By Patrick BAHZAD
IRA graffiti in Northern Ireland
With the frequency in "lone gunmen" attacks – or attempted and foiled attacks – increasing ever more since the start of this year, it may be time to highlight certain patterns that have become apparent and represent potentially crucial challenges for societies in Western Europe. The paradigm shift regarding both qualitative and quantitative aspects of Islamic terrorism is now clearer than ever before to law enforcement and officials, but the implications of this shift still needs to be emphasized, as there are possibly tough choices ahead of us.
Back in the 1990s, when Western Europe and France in particular were first targeted by groups whose members would later be sucked into the maelstrom of global Jihad, it was fairly easier for law enforcement to identify potential threats. Admittedly, the number of individuals on watch lists was much smaller, leaving counter-terrorism with more resources to monitor activities. But Islamic radicals were still operating genuine cells, and their leaders or logistics experts were often foreigners having been allowed into the country as political refugees. They did not blend into civil society and stuck to their own. Once infiltrated, which happened usually quite quickly, it was only a matter of time before these groups were taken apart by law enforcement, generally before even staging an attack.
Changing patterns and profiles
Those days are gone. Jihad and Islamic terrorism in the West has become an entrepreneurial activity for a underclass holding a grudge. Basically, people are now being groomed or grooming themselves into ticking time-bombs, waiting for a reason to go into self-destruct mode. The crux is, there is no single pattern that fits this new type of terrorism. Too many variables have blurred the line for a simple grid to allow us singling out dangerous individuals from the general population.
Some people cry "racial discrimination" and "ethnic profiling" when they hear targeted surveillance and increased monitoring of certain groups, facilities or web sites. The truth though is that about 30 % of the individuals on the continent's terror watch lists have a fully European (Caucasian) and often domestic background. Another 30 % is made up of European nationals having an immigration background that has nothing to do with the Middle-East or North-Africa. These are mostly second generation immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, but also from the Caribbean or South America, who have been won over by radical Islam through years of indoctrination in desolate suburbs that are now strongholds of Salafi beliefs, or during a prison stay in which they chose to join the most powerful "brotherhood" in European jails, the Islamic radicals. Only 40 % approximately of security risks – depending on the country – have a Middle-Eastern, North African or Asian background.
Given this breakdown of potential candidates for "Jihad" or "Hijra", it seems difficult to argue that a more targeted approach to surveillance would be tantamount to "racial profiling". Individuals of interest may have a Caucasian, African or Arabic/Asian background. That is about ¾ of the world population as far as skin colour is concerned. They may be men or women, which is 100 % of the world population. They will also probably be aged 18 to 35, even though terrorists higher up the food chain are older, and there have been isolated cases of so-called "lone wolf" attacks by individuals way over 50. Again that is about ¾ at least of the world population.
The truth is – sadly for law enforcement – there is no simple profile for singling out dangerous individuals. This is a development that has not made it into the general public's awareness, but anybody sitting on a train and worrying about that suspicious looking Middle-Eastern guy might as well have a good look at the pretty blonde two rows behind him or the neat looking Italian guy in his suit and tie … This simple fact is not a message intended at spreading fear and paranoia. Quite the opposite, when the terrorist could be anybody, it might as well be nobody and there's no reason to single out members of an ethnic or religious group, based on some vague assumptions.
Better awareness
What may be called for, if we are to face more and more of these attacks in the months and years to come, is a better awareness among average citizens, not checking for people's faces and appearance, but paying attention to behaviour and actions. Do we have to brace ourselves for an Israeli type of normality ? It may be too early to tell, but the writing is on the wall, there's no doubt about that. Under no circumstances however should we let our way of life be dictated by those who are out to disrupt and destroy it. There's a price to pay for freedom and democracy, and that price is not just exerted on those willing to serve and defend those values.
Freedom and democracy also means we can't let the terrorists drive a wedge in between "us", as the Western and Christian centre of gravity of our societies, and more recently arrived fellow compatriots of Muslim faith. That is exactly what groups such as Al Qaeda in particular want to achieve. Convince the Muslim population in the West they will never be fully accepted, they will remain second-class citizens indefinitely, they will always have to struggle against bias and prejudice, and should thus embrace the only culture and religion that is truly theirs: Islam, in a Salafi/Wahhabi version that is totally alien to large numbers of Muslim Europeans.
