July 6, 2007
The doctors’ plot
It will be interesting to see if the revelation that the terrorist plot in London and Glasgow was allegedly organised by doctors will finally knock on the head one of the most ingrained myths about al-Qaeda - that this is an organisation manned by the oppressed of the earth.
I remember, shortly after 9/11, hearing a left-wing British MP on the radio. He confidently predicted that it would turn out that the terrorists had been victims of western policy in the Middle East - Palestinian refugees perhaps. As it turned out they were middle-class, educated and with plenty of opportunities in life. Mohammed Atta was an architect.
This is entirely typical. Al-Qaeda terrorists are usually educated and often affluent. Osama bin Laden is an engineer from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. His deputy, Ayman-al-Zawahiri is a doctor. Omar Sheikh, who murdered Daniel Pearl, was privately educated in Britain and then went to the London School of Economics. These are not desperate men driven to desperate measures. Rather they fit the profile of many of the revolutionaries, bomb throwers and fascists of the twentieth century - middle class and angry.
Nonetheless, the myth of the oppressed terrorist is a persistent one. Perhaps that is because it is a comforting myth. If the problem is poverty or politics - then it might be easier to alleviate the conditions that produce terrorism. But what do you do, when it is doctors and engineers who are out to kill you - and when their ideology has nothing to do with a "two state solution", or any other conceivable political fix?
The best empirical study of al-Qaeda members that I have come across was carried out by Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist who used to work for the CIA. He concludes that al-Qaeda operatives tend to be the "best and brightest". They are often multi-lingual and are talented enough to get selected to study overseas. Many were not religious when they chose to join the jihad. Their religious fervour followed the decision to choose violence, rather than the other way around.
Most intriugingly - given what we have just discovered in Britain - 70 per cent of the al-Qaeda members were living abroad when they chose to become jihadis. They were often feeling isolated and alienated from the new society in which they were living. It is ironic that one of the policies that western governments most like to promote to tackle terrorism - education and cultural exchange - may indirectly have served to create new terrorists.
You don’t need to be a genius to work out why the “oppressed” don’t become terrorists. They are too busy trying to scratch a living and are too tired, poor and tied down with their hard, day to day lives to have the energy for protest.
You need a bit of time and comfort to fell “angry”. Strange but true.
As for the last paragraph about the irony of the adverse impact of cultural exchange, may I draw attention to the mistake that the French made with Ho Chi Minh? He was a student in Paris who was expelled due to his political activities. He went back to his native Vietnam and led the resistance that eventually expelled the French colonists.
Would the history have been different if the French authorities had tried to see things from the future Uncle Ho’s perspective?
Conclusion: Be nicer to foreigners
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 6th, 2007 at 11:48 am | Report this commentThe west has to open up and let others breathe fresh air at the top (now many brits will say we have done that but in ur heart its not 100% true). how ever hard u work u cannot conquer the echoleons at the top while mainitaining your identity as an immigrant. The west has to come to terms to this. Allow people from other cultures to rise and be represented at top not as showpieces but in large numbers levels in the legislatures , courts, law enforcement and corporate board rooms and be open to all languages and cultures (no english only official language and no phobia of any religion).All this is a 2 way street.No one is superior or inferior ,we are all human.People have to understand that.West wants globalization on this own terms.people should come to london and work on british terms.They want all the tax and labour from the immigrant but dont have a single grain of respect and love for the outsiders. immigrants want justice too.Once that happens and people see justice happening to their community there will be all peace for ever.there will not be any terrorists created in the ghettos of britian.
Posted by: h | July 7th, 2007 at 12:01 am | Report this commentIs it any coincidence that the countries being targeted by al-Qaeda are the same ones who bombed the hell out of Iraq based on deliberate propaganda of fear and threat?
They are the same ones supporting double standards and hypocracy by claiming to “spread democracy” in the Middle East only to starve the Palestinian nation who truly practiced it!
