The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 27: Wednesday 3 August 2005

CHRISTIAN TERRORISM

REALISM - CONSERVATIVE/LABOUR

DENIAL - FREEDMAN

CHRISTIAN TERRORISM

THE LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY

The Telegraph today tells the story of an 11 year old boy named Vincent Okot who was kidnapped three years ago by the guerrillas of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. The headline: 'I killed so many I lost count, says boy, 11'.

In passing, the Telegraph mentions that the LRA leader Joseph Kony 'says only that he wishes to rule Uganda according to the Ten Commandments.' He has apparently 'justified murdering his own Acholi people with biblical references and accusations that they have failed to support his cause.'

The LRA is referred to as 'a fanatical cult rather than a political movement'.

Why not a 'fanatical Christian cult'? Or a 'fanatical Christian guerrilla army'? Or 'fanatical Christian terrorism'?

It is not appropriate to ask why IRA terrorism was not called 'Catholic terrorism', because the IRA's central ideology was not based on the religion of most of its members, but on a secular ideology of nationalism (though of course there was an inevitable sectarian element, just as there was an inevitable racist element in the civil rights /Black liberation movement).

However, with messianic groups and 'fanatical' movements and deluded individuals who claim a Christian inspiration for their violence, such as the anti-abortion terrorists, and the LRA, and George W. Bush, it is perfectly appropriate to inquire why their violence is not described as 'Christian violence' when violent action by Muslims is immediately labelled 'Islamic terrorism'.

Here is a test. How often has the the Christian basis of the LRA been referred to in media reporting? Here is a BBC report which does not mention the word.

There is a basis in the Bible for this kind of thinking. To take just one example,

25 Moses saw that the people were out of control, for Aaron had let them get out of control, so that they would be vulnerable to their enemies. 26 And Moses stood at the camp's entrance and said, "Whoever is for the Lord, [come] to me." And all the Levites gathered around him. 27 He told them, "This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says, 'Every man fasten his sword to his side; go back and forth through the camp from entrance to entrance, and each of you kill his brother, his friend, and his neighbor. ' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and about 3,000 men fell dead that day among the people. 29 Afterwards Moses said, "Today you have been dedicated to the Lord, since each man went against his son and his brother. Therefore you have brought a blessing on yourselves today." [Exodus 32:25-29]

As we have pointed out before, Jesus did not condemn the behaviour or teachings of the Jewish prophets.

17 "Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. [Matthew 5: 17-18]

Can the behaviour of the LRA be used to condemn all Christians? The answer is obvious.

Can these passages from the Christian Bible be described as 'the essence' of the religion, and used to condemn Christianity itself? The answer is obvious.

Why can we not treat Islam the same way? What matters is what a particular person does with the religion they believe in, not what some of their fellow believers do.

RELIGIOUS HATE CRIMES UP 600%

Scotland Yard figures show there has been a rise of 600 per cent in attacks motivated by religious hatred in London since the 7 July suicide bombings.

The soaring increase in faith-hate attacks in the capital last night caused alarm among politicians on all sides who had united in praising Britain for refusing to bow to the bombers' strategy to spread hatred and divide the community.

The figures, released last night, showed there were 269 such incidents reported since the suicide bombings compared to only 40 in the same three-and-a-half week period last year. In the immediate three-day aftermath of the attacks there were 68 faith-hate crimes in the capital. There were none in the same period 12 months ago.

Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur said: "There is no doubt that incidents impacting on the Muslim community have increased."

Most of the incidents were low-level abuse or minor assaults but they had a great "emotional impact" on communities, he said. "It can lead to these communities completely retreating and not engaging at a time when we want their support," he added. (Independent)

REALISM - CONSERVATIVE

TWO CHEERS FOR DOMINIC GRIEVE

Conservative Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve has broken the taboo.

'Interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Grieve said: "I have to say, I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger which many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things.'