As for the "Islamic State", despite all its claims calling for the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate, it seems content for now to unleash waves of "lone gunmen" who have been recruited mostly through Internet crowdsourcing. The messages arguing for continuous attacks against any type of target in the West are being repeated over and over on ISIS social media, but the fact of the matter is, ISIS has much less traction getting its ideological and religious message across than the Salafi charities and fundamentalist Islamic NGOs, whose work is based on the assumption of a gradual and long term shift within Western society.
Refusing the Terrorists' terms
Objectively, there is a division of labour between the various Jihadi franchises and radical Islamic groups, but the left hand does not necessarily know what the right hand does ... What this could mean in the long run, is difficult to assess. Possibly, Al Qaeda – reinventing itself for yet another time – will survive the "Caliphate" and carry on the fight. Possibly, both groups will merge at some point into a new hybrid of Jihadi revivalism. Possibly also, the "Islamic State" will absorb whatever is left of Al Qaeda at a certain point, thus bolstering its credentials with fundamentalist and well respected clerics endorsing its message.
Be that as it may, fracturing Western societies and alienating the largest possible part of its Muslim minorities will still feature high on their global agenda of conquest, whether through the means of conversion and proselytism or through sheer force and coercion. This aspect of the fight against radical Islam must not be forgotten: even though recent attacks may have been directed at military recruitment centres, trains, newspapers or Jewish supermarkets, the underlying process at work is that of "revolutionary warfare" 2.0, mixing an Islamic revivalist insurgency, 1970s style left-wing terrorism and massive online recruitment propaganda.
The aim is not just to hit the State, strike fear into the minds of ordinary citizens but – in the long run – instigate a climate of violence and counter-violence, with law enforcement engaging in an ever increasing cycle of measures that will be presented by the terrorists as unfair reprisals against ordinary Muslims in the West. At the heart of any revolutionary war is the struggle for the people, not the territory, and in this case it is a struggle for the hearts and minds of Muslims in Europe and North America.
What groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda are aiming for, is to present Muslim communities with a reversal of the dilemma that was expressed so eloquently by George W. Bush: "you're either with us or with the terrorists". Well, that is exactly where these people want us to go, because they know perfectly well that once they will have divided those Muslim communities from within, and driven a wedge between them and the rest of the population, they will have a field day quelling internal dissent, standing up to the State, making more and more demands and escalating the political fight into a military one, if their demands aren't met.
Bracing ourselves for a long term struggle
Realistically, they have no chance of succeeding, but the nuisance they could become and the level of violence that could be induced is immense. At this point in time, things may look more like a religious version of the left-wing terrorism of the 1970s. Small groups of extremist and their ideologues calling onto their followers to attack States that have been discriminating their people. Yesterday, it was "fascist" States oppressing the workers. Today it is the "Crusaders and Jews" waging a war against the true followers of Muhammad.
No doubt, there is a fraction of our youth that will be receptive to this message. And their background, as is already apparent, will not be rooted in a fundamentalist Islamic up-bringing only. Sometimes, it will be young people from liberal, middle-class families, who will fall for this message, as the enablers and recruiters in the Middle-East are perfectly aware of the romantic appeal there is in the West for rebellion and revolution against injustice and oppression.
There are enough of these disoriented, misguided and lost young people who might buy into a grand cause, worth fighting and killing for, all in the name of a greater good. Again, this should raise our awareness as to the scale of the issue and help us avoid any indiscriminate focus on whole communities. It is specific individuals, whatever their background is, that need to be monitored, based on the more and more complex profiles and patterns that law enforcement manage to establish in order to read these people. If we miss out on this paradigm shift and on the requirements this represents for society as a whole, we may find ourselves in a position where the still marginal – but worrying – attacks of today will give way to a totally different dimension of conflict.
Al Qaeda theorists have often used the concept of the "long war". They saw their struggle not as a short-term, high-intensity conflict at the end of which they might emerge as the winning side, but as a slow process of highs and lows which would inevitably lead to victory. It was left unsaid whether that victory would materialize in 10, 50 or 100 years. The timeline was secondary, it was the outcome that mattered. Although ISIS has not been very vocal about its long term strategy lately, probably because they already have a State to run and have more than enough on their plate, earlier strategic papers of the organisation also clearly show the commitment and willingness to a long term goal, the worldwide Caliphate.