More Muslims have died as victims of a direct result of these “war on terror” by the US/UK/AUSSIE/SPANISH/ITALIAN axis who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, and are now drooling to attack Iran (for Israel’s security courtesy of the cheerleading by the neocons and the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington) than by pathetic Muslim terrorists wannabees in London and Glascow.
Posted by: TJ | July 7th, 2007 at 4:20 am | Report this commentReally interesting article. If Osama came from ‘one of the wealthiest families in Saudia Arabia’ and Omar was ‘privately educated in Britain’, surely they are upper class though?
Posted by: x | July 7th, 2007 at 11:17 am | Report this commentBefore muslims explained terrorism with ‘poverty and lack of education’, now they turn to ‘discrimination and inequality. We must point out also that muslims from poor countries still prefer come to the West and have opportunity with discrimination rather than stay in their home country since they keep arriving. Chinese immigrants never blow themselves up or consider they are being discriminated.
Also, this doctor terrorists were unlikely to suffer from discrimination since they were relatively well-off.
Pacifist, chinese and latino immigrants never complain about discrimination but always work hard. Muslim immigrants are apparently ‘discriminated’ so they decide to bomb people.
I think british and american people are VERY NICE to foreigners. But I see a lot of muslims from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia who come to the West and look at women from above.
Muslims should learn to be more tolerant of others, not complaining about ‘not being nice’. Those who complain never succeed.
It is disgraceful to explain terrorism by not being nice, and it is ridiculous to say that people in the UK and USA are not nice to foreigners. UK and USA are the most open countries in the World by far. If I wear T-shirt wiht US flag on it I will be stabbed.
There are MANY examlpes in the West when foreigners achieved a lot. Eg: Arnold Scwarchnegger, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Jerry Yang, lots of football players from Africa.
How much nicer you could be?? Give billions away for free??
To X. More muslims died from terrorist attacks done by muslims (Iraq). People die in Iraq not from US soldiers but from Iraqi terrorists who are apparently muslims.
Many muslim countries claim they are with palestineans, but they don’t care about them at all. They don’t help them at all, only wiht words ‘We are with Palestine’. Are you really upset about it if you yourself don’t help them at all??
Posted by: Chen | July 7th, 2007 at 10:00 pm | Report this commentSorry, but I think this misses the point a bit.
Terrorists may come from any background, as we have seen, and I think most people already knew that.
But they ARE inspired by the situation in Israel, as well as more general perceptions that the west supports oppression and acts of racism against the ‘muslim nation’ or their ‘brothers’. This ranges from the palestine question to petty racism against immigrants in western countries.
The problem is, and people seem to struggle to admit this, in some cases they are right. That is why Al Qaeda has no trouble recruiting educated people. Small acts of racism in immigrants’ home nations help muslims to identify with oppressed palestinians etc. I once sat next to a Muslim accountant in the city with a cut-glass accent who clearly had sympathies for Al Qaeda and clearly felt the oppression against his ‘brothers’ in Palestine.
It is therefore wrong to say there are no political fixes. The palestine issue is still fundamental to isolating the terrorists and ensuring that educated people or those you might expect to be more moderate do not join the cause.
Posted by: EM | July 7th, 2007 at 11:07 pm | Report this commentor perhaps this is media spin to further denigrate doctors
Posted by: Anonymous | July 7th, 2007 at 11:13 pm | Report this commentam i being cynical?
cus
Oppression can still be a cause of resorting to violence
Isn’t it a bit naive only to focus on whether terrorists themselves have been oppressed. My impression of violent and revolutionary movements is that they have almost always been led by members of the intelligentsia. Think of Lenin or Che Guevara for example. But this does not rule out that oppression or the perception of oppression, of poor people has motivated violent this violent radicalism — or sustained its popular support.
Gideon Rachman is an admirable commentator, but I thought this time his argument was a bit superficial.
Juhana
Posted by: Juhana Vartiainen | July 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pm | Report this commentInstead of quibbling over the cause of Islamic terrorism, which cannot be categorically attributed to either poverty or anger, we should (and I think we do) realize that it exists and will not be erradicated anytime soon. To that end, how will we, western society, choose to respond to this threat. Will we abandon our liberal ideals in pursuit of security? Or will we fight this threat with the very idea of liberalism?
