INTRODUCTION
There are some events in the course of the world’s growth and development that seem likely to occur; people will experience conflict, social unrest, possible warfare and any number of natural disasters that can devastate communities all across the globe. In the modern era one of the most terrifying of occurrences are terrorist attacks. Terrorist threats can exist unnoticed; no one knows when they may occur and what public place, government buildings or function that may be targeted. This makes terrorist attacks a huge source of stress, fear and shock for the people and for the governments involved. There have been far too many instances of terrorism in major nations near and far. The examples of this include, the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks in 2001, Bali nightclub in Indonesia in 2002, the Madrid train bombing in 2004, and the London bombings in 2005; it is the latter that is deserving of deeper research and analysis. The terror attack on July 7, 2005, is known to London's citizens as 7/7. On this day 4 bombs were delivered and detonated in locations within the city of London. These explosions claimed more than 50 lives and injured more than 700 people, as well as, causing mass destruction and, of course, it instilled fear (Rodgers, Qurashi & Connor, 2015) Terror is a security threat to all nations, in the current era more than ever. Understanding what happened that day, how it was addressed and whether or not the measures taken were successful is worthwhile. Reflection on these past terror attacks can be highly beneficial to determining how to approach them in the future. Terrorism has been and remains one of the greatest and most feared threats all across the globe. That being said understanding the causes of such attacks, addressing the aftermath and outcomes and devising preventative measures necessary to deter terrorism will require the reformation of policies, development of new initiatives and willingness to evolve with the terrorist organizations and their means of attack in order to proactively address the problem. This is exactly what Britain has attempted to do since 2005.
BACKGROUND
On the morning July 7, 2005 Mohammed Sidique Khan, age 30, Shehzad Tanweer, age 22, Hasib Hussain, age 18, met a fourth companion, 19-year-old Germanine Lindsay and headed to London train station. At a little after 8:00 am they entered into King's Cross station, separated and planted 3 bombs on three different trains. All three explosions occurred less than minute from each other and a fourth would explode on a double-decker bus approximately an hour later. All of the perpetrators died in their attacks (Rodgers, Qurashi & Connor, 2015).
Edgware Road Attack: The leader of this terrorist plot, Khan, detonated his homemade bomb on a train that was headed to Paddington, the explosion killed 6 people (Rodgers, Qurashi & Connor, 2015)
Aldgate Attack: Tanweer detonated his device between Aldgate and Liverpool Street. His explosion occurred near the rear of the train claiming the lives of seven people Rodgers, Qurashi & Connor, 2015)
Russell Square Attack: The most devastating explosion occurred between the King's Cross station and Russell Square. Lindsay detonated his bomb on a tightly packed train killing 26 and wounding dozens more (Rodgers, Qurashi & Connor, 2015).
Tavistock Square Attack: The youngest terrorist, Hussain, detonated his device on a double-decker bus as it left King's Cross. The explosion ripped apart the bus and killed 13 people outright (Rodgers, Qurashi & Connor, 2015)
It would not be long before the men would be identified as working under the ideologies of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, the Islamic extremist group; video tapes were found showing some of the men praising Osama bin Laden and the destructive mission of the group. That being said the British government identified the events on July 7 as an act of terror. What many ask is why do extremists and terrorists resort to such destructive measures against unarmed and unprepared civilians? In order to understand the answer it is necessary to understand more about the terrorist organization itself. Al-Qaeda was formed by Osama bin Laden in 1988, representing the need for an Islamic “jihad,” or holy war against all peoples who did not share their beliefs (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2017). The term “The Great Satan” was used to refer to the United States and all the philosophies of the Western world. Since then Al-Qaeda and associated groups, like ISIS, have continued to detonate bombs, take over towns and cities across the Middle East, torturing, murdering and even publically decapitating their enemies. Bin Laden, no doubt, learned quickly that attempting a full scale battle with powerful nations would be foolish, he needed to find a way to strike blows against their enemies that would give them an advantage. Setting bombs, destroying structures and taking lives creates enough fear and panic to make them a threat; they never even have to leave their country because new recruits already living in the target cities and countries are waiting (Anti-Defamation League, 2013).
