Category Archives: suicide bombers (Mohammedan)

Riddle of the Manchester bomber’s evil depravity

Salman Abedi, writes Dalrymple,

might genuinely have believed that in killing the people in the Manchester Arena, he was bringing forward heaven on earth (as well as his access to heavenly virgins). But it is perfectly legitimate to ask how he came to believe such a thing, which is so completely fatuous from a more rational point of view. Let us disregard the evident absurdity of his ideology, which hardly deserves the trouble of refutation.

One might point, Dalrymple says, to such factors as Abedi’s

  • cultural heritage
  • experience as a refugee
  • lowly status
  • economic prospects
  • genes
  • level of testosterone

Terrorists, Dalrymple notes,

may have certain demographic characteristics or biographical features in common, certain psychological traits, that others do not have: ergo these things in common are supposed to have caused them to become terrorists. And yet, when all is said and done, we still do not feel that we have understood.

Prepare for communal violence

Dalrymple writes:

One of the objects of the bombers, instinctive rather than articulated, might be to undermine restraint, both of the state and of the population, in order to reveal to the majority of Muslims the true evil nature of the society in which they live, and force them into the camp of the extremists.

If so,

there is some hope of success. It would not take many more such bombings, perhaps, to provoke real and serious communal violence on the Indian subcontinental model. Britain teems with aggressive, violent subgroups who would be only too delighted to make pogroms a reality.

The outlook, Dalrymple points out, is

grim and without obvious solution. Surveys suggest that between 6% and 13% of British Muslims are sympathetic towards Islamic terrorists and their efforts. It is a sufficient proportion and absolute number of sympathisers to make suspicion and hostility towards Muslims by the rest of society not entirely irrational.

This, says Dalrymple,

is the tightrope that the British state and population has to walk; the sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.

The suicide bomber bears no mark of Cain

Ideology makes all the difference

It is unlikely, writes Dalrymple,

that any characteristic or group of characteristics will prove to be pathognomonic of the condition of being a suicide bomber.

Certainly, says Dalrymple,

there are characteristics that appear in quite a proportion. We think of such bombers as second-generation immigrants in search of a cultural identity, who may have led a life of modern dissipation until, in a fit of self-disgust, they give up that life in favour of violent, arrogant and self-important puritanism.

The trouble is that

any characteristic that is found among suicide bombers is likely to be found among many people who are not suicide bombers. The number of dissipated young men who turn arrogantly pious is likely to be a hundred times greater than that of suicide bombers.

Nevertheless,

a religious ideology, vile and impoverished as it might be, is an important cause. Whatever the travails of Moslem immigrants to Europe, they are not objectively different in kind from those of other immigrants from far-off lands. It is ideology that makes the difference.

Dalrymple adds that discrimination between asylum-seekers is very much

in accordance with that unspeakable thing, the national interest.