Thoughts on the Manchester terrorist attack
The Manchester attack at the Ariana Grande concert last night deliberately targeted very young people. It’s an example of what I have previously called the “Pied Piper Impluse”:
Terrorists seem to operate under the Pied Piper Impulse of “get them where it hurts” in order to maximize both their leverage and the fear and grief their acts engender.
I have read several reports from people who had been to the concert, alleging that their backpacks weren’t searched. If true, that would indicate that security was lax. This turns out, however, to have been irrelevant, because the perpetrator was not at the concert.
Is there a single person on earth who is surprised that the terrorist has a name that indicates a Mideastern/Arabic/Muslim origin, and that he was apparently a known wolf?:
British authorities identified Salman Abedi, 22, as the suicide bomber in the attack at the Ariana Grande concert that killed 22 people and injured dozens more…
Abedi was known to British authorities prior to Monday night’s attack, CBS News reported.
As soon as I read that the bomb did not go off during the concert, but detonated as the crowd was leaving, it occurred to me that the terrorist may have circumvented security by targeting the exits/entrances to the venue. This is always a possibility, because security can only begin at a certain geographic point. Sure enough, that was the case here:
The bomber, a man who police say arrived alone, was not inside the arena when he detonated his explosives. He arrived on the local rail system and approached one of the main exits as the audience made their way out.
Kids and teenagers were everywhere, meeting parents and making their way out of the building.
There are thousands of potential Salman Abedis in all the countries of the West, and although some are being “monitored” others are not, and at any rate the monitoring is obviously not good enough or effective enough to stop all of the ones who are subject to it.
I fear that too many Western nations have taken the Kerry attitude, despite their words of sorrow at events such as last night’s. As John Hinderaker writes:
The usual expressions of condolence and anger are being made, but while no doubt sincere, they feel rote. We have seen this story unfold too many times. The question is what we are going to do about it.
There are hundreds if not thousands of known terrorist sympathizers in the U.K., but in any of the liberal democracies, nothing can be done about them until they actually detonate a bomb, or carry out another sort of attack, or come perilously close to doing so. The only other way to address the problem is through immigration policy, but it is probably too late for that in a number of the Western European countries, including Great Britain. It isn’t too late here, but as we have seen with President Trump’s almost de minimis travel order, the establishment won’t permit any serious reconsideration of immigration policy.
So it seems that the West is committed to John Kerry’s view of Islamic terrorism: viewing it as a “nuisance” that we just have to put up with.
The Manchester attack reminds me of the sort of thing that used to happen almost on a daily basis in Israel. Then after the Israelis built the much-maligned wall, the number and death toll shrunk down enormously, and the modus operandi changed as well. But if my suspicion that Abedi was born in Britain—or, at least, has been there for a long long time—is correct, then the true parallel with Israel is to its Arab population, which is large. Israel, a country known for its brilliant security, doesn’t seem to have solved that problem of the internal terrorist any more than Europe or the US has, because there are still a number of terrorist attacks emanating from the Arab population of that country, and there are many Arab sympathizers with those attacks who live in Israel as well. However, large explosive attacks such as the one in Manchester last night—which used to be commonplace in Israel before the wall—have been mostly replaced (at least to the best of my knowledge) with smaller-scale but still deadly knife attacks. I’m not sure why that is, and I’m not sure it’s all that significant, but it does seem to have at least reduced the number of victims per attack.
To the victims in Manchester and their families, my heartfelt condolences for their terrible, terrible loss. RIP.
[ADDENDUM: And here is some further detail on Abedi—and indeed, he was born in Britain:
Born in Manchester in 1994, the second youngest of four children his parents were Libyan refugees who came to the UK to escape the Gaddafi regime.
His parents were both born in Libya but appear to have emigrated to London before moving to the Fallowfield area of south Manchester where they have lived for at least ten years.
They had three sons in total and a daughter, who is now 18-years-old.
