Do all terrorists wear turbans?

The most recent terrorist attacks on Western targets in Europe and America were perpetrated by groups originating in the Middle East and served the same broad ideological purpose. Although the grievances that drove individual actors were varied, the overarching goal was made very clear by its supporters: to expel Western powers from the Middle East. In the words of Osama bin Laden: “To America I say I swear by God the great... America will never taste security and safety unless we feel security and safety in our lands and in Palestine.” Although groups like al Qaeda are by no means the only ones that take direct aim at the United States and Europe, they are the only ones in recent memory that have been able to execute attacks of the same magnitude as the London bombings or the attack on the World Trade Center.

For this reason, the West has a strong tendency to associate terrorism with the Middle East. The largest and most publicized attacks on western powers have been perpetrated by groups that are distinctly Middle Eastern that serve goals that are very specific to the Middle East. These attacks have also been very widespread in terms of geography; they have targeted a number of different nations, both America and a number of European, and are not fettered by the local nature of their struggle. This scope of ambition makes terrorism in the Middle East particularly noteworthy in the popular consciousness of the Western World.

For instance, the Tamil Tigers have been active in Sri Lanka since the 1970s and have taken a terrible toll, however they are not viewed in the same light as networks such as al Qaeda. This is because the Tamil Tigers are limited to a specific area. They have had no need to globalize their efforts, as their goals are local. In the Western media, Sri Lankan terrorists are a Sri Lankan problem.

Terrorism that originates in the Middle East, on the other hand, is broader in scope: it endeavors to change the policies of the entire Western world, rather than attacking some local governance over a relatively small domestic issue. Osama bin Laden, for example, wishes to see a major shift in American foreign policy that would not only require the United States to compromise its energy security, but also turn away from one of its most powerful interest groups.

Because of the scale of intent harbored by Middle Eastern terrorists and the prominence of their successes, it is nearly unavoidable that discourse on terrorism in the West will be dominated by talk of the Middle East. In their efforts to change the policies of the West, terrorists from the Middle East have left their adversaries in an awkward spot with two highly unappealing options: concede to the demands of terrorists in the Middle East, or commit to unpopular, expensive, and painful actions to silence them, which makes them particularly salient in the minds of Westerners.

Homosexuals in Arabia

When I read the article on gay rights in Iran, I was reminded of a book I read a number of years ago on Saudi Arabia. It was written by John Bradley, who lived in Saudi Arabia as an expat reporter for a number of years. It featured one chapter that dealt with homosexuality in Saudi Arabia, the gist of which was that because Saudi society keeps such a tight lid on male-female interactions, young men and women are want to turn to members of the same sex instead.

What stood out in this chapter was the apparently casual attitude that people have toward GUM (gay until marriage) behavior. Although technically disallowed by Sharia, Bradley would have it that people are more often than not content to watch through their fingers. In the same vein, it's interesting to me that Iranian society views post-operation transsexuals in a more lenient light than "regular" gay people. To my Western sensibilities, it seems easier to flee the country than arrange for your secretary to have a sex change in order to marry them, but I suppose that just goes to underscore the cultural gap.