The generally accepted narrative of global Arab and Muslim terrorism just doesn't add up, writes Galal Amin* All the incidents that have occurred in recent years and have been named terrorist acts, from the attacks on New York and Washington through the recent London bombings, are morally repulsive and absolutely unjustifiable. Equally incontestable is the fact that there is a widely accepted theory, reiterated day and night by politicians, commentators and the media, regarding the perpetrators of these acts, their religious affiliation and their motives. The perpetrators are Osama Bin Laden and his accomplices who have assembled themselves into an organisation called Al-Qaeda; they are Muslims and their motives are multifarious. Their purpose is to retaliate against the West and the US in particular for its aggression against the Arabs and Islam, especially in Iraq and Palestine. They are also said to be driven by a profound sense of resentment and hatred, which, in turn, are variously attributed to certain Islamic teachings that ostensibly encourage such sentiments, to the envy of the Muslim and Arab poor for the wealth of the Western rich and to their out-of-hand condemnation of that ambiguous concept called "the American way of life". They are further said to be inspired by the desire to apply Islamic law on all affairs of life, although it is never explained what precisely that entails, where it might apply and how it would be accomplished. Although this theory is taken as axiomatic by many I am still not convinced. Nor am I alone in this. But I could not help but notice that scepticism is far more prevalent in private conversations than in public commentaries in the press and on the radio and television. Moreover, whereas official and public conviction in the theory is asserted with the fullest self-confidence and certitude, private sceptics are timorous, as though having despaired in advance that others would ridicule their views. I have therefore taken it upon myself to state my reasons for doubting what I have termed the "terrorist hypothesis". On the one hand, I felt that listing these reasons side by side in one place would make a more powerful and cogent argument than if they were to be elaborated separately. On the other hand, I felt that this initiative would give heart to my fellow sceptics and encourage them to state their views. Perhaps, then, our efforts combined will inspire people to explore alternative explanations for the above-mentioned incidents. Who knows? Maybe they will end up identifying suspects of an entirely different nature. As I jotted down my thoughts as to why I remain unconvinced by the terrorist hypothesis, I came up with 16 points. These I decided to present to readers as briefly as possible so as to leave them room to amplify and perhaps contribute more. These points follow: - One would think that tragedies of this magnitude, which have claimed hundreds of innocent lives and caused immense destruction, and have stirred an increasingly widespread sense of insecurity over one's personal safety and the safety of one's family and country, would have aroused more serious contemplation of their causes and the precaution to be as accurate as possible in attributing guilt. Instead, the reverse has occurred. The more these crimes occur the more determinedly and more rapidly fingers are levelled in the same direction. This phenomenon in itself raises suspicions. - One of the maxims in criminal investigations is to hone in on whoever might benefit from the crime in question. The logic of this maxim is self-evident, yet its reverse seems to apply to the crimes in question here. Certainly Islam has been maliciously tainted by these crimes and Arabs and Muslims have paid and continue to pay an exorbitant price because of them. In most cases, the perpetrators do not even give a hint as to why they committed the crime and what they want from us in order to get them to stop. One can only question a terrorist hypothesis that presents us with a perpetrator with nothing to gain from his crime. - It is curious that in crimes of this magnitude more possibilities are not entertained. Many are those with deep- seated grudges and many are the mentally disturbed, both inside the countries that have suffered these crimes and abroad. That there have been several high-profile cases of mentally disturbed school children who have gunned down their fellow classmates and teachers for reasons known only to themselves should at least give some pause for thought. Yet, the rule appears to be that whenever a bombing occurs thoughts automatically and almost universally converge on that bearded culprit from the desert of Arabia. - Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the terrorist hypothesis is as widely accepted as it is because it makes the most sense. Should this obviate the need to consider alternative theories? Shouldn't the intellectual effort we invest into remedying a problem be proportionate to the severity of the problem? Would not this very severity compel us to at least listen to other viewpoints? Apparently not. When it comes to this subject minds appear astoundingly closed and any ideas that depart from the standard dictum are abruptly condemned as "conspiracy theories", which is ironic considering that the proposition that Bin Laden and his cronies are somewhere secretly plotting and planning with no indication that all this activity is taking place until disaster strikes seems to me a conspiracy theory par excellence. - Investigations are in full swing and suspects are being arrested left and right. Yet, especially in comparison with the copious information we get regarding the crimes and their victims, one is struck by the scant information we get on the perpetrators themselves. Where were they born and where did they grow up? What kind of social environment did they come from and what kind of education did they have? If in custody, what was the substance of their confessions, if any, or on what grounds did they justify their acts? These questions remain pending in spite of the vital clues their answers would provide to the best course for uprooting the sources of terrorism. One cannot help but wonder how much information coming out of those investigations is being kept from the public and why. - Why have all attempts to apprehend the leaders of that organisation to which these crimes have been attributed failed? Indeed, what efforts precisely have been made? It is curious that we hear so little about these efforts in spite of the invaluable reward that would accrue to the world from the capture of these individuals. Or, are we to believe that this bearded leader and his aides