Abedi grew up in the Whalley Range area, just yards from the local girl’s high school, which hit the headlines in 2015 when twins and grade A pupils, Zahra and Salma Halane, who were both aspiring medical students, left their homes and moved to Isil controlled Syria.
There were unconfirmed reports in Manchester that the whole family apart from the two elder sons recently returned to Libya.
None of this—none—is a surprise. We have yet to learn whether anyone in the family was under surveillance or investigation, or how the ball was dropped, but my guess is that there just wasn’t anything to distinguish Abedi or his family from thousands and thousands of others like him/then. Even a return trip to Libya could have easily been explained if they have relatives there to visit.]
The reaction from the left has been, as always, predictable and completely untethered to reality. Fearful of even suggesting that such an atrocity might have anything at all to with “the religion of peace”, two different radical feminists (writing at Slate and Salon) even tried to blame the atrocity on male hatred of women and girls, much as, last year, the NYTimes linked the Orlando nightclub massacre to Christian Republicans.
How ironic Kerry and his crowd resigned to this type of horror yet the NYC papers all screeched that God and prayers for the victims of San Bernardino US terror attack was no solution. Can we play a time machine for the liberals?
Suicide bomber moved to the U.K. as a child from Libya. Assimilation didn’t work.
UK needs to start deporting people.
Meanwhile just recently Angela showed the Queen her office where frau Merkel can just conjure up a cup of tea on a whim with her electric kettle.
Cornhead:
Yes, I added some new information about Abedi in the addendum.
“There are hundreds if not thousands of known terrorist sympathizers in the U.K.
There are approx. 3.5 Million Muslims in the U.K. 40+% of UK Muslims admit (remember taqiyya when considering these numbers) that they favor Sharia law for themselves rather than western legal precepts. That’s at least 1.4 Million Muslims whose loyalty is to Sharia Law rather than the UK’s legal system.
One percent of U.K. Muslims admit that they completely sympathize with jihadist terrorist ‘feelings’. That alone is 35,000 ‘potential’ terrorists. Anyone in the U.K. who actually imagines that there are only about 3500 potential terrorists is engaged in willful denial.
“So it seems that the West is committed to John Kerry’s view of Islamic terrorism: viewing it as a “nuisance” that we just have to put up with.”
One has to wonder how many nuclear terrorist attacks have to occur before it stops being a ‘nuisance’ that “we just have to put up with”?
Not to mention when humanity will hold accountable those who advocate appeasement and ridicule those who speak out in warning?
British politician, classical scholar, philologist and poet Enoch Powell in his 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech presciently warned of this eventuality. His reasoned argument was contemptuously dismissed as ‘racist’ and he was driven out of politics.
Today, Politicians Geert Wilders, Le Pen and Viktor Orbé¡n are labeled racists for echoing Powell. As are anyone who agrees with them.
Western Europe and most of the West is reaping what they themselves have sown. Any society that will not protect their children has no future. Their children’s children will curse their memory.
Last night soon after the bombing, UK authorities wouldn’t refer to this as an act of terrorism. I don’t understand. Everybody there was terrorized, it was immediately apparent that many were dead and injured, so why does it takes hours or days to decide if it was an act of terrorism?
This is how twisted our “leaders” have become and how tied up in knots our culture is. SMH.
Speaking of Kerry’s view, let’s not forget former President Obama’s view:
“Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July [2010], the president said, ‘We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.’ ”
And note: That quote’s from a WAPO article on a Bob Woodward book posted on NPR.org:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/22/130040247/obama-says-we-can-absorb-a-terrorist-attack-your-thoughts
Israel has a terrible potential problem with its internal Arabs, who are full citizens, some vitriolically anti-Israel, and who are out-breeding the Jewish Israelis. Another demographic time bomb.
We liberal democracies are not in suicide pacts. Just as there is no freedom of speech allowing one to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, there is no basis for allowing Islam, a totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion, free access to America. Recall CAIR, the oft-heard Council on American-Islamic Relations, was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial. HLF, the largest Islamic charity in the US, funneled money to Hamas. It was declared terroristic in Dec. 2001, and in 2009, upon conviction, its founders were sentenced to 15-65 years in Federal penitentiaries.
