Cause and Detect

Since 7/7, the airwaves, internet and newspapers are full of pundits opining about the reasons behind the British Muslim bombers murderous terrorist act.

I am a bit overwhelmed with this deluge of opinions and the variety of reasons that are given as part of this nice little terror exercise for root cause analysis. Now, if I had to stand back and think, hmmm, what is the general opinion across a cross section of commentators? I would find it very difficult, because this depends upon where you are standing. So I thought a better and firm place to start would be to be a fly on the wall behind an honourable bewigged British Judge. A bomber is in the dock, and each commentator is part of the bomber’s court trial as a defence witness.

I just finished reading one of the most moving books on terrorism, Incendiary by Chris Cleave and I would highly recommend this book to anybody who would like to understand how the survivors of a terrorist attack feel and how they go on living after the event. Without giving away anything much of the book, the lady is married and has one son. Both, husband and son, go to the new Arsenal football stadium where there is a huge bomb attack which kills them, along with hundreds more. She is writing a letter (grammatical, punctuation mistakes and all) to Osama Bin Laden.

These mistakes, the very ordinary emotions, the very human failings inside a mother and wife, who is missing her husband and son, turn this into a very emotional read. It isn’t bitter, the fabled British politeness and understatement come through. There are flashes of understated wit and this is driven from the same reason that makes the British famed prolific letter writers down the centuries. They want to let their feelings and outrage be known in a discreet yet determined way. The mother and wife of two terrorist victims is the most ordinary woman in real life, but her bravery comes through on every page. I frequently felt a lump in my throat. I had her in mind when I was thinking about a victim of terrorism; imagined her sitting in the courtroom, trying to understand.

Then there were the root cause analysts, who came from all over the world.

Let us see the reasons which they have supplied. The war on Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Spain, Crusades, Palestine, race, poverty, presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, western backing of kings and dictators in Muslim lands, non-assimilation and I guess Islamophobia. Please do remember that I am ignoring the conspiracy theorists, who are a real funny bunch, blaming it on the intelligence services, the police, the Zionists, the military industrial complex, capitalism, little green men from Uranus. I find these people very funny, so one day we will surely devote a column to poke fun at them. So for now, I don’t want to tease these poor sods any more.

I found one particular TV clip by this lady belonging to the UK Respect Party particularly puzzling. She was giving the standard words, “the bombing happened because these bombers disagreed with Blair’s foreign policy”. Gosh, here’s a member of a British Political Party, I presume committed to multi-party democracy, working different issues through the political process; actually stating that it was all right or perfectly explainable that political differences could be resolved by blowing up innocent people.


I find this form of thinking bizarre, but then speaking to my sister, an explanation was given (right or wrong, you decide), “BD, you have to realise that they are of Pakistani, Somalian or Eritrean etc. origin, when did those countries become the poster children of liberal democratic principles? How would they know how to work through political differences through political processes and parties?” We digress, let us head into the solemn environs of the High Court and see what you may think of these root causes.

The first commentator talks about how the UK’s participation in the War on Terror in Afghanistan has caused British Muslims to get upset and go off to blow up innocent tube travellers. I hear the expert talk about the pain the bomber went through at the double standards, when he saw Muslims being attacked by the UK/US Special Forces and air forces or being tortured in Iraq’s prisons like Abu Gharib or suffering from the after-effects of depleted Uranium.

Some more comments came through about US/UK being the reason behind the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the first place, who were recruited to fight the dirty war against communism for the Americans but then were abandoned when their purpose was served. This gave rise to age old angst about how Muslims have always been used or attacked by the Christian forces and so decided to take matters into their own hands. The judge asked the question, “And how was Ms. Jane Doe, who was killed on the tube, related to the war in Afghanistan?” no answer except for a mumbled reply which said that her death was a message to Tony Blair, since she elected him in the first place and chose him to speak for her.

But what if Jane Doe was an anti-war protestor like Rachel Corrie? Now we will never know. Then again, in certain rarefied circles, I suppose they are collateral damage. Secondly, if the reason was that she was a British Citizen, then, so are you, mate. Sort of an inconsistency there, no?

The next commentator was asked about his reason, being that of Iraq and how UK/USA carried out an illegal war in Iraq. An un-related question came up, was the bomber similarly exercised when there was a similar illegal war (all but in name) in Kosovo? Some more mumbles when asked about the connection with Ms. Jane Doe in the London Underground. The commentator perked up and said, it is because of the requirement to control oil. An incredulous look followed, the price of oil is shooting up through the roof (what control?), and just how was this price rise in oil connected with Jane Doe?