are so cunning and resourceful that they can outwit and elude the most powerful armies and the cleverest intelligence agencies of the world? - One's suspicions are aroused further each time we are treated to a video recording that somehow found its way into the hands of a well-known satellite station and that features that notorious leader or one of his aides, machine gun in hand, promising more death and destruction. That satellite station belongs to a country with very close ties to that nation that ostensibly tops the list of that terrorist leader's targets. Why has that nation not prevailed upon that government in which the satellite station is located to prevent the airing of these videotapes? It would have a legitimate reason for doing so -- if the terrorist hypothesis is correct); such recordings might incite others with terrorist leanings to act on these inclinations. The videotapes raise another question. In one of the stories of Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves, Murjana, Ali Baba's house servant, sets someone to follow the thieves to their hideout. But first she takes the precaution of giving her agent a bag full of flour, after having pierced a small hole in the bag so that the flour would trickle out and leave a trail. It was thus possible to discover the whereabouts of Ali Baba's cave and arrest the thieves. Is it possible that the world's intelligence agencies have been unable to conceive of a similar ruse to trace the videotape messengers back to their masters? - The price the suicide bomber pays -- his life -- seems excessive for what he ostensibly hopes he can achieve by his act. Does he really believe that blowing up some underground tunnels in London or even the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, at the cost of his own life, will bring about the liberation of Iraq or Palestine? If so, we are dealing with an unusually illogical and unnatural mindset. - It seems reasonable to expect that out of the many who have set their minds on blowing themselves up in the ostensible hope of gaining some spiritual reward for their self- sacrifice at least a few would have had second thoughts about the horrible act they were about to embark on, and that out of this few one or two would have turned themselves in to the police and in their repentance revealed the names of their accomplices or those who had brainwashed them. Yet, as far as we know, not a single such case has occurred. It is just a bit too convenient for someone that suicide bombers invariably go through with their intent. - What is known about Bin Laden's life is entirely inconsistent with the actions attributed to him today. As a rich and idle youth, he spent a good deal of time and money in the quest for sensual pleasures in the nightspots of Beirut. Afterwards, he joined American-funded fighters against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. That is a remarkable turnabout. Our prime suspect is a person who spent the first half of his life as an unprincipled wastrel and the second half as religious zealot ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of some ideal. - It is also a well-known fact that Bin Laden's family had, and probably still has, close connections at the highest levels of America's business and political communities. It is not odd that a member of this family should offer the US his services against the Soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. What is odd is that this same person should then form a terrorist organisation with the purpose of targeting the US and its friends and allies. - It is interesting to note how rapidly "terrorism" intensified following that major historical turning point marked by the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the US as the leader of a mono-polar global order. Yet, it requires little effort to realise that the reasons that are commonly cited as the cause for this increase in terrorism date back much further than the past 15 years. Israeli injustices against the Palestinians extend back for more than half a century. Nor is there anything particularly new about hatred and resentment against the West and it remains to be explained what precisely has aggravated these sentiments so gravely as to produce this dramatic burst of terrorism. - Even if Arabs and Muslims had something to gain from these terrorist activities there are other parties that stand to gain much more. Arabs and Muslims have many enemies and the more these succeed in tainting them as terrorists the easier it is for them to justify their brutal treatment of Arab and Muslim peoples, the invasion and occupation of their countries and the re-drawing of the map of the Middle East. - It can hardly be a coincidence that this region which is branded the world's prime breeding ground of terrorism is also the region that contains enormous quantities of a vital and costly raw material that, in this period of history, is a source of rivalry between many powerful nations and between many major companies, and which have the power to move armies and the media to do their bidding. I believe the words of the British statesman and political writer, Edmund Burke, pertain here: "It is not with much credulity I listen to any when they speak evil of those whom they are going to plunder. I rather suspect that vices are feigned or exaggerated when profit is looked for in their punishment. An enemy is a bad witness; a robber is a worse." - The rise of terrorism has been accompanied by the publication of thousands of books, studies, reports and commentaries maligning Arabs and Muslims. Their flaws, real or invented, old and new, have been laid bare and subjected to minute dissection, even those that can not be easily linked with terrorism. What connection is there between the status of women in Islam, or the feeble contribution of Arabs to advanced scientific and technological research, and terrorism? - Many were struck by how quickly after 11 September Washington launched its military action against Afghanistan and then Iraq and increased its military presence in Ukraine, another oil rich region. It has since come to light that plans for this invasion and military presence had been drawn up well before 11 September. Many were left to exclaim that "astounding coincidence" that provided just the right pretext to put these plans into effect. A scientific approach to a problem requires reducing to the greatest possible extent the factor of coincidence; a principle that one would think would apply all the more to a coincidence that was as happy for certain policy architects as this one. * The writer is professor of economics at the American University in Cairo.
