Exeposé Online

Making the headlines since 1987

Terrorism

Rhetoric: Terrorism

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me”; we’ve all heard the familiar nursery rhyme designed to cheer up child victims of verbal bullying by reminding them that at least they weren’t battered with rocks. In fact, many people would agree that physical actions have more severe consequences than words, which are seen as abstract and immaterial in nature.

Words, as building blocks of our communication, often have immense powers to construct our perceived reality

To believe this however, is to naively assume words are merely descriptive. Words, as building blocks of our communication, often have immense powers to construct our perceived reality, influence our actions, and even create identity categories.

Let us analyse a significant word in our vocabulary today. ‘Terrorism’ is a poorly defined term, to say the least; as a matter of fact there is no standard, agreed-upon definition for what constitutes a terrorist attack. It has its roots in the French Revolution where people used it to describe violence carried out with the purpose of gaining or holding political power. During colonial times it resurfaced when colonial leaders branded anti-imperialist movements as terrorist groups. Google the word terrorism and you will notice it has never been more ubiquitous than it is today. Yet its meaning is so fuzzy that even federal governments or the UN have been unable to agree on anything except that it vaguely involves intimidating acts of violence for a political purpose.

there is no standard, agreed-upon definition for what constitutes a terrorist attack

Due to its imprecise nature many, including Barack Obama and Tarik Kafala (head of BBC Arabic), avoid using the word “terrorism” especially in conjunction with “Islamic”. Even BBC’s editorial guidelines suggest the word “terrorist” be used with caution, that it can be “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”, and recommend more precise language such as “gunman”, “attacker”, or “insurgent”. People holding such a conviction open themselves up to criticism, demands that they use the word, and insinuations that they are siding with the perpetrators. This provides us with the crux of the term “terrorism”; it triggers an emotional reaction and, as such, its meaning is dependent on the emotional response we ascribe. This is why attacks in Europe are labeled as terrorist bombings whilst those in the Middle East are insurgent killings. It goes beyond our need to describe incidents; after all, everyone understands murder or shootings, but using emotionally loaded terms helps create a hierarchy of suffering, murder that is worse than other murders.

The word “terrorist/m” is a label employed with the clear intention to characterize and achieve something, but what? Here is where we get theoretical, specifically Foucauldian. Power relations are shaped through discourses, and dominant discourses like terrorism cause public debate to be conducted with the language, ideas and terms belonging to it. In simpler terms, it is very hard to escape it and produce alternative ideas. Hegemonic actors such as politicians and the media influence collective consciousness, so attention should be paid when they stress loss, anger, outrage and vengeance in their responses.

Power relations are shaped through discourses, and dominant discourses like terrorism cause public debate to be conducted

The politically biased discourse took front stage after the Bush administration’s response to 9/11. The reaction was one of labels (think “War on Terror”), international condemnation (Iran, North Korea, Iraq part of “axis of evil”), and calls to arms in the name of protecting ‘democratic values’. Taking a look at the US State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organisations illustrates the political motivations behind it all – countless Palestinian groups are present, yet not a single Israeli group (of which there are plenty) has been included. Also, we should consider how certain attacks that fit the usual criteria for a terrorist attack, but are not labelled as such; for example the 2015 mass shooting carried out in an African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Carolina by Dylann Roof, whose express purpose was to start a ‘race war’.

This creates a unique kind of reality that DEMONISED entire nations and ethnic groups

This creates a unique kind of reality that demonised entire nations and ethnic groups, whilst also allowing governments to push for exceptional measures. Inciting fear in the hearts of the masses allows for justifying breaches of privacy, indefensible military invasions, wars, illegal imprisonment, torture, and a whole slew of actions we would otherwise consider as breaching our values. Additionally, this leads to real-life discrimination of ethnic minorities; spikes in hate crimes have been shown after polarizing news coverage on topics like terror attacks, Brexit, the refugee crisis, or the 2016 US election.

