged.

Hey Hey, what you are trying to do is polarize the situation instead of trying to understand the reasons why people would be inclined towards acts of terrorism. I think the solution involves correctly addressing the root of the cause, and recognizing that even terrorists are human beings, albeit misguided, instead of demonizing them and belittling the reasons that cause them to do what they do. By demonizing them and belittling their causes, you simply add fuel to the fire and cause others to sympathize with the plight of the terrorists. A better understanding of human nature goes a long way.

I found something related and potentially interesting, but didn't want to divert the exact topic of this conversation so I put it here (link)

For what it counts, I agree with Hey Hey all the way. There is no imaginable punishment enough in this world appropiate to fit the crime that these monsters commit against humanity. other than by way of inhumane treatment. But, this is the West, for good and bad; and our legal and criminal systems are structured around the concept of respect for the human rights of the individual-incluiding the criminal. Something they don't deserve, but are enjoying and laughing at.

We can try and understand them whilst we imprison them prior to hanging! How does letting them off help in understanding them or their cause. But OK then, let's just burn the law books to help reduce global warming and turn the prisons into shelters for the homeless. There are a few guys I dislike. Maybe I should plan to nail bomb them. After all, you would then ensure I go unpunished whilst you try to understand me - very "real world".
What are these reasons that I am belittling? Convince me that I should elevate these reasons into normality and sensibility. Here's a starter reason: you do not believe in god, so you must be killed. Any other reasons that I should take on board and accept?

Hey Hey, it's impossible to debate anything with you if you just rant and rave. You've repeatedly been presented with opportunities to speak clearly, calmly and rationally, but you've preferred to rant at almost every turn. The attitude you're currently portraying is one of total closed-mindedness (which bears a striking similarity to radical Islamic mullahs, fundamentalist Christian neoconservatives, or Victorian imperialist Britons). Unless you slow down, calm down, and speak plainly and reasonably, there's really no point discussing this...

I would like to point out that this does not represent islam or islamists at all. This represents extremists only. All religions have their extremists. Do the people who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors represent all christians? Do they represent the bulk of christians? No, of course not. Likewise the violent idiots doing things in the name of islam do not represent islam.

I'd like to refer you back to my last post, that maybe asks questions and makes points that you obviously don't like, or more likely can't answer! Alternatively, you could always post more putdowns as an excuse for not dealing with the points raised. (Sorry that my style of putting them has upset your delicate nature, although it seems not to be so upset by the torn flesh of terrorist activities). You know, sonny, ranting is quite a common human characteristic, especially when one might have a personal experience that has placed them emotionally close to a particular issue. Nevertheless, it does itself not invalidate an opinion or argument.

I am merely attempting to use realistic insightful language that you might understand, as someone who seems not to have had the privilege of stepping out of their tower, and who gives the impression that he/she sees the world from a TV screen. How about some of YOUR personal rantings:I'm sure that Homeland Security loves this point of view, especially when they're trying to save your ass!(I threw in that rant just for effect )

Unless you beckon, I won't reply to any more of your posts as you'll need all the time you can muster to deal with the lightweight replies you seem to prefer. Unfortunately for you, some of us just won't capitulate. Instead, we'll know where we stand when we are mugged in the street and you turn your back and stand to one side waiting to shake the hand of the mugger. (There you go, I threw in another rant! Hey I'm getting pretty good at this. Thanks for the chance to practice.)

This needs repeating now and again. Well inserted amidst the flailing prose.

Do we place the good of the many over justice for the few? Personally, I think the good of the many is more valuable and that to extol justice for a few misses the bigger picture.

Depends on how you think really.

If your thinking in terms of a chaos theory, then saving one persons life could lead to the saving of millions.

Which would you choose then? save one persons life now and save millions later, or save two peoples lives now but millions die?

The problem with this is of course that we cannot affirm which actions will lead to the desired reactions on such a massive scale. If we could do that, we could control the future. So, its more complicated than what first appears. Logically it would seem better to save two people over one, but what if that second person was Hitler?

