It's inexplicable

Whatever justification extremist groups give to terrorist attacks, commentators believe the perpetrators are waging just blind terrorism, writes Rasha Saad

---

In the aftermath of last week's terrorist attacks in London and Sharm El-Sheikh, Jamil Al-Ziabi, in the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, summed up the state of shock and dismay.

"Is the UN, international organisations and governments satisfied with only words of condemnation and denunciation? The world is aflame but all what people hear are words. They see no deeds."

Al-Ziabi also posed questions to which he finds no answers: "Why are Al-Qaeda attacks powerful but the strikes of governments weak? Why do governments insist on fighting terrorism without any clear tactics and coordinated information? How can the world describe itself as free while coming under attack in the most powerful of Arab and international capitals? How can US President George Bush tell the world that he will achieve victory in the war on terrorism while the blood of innocent people is spilt in the streets like water?"

Al-Ziabi had a message for the world. "The world today has a serious and real challenge -- it either succeeds in dismantling suicidal terrorist cells or it will fall."

Many articles carried harsh criticism of the fact that some Arab and international analysts attributed the terrorist attacks to the foreign policies of Britain, especially its contribution in the war against Iraq, arguing that perpetrators of terrorist attacks have no other motive than blind terrorism.

Ahmed Al-Rabie in another UK-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat criticised activists whom he described as supporting extremist trends, Islamic or nationalistic, who find an excuse to terrorise.

Al-Rabie said that after the London attacks sympathisers with extremists claimed the assaults were a result of British intervention in Iraq. They then killed and injured dozens of innocent tourists and Egyptians. "Are these innocent people involved in the war in Iraq or are they Zionist agents? We are tired of warning that ignoring terrorism or justifying it is a crime that everyone will pay for. Terrorism is an enemy of all religions and mankind so there should be a unified effort to confront it."

Also in Asharq Al-Awsat Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed agreed. "The assumption that the terrorists targeted London for its involvement in the Iraqi war is far from true," Al-Rashed wrote. He said Sharm El-Sheikh was attacked although Egypt did not send one soldier to Iraq and has been against the occupation of Iraq from the beginning. So involvement in the war against Iraq is simply a pretext.

"Britain has been and will remain a target not because it joined in the invasion of Iraq but because it became a haven for extremists, their children and followers."

Sate' Noureddin in the Lebanese As-Safir described the attacks in London and Sharm El-Sheikh as "an act of insanity" that has no rational motives nor a clear agenda.

In "From London to Sharm El-Sheikh" Majed Kiali wrote in the UAE Al-Bayan that the attacks in London and Sharm El-Sheikh "proves the world is in a phase in which the explosion of blind violence seems to be a target in itself." He stressed the fact that no one can predict the logic behind terrorist ideology, political calculations or religious perceptions.

Kiali also discredited the claims of these groups that by such acts they are confronting America's arrogant attitude or defying Israel. Extremist groups do not have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli struggle; Al-Qaeda in particular was far from involved in the Palestinian issue, and never for example opened a clinic or a school in the occupied territories. "This indicates that claiming to fight for these concerns has a political aim that enables these groups to attain legitimacy in the Arab and Islamic world."

"These acts in fact give legitimacy to American intervention in the Arab region under the pretext of self- defence and gives credibility to what neo-cons in the US administration call 'the clash of civilisations' and the 'Islamic threat'".

The Qatari newspaper Al-Watan blasted Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposal to cooperate with Egypt to fight what he labelled Islamic extremist terrorism, describing it as indecent and strange "coming from Sharon who practices with his army the worst kinds of terrorism against Palestinians and world peace and stability."

The editorial saw motives behind Sharon's proposal. Among them was to link terrorism with Islam, to present Israel as an influential peaceful state which is willing to offer its services to its neighbours, and to give the impression that Egypt cannot protect its security by itself.

"Sharon is attempting to fish in the troubled waters of terrorism while he is one of its major players and one of the chief reasons it exists and has spread in the Middle East."

Attempting to offer insight to Al-Qaeda, Abdul- Wahab Badrakhan in Al-Hayat wrote that the statements signed by the group linking it to the recent terrorist attacks and posted on web sites does not necessarily mean direct responsibility, but that branches of Al-Qaeda have become independent and able to take decisions without referring to the leadership.

Badrakhan expressed astonishment that the American and international war on terrorism has not been able to halt the work of Al-Qaeda. This, according to Badrakhan, has created a dilemma for the societies of the region who reject Al-Qaeda terrorism because it does not promise any positive change, and American policies in the Middle East, especially Palestine and Iraq, for not offering light at the end of the tunnel.

"This rejection does not mean the support of bombings of trains and buses in London, or touristic resorts in Sharm El-Sheikh, but it does mean that the international community will be drawn into a war that has no foreseeable end."