Guido Steinberg is an Islamic studies scholar and a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, in Berlin.

DW-WORLD.DE: Several terror attacks were prevented in Germany in 2006. Is Germany becoming a greater target for Islamist terrorism?

Guido Steinberg: German security officials are convinced that Germany is continually becoming a greater target for Islamist terrorists. And there are indeed indications that that's the case. The most important one was the failed attack on two regional trains in North Rhine-Westphalia in summer 2006. It failed because the two bombs packed in suitcases didn't detonate.

Unfortunately little more is known about the background than that two Lebanese men from Tripoli and its surrounding were responsible for the deed. Above all, it is unclear to what extent a larger terror organization was behind the two men. Without this information, it's very difficult to judge to what extent Germany is becoming a target. However, it appears we have to reckon with increased terrorist activities here.

What effects could that have on the debate over the responsibility of Muslims in Germany toward the greater society?

The news of attack plans has already had an effect on the debate about the role of Muslims here. More and more Germans view the presence of Muslims in Germany as a security risk. Thus the debate about the integration of immigrants is in danger of being laden with aspects of fighting terrorism. This could lead to a stronger polarization, which would damage the long-term aim of the integration of foreigners. In my opinion, the integration debate and the discussion about fighting terrorism should be strictly separated.

The fact that terrorist attacks were prevented in the initial planning stages is a huge success for German security officials. Can terrorism be fought with police resources alone?

The plans for an attack on an airplane were discovered in such an early stage that I believe it's not even certain the suspects were actually in the planning stage. In this respect, I'm not sure whether it actually is a case of success for security officials. However, this example shows once more that the security officials are closely monitoring at least parts of the militant scene.

On the other hand, the case of the suitcase bombers shows that attacks often can't be prevented no matter how effectively security officials work. Of course, the resources police and intelligence officials have are inadequate. Fighting terrorism is also -- if not primarily -- a political task. One must win over the sympathizers of terrorist groups through political measures. Only in such a way can one prevent terrorist groups from continually recruiting members, financing themselves and operating under the protection of their supporters.

Many experts hold the ambiguous "Jihad" responsible for terrorism. What's your assessment of Jihad as a mobilizing force?

There is no actual "Jihad" but rather various interpretations of it. Jihadists are characterized by having chosen a Jihadist concept that centers on armed battle against "non-believers." They view everyone who rejects their ideology as non-believers, whether they're Muslims, Christians or Jews. Muslims are indeed much more often their victims than non-Muslims. This ideology's ability to mobilize is very strong as has repeatedly been shown by the throngs joining Jihadist organizations in recent years, not least here in Europe. Jihadism is a greater problem today than it was in 2001.

Are the potential terrorists the usual Jihadists? How would you describe them?

There is no such thing as a generic profile of an Islamic terrorist. Students and petty criminals are among them, new immigrants and people born here in Europe. In many cases, however, a certain characteristic can be detected, namely "blocked upward mobility." Young men reach limitations at some point in their history. For example, they go to university, but still don't get the job they want. They immigrate to Europe, but are forced to make their way as petty criminals. Individual failure then frequently turns into an aggressive, radical attitude toward society. Then the young men are receptive to militant ideologies.

The dialog with Muslims is lauded by many but criticized as well. Can a competent dialog serve to prevent Islamist terrorism?

A dialog between Muslims and greater society can certainly put tensions to rest. In a process of dialog the government could make clear what it expects of Muslims. Muslims, on the other hand, could express their complaints. My opinion is that Germany can certainly take decisive steps against terrorists if it tries at the same time to take measures against the partly accurate impressions of many Muslims of being discriminated against here. To put it shortly: no tolerance in security issues, more openness in religious, cultural areas. General bans on head scarves or the ban on ritual slaughtering (of animals), for example, could be revoked to make it clear that it is not the West battling Islam, but that it is rather exclusively a fight against violent Islamists. Such measures could be agreed on in a dialog.