A proper response to 7/7 must be to bring the alienated and angry young men of Britain, whether seduced by Al Qaeda, the BNP or football hooliganism, into society. Only then can we have social cohesion and only this is true counter-terrorism.
In the wake of the July 7th terror attacks of five years ago many awkward questions were levelled at the Muslim community in the UK and a link was established between the bombers and Al Qaeda.
The evidence for this link is the fact that Al Jazeera reported the videotaped suicide note of bomber Mohammed Sidique Khan as having come from Al Qaeda. Likewise Khan made references to Al Qaeda leaders and used the language of Al Qaeda, calling himself a ‘soldier’ and asking to enter ‘the garden of paradise’. And so, here, the debate about July 7th ended.
The events of that day, with this evidence, could be cleanly fitted into the prevailing dialogue about ‘radical Islam’. July 7th became a tragic reminder of why we are fighting in Afghanistan, another example of Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ and a classic case of terrorism trying to undermine democracy and freedom.
What lies beyond the political rhetoric though, and the casual employment of such easy categorisations as ‘terrorism’, ‘freedom’ and ‘radical Islam’?
Al Qaeda is now widely recognised as being less an organisation, more a franchise, a brand. It is true Khan travelled to Pakistan, and he was probably given the authority to carry out the attacks in the name of the Al Qaeda brand but does this mean Al Qaeda attacked the UK?
This dominant hegemony misses the real lessons of July 7th.
Beyond Islam the bombers were unified by many other demographic factors. They were all young men, from minority communities whose experience of Britain was that of working class life in the North. This is far more important than their religious inclinations.
For many people in the communities that the bombers come from, of all creeds, colours and religions, Britain remains a closed shop and a place of limited opportunity. A number of recent reports have shown that inequalities of wealth and mobility persist and linger, such as these two, reported by The Guardian. Dewsbury, from where several of the bombers hailed, is a place of deprivation and poverty.
It is a town a million miles away from the corridors of power, from the media. It is a place familiar to many people, up and down the land, who feel a genuine alienation from the political process and legitimate routes to empowerment. Parallels between radical Islam and the BNP seem counterintuitive but, as shown by this article about the far right, the emotions that underpin extremism are common to all communities.
Jamie Bartlett from Demos explains today how a more meritocratic society, of greater opportunity and mobility, where there are more avenues through which political grievance can be expressed leads to a net reduction in radicalisation and the subsequent violence.
There can never be any excuse for the horrific and barbaric actions of the July 7th bombers. To focus on Islam though, and the dynamics of international politics is to ignore the more difficult questions. What drove some ordinary men from Yorkshire to declare Jihad on their own country? What fostered such intense anger and alienation, so easily exploited by extremists?
The sad fact is that the people of Dewsbury, and numerous communities like it, will probably never read this article. A proper response to 7/7 must be to bring the alienated and angry young men of Britain, whether seduced by Al Qaeda, the BNP or football hooliganism, into society. Only then can we have social cohesion and only this is true counter-terrorism.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
13 Responses to “7/7: ‘Anti terror’ rhetoric masks the inconvenient truth”
Michael
I agree with the argument though, can I just say, I happen to hail from Beeston and have linked this article to a couple of friends from around the way, including Dewsbury. We’re not all destitute northerners living in one room and sharing bath water you know! That said, I do now live in London and probably class as an professional urbanite w*nker, so there you go.
Michael
With poor grammar, no less.
The Count
I fail to see how their class background can be said to be more important than their religious beliefs. Where is the evidence for this?
And, a third of terrorists convicted in the UK are university graduates – hardly deprived people with limited opportunities.
redarsedbaboon
Far more important than their religious inclinations? Really?
Did they shout Dewsbury-uh-Akbar as they pulled the cord? Did MSK justify his actions on working-class northerner grounds?
And they weren’t unified by demographic factors. They were unified by the fact that they, you know, knew each other.
This is an extremist Islam issue, and it simply doesn’t wash to equate it with football hooliganism. It’s not the same.
Liam Thompson
Terrorists have come from all faith communities at some point or another and in different parts of the world people of all faiths are involved in violent insurection, I would argue that religion is just one ideology amongst many and really not the most important factor.
What is important is how cohesive society is and what opportunities are there for people to get involved at the highest level.
For graduates and opportunity check the stats in the Guardian articles and check yesterday’s news about numerous graduates for every position…