The June 2017 London Terror Attack

Following the outrage in Manchester, where my partner Laura's nephew and partner live, we now have an outrage in London, where my son and his partner live.

What on earth would persuade human beings to behave in such a manner? It is clear to all right-thinking people that acts such as these will not force or frighten Britains into giving in or running away. In fact, they are almost guaranteed to produce a violent response from us.

I have heartfelt sympathy for the families, friends, and co-workers of the victims of this latest attack (and previous attacks, both here and elsewhere) and fellowship with all those who are outraged at this news.

I was tempted to respond to my opening question 'What on earth would persuade human beings to behave in such a manner?' with the angry response, "They are not humans, they are animals." But are they? Are they not humans? Do animals behave like this? Surely, animals kill for food, or in direct self-defense, not like this. So are they humans then, after all?

If this behaviour is uniquely human, and I am a human, would I behave differently under the same circumstances?

We rarely get to hear what the circumstances of another's life are in any detail. I don't even know all the circumstances of my own childrens' lives in detail. Hell, I'm not even sure of all the details of my own life, let alone the details of the 'terrorists'' lives. All we get to hear about the circumstances of a horrific attack such as this are a few trite phrases trotted out in the media, coupled with the emphatic assertion that the perpetrators are/were terrorists, 'bad' people.

Then I recall the phrase, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter?"

I propose a test. A science experiment. A test that will help determine if these horrific acts are those of 'bad' people, bad apples if you will, or just the acts of people, people like you and me. The acts of humans.

If they are, indeed, 'bad apples', then no amount of understanding their motivations, or their life circumstances, or their environment, or their collective history will make me say, "I would act the same under these circumstances."

If, however, after becoming aware of ALL the facts (or as many as is possible) I admit that maybe, just maybe, I would be tempted to act similarly, then I must ask myself, "What would make ME act in this deplorable manner?" What would make me the terrorist?

I confess that my instant response, my snap judgement would be to slaughter the person, friends, families, and anybody who had even looked at the person who brutally harmed 'one of mine', unspeakable things that could be done to my precious daughter for example. And I would call this 'justice'.

If such justice works, if it is effective, then history will be littered with examples that prove that violence solves violence. But, it appears that history is not so forthcoming.

I contend that history shows that violence always begets more violence. Never-ending, escalating violence. Centuries-long unresolved grudges that occasionally erupt in further, unexpected violence. That those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Albert Einstein famously said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

So, what could I do differently to resolve the terrorist problem?

To solve a problem one must understand the problem.

If one understands a problem, one might devise a solution, but, conversely, if one does not understand the problem, any 'solution' is accidental, at best.

The West has clearly not found an effective solution to the 'terrorist problem', so, more of the same is clearly not the way to continue.

Let's go back and re-analyse the problem.

My starting point is, "What would make me act in this manner?" and, therefore, "what would make me stop, and stop my family, friends, countrymen, or co-religionists seeking vengeance?"
This, surely, is the way to an effective, long-lasting solution.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.