Connect with us

Terrorism

Protection from Terror: killer bees & ‘queen bees’

Published

on

This is the great security threat of our age; the radicalization of frustrated Sunni Muslim youth in our homelands by a false narrative that they are under ‘attack’ physically, culturally and religiously from the West and so act aggressively often violently against ‘the West’ (non-Muslim), its sense of superiority and its icons of success whether they be transport systems, capital cities or our cosmopolitan lifestyles and places of recreation.

Many therefore say the West is in a war against global Islamic terrorism. That is not quite accurate and has the danger of slipping into a paradigm of the West is at war with Islam ( the Wahhabi Salafi narrative) and so our revulsion and response may best be channeled not just into bombing their strongholds (akin to killing wasps or bees) but even more importantly “bombing” their ideology (their nest/their ‘Queen bee’). The West doesn’t know there’s a queen bee. For that you have to go to the Muslim world and ask them.

The figures show that both the intensity and breadth of terrorism is increasing at alarming rates and it kills more Muslims in their homelands than people from the West and that it is linked to the extremely fanatical Wahhabi Salafi Takfiri Jihadi sect within Islam.

For example, my heart aches for those school children in Pakistan murdered by the Taliban and the poor people in Nigeria suffering at the hands of the monstrous Boko Haram fanatics. Just this past week they massacred 2,000 mainly Christian innocents ” a senior government official in Borno, said Boko Haram killed more than 2,000 people which, if true, would mean the group equaled its total kill count last year in one attack. More were said to have drowned in Lake Chad while attempting to swim to a nearby island. Some estimates said more than 20,000 people are now displaced as a result of what one reporter called Boko Haram’s “most horrific act of terrorism yet.”

How can we defeat Terror?

First you have to name it, know what it is or else you’ll do more harm than good by attacking everything Islamic.

Prime Minister David Cameron has done (20th July 2015) in his speech what President Obama refuses to do; state that the root of today’s terrorist problem is extremist Islamist ideology.

In what will go down as the seminal speech to unmask the ideological drivers of modern terrorism and social unrest in the West, David Cameron spoke boldly and incisively at the Nonestiles School in Birmingham about the scourge of extremism sweeping the UK’s Muslim communities.

It’s no accident that he chose this school in this are to deliver his speech. It is here where there has been a vipers nest of Wahhabi Salafi extremists that have been the engine room of hate preachers and extremism in the UK including those involved in the: Birmingham 6 Terror plot and the Trojan Horse affair.

The UK government is now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices in its strategy to wipe out extremism in the UK homeland. The PM understands that in the past, governments have been too caught up with political correctness and cries of Islamophobia to challenge the extremist religious ideology and were too quick to dismiss the religious aspect of Islamist extremism. It is undeniable the PM said that there is a religious justification for terrorism of recent times not just in the UK but globally because these extremists are

“Self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith.”

Because the Wahhabi Salafi ideology leads to violence, social unrest and discrimination and hatred is enough to clamp down on those who spread it in our homelands. This is a mega-leap in honesty and the right direction to stop the barbarism of Syria and Iraq continuing to appear on the streets of our Homelands.

Mustafa Kail aka Abu Hamzah al-Masri when he was head of a Wahhabi Salafi front called the Partisans of the Sharia Organization, wrote a book called

Terrorism is the Solution and preached in his Salafi mosques in London and the US that terrorism against the West was a religious imperative for all Muslims because of the false narrative that the West was oppressing Muslims and seeking to humiliate then destroy Islam. (He is now serving life in a US prison for terrorism).

We can detonate their false narratives by and through the majority of moderate Muslims and their intelligentsia/scholars and rational leadership in our homelands and globally who are under attack by the extremists as much as we are. We can give them a voice, protect them from reprisals by Salafi thugs and protect their mosques from the poison pill of Saudi charitable funds by donating money to Islamic Universities and Muslim schools of learning based on moderate Islam.

The war actually is within Islam itself and we are the collateral damage (if you look at total numbers of terrorist incidents, you will see that most are Wahhabi Salafi against other Muslims).

One strategy to consider is to ally and support the moderate Muslims against the puritanical Wahhabi Salafi. We have a common interest. Our only hurdle is prejudice, KSA and politicians aligned with oil.

Unless we help the Muslims resist this Wahhabi Salafi attempt to take over Islam globally, radicalization of 1.5 billion Muslim people spells doom for humanity.

