Category Archives: Terrorism

Terror in Paris – two responses

Over the last few days it’s been hard not to think about Paris. I heard about the attacks in Oxford, in the evening after a gala hosted by the Oxford Model United Nations conference. When the news came through that over a hundred were dead and that Paris was in lockdown, the joy slipped out of the room. As removed from the events as we were, we were horrified, lacking words for a response. That’s still the way I feel now about the actual shootings. Just like after the Peshawar school shooting, it’s impossible to understand the sheer hatred, the cult-like dedication, that can bring someone to execute 19 people at a café, or 89 people enjoying a concert. It’s so far removed from war, from politics, from a cause, that you just can’t get a grip on it, on the violence of the act.

1920px-national_gallery_london_in_french_flag_colours_after_paris_attack_282303161768129In the aftermath as well, it feels like this time is different. There’s still the expressions of solidarity and of “we are not afraid”, but they seem a little empty. This could have been absolutely any one of us. People across Europe are scared, and it’s hard to just say “that’s what the terrorists want”. Well, this time they’ve succeeded.

The reaction in France this time is not one of peaceful marches, but one of war. Hollande has declared war on Islamic State – whatever that may mean – and it is looking like it will actually make a difference to their policy. This, together with the recent bombing of the Russian Metrojet in the Sinai, may finally line up the West and Russia on the same page. Assad can wait – Islamic State must be destroyed.

And while I still fully stand behind the idea that only tolerance and inclusion can defeat the ideology of terror, the response to IS itself must be one of full on confrontation. There can be no doubt that they pose a significant and direct threat to not only the Middle East (which has been obvious for years), but to the West and to Russia. When 129 people are massacred in a European capital in the name of a self-proclaimed state, mere calls for tolerance will not suffice.

At the same time though, continuing respect for and inclusion of Muslims is incredibly important, both practically and morally. They have absolutely nothing to do with this, and any response must not be aimed at them. It is too easy to allow ourselves to be caught up in anti-Muslim sentiment, and we must make the right distinction between Muslims and the group which perverts and twists their faith. It is an organization despised by almost everyone, with nothing to offer the world but hate. Again, for them, there can be no tolerance.

Destroying Islamic State by no means easy, as I’ve pointed out many times on this blog. But the events in Paris make painfully clear how quickly the cost of letting the Syrian Civil War run on can spread across the world. There are few good answers to the situation in Iraq and Syria, but the West must truly engage in helping to bring peace to these states, not just bombing them, no matter how complex this will be. If the killings in Paris can help eventually bring an end to one of the worst wars of the 21st century, maybe some good can come out of this evil.

I might significantly revise my opinion on some of this in the coming days and weeks, but this is what I’m thinking now. Besides, it’s always useful to get ideas out of my head and on to paper.

Advertisements

Peshawar school attack

Sometimes things happen that are hard to write about. Not just because they’re so cruel, or horrific. The torture I wrote about last week was hard to stomach, but there was plenty to talk about. But sometimes it’s hard to think of something to say that will actually have meaning.

Yesterday in Peshawar in Pakistan, seven Taliban militants broke into a school run by the Pakistani army for children from 10 to 18. They went from room to room shooting students until as many as possible were dead. They chased students through the hallways, and shot bullets into children on the ground until they stopped moving. They didn’t take hostages, but instead tried to kill as many children as possible. When surrounded by the army, they either blew themselves up or fought until killed. At least 132 children were killed, and 9 teachers.

What do I say about this? I could look at who the Pakistani Taliban are, or how they justified their attack by saying that these are the children of army officers. I could talk about the fact that the attack will turn the country even more firmly against the Taliban.

But how much meaning does that have? The Pakistani Taliban’s ideology now justifies attacks designed to kill as many children as possible. They found seven men willing to slaughter children in the most up-close way possible in the name of their ideology. What can any analysis say to that? How do you respond? I have no real words. Nothing can give this meaning.