Recall taqiyya, the duty of Muslims to lie to unbelievers on behalf of Islam.
I know this will occasion many moans and groans, but America should declare Islam a non-religion within the USA. If Muslims want to improve their standing, they will have to prevent jihad themselves, instead of cowering behind our First Amendment, and allowing jihadis to strike out when it suits them.
There are indeed softer versions of Islam out there. Those can rise to the occasion. But giving jihadis the keys to our kingdom is surely not the answer. If Kerry is for it, on his yacht or in his castle, I’m against.
Otherwise, the entire USA will become a gigantic DHS-controlled and surveilled airport, with all of us standing in lines forever.
It is us v. them. Know your enemy.
Britain has just raised its terror level to “critical”. So let’s stop wringing our hands and do something.
Bomber’s place of birth makes no difference. Still unassimilated. Still devoted to Islam. Evil loser.
“why does it takes hours or days to decide if it was an act of terrorism?” Irene
They knew very quickly. The delay is to deaden the public’s mind, relying upon a short attention span. Nothing to see here, move along.
Those children are literally sacrifices upon multiculturalism and post-modernism’s altar.
“We can absorb a terrorist attack.” Barack Obama
Ah, another example of the “banality of evil”.
Irene at 4:49 PM:
“Last night soon after the bombing, UK authorities wouldn’t refer to this as an act of terrorism.”
I noticed that too. Also, on the radio they kept saying that it was only some balloons popping and that that had caused all the young teenagers to panic.
THEY always bend over backwards to avoid having to use the “T word”, don’t they?
There ways to stop all this but it would require a sea change in Democracies. Not likely given the hysteria over Trump’s temporary ban on travel from the usual suspect countries. If we can’t even do that, what hope is there for other effective means and ways? Hoist on our won petard.
Curious thing, nobody changed their profile pic to a British flag, no candles and only a passing mention of the Manchester terror attack on my Facebook feed.
Plenty of commemoration of Roger Moore though, which he well deserves of course. And surprisingly, less hyperventilating about Trump.
Which is not to say my feed is an indication of anything.
Cornhead: we have the same problem in the Twin Cities. Home-grown “American-Somalian” jihadis. Ooops, it should be Somali-American, the Somali coming first, of course.
We can all thank the Deep State for importing 50,000 of them from Kenyan refugee camps 20+ years ago. In the Clinton era.
It is impossible to deal with “evil losers” until the West recognizes and admits the problem is Islam. Yes, perhaps some large percentage of the Allah cult have no intention to kill my grandchildren (just to take it down to a personal level), but there is no denying that many muslims who don’t want to get their hands covered in blood do support the 10 (or 20) percent who are willing to murder an 8 year old girl (and many others plus the wounded).
This is still, after 1500 years, a war between enlightenment and savage barbarians. And please spare me the often mentioned BS about the wonders of the enlightened rule of Andalusia.
Every mosque in the West must be subjected to intense scrutiny 24/7. Any person residing in the West who is a member of the cult of Allah must be viewed as a potential jihadist. All members of the death cult for paradise is public enemy number one.
Get serious or get dead for all your generations.
Frog,
“America should declare Islam a non-religion within the USA”
While I agree that Islam is “a totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion”, I do not agree that a legally coherent argument can be made in support of declaring Islam to be a non-religion in America. As neo has previously pointed out, by what metric would religion be defined? What consensus could be amassed in support of that metric?
I do think that a legal argument can be made that Islam’s fundamental tenets are antithetical to America’s founding precepts and that it is impossible to embrace both at the same time.
Thus supporting the measure of expelling all Muslims from America. Obviously, there would be practical difficulties involved in any such policy but I expect future terrorist attacks to greatly lessen the objections. That eventuality being just a matter of time.
Trum also hits people where it hurts, 100X harder, that is why people like giving him power. Cultural heroes like Trum are only heroes if you are on their side. To Islam, the suiciders are also heroes, not evil losers. But to Trum, they are evil losers. While Trum to Cruz is an enemy of the family.