And Chen, if you think Muslims are the only ones who commit acts of violence, i.e. terrorism, when they feel marginalized in western society, you are severely misinformed.
Did you not hear about Columbine? Where two young Americans shot and killed more than a dozen of their American classmates because of the way they were treated? Or more recently, the Korean student who shot and killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus? What was his reason?
According to him, “you had a 100 billion chances to avoid today, but you chose to spit on my blood…you have vandalized my art, raped my soul and torched my conscious…thanks to you, I died like Jesus Christ, to inspire a generation of the weak and defenseless people.” You can youtube the rest of what he said.
If I wished to entertain your Muslim xenaphobia any longer I would produce a longer list. Instead of trashing Muslims, and presuming that they would rather live in western society than their own, pick up a book and try to understand what is happening in our world. Stop trying to place blame, as you so often claim Arabs and Muslims do to raionalize their plight.
I think that if we all want to discuss the origins of Islamic terrorism, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking those origins, whatever they may be, are exclusive to Islamic terrorists.
Posted by: kian, US - Obama for President! | July 9th, 2007 at 2:54 am | Report this commentI don’t ‘hate’ muslims. I just pointed to their problems. They are not the only once who commit acts of violence, but most acts of violence are committed by muslims.
Posted by: Chen | July 9th, 2007 at 10:35 am | Report this commentHi Chen,
How does your post constitute a response to mine?!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pm | Report this commentIs not violence like swearing? It is the response of people who are not in control of their emotions. They are unable to express themselves in a controlled manner. We all from time to time get angry or frustrated. Life is like that. But most of us know that to try to solve the “problem” by lashing out at others, whether they are cause of the frustration or innocent bystanders, we will simply escalate the problem rather than solving it.
Gideon Rachman’s observation that many of the current wave of terrorists are educated people is an interesting point. To be educated in the intellectual sense can give one a false sense of one’s status. “Because I am a professional with a degree I deserve recognition”. This potentially increases the sense of frustration. What is often missing is what is commonly called “emotional intelligence”. That is the ability to understand how others feel and to appreciate their aspirations.
Whatever the faults of the “West”, and there are many, one of its great achievements has been to recognise that people do have feelings and emotions and to provide mechanisms to enable them to express them without recourse to violence. There is freedom of expression.
A major problem with much of the Muslim world is that there is no freedom of expression. There are so many examples of suppression. The news today about an exhibition of great Muslim art opening in London could not be shown in most Muslim countries because of censorship is so exemplary of the problem.
Posted by: john | July 10th, 2007 at 8:46 pm | Report this commentI think the starting point is culture shock – with a religious solution.
Anyone who has spent anytime in an Islamic country, even in semi-Islamic ones like Turkey, will see that the treatment of women, for example, is far different from anything we are used to in the west. But these women aren’t exactly objecting - in fact many will argue for, rather than against their treatment.
As for terror, there have been two attempts to attack night clubs where the focus has been on women. The Bali bombing was also targeted at a disco - aimed obviously at activities considered to be un-Islamic [by people who were not likely affected by Israel].
I was surprised at the anti-western sentiments expressed while in a Muslim country, by people, from various parts of the Islamic world, some 20 years ago. It seems to me that the terror attacks are a continuation of the same ‘down-with-the-west’ ideology that I witnessed back then. What I found though, on returning to the west - was the same trouble that the writer above is having, first of all in trying to express that there is this thing /culture that is moving in the opposite direction to us – and now to say that it may not be solved by politics.
We are in a war of ideologies.
The standard western view of Islam usually includes such things as - they treat their women badly, or they have no freedom there – but it is all statistics. What we are not relating to is how they see their own lives up against ours. This is where westerners, in the drive to be open/ever more PC, would be shocked and so we approach the subject of the Islamic world with naivety. So we wouldn’t comprehend that there is an underlying smugness [outright] that is pitting their way of life and religious beliefs, against ours. And that most have already ruled against us.
