ISIS, Paris, and Adele's "25"

This post looks at the Paris terrorist attacks and my views on the aftermath of it. Throughout writing this post, my opinions have swayed vastly and I have found the post has taken the form of a conversation/debate with myself – you can very clearly see my thought process changing a lot throughout this piece of writing. I don’t think any point can ever 100% correct because the topic is so controversial and sensitive but the discussion certainly opens up some points to be considered or to be looked into – enjoy!

On the evening of Friday 13^th November, Paris was brought to a standstill as a series of coordinated attacks were carried out which resulted in the death of around 130 innocent civilians who were simply enjoying a Friday night out. The attacks were claimed responsibility for by the extremist group ISIS who claimed the attacks were in retaliation to French attacks on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. And how did the French government respond? They bombed Syria, by targeting the ISIS camps (well done) but also, as a result, killed many innocent civilians of Syria (not well done). But this is totally justifiable and not terrorism because, you know, Paris killed the bad guys so the “collateral damage” doesn’t matter. Big thumbs up to President Hollande! But seriously, don’t fight terrorism with more terrorism.

France went into shutdown with a state of emergency being declared. The people of Paris defied the attackers through mass vigils and memorial services and the world came together, united as one, to show their support for France and the victims of the attack. This convergence of the human race seemed, on the surface, to resonate the idea that we, as humans, are all equal. When one country is in trouble, we will show our support and offer our help. However, this was not wholly the case and the thinly veiled layer of support seemed to take a more sinister turn and revealed many people’s inherently racist views.

Facebook introduced the Paris flag filter (almost instantly after the attacks) for people to show their support. However, something which I found to be quite disturbing was that Facebook gave the option to set this filter as ‘temporary’ and, so, would be removed after a few days/weeks. My timeline was flooded with blue, white, and red as everyone showed support which was very inspiring to see everyone as one, but also left a bitter taste in my mouth as I couldn’t help but feel like it was all a bit of a fad. It reminded me of the LGBT flag filter being used to show support to the LGBT community – yes it is a good idea, but does it really achieve anything? Were Parisians saved and ISIS defeated? Fundamentally, no. I feel that people have these good and genuine intentions and have a willingness to support a good cause but nobody actually implements them. Thoughts alone cannot change the world.

I, of course, do fully understand that the idea of both filters was to raise awareness of the issues and show support but it seems to resonate, for me, the idea of social media immediacy. The idea that “yes I do care and will show my support” but then days later Kim Kardashian wears a nice dress or Adele releases 25 and the world seems to forget the horrific reality of war because she has broken the record for most albums sold in the U.S. in a week (in the first three days alone she sold over 3 million copies – it is a good album though so you should take a listen).

Anyway, back to the point, this idea of immediacy is one that is the crux of social media which I think could be detrimentally harmful to humanity. I see humans becoming almost numb to the atrocities of the world because we literally see it every day on the Internet – or at least have the potential to. The flip side of this is that social media raises awareness and brings our attention to attacks and serious events (which is great and theoretically effective) but then it is so easy to divert our attention away to something that’s just ‘mind fluff’ when the government doesn’t want us to react – for example, the killing of innocent civilians in Syria in the war against ISIS. However, it could again be argued that social media and the Internet is allowing the public to see this side of the war too since it is largely overlooked by mainstream media such as the BBC, Sky News etc.

So perhaps the problem, therefore, lies within mainstream media. The news from radio, TV, newspapers etc. which is essentially controlled by the government. Would the government telling us that it killed hundreds of innocent people to kill one guilty person do them any favours? Probably not. I do think though that people are getting access to more and more information than in the past. People (or at least intelligent people open to new ideas and not those fed to them) are able to see more than one view of a topic and the use of the Internet makes it possible for us to consider many points of views and come to our own conclusion.

So why is it, with all the information and knowledge in the palm of our hands, that a portion of society are still so ignorant?

I have seen and felt that many people are using the ISIS attacks as a way to promote their hate against two main groups of people – Muslims and refugees. All of a sudden, there is another flood of racist crap about how all Muslims are terrorists and all refugees are terrorists and it is all just a load of nonsense. I was in town last week doing some Christmas shopping and saw homeless people begging on the street. As I walked past them I caught the conversation between a man and two women (both of whom resembled Vicky Pollard) going something like this, whilst watching the homeless people:

           Old man: “It’s ridiculous all these terrorists being let into the country.”
           Vicky 1: “Yeah, you just don’t know who you’re letting in these days.”
           Vicky 2: “Just don’t let any of them in and no terrorists will get in.”