Such emotionally inflammatory environments are not coincidental; they are the logical result of rhetoric that insinuates Muslims are inherently violent and pits the ‘West’ against ‘Islam’, ‘us’ against ‘them’. As New Republic published after 9/11, “Anybody who hates modernity hates America. Anybody who hates freedom hates America”. Simplistic thinking of this nature not only leads to animosity but is a convenient scapegoat that politicians, the media, and the public employ to avoid self-reflection.

the language used implies that the ‘West’ is an innocent entity minding its own business

The language used implies that the ‘West’ is an innocent entity minding its own business instead of a hegemony constantly embroiled in international violence, taking advantage of religious/ethnic ignorance and hostility to further its own material or political interests. Therefore, we need to break down these discourses and get past the smokescreen preventing us from facing reality. On a similar note, reducing groups like ISIS to irrational terrorists, prevents us from understanding how they operate, what their goals/motivations are and, ultimately, how to defeat them.

Sadly it seems that we are a long way away from disposing of “terrorism”, a loaded term that has been weaponised for politically biased ends. According to the Independent, some schools in London are conducting classes teaching students what to do in the event of “Islamist terror plots”; such schemes are reminiscent of Cold War era fear tactics. Continuing demonisation of refugees through insinuations that they could be terrorists infiltrating our countries, and white supremacist movements across the US and Europe paint a disappointing picture of our near future. A key feature of poisonous discourses is that they trap you into continuing to use their language; in the words of Audre Lorde, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. So let us move on and try something different, because what we’ve been doing so far isn’t working.

Why the threat of terror will never go away

Ayoub El Khazzani, David Ali Sonboly, Riaz Khan Ahmadzai, Medhi Nemmouche, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel. The connection between these jihadists – who waged terror and destruction this summer – becomes vague as we dismiss the tenuous claims from ISIS that they, in fact, were part of a coherent network loyal to the caliphate. No, instead these attackers were isolationists in the purest sense: disillusioned, bitter young men metamorphosed into ‘lone wolves’.

Not that the aforementioned attackers wanted to escape their isolation, or indeed, were deeply interested in the religious doctrine of the Caliphate in the first place. They wished to stew in personal bitterness, and contemplated the rudimentary methods that could be employed to murder as many innocents as possible. Axe or truck; Kalashnikov or machete. It does not matter in the blood-red haze of a massacre, and so long as they remained an instrument of violence, their inner psychology was of no concern to the broader aims of Islamic extremism.

Yet it is the concern of security forces across Europe, whose promise of protection rests on their ability to anticipate the moves of terror suspects – and neutralise the threat. This summer has shown that they have floundered, and the application of terror is radically changing before our very eyes; an adaptation that produces a more fluid brand of violence and a practical step by the modern terrorist to avoid wider detection.

Axe or truck; Kalashnikov or machete. It does not matter in the blood-red haze of a massacre

The sheer unprecedented volume and randomness of attacks has made the job of the security forces fiendishly difficult, and trying to contain these unpredictable actors mirrors the comments made by a senior security chief, who said, in no exaggerated terms, that it was “like shaking a bag full of fleas”.

One defence and security commentator adds: “[this] mode of terror is unlike what we have seen with Al Qaeda and other Islamist organizations. With Al Qaeda, the focus was very much on carefully plotted, almost surgical operations that identified a target and went for them. [Daesh] in comparison, has really stamped its hallmark on the ‘lone wolf model’. But sometimes these are individuals who are acting out of personal animus or even madness”.

In the case of Bouhlel, this meant ploughing a truck through bystanders down the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, abruptly ending the enjoyment of Bastille day fanfares and fireworks by injuring hundreds and killing 84. Their “bodies flying like bowling pins along its route”. We must recognise that the use of a 19-tonne truck as a terrorist weapon is atypical; the fact that he presented a mentally deranged figure is not.

Clichéd interviews with shocked neighbours can only reveal so much, other than Bouhlel was “quiet and moody”, and seemingly “more into women than religion”. But as with the other extremists, this premeditated attack was thought up weeks before Bouhlel actually declared his allegiance to Isis. The nature of the anger was deeply personal, rather than one shared with his Islamist brothers towards the West. Such is this new wave of terror that sweeps Europe and beyond. Rather than operating as an organized sect, the ‘lone wolf’ – now recurrent in the security studies lexicon – preys upon panicked nations experiencing as many attacks in a month than they had seen for years.

But before we look back to the more infrequent terrorist attacks of yesteryear with a perverted rose-tinted view, another caveat is that the deranged and random nature of these perpetrators make them far more dangerous terrorist actors than we have ever witnessed. In light of this, we may even absolve the shortcomings of our security forces; for politicians, however, they become the necessary scapegoat. Months ago, the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls positioned himself as the most hawkish European politician following the shootings in the Bataclan, and across the city of Paris. Now after Nice, the defiant figure still faces boos and calls to resign.

Disunity and xenophobic fervour cannot solve the biggest security threat Europe has witnessed this century

Nations traversing the second stage of grief: anger, need to express this emotion towards proximate individuals. Yet this can only offer temporary respite before the inevitable pivot towards blaming European migration policies, forcing Syrian refugees residing in communities still reeling from extremist violence to fear themselves. The mounting instances of tragedy can only play into the narrative of the Front Nationale, Alternative für Deutschland and other such detritus.

Disunity and xenophobic fervour cannot solve the biggest security threat Europe has witnessed this century. France has been the western nation where most blood has been shed in the struggle against ISIS, and despite calls of ‘aux armes, citoyens’, Salafi extremism continues to spill into Germany, with alienated refugees succumbing to the extremist teachings of Islam, as attacks in Munich and Würzburg have demonstrated.

For intelligence and security services, there should now be no hesitation to connect petty crimes and mental instability to the potential for the individual in question to incite terror. The recognition that the terrorism of the present and future is determined more by ‘personal animus’ than religious fundamentalism is inescapable.

The recent efforts to recapture Mosul are encouraging; but destroying mere physical bastions of extremism is not enough to eliminate the threat of terror towards the free peoples of our world. Everyday moments and routines will be corrupted by such awful crimes, and in lieu of meaningful action by security forces, chance and the bravery of bystanders may be the only hope against such ferocity; the only thing that stands between peace and the sounding of the death-knell.

When beer gets political – a look at Oktoberfest

Binge drinking is a concept commonly frowned upon amidst civilised societies and yet for two weeks from September through to October (17 September to 3 October) an internationally-lauded event disregards these social rules and somehow avoids being negatively connoted. Oktoberfest is viewed internationally as a stereotypical German experience, attracting crowds upwards of six million to Munich, a city of an estimated 1.4 million, for the purpose of sampling beer from the top six Munich brewers.

However, following a summer plagued by numerous terror attacks spread across Europe, an occurrence unfathomable to European citizens, a striking new reality has begun to set in, that events such as Oktoberfest can no longer be so ‘open’ in terms of drinking. The exponential rise in security at events such as Oktoberfest illustrates a harrowing picture of the current situation in Central Europe. It also begs the question as to whether or not, by adjusting our daily behaviour or even centuries-old traditions, we are losing the second War on Terror.

the German government, in preparation for this year’s celebration, spent an estimated 2.8 million euros on security alone.

Having spoken to various locals, for whom it is commonplace to visit Oktoberfest annually, they attest to seeing a larger physical security presence. Furthermore, for the first time, partitions have been erected surrounding the grounds. “The council of Munich decided to build a fence around the Oktoberfest to have a certain amount of entrances to make it easier to control the masses of people visiting the festival,” Fabrizio, age 20, told me. Additionally, “For the first time ever bags are not allowed.”

Perhaps one of the major changes to security has been the physical controlling of the masses. Whereas in the past patrons were allowed to come and go freely, now they are being herded into various entrances and then subjected to bag checks.

Fabrizio noted that: “The tube station Theresienwiese is the closest stop to the Oktoberfest but since they built a fence you cannot access the festival directly from that specific stop. A lot of people visiting the Oktoberfest this year have started using other tube stations like Poccistrasse and Goetheplatz, which are further away but it’s easier to get to one of the main entrances of the festival.”

Image: Pixabay.com
Image: Pixabay.com

These stark observations are not merely hearsay as the German government, in preparation for this year’s celebration, spent an estimated 2.8 million euros on security alone. Of this 2.8 million, 2.2 million was dedicated to hiring additional security guards. However, security at Oktoberfest has always been a priority, not just because of the issue of overcrowding. The Bavarian festival experienced its own terror attack in 1980 when a radical extremist set off a bomb, killing 13 people including himself and injuring countless more.

Additionally, last summer the Wall Street Journal reported on the difficulties facing Germany with regards to housing so many refugees in conjunction with the influx of tourists for the festival. This year the issues have shifted and rather than the placement of refugees it is German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ‘open-door policy’ towards Syrian refugees which many are taking issue with. These tensions came to a climax this past June as thousands of Germans protested outside the German Bundestag (national parliament) demanding a change to the current immigration policies.

Furthermore, when alcohol is involved, it creates a factor of unpredictability, which to an extent justifies the heightened security. German drinking culture has been marginalised in the press when compared to the United Kingdom, despite Germany ranking fifth on the World Health Organization’s Alcohol Consumption in the EU. Drinking at Oktoberfest is not limited by time constraints and one is expected to drink their first ‘Maß’ (equivalent of 1 litre) when the tent doors open, which on weekends is around 9am. However there are succinct distinctions between these two cultures with regards to drinking culture, which play a crucial role in the way security has been approached.

Social anthropologist Kate Fox says: “The British . . . believe that alcohol . . . makes people amorous or aggressive. . . .”, effectively imbuing them with a false sense of confidence. Juxtaposed with Germany, despite their heavy drinking culture, it is not connoted with being ‘drunk’ necessarily but rather is a function of social interaction. As such, Oktoberfest would not be classified as rowdy, and despite the many people, fights and violence among festivalgoers are a rare occasion, making terrorist threats the priority for a heightened security presence.

Now that the third and final weekend of Oktoberfest has passed, we have a more complete picture of how it has been impacted by the political climate. Historically, the first weekend of Oktoberfest welcomes about one million people; this year there was a drastic fall as a mere 500,000 showed up. This means that attendance fell by 50 per cent. Local Oktoberfest-goers have noted this sharp fall in attendance.

“A lot of ‘Münchner’ have decided to stay home this year,” Fabrizio told me. “The hype around the Oktoberfest hasn’t been as powerful as in the past couple of years. Instead of celebrating in the streets, dressing up and drinking beer you can notice that a lot of people are just scared of attacks and prefer to stay home.”

Evidently, the current political climate did little to hinder those who wanted a beer or two.

However with regards to the impact this lower turnout has had on drinking, despite the lower turnout, according to the festival hosts nine oxen were consumed during the opening weekend, compared to the 10 oxen which opened up the 2015 opening weekend. Evidently, the current political climate did little to hinder those who wanted a beer or two. When asked whether the current political climate, throughout Europe, had impacted his own drinking at an event such as Oktoberfest? One festivalgoer, 19-year-old Alex, felt the current situation did nothing to deter from his good time at the event, going so far as to say: “This year I went to the Oktoberfest more often that last year.”

The culmination of these events and conflicting issues illustrate a desolate picture of the state of Europe where terror is perhaps reigning.The political climate has undoubtedly impacted daily life and further influences established traditions. This begs the question: to what end? Merkel made the argument for keeping an ‘open-door’ immigration policy to not punish the majority for the actions of few. However, with increased security, how can we actively push for further integration and therefore blur the lines between us and those few, making waves towards a more peaceful Europe?

What should we make of the terror attacks on Brussels and Lahore?

The Easter week represents the most important period in the Christian calendar, and is seen as a time of peace and hope. Perhaps this fact contributed to the timing of the shocking terrorist attacks which rocked Brussels and Lahore last week; it certainly seems to have been a factor in the latter, in which the Pakistani Taliban targeted the city’s Christian community. Sometimes, when a series of terrorist incidents take place in quick succession, it can seem to the innocent onlooker that they might form part of a terrifying global plot; this makes each individual attack seem more significant and ominous. The public are left wondering where the next target will be, and when it will be hit. Aside from their timing, however, and the claims of their perpetrators to represent Islam, there seems to be little to link these two atrocities.