Then you also have to consider the cause and effect relationship that follows. Funny when you think how simple actions you take will change things for years down the road. Should we chatise kortikal? What he could be the one to end this war? Then how many would be saved? How many needless deaths would be undone?

You see, things are not always as they appear. If Kortikal's intentions are indeed genuine and if he were to only stop two people from causing terror. Those two could in turn avoid killing tens of thousands of people. Then the effect begins to grow.

So, it seems to early to needlessly chastise a person when he may very well save thousands of lives.

It's a bit like statistics - the odds of winning the lottery jackpot are extremely low. But someone wins it most weeks. That someone getting terrorized could be you!! Individuals are important. So long as overall the human race is comfortable and survives then you're saying we should forget the Nelson Mandelas (well we did for years), Alan Johnstons and Madeleine McCanns as they don't matter. One really important singularly human characteristic, associated with civilization and ethics, is the emphasis on the importance of individuals. Taking away the importance of the individual is dangerous - think totalitarianism. I quote from Achintya's favourite source (Wikipedia):

"Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer argues that mass movements like Communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious, yet imaginary, future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. Individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established."

Interreligious football:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2045336.ece

Execution by hanging has some positive results:

1. The executed criminal will not repeat his crime.

2. Like minded criminals might be deterred by seeing the results of swift and sure justice.

As mentioned in the piece that opened this thread, the real cause of terrorism is incorrect theology. Therefore the solution is to hang incorrect theologins on the grounds that they are promoting terrorist acts. The sight of a dozen or so incorrect theologins twisting slowly, slowly, in the wind might cause young radicals to think twice about the bad advice they have been receiving.

Now you're talking like a true Texan! I happen to believe that the death penalty, in any way or form is not enough punishment to fit any tipe of crime. Do you really belive that hanging Usama Bin Laden would be enough punishment for his crimes? It would be such a failure of justice, that it's almost ridiculous to even consider it.

Bin Laden has bin dead for years. Haven't you heard?

"As mentioned in the piece that opened this thread, the real cause of terrorism is incorrect theology. Therefore the solution is to hang incorrect theologins on the grounds that they are promoting terrorist acts."

It's easy to talk tough when you are talking about punishment for someone else. Those things tend to come back and bite you in the ass. Who is to decide what "incorrect theology" is? The bible advocates stoning adulterers. Should anyone who preaches the bible be killed? Why lower yourself to the level of those you think are wrong?

Just copied this from a note by a friend on Facebook... don't know quite where it comes from. But there are very limited references at the bottom.

~~~~
Correspondent Inference Theory Makes Terrorism Fail
~~~~

Two people are sitting in a room together: an experimenter and a subject. The experimenter gets up and closes the door, and the room becomes quieter. The subject is likely to believe that the experimenter's purpose in closing the door was to make the room quieter.

This is an example of correspondent inference theory. People tend to infer the motives -- and also the disposition -- of someone who performs an action based on the effects of his actions, and not on external or situational factors. If you see someone violently hitting someone else, you assume it's because he wanted to -- and is a violent person -- and not because he's play-acting. If you read about someone getting into a car accident, you assume it's because he's a bad driver and not because he was simply unlucky. And -- more importantly for this column -- if you read about a terrorist, you assume that terrorism is his ultimate goal.

It's not always this easy, of course. If someone chooses to move to Seattle instead of New York, is it because of the climate, the culture or his career? Edward Jones and Keith Davis, who advanced this theory in the 1960s and 1970s, proposed a theory of "correspondence" to describe the extent to which this effect predominates. When an action has a high correspondence, people tend to infer the motives of the person directly from the action: e.g., hitting someone violently. When the action has a low correspondence, people tend to not to make the assumption: e.g., moving to Seattle.

Like most cognitive biases, correspondent inference theory makes evolutionary sense. In a world of simple actions and base motivations, it's a good rule of thumb that allows a creature to rapidly infer the motivations of another creature. (He's attacking me because he wants to kill me.) Even in sentient and social creatures like humans, it makes a lot of sense most of the time. If you see someone violently hitting someone else, it's reasonable to assume that he's a violent person. Cognitive biases aren’t bad; they’re sensible rules of thumb.

