Early in the afternoon of June 26, news broke that British holidaymakers had been executed in a shooting incident in Sousse, a Tunisian seaside holiday resort frequented by Western tourists.

A young student without known links to extremism was identified as the culprit in what UK Home Secretary Teresa May rightly called “a despicable act of cruelty,” the second this year.

Only a few months ago, over a dozen Western tourists were killed in a similar attack in the capital, Tunis.

Each such attack triggers shock, followed by angry reactions and then searching questions.

I decided to listen carefully to what members of the British public were going to say in reaction. Over the next few days I looked through newspapers, tabloids and broadsheets, and listened to local radio stations, mainly “talk radio.”

There was much debate about what pushes people like young Rezgui to commit such outrages. The range of views and answers was fascinating and revealing.

Some held that poverty, deprivation and lack of prospects in Muslim countries are at the root of the alienation that drives young Muslims to violent extremism. Others pointed at lack of democracy and freedom of expression.

Others, somewhat parroting the views of some of their politicians, argued that jihadists are “twisted” and that “they hate our values and way of life.” One person went a little farther than the rest, asserting that anti-Western violence is evidence that “these people have no humanity in them; they are criminals.”

Such reasoning is very seductive. Except it does not recognise that some jihadists are well educated, with good career prospects, and that others leave well-ordered lives behind to go on jihad. As for lack of democracy, there were no active jihadists in such dictatorships as Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, and Libya before “democracy” came knocking.

Some relevant questions simply went unasked. If alienation plays an important role in this, who or what are would-be jihadists alienated from? If they are angry, what are they angry about, and why are they driven to attack Westerners or Western interests? Who or what are they not prepared to tolerate?

Are they merely criminals? Even suicide bombers who are prepared to die alongside those they seek to kill? These questions are especially important for societies being targeted and those from which young Muslims are departing in growing numbers to go and join jihadist groups.

Suggestions about what should be done in response to jihadist violence were also revealing. A popular “solution” was “Let’s go in there and bomb them.”

Members of the public were not alone in this. Even Prime Minister David Cameron, in a statement to parliament, hinted at the possibility of doing just that.

He promised a “full spectrum” response that would entail confronting Isis, the supposed masterminds, “with everything we have.” Although he did not promise war, he hinted at its possibility, a step reportedly favoured and long advocated by some high-ups in UK military circles.

The idea is that the radicalism behind acts such as the shootings in Sousse must be “tackled at source.” There is nothing new in that. According to reports, over the past year the UK and the US have carried out 9,000 air strikes against Isis. While the bombs have failed to stem the tide of jihadism, they have killed people, driving many survivors into the arms of jihadist groups.

Those who criticise aerial bombardment as ineffective suggest putting boots on the ground. But where is the ground? In Tunisia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq?

Others are now suggesting keeping Muslim immigrants out of the West. “We’ve got thousands of potential terrorists already living here,” they assert.

But it is not only individuals becoming jihadists or acquiring pro-jihadist sympathies. A prominent politician pointed to something bigger when he said that “too few” Arab countries are “pulling their weight” in the West’s fight against terrorism, while others are facilitating the spread of fundamentalism.

Meanwhile, on the UK home front, some non-Muslims are looking at their Muslim compatriots with suspicion. Increasingly, Muslims are being urged to “come out” and condemn acts of terrorism. Apparently they are not doing it enough, while some are allegedly condoning extremist ideology.

One commentator pointed out: “Our response domestically has been inadequate. We have been pussyfooting around the issue for fear of offending Muslims… If we fear to offend some people we shall not manage the problem.”

The idea is to entrust the task of preventing the radicalisation of young British Muslims to the Muslim community. Meanwhile the government is “testing and refining” internal readiness for terrorist attacks — which, the security services maintain, cannot be ruled out.

There is something odd about all this. If the discourse in the UK reflects a general trend, Western societies and their governments are hiding their collective heads in the sand.

There is, of course, no single factor behind the rise of jihadist violence. However, when they look for only external causes, the Western world is avoiding a question they must confront: What connection jihadism may have with how they relate with other countries and cultures.

Frederick Golooba-Mutebi is a Kampala- and Kigali-based researcher and writer on politics and public affairs. E-mail: [email protected]