If you don’t want to fight terorrists in the Middle East, at their home, then you just have to fight them at yours. Good luck with that, all those who thought Bush II was stupid.
However, large explosive attacks such as the one in Manchester last night–which used to be commonplace in Israel before the wall–have been mostly replaced (at least to the best of my knowledge) with smaller-scale but still deadly knife attacks.
Knife or ak attacks aren’t all that problematic to people like me. We just think of them as divine trials. If you die, you failed. If you don’t die and succeed, you are volunteered for a more difficult task.
Bombs however, are pretty much where both sides die.
I know this will occasion many moans and groans, but America should declare Islam a non-religion within the USA.
Then the US will enjoy a war between the Latter Day Saints, Southern Baptists, and Islam. That will be nice.
Trump implored the Muslim countries to
Drive. Them. Out.
Maybe we should go first.
The hidden elephant is that, for many of the terrorists and proto-terrorists, they are now citizens of the countries they want to attack — so where would we send them?
As with toxic drugs, we will never eliminate all the users (terrorists); we have to go after the pushers (imams) and cartels (states that support them).
Too bad some of those states are (supposedly) our allies. Was Trump sending them a message that their “free pass” is over?
I agree with Scott Adams (Dilbert). Evil loser is brilliant. Another reason why I have come to LOVE Trump.
For some reason I didn’t see this post for a couple of hours after it was published. Nothing after the Al Sisi post and then suddenly this with 23 comments.
GB: We are not far apart. But you have to have a way to keep new ones out, not just send those already here to the Sinai or somewhere.
Light more candles. That is what is called for.
Standing in circles with quivering lips, and indignantly proclaiming in unison that this will not cause us to react as the extremists wish us to, is another good idea.
I’m not sure who these extremists are or what they want, but the most important thing is not to be like them: extreme.
Yes, and the proof is we absorbed him, and nearly lived to tell about it. Or did … sort of …
Griffin:
That glitch again. It’s a caching problem at the host. It’s very minor now, and only affects a few people now and then. But in the next month or so I’ll be working on a new theme (template), which I hope will make the blog more impervious to the problem. I may also change hosts, but so far I haven’t figured out which host I want to use. Sorry it’s still happening to you, but glad it righted itself.
We can deport Muslims but unless the Wahhabi ideology is challenged and the jihadis shown to be evil losers, the conflict will rage on. The world is too small for us to become be a Muslim free zone. It won’t happen quickly, but the assault on the Wahhabi theology was begun with Trump’s speech in Riyadh. It will take Muslims picking up on the message to move it forward. There are only a courageous few these days, but as the message becomes clearer and more accepted, more will step up.
Islam does not have to be an intolerant, violent religion. As General el-Sisi pointed out, how can 1.5 billion people want to conquer or kill the other 5.5 billion? It is a fool’s quest. The Wahhabi literal interpretation of the Quran is an evil, losing theology and its followers are evil losers. No one of any other faith (including moderate Muslims like the Kurds and others) can trust or tolerate an evil theology that preaches hatred, intolerance, and death. Nor can any nation with separation of church and state allow evil loser immigrants who advocate for a tyrannical theocracy. Muslims who do not politicize their faith, respect individuals of all other faiths or no faith, and defend the secular principles that put all Americans on equal footing are the individuals who can be allowed to immigrate. If it takes an oath to preserve the separation of church and state for Muslim immigrants, so be it.
AesopFan,
“we have to go after the pushers (imams) and cartels (states that support them)”
Yes, that’s a start. I firmly believe that you gain leverage over an enemy by firmly attaching unacceptable consequence to their actions. By their own inflexible beliefs, denial of paradise is ensured, if their deaths involve contact with any part of a pig. Martyrdom without reward depresses recruitment.
Frog,
I thought it a given that if the day ever comes when America expels every Muslim upon our shores, that it would also not allow any more Muslims entrance…
J.J.,
Please explain what other ‘interpretation’ there might be if I unequivocally declare that, “You must die or convert and I will not rest until that occurs because God has commanded it!”…?