But like all cognitive biases, correspondent inference theory fails sometimes. And one place it fails pretty spectacularly is in our response to terrorism. Because terrorism often results in the horrific deaths of innocents, we mistakenly infer that the horrific deaths of innocents is the primary motivation of the terrorist, and not the means to a different end.

I found this interesting analysis in a paper by Max Abrams in International Security. "Why Terrorism Does Not Work" (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.42) analyzes the political motivations of 28 terrorist groups: the complete list of "foreign terrorist organizations" designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. He lists 42 policy objectives of those groups, and found that they only achieved them 7 percent of the time.

According to the data, terrorism is more likely to work if 1) the terrorists attack military targets more often than civilian ones, and 2) if they have minimalist goals like evicting a foreign power from their country or winning control of a piece of territory, rather than maximalist objectives like establishing a new political system in the country or annihilating another nation. But even so, terrorism is a pretty ineffective means of influencing policy.

There's a lot to quibble about in Abrams' methodology, but he seems to be erring on the side of crediting terrorist groups with success. (Hezbollah's objectives of expelling both peacekeepers and Israel out of Lebanon counts as a success, but so does the "limited success" by the Tamil Tigers of establishing a Tamil state.) Still, he provides good data to support what was until recently common knowledge: Terrorism doesn't work.

This is all interesting stuff, and I recommend that you read the paper for yourself. But to me, the most insightful part is when Abrams uses correspondent inference theory to explain why terrorist groups that primarily attack civilians do not achieve their policy goals, even if they are minimalist. Abrams writes:

The theory posited here is that terrorist groups that target civilians are unable to coerce policy change because terrorism has an extremely high correspondence. Countries believe that their civilian populations are attacked not because the terrorist group is protesting unfavorable external conditions such as territorial occupation or poverty. Rather, target countries infer the short-term consequences of terrorism -- the deaths of innocent civilians, mass fear, loss of confidence in the government to offer protection, economic contraction, and the inevitable erosion of civil liberties -- (are) the objects of the terrorist groups. In short, target countries view the negative consequences of terrorist attacks on their societies and political systems as evidence that the terrorists want them destroyed. Target countries are understandably skeptical that making concessions will placate terrorist groups believed to be motivated by these maximalist objectives.


In other words, terrorism doesn't work, because it makes people less likely to acquiesce to the terrorists' demands, no matter how limited they might be. The reaction to terrorism has an effect completely opposite to what the terrorists want; people simply don't believe those limited demands are the actual demands.

This theory explains, with a clarity I have never seen before, why so many people make the bizarre claim that al Qaeda terrorism -- or Islamic terrorism in general -- is "different": that while other terrorist groups might have policy objectives, al Qaeda's primary motivation is to kill us all. This is something we have heard from President Bush again and again -- Abrams has a page of examples in the paper -- and is a rhetorical staple in the debate. (You can see a lot of it in the comments to this previous essay.)

In fact, Bin Laden's policy objectives have been surprisingly consistent. Abrams lists four; here are six from former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer's book Imperial Hubris:

1. End U.S. support of Israel
2. Force American troops out of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia
3. End the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and (subsequently) Iraq
4. End U.S. support of other countries' anti-Muslim policies
5. End U.S. pressure on Arab oil companies to keep prices low
6. End U.S. support for "illegitimate" (i.e. moderate) Arab governments, like Pakistan


Although Bin Laden has complained that Americans have completely misunderstood the reason behind the 9/11 attacks, correspondent inference theory postulates that he's not going to convince people. Terrorism, and 9/11 in particular, has such a high correspondence that people use the effects of the attacks to infer the terrorists' motives. In other words, since Bin Laden caused the death of a couple of thousand people in the 9/11 attacks, people assume that must have been his actual goal, and he's just giving lip service to what he claims are his goals. Even Bin Laden's actual objectives are ignored as people focus on the deaths, the destruction and the economic impact.