Northern Ireland "Troubles" as a possible model for future conflict
This concept of the "long war" is no Al Qaeda prerogative. In fact, it wasn't even invented by the Jihadis, but was forged by military strategists of the Provisional IRA in the mid-1970s, as an alternative for their inability to reach a decisive victory against a superior military. The idea was to wage a war of attrition against the British State, causing as many deaths as possible in order to create a demand for concessions among the British people, organise bombing campaigns targeting economic and financial infrastructures in the United-Kingdom, foster a climate of insurgency in areas with strong support for the IRA, thus making these places ungovernable and turning them into "liberated" areas, gain large support for the cause through national and international propaganda, and bolster the image of the IRA fighters by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.
This strategy was later replaced by the concept of "the armalite and the ballot-box" in which the military wing of the Irish Republican movement (i.e. the Provisional IRA) and its political wing (the "Sinn Fein" party) would work basically as two sides of the same coin, keeping on the military pressure and maintaining a certain degree of violence, while at the same time offering to negotiate a political settlement. One could argue however that both strategies were actually complementary, or that the latter could only have been implemented as a logical follow-up to the former's failure.
The analogy between the IRA's tactics and the agenda of the Jihadis doesn't stop with their commitment to fighting a "long war". There is enough analytical evidence now to suggest that what radical Islam has morphed into, at least in the West, is a multi-dimensional nexus combining elements of the 1970s leftwing and ideologically based terror groups with the kind of ethnic/nationalist narrative best embodied by the Provisional IRA or, to a lesser degree, the Basque separatists from ETA.
Now of course, there is no certainty that these similarities will be reflected in events on the ground. History doesn't repeat itself, but similar causes have a tendency to produce similar effects, and this should be a warning to all of us. What the "Troubles" meant for Northern Ireland is no secret: 30 years of civil war, plenty of anti-terrorism laws, the emergence of a police and surveillance State, a structural under-development and high poverty level … and casualties in excess of 50 000 for a population roughly equal to that of Maine.
Obviously, we're not there yet and there is still plenty to do to avert such a catastrophic scenario. Decision making is important however – "governing is anticipating", as they say in French. And hitting the panic button - going into overdrive - could be as irresponsible as carrying on as if nothing had happened. Either way, if we get it wrong, we'll be one step closer to the prospect of a terrorism campaign and a level of violence such as it was embodied by the Provisional IRA … on a continental European scale.
Limits and significance of the worst case scenario
Of course, there are a number of limits to the analogy with the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland. On the surface, these differences seem striking. Their relevance though is largely influenced by our perception of current events and threats. When talking about Islamic terrorism in the West, or about the expansion of radical Islamic views (such as Salafism or Wahhabism), the general consensus is that this is a phenomenon "imported" into the West by foreign agents, i.e. the terrorists and their ideologues.
But again, the figures mentioned above regarding the evolving profiles of suspected Islamic radicals prove this perception wrong. Today, the West (and in particular Western Europe) is exporting homemade Jihadis ! They flock to the Middle-East to build the "Islamic State" that has been promised by the self-declared new Caliphe or they turn into domestic terrorists, more commonly designated as "lone gunmen" seemingly acting with no outside help, and strike their own State, kill their own compatriots.
The perception of the Islamic threat as being alien to our countries is dangerous. Certainly, the enablers, recruiters and ideologues are based thousand of miles away, but the dispensable footsoldiers in this clandestine war are Westerners. Born and raised in the West. Long term legal residents. Sons - and daughters - to ordinary, working-class or middle-class families. That is the most basic element in the equation we have to solve.
All too often, we still see Islamic terorism as a mirror effect of Western intervention in regions where we shouldn't be. But this relation between foreign adventures of Western powers and the "blowback" effect this may have through terrorist attacks is mostly a feature of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It may still be valid to a certain degree, but it is not indicative of what the future holds for us. Remaining prisoner of that vision is like fighting yesterday's war all over again, instead of preparing for tomorrow's.
PB. Got it. Thanks. I am totally kosher with idea of a new factor, e.g. domestic terrorism. Trying to determine if US FP still adds or diminishes to the overall risk and whether or not it should be considered in addition to new factor that leads to the writing on the wall. As an example, will bombing ISIS or deploying US troops to Syria effect overall risk to US civilians and, if so, how much. Should US seal borders for national security reasons, in addition to acknowledging domestic threat that already resides within and so on. Basically, I have viewed the risks of new factor as overlaying the continuing risks of the old, meaning the old should not be ignored but incorporated into overall new assessment.