The Wahhabi ideology is just one of many fundamentalist ‘literal interpretations’ within Islam. Since the Koran, which is Allah’s direct testimony… contains over 100 simple, explicit exhortations to subdue the infidel by whatever means are necessary… by what calculus do you suggest that the ‘moderates’ gain theological precedence?
When I ponder Islam and reform, I keep stumbling over the part where Muhammad repeatedly declared Allah to be the Koran’s author. Did Muhammad lie? Was he deluded? If not, then upon what basis is there for fallible mankind correcting infallible Allah?
Parents immigrated to Britain, kids born in UK; yet they still hate the civilization they live in – remind me again how Trump is a bigot for wanting to vet such folks before they get here?
G.B.: “Please explain what other ‘interpretation’ there might be if I unequivocally declare that, “You must die or convert and I will not rest until that occurs because God has commanded it!”…?
The Wahhabi ideology is just one of many fundamentalist ‘literal interpretations’ within Islam. Since the Koran, which is Allah’s direct testimony… contains over 100 simple, explicit exhortations to subdue the infidel by whatever means are necessary… by what calculus do you suggest that the ‘moderates’ gain theological precedence?”
If all Muslims accepted the literal translation of the Quran and followed it, no infidel could set foot anywhere near a Muslim. Trump’s life would not have been worth a plugged nickel in Saudi Arabia. Many Saudi royals are beginning to understand that they have been financing a campaign of Wahhabism that is now threatening them. What el-Sisi says is beginning to make sense to them. There are not enough suicide bombers volunteering to take the West down. After our ignominious action in Mogadishu, many Wahhabis, bin Laden chief among them, thought it wouldn’t take much to defeat us. They were wrong. Their theology is a loser. Allah is not on their side.
The truth is that the literalist observance of the Quran is limited to a small percentage of Muslims. A goodly number of the Muslims in the world are illiterate and have no idea what is in the Quran except what they are told by the imams. Wherever you find an imam preaching the Wahhabi theology you will find jihadis being recruited.
Attack the Wahhabi theology. Attack the Wahhabi imams. Attack the lines of financing. Attack the nests of jihadis. Make them losers and no one will want to preach the loser’s brand of Islam.
J.J. Says:
May 23rd, 2017 at 7:01 pm
We can deport Muslims but unless the Wahhabi ideology is challenged and the jihadis shown to be evil losers, the conflict will rage on. The world is too small for us to become be a Muslim free zone. It won’t happen quickly, but the assault on the Wahhabi theology was begun with Trump’s speech in Riyadh. It will take Muslims picking up on the message to move it forward. There are only a courageous few these days, but as the message becomes clearer and more accepted, more will step up.
* * *
The violent conquests in the Old Testament were not take by the Israelites as being infinitely future-prescriptive: they were interpreted as directions for this-time in this-place.
An astute school of Imams should be able to make that same sort of interpretation of the Quran, although it seems to be more problematic because of some of the other messages.
Barring that, maybe we should let the Muslim nations partition their own territories into areas that are “safe places” for the Shari’a-compliant, and others for those that are a bit more relaxed.
But I’m not an Islamic scholar, and don’t even play one on television.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
May 23rd, 2017 at 7:10 pm
AesopFan,
“we have to go after the pushers (imams) and cartels (states that support them)”
Yes, that’s a start. I firmly believe that you gain leverage over an enemy by firmly attaching unacceptable consequence to their actions.
* * *
Milton Friedman: make it easy for the wrong people to do the right things.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2015/08/milton-friedman-on-politics.html
“The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”
J.J. and Geoffrey Britain:
See this post and the comments.
Couple of points:
Whether you consider the known wolf terrs to be mentally ill, or losers, or something else, Islam attracts, say, 90% of them.
