Monday, July 18, 2005
The Terror Threat
Chatham House has published a report saying that the Iraq War and British support for the War on Terror has increased the danger of terrorist attacks within Britain. The timing of the report perhaps seems a bit insensitive and no doubt there will be those who think that it will have been held back until a time like now to gain maximum publicity - but I don't think that would be a fair criticism. As for the report itself: To suggest a view other than that the war in Iraq and support of the War on Terror has played a part in increasing a potential risk would be a bit ridiculous. Similiar to if there was a report in 1940s claiming that declaration of war on Germany greatly increased the chance of Luftwaffe bombing raids on British cities!
The risk was of course already there long before policy choices taken in the post September 11th 2001 world. Following Bin Laden's Fatwa of 1998 "ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military –is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it" to attacks of September 11th 2001 there were Jihadist terror atrocities in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Yemen, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel, the US and India with major plots foiled in Jordan, France and the US. All pre-Iraq War and pre-War on Terror.
The usual suspects will no doubt be seizing upon the report for political advantage and this raises the question of whether there is point where one considers standing up to fascism and terror (whether of the 1930s/1940s variety or the modern day Jihadist variety) and the associated increased risk of such a policy to be not worth the extra risk involved? That it's easier to keep one's head down and let them get on with it in the hope that you will not have anymore problems. Perhaps it's easy to type from behind the safety of my keyboard but I really don't believe that such a point exists. If accomodation is made with such people then exactly what principles are there left to fight for and stand up for?
The risk was of course already there long before policy choices taken in the post September 11th 2001 world. Following Bin Laden's Fatwa of 1998 "ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military –is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it" to attacks of September 11th 2001 there were Jihadist terror atrocities in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Yemen, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Israel, the US and India with major plots foiled in Jordan, France and the US. All pre-Iraq War and pre-War on Terror.
The usual suspects will no doubt be seizing upon the report for political advantage and this raises the question of whether there is point where one considers standing up to fascism and terror (whether of the 1930s/1940s variety or the modern day Jihadist variety) and the associated increased risk of such a policy to be not worth the extra risk involved? That it's easier to keep one's head down and let them get on with it in the hope that you will not have anymore problems. Perhaps it's easy to type from behind the safety of my keyboard but I really don't believe that such a point exists. If accomodation is made with such people then exactly what principles are there left to fight for and stand up for?
