Mohammed Sidique Kahn: Terrorist, Freedom Fighter, Martyr or kid who'd had enough?
Today is the anniversary of the so-called 7/7 London bombings, in which Mohammed Sidique Kahn and others detonated home-made bombs carried in their back-packs, killing themselves and around fifty others, and injuring around 800 futher people.
The media has loved it... they have been in feverish delight for a week or so at this major news story just waiting to be served up to its public for breakfast, dinner and supper. But for every meal, the menu seems to be the same. Any analysis of why Sidique did what he did is purely on the level of "what drives a British born guy to commit heinous terrorist acts?".
Well let's just suppose, for a moment, that Sidique never saw himself as a terrorist. It is not how I see him. I believe he was driven to take desperate measures, and the root cause was the injustice that he could see in the treatment of those he saw as his brothers and sisters. He could see everything that the rest of us see on the news: an illegal war in Iraq, with innocents being killed; a foreign army invading Afghanistan, atrocities which were widely reported, and many more which were widely rumoured by sources he would reasonably have thought highly credible. He probably saw many more things which I haven't picked up. And clearly he felt desperate enough to do something about it.
I've said it many times: often the people who will make the biggest impact in the world are those who have nothing to lose. If someone's zest for life is absent or extinguished, they're very likely to put their zeal into other things, uninhibited with an instinct for self-preservation. They will be willing to take greater risks, show greater courage or wrecklessness, support their cause(s) with an all-consuming commitment. Becoming a suicide bomber is just one expression, one outcome.
It has been said, of course, that Sidique was brain-washed. I can accept that he was encouraged down the path; given the inspiration and the guidance. Maybe it happened like this. But maybe the activity in seeking out radicalism was all on his side. I often hear people on the BBC ask how young muslims are radicalised, explaining how they go to Pakistan where they are radicalised. I have another thought for you: how about they go to Pakistan because they are radicalised?
I believe they are radicalised by the sight of injustice, by seeing their country's representatives commit terrorist acts with impunity, in their name.
I find it extremely difficult to condemn Sidique, and others like him. I find it pretty difficult to condemn their actions. What they did wasn't motivated by selfishness: self-evidently it was about self-sacrifice. So if their argument was with Tony Blair and his entourage, were they right to take it out on Londoners as a whole? Well, this is quite difficult. Britains as a whole, elected Blair back into office after all the crimes against humanity and truth that he had committed. Among the killed and injured in London were:
I guess the first five bullets of "culpable classes" cover 80-90% of those directly affected by the London suicide bombings. If we take the British government's view, "collateral damage" is a regrettable but inevitable part of war. So if I blame him for using such a blunt instrument of retribution, atonement, protest, murder, or whatever you may call it; it's not too difficult for me to shrug and say that he's applying the same rules as his adversary.
Well, I wouldn't have done it myself. And frankly I hate what his religions stands for, which partly limits the amount of sympathy I have for his cause. But I'd just say this: if I had been the guy who'd looked into Sidique's eyes in the moment before he detonated the bomb, I would not blame him for what he did. I may curse him for making a bomb which left me terribly disabled instead of taking me all the way with it; but fundamentally, I would feel that I have a level of understanding for what he did, and the reasons why I think he did it.
I can't call him a terrorist in relation to what he did, because of the background circumstances. I can't find a good argument against calling him a freedom-fighter. I don't subscribe to a concept of martyrdom because I do not support religous belief and I believe if someone would seek or accept the title of martyr, it ipso facto denies their fitness to receive it. I will call him a kid who'd had enough. Speaking for myself, I would find that a good enough reason to accept pretty much any side-effect his action had on me.
The media has loved it... they have been in feverish delight for a week or so at this major news story just waiting to be served up to its public for breakfast, dinner and supper. But for every meal, the menu seems to be the same. Any analysis of why Sidique did what he did is purely on the level of "what drives a British born guy to commit heinous terrorist acts?".
Well let's just suppose, for a moment, that Sidique never saw himself as a terrorist. It is not how I see him. I believe he was driven to take desperate measures, and the root cause was the injustice that he could see in the treatment of those he saw as his brothers and sisters. He could see everything that the rest of us see on the news: an illegal war in Iraq, with innocents being killed; a foreign army invading Afghanistan, atrocities which were widely reported, and many more which were widely rumoured by sources he would reasonably have thought highly credible. He probably saw many more things which I haven't picked up. And clearly he felt desperate enough to do something about it.
I've said it many times: often the people who will make the biggest impact in the world are those who have nothing to lose. If someone's zest for life is absent or extinguished, they're very likely to put their zeal into other things, uninhibited with an instinct for self-preservation. They will be willing to take greater risks, show greater courage or wrecklessness, support their cause(s) with an all-consuming commitment. Becoming a suicide bomber is just one expression, one outcome.
It has been said, of course, that Sidique was brain-washed. I can accept that he was encouraged down the path; given the inspiration and the guidance. Maybe it happened like this. But maybe the activity in seeking out radicalism was all on his side. I often hear people on the BBC ask how young muslims are radicalised, explaining how they go to Pakistan where they are radicalised. I have another thought for you: how about they go to Pakistan because they are radicalised?
I believe they are radicalised by the sight of injustice, by seeing their country's representatives commit terrorist acts with impunity, in their name.
I find it extremely difficult to condemn Sidique, and others like him. I find it pretty difficult to condemn their actions. What they did wasn't motivated by selfishness: self-evidently it was about self-sacrifice. So if their argument was with Tony Blair and his entourage, were they right to take it out on Londoners as a whole? Well, this is quite difficult. Britains as a whole, elected Blair back into office after all the crimes against humanity and truth that he had committed. Among the killed and injured in London were:
- People who supported Blair's policies and re-elected him
- People who didn't give a damn and re-elected him for other reasons
- People who were too apathetic to register a vote
- People who voted against Tony Blair for their own reasons, but actually couldn't give a toss about whether their leader is a war criminal or not
- People who are sickened by what Blair did in their name, but did either sod-all or insufficient about it
- And then most of the rest - tourists who have no say in the UK regime, but who are happy enough to support the UK economy; children who are too young to have involvement in the situation; perhaps even people who have actually devoted their lives to fighting the injustice of Blair's actions.
I guess the first five bullets of "culpable classes" cover 80-90% of those directly affected by the London suicide bombings. If we take the British government's view, "collateral damage" is a regrettable but inevitable part of war. So if I blame him for using such a blunt instrument of retribution, atonement, protest, murder, or whatever you may call it; it's not too difficult for me to shrug and say that he's applying the same rules as his adversary.
Well, I wouldn't have done it myself. And frankly I hate what his religions stands for, which partly limits the amount of sympathy I have for his cause. But I'd just say this: if I had been the guy who'd looked into Sidique's eyes in the moment before he detonated the bomb, I would not blame him for what he did. I may curse him for making a bomb which left me terribly disabled instead of taking me all the way with it; but fundamentally, I would feel that I have a level of understanding for what he did, and the reasons why I think he did it.
I can't call him a terrorist in relation to what he did, because of the background circumstances. I can't find a good argument against calling him a freedom-fighter. I don't subscribe to a concept of martyrdom because I do not support religous belief and I believe if someone would seek or accept the title of martyr, it ipso facto denies their fitness to receive it. I will call him a kid who'd had enough. Speaking for myself, I would find that a good enough reason to accept pretty much any side-effect his action had on me.
posted by Tsuchan at 8:20 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home