Posted by: Johnny Reims | 26 August 2015 at 05:38 PM
Sure any new major intervention in the ME is likely to result not only in blowback against the U.S. in the ME, with rival jihadi factions possibly uniting their efforts to fight the Americans,while they are currently fighting each other, but also an increased risk domestically of course !
However, I don't think the current US - Israel relation is a major driving force of attempted or successful attacks on the Homeland.
What you're referring to under the notion of blowback, is the blowback from a disastrous foreign adventure in Iraq. OIF has thrown the jihadis a lifeline that they could not have dreamt off. And now they have Syria which is even worse in terms of its attractiveness for westerners.
But in a certain way, it might be better that the real radicals, who've been on the path of jihadism, go and die in the ME, rather than in a shootout with law enforcement on your streets. We may need to change our approach regarding who we should let go and who should be barred from joining the war in Syria.
In short, there is obviously a link between the foreign and international jihadi networks and the domestic threat, but the domestic threat would now still be present and probably increasing even if you take away all the possible excuses and justifications resulting from our foreign policy.
This is not a political conflict it is an ideological one and Ideological wars cannot be solved through political settlements or concessions.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 05:55 PM
NO, no, no.
UK is a country of the English, for the English, by the English.
Inside UK they are very aware of who is from Wales or Scotland or elsewhere.
The highest compliment that one could receive in England or utter is "He is a fine/great Englishman."
I think that has been going on for centuries - since after 1066.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 06:07 PM
One quibble for the record. You write: "the 'Charlie Hebdo' massacre, did it have anything to do with invasion or occupation"
I believe that one of the Kourachi brothers was quoted as saying explicitly that he was retaliating for the American killing of Muslims in the Middle east and Afghanistan. That certainly was the case for the three who set off the London subway bombs in 2005. As to the Boston bombers, I recall similar reported statements.
We can look upon American actions as the sufficient factor/proximate cause for the specific act in the context of necessary condition you describe.
Posted by: mbrenner | 26 August 2015 at 06:13 PM
Two things are needed:
Hudna in Palestine and Hudna with the Shia Crescent.
Once a situation of near-war is removed; then other policies are going to become feasible.
In my opinion.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 06:16 PM
PB,
You have really outdone yourself with this piece. I have one question for you. Have you or others in this line of work thought about behavioral or social patterns that do not run foul of any laws or social norms and yet serve as "gateway drugs"? On their own they would create overwhelming number of false positives but in conjunction with other factors they may create a useful signal for problematic individuals.
One pattern that i have observed is what i call "bubble kids". These are children of parents who are terrified that their children will have extra-marital sex, use drugs and indulge in other hedonistic pursuits. The way these parents try to "protect" their children is by sowing seeds of unhappiness about the host society. This is quite an act of hypocrisy as these parents know exactly the hell hole reality of their country of origin, but yet they would portray it as if it is a traditional pious heaven and they are merely stuck in west for material reasons. There are all sorts of simplistic and extremely effective memes that are used for such brainwashing at dinner table (i'll skip those to keep it short here)
Sorry for this rather long post but just something i have thought about and was wondering if these considerations are being turned into something of analytical value by law enforcement.
Posted by: Farooq | 26 August 2015 at 06:17 PM
Farooq,
The answer to your question is 'yes we have' but the issue is about how to implement such radicalization markers without falling into the trap of the false positives you mention.
Takes qualified intelligence professionals with a reasonably sound knowledge of Islam to be able to connect the dots and not ring alarm bells at the slightest sign of "abnormal" behavior.
You don't want to replicate the typical TSA mistakes, would really be bad for business !
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 06:39 PM
Johnny Reims,
That could well be. But by now the jihadistas may well crank up any grievance they like to sanctify recreational violence against Americans abroad and here. For example, failure to have removed Assad and presented Syria to the jihadists fast enough to suit their taste. For example, failing to support Pakistan's armed groups against Kashmir and India enough to get Kashmir all the way conquered from India and turned into a Jihadi State. Or any other grievance that seems handy. It's bigger than Greater Israel now. If we are going to somehow drive Israel to back within the Lines of 67 and set Gaza/West Bank/ East Jerusalem/ Golan Heights free, we should do it because it is the right thing to do. We should not do it in hopes of getting thanks and recognition, because we won't get any. Not from the jihadists, certainly.
Posted by: different clue | 26 August 2015 at 06:42 PM
William R. Cumming,
I am not Johnny Reims, but I will try also offering a speculative answer.
I believe that many of the very nastiest movement-outlaw settlers and price taggers grew up in America. But I think the Likud leadership all grew up in Israel of mainly Yiddish descent. Maybe a few of the very oldest are themselves of Eastern Euro-Yiddish descent. A very few exceptions like Uri Avneri may be of other-than-Yiddish descent.
I don't know how much of the recent ex-Soviet-space immigrants and their children by now support Likud as against going even further right and supporting Bennett or Lieberman. I believe the vast majority of the Arab Jews in Israel support Likud. If I am wrong about that I certainly stand correctible. If I am right about that, then one wonders what in their own past has predisposed them to support Likud over Labor or what few Centrists exist.
Posted by: different clue | 26 August 2015 at 06:48 PM
MB,
I don't recall any such statement myself. What the kouachi brothers said after the killing was that they wanted to avenge the Prophet and were acting on orders of AQAP.
It was acknowledged afterwards by the organisaton that it had ordered the two brothers to carry out the punitive operation as retaliation for cartoons allegedly insulting the Prophet.
The killing of Muslims by the U.S. might have been mentioned by the younger brother to explain his involvement in a network sending in fighters into Iraq, but that was in 2004. Nothing to do with the Charlie hebdo attack.
You're right about London and same could be said of Madrid bombings. But as I explained in reply to Jonny Reims, that was typical of the mid-2000s. It may still be valid for the Boston bomber, but it's basically an differed blowback effect of the disastrous Iraq adventure. It doesn't feed into the current narrative of jihadi war propaganda anymore.
In the current context, it would probably be wrong to assume jihadi terrorism can be explained as a mirror reaction to US FP.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 06:50 PM
Sir,
I was "reminded" numerous times in London about the "proper" history and culture all around me which the America is devoid of.
I think even Americans of Anglo-Saxon heritage will not impress English.
Posted by: Farooq | 26 August 2015 at 06:57 PM
Thank you for your insights, Mr. Bahzad. I was surprised by the number of non-Mideasterners being tracked by intelligence services.
Have any been involved in terror attacks on European soil? The only attacks I am aware of were committed by Muslims from Mideastern countries.
Also, do you think the problems in Ulster were different in that Catholics had been present in N. Ireland before Protestant settlers moved there. While there were significant differences between the groups, there were significant similarities.
Posted by: Jack Nix | 26 August 2015 at 07:00 PM
1. Apropos of the question of whom or not-whom could become a terrorist in the U.S.: almost anyone (okay) anyone in the U.S. could easily get the guns and ammunition they would need for a slaughter of the sort intended in France. Everyday (even today) there are stories of police and bystanders falling before the crazy, or the suicidal, or ??the terrorist. So how will we know when we have had a terrorist attack. Will they have to tell us?
And then, even so, I thought the French and the EU had rather strict gun control laws. Apparently not that hard to get what you need to shoot up a train. Yes? No?
Posted by: Margaret Steinfels | 26 August 2015 at 07:13 PM
JN,
Yes, there are a number of non mid-easterners involved in attempted/foiled and successful attacks. The list is quite long. Just for reference, amedy coulybaly, the killer from the kosher supermarket in the Paris shootings, was a french born national with a Malian background. One of his accomplices is a French, Black, Christian born, ex-bank robber from the French West Indies.
Other famous cases in Europe: Christophe Caze, Muriel Degauque (female suicide bomber in Iraq), Jeremie-Louis Sidney, Germaine Lindsay, Richard Reid, Jason Walters.
Cases in the US: Carlos Leon Bledsoe, Steven Vikash Chand (Canada), Zachary Adam Chesser, David headley, Christopher Paul.
The list goes on and on, and then you have westerners who joined ranks with ISIS or AQ in the ME !
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 26 August 2015 at 07:30 PM
But, by the same token, people in US could defend themselves more readily if more people carry weapons.
I am not recommending it but it is a possible tactic against any would be Jihadist.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 08:56 PM
Hindu Indians in US often complain about America - among themselves, that is.
And they are very protective of their "Hindu Indian-ness" - hanging on to any and all traits that they learnt when acculturated in India.