' "And I don't know quite how we are going to tackle that. I don't actually think that simply by going round and visiting community leaders we're going to get to some of these underlying issues." He said many Muslims he met felt angry because of the "tension between their world view and the world they live in".'

' Mr Grieve added: "I'm sure that something like the Iraq war contributes to it, because after all the Iraq war is about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim." '

That is from the Independent, which headlines the story.

The Telegraph buries a paragraph in an unrelated story.

Nothing in the Guardian or The Times or the FT.

Mr Grieve was interviewed on the Today programme (0847am), which is listened to by everyone in the media and in politics.

ONE CHEER FOR JACK STRAW

'We're part of the problem' in Iraq, admits the Foreign Secretary:

'Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, acknowledged that the presence of British troops in Iraq was helping to fuel the insurgency in the country. He disclosed that the Government was seeking to cut British troop numbers in Iraq "because - unlike in Afghanistan - although we are part of the security solution there, we are also part of the problem".' (Independent)

DENIAL - FREEDMAN

CATASTROPHE NOW?

Professor Lawrence Freedman, one of Britain's most respected mainstream commentators on military and security issues, acknowledges the importance of Iraq in understanding the London bombings, in a column in the FT:

'Acknowledging the importance of Iraq does not mean, however, that if only the west could reverse course the streets would become safe. Such a hope ignores the deep ideological well-springs of the current campaign and the range of the terrorists’ demands. If we wanted to be sure that the terrorists left us alone the necessary appeasement would go well beyond Iraq and require a series of probably catastrophic policy reversals.'

MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES

He notes that 'jihadist speeches and websites' are also concerned about Afghanistan, Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, alleged Shia assaults on Sunni Muslims, 'many disputes bubbling away across the Middle East and central Asia', and 'a general anguish about past encounters between the Islamic and non-Islamic world.'

Freedman comments: 'It may be that we are suffering now for old imperialism and the readines to prop up a series of corrupt and repressive regimes. There is unfortunately not a lot that can be done about this other than to engage in an honest examination of the historical record and to try to support more decent governments in future.'

The professor argues that terrorism will not stop if there is a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict: 'The radicals aim for no Jewish state at all.'

Furthermore, if there was a withdrawal from Iraq, this would 'not necessarily protect western cities from further attacks as the emboldened Jihadists worked through the rest of their agenda.'

Hmm. A slight weakening of the argument here. 'Not necessarily protect' is different from 'will definitely not protect'.

WEAKEST POINT

The weakest point in Freedman's article comes in this pivotal paragraph. Up to this point, Freedman has been working with absolutes, disputing the idea that 'if only the west could reverse course the streets would become safe' - completely safe.

Now he moves to the real terrain of the debate:

'Might a change in policy in Iraq reduce the risk?'

This is the real question. Freedman answers it with a complete non-sequitur. The very next sentences are:

'Arguing that the bombings show why we must reverse course in Iraq suggests that the current violence in that country is about resistance to foreign occupation. At one point it might have been but the current, and extraordinarily vicious, terror reflects the determination of some Sunnis, but in particular foreign militants, to prevent the establishment of a Shia majority government.'

Setting aside the accuracy of this characterization of the conflict in Iraq, what has this analysis got to do with 'reducing the risk' of terrorism in Britain?

Secondly, critics are not arguing that the bombings 'show why we must reverse course in Iraq'. The authentic anti-war movement is pointing out that if we want to reduce the risk of terrorism, we must reverse course in Iraq - as we should for completely separate reasons.

'HEIGHTENING' THE RISK

Freedman sets out laudable goals - 'to engage in an honest examination of the historical record and to try to support more decent governments in future' - but he ignores an elementary point made in the British Government's own report on Young Muslims and Extremism:

'It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived `double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments (and often those of Muslim governments), in particular Britain and the US. This is particularly significant in terms of the concept of the "Ummah", i.e. that Believers are one "nation". This seems to have gained a significant prominence in how some Muslims view HMG's [Her Majesty's Government's, ie British Government] policies towards Muslim countries.'

