John Kerry called this a "nuisance."

Meet the enemy:

"When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children."

- Educated, young, middle-class Muslim radical living in London, Sayful Islam (a nom de guerre, "Sword of Islam"). And one of his friends:

"You want to know how far I will go," says Abu Musa, his high-pitched lisp rising an octave. "When Allah said in the Koran 'kill and be killed', that's what I want. I want a martyr operation, where I kill my enemy."

Are you saying . . . that you are looking to kill people yourself? "Yes," Abu Musa says, "to kill and to be killed." He emphasises each word. . . .

"Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."

(Hat tip: The Anchoress, via Richard Lawrence Cohen.)

This little article has put a chill into me like nothing before. The madness that has taken hold of these people! And they're not the poor and disenfranchised. These are educated young men who were headed for middling lives of anonymous integration and modest professional achievement. And that's the point: the poisonous ideology that has seized them is, by contrast, absolute. It appeals to the absolutism and the burning ambition of adolescence. They crave glory the way our own adolescents crave fame, and dream of getting on "American Idol." But banal and futile as that dream may be for most, at least it's a dream of creating something positive and beautiful, moving people. The Jihadist ideology is more like anorexia turned outward. It creates nothing. It's not really a vision of a restored Caliphate ruled by Shari'a. It's pure destruction -- the only glory of the utterly impotent. (There has to be a component of male sexual failure and frustration too, of being aroused, ashamed, and disappointed by the pleasures Western culture puts so tauntingly on offer.) It is pure spite and envy. It has no real aim or goal but to take the wealthy Western democracies down. And these people hold one weapon we can't counter: they are not just willing, but eager to die. Because life is always compromised, sullied. Only death is pure and absolute. How do you counter an ideology like that? What can you offer that competes with it?

And can you doubt that people who think like this would get hold of a nuclear device if they could? Do you think they would hesitate to use it?

Meet the enemy.

- amba

UPDATE: Sissy Willis (I just typed "Silly Willis," sorry, Sissy!) totally gets this connection between adolescence and fanatacism. She quotes at length from a Janet Daley essay in The London Times on the special susceptibility of alienated young males, in particular -- like our own Harris and Klebold -- to seduction by (or invention of) purist death cults. Her commenters mistake this for being "apologists and enablers." On the contrary, it's the only kind of understanding that offers the ghost of a chance of enlisting the young in some competitively dramatic, but life-affirming cause before they become terrorists and must be destroyed before they destroy.

Comments

[Dave Schuler]

What concerns me is the possibility that he may be one of the Muslim moderates we've heard so much about.

[Tom Strong]

Oooh, I know I should resist this, but I can't.

John Kerry did not call terrorism a nuisance. You can read the entire article here.

Rather, Kerry spoke of reducing terrorism to a nuisance -- something that "does not threaten the fabric of our lives." That means preventing future 9-11's and nuclear attacks, but acknowledging that as a political weapon, terror can probably never be completely eliminated.

If you don't think this is an appropriate focus for our efforts, try asking some citizens of Israel. Or England.

Yes, he should have chosen his words better, but the crux of his argument was and is eminently moderate. I don't think Kerry's take on terrorism is unassailable, but I do think he is generally right, and that his opponents did everything they could to twist his argument beyond recognition. It's really depressing to see this twisted

[Tom Strong]

Sorry, that should read:

Yes, he should have chosen his words better, but the crux of his argument was and is eminently moderate. I don't think Kerry's take on terrorism is unassailable, but I do think he is generally right, and that his opponents did everything they could to twist his argument beyond recognition. It's really depressing to see this twisted

[Tom Strong]

Alright, I don't understand why my last sentence is getting cut off. It is: It's really depressing to see this twisted version become the CW about what he said.

[amba]

Sorry about that glitch. I have no idea what it is.

Quite right you are: Kerry did not say terrorism is a nuisance. My face is red.

But he did, I think, give an impression that reduced the seriousness of the threat. As time went by after 9/11 with no new major or successful domestic attack, I think it was a temptation for many people to begin to think the terror threat had been overblown for political purposes.

These jihadist wannabes might just be fantasizing. Some of them. Some of them surely are not.

Think of some of the emotions that drove the Weather Underground.

[sleipner]

Actually the terror threat WAS overblown for political purposes. Bush has been milking the issue for every iota of political capital he can squeeze out of it for almost 4 years now.

Whether or not terrorists are going to strike, the paranoia he has engendered is irrational and damaging, both economically and psychologically.

In my opinion, the fearmongering he has engaged in and the media hype has done much of the terrorist's work for them. If we merely saw "50 dead in London" a few times instead of plastered over weeks of news coverage, along with the Magenta Alert and presidential posturing, the issue would be gone soon, and terrorists would not be receiving anywhere near the press and impact they have achieved.

The difficulty is that terrorism is almost impossible to fight in a defensive war. They're like cockroaches - step on one and 20 more show up where you least expect them. If you shore up your defenses in one spot, they just avoid that spot and attack somewhere else. The world has far too many easy targets to defend them all.

The only effective ways to decrease terrorism is to cut off their funding, to encourage better education and better economies in those countries where terrorism is engendered, to discourage fanatical religions. And of course (listen, Bush!) to not piss the Arab world off so badly that they get thousands of new recruits monthly seeking those 79 virgins that martyrs supposedly get in the afterlife.

On another note - perhaps the US could take notes from the terrorists with our recruitment drive for the military. Instead of working from the "your country needs you" angle, which obviously isn't working, they should go to the Bible Belt and recruit fundamentalists there using the slogan "Join us and smite the heathens in the name of Allah...err...Jesus!" Maybe they can convince them that the terrorists are surreptitiously funding abortion clinics in America to make it stick better. Two problems solved - fewer radical fundamentalists on both sides of the Atlantic ;)

[Tom Strong]

These jihadist wannabes might just be fantasizing. Some of them. Some of them surely are not.

No doubt. While I'm not a hawk -- among the birds of prey, I have a stronger affinity for ospreys and falcons -- I have no desire to minimize the problem of terrorism.

And please don't be embarassed. Normally I wouldn't be so sensitive; this particular "meme" just tends to get under my skin.

[Sissy Willis]

Thanks for the nice link, Amba. I think we're both on to something. 'Wish others would write more about this.