News of the failed terror plot in the United Kingdom has by now passed its shock value stage and entered the reflective one. Almost six years after 9/11 brought home the message that violence and terrorism know no boundaries, we’re all getting pretty good at asking ourselves some questions.
Who did it, how did it happen, why and when was it planned? You’ll find all those details splashed across the web.
But it seems to me that we've asked those same questions so many times that by now they've acquired a bit of rote about them. You know the drill: a bunch of Muslims tried to blow stuff up because they hate our way of life and, with al Qaeda and the internet serving as guides, they found it all pretty easy. Case closed.
None of those things is untrue. The people who carried out the bombings in Britain this past week were all Muslim; they did try to blow things up because of grievances against the West in general and Britain in particular (the Iraq War); the location of one of the failed car bombs (parked outside a nightclub called "Tiger Tiger") echoes sentiments expressed in the now infamous surveillance tapes of the 2005 bombers who felt sinners of the club going variety, especially women, deserved to die; and police are probing just how connected these guys are to al Qaeda and just how much help they got off the internet.
It is also true that the identity of these would-be bombers came as something of a shock: they were doctors and engineers drawn from a variety of countries, now working around the world, in nations that are a part of the Iraq war effort (read prime targets). Especially shocking to Indians was the knowledge that a number of the alleged suspects, including one of the two main suicide bombers, were Indian.
But I'm still stuck on one particular question: what makes a person want, not just to kill him/herself, but to indiscriminately kill people whilst killing themselves? The suicide bomber. It just doesn’t compute in my brain.
A lot of people seem to think Islam as a driving force is the obvious answer. Quite apart from the issue of bigotry represented by such thinking, I find it both an inadequate and ignorant answer.
Not only have suicide attacks been carried out by a wide variety of people throughout human history (including recent human history), but if Islam has developed the power to turn ordinary people into willing bombs then maybe we all ought to think about conversion because there’s no way in hell we can stand against something that can apparently override the human will to such an extent that it obliterates that most basic human instinct of all: survival.
While it is true that a number of suicide bombers in the world today profess Islam to be their religion, it is striking to read the reasons given for its implementation by the heads of various terror organizations.
They list convenience, adaptability, psychology effects, etc. Religion is an afterthought, when mentioned at all, and usually trotted out to justify the action after the event. The people who advocate suicide attacks as a valid practice of faith tend to be sympathizers rather than people who're actually organizing the attacks. The modern terror network is a highly organized affair, run along corporate lines almost, with frequent exchange of ideas and arms at a global level.
The danger, as I see it, in lumping all such attacks under the heading "Islamic Crime" and moving on with that assumption is that it shackles ideas. When you think you know the answer, why would you investigate further? And yet, how little we actually know.
A person who specializes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could probably tell you why Palestinians choose suicide attacks. A person who specializes in the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka could probably explain the existence of the LTTE bomber. But ask the Israeli-Palestinian expert to speculate about the Sri Lankan situation or vice versa and how well would that work?
Or, if you think the two examples should lie closer religion- and region-wise, ask that same Israeli-Palestinian expert to talk a bit about Iraq and chances are, you'd have a tough time getting something definitive out of them.
This is because each of the cases might have certain commonalities but they might just as well be predicated on certain factors unique to them as well. Criminology is an advanced field of study these days, at least in some parts of the world, and if governments could pool their information, we might have a better shot at combating the modern terror network, which by the way, is miles ahead in global cooperation and coordination.
As for myself, I’m no psychologist but I do have an interest in finding out what makes people tick and I find myself unable to understand what makes people like Bilal Abdullah and Kafeel Ahmed, two men just a couple of years older than I, get up one morning and drive a car packed full of explosives into an airport.
Force of conviction, be it political or religious? Personality type? Brainwashing? A combination of all those? What is it?
Given that some estimates suggest about 48% of all terror attacks are now being carried out by suicide bombers, this is a question to which we really need to find the answer. Fast.
News from desicritics.org
No comments: