Terrorism and the Refugee Crisis

Welcome reader to my blog. I’ll try to keep this introduction short so I can talk about the topic I want to sooner. Basically, the point of this blog is to discuss Political, Social and/or Humanitarian issues around the world. Some of these will be nationally focussed. Some will be internationally focussed. And some will be globally focussed. I’ll be aiming to post once a week. Twice if I can. These are my views, you don’t have to agree with them. In fact I’m not asking you to. If you don’t agree, great! Put across your own view and that can be discussed as well. I will say this though: expect to be treated with the same level of respect that you show others. I’m not going to put language restrictions, because I know that they won’t be followed anyway. But, if you start swearing at others and all that keyboard-warrior shit, expect to take it back as well. You’ve been warned.

The first topic, as you’ve probably guessed from the title of the post: Terrorism and the Refugee Crisis.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), in the wake of the Egyptian Plane Crash, have now been labelled as one of, if not the most, deadliest terrorist groups in the world since Al Qaeda in 2001. We can certainly all agree that ISIS has been responsible for the most deaths produced by a single terrorist group since the 9/11 attacks (regardless of whether or not you believe that to have been an inside job).

But how do we define “Terrorism”, and what are the rules that dictate whether or not an event is actually a terrorist attack?

Firstly, “Terrorism” is a very complex issue. There are several different ways that Terrorism can occur, but they all roughly fall into one of five categories: Religious, Ethnic (or Nationalist), Right-Wing, Left-Wing and lastly, State-Sponsored.

Religious Terrorism is terrorism carried out with the intent of advancing an ideological cause or belief.

Ethnic or Nationalist Terrorism is terrorism carried out to elevate the status of an ethnic minority or as an attempt to create a new state. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, this is the most common form of terrorism, not Religious Terrorism, though the two do occasionally coincide.

Right-Wing Terrorism is terrorism conducted to try and maintain the status-quo in the face of radical change. A Right-Wing group for example is the KKK, and more will crop up as the Refugee Crisis continues. I’ll get to that a bit later.

Left-Wing Terrorism is the opposite of the Right-Wing Terrorism and all about radical political change.

State-Sponsored Terrorism is where a country (referred to as a state in this context), supports the actions of a terrorist group by either training them, giving them money, granting them asylum, giving them weapons, or supporting them in any way you can think of. A good example of this is Libya and Hezbollah.

So, with these five categories, how do we define “Terrorism” as a whole? We can’t. The United Nations has tried and failed to come up with a universally agreed definition of “Terrorism”. As a result, each country has a different definition. I won’t go through them all because if I did, I would never finish writing this, but the commonality between them all is something like this: Terrorism is any act that incites fear within the general civilian population and looks to advance an ethnic, political or ideological cause. You will not find that particular definition anywhere, because that is just an amalgamation of several Western definitions of “Terrorism”. Islamic Countries, Asian Countries, European Countries and African Countries all have either similar definitions, or completely different definitions.

And what about the rules that define a terrorist attack? If a Muslim brings a bomb to a school and shouts “Alluhah Akbar!” before detonating it, is that a terrorist attack? The answer is: it depends. The media will try to call it a terrorist attack, but that doesn’t automatically make it a terrorist attack.

The rules of a terrorist attack:

-          -It must cause at least two casualties in a single attack (excluding the attacker) or have had the potential to cause two or more deaths. If it only causes one, that’s not an attack. It’s a murder.

-          -It must incite fear in the civilian population of the area attacked. If it doesn’t, was it really an attack?

-         - It must be either carried out by a recognised terrorist group OR be supported by a recognised terrorist group. If the group isn’t a recognised group, then what you’re dealing with is a criminal, not a terrorist.

The attack must meet all three of those rules to be classified as a terrorist attack, though the first rule can be fluid at certain times. For example, if it’s the leader of a nation or a Head-of-State that was killed, and they were the only person killed, odds are that is going to be a terrorist attack regardless of whether the other two rules were met simply because of who was killed.

So let’s go back to our Muslim Bomber. More than two casualties? Unless it was done a weekend, I’d say it’s more than likely at least two people died, so check. Incites fear? Probably going to. Check. Supported by a recognised terrorist group? We don’t know. The media will try to push for it, but unless a recognised terrorist group comes out and says “Yes, we ordered this attack” or “We didn’t order this attack but we support it” or we find evidence that our Muslim Bomber was in contact with a recognised terrorist group, it’s not a terrorist attack. And just being a Muslim is not enough evidence to say that it was a terrorist attack, and- on a quick side note- being Anti-Muslim is not Racism. It has nothing to do with being a Patriot. It’s to do with the fact that “Muslim” is not a race. Please, tell me which country Muslims come from. Australians come from Australia. Americans from America. Japanese from Japan. So Muslims must come from Muslimania, right? No. Muslimania isn’t a country. In fact it’s not even a word. The term “Muslim” is a collective noun for the followers of Islam, in the same way that “Christian” is the collective noun for followers of Christianity, “Jewish” for Judaism, “Hindu” for Hinduism, “Buddhist” for Buddhism, etc… Notice the difference between a race and a religion? So the next time, someone calls you racist for being an Anti-Muslim, you can point out the difference to them in a logical way rather than just hurling abuse at them.

Anyway, back on topic. How does “Terrorism”, regardless of how we’re defining it, fit into the Refugee Crisis? Very easily. Look at where the Refugees are coming from. Syria. Iraq. Iran. Libya, Nigeria and many others. All of them are countries that have been torn apart by war and terrorism. Particularly Iraq and Syria where ISIS is very active. Now, I have no doubt that a lot of the people fleeing these countries, are legitimate refugees. I have no doubt about that. Roughly 20 million people was the last estimate I believe. ISIS, the most dangerous terrorist group in existence at the moment, is estimated to have only 30 000-300 000 “soldiers” (using the term loosely), so a very large majority of that 20 million are probably legitimate refugees. And I think we can all agree that if it was our country that was war-torn and continually under terrorist threat, we would want other countries to do what they are currently asking us to do, if fighting wasn’t option. I don’t even have a problem with taking in refugees. Life, whether you are religious or not, is a sacred and special thing. In the Western World that everyone, with a select exception, has the right to live. As Humanity, we have not a legal obligation, but a moral obligation to save people if we can. But, like I said before, these countries also have a high level of terrorist activity and we have an obligation to our own people to ensure that we are taking in refugees and not sleep-cell terrorists. That’s the whole point of Detention Centres: to detain people claiming to be refugees while we establish if they are actually refugees and not a threat to our society. If they are deemed to be legitimate refugees, they are allowed into the country where the government finds them housing and allows them to start a new life. If not, they’re deported back to the hell-hole that they left behind.

I hold Left-Wing views. I’ll admit that right now. I believe in equality, I believe that everyone has a right to equal opportunity. I believe the struggling and the poor are deserving of the help of the wealthy. However, I do believe that there is also a correct way of doing things. Simply inundating yourself with refugees to try and make you friendly and gain popularity with your people without checking them first, is A) not safe and, B) is not the right way to do it.

We need to properly check these refugees are actually refugees or we run the risk of becoming the countries that terrorists want to create.