The main difference - is that we have wealth - and to many of us wealth is almost taken for granted. As you can see that in case, after case, Islamic immigrants want our wealth – but they don’t want our way. The trouble comes – if they feel that the solution to our problem/ westernization – is best corrected through violence.
George Bush can screw up a few sentences, but when he said ‘They are trying to destroy our way of life’, he got it right. And as the excuses are peeled away, for the reasons behind terrorism, we are moving closer and closer to the same realisation.
I think our problem is only that we don’t know how free we are, and how brainwashed /totally indoctrinated these people are – and I am not talking about just the “few radicals”.
Posted by: Take It From A Fool | July 11th, 2007 at 4:08 am | Report this commentHi Fool,
- Don’t you think the anti-Western feelings that you encountered in the Islamic world might have something to do with the legacy of colonialism by the West against the Muslim nations and their continued interference through imposition of tyrants or support for them? Latterly, don’t you think the intervention in Iraq, with all its disastrous consequences is a cause of Muslim anger and distrust?
- You relate the Bali bombing to some additional hatred of women because they wanted to bomb a night club? Any night club I have been to has had a 50:50 ratio of the genders so why do you think it was exclusively an attack on women? Was it a nightclub for Lesbians?
- You talk approvingly of Bu$h’s observation about Muslims wanting to destroy our ways of life. Don’t you think that the death of about 1 million or so Iraqis as a result of the US invasion has been destructive to the very lives of those Muslims, not merely the way of it?
- You state that “We are in a war of ideologies” but you don’t back it up. Which part of the ideologies are at war? Would you say Islam preaches that innocent people, including Muslims, should be blown up for no reason other than walking around the street and airports?
Would you say strategies like “Shock and Awe”, atrocities at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and outrages like Extraordinary Rendition are aspects of the West that deserve support? Couldn’t actions like these, be a fuel (but not justification) for terrorism rather than some unusual strong hatred of night clubs?
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pm | Report this commentPacifist, 9/11 and islamic anti-americanism happened before the Iraqi and Afganistan war, so dun blame all of muslim anger on the Iraq war and Bush.
According to u, Iraq war happened, then islamic anger came to the World.
In the 90’s already long before the Iraqi war anti-western and anti-american ideas flourished in the muslims World.
About night clubs. Nightclub bombings occur because they want to ‘punish’ women who go out. There are also men, but it is the easiest way to identify ‘not good women’ is to go to the nightclub according to some muslims. Men also will die, but they don’t care if someone else dies.
Pacifist, some of your points make sense, but some are so bad that they won’t convince anyone. Please stop the ‘Iraqi war is the cause of muslim anger’. Anti-americanism in Europe and Muslim World was knowsn LONG BEFORE the Iraqi war and for different reasons. Now with the Iraqi war, everyone points out at it, before that, there were other reasons ‘not to like’ America.
Posted by: Chen | July 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm | Report this commentPacifist, we talk here to find answers that will help solve problems. In this blog, we discuss islamic extremism and we all try to ’solve’ it so that we can live all in peace.
Posted by: Chen | July 11th, 2007 at 8:53 pm | Report this commentIf you present some of your arguements (Iraqi war is the main cause of anti-americanism, abu-graib scandal is the face of america (by the way whistleblower was american) etc etc) to the next US president he will not pay lots of attention because no one will believe it. Please make more convincing arguements if you want us to understand you better so that we can pay more attention to your words.
In fact, I think Pacifist made some great points, all worth understanding. Chen, he didn’t say the Iraq war, Abu Ghrab, and other CIA policies like extraordinary rendition were the cause of anti-Americanism. He said these things contribute to the anti-American sentiment. as far as causes, he mentioned the West’s “colonial legacy.” Do you understand that?
On the contrary, I think you need to make some more convincing arguments so that we can understand YOU better.
Posted by: kian, US - Obama for President! | July 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pm | Report this commentIn his last post Pacifist referred to the Iraq war and Abu Graib etc, that’s why I referred to it. In this blog we are talking about the origin of Islamic extremism.