And I couldn’t help but think “Really?” and the saddest part is that it’s not even worth getting into a debate with these people who hold bigoted views because they are completely not open to any other views. The fact that these people are associating homeless people on the street with terrorists is just ludicrous really. Even people on my Facebook have said “Go into Syria and kill them all – even the women and children” and I am just like “What?” Why should it be okay to label a whole race or religion or country because of the actions of a few? Bearing in mind that these people projecting their hatred were the same people to post statuses about “Refugees Welcome!” only a matter of weeks ago.

I think that refugees more so than Muslims have gotten the brunt of the hatred for the Paris attacks as it has been portrayed to the public that the terrorists were all refugees from Syria – although one was a white Belgian man, but okay. My problem lies in the fact that the hypocrisy of people is so strong that they are willing to say anything so it makes them look like a better person. “I support refugees but, oh wait! Paris, bombs, ISIS. All refugees are terrorists, let’s bomb them. I support the government” It seems that “terrorism” is a term that is used when it is affecting the Western world and only when it is committed by a non-white person. In most cases, if a person is white and they create an act of terror then they are deemed insane and also, more interestingly, usually depicted as a loner – therefore alienating them from the white community thus disassociating all blame from the rest of the white community. The same, sadly, cannot be said when a non-white person commits an act of terror, suddenly a whole race or religion becomes the terrorist too.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a terrorist as “a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.” And if people such as Bush, Hollande, Cameron, Blair etc. did not invade the Middle East because of “political aims” then my name is not Liam Dowd. Literally, people who attack other countries for the reason of politics are terrorists and no argument can be made about that. It's in the definition!

And by deciding to go with the logic of many people in our society, I conclude that we are all terrorists, yes you reading this, you are a terrorist because someone in the government of your country decided it would be a good idea to bomb other countries and because someone in your country did it, this means they are representative of you. They are a terrorist, and so must you be. Of course not! When you put it into basic terms like that, it all sounds so ridiculous. How can you say all refugees, all Syrians, all Muslims are terrorists when only a minority have committed a crime?  The definition clearly explains that a terrorist is “a person” and not “a country”. Why is that so difficult to understand? Labelling a race for the crimes of others is incomprehensible. Hitler and the Nazis did the Holocaust, are all white people/Germans Nazis? No, so apply the same logic or at the very least, consider other points of view.

I do have to discuss the other side though because it is only fair. The side that many people use as their fuel for hatred but don’t get any further than the crust. Of course there is a risk with letting refugees into our countries that terrorists are getting in with them. However, I cannot accept that this means that we should close the borders and shut them all out. Yes, stricter border control and background checks can and should be implemented. But at the end of the day, refugees from Syria and other countries are fleeing their country because it is not physically safe for them to live there. They are escaping a war and the only choice for them and their families is to move or die. Refugees are not here to “steal all our jobs.” They literally only get around £30 a week to live on when they come here. If you think that we, as humans, should not help other humans who are in need, then when the shit hits the fan in the UK, or US or wherever you are from, you cannot expect other countries to help you. If you genuinely think that borders should be closed to all refugees and that they should just accept the fact that they are to be killed in their own country (in a war that isn’t their fault) then you too should logically be given the same treatment as them if a war breaks out here. I think we just take it as a given that we are safe from war (because the idea of our homes being bombed and family and friends dying on a grand scale is totally unimaginable) but if something disastrous were to happen to us then I would hope that others would be there to help us. And that is the right mentality, humans should help other humans because we are all the same – we are all equal. There seems to be an absence of decorum and humanity that needs to be created/restored before we become a world full of hatred and bigotry.

War is happening everywhere. In the same week as the Paris bombings, there were attacks in Beirut, Baghdad and Ankara. The world seems to be in a state of conflict and the worst thing we can do, as a society, is retaliate with more violence and create a society full of hatred towards those in real need. Bombing innocent people is what ISIS wants to create a divide and a world of fear. They want a war, they want a “kneejerk reaction” (as described by the Independent) that will “in the long term… be harmful.” The answer therefore is unity. ISIS wants to tear the Western world apart from them (and, as a result, the Middle East too) but we can give them a big “get lost!” if we just unite as one and open up our arms to those needing help.

Reject the terrorist, not the country. War only creates more war which results in unnecessary death and there has been too much death in the world for more to be created. Now is the time for peace. We are all equal as humans, let's not forget that.