Egypt’s President al Sisi recognizes the “queen bees” are the root cause of terrorism, and joins PM Lee in calling for a ‘religious revolution’ in Islam at Cairo’s Al Azhar University back in January 2015.

David Cameron UK PM thinks the attraction of the ‘caliphate’ can be tackled with counter-narratives that debunk al-Baghdadi’s Islamist interpretation of Islam. The gulf between the brutal reality on the ground and the propagandised fantasy Isil spin on social media can be exposed. The positive things the UK provides for all its citizens can be promoted, in order to show the alternatives to living in a fascistic theocracy.

In a 2003 interview with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek, Singapore’s former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew warned that Americans are mistaken in seeking a largely military solution to combat Islamic terrorism.

“In killing terrorists, you will only kill the worker bees. The queen bees are the (hate) preachers, who teach a deviant form of Islam in schools and Islamic centers, who capture and twist the minds of the young.”

Retired Malaysian diplomat Dennis Ignatius made the following observations :“Even if ISIS is degraded, Saudi export of Wahhabism will continue to spawn new ISIS type jihadists in Asia, Africa, South America and elsewhere… it is Saudi-exported Islamic extremism. …Young Southeast Asian Muslims from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and elsewhere are radicalizing and joining jihad in Syria and Iraq, with ISIS even forming a military unit for Malay-speaking fighters—Katibah Nusantara Lid Daulah Islamiyyah (Malay Archipelago Unit for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria)….He attributes the sole cause of extremism in Southeast Asia to Saudi Arabia’s aggressive export of Wahhabi ideology, spending more than US$100,00 billion the past few decades to export a culture of “intolerance, hate and violence” to all corners of the globe….”

Ignatius echoes Singapore’s former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who also pointed to ‘Saudi Arabia as the “queen bee” spawning terrorism in Asia’.

According to Lee, ‘Muslims in Southeast Asia were traditionally moderate and tolerant. But beginning in the 1970s, awash with petrodollars, Saudi Wahhabis began to export this “venomous religion” via thousands of mosques and madrasas that has radicalized Muslims in South and Southeast Asia. As a result of Saudi proliferation of WMDs—or Wahhabis of Mass Destruction—Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Philippines have fallen victim to Wahhabi-driven extremists groups such as Jemaah Islamiah, Abu Sayyaf, MILF, ISIS, Taliban, and others.’

Ignatius views the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus has such a stranglehold on Sunni religious discourse, having polluted thousands of mosques, seminaries, universities, schools and community centers that “unquestionably, the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus has become the greatest single threat to peace and stability in the world today.”

In a September 2014 Indian Defence Review article, retired Indian general Afsir Karim shares Lee Kuan Yew’s concerns that Saudi Wahhabis are trying to exert domination over other strands of Islam (e.g., Sufi, Shia, etc.) and proclaim themselves as the gold standard for what it means to be a “good” Muslim…General Karim exposes how Saudis are using the Wahhabism weapon to dominate India, pumping millions of petrodollars into madrasas and mosques to propagate Wahhabi theology and that “anyone outside the Wahhabi sect is a heretic and will burn in hell.”

This doctrine of intolerance and violence is now polarizing Indian society and radicalizing its Muslims, projected by Pew Research to be the largest Muslim population in the world by 2050, even surpassing Indonesia.

Thus with the double onslaught of potential ISIS bases and Saudi-sponsored radicalization of Asian Muslims casting a long shadow…The growing conflict between the Shia and Sunni sects across the world is a direct result of the increasing influence of Wahhabism.

Above section largely taken from article Dr Christian Lin Fellow at the Centre for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS-John Hopkins University article highlighting the Saudi threat to Asian stability and security, and calls it the “Saudization” of Southeast Asia.

Post Script: The Wahhabi Salafi drivers

Long before ISIS became one of their brand names, one of their leaders Juhayman al Uteybi (Otaybi) and a band of 500 Wahhabi zealots attacked the Grand Mosque in Mecca itself on November 20, 1979. Otaybi, was part of a Salafi group called Al-Jamaa Al-Salafiya Al-Muhtasiba (The Salafi Group That Commands Right and Forbids Wrong). The Salafi group was headed by the Islamic University’s president, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz . He was a Saudi Arabian Islamic scholar and a leading proponent of theSalafi form of Islam. He was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993 until his death in 1999. His “immense religious erudition and his reputation for intransigence” gave him such prestige among the pious population of Saudi Arabia, that his fatwas endorsing government policy greatly strengthened the Saudi Arabian government,endorsement of In Defense of Muslim Lands, principally written by Osama bin Laden’s hero Abdullah Azzam, was a powerful influence in the successful call for jihad against nation states that harmed Muslims or attacked Muslim lands. Source