Terrorism of any kind is used to spread fear, to imbalance people’s lives and to act to undermine the day-to-day function of their victim’s lives. They want to destroy, they want to kill and they want psychologically intimidate the peoples and governments they target. Generally, when determining the motivations of why criminal offenders commit crime there is a personal gain or personal trigger involved, which can be used to explain their behaviors. However, in the case of terrorism it is different from other types of violence (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, 2005).In the case of suicide terrorism it is even harder to deter them and discourage them, because they have nothing to lose. They are willing to die for their cause therefore there is nothing to sway them from their mission. In terrorist organizations the individual members are part of the something “big,” something divine and they are just a small part of the greater cause; the individual lives matter less, especially when they are promised rewards for their sacrifice (Ismayilov, 2010). Understanding these unique aspects of terrorist actions has increased over the years since 2005, which has led to many alternative approaches of terrorism that can be considered.
ANALYSIS
Like any devastating terror attack once the smoke clears and the shock and horror lessen it is imperative that succinct and decisive measures are taken to understand what happened, how it happened and, of course, finding who was responsible. There was a lot of confusion at first. The London subway line believed that it had been a power surge. However, as reports of other explosions were collected it became clear this was not a malfunction within the subway system. London authorities, at first, believed there had been six explosions, not just the three underground and one on the bus (Rodgers, Qurashi and Connor, 2015). Before any statements are made regarding the case the investigation must confirm the facts. Later the same day Franco Frattini, the European Union Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, tells reporters that it was indeed a terror attack; a concurring statement was made by British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who agreed with that assessment. Now that terrorism had been identified it became necessary to investigate the terrorists and all of their connections to other terrorist cells in Britain (Cobain, 2010).
Again, Al-Qaeda, has openly explained their hatred for the Western world, their religions, ideologies, philosophies and political perspectives. It is no doubt they were feeling quite validated and powerful after the successful attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. in 2001. There had never been such an attack on American soil. It shocked Americans and showed to the whole world, that even the most powerful nations are not immune to terrorism. That being said, as a representative of Western civilization, Britain is the parent nation to the United States and a long ally, it is only logical that they may attempt to commit terror in the U.K. Like 9/11, London’s 7/7 was another example at just how much a threat of this kind of terror organization can pose in any nation throughout the world (CNN News, 2016). It leads to many nations becoming more critical of potential terrorism and eager to prevent what has happened in the past from happening again.
The years of different terrorist attacks have had a huge impact Britain and on the international world, the London bombings in 2005 are a contributor to that. When the bombings occurred on July 7, once it was identified as a bombing incident, the Metronet Company and the bus system were shut down (CNN News, 2013).
Police: The first responders were the British Transport Police. Again, it was not certain what had happened when they arrived. When they did assess the situation communicating with other first responders proved problematic. The radio systems used by police did not function underground (Casciani, 2011).
London Ambulance: Of the 200 ambulances available, only half were dispatched to the different scenes. There were delays in getting to certain scenes as well and more healthcare professionals had to be called in even if they had no formal triage training in the field (Casciani, 2011).
London Fire Departments: Multiple fire crews were sent to the different areas of devastation, but many would not enter the underground tunnels because they worried about a possible secondary explosion, a risk of biological or chemical contamination, fear that the underground track may still have electricity running to it and were unwilling to enter until back-up crews arrived (Casciani, 2011).
Other nations, particularly the United States, was quick to show their support for Britain, but also used the opportunity to once again point out to Britain, other international countries, and the United Nations that terrorism of this kind is coming from one enemy and that is Al-Qaeda, and its affiliated groups. They are a global threat that is in need of addressing. At this point Al-Qaeda had to have known that these attacks would result in their targets enlisting stricter policies and more proactive investigations into their terrorist activity. All the same it did not seem to deter them because while the investigation was still being conducted, two weeks later, four more bombs were delivered, but did not cause further loss of life (Cobain, 2010). These kind of extremist organizations are persistent and dedicated, efforts to combat them will need to be equally as aggressive. The investigation that followed proved that these men were living in Britain and did not come from another nation; they were recruited domestically. Investigators found several more bombs in the trunk of the rental car the men had been driving and were later able to link the attacks directly to Al-Qaeda, along with access to the materials needed to construct their bombs (CNN News, 2016).