Presume the Koran had been written by a guy fourteen hundred years ago; all the same requirements as to one’s personal life, relations, relations with non-Muslims, violence or not, subjugate or not, but with no mention of Allah or any other divinity. IOW, sort of like communism. So, no 1A protection under the establishment and free exercise clauses. How would we treat it?
When struck by flying metal, bullets or fragments, if you aren’t hit in the heart or the brain, your greatest risk is bleeding out. That can be addressed by others who know what they are doing, but it needs to be fast.
Reports are that some or many of the dead in the Orlando shooting bled out–but could have been saved–during the negotiations. In contrast, although the Boston Marathon bombing caused horrific injuries including traumatic amputation, there were only three dead. That’s because there were people there who knew what to do and could to it immediately and there was immediate, unhindered transport to first-rate hospitals.
Learning to deal with major bleeds is not complicated and a man’s handkerchief will make a decent tourniquet or pad for shoving into a hole, or as a pressure bandage.
Dealing with a sucking chest wound isn’t difficult, unless it’s through and through when you have a spinal issue to worry about. But you take the shot because if you don’t, he’ll be dead before being paralyzed becomes an issue.
CPR and learning to use an AED are both more complicated.
We’ve gotten to the point where there is no excuse for not knowing starting with,say, First Class Scouts.
So Wretchard was right. When the main target (let’s say, airplanes) are unreachable, the terrorist goes for the concentration of people at the security chokepoints that protect the main target.
Surellin
Much as I respect Wretchard, he wasn’t the first to figure this out.
I recall a Canadian after 9-11 suggesting that a Pilatus Porter on a nowhere airfield in Manitoba with a ton of fuel aboard–which nobody is watching–could be a prospect for trouble.
IMO, the 9-11 targets, and the ’92 WTC bombing, caused us to think of targets as being symbolic or important in some sense.
It appears that may be true, but max casualties seem to be the primary goal. Had the aircraft hit the towers an hour later, there may have been five or even ten thousand more dead.
It was a very pleasant late summer morning, and there was a primary election. Those are two reasons given for the fact that many people had not shown up for work. Or perhaps New Yorkers don’t work as hard as they want you to think they do.
In any event, it’s certainly possible that the plotters were disappointed in the low body count, considering the numbers supposedly at work in the Towers.
Once you figure out how to make such a bomb, and if you or somebody you can convince are willing to be a suicide bomber, anyplace is a likely target. And if you can figure out how to place it and leave, you don’t even need to suicide.
So, Little League games. Shopping malls. Night clubs. The question is how much horror can be inflicted on our society before people stop believing that just one more concession will solve the problem. Given the official responses to the latest atrocity–and a report on how the Manchester Police seemed to think Islamaphobia was their greatest problem–it will take a lot of horror before people stop listening to our leaders.
Someone on Fox exclaimed, “you would need security right up to everyone’s front door step to be safe!” Not really.
Neo says,
“…security can only begin at a certain geographic point.”
Absolutely true. Where? Some level of security should start where the human body density is high. Generally, this is not a vast area.
TommyJay. Sort of true. But queuing to get through security….
J.J.,
It’s true that the majority of Muslims do not practice all aspects of a literal interpretation of Islam. But the great majority of Muslims support various aspects of a literal translation of Islam, as codified in Sharia Law. For instance, 86% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy.
The Saudi Royals have known from very early on how their financial support for Wahhabism is used. Some Saudi Royals welcome it, some do not but all know that support keeps the Wahabist Imams from overthrowing the Royals.
It’s not accidental that the country within which Mecca and Medina reside is also the home of Wahabism, arguably the most fundamental Sunni “interpretation” extant. No Saudi monarchy or government can survive that opposes Wahabism because to do so requires dismissing Allah’s clear commands.
El-Sisi is a lone voice crying in a wilderness. No amount of suicide bombers can defeat a resolute West. But the West is not resolute. As evidence, I point to Macron’s election in France and Hillary receiving more votes than Trump.