About colonialism. China was a colony once. Hong Kong was a colony once. South Korea was a colony once. India was a colony once. USA was a colony once. Do they complain about it?? Are Chinese angry at Americans and Japanese for colonial past?? Do they blow themselves up for being ex-colony?? Do they shout ‘death to America’?? NO. They don’t complain, they work hard. For them, their colonial past is not a problem, and they don’t have the oil the Middle East has.
I think its pretty clear what I am saying. And it is my side of the argument which was heard in the White House, not yours.
Posted by: Chen | July 12th, 2007 at 5:31 am | Report this commentDear Chen,
I am in a hurry and Kian has already stated some of the things that I was going to say. I hope what I say makes sense.
Firstly, one has to look at all the contributory causes of a situation. What “take it from a fool” was suggesting was that the Muslim dislike of the West is due to misogyny and some intangible ideological differences. I gave him actual historical reasons and events to explain (not necessarily justify) the roots of this antipathy.
Secondly, I did not say that the history of the animosities started with Iraq. There was a long history of colonialism and misdeeds before that. Iraq was not the start. It simply crystallised and confirmed everything that had gone wrong before.
Moreover, if anything, it is American and pro-American commentators who would have us believe that the history between Muslims and America started on September 11, 2001. Others point out to the continuous support of US for Israel, the 1953 coup in Iran and the US support for tyrannies across the Muslim World.
Thirdly, I do not think that blowing up a bus in central London is a reasonable response to Western atrocities against the Muslims. It is not something that Muslims generally approve of (neither the generality of Muslims in the West nor those in the more traditional Muslim homelands.)
There is a minor element of younger Muslims in the West who do those things. However justified their anger against colonialism and one-sided support for Israel may be, their methods of expressing that anger is entirely unjustified and bad for Muslims’ cause as well as in contradiction with the teachings of Islam. These guys are basically criminals and there is no point in elaborating on their motives. They should be dealt with as a policing / law enforcement issue. BUT…. it is also important to listen to the concerns of the vast majority of peaceful, hard-working non-violent Muslims because of natural justice and because, otherwise, we give a helping hand to other criminals who may want to indulge their thirst for blood.
- Your comparison of China etc with the current situation of the Muslims is not a fair one. The Chinese are also extremely prickly about sovereignty and national independence. Just look at how they react to any suggestion by Japanese that WW II crimes did not take place and how they froze out prime minister Koizumi over his visits to the Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo. (Same with the Koreans and their anger over the issue of “comfort women”.)
Those things are very much in the past between Japan, China and Korea. China has now passed the colonial stage and is now a world power which, to some extent, is looking for its own colonies in Africa!
The trouble with the Middle East and Muslim Africa is that colonialism is not in the past but still an ongoing situation.
Finally, my basic plea is that the situation is not black and white but includes every possible shade of grey.
Those who look at ancient texts to justify the demonisation of others are simply misguided and misleading. It is important to know the history of what went on and what still goes on.
This is not to say that Muslims should ignore economic, social and scientific development. Of course they should and it is a slur to say that they don’t.
All the Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm | Report this commentThe left have built an architecture of BS on the issue of terrorism (mainly because much of the left either sympathises with acts of terrorism, or are willing to commit acts of terrorism under the right conditions). Al Qaeda has nothing to do with global poverty, despite all the assertions during Live 8 that aid would fight terrorism. Al Qaeda, and the litany of islamic grievance, is in fact a fascistic philosophy and an arrogant one (something it shares with all totalitarian philosophies which believe they have the answer). I am deeply concerned about the words and actions of many in the active left (its intellectuals, writers, activists). I think they have colluded with this totalitarian philosophy because it is a good opportunity to knock the US and the west. I like to call them ‘Osama’s speech writers’. You only have to read the columns in the left periodical the Nation, to then see those words slightly re-worked and sent back to us in the Zawahiri videos. The left need to learn that the threat is very real, not a figmant of George Bush’s imagination, and if not taken care of, will harm us a great deal.