Perversely, Bush’s misinterpretation of terrorists' motives actually helps prevent them from achieving their goals.

None of this is meant to either excuse or justify terrorism. In fact, it does the exact opposite, by demonstrating why terrorism doesn't work as a tool of persuasion and policy change. But we’re more effective at fighting terrorism if we understand that it is a means to an end and not an end in itself; it requires us to understand the true motivations of the terrorists and not just their particular tactics. And the more our own cognitive biases cloud that understanding, the more we mischaracterize the threat and make bad security trade-offs.

- - -

Bruce Schneier is the CTO of BT Counterpane and the author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World.

Actually, stoning people and threats to stone people are forms of terrorism. A man was stoned to death just last week for committing adultery in Iran.

If a Christian preacher started to advocate actually stoning people, I would consider him a terrorist to the extent that people listened to him and stoned others to death. I think hanging might then be an appropriate remedy, both for the idiot preacher and the idiot people who listened to him and acted on his incorrect advice. It should go without saying that due process of law should be followed in all cases of depriving a person of his life, liberty, or property. In our real world, people hearing that hypothetical preacher would probably shun him as a crazy person. However, it's hard to be sure. After all, we actually did re-elect President Bush.

As far as making decisions about incorrect theology goes, that's pretty easy. No supernatural gods exist, so all theology is incorrect. It follows that the term "correct theology" is an oxymoron, and the term "incorrect theology" is redundant.

Do these humans who, mired in delusion, harmed others, deserve to die for their deluded acts?

And should these deluded humans be treated as means to an end? Shall we end their lives as means to (hopefully) further the end of others' security, disregarding their own security (their own life!) as an end in itself - all because, in their delusion, they erred?

I guess I feel that would be unfortunate.

Indeed, I agree it is unfortunate. There are many things I would change about the world had I the power.

I don't think it's a matter of "deserving" to die for a crime, as there are no gods to appease. It is pragmatic. If the deterrent power of the example helps to improve the world for the better, then that may be enough. In any case, the law is clear. Osama bin Laden, for example, if ever he is caught, will surely be tried, convicted, and executed.

Serious, but hilarious?

Brendan O’Neill

Al-Qaeda’s ‘terrorism of complaint’

Al-Zawahiri’s attack on Britain for knighting Salman Rushdie exposes jihadism as the bloody wing of the politics of victimhood.

What a telling snapshot of the war between the West and those who would ‘destroy our way of life’. Yesterday Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, released a crackly audio recording in which he denounced the Queen of England and Tony Blair for honouring Salman Rushdie with a knighthood. So, here we have a terrorist who’s stuck in a dugout criticising a Queen who has long since ceased to have any real power for awarding a writer who made a perceived insult against Islam 18 years ago with an order of chivalry for his contributions to an Empire that does not exist.

This is not so much a clash of civilisations as a load of symbolics. It’s a war of gestures between a mythical British Empire and a YouTube terrorist with a chip on his shoulder.

Al-Zawahiri’s 20-minute statement, titled ‘Malicious Britain and its Indian Slaves’, showed up how parasitical al-Qaeda is on the West’s own culture of complaint and politics of grievance. Al-Qaeda is a movement in search of insults, scouring Western public debate for slights or perceived slights against Muslims that it can angrily react against. It has an Insult Antennae, a Victim Radar, that it uses to pick up alleged slurs against Muslims in order to bolster its claim that the West doesn’t care about/has declared war against the Muslim world. In short, al-Qaeda goes looking for offence in order to legitimise its victim identity – and in this sense, for all its exotic aura and occasional commissioned acts of bloody violence, it is not that different from numerous community groups and new political movements in the West.

