{UAH} LONDON BRIDGE ATTACK: THE IMPERATIVE OF A SMARTER WAR ON TERROR.

Sad what just happened in the city of London. The modus operandi of the terrorists should be even more concerning to authorities and law enforcement agencies: Vehicle attacks is henceforth the leading new terrorist threat ever since the evening of 14 July 2016, when a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in the French city of Nice.

What this means, is that even if certain countries have the best special anti-terrorism forces, the most technologically-advanced intelligence apparatus, the best surveillance and attack drones, the latest NATO F-22 stealth jets equipped to offload the famous 'Mother of all bombs', an individual can just get up one morning and plough through a crowd of innocent people using his private car while on his way to work, or stab others with the kitchen knife that is probably still smelling the onions and spices that he was preparing for his evening meal.

How the hell can anyone stop such methods? He isn't seeking to acquire any of the usual terrorism tools that we are used to seeing them utilise.

One can just watch the horror of the latest children to be bombed in a hospital by coalition forces, then get angry, maybe record a quick phone video pledging allegiance, then drive off to the nearest public square. That is how quick a situation can now escalate from humble citizen to terrorist. And it has been headline-making he way youths have joined terrorist groups in the past. The radicalization is primarily done by the western media itself.

The uphill task in Europe's fight against terrorism has never been greater.

Prospective attackers are probably saying "Who needs suicide bombs anymore?"

Authorities now have increasingly little they can do about the physical threat.

And the politicians usual response saying "let's retaliate by bombing ISIS in Iraq or Syria" as the UK Prime Minister proposes, seems completely inadequate to resolve this new threat. It even sounds as living in denial by choosing an escape route that allows one to dodge really addressing the problem.

Some have also called for longer sentences for terror-related offences. I hope this is well thought through because the last research I did on the matter showed that terrorists got even more radicalised in prisons more than anywhere else, and some of the most dangerous young terrorists were simply ordinary petty crime prison mates whom terrorists met behind bars and first radicalized them, then recruited them.

The terrorist fraternity must be applauding the simplicity and ingeniousness of the new truck attack method that completely eliminates the risk of them being arrested before they commit the horrific attack.

They now have a new niche method where they can commit an easy attack, and the terror effect will be multiplied exponentially within the media and within society with people fearing every screeching vehicle.

Authorities should now put genuine emphasis on ideological counter-terrori

sm. That is henceforth where the battle is. The Military and related technology alone cannot bring victory, and will definitely not break this cycle of violence.

As long as western countries intervention principals are still based on the 13th century doctrines from the days of the Knights Templar, Europe will remain ideologically incompetent in resolving the terror crisis.

On one hand they want to fight terrorists, on the other, they genuinely and irresistibly want to bomb Islam to rubbles. Yet the war is today entrenched in a new modern world in a region battling completely new and complex political aspirations including individual freedoms and democracy.

One of the quick solutions to present day terrorism is Get out of the Middle East conundrum.

Why does this simple advice seem to constantly fall on deaf ears?

Isn't it the center piece of any multi-faceted strategy for global peace and stability?

Other steps include what some Arab states have been complaining about to the global anti-terrorism coalition. They have indicated that western governments and their media are (unintentionally?) giving these rogue armed groups undue religious authority, and therefore legitimacy, when they call them by the ominous name "Islamic State" and when they blame Islam as a whole for global terrorism.

Islam is highly respected in the region, so doesn't the group gain some religious authority on Muslim youths just by anyone branding them "Islamic"? Doesn't that also help the terrorist groups recruit unsuspecting, thrill-seeking young Muslims who join them thinking they are going to serve God and Islam, yet in reality they are only serving a terrorist leaders secret personal ambitions using young Muslims total submission to Islam?

Isn't that why many Middle Eastern countries, in an effort to reduce the group's attractiveness and influence on young Muslims, have decided to stick to calling ISIS by the derogatory name "Daesh"?

I personally wouldn't mind if we started calling them "Netanyahic state". They ultimately serve his interests don't they?

Written by Hussein Lumumba Amin

05/06/2017

#LondonBridgeAttack #RIP

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com