The bomber was probably not acting alone

As details of the Taymour al-‘Abdaly's attack and the bomber's background continue to emerge, his last will and testimony, his facebook profile, and his profile on a Muslim marriage service website all serve to shed instant light for those seeking to understand the attack. In several ways though, even a cursory look at the Stockholm bombing will show that initial appearances deceive.

The first point worth noting concerns teamwork. Although al-'Abdaly was a lone bomber and was a keen internet user, the conclusion that he was a 'lone-wolf' operative is likely to be misplaced. The logistical proficiency needed to obtain bomb-making materials, the technical expertise required for assembling the devises, and the last minute encouragement needed to ensure that the bomber detonates all lend themselves strongly in favour of the prospect that he had help. For years, jihadist ideologues such as Abu Mus'ab al-Suri have urged their followers to become 'lone wolves' - self-radicalising, self-motivating, and self-detonating.

Yet with several notable exceptions, Islamist violence tends to be the work of small teams. Going solo may make a small-scale plot more likely to succeed because it diminishes the risk of infiltration or betrayal, but the strategy overlooks the way that radicalisation tends to take place. Islamist violence tends to be a product of small group bonding and dynamics.

Owing to the Arabic language's lack of capital letters, the bomber's declaration the he was working for an 'Islamic State' has been interpreted by some as an aim, rather than an affiliation. In fact, by citing Abu 'Umar (al-Baghdadi), the bomber was referring not to some abstract hope of establishing an 'Islamic State' but to an organisation called 'the Islamic State' of Iraq. He is unlikely to have been self-motivated, but was probably directed.

Likewise, commentary has rightly focused on the locales involved. That an Iraqi man, educated in Sweden and living in London, travelled to Sweden to blow himself up - partly in the name of grievances he felt over the occupation of Afghanistan - is a true sign of globalisation. That Sweden of all places has been targeted may initially strike as somewhat unusual. Why bomb there, and cite Sweden's five hundred troops in Afghanistan as a reason, when he could have bombed Britain, which has thousands more troops in Afghanistan?

Likewise, though the former head of al-Qa'ida's Islamic State of Iraq Abu 'Umar al-Baghdadi threatened Sweden with attack in 2007, did Osama bin Laden himself not maintain in 2004 that Sweden could sleep easy, when he said "Contrary to what Bush says and claims - that we hate freedom - let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'". The reality is likely to have much to do with networks and practicalities.

When al-'Abdaly declared that "I never travelled to the Middle East to work or earn money, I went there for jihad", it is curious that the act of jihad he will remain known for is in Europe, and not the Middle East. Though adamant that his trip to the Middle East was not profit-seeking, it was not martyrdom-seeking either, moreover the bomber remains quiet about the precise nature of his itinerary and travels. Again, this suggests a network wider than the al-'Abdaly and his probable accomplices in Sweden, which he has tried not to draw attention to.
Back in the UK, much attention has focused on al-'Abdaly's Luton connections.

Radicalisation in the UK: a cause for alarm? Was it in Luton that racism, perhaps from the mobs of the English Defence League, he witnessed or experienced led him to grow disaffected with society? Was it there that extremist recruiters exploited his disaffection, and other grievances such as over Britain's foreign policy and involvement in overseas wars in which Muslims are suffering, and introduced him to a narrative in which Islam as a faith is under attack and requires a proactive defence using violence? By no means is this the first association that Luton has had with Islamist violence.

From the British perspective though, all may not be doom and gloom. For sure, it is worrying that the bomber displayed signs of radicalisation in the UK several years ago, but it is telling that he did not prosecute his act of jihadist violence in his adopted home. Mosque spokesmen from Luton have told the press that several years ago they confronted al-'Abdaly over the views he was espousing. This reflects a more general trend that the most alarming signs of radicalisation happen not when young men increase their mosque attendance, but when they stop attending. If the bomber was indeed radicalised in the UK, then this is a cause for concern. Yet the fact that he did not undertake acts of violence in the UK may well be because he was physically unable to: lacking an enabling network, fearful of law enforcement organisations, unable to find co-conspirators; a cause for optimism. Likewise on an ideological level, that his views did not find welcome is also an encouraging sign.

