What we can learn from the tragic events in Manchester.
Understanding, carrying on the only way to make sure that terror doesn’t spread
As Britain braced for the Second World War in 1939, the government produced a motivational poster: “Keep Calm and Carry On.”
The advice could not be more apt today in the midst of a very different type of war.
Hard of course to do when there is sadness, rage and a desire to make sense of an attack on teenagers and children attending an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester on Monday night. And when there’s fear of more to come.
Yet the reality is these attacks have happened before, and will again, whether directed by Daesh, or simply “lone wolves,” motivated as much by their own demons or circumstances than any propaganda from the so-called Islamic State.
To state the obvious: Terrorist attacks are meant to terrorize and sow division. No bans, new laws or increased spending for security will ever completely halt attacks when cars or kitchen knives can be murder weapons and attackers are willing to die during their assaults.
Here is a run down of what we know so far and what can be learned from this tragedy:
Daesh, also known as ISIS, claimed responsibility for the attack on its official “channels” on Telegram, an encrypted social media app. This does not necessarily mean that anyone within the group directed the attack. The claim also had incorrect or conflicting information about where the bombing took place and how many attackers were involved. As Charlie Winter, a senior researcher at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization, cautioned on Twitter Tuesday, “#IS (Islamic State) wants us to share its claim, wants us to disseminate its images, wants us to amplify the impact of its actions.”
After the identity of the alleged bomber leaked in the U.S. media, Manchester police confirmed that Salman Abedi, 22, was suspected of being responsible for the suicide bombing. The Guardian reported that he was born in Britain to parents that had moved to the U.K. from Libya and was known to both police and security services.
The bombing reportedly occurred in a foyer, as fans began to leave, not inside the Manchester Arena as some originally reported. This is significant in terms of security, which is now under review. The New York Times interviewed a 23-year-old who attended the concert and said security was lacking. Most concerts have metal detectors and physical searches, but it is impossible to protect all areas. For instance, airports have implemented dozens of security measures since 9/11, and yet last year in both Brussels and Istanbul, attackers carried out devastating assaults.
Early reports of the improvised explosive device used in the attack suggest a level of sophistication (or certainly beyond that of using a truck). But as many security officials noted, the existence of such a bomb does not necessarily mean the attacker had training.
Why target children and teenagers? This was the understandable angst expressed on social media Tuesday. But it is not the first time terrorists have sought young victims. During the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis in North Ossetia, Russia, Chechen militants killed 330, half of whom where children. Seven years later in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik gunned down young campers at a political retreat. Groups like Daesh will counter that thousands of children have been killed in U.S. drone strikes or barrel bombs dropped by the Assad regime in Syria to try to justify their actions.
World leaders took to social media and press conferences Tuesday to express their country’s condolences for the victims, their families and Britain. On Monday, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau wrote on Twitter, “Canadians are shocked by the news of the horrific attack in Manchester tonight.” But many went further to express solidarity with Britain. While it is understandable to support an allied government, the usversus-them narrative can benefit Daesh and Al Qaeda propagandists and elevate the importance of a terrorist attack.
Late Tuesday, British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the threat level in Britain to “critical,” the highest level, for the first time in nearly a decade. The critical level indicates another attack may be imminent. An increased threat level, without specifics, does not allow individuals to better protect themselves. But it does mean there will be a visible increase in security, including armed military personnel guarding high-profile sites.
Of the many heart-wrenching videos that went viral Tuesday is one short one posted on Twitter by Ellie Cheetham. There’s a bang and then a teenage voice repeatedly asking, “What’s going on?”
Trying to understand what happened, to move on, however painfully impossible that will be for so many in Britain and beyond, is the only way to make sure a terrorist’s actions don’t spread beyond the carnage at a concert. Some actions simply will never be stopped, but reactions can be controlled.
As the Guardian highlighted in its editorial about Manchester: “It is a testament to the city that an attempt to divide a people only brought them closer together: doors were opened to strangers and meals offered to worried parents. Hotels and cabs provided services for free.”
That’s what matters. The rest is just noise. Michelle Shephard is the Toronto Star’s national security correspondent. Follow her on Twitter @shephardm