British authorities are at pains to assure the country's Muslim community that they are not all regarded as terrorists, writes Ahmed Reda from London "You don't have to be ashamed, these are not your people," were the words of a British anchor on Five Live radio when interviewing Muslim community leaders following the 7 July London explosions. It might be said this is the general attitude across the British media amid the fear, confusion and uncertainty created by the terror attacks. British emergency and security services responded quickly and efficiently, clearly prepared for such an event, limiting the panic that might otherwise have broken out among the public. Londoners are relatively phlegmatic about such things, with experience behind them of the World War II blitz and of repeated bombings by the Irish Republican Army across the years. The British government matched this subtle way of handling the terrorist attacks by repeated statements, comments and appeals to the public to stay resolute in the face of what might be the first episode in a series as a second wave of attacks failed. All government spokesmen, ministers and political experts were at pains to assure the Muslim community that the government and the public know the difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. One paradox is that some security agencies, like the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, and think tanks, like the Royal Institute of International Affairs, linked the possibility of terrorist attacks on British soil to the war in Iraq, yet Prime Minister Tony Blair still commands exceptional popularity in almost all polls and surveys before and after the bombings. The Conservatives, and figures who opposed the war in Iraq, were tight-lipped and did not criticise British involvement in the war for fear that they be accused of scoring political points while the nation mourns. The behind-the-scenes debate in government, according to media reports, is about legislation that will be tabled in the aftermath of the attacks. The fact that three of the four 7 July bombers were British nationals of Pakistani descent will have an unmistakable impact on forthcoming immigration and civil liberties laws. While there is little evidence to support claims of systemic harassment of Muslims in Britain, new laws and the possibility of other attacks might trigger hostile feelings and actions towards this section of the population. Another fact that has to be considered is the public debate about how immigrants integrate. It is perplexing, seemingly, to see British nationals blowing themselves up after being born and educated in the cradle of Europe. The effect of an atrocity of such a magnitude on the government and public should never be underestimated. The idea of homegrown terrorists shocked Britons as they confronted the enormous cultural gap separating them from other citizens living around the corner, not in countries governed by authoritarian regimes. Lord Stevens, former Metropolitan Police commissioner, warned in a newspaper article that the London bombers were unlikely to fit the caricature of Al-Qaeda fanatics from some backward village in Algeria or Afghanistan. They were more likely to be "apparently ordinary British citizens, young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education. Highly computer literate, they will have used the internet to research explosives, chemicals and electronics." Articles, talk shows and editorials are full of candid and hidden attacks against policies that helped in breeding terrorists and twisted minds. Immediately after the attacks, almost all members of the Muslim community in Britain -- two million people -- expressed shock and dismay and Blair held a meeting with some of the Muslim leaders in towns like Leeds and Oldham where they all spoke of the "evil ideology" behind the attacks. The general feeling among British experts is that the Muslim community is a very mixed bag -- 56 ethnicities speaking almost 100 languages -- and that some of the best- known Muslim organisations do not really represent these various segments. There are some serious doubts about the ability of community leaders and organisations to fight the terrorist-bent version of Islam in urban slums and insular provincial towns. This twisted version has appeal among certain Muslims who know nothing about the religion and only listen to underground, charismatic young preachers. There are calls for establishing a non-governmental body that can reach out to Muslims in conversation, especially in economically deprived areas. After the meeting with Blair, Muslim community leaders agreed on establishing a task force able to penetrate poor and introverted Muslim communities. The cageyness of government and media did not work wonders; the number of faith-targeted hate crimes rose fivefold in the fortnight following the 7 July bombings. According to British press reports, the Metropolitan Police has recorded 800 race and faith-related hate crimes since the 7/7 attacks. The intelligence pattern of incidents and attacks provides one small comfort: there was no intensification in hate crimes after the revelation that the attacks were carried out by British-born Muslim suicide bombers. Analysts believe the attacks are continuing at the same intensity as before. Most incidents are of name-calling and threatening phone calls. With all the commotion after the attacks and attempted copycat actions, the atmosphere in Britain is complex; more still after the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian national later announced to have had nothing to do with the bombings. The killing, by plain clothed security officers, drew concern among the public that a change in the rules of engagement by the British police had taken place. One terrorism expert said if the shooting was carried out by the police, rather than a special forces unit, it would represent a "pretty big departure" from prior practices. Michael Clarke, professor of defense studies at King's College London, told the BBC that the officers who carried out the operation in south London were unlikely to be police; that officers were not trained to carry out operations in this way. He added: "Even Special Branch and SO19 (Scotland Yard's armed response unit) are not trained to do this sort of thing." The killing ignited calls for clarity and accountability as citizens, especially Muslims and Asians, expressed anxiety over the incident. It might be plausible that security officials wanted to prove to Londoners that they can go about their daily business safely and it could have been just a fatal mistake. But regardless of the cause, the prevailing feeling amongst specialists and observers is that the rules of the game have changed dramatically. The fact that the government and security officials are facing an extraordinary task is very much evident in the words of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: "We have to ensure that clear rules are operated but we also, tragically, have to ensure that the police do have effective discretion to deal with what could be terrorist suicide outrages about to take place. That's the dilemma." The uproar that followed the killing of Menezes, and the more than 15 hours silence of the police about the circumstances of the shooting, fuelled media frenzy over the handling of information and disclosure to the public. Some British commentators argued that words of comfort are no substitute for facts and the government, police and security services have an obligation to deal honestly and openly with the public. There will be times, they argued, when operational matters prohibit the disclosure of information. But we must not accede to the natural temptation of governments to introduce a culture of secrecy. Panic, a principal goal of the terrorists, spreads more effectively in an information vacuum. A culture of openness will encourage greater public co-operation and trust. With reports saying that transport use declined 15 per cent in the first two days after the terrorist attacks, media outlets and weblogs reported stories of frightened workers remaining at home and others gazing at their fellow passengers on buses and underground carriages in search of signs of terrorist affiliation. The World Travel & Tourism Council Crisis Committee has predicted that visitor arrivals to Britain in 2005 might decline by more than 500,000 from the previously forecast 30.95 million, though they expect the negative effects of the 7 July bombings to have dissipated by 2007. The Tourism Industry Emergency Response Group, which includes the tourism organization, Visit Britain, the government Department for Culture, British Airways and the Association of British Travel Agents, said spending by overseas visitors is likely to be �300 million ($526 million) less than industry expectations after 7 July. Visit Britain's spokesman Elliott Frisby told the Associated Press that after the first attacks there was a small number of cancellations or postponement of trips. Further cancellations would eat into an industry that contributes 4 per cent to Britain's total gross domestic product of $2.1 trillion. London accounts for around 50 per cent of foreign tourism alone and provides a gateway for people traveling to other destinations. The fact is that Londoners aren't naturally braver than anyone else. But they have a unique understanding that defeating terrorism involves more than passing emergency legislation, beefing up borders and installing surveillance cameras and bomb-detection equipment. The British know that not every attack can be prevented but that every attack can be answered with calm and steadfast resolve to carry on. A large part of that resolve has to be directed towards the causes, not simply the aftermath, of terror. Are Muslim leaders and preachers alone responsible for an emerging, home front threat of terror? Why do these four men blow themselves up? Who tolerated the presence of those who advocate killing innocent people? Britain's terrorists killed innocents in seconds but it could take decades to figure out how to stop cultivating them.
