London and Terror (Part 1)

I was going to post something else today, but I cannot ignore the bombings that occurred in London late last week. So I will join my millions of cohorts in the blogosphere in discussing the event and its significance as I see it.

My mind set is normally one that expresses frustration at the Bush Administration for inconsistencies that have, in my opinion, fostered the growth of terrorism; especially the unwarranted “Shock and Awe” we administered on Iraq. Some might deem such comments as anti-American or voice concern that I’m giving the terrorists a “pass” of sorts. So let me set the record straight.

The people that committed this horrendous atrocity in London are crazy, sick in the head, demented, diabolical, wicked and downright evil. We pretty much all assume that al-Qaeda is behind this (and I’d bet my lunch money that they are), and we are well aware of the destruction they have caused around the world-especially in the last 8 years. I totally disagree with their tactics and do think its worth fighting them where ever they are found.

I understand that the War on Terror is an ongoing saga and that we must always be prepared for more potential attacks, however, look at the impact these guys have by just succeeding once a year. It has been said that the terrorists only have to be successful once in order to make a major impact. That assertion seems to be holding true. No major attacks in over a year, then this, and now look at the reverberations. We’ve raised the Terror level, shifted all news focus to London, and all of us have become a little wearier with the concept of Terror.

Can we continue on like this? Can we keep making blanket P.R. statements asserting that we will be strong and vigilant and move on in courage because we don’t want the terrorists to have their victory? Is the notion that we are going to fight the terrorists “there” (where ever there is) so that we don’t have to fight them here still valid considering that one of the “here’s” was certainly Great Britain?

I mean honestly, if they haven’t won the war, in many ways they win all the minor battles. As soon as the London bombings occurred the USA raised the terror alert on trains and buses from Yellow to Orange. Throughout the nation’s major cities right now (Philly, NY, Chi-town, etc.) the police presence has noticeably increased, especially at places of mass transit.

And why?

Because the terrorists succeeded once. We saw the same phenomenon after 9/11. Since those attacks, airport security has been greatly increased.

And when they make that 1 successful attack, they cost “us” so much; lives, money, sanity. Unfortunately, that’s they’re goal. Think back to 10 Ramadan (late October). Osama Bin Laden released a tape outlining what he intends to do. Destroying the finances of Western nations is at the top of his list. One of the most striking statements he made was that for every dollar that his organization spends on attacking “Western sights,” the USA spends something like 1,000,000 dollars on fighting it. So, it is no surprise that the bombs in London were dispersed throughout its financial district.

I won’t pretend that I know how to handle the threat of terrorism. However, I do think that we are approaching it all wrong. The first error is the concept of “Fighting Terror.” I recall sitting in South Quad’s cafeteria (at my alma mater) for lunch in October of 2001 rhetorically asking a friend, “how do you fight terror?” The point I made was that you can’t fight terror because it is an intangible object. You can no more fight terror than you can see the wind. Terror will always exist, and when it hits, it will make a monster of an impact.

I also think that it’s time for honesty from the Bush Administration about Iraq, about the War on Terror, and it’s time out for the foolish P.R. statements that carry less water than the desert. Iraq was no imminent threat, nor was it a hotbed for terror. The USA has successfully turned Iraq into a hotbed for terror, and has not made good on many of its promises to Iraq monetarily speaking. Little of the Iraq funding that Congress has allocated is evident in Iraq’s rebuilding process. For example, there have been several weeks that much of Baghdad has gone without running water. Ok, rewind and read that last sentence again and think about the magnitude of it for about 7.3 seconds.

Yes, Baghdad, the Capitol of Iraq, the American stronghold, the home to over 5 million people. That city, that place, frequently goes without clean running water for weeks at a time. Kind of makes you wonder what we’re really doing with that $300 Billion that has been allocated to the War and rebuilding process.

I also think that education about Islam would be great. For starters, I think people fail to realize that Islam is a religion, not a people. And like all religions that I’m aware of, there is a wide range of thoughts in it and perspectives on it that are evidenced in its followers. After all the prejudices that we’ve seen in this country you’d think that you wouldn’t have to remind people of such obvious realities. Unfortunately, as I realized in a conversation with some acquaintances of mine, people just don’t get it. I was appalled to hear my acquaintances’ perceptions of Muslims. It was as if Muslims weren’t human beings at all; devoid of urges, passions, desires, free thought, independent aspirations. How silly!

I’ll stop there for today, but tune in for the second part that I’ll post later on this week (maybe tomorrow). I’ve already written it, and I recognize that it may be a little controversial, but I think it is a valid perspective.

Ponder this in the meantime: When a group, like Muslims, have been either misrepresented or misunderstood because of the actions of a few in their "group" in the past, what major occurrences surrounding that group turned the tide in understanding. There are several answers, but I'll focus on one major answer in the 2nd part.

-Maelstrom