Early on the morning of Tuesday 22 March, two bombs were set off in the Belgian capital’s Zaventem Airport, killing 17 bystanders and injuring many more before staff were able to carry out an evacuation. Then, while Belgian emergency services were still dealing with the fallout, news broke that a third bomb had been detonated at the Maelbeek metro station, clearly targeting those on their way to work. This attack brought the number of deceased victims to a total of 32, and left the city’s transport network in lock-down while rescue workers and police investigators set to work.

An image taken from a rally of people following the attacks in Brussels. Image: Miguel Discart / Flickr.com

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the Brussels attacks from an analytical point of view is that they took place despite the fact that the city was already subject to the second highest level of security alert possible. Commentators were quick to observe that just four days before, the Belgian police had finally succeeded in arresting Saleh Abdesslam, a key suspect in the investigation into the attacks unleashed by supporters of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (aka ISIS or Daesh) in Paris last November. Perhaps the police in Brussels let their guard down following his capture; maybe key information about Abdesslam’s associates was missed, or not understood properly. The BBC’s security correspondent, Frank Gardner, observed on Radio 4’s Today Programme that morning that there are serious short comings in the intelligence sharing procedures used by Belgian police and security services. Both the Paris and Brussels attacks have also highlighted the problem of radicalisation within certain Belgian communities; the connections between the perpetrators of each suggests that the problem is more serious than a few angry loners chancing their luck.

On Easter Sunday, just three days after the attacks on the airport and metro station in Brussels, at least 75 people were killed at a public park in the Pakistani city of Lahore. While the Brussels blasts were a broad based attack on the Belgian public, this bombing, which was quickly claimed by the Pakistani Taliban, was specifically aimed at the country’s Christian minority, who represent about 2 per cent of Pakistan’s population.

Stock image. Image: Pixabay.com

The Taliban has carried out attacks on this community before, most recently in March 2015, which suggests a deliberate decision to target Christians during the Easter period. Despite the group’s minority status, the whole of Pakistan has been shocked and appalled by the incident March 27, which killed an estimated 24 children who had been visiting the park with their families. So far, Lahore police have arrested 17 people in connection with the bombing, and it would seem that the country’s authorities are trying to respond to the Christian community’s fears seriously. Lahore’s leading cleric, Bishop Irfan Jamil, has come out in praise of the government’s efforts against the Taliban, but priests working in closer contact with affected neighbourhoods have been more critical.

BOTH THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO REMAIN CALM, AND SHOW DIGNIFIED SOLIDARITY WITH THE VICTIMS

Both awful stories, especially at a time when Exeter students are enjoying a holiday with friends and family. Hopefully these dreadful attacks will inspire serious reforms and improvements to the Belgian and Pakistani security services’ ability to protect citizens from terrorism. However, they already seem to be having other, less positive, repercussions on international politics. Not an hour after the news of the Brussels bombings reached the UK, people were taking advantage of Belgium’s grief in the debate on Britain’s EU membership. Distasteful though this may be, there is no denying that Britain’s security is closely linked to that of our neighbours on the continent.

Meanwhile, although Lahore is much further away than Belgium, we should not assume that terrorism there doesn’t affect the UK, not least because our Pakistani community is such an important part of modern Britain. The UK is actually in a good position to help both our allies overcome their security issues, by providing advice and sharing intelligence. As in the aftermath of any terrorist attack, both the public and governments have a responsibility to remain calm, and show dignified solidarity with victims.

The Foreign Perspective: the issue of citizenship

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks in November last year the French President, Francois Hollande, saw his chance to unite the French people against a common enemy. He announced his decision to join the coalition bombing campaign against ISIS and introduced a policy change regarding French citizenship, stating on November 16th, “We must be able to revoke the French citizenship of a person convicted for threatening the nation’s interests or for terrorist attacks.”

Whilst on the face of it this seems to be applicable to all French citizens, Hollande’s reform only applies to dual nationality citizens and involves revoking the citizenship of an individual carrying both a French passport and another nation’s, as opposed to stripping a French-born citizen of his citizenship.

President Francois Hollande, Image: Wikimedia.org

The proposed reform gained immediate traction amongst the French public and in an opinion poll it was estimated that 80-85% of France supported Hollande’s new policy. However, as time has gone on and France has slowly come to terms with the Paris attacks, Hollande has had to face up to criticisms of his new reforms.

Many see the proposals as fundamentally against France’s moto of ‘Liberté, fraternité et égalité.’ It deliberately discriminates against those who possess dual citizenship (approximately 3 million in France), and calls into question France’s ability to support immigrants’ integration into society. The country is notorious for its failure to integrate either 1st or 2nd generation immigrants into society, and Hollande’s citizenship policy will further emphasise immigrants’ feelings of being different and stigmatised by society. In addition, it will serve to increase their distrust in the principles of ‘Liberté, fraternité et égalité’ – words which will be considered to be exceptionally hollow if the reform passes.

As well as criticisms of Hollande’s betrayal of Republican values, many politicians have expressed their horror at the Government’s decision to swing dangerously to the right – beating a drum which has been championed by Marine Le Pen and the National Front for some time.

it will serve to increase their distrust in the principles of ‘Liberté, fraternité et égalité’

For years Le Front National has promoted this policy. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father and founder of the extreme right wing party, supported the idea of removing people’s nationalities and finally saw it tabled and suggested by Sarkozy in 2010. However, it is this recent proposal by Hollande which has worried people most and is viewed as the most extreme. Former minister Cecile Duflot has said that the reform is an “ideological gift to the National Front.” Hollande is drawing into the mainstream an idea which should remain on the banks of the political spectrum, as it is akin to legitimising the institutionalised racism implicit in Le Front National’s policies.

Front Nationale Leader Marine Le Pen, Image: Wikimedia.org

While some point to Hollande’s decision to appeal to right wing voters as the main criticism, it is important to consider whether a policy of stripping dual nationals of their French citizenship is even a solution to preventing terrorism. In seems to me to represent France’s unwillingness to take responsibility and it’s populist naivety in thinking that stripping someone’s nationality is an effective means to limit terrorism.

No terrorist is going to have his or her ideology determined by whether they will still be able to claim French nationality after the event, a sentiment echoed by Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, “stripping someone’s nationality is not a weapon against terrorism.” It seems to me that the reform is a knee jerk reaction to try and gain public support in a time when the French public are impressionable and vulnerable.

the reform is a knee jerk reaction to try and gain public support

Not only will the reform not prevent terrorism, but it does not deal with the question of what to do with jihadists who are native Frenchmen. How is it possible to strip a jihadist of their nationality when they have two nationalities but not when they only claim French nationality? It creates a dangerous double standard which legitimises discrimination and categorically denies French citizens the chance of égalité.

However, the issue of responsibility is most concerning. By acting in this way France has demonstrated a failure of collective responsibility for Europe as a whole and has looked only at immediate self-preservation. This sort of isolationist attitude is not feasible or desirable in the 21st Century and France a key member of the EU and with responsibilities under the Schengen agreement. By stripping an individual of their French citizenship merely passes the responsibility to another country which adds further strain between European countries at a time where diplomacy and goodwill are essential.

While one can understand Francois Hollande’s desire to present France as a strong and united country in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, in my opinion his proposed reform is a dangerous precedent for one of Europe’s leading countries to be setting. Integration and unity is what is needed, not discrimination and isolation.

Islam does not foster terrorism, but thinking otherwise has the potential to

The dominant topic on the minds of many over the week needs little introduction. On the whole, people have shown admirable gestures of peace and support in times of destruction, hatred and violence – but the integrity of these gestures is short lived in some, with some people discrediting the feelings of solidarity by closemindedly evaluating the causes of last weekend’s attacks and others like it, in a way that doesn’t bode well for the success of counter-terrorism.

Reactions to events such as the Friday 13th attacks in Paris have mainly been ones of peaceful solidarity. Image: Wikimedia.org

As the public becomes more familiar to frequent terrorist attacks, there are signs that it is becoming gradually less socially acceptable to blame Islam. A step in the right direction, yes – but it only amounts to a step up the ladder of scapegoating, with many people still referring to the issue less specifically as a religious phenomenon. People spouting edicts against the religious world are misplacing their skills of analysis. Ask them if they have heard of groups like the Baader Meinhof Gang, the SPK, Combat 18, the Weathermen and the Aum Shinrikyo, and they will most likely say no.

Anyone familiar with these groups is likely to concede that horrific terrorism is not constrained by the precepts of religious dogma by itself. Nationalism, Separatism and socialism are examples of political ideologies and movements that fuelled the terrorism of the 18th, 19th, 20th and still the 21st century, yet many claim that the issue is still a religious issue. The lack of a common denominator amongst all acts of terrorism other than the species of those committing them goes to some depth in displaying its intrinsically political nature. Despite being a common facilitator, religion is not an essential feature of terrorism, in so far that it is not inevitable that a religious community will exhibit the fanaticism associated with terror, despite what Fox news, the Daily Mail and Britain First to name a few will tell you.

religion is not an essential feature of terrorism

It is the situation of events that determine what will be used to rally interest and participation in a cause, and it so happens to be that the ever worsening crisis in the Middle-East has led to the use of a geographically present Abrahamic religion, which has remained beyond peaceful and on many occasions historically and socially essential in the past, being used to justify and manifest support for political violence as a means of gaining concessions from an uncompromising and globalising political system ultimately upheld by our social values. It is no accident that people are so quick to attribute the problem of terrorism to the terrorist’s supposed irrationality, mental state and their religion, as this is what they ultimately want.

Though we have developed a lot since the times of rigid culturally homogeneity, the same principles of prejudice dictate much of our perception. We confuse commonality with causality, and enact insufficient norms that only serve to worsen the problem further. The fact that the majority of large terrorist attacks picked up by the media in the past decade or so have been committed by Islamic groups is by no means evidence that Islam is inherently violent, or that terrorism is an intrinsic feature of Muslim practice.

Nevertheless, huge amounts of people act within their prescribed cognitive formats, and exert a lot of energy convincing themselves and those around them that we are in a clash of civilisations. The problem of terrorism is far more complicated and troubling than a lot of people would like to understand. The power of a terrorist’s cause does not dissolve once they are killed or when they are denied access to a country, and it would appear that most if not all western foreign policy has completely overlooked this fact.

Rhetoric from parties such as the Front Nationale will simply feed the extremist ideology. Image: Wikimedia.org

Basic short-sighted and populist rhetoric calling for closed borders and forced religious moderation is exactly what modern terrorists want. Their political, not primarily religious opposition to the entire notion of liberal globalisation, a movement which since its conception has subjugated and disenfranchised many of the nations from which our terrorist ‘enemies’ come from, aims to destabilise western states from the inside and instigate the kind of social hostility that makes them vulnerable and weak. The first step of this process is made when an individual looks at the kinds of abhorrent violence they see on the news, and ascribes the violence of what they see to obvious features of the people committing them, such as their skin colour, nationality or the insignia they wear around their neck, with no regard for their goals and values.

The rest seems to come naturally, and what is in danger of occurring is the kind of social xenophobia that forces ethnic and religious minorities sharing the obvious features of the terrorists to isolate themselves. The kind if political agenda mandated by the nation’s sentiments of fear and aversion then start to be over scrupulous and cautious of such cultural and religious practices in a way that installs resentment to established government, and therefore a drive toward the kind of militant and radical thinking/behaviour that got people so scared in the first place. The west is radicalising its own citizens and making its own terrorists.

 

 

What might the attacks on Paris mean for Syria?

Amongst expressions of grief and sympathy for victims of the terror attack on Paris on the 13th of this month, talk soon turned to Syria. French President Francois Hollande called for more attacks against ISIS bases in the war-torn country almost as soon as he had left the Stade de France, and media outlets were quick to report that a Syrian passport had been found close to one of the attackers; this transpired to have been faked. Will the Paris attacks become a turning point for the country’s future, and if so, what do they mean for different groups?

The Assad Regime

Despite the violence that has all but destoryed Syria, Assad continues to cling to power. Image: Wikimedia.org

Immediately after the attacks, the Assad regime was quick to point to French government policies which may have caused them. Thus far in the conflict, Hollande’s government has called for the dictator to be toppled as part of a broader solution to the Syria crisis. Now, after two terrorist attacks on French soil in a single calendar year, Assad can reassert his claim that it is him or the jihadist abyss.

This argument has sustained many a Middle Eastern dictator over the past decades, and will no doubt have been strengthened by the idea of violence spreading beyond the region. Despite his unpopularity, Assad has hung on to a degree of power for four years, and is still seen as Syria’s official leader by important actors such as Russia and Iran. Having got away with oppression and torture for years even before the outbreak of the Civil War, he probably has few concerns about being held to account for his government’s brutality.

ISIS and other self-proclaimed “Jihadist” Groups

From a propaganda point of view, Paris will be seen as a boon to groups promoting extreme and perverted versions of “Islam”; so too will the West’s response. Increased air strikes can be portrayed to these groups’ followers as proof that their enemy is unjust and cowardly, relying on military might to bomb indiscriminately while shying away from engagement on the ground. Of course, anything Western governments do can be twisted to their ideology, so this should not be of very great consideration. In the long term, these groups’ futures may look something like the current situation of the Taliban in Afghanistan – weakened, but still able to take advantage of national instability and make minor gains. However, the fact that ISIS has constructed itself as much more international than the Taliban, with far less respect for existing nation state borders, may allow some members to hunker down outside Syria with the hope of returning at an opportune moment.

“Increased air strikes can be portrayed to these groups’ followers as proof that their enemy is unjust and cowardly”

Non-Islamist Opposition Groups to the Assad Regime

A member of the Free Syrian Army. Image: Flickr.com

Despite having initiated protests against Assad’s government in 2011, the constituency broadly described as the “moderate opposition” seem to have lost relevance in the eyes of outside observers. The fact Russia’s recently intensified bombing raids are alleged to have targeted them at least as much as ISIS suggests that certain parties would like to see them quietly erased from the story and excluded from future reconciliation efforts. However, many in this broad group have a lot of potential to participate in the rebuilding of Syrian society. Although we cannot know that the non-Islamist opposition has not committed crimes similar to those of the Assad regime and the “Jihadists”, they must be taken into account in any military and or diplomatic solution.

Kurdish Militias

In both Syria and Iraq, militias lead by members of the Kurdish ethnic minority have proved themselves formidable opponents to both Assad and Islamic extremists. They have also remained relatively inclusive despite their ethno political designation, allowing Arabs, Yazidis and foreign volunteers to fight alongside them. However, Kurdish groups remain in a rather complicated, even contradictory position with regards to the wider political situation. As a self-defined nation without an internationally recognised state, they have no formal representation in the UN or other major global organisations. It will therefore be interesting to see how they position themselves within the international struggle to end the Syrian Civil War. The outcome of this conflict will doubtless represent a turning point in Kurdish ambitions towards statehood, and therefore in the histories of the surrounding nation states.

“They have no formal representation in the UN or other major global organisations”

Syrians – those who are not actively involved in combat or political activism

You would be forgiven for supposing that no “ordinary” civilians were left in Syria – the so-called “refugee crisis” in Europe makes it seem as though anyone with no interest in fighting must have fled by now. In fact, the UNHCR estimates that 6,500,000 individuals are internally displaced, with only half able to access aid and support. The events in Paris, though dreadful, would likely pale in comparison with what some of these innocent victims of the struggle for power in Syria have witnessed. For them, those attacks just mean another bomb and another search for another temporary shelter.

Over 1,000 attend ‘Vigil for Humanity’

O

ver 1,000 students and members of the public attended a candlelit vigil to remember victims of the Paris and Beirut terror attacks yesterday evening.

The event, entitled ‘Vigil for Humanity’ and organised by Lizzie Swyer, took place on the Great Hall piazza. Nearly 2,000 people were believed to have been in attendance.

President of French Society Miriam Muncaster, Palestinian student Malaka Mohammed and several French students offered speeches and poems in both English and French on love and solidarity as part of the ceremony.

Lit candles were also placed on the ground and the crowd joined together for a minute of silence in honour of those affected, as well as a rendition of the French national anthem, ‘La Marseillaise’.

For full coverage, please see next week’s edition of Exeposé, out Monday 23 November.