So Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the Sri Lankan Church Bombings.

[johnny9fingers]

And the Sri Lankans, and the rest of us have to consider our response.

We already have a good idea of what our own lunatic fringe will do. Apparently, these bombings were in response to the Christchurch assault. Everything is a response to something, and the innocent victims of Christchurch and the innocent victims of the Sri Lankan bombings are all in the same category; that of innocent victims. But I wonder just how mad, evil bombers consider innocent people acceptable targets for their campaigns?

Until now, in Sri Lanka, Catholics and Muslims had been regarded as a collective non-Buddhist/non-Hindu minority in a complicated arrangement of ethnicities and religions. Both groups complained of the same prejudices and there was some solidarity between them; the soldarity of the slightly marginal.

This does appear to be an attempt to foment a clash of cultures, much as the Christchurch assault was; the difference being of course that here in the UK, post the Jo Cox murder, our Intelligence and Security services try to keep an eye on our right-wing loonies, and have a track record of preventing them from executing their evil, though many outliers escape detection. However, it seems the Sri Lankan police had information about this bombing plot two weeks before it happened; they also knew who was going to be carrying it out.

In the complicated ethnic and religious mix that is Sri Lanka somehow or other this information got overlooked. That's a bit unfortunate, given what happened.

So I come here asking questions of all of us:

How should we respond to the Sri Lankan bombing?
How should we respond to the IS claim?

They may seem like the same question, but I think a distinction exists between them. Because in the first, the inadequate response of the Sri Lankan authorities to the information they had needs to be fixed. And the causes for that inadequate response are complicated.

Comments

[airiefairie]

And so the cycle of mindless violence continues...

[johnny9fingers]

The thing is my first reaction is a knee-jerk one of revenge. I understand when folk opt for non-proportionate responses. But I also know they are wrong.

Why do folk like me appear to be marginalised for knowing that, in my case, I'm reining-in the worst aspects of my nature and tempering the knee-jerk response with second and third thoughts and reflections? We need considered responses to all of this, because we have to find a way to put a stop to it. What if the next-but-one POTUS is even more populist than the Don and feels a need to assert himself. Disproportionate responses are not to be encouraged.

I want to shake some sense into the IS leadership. Islam is a religion with a few vulnerabilities, strategically speaking. Mecca and Medina are places you ought to visit if you're a Muslim. Islam has to live with the world too, as much as the world has to live with Islam.

A total clash of cultures between Islam and the rest of the world, or even just the US and/or the Christian nations, will see second-class citizen status, internment, deportation, and in the worst-case scenario war, with the endgame leaving Mecca and Medina glowing in the dark for many generations to come. That's not a sensible outcome for anyone. When IS claims responsibility for these attacks, we should hope that Muslims reject and renounce IS and its works. Just as we abhor and despise our own extremist nutters.

We have to reclaim the non-violent, get-along-with-the-neighbours, ordinary, decent folk territory from those who would drive wedge-issues between us. Even if we have to work towards it by thinking twice or even three times about things before we speak or act.

[nairiporter]

I don't know how we should respond, but I do know how we WILL respond. We'll read some obituaries, we'll condemn terrorism, we'll probably send some aid, and we'll move on. Until the next episode of this endless cycle of death.

[johnny9fingers]

We all die. I guess it's about how we die; and just as importantly about how we live.

The commentariat, of which we are peripheral part, may wring hands, and mouth platitudes. The extremists are planning their outrages. And the folk who want to use wedge-issues to divide us are exploiting the anger that the extremists have generated.

We have to side with the innocent victims. The Christian ones and the Muslims; and the Hindus and Buddhists. Jacinda Ardern said it better than I can; and if a movement promoting neighbourly amity and solidarity ever needs a figurehead she would be pretty good in the role.

But arseholes who think they can target folk in places of worship need putting in their place; along with the organisations they belong to or have adherence to, or whose vile agenda they are promoting. And I'm not a believer in any of that particular religious nonsense. (I have my own, thank you very much.)

The recent spate of far right convictions in the UK has shown that the members of fascist cells have been taking lessons from the IS/Al Qaeda/Black September terrorist handbooks. In fact an IS bomb-making manual was found on some of their computers. Both sides using the same MO. I do wonder if there are other links too.

(When you've been a spook-watcher for a few years, you are always looking for unseen externalities; the strings to each puppet, if you like. Which is not quite the same as conspiracy theories, because there doesn't have to be a conspiracy for there to be an unseen causality. Occam's razor helps somewhat, except simplistic reduction tends to break down in the complexities of the arena within which Intel takes place.)

An Indian Intelligence agency apparently supplied the Sri Lankan authorities with the info about this attack two weeks before it happened. If I were feeling even more cynical than usual, and given the complexities of the ethnic and religious divides in Sri Lanka, a bunch of minority Muslims bombing minority Christians could almost be a spectator sport for the Sinhalese majority. Or at least plausible deniability would prevent anyone responsible from ever having seen the report.

It is my opinion that this bombing may have been, er, allowed and used for political gain, rather than simply overlooked. If, in the UK, we get info that folk are going to be on a mad bombing spree, we investigate it and deal with it, no matter how silly it appears.

The Sri Lankans sat on the report. To what end? For what purpose? Why?