The seizure of Islam’s holiest site, the taking of hostages from among the worshipers, and the deaths of hundreds of militants, security forces and hostages caught in crossfire in the ensuing battles for control of the site, all shocked the Islamic world. The siege ended two weeks after the takeover began and the mosque was cleared. Following the attack, the Saudi state implemented a stricter enforcement of Islamic code and tried to protect their throne by a deal with the Wahhabi fanatics that they leave the monarchy alone if the Monarchy fund their global Wahhabization of the Ummah.

That event so scared the monarchy (then led by Khalid bin Abdulaziz Al Saud) that they have pandered to the Wahhabi Salafi extremists ever since and allowed them and their Saudi funded extremist mosques free reign so long as they operated far away from the KSA in the hope that they would leave the monarchy alone.

“Saudi rulers, terrified by what Uteybi represented, essentially gave in to his demands that the country’s drift toward liberalization be reversed. Women were taken off television, theaters were closed, and huge amounts of cash were disbursed to the country’s most xenophobic, reactionary preachers and teachers. Therein lie the roots of the terrorism that arose from Saudi Arabia two decades later and brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center.”

When you realize that in the Wahhabi Salafi mindset:

  • people who talk to members of the opposite sex outside marriage should be killed or
  • girls be allowed to burn to death in a school fire because firemen were barred from entering because the girls were not veiled and
  • a man can be lashed almost to death for tweeting that that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists are all equal,’

you appreciate that support by the rich and powerful in KSA for ISIS and Al Qaeda utopia of enforcing puritanical Islam globally is an easy step to take.

There are many Saudi’s (the last King among them) who have tried to bring this important ally of the US out of certain backwardness and intolerance in it’s society, however the Saudi State must free itself from the extremist Wahhabi clerics who condone terror either directly or indirectly by propounding a false narrative about the West if it is to be a true ally and peacemaker in the Middle East and also free itself from the inevitable clash with the Wahhabi Salafi Takfiri Jihadi ISIS frankenstein they helped create.

Whether or not Saudi Arabia did indeed willingly partake in the creation of IS, it is evident that it contributed to its inception by entertaining the idea of a reactionary Sunni Islam. (Whilst) it did not intend for IS to become the monster we all have learned to fear, IS’s very inspiration, its quest for the establishment of an all-mighty Islamic State over the nations of the world stems back from Wahhabi Islam’s core ideology. Both share the same hatred for Shia Islam, Iran and all faith denominations that do not fall within the realm of Sunni Islam…. While Saudi Arabia plays catch up with the very elements its religious school of thought gave birth to, trying to control the plague it realises it helped unleash on to the world, many wonder if it is not the son rather who will strike down his father, so mighty his reach has become.“ Catherine Shakdam

We in the West must insulate our Muslim populations from this extremism and use all our diplomatic and economic efforts to assist the Saudi’s to break free of the terminal Wahhabi Takfiri embrace for their sake and for ours.

Alexander Athos is a writer and businessman.He was awarded a Bachelor of Arts (European History) Personal background Alexander was christened Orthodox brought up Catholic and now Evangelical Christian with an acceptance of the best in Christian tradition and a respect for genuine people of faith from other cultures. Political inclinations: Christian intellectual who has an eclectic predisposition to understanding global and national political and social trends and seeking to influence them for good by thoughtful and persuasive discourse.

Continue Reading
Comments

Terrorism

Balancing Counter-Terrorism Measures with International Human Rights

Published

on

In his statement at a special meeting of the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee on 6 March 2003, the Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan has noted:

 “….Our responses to terrorism, as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it, should uphold the human rights that terrorists aim to destroy. Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism – not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension.”

Acts of terrorism are one of the gravest forms of human rights violations that can potentially shake up the spirit of society. People acquire a hateful approach towards the terrorists and those involved in terrorist activities. Moreover, governments do not hesitate to take all possible hardest actions against terrorism to secure their citizens and nation. It can be understood that any counter-terrorist measure taken to satisfy this sentiment of society will more likely be appreciated rather than being criticized. In the wake of this situation, it becomes crucial for the state and its agencies to observe the human rights laws while enacting and exercising the anti-terrorist measures (OHCHR 2008). It has been found that there exists a continuous struggle between national security interests and the protection of the human rights of individuals. In numerous cases, European and American Courts have preferred human rights over the draconian legislative provisions to curb terrorism. When one is dealing with terrorism, measures taken for counter-terrorism shall give high regard to human rights. If States fail to achieve this balance, they will ultimately defeat the success of their counter-actions. Thus, it is to be remembered that one should not become a demon that they are fighting.