'Perceived Western bias in Israel's favour over the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a key long term grievance of the international Muslim community which probably influences British Muslims.'

'This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11 . The perception is that passive 'oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to 'active oppression' - the war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.'

In other words, there was a background of anger well before the invasion of Afghanistan, but it was the actions taken after 9/11 that crossed a threshold, triggering a new level of alienation and hatred, even despair. The movement from 'passive oppression' (inaction in the face of oppression) to 'active oppression' (actively engaging in the killing and mistreatment of ordinary Muslims) has changed the threat environment.

As Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee warned the Prime Minister before the invasion of Iraq (reported in a 600kb document, available from the Cabinet Office):

'The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.' (page 34, emphasis added)

Lawrence Freedman is fully aware of these reports, yet he chooses to ignore the elementary point that Afghanistan and Iraq - and Guantanamo and Belmarsh and other repressive acts - have tipped the scales for many Muslims, both Western and non-Western.

THE WIDER GRIEVANCES

It might nevertheless be true that passing the threshold is a one-and-for-all transformation, and that no policy changes West performs will reduce the level of anger and hatred existing in elements of the Muslim world.

By Freedman's own logic, though, these policies should nevertheless be reversed because they are wrong.

It so happens, however, that there is every reason to expect that the risk of terrorism will reduce as the policies are reversed.

If we distinguish between the terrorist commanders and their support base, let us consider first the commanders: Did the foreign mujaheddin who attacked Russian invaders in Afghanistan continue their war against godlessness in Russia after the withdrawal of Russian troops? Osama bin Laden went home. He did not return to violence until a new 'transgression' - US troop deployments in Saudi Arabia in 1990.

Turning to the support base, they have been told that this is a war for specific objectives. Thus bin Laden's offer of a truce to European nations after the Madrid bombings:

'Based on the above, and in order to deny war merchants a chance and in response to the positive interaction shown by recent events and opinion polls, which indicate that most European peoples want peace, I ask honest people, especially ulema, preachers and merchants, to form a permanent committee to enlighten European peoples of the justice of our causes, above all Palestine. They can make use of the huge potential of the media.'

'The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.'

'I also offer a reconciliation initiative to them, whose essence is our commitment to stopping operations against every country that commits itself to not attacking Muslims or interfering in their affairs - including the US conspiracy on the greater Muslim world.'

'The reconciliation will start with the departure of its last soldier from our country.'

'The door of reconciliation is open for three months of the date of announcing this statement.'

'As for those who want reconciliation, we have given them a chance. Stop shedding our blood so as to preserve your blood. It is in your hands to apply this easy, yet difficult, formula. You know that the situation will expand and increase if you delay things.'

This is in line with other bin Laden pronouncements. Thus the analysis of Michael Scheuer, who ran the CIA's bin Laden unit (1996-1999), who only left the CIA last November, who says that Osama bin Laden has ‘clear, focused, limited and widely popular foreign policy goals’, and that he is out to 'drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy America, much less its freedoms and liberties' (Anonymous, Imperial Hubris, p. xviii).

The most plausible claim of responsibility for the 7/7 bombings is also in line with this offer:

'We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.'

'We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.'

Whatever the intentions of the leadership of the al Qaeda networks, the question is whether the support base of alienated Muslims will volunteer to carry out these brutal actions if the policies which they object to are reversed. The significant policies are specifically identified in the London statement: Afghanistan and Iraq.

It cannot be guaranteed that if the key policies are reversed there will be a marked reduction in the risk of al Qaeda-type terrorism. But there is reason to believe that this would be the case.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to support the counter-claim that Lawrence Freedman implies and that is summed up in the headline given to his piece 'A reversal on Iraq will not protect us'.

If Britain would only go from 'active oppression' of Muslims to 'passive oppression', the risk of al Qaeda-style terrorism would reduce.

Maybe one day we can have a foreign policy of 'no oppression' to anyone, whatever their faith.

JNV welcomes feedback.