“Who Attacked Us”? Apologetiek & Verwarring Met The Guardian

, , Leave a comment

Het is natuurlijk vreselijk als je twee keer kort op rij wordt aangevallen door Moslim terroristen.

Islamitische terreur is nooit leuk, maar zo twee keer op rij, is extra vervelend.

Leest u even mee?

The Guardian: How to detect a potential terrorist? Heed warnings from people who know them.

In the last three months, the UK has suffered the most intense surge of terrorist activity for more than a decade. But who has attacked us?

Ik weet het, juf!
Moslim terroristen. 
En ze deden het voor Allah en Islam.

The obvious answer is the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (Isis). The group has launched a global offensive during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. As a consequence, there has has been a surge of violence from Nigeria to the Philippines. In recent weeks, there have also been other attacks elsewhere in the west, though thankfully without the same degree of harm. In Paris, a policeman was bludgeoned with a hammer, and in Melbourne, Australia, a woman was held hostage and a man killed.

Dat klopt weer wel.

De score gaat hartstikke goed en we zitten pas op de helft.

Ramadan-Bombathon-2017-16

Daarna gaan we vooral onze verwarring uiten.

Wie zijn die daders dan wel? Wie zijn de mensen die deze aanslagen plegen? ISIS claimt de aanslagen. Maar werken ze echt voor ISIS?

The attacks in the UK involved only five men, as far as we know. With those in Paris and Melbourne, that makes seven. Do they share any characteristics that might help our security services to identify future attackers and avert future tragedy? At first glance, the answer seems to be yes. All are male, young, immigrants or born of immigrant parents and identify – at least when they commit their attacks – as Muslims. On close examination, however, the picture becomes more complex.

Even opletten.

Dit waren “young immigrants” die – op het moment dat ze de aanslagen pleegden – zichzelf identificeerden als “Moslim”.

Of ze in het dagelijks leven, voordat ze aanslagen pleegden, ook Moslims waren?

Dat valt niet zo gemakkelijk te beantwoorden, sterker nog: dat is vreselijk “complex”.

Ze blijken bijvoorbeeld allemaal een andere leeftijd te hebben.

Dat is heel erg vreemd.

Ze bleken ook nog eens verschillende soorten onderwijs genoten te hebben.

Education? Some of the seven have few or no real qualifications. But Farid Ikken, the man who attacked a policeman at Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, had a masters degree and was studying for a PhD in media at a French university. None were wealthy, but that’s hardly evidence of a link between poverty and extremist violence.

Complex he?

Tijd voor wat apologetiek.

Faith? Ikken, who had lived for a long time in Sweden with a Swedish woman, was described by friends as “soft, secular”. All seven appear to have become attracted to jihadism without first becoming devout Muslims. Moderate faith did not pave the way to a more extremist variety. One – Massood – was a convert. Hunting for devout Muslims will not help us.

Goed he?

Ze waren dan weliswaar allemaal Moslim. En ze waren radicale Moslims die in tal van Moskeeen niet meer welkom waren. En ach ja, ze hingen de hele dag online op ISIS websites. Ze lieten allerlei leuke materialen over Jihad achter. En oh ja, ze riepen “Allahu Akhbar” toen ze uit een auto sprongen en op mensen in begonnen te hakken met grote messen. En ja, ze zeiden “this is for Allah” tegen diverse slachtoffers alvorens ze op ze inhakten… maar zoals je ziet… het is een hele “complexe” situatie.

Achter extreem religieuze Moslims aan gaan?

Dat helpt “ons” niet.

Laten we eens wat mijmeren over de achtergrond van deze Moslim terroristen.

How about background? Most had unstable homes, often with absent fathers. Several had criminal records, mainly for acts of violence. One was a meth addict who had spent much of his adult life behind bars. Some were married. At least two had children. At least three had a history of controlling behaviour and violence towards women. It is unclear if any suffered mental illness.

Hmmm, “unstable homes” en “absent fathers” en “controlling behaviour and violence towards women”.

Dat is apart. Dat heb nou nog noooooit eerder gehoord.

Zeg, hadden al deze daders hun blindedarm nog?

Of zaten er mensen tussen die Appendicitis hebben gehad?

En what about schoenmaat? Hadden al deze gekken dezelfde schoenmaat?

Dat lijkt mij een zeer relevante vraag.

The conclusion is that any single “profile” which would cover all these variations would be so broad as to be useless. Repeated attempts to find “terrorist characteristics” by researchers have failed. Nor is evidence of radical views enough to spot a threat. Only a tiny minority of such people go on to commit violence.

Oh, is dat de conclusie?

The only way potential attackers will be identified before they kill and maim is through the most old-fashioned means one can imagine: someone warning authorities about what they plan to do. This can be people in the workplace, the mosque, or at school. Research tells us that more than 70% of Islamic militants who operate alone tell someone of their plans. The first line of defence against Islamic militancy is not our crash barriers or covert operations, nor armed cops or MI5, it is a potential terrorist’s brother, mother, partner or friend.

Klinkt goed.

We maken nu zo’n slordige 35 jaar (ik reken sinds 1980) Islamitische terreur mee over de hele wereld.

En? Is het veel voorgekomen dat hun papa, of mama, of broertjes en zusjes de politie bellen?

Komt het voor dat hun Imam, of vrienden de politie bellen?

Shaking No Emoticon

"Complex" indeed.

 

Share