Al-Qaeda now lives entirely off Western controversies over offending Muslims. The origins of the Rushdie stink lie in Britain more than the Muslim world. Almost as soon as it was announced three weeks ago that Rushdie would be knighted, some British MPs and Muslim community spokespeople expressed their concern about the ‘timing’ of the award – it might be perceived as an insult by ‘the world’s Muslims’ at a time when Britain is embroiled in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, they said (1). They expressed a pre-emptive fear about a potential reaction. Then, members of the Pakistani parliament said they were indeed insulted by the award. One even said it would be justified to carry out suicide attacks in Britain in response to this act of war-by-knighthood (2). Now al-Zawahiri is using the same language, describing the Rushdie knighting as an ‘insult to Islam’ (3).

Similarly, al-Zawahiri has made finger-wagging statements about the Danish cartoons controversy and the storm caused by Pope Benedict XVI’s comments on Islam last year. In March 2006, al-Zawahiri described the cartoons, which depicted Mohamed in various weird poses, as ‘an insult against the Prophet’ and a ‘continuation of the crusaders’ war’ (4). We should remember that the fuss over these cartoons started in Scandinavia, not the Muslim world. When the cartoons first appeared in October 2005, Muslim groups in Copenhagen reported the newspaper that published them to the Danish police for ‘blasphemy and racial discrimination’. Then, in December 2005, a delegation from various Danish Islamic groups visited the Middle East to spread publicity about these little-noticed drawings. This was followed by demonstrations in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere in January 2006, and then by al-Zawahiri’s sabre-rattling condemnation of Denmark, and the West in general, in March 2006.

Here, we can see that al-Zawahiri’s statements, and al-Qaeda’s raison d’être, is derived from the West’s culture of victimhood. In the case of the cartoons, al-Zawahiri’s complaints against the West were directly inflamed by Western PC sensibilities about offending minorities. In describing first the cartoons and now the Rushdie knighting as ‘insults’ that ‘hurt’ Muslims, al-Zawahiri is echoing the culture of grievance that has been nurtured by multiculturalism in parts of Europe in recent decades. Al-Qaeda should perhaps be seen as a logical and bloodily violent extension of today’s increasingly internationalised victim culture. Al-Qaeda statements are peppered with claims about feeling ‘humiliated’ by Western governments, and complaints about the West ‘ignoring’ Muslims’ pain. When Benedict XVI commented on Islam last year, al-Zawahiri said he was a ‘charlatan Pope’ and his words were part of the ‘crusader US campaign against Islam and Muslims’. In short, words hurt. Sound familiar?

Some claim that al-Zawahiri’s comments on cartoons, popes and knighthoods are just side-issue publicity stunts, and al-Qaeda’s real interest is still in opposing Western intervention in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, the really striking thing is the extent to which al-Qaeda discusses issues of intervention in victim lingo, too. As one study of al-Qaeda points out, the terror group always talks about Palestine and Iraq in terms of ‘humiliation’ and ‘degradation’. And such ‘intensely personal feelings’ are ‘not elements in realpolitik. Rather they suggest its opposite: the reduction of a politics of needs, interests and ideas to the world of moral sentiments… For Osama bin Laden, violence is meant not merely to defend Muslims or retaliate against their enemies, but to gain self-respect.’ (5) Notice that now al-Zawahiri refers to ‘Malicious Britain’ rather than ‘oppressor Britain’. Clearly he sees Britain, not as a political opponent, but more as a bully wilfully causing harm and offence to others.

Al-Qaeda’s statements and occasional violent acts are best seen as the ‘terrorism of complaint’ to today’s culture of complaint. They are loud and explosive demands for recognition, a terroristic version of the politics of multiculturalism. At a time when Western leaders tell us that they ‘feel our pain’ – as if they are therapists-in-chief to groups of fragile and easily offended individuals – al-Qaeda’s terrorism is about making sure that we feel their pain, too. Literally and physically.

(1) Rushdie diplomatic row escalates, BBC News, 19 June 2007

(2) Rushdie’s knighthood ‘justifies suicide attacks’, Blogrunner, 18 June 2007

(3) Al-Qaeda condemns Rushdie honour, BBC News, 10 July 2007

(4) Al-Zawahiri attacks Bush in new video posted on web, Fox News, 29 September 2006

(5) Landscapes of the Jihad, Faisal Devji, Hurst and Co., 2005

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked.