The Aliens have landed ( the end of Innocence )

It was an event waiting to happen

The surprise was not that the terrorists struck London on July 7 but that they took so long in striking. After the terrorist attacks in Bali and Jakarta (target Australians), Istanbul and Madrid, it was always a toss up, which one would be hit first - Denmark, Italy and Britain – all close allies of the US in the Iraq war. Inevitably, the ubiquitous Pakistani connection has surfaced.

Since then there have been four failed attempts in London, one Brazilian shot dead on mistaken identity (someone lost his nerve here) and the city brought to a virtual halt. If London was timed to coincide with the G-8 Summit, the Beirut and Sharm el-Sheikh blasts coincided with US Secretary of State’s visit to the region. Iraq continues to average about 800 deaths a month, Afghanistan remains violent and getting worse, and the Frontier Province of Pakistan sees continued violence. Obviously, there are committed, resourceful and secretive groups in the Muslim world who are willing as well as able to spread turmoil faster than security and intelligence agencies seem to be able to cope with.

About a month prior to the July 7 attacks, Britain’s Joint Terror Analysis Centre had prepared an assessment and advised the Government that while events in Iraq continued to act as motivation and could be a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in Britain, there was no group with both the intent and capability to attack the UK. This seems a combination of intelligence inputs and wishful thinking. However, the conservative London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, in a report co-authored by Prof Paul Wilkinson, had warned that the UK was at particular risk being the closest ally of the US. Ironically, during the week their ally across the Atlantic was battling terrorism with Pakistani connections, the US deemed it fit to praise Pakistan’s contribution to war against terror. July 7 was, therefore, in a way both the end of innocence and of immunity from history’s revenge.

For years the British and other Western governments have followed this enigmatic and inexplicable policy of giving shelter to foreigners whose political or religious followers carried out a campaign – quite often violent and secessionist -- in their countries of origin. It is understandable that the Pakistanis actively and enthusiastically sponsored this game against ‘enemy’ India. Indians found it difficult to understand why the Brits were doing it, because India and the UK were friends. The Jagjit Singh Chouhans and their ilk or A. Z. Phizo lived for years in England under the protection of British law. But no-one really cared as these were all described as battles for freedom in distant third world countries. Ultimately, India had to lose a prime minister to terrorists for the rest of the world to take us a little more seriously on the Sikh terrorist issue.

Similarly, over the past two decades the Indians tried to warn the West, notably the British and the Americans of the dangers from State-sponsored Islamic armies -- offspring of the US sponsored Afghan jehad. Unfortunately, this was disdainfully dismissed as mere propaganda against their ally. Moreover, in the late 90s, the likes of Abu Hamza of Finsbury Mosque and Omar Bakri Mohammed of the UK-based al Mohajiroun were allowed to spew venom and hatred but the authorities remained indulgent towards these groups describing them as harmless oddities. But it must be said in all fairness to the Brits that they ignored similar warnings from other security and intelligence services about the dangerously radical doctrines being preached. Now that July 7 has happened the gravity of the situation may be better understood but more than 20 years of vital lead time has been lost.

It is incorrect to attribute all these attacks to the Al Qaeda and to deny that these terror attacks have anything to do with policies in Iraq. The truth is that there are now several Islamic terrorist groups operating globally and many simply owe allegiance to Osama but operate on their own. The Al Qaeda mainly comprises Arabs but the London attacks were carried out by British born persons of Pakistani origin and connections. Intelligence analysts in Europe estimate that about 80 British Muslims, most of them originally from Pakistan, have joined the Iraqi resistance. Another 3000 British Muslims had attended Islamic training camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia and then returned home. No one took them seriously and assumed they had gone to adventure camps. It is quite likely that the London attacks were the handiwork of the International Front For Jehad Against Crusaders and Jews consisting of various jehadi organisations from different countries. This front was formed by Osama bin Laden and has as its signatories Pakistani terrorist organisations like the Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen, Harkat-ul-Jehad-e-Islami, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. All of them have followers in Europe and the US.

The attacks are not because of hatred for the Western way of life but about its policies. Even those Muslims who may not agree with Osama’s cult of violence and hatred, agree with him about the intent of US policies. The current wave of extreme violence sweeping the Muslim world is an indication of the intensity and universality of this hatred. This arises from US actions on Muslim lands, which permits every Muslim to defend his faith and to participate in jehad.

It was Ayman Al Zawahiri, who said in September 2003, “We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw they will lose everything and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death.” Another Egyptian, Mohammed Atta’s father, speaking to CNN TV journalists in Cairo praised the London attacks, warned that terror cells all over the world were like a nuclear bomb that was ticking, and that this was the beginning of a 50-year religious war.
Tom Friedman, in a recent article, tried to explain this anger when he spoke of Sunni Islam’s struggle with modernity. But possibly the one book that has been creating quite a stir in the Muslim world is Irshad Manji’s The Trouble With Islam Today (translated into several languages including Arabic and Urdu and available on the net). Speaking on TV recently following the London bombings, Manji, who is proud of her religion, said that the mullahs had politicised the religion by sticking to literal readings of the Koran. As a result, most Muslims had no clue how to dissent, debate, or reform as in other religions. She said ijtehad in the community was required to let Muslims come to terms with the diversity of ideas, beliefs and people in the rest of the world. It would take more than one brave Irshad Manji to bring modernity to Islam.
The problem is going to stay with us for a long time to come. It will certainly not get frightened away by the sound of crunching glass under the jackboot for there is no military solution. In fact, to call it a war against terror and give each operation pompous names like Enduring Freedom or Infinite Justice only inflames passions further. The solution would lie in reform and the best reforms come from within a society not those that are sought to be imposed; in a less arrogant approach to the problem; in cutting off the radical leadership from its following; in better intelligence; with governments working for their own people and not for other interests.

Source : Hindustan Times 28th july 2005