The internet can amplify anguish over an atrocity, media of the past would only show tasteful mourning and tribute. Now countless viewpoints have voices thanks to the internet and immediately after an atrocity people are exposed to conspiracy theories, justifications or general imbecility. Depending on the atrocity we will either inevitably encounter conspiracy theories that it was all staged so as to take away gun stockpiles of mentally stunted far-rightists (the real victim doncha know). If an atrocity is carried out by Islamists some will present it as justifiable blowback for such mortal sins as fighting the taliban or people will respond by writing material that reaches a subatomic level of stupidity. Simon Jenkins' article on the attack falls belongs to the third category.
Jenkins is curious to know why "terrorists commit outrages like that in a Nairobi shopping mall." Jihadis have been making their motives known for years but Jenkins believes that "the answer is the west always over-reacts to big, sensational gestures of extreme violence. Had the Somalian al-Shabaab sect merely shot up a street in Mogadishu, would Cameron have rushed to Cobra? As it is, Cameron has helped send them to the top of the terrorist charts." Simon apparently believes that Cameron not al-Shabaab is at fault for condemning the massacre!
Simon says that "there is nothing anyone can do to prevent suicide bombers hitting civilian populations" which would news to the Quetta Hazaras who prevented a suicide bombing. It would also produce fits of laughter among intelligence agencies who have penetrated terrorist organizations and prevented atrocities. He believes that it could "be sensible to discourage like-minded crowds from gathering in one place, be they co-religionists or party faithful or merely the wealthy." Simon further shames himself by placing pressure on groups targeted by terrorism; its little different from saying that rape cannot be stopped so really we should just keep our females at home. By that reasoning does that Jenkins blame the victims for being there in the first place?
It seems that "the modern urban obsession with celebrity buildings and high-profile events offers too many publicity-rich targets" said Jedediah to Ezekiel after hitching up the buggy. Jenkins argues that "defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them." There is almost between that reasoning and arguing that Synagogues shouldn't be built to prevent them from being bombed. If Israel had done the same to Palestinians or if Europeans had killed the same number of Kenyans does anyone think that the guardian would respond the same? By trying to blame anyone but the actual killers Simon justifies and defends the terrorists.
Simon continues with a self evidently false comment "there is no defence against the terror weapons of guns and grenades. Nor in any society, free or repressive, is there defence against fanaticism unto death in pursuit of a cause, however madcap and hopeless." He doesn't offer any evidence at all, I'm far from a Hitchens fan but he was fully correct when he said "that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
He contradicts by arguing that "the best defence is a sense of proportion" after saying there is no defense! Simon ends by justifying Islamist "by deploying violence against a succession of Muslim states, the world's leading powers have made their business its business and invited retaliation" which is unsupported by the record of jihadi attacks, I'm curious who invited GIA terrorism in Algeria. The blowback routine is the guardian defacto response to jihadi attacks in this case even in regards to an attack on a civilian target with no connection to western foreign policy. Its easy to detect that guardian extremists aren't really trying these days; they have scripts and dogma where there was once critical thought and conscience or at least the possibility of those traits.