Yes, their theology is a loser. That theology however is the fastest growing one in the world…
It’s true that relatively few Muslims practice all of the literal injunctions but again, the vast majority of Muslims practice some individual mix of them. The individual Muslim may not endorse clitorectomies but does endorse some other practice(s), be it death for apostasy or honor killings to regain the family’s lost ‘honor’. That reality makes clear that despite the illiteracy of most, their trust in their Imams remains. And why shouldn’t it? The Wahabist Imam is faithfully repeating Allah’s and Muhammad’s very words…
In closing, I fully agree, attack in all the ways you suggest and more. I only caution you in imagining that a rock can be turned into a tomato or a tomato into a plum.
GB,
What you say about Saudi Arabia is absolutely true, which makes me question selling $350 billion in arms to them and encouraging them to invest further in our country. Ditto our oil and drilling industry modernizing theirs. Lenin’s quote comes to mind about capitalists selling rope to their enemies. What he actually wrote was ..they will work on the preparation of their own suicide.
G,B.: “For instance, 86% of Egyptians support the death penalty for apostasy.”
And how many of those Egyptians can or have actually read the Quran? Not many. They believe what they are told by their imams. And Egypt is the center of the rebirth (beginning in the 1930s) of literalist translations of the Quran. Except for the Wahhabis, who were pretty much isolated in Saudi Arabia, few Muslims had thought about ibn Wahhab until the two Egyptian writers, Hassan al Banna and Sayyid Qutb, started writing about Wahhab’s teachings. Al Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Qutb joined and was very active in. Because of that, Egypt has probably one of the highest percentages of Muslims who are familiar with political Islam. Al Banna and Qutb are household names in Egypt and are well known among the Islamists in the ME.
From Wiki: “This period (1954 – 64) saw the composition of his (Qutb’s) two most important works: a commentary of the Qur’an Fi Zilal al-Qur’an (In the Shade of the Qur’an), and a manifesto of political Islam called Ma’alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). These works represent the final form of Qutb’s thought, encompassing his radically anti-secular and anti-Western claims based on his interpretations of the Qur’an, Islamic history, and the social and political problems of Egypt.” His book “Milestones” is the handbook for the leaders of jihadi organizations such as al Qaeda and ISIS.
What we have is an organization in which 10% are trying to dictate to the other 90% how they should live their lives. The 90% allow it because the 10% are violent thugs and the 90% are fearful and guilt-ridden because the 10% tell them they are bad Muslims. Trump was speaking to the 90% when he said, “Drive them out!” We can back them and encourage them, but the 90% have to actually drive the jihadis out of their mosques, their villages, and their nations. If they don’t, eventually we will have to do it for them, and that will be quite a bloodbath with much collateral damage. I don’t expect immediate results, but this is an approach to the problem that has been too long coming. It may not work but is worth trying.
Well said, Neo.
I believe your description of the Israeli situation is a bit of an oversimplification. Yes, Israel built a wall, and yes, it was (and is) effective. But Israel also had to deal with suicide bombers, at random gathering places of Israelis, for several years. (This may coincide with the time while the West Bank wall was being built and argued over; I don’t recall exactly.)
Israel’s response to this was to post sharp-eyed security guards in public places. Malls, fast-food restaurants, shoe stores. These security guards knew, all too well, that if they spotted a suicide bomber before anyone else did, their job was to head off the bomber… with a significant risk that the bomber would go off prematurely, killing the security guard at the same time. A number of brave, underpaid Israelis became instant heroes — some of them posthumously — for doing this.
Somewhere or other, I have a slightly macabre photograph from that era. It shows a tough-looking security guard, with folded arms and dark sunglasses, standing in front of a shoe store… and in the window is a sign, in Hebrew, from somebody’s laser printer. It says “This store sees a bombing every other day. The last one was yesterday.” (In other words, you’re safe today!)
Can we leverage our technology? Can we, someday, mass-produce cheap face-recognition devices, pre-loaded with lists of potential “known wolves”… so that security guards at a teeny-bopper concert can get an automatic alert — “Known suspect possibly identified at Gate 3, wearing shades and a trenchcoat” — and act on that alert?
And, if we can, will we?