More revealing though, than this man's increasingly extreme views, is that like the "underpants bomber" Umar al-Faruq 'Abd al-Mutallab, he took years to act upon them. The bomber's recent profile statement on the muslima.com marriage website that he was looking for a new wife, and looking to move with his family to settle down in the Middle East seems unlikely as a disguise. Likewise, that the Iraqi man's grievances were manifested physically some seven years after the invasion of Iraq, and nine years after the invasion of Afghanistan suggests that his motivations were far more local. The answer is likely to lie in the small-group dynamics of his close associates than with foreign policy.

Both the location of the attack, Sweden, and the timing are significant. Sweden may be a new target, but the attack comes as part of a longer-term trend in which plots have failed at the 11th hour. Let down in their execution: the Time Square car-bombing of Faisal Shahzad, the Detroit underpants bombing, the assassination attempt on the Saudi prince Nayef, the Yemen-based airline parcel bombings have all failed to achieve their primary objectives. Still, the significance with acts of terrorism lies in the fact that such attacks are being attempted at all, rather than the number they kill.

Trackback URL: http://www.newsmill.se/trackback/31165

4 kommentarer Logga in för att kommentera
I kommentarsfältet har kommentatorn juridiskt ansvar för sina inlägg.

Kontrasterna mellan den muslimska världen och västvärlden är alltför stor. Integrationen fungerar inte utan leder bara till konflikter.

Permalänk | Anmäl #1 Bo T, 2010-12-14, 09:18

It's not too complicated, is it? If I remember correctly, Bin Laden stated a few years ago that the goal of Al-Qaeda was to bleed the West into financial ruin. The US, the UK and many other big countries have already instituted massive financial sinks aimed at "combating terror" and "protecting society". Every 100$ used by the terrorists seems to generate some 100 billion $ in costs for the country affected. And it seems to be succeeding: The West is growing more and more insolvent by the day. Check, for example, the runaway foreign debt of the US.

One exception was Sweden. Sweden has had a reasonably strong economy, and people here were not afraid enough to establish the corresponding financial drains for "security".

Now, with even a failed bombing, with no casualties and very little property damage, our politicians are taking the bait. We'll get new laws soon enough, and money will be transfered from things like health care, day care, schools, and so on to finance "security".

End result: The politicians win, getting more influence and power over us all and fewer checks and balances. The securitocrats win, having integrated Sweden firmly into the international securitocracy. And the terrorists win, having successfully wiped out that which they truly fear in another country: Freedom and democracy, which had to be suspended to "protect society and democracy from terrorism", and besides, we can no longer afford it because we had to pay to protect us all.

Permalänk | Anmäl #2 Sven P Andersson, 2010-12-14, 09:22

FINANSIERINGEN ?

Det uppenbara är väl att han fått finansiering från något håll. Han tycks inte haft något jobb, som kunnat ge tillräckligt för att köpa en bil. Lika lite betala för utlandsresor. Han reste till Irak för att "tjäna pengar".

Han kanske gjorde det, men inte genom att arbeta. Han måste ha fått betalt för att utföra dådet.

Permalänk | Anmäl #4 Sture Åström, 2010-12-14, 11:14

Well, let's face it. What bombs are we talking about? The car caught fire and hardly the car windows were damaged. There were no serious damages to the surroundings. What kind of bomb was it? The car owner was apparently killed laterby some minor explosives - fire works, pyrotechnics? - and the cause of death could well be burns. In my view it does not look like a terrorist or a suicide bomber in action. Rather solething else.

Permalänk | Anmäl #7 Anders Björkman, 2010-12-23, 16:48