Posted by: Bob Macdonald | July 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=16152§ionid=351020601
I humbly tender the above link in support of Mr. Rachman’s thesis that many terrorists are from well-heeled backgrounds.
Well Done Mr. Rachman. Not only your thesis is correct, it applies cross-culturally and across the religious divide too.
The linked article reports that the British government is running anti-Iranian terrorist camps in Jordan.
You can picture it can’t you? The British civil servants in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence and the British military’s top brass, most of whom went from fagging at the great British Public Schools (in England Public School means private fee paying!!) to Cambridge and Sandhurst are now authorising, financing and organising terrorist camps against a sovereign nation with whom Britain is not at war.
The fact that the above have first names like Tristram, Quentin or Peregrine (instead of Abdullah, Osama and Omar) and that they likely meet in Gentlemen’s Clubs in London’s posh area of Pall Mall rather than in Madrassahs in Lahore is simply a diversion and a red herring.
They support and espouse terrorism all the same and they are well to do.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentP -
can you check the link again? it doesn’t seem to work.
The premise of the article (if true - not doubting your word, but as we know - we ought to be very very careful with media reports) would be extraordinary!
I mean - in this day and age. It’s pretty well established that the West trained the afghans mujahideens (apologies for the spelling) - but if some countries (in the West) are continuing to use theses tactics, I find this incredibly stupid. No matter what short term tactical advantage or small victory it might bring, I’m afraid the moral implication, and the longer term threat is significant. Very much, like those people training their pitbulls to attack one day are surprised when the said dog bites the granny, kid or friend…
To Bob -
Yes - I may agree to an extend. But poverty and violence are key in transforming a minority sport into a mainstream one. They has always been wackos, and no doubt they will always be. And it’s almost pointless to eradicate them. What matters is making sure these people are isolated and don’t have mass support.
As for middle class or priviledged background of many of the “famous” terrorists, I don’t think it’s that surprising at all. Biologists might describe them as “alpha males” - who naturally tend to become dominant, and hence tend to be higher up the hierarchy in social societies. It’s the fact that they are alpha males that make them leaders that in turn inspire others etc.. Of course, the same qualities that can be ascribed to say, Churchill, can be used to describe some terrorists. The human qualities are similar, but the end is obviously different - but this is a judgement decision. Anyway, I can’t think that poverty doesn’t play a major part in all this. And how come somebody in a confortable house in a confortable life, with satellite TV, PC, internet etc.. can say poverty doesn’t matter? Surely, the incentives to join extremist groups (who often have financial mean) are stronger for the family man unemployed or in employment but unable to make ends meet than for the one in a confortable life.
Posted by: a | July 12th, 2007 at 5:53 pm | Report this commentAnd by the way, that doesn’t apply just to terrorist organisations, it can apply to political parties (remember how Hitler rose to power in a bankrupt Germany?) criminal organisations such as the mafia etc…
Dear a,
This is an alternative link to the one I posted:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/2580
Quote
The British government is providing military trainings to anti-Iranian forces in an army camp near the Iraqi boarder in Jordan.
British forces, stationed in Jordan, have begun providing military trainings to anti-Iranian militants since March 2007.
Retired Jordanian officers are also believed to be cooperating with the British forces in providing such trainings.
The large volume of personnel presently housed in the camp indicates that long-term plans are being orchestrated against the Iranian national security particularly in southern areas such as Khuzestan province.
Unquote
The group in question are MEK (also known as MKO) which are on the list of terrorist organisations both in the US and in Europe.
Here is an article by the former weapons inspect, Scott Ritter an American:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/200605alreadybegun.htm
He says this about MEK / MKO:
Quote
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
Unquote
You can read about the issue (i.e. Western support for terrorism) here if you are still reading:
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/oct/1308.html
Basically, nothing has been learned from previous disastrous liaisons with the terrorists. The same mistakes are being made by the US/K in your name and with your money.
God Bless,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | July 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pm | Report this comment