| "You really need something special for the foreign terrorists to be willing to travel half a world just to blow themselves up on your doorstep" Yes, and what could be that something special? Imperialism says you?
Britain and France have been struck by terrorism yet they no longer have an empire. Ok, guilt by association could be a motive...
But then why would Belgium and Germany be struck? oh, and Sweden too? And all these kidnapped christian girls in Nigeria? and in every case by Sunni-Muslim... Maybe it's anti-imperialism, who knows... perhaps some middle eastern sunni muslims were really upset that Sweden ever had an empire, and decided that ramming a crowd with a truck was a good way to avenge the "oppression" perpetrated by Sweden 300 years ago. That, or maybe you could adjust your worldview, and realise that religious fanatism has been a pretty strong motivator for atrocities throughout history, and even in such enlightened times as ours, there are still people who would conduct the most horrendous acts for their faith and the credibility it gives them within their group. In all cases, the Chinese, who also suffered from such attacks (the perpetrators were of the same religion), found a "solution" that is much more aligned with imperialistic norms throughout history. They have not been struck since. And no, be at rest, I am not for the establishment of a surveillance state, but pointing the wilful blindness in your reasoning. |
But I do agree! I'm not trying to say that religion (and culture, more broadly) is not an enabling factor or even one of the important causes for terrorist attacks.
What I'm disputing is the assertion that religion is the sole cause, and the attacks would continue with the same intensity if the policies in the attacked countries were to change.
As I mentioned before, that wouldn't eliminate all the attacks: if your culture is fundamentally incompatible with some other culture, which also praises martyrdom, chances are you will get attacked by religious fanatics motivated by their beliefs. That's the case for Sweden. Germany and Britain sent troops to ME multiple times in the past 20 years alone, at the behest of USA, so they get both the religious fanatics and "freedom fighter" kinds of attacks.
Again, I'm not disputing that some cultures, faiths, and populations have a higher probability of resorting to terrorism. I'm not saying that GTFO of the ME would solve all terrorist attacks. However, I believe the imperialist policy is one of the reasons people try to blow other people up, and that dropping said policy could, in a few decades (!), result in the lower attack rate.
That's all; I'm not trying to say religion (particular kinds of it, especially) is not a factor. It most definitely is. As I mentioned, the sectarian bloodshed is very common and often takes the form of terror attacks. You will always get religious fanatics trying to kill others because they don't fit into their doctrine. However, the foreign policy does matter, and you can reduce the rate of attacks greatly by not antagonizing people who are not religious fanatics, but would still want to blow themselves up to "save their nation", to "reclaim sovereignty", to "destroy the occupiers", and so on.
So yeah: religion is, for sure, a risk factor. But so is foreign policy, and my argument is that the policy is the bigger factor and the one that is much easier to adjust. To get rid of religious-motivated terror attacks, you would need to become Iran (and that wouldn't work: you'd just get Christian terrorists!); to get rid of "freedom fighter" kind of attacks, you just need to stop forcing your way into countries half a world away.