PAST RESPONSES & ALTERNATIVE
The bombings of 2005 brought a great deal of change to many British policies and inspired more attention to the need for more sophisticated and effective counterterrorism measures. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave a statement that the rules of terrorism in Britain would change after the 2005 bombings. There were 12 new measures that were aimed at improving counterterrorism measures and granting more power to MI5 and MI6, two branches of British military intelligence, and other government agencies. The bulk of these policies were similar in nature to the USA PATRIOT Act in the United States, allowing the British government to aggressively pursue potential terrorists and terrorist groups by monitoring the activity of these suspects with less concerns of privacy. The most controversial of these new policies was the Terrorism Act of 2006, which allowed terrorism suspects to be held by law enforcement for a month while the investigation continues. The act also allowed the Bank of England to freeze these suspects’ bank accounts (Cobain, 2010). The idea was that the best way to stop terrorist attacks on British soil was to seek them out before they have a chance to cause any more damage or loss of life.
There are many that argue that the response of the public and governmental agencies, specifically the first responders, were complete failures. That the attack was horrific enough, but how it was handled that day only made it worse. There are also many who argue that the government and policy maker’s responses in the aftermath bring a number of questions regarding their effectiveness and ethical foundations (Casciani, 2011). In reality the first responders did not perform to the standard that many might have liked.
Immediate Medical Aid: Again, ambulances that could have been utilized to reach more injured victims much more quickly were not deployed. Lowering the possibility of saving lives that need not have been lost. With more immediate medical care many of these victims might not have died (Martin & Allen, 2011).
Immobile Rescuers: There were witnesses that saw firefighters standing around outside one of the train tunnels, not actively working to save victims or put out fires; the witness saw wounded victims emerge from the tunnels under their own power while the first responders were awaiting for confirmation declaring the tunnel safe for them to enter (Casciani, 2011). This was offensive for many who argue that many of the injured did not have to die. Some of these victims waited more than hour alive, hoping for help, but were not reached in time.
Lack of Communication: The police departments were also criticized for their performance on that day. Because of the outdated radios they used, communication was nearly impossible. The police could not communicate with other first responders, responders could not receive messages from their superiors and no one was able to be where they were most needed (Strom & Eyerman, 2011).
With any action there is a reaction. The aftermath of the London bombings and the legislature that it inspired did have consequences. It became a matter of what is more important and what is worth sacrificing in exchange. After the bombings, similarly to what occurred in the United States after 9/11, an anti-Muslim sentiment began to form. People becoming suspicious of neighbors and sometimes people even acted out violently against Muslims who had committed no crimes and were in no way involved in terrorist acts of any kind. This has made many Muslims fearful. An unintended consequence of this kind of religious and ethnic intolerances has disillusioned many young Muslims and sympathizers. Organizations, like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, will use that to their advantage. They can use the negative treatment they receive from the Western world as a means to encourage them to join their terrorist efforts; this is likely what happened with the London bombers (Rodgers, Qurashi & Connor, 2015). No one intended for the combination of public behavior and governmental action to actually aid international terrorists in recruiting domestic followers, but in some cases that may have been exactly what happened.
There is no doubt that the London bombings were a learning experience for the people, agencies and the government as a whole. They needed to make changes that would streamline how such emergencies are handled. They needed to improve the communication channels that would allow all first responders to coordinate their efforts better. They needed to dedicate more time and energy to counterterrorism and be more prepared if it were to happen again. It is clear that the victims of the bombings could have been better served and might even have survived if the first responders had been more assertive and better organized (Strom & Eyerman, 2011). There are many that argue that the policies that are meant to facilitate effective counterterrorism are sometimes counterproductive. Some argue that while the government’s new counterterrorism allow the government to investigate suspects deeper, it also leads to many people being detained that were never a threat to begin with. The best decisions were made in the given circumstances with the tools and procedures common at the time (Casciani, 2011). Hindsight is often 20/20; it is easy for modern perspectives to criticize the actions of event nearly 16 years ago and find fault. At the time Britain was embracing proactive change and without enforcing more effective counterterrorism they could not have maintained their homeland security.