But they do not become Jihadists.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_2_when_islam.html
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 08:58 PM
They are paying back, apparently, for all the humiliations of centuries suffered by their ancestors by being obdurate and rigid - I should think.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 26 August 2015 at 09:08 PM
Patrick Bahzad,
If it matters, David Headley was a Pakistani who changed his name to David Headley. ( When I heard that on only one out of many news reports, I supposed he did it to evade "linguistic name profiling".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Headley
Posted by: different clue | 26 August 2015 at 09:35 PM
Hi PB,
Lots to think about. Do you have any thoughts on your model's interactions with economics? Terrorism is generally a romantic middle class pursuit. These past few days are reminding us of the second wave of the Great Recession. How would the potential economic difficulties affect recruiting pitches? Or are the disaffected already underemployed that the economy is irrelevant?
And the recession is leading to renewed nationalism, the other romantic pursuit. Would that simply lead to reactive militias, or constrain the Islamic proselytizing pitches?
Posted by: jimmy_w | 26 August 2015 at 10:32 PM
The civilization may be the same but the hate is strong.
http://cjonline.com/stories/090401/usw_nireland.shtml#.Vd6y7vlJGUk
Posted by: Poul | 27 August 2015 at 02:51 AM
not exactly from the ME, no. he was born in the US to an American mother and a Pakistani father. To me, that is not a ME background, but you could argue he was half "Asian".
Another thing in his profile that doesn't fit the poor disgruntled immigrant kid bying into a radical ideology as a way to get back at the system, is that his father was a Pakistani diplomat and his brother was even member of the Pakistani government.
But you're right he changed his name from Daood Sayed Gilani to David Headley that is true.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 27 August 2015 at 03:04 AM
jimmy,
That is a very good question, even though I wouldn't say I have modelized anything. Might be an idea, but with patterns and profiles evolving pretty quickly, any relevant model would have to be real flexible and subtle to take those developments into account.
I'm not sure what you mean by "second wave of great recession" ?
That being said, economic factors - like others - have an influence on the "flow" of newly radicalized young people, but they don't affect the "stock" very much, meaning: once you're part part of the "club", you remain a member, whether the economy goes up or down.
This is why there is no real need to breakdown economic interactions with radicalism into short/medium and long term, as any medium or long term economic recovery won't affect the damage already done. The only thing that would change, is that you might decrease the "flow", but still keep the "stock". In other words, you end up with a generational problem, very much like the IRA and ETA were (for different reasons altogether), with a downward generational knock-on effect.
Simply put, if the economy is bad and a population group is particularly affected by these hardships, especially a group with an immigration background, then it's going to be more difficult to offer these people real prospects.
The consequences of such social and economic exclusion might vary, but obviously, this is gonna be fertile terrain for any conquering and revolutionary ideology coming up with easy enough explanations.
However, not being a great Marxist myself, I don't think the interpretation of political developments, such as the emergence of radical Islam in the West, can be explained first and foremost by economic factors.
Finally, regarding terrorism as the pursuit of a romantic middle-class, that was true only for the left-wing inspired groups of the 1970s.
Posted by: Patrick Bahzad | 27 August 2015 at 04:23 AM
"UK is a country of the English, for the English, by the English."
It no longer seems so to me. Willingly or unwillingly we are being changed into a country that is no longer wholly British. Only in the more remote country areas will you find the societies of old.
Generally speaking I feel that many of the immigrants of recent years come from a background that is regrettably too dissimilar from our own and often from areas where respect for the law is almost non-existent. Not only does this make us Brits far more wary of them, but also it decreases the odds on them easily assimilating with us - unlike those who came before. Undoubtedly colour and religion is a factor but cultural differences and attitudes are a very significant factor too. Having said that, there are areas of the country that I would feel uncomfortable visiting and that includes many native "white" areas too.
In the final analysis most of us judge people as individuals and choose our friends accordingly. Even so, my few Muslim, Indian and Asian friends would be far less willing to allow their daughters to marry my sons than I would the opposite. Racial snobbery works two ways!
Posted by: Bryn P | 27 August 2015 at 07:25 AM
I suspect that Britain is subject to far more surveillance than anywhere else fullstop. Also the old colonial attitudes ARE changing, even if not fast enough.
My original query was whether it was also the case in the US that most of the mosques being buit over there were also Saudi-financed? My second question was asking, if not directly, was whether agreeing to allow the Saudis to do so was in our best interests in view of their adherence to a more extremist form of Islam?
Posted by: Bryn P | 27 August 2015 at 07:40 AM
Thanks!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 27 August 2015 at 10:01 AM