I just read a Herald Zimbabwe opinion piece on the recent #ParisAttacks that I feel is exceptionally untutored, unapprised, impervious and could pass up as some disastrous attempt at propaganda. Before I am attacked from all flanks I want to say unequivocally that I respect the Editorial Comment for what it is – opinion – which then does not make it immune to criticism. I openly state this because our media has a nasty culture of feeling like an authority to other people’s views and I hope this won’t be the circumstance here.
The first red flag is when the writer (in his first paragraph) uses the Bush administration as some kind equivalence to prompt his opposition to the French attacks in Syria afterwards. This is outrageously uneducated on too many turns to ignore. I presume he was referring the September 11 attacks; as an educated media practitioner, I imagine that he should have an understanding that the dynamics 14 years are ago are entirely dissimilar to what is happening in today’s terror attacks.
Secondly, a proper understanding of the terror group that is attributed to the death of over 120 innocent Frenchmen is imperative. ISIS has been described as one of the worst movements in human history – What I personally find really scary in the ISIS militants is that they carry out their onslaught seemingly without any shred of guilt or shame. The militants/Mujahideen go about their business as usual; beheading their opponents’ minutes after they fall into their captivity. And minutes later they all go and join each other in a humble prayer to god. Dr. Ashraf Ezzat
Over the last few years, this group has grown exponentially without much opposition while groups and individuals who believe that an intervention is more likely to be viewed as an interference have canvassed stalwartly for Europe to avoid engaging ISIS on the ground. Most people base that idea on undeniable fact that a direct commitment will cause more live to be lost, but with the recent attacks and evidence of the growth of militant Islamism, I couldn’t disagree more.
Dr. Theodore Karasik is the Director of Research and Consultancy at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA) in Dubai, UAE articulates, “As the American-led coalition takes shape and enacts its plan against ISIS, there is likely to be more support for the group from around the world. Either these groups or individual members will take up arms in support of their movement or commit acts of violence to show support for ISIS. The interrupted plot to behead through a “demonstration killing”[ in Australia] points to exactly what may be in store in the coming months. Nowadays, as the war on ISIS grows, all states need to be vigilant of extremist Sunni criticism and sympathy for “brothers” in the Levant specifically support from Al-Qaeda to ISIS. ISIS is and will be growing in one form or another whether we like it or not”
The point I am trying push here is that something needs to be done and that something needs to be done without reluctance. While I have reservations to the techniques and the brutal outcomes of the French airstrikes in Raqqa, I also believe that a swift riposte to those attacks is what was appropriate. It’s also significant to note that the impression behind terror attacks is to spread fear amongst citizens of a country… the more we shillyshally, the more fear and paranoia citizens will have. So if we are to sit back ‘in fear’ of causing carnage and demise then the extremists have won and by no means must that materialize.
In my view the retaliation attacks by the French serve two important purposes.
- It was a robust declaration (from one of the world strongest military forces) that the actions of terrorist cannot and must not be disregarded. If anything, they must be dealt with in a strong and unsympathetic manner. If those attacks were anything to go by, the terrorists understand now that whatever act of violence they unleash on the world, a massive backlash is waiting for them and this will make them (ISIS) think twofold about attacking civilians.
- The citizen needs to know that no matter what happens, the state will protect them. The main idea here is to spread terror; if we have a bunch of terrified citizens then ISIS has dropped the King and the chessboard is in their favor. I am totally against that. Terrorist organizations are militant and diplomatic means mean nothing to them, so they should be treated as they want to.
Referring back to the Herald Comment piece, the writer asserts that the true test of the French Admin was in how they were going to respond to that and says it is unfortunate that they retaliated in the way they did. He also goes on in a needless pity party for the people of Raqqa, saying that the Raqqa is not an ISIS camp. What then the writer here is claiming is that François Hollande just woke up and ordered the bombing of a random space in Syria because they are horrible people. Yeah right, this makes so much sense right? Not!
What we need is media that does not claim ideas for the sake of it, or opposes for the sake of opposition. What the war against terror needs are journalists who are objective enough to face the truth and the horrors of terrorism and militant Islamism which calls for nothing but destruction. Groups that use violence to articulate their ideas must never be trusted and must always be treated as murderers, period.
But there’s one thing we must all be clear about: terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate goals by some sort of illegitimate means. Whatever the murderers may be trying to achieve, creating a better world certainly isn’t one of their goals. Instead they are out to murder innocent people. – Salman Rushdie
What I agree with in the article is the fact that the root cause of terrorism is a destructive engagement that breeds feelings of disaffection. True, but in what sane world can those feeling of disaffection be used as an adequate justification for the death of 129 people? Are the attacks on Paris not a destructive engagement that breeds feelings of disaffection?
Source: www.brightonmusaidzi.com