CURRENT APPROACHES & ALTERNATIVES
There have been a lot changes made to the issues of terrorism since 2005. A great many of these advancements are due to ever-increasing abilities of technology. Nations all across the globe, including Britain, have engaged in more and more counterterrorism via modern technology, like online environment and means of military intelligence gathering. At the same time the terrorist organizations have also becoming more and more tech savvy, forcing counterterrorism endeavors to adapt. All the same, there are many that continue to criticize the different policies and procedures that have been developed in Britain. Counterterrorism measures are very often similar to a “double-edged” sword; they have any number of pros and cons associated with them; this is true for Britain. The measures taken at the time of the bombing and after the fact did make a difference and have likely been integral in preventing more terrorist attacks since (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, 2005). Granted the policies formed were and remain controversial legislature, they have been successful to a degree. They may have discouraged some plots, interceded some and thwarted others that could have been threatening or harmful to average citizens. Of course, it does raise some ethical red flags as far as focusing on an entire religious or racial group because of the action of smaller percentage; the percentage that makes up the extremist, jihadist ideology. Britain has avoided more major terrorist violence since 2005, other nations, including the United States, have not been so lucky; the San Bernardino shootings, the Boston Marathon Bombing and Pulse nightclub massacre in Florida. Most recently, in 2016, a plot in the UK was “intercepted” and prevented hours before it was meant to happen. So, clearly, the efforts being undertaken in Britain may not be ideal, but they appear to have been effective (Cobain, 2010).
Again, new means to track, identify, infiltrate and eliminate terrorist will be developed all over the world. Ideally, it will eventually make even the attempt of such violent terrorist acts pointless. Until such a point, however, the best tactics are proactive. Some believe that the most proactive effort is one of force. If all of the world’s nations who have been threatened and attacked by Al-Qaeda or ISIS, were to truly come together to forcibly eliminate such terrorist organizations, the terrorist organizations would be overpowered in the end by much larger forces. However, it is not that simple. Extremist organizations are part of a religious group, they are not a country. Terrorist cells exist all across the globe, it is hard to declare war on an ideology. All the same, counterterrorism measures are still needed. This in many cases will include stricter immigration laws and in-depth background research on individuals from countries known to have terrorist cells within their borders. Realistically counterterrorism can be used to deter and prevent attacks so that such devastation and death does not occur in the first place. But, if such tragedies do occur then there are procedures and protocols that are in place to address the threat and aid the victims to avoid a high cost of life; again, this is an important lesson learned from the London Bombings in 2005 (Casciani, 2011).
CONCLUSION
Terrorism is probably one of the most frightening of events that can occur in the modern era. It causes fear and panic. It makes people suspicious of all of the places that they go, be it school, their workplace, shopping malls, amusement parks and many other places where people gather. The threat is very real and every nation needs means to secure their borders and provide safety and security for its people. Taking a firm stand on terrorism is the only way to achieve either of those goals, given the nature and level of damage and death that these terrorist operatives, cells and organizations are willing to commit. Are the solutions that were taken and the policies drafted flawless? No. Were new counterterrorism measures taken in Britain effective? Again, the answer would be yes. Terrorism is a problem for all nations and it is necessary for all nations to be aware of the threat and have proactive plans to counter those threats.
REFERENCES
Casciani. D. (2011). How well did the 7/7 emergency services respond? BBC News. 1. Retrieved
Cobain, I. (2010). London bombings: The day the anti-terrorism rules change. The Guardian. 1.
Retrieved January 4, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jul/07/london-bombings-anti-terrorism
Ismayilov, M. (2010). Conceptualizing terrorist violence and suicide bombing. Journal of
Strategic Security. 3(3). 15-29
Martin, A. and Allen, V. (2011). They were never given a chance: Fury of the 7/7 families whose
stricken loved ones fought for their lives. The Daily Mail. 1. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384179/7-7-inquest-verdict-Emergency-services-mistakes-52-victims-died.html
Rodgers, L. Qurashi, S. and Connor, S. (2015). 7 july london bobmings: What happened that
day? 1. The BBC. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33253598
Strom, K.J. and Eyerman, J. (2011). Interagency coordination: Lessons learned from the 2005
london train bombings. The NIJ Journal. 261. 28-33.
Anti-Defamation League. (2013). Terrorism: Al-Qaeda. ADL. 1. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from
http://archive.adl.org/terrorism/profiles/al_qaeda.html#.WG2RFlzV_IV
CNN News. (2016). July 7 2005 london bombings fast facts. CNN News. 1. Retrieved January 4,
2017, fromhttp://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/world/europe/july-7-2005-london-bombings-fast-facts/
Constitutional Rights Foundation. (2017). Islamist terrorism from 1945 to the rise of isis.
Constitutional Rights Foundation. 1. Retrieved January 4, 2017, fromhttp://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/islamist-terrorism-from-1945-to-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden.html
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. (2005). The impact of 7 july london
bomb attacks on muslim communities in the EU. European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. 1-56.