The next commentator was a historian who talked about the deep seated civilisational impact of the re-conquista of Spain and the crusades, which caused Muslims to bear hatred towards the Christian nations. After all, Osama Bin Laden talked about this event as one of the contributing factors behind 9/11 and his rage against the world. One asked the question, does this mean that Zoroastrians, Hindu’s, Buddhists and Copts can do the same? Some more mumbles.

Final question also got mumbles when asked about the connection to Ms. Jane Doe who was born centuries after the crusades…

The western backing of the assorted kings and dictators in Muslim worlds was another reason given by another expert commentator. Quite so. So backing bad rulers is a reason to blow up Ms. Jane Doe, who was going to shop for clothes in Oxford Street? Some more mumbles. But that is the root cause, cried the expert commentator. So I figured, let me see if I understand this correctly, the root cause behind this bomber killing Ms. Jane Doe was the support by Tony Blair to His Late Royal Highness King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia? I was a bit confused about how the bomber linked Jane Doe to Tony Blair to the King. The logic escaped me and as we have already heard, this behaviour is totally un-Islamic, so religion is out, definitely.

Something does not quite fit in right. Perhaps the next commentator who is taking a socio-economic perspective can help?

As I understood it, the root cause was the racism, social deprivation and poverty of British Muslims. Because they were socially deprived, disenfranchised and not integrated into the mainstream and poor, they were rather upset with the vast majority and not plugged into the British culture.

The answer to the question, so how does that explain him blowing up Jane Doe? Some more mumbles. If it was racism, then how come other Indians, Chinese, Nigerians, Sri Lankan’s and others do not do this? If it was social deprivation and poverty, then how come we do not see coal miners, cockle pickers or some of the devastated northern town inhabitants go about killing innocents? The Caribbean black community has all these factors in droves. Riots yes, suicide bombing? No. Hmmm, it doesn’t make sense.

A recent poll commissioned by ‘The Guardian’ found that 84 % of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33% of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views. So what are the options? The way I see it is that Muslims immigrants have three options: to assimilate ’completely’ in the society; to remain totally isolated; or to participate in the developments and function of the society at large as other minorities have done. The British Muslims appear to have chosen isolation in Bengali, Punjabi or Arab townships.

American Muslims on the other hand, have had almost the same opportunities as other minorities in shaping their lives, for there are no ghettos or exclusive townships in the US, though many still shy away from socializing and contributing outside their religious-ethnic boundaries.

Until they come out and make a difference in the society, by contributing like all others, they run the risk of having alienated pockets as we saw in Britain. This is one strand, but still doesn’t explain why Jane Doe was killed by these chaps.

So here I was, inside the courthouse, listening to each of these factors and trying my level best to understand why would these be root causes? I may be an idiot sometimes, but explain to me how these root causes are, in any which way, explanatory for why a British Muslim, would target British Jane Doe? They are obviously not insane; they did this with full consciousness and knew fully well that there is no connection at all with Jane Doe. She was not the person for them. She was not a target. She was a statistic, a way to express their ummmm…. Their what? I cannot understand this.

Bewilderment, puzzlement, frustration, befuddlement, complete confusion reigns supreme. Needless to say, she was not viewed as a fellow human being, no sanctity of life and innocence/logic has no connection here whatsoever. I reiterate, every Muslim leader in the country clearly said that there was no justification for taking innocent lives whatsoever in Islam. It is obvious that these chaps think otherwise.

You may get a pointer from the trial of Muhammad Bouyeri, the killer of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands. He refused the services of a lawyer and refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court to try him. Furthermore, he admitted his guilt. But the most fascinating comment he made was when he turned to Theo van Gogh’s mother and said, “I do not feel your pain. I have to admit that I do not have any sympathy for you. I cannot feel anything for you, because you are a non-believer”.

If this is indeed the case with the British Muslim suicide bombers (and it could well be. Can you think of anything else?), then there is indeed a very wide gulf between what these guys think and what the rest of the Muslim leaders or even the integrated or moderate Muslims think.

All this masticating about root causes gives some inkling to what the suicide bombers would / could have been thinking; but none of them explain the connection between the murder of Ms. Jane Doe and these murderers. Until and unless this gap is explained, this root cause blather remains illogical and rather silly. Yes, you condemn the killing, but try to explain it with these root causes doesn’t make much sense. Try explaining it to Jane Doe’s daughter. Do you think she will buy it? Defending the indefensible?

All this to be taken with a grain of salt!