Britain at a crossroads

I woke up around 8:30, and because my laptop was conveniently beside my bed, I opened it and saw if anyone on my buddy list was awake as well. In what’s a little out of the ordinary, my mom was online.

She sent me an Instant Message™ asking me what I thought about the news this morning. Well, having just woken up and lacking the energy to go into the living room and turn on the tv, I opened up the Drudge Report©.

The initial information was a little hazy. My first thought, due to the relatively low number of deaths and location of the G8 summit, was that it was some militant Marxist/Leftist group trying to stop the G8 summit/protest globalization. Judging by the film recently aired of Fox News of G8 protestors actively vandalizing riot police cars (while the police were inside, no less), it didn’t seem much of a stretch. Their hatred of America is every bit as deep and bitter as that found in the Middle East, so I wouldn’t have put it past them.

But, as more information became available, it seems like it was the doing of Muslim extremists. Again, not surprising.

There’s been quite a swirling of emotions going on in the Motherland of our Motherland, ranging from resolve, to anger, to surrender, to ‘it’s all George Bush’s fault’ (I’m not kidding).

Personally, I’m hoping to see a lot of the first, mixed with a little of the second. The third and forth I have no desire to see at all.

Much like we found ourselves after 9/11, Britain is now at a cross-roads. However, their options are not as ‘clear’ as perhaps ours were. They don’t have the luxury of a definable enemy such as the Taliban or Osama bin Laden. They don’t have military targets, or even a concrete organization on which to focus their attention.

However, their choices are defined in as much as they can choose to back down from this attack, or they can choose to confront it.

Politicians often refer to terrorists as ‘cowards’. I believe there’s a slight fallacy in that. ‘Cowards’ would imply that fear leads to surrender. That’s not what terrorists are. While they may hate Western civilization, that hate comes from
fear (just like Yoda said). A fear that the West is going to take over their entire civilization. It seems to me that ‘cowards’ would run from such a threat, and essentially do nothing about it. However, terrorists strap bombs to themselves
and commit suicide in order to kill people they view as non-believers. As evil as they may be, that takes incredible dedication to a cause, and that’s not the mark of a coward.

That being said, we’re never going to change Osama bin Laden’s mind. The people that are willing to kill themselves in order to kill ‘infidels’ cannot be reasoned with. They can only be isolated, and preferably killed.

No amount of money, medical aid, technology, or general kindness is going to change the mind of a single terrorist. So we shouldn’t even waste the effort trying. However, the vast majority of Muslims, I believe, are quite reasonable, and thus their minds can be changed. The trick is separating the two, and getting the 'moderates' to band against the extremists.

People (and politicians) also like to claim that Britain was attacked because of their involvement in the Iraq war. Perhaps. But what war was America involved in that caused the attacks on 9/11? What war were we involved in that caused the attack on the USS Cole? The embassies in Africa? The marine barracks in Beirut? The FIRST attack on the World Trade Center? Point being, Britain's involvement in Iraq was not a reason or cause for the attacks, it was an excuse. Every western nation is a target of these sociopaths...they would have found a reason. The Iraq war just makes it convenient.

So how do we deal with this? Some would apparently argue that we should cede to terrorist demands and leave the Middle East well enough alone, and as such, subject religious minorities and women to severe mistreatment, and in some cases (many cases) torture, stoning, dismemberment, and other heinous forms of death.

Others would argue that we should simply arrest the terrorists as we find them, and let the legal system handle them. Still others believe that we should simply go to war against them and kill as many of them as we can.

But I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the latter two. Terrorism is not a disease, it's a symptom of a disease. A disease of cyclic poverty, religious intolerance, and preached hatred.

Killing terrorists merely treats a symptom, which is perfectly fine, but in my opinion is on par with taking pain killers for chronic pain. Sure everything's better for a while, but the real problem still remains. In order to effectively solve this problem, we have to deal with the immediate threats (i.e. kill/imprison those who want us dead) while at the same time waging a public relations campaign to change the minds of the moderate muslims in the Middle East.

However, we're not going to get anything accomplished if our unity crumbles and people start waving white flags at the first sign of resistance. It's not going to be easy, and it's not going to be quick, and it's certainly not going to be painless. But surrendering, conceding, and capitulating are only going to make the problem that much wrose. There are probably fewer 'moderate' Muslims in the world than we would like to think. But they do exist, and they're vital in winning this war.