...how Canadians would have reacted to being hit [by a massive terrorist attack]. Would they turn inward in any orgy of self-flagellation, blaming their own society for the evil inflicted upon them, like so many on the American left? Or would they fight like lions, as their grandfathers did in WWII, to combat the assault on the ideals and institutions that make Canada great?More recently, Germany foiled a terror plot to bomb a train. News reports indicate that the Lebanese student suspected of planting a train bomb that failed to explode had contacts in Hamburg, the latest link to the northern port city where three of the Sept. 11 suicide pilots prepared for their attacks.
According to the article:
The planned attack here stunned Germans who thought the country's vehement opposition to the Iraq war would insulate it from becoming a terror target almost five years after the attacks on Washington and New York.As was the case in Canada, Germans are taking this opportunity to assess the potential causes of the existential threat to their society. There are a myriad of reasons/excuses employed by Islamists to justify their murderous actions. I'm not aware of the reasoning--if you can call it that--behind the effort to kill innocents in Germany (who knows, maybe the jihadis are pissed that the Germans didn't finish the job in the 1940s). However, I agree with Captain Ed about the fundamental reason why the threat exists and his exhortation to be more vigilant. He writes:
Western nations have to understand that Islamofascists do not target them for their foreign policy; they target the West because it isn't Islamic. We need to start taking that threat seriously and performing tough investigations before offering visas to people from nations known to house terrorist organizations. Allowing the son of a Hizb-al-Tahrir officer into the country on a student visa seems very foolish, and if the Germans want to stop terrorist attacks, it has to stop that kind of foolishness as a first step towards sanity.
6 comments:
I don't fully agree with the statement that, "Western nations have to understand that Islamofascists do not target them for their foreign policy; they target the West because it isn't Islamic." I think it simplifies the issue too much.
For starters, I think fundamentalists initially resorted to terrorism to fight against the foreign policy decisions of the U.S. and Russia (often referred to as 'imperialist.'), among others. Since 9/11, the fight has broadened and, with it, support for Bin Laden and his associates. As such, the rhetoric has changed and the scope of the fight has broadened. It's the 'give 'em an inch' axiom.
In this case, the 'inch' comes in the form of reason and concessions, as when Israel recently conceded to Palestine by pulling out of Gaza. So if the excuse to wage war isn't there (which isn't necessarily that big of a problem for people these days), fundamentalists can just lay claim to a bigger target. With the success they've had, vis-a-vis 9/11, fundamentalist groups become enboldened and set their sights higher. First, the excuse was foreign policy incursions. It elevated to a racial crucade. We talked about the transformation in Bin Laden from one video to the next, as his target grew to increase American civilians (where they were once excluded).
I liken it to Hitler into France, and lustfully eyeing Britain. Of course, Hitler's fatal move occured when he crossed Russia, so one can only hope that these groups will soon bite off more than they can chew, and choke to death; hopefully without the needless loss of life.
Excellent comment, Mike. I totally agree. I do believe the blogger's statement is rather broad, but fundamentally true. However, I think you've succinctly described an ongoing process that has been unfolding for decades now. Good job.
However, I think it is important to recognize that it is not a purely political struggle, but also includes a significant religious component that adds another dimension of danger to the equation.
To some extent, it doesn't matter, does it? Whether they are attacking because of foreign policy or whether they are attacking because they are Islamic and the West isn't, the fact is they hate the West with unbridled passion. Whether the Terrorists are consciously attacking the West for their foreign policy or not, it seems to me that the problem is still BECAUSE of years of piss poor foreign policy that have allowed terrorism to find root. Fixing that foreign policy now would be like closing the barn doors after the horses have fled. Propping up a false military target and blowing the hell out of it in the name of democracy is comparable to burning the barn after the horses have fled - much more destructive, but equally futile. At the moment, no religious empathy, political measures or military withdrawals will make an iota of difference.
As for how Canadians would have reacted, I suspect they'd do both. They'd question their own foreign policy and take some measure of military action ... and it would be equally futile. Attacking a nation to try to remedy terrorism is useless. The fact that the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq hasn't made terrorism subside and, despite the rationalization, it isn't going to do so. The US is trying to pick particular nations as "harborers of terror" and attack them. They're straw men. It's wasted time, "blood and treasure".
Look at terrorism of the past. IRA, PLO, FLQ none of them went away owing to the success of military campaigns and they all had a blend of religious (except maybe the FLQ) AND political agendas. If the new terrorists don't have political agendas, but rather a purely religious motivation, then military action to achieve political goals will not affect them at all.
Ultimately, very long term military occupation may lead to an influx of civilian populations from other cultures which may result in a cultural saturation that could dilute the extremism, but it will never come directly form military attack or directly even military presence, it will only come from the slow cultural evolution. Military occupation may or may not facilitation that cultural shift. It is, in my opinion, a long, gloomy and uncertain future.
The only hope I see is to treat this as a sort of historical labour. Treat this long battle in the middle east as a long hard fought string of labour pains and contractions that will result in the birth of something new in the middle east. Perhaps the second coming? Perhaps armagedon? As Ren once commented when asked what might happen if Stimpy were to push the large, round, candy-like 'history eraser button', "Maybe something good ... maybe something bad ... I guess we'll never know!"
The motives behind the terrorists' attacks matter insofar as we can learn from them. 'Know your enemy' and all that crap. More importantly: 'know thyself.' It's the kind of thing that might be helpful for the future. The U.S. now knows how to deal with significant, opposing and powerful states with a nuclear arsenal comparable to its own; a lesson learned between 1947 and 1991.
The new 'cold' war is an ideological one. This battle cannot be fought in the desert, or on urban American frontiers. And the question is, are we learning in this new environment?
As I referenced in an earlier post of mine, it behooves all of the members of the G8 and other civilized countries to be accountable to the global community and to constantly question their own practices. This self-awreness alone won't bring a ceasefire to the new warfare, but if it were actually carried out, who knows what it could do for global relations.
Nations acting out of self-sacrifice and questioning their own foreign policy? Maybe one day.
I should clarify that I originally intended to write religious crucade, and I wrote 'racial', instead. I'm sure there's more I want to say (and more convincingly), but I'm tired.
Post a Comment