Understanding International Human Rights

Human rights are the core universal values available to every individual and group being a human. It provides fundamental freedoms to individuals and protects them from the arbitrary use of power by the state (OHCHR 2008). International human rights are the rights reflected under various core international human rights treaties and customary international law. It includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and others. Moreover, the prohibition of genocide, torture, and slavery is widely recognized as peremptory norms from which no derogation is possible. All the concerned state parties are under an obligation to protect human rights enshrined under these instruments. They shall not take any action in the breach of their commitments.

The immense importance of human rights raises a few considerations before the state. Whether human rights can be compromised in the name of national security? How should states deal with a situation where human rights fall between their national security or other interests? This short note will try to reflect on these essential issues.

What Is Terrorism?

There exists no universal definition of the term ‘terrorism’ (Acharya 2009); however, General Assembly has tried to define it as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them” (UNGA 1995). This term finds its mention under International Humanitarian Law that prohibits ‘terrorism’ and ‘acts of terrorism’ committed during an armed attack (Kaponyi 2007). During peacetime, such acts are dealt with under national laws, international criminal law, and human rights laws. Terrorism has been observed as a criminal act rather than an act of war (Acharya 2009); however, this definition is still evolving.

Terrorism is a controversial term, and its meaning differs from context to context and time to time. A person or group who acts as a terrorist for some might be a hero for others. However, it should be presumed that all such violence and destruction that constitutes terrorism and terrorist activities are done in the breach of human rights. These activities cause severe injury to the life and liberty of the individuals and the unity and integrity of the nation (Kaponyi 2007). In the interest of humanity, the state needs to adopt counter-terrorism measures in its legislation and enforcement actions to prevent and suppress terrorist activities while observing the rule of law.

Interaction Between Counter-Terrorism Measures And International Human Rights

There exists an unavoidable link between counter-terrorism measures and international human rights (Kielsgard 2013). Acts of terrorism provide legal justification to the threatened state to take actions that can cause severe human rights abuses. The interplay between these two concepts aims to address three dimensions of human rights: concerning the victims of the terrorist attacks, concerning the suspected terrorists, and concerning the people subjected to terrorism (Kaponyi 2007). The first category requires the right to life and dignity and the right to justice. The second category talks about the right to life, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, freedom from arbitrary detention, torture and degrading treatment, and the right to asylum. The third category talks about the right to life, right to information, freedom of association, strike, and expression. It is to be noted that the list of these rights are not exclusive and may include other related rights. Therefore, the state’s actions must not defy its international human rights commitments in the guise of national security. There have been instances when courts have curtailed unnecessary and vague security measures found in infringement of human rights.

In Hamdan v Rumsfeld US Supreme Court held that the structure and procedures of the Military Commissions been set up to try detainees of Guantanamo Bay violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of Four Geneva Conventions, 1949. It was a landmark case that restrained the Presidential power vis-à-vis the treatment of Guantanamo Bay prisoners (Philips 2006). In Hamdi v Rumsfeld Supreme Court rules, US citizens detained as enemy combatants have the right to due process and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status. However, in Rasul v Bush Supreme Court provided that it has jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. This case attracted several petitions from foreign citizens challenging the basis of their detention. To prevent a large number of petitions from detainees, the US government came up with Military Commission Act in 2006 that bars foreign nationals from challenging their detention that was ultimately held unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the case of Boumediene v Bush. It can be observed that the Supreme Court has generally prioritized human rights over its national security issues (Wald 2010).

Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department found arbitrary ‘stop powers used against journalistic information’ contained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 of the UK to violate freedom of expression provided under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In another case of Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom European Court of Human Rights held blanket power to stop and search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, 2000 to violate the right to respect for private life that later got repealed and replaced by the legislature.

Counter-terrorism measures provide incentives to the government authorities to reinterpret their law justifying interrogation, detention, and ‘targeted killing’ (Sanders 2017). It provides immunity and legitimacy to their acts of human rights abuses with the least accountability. Under its ‘War on Terror’ against the Taliban Government in Afghanistan, the US has denied applying human rights and humanitarian law to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and termed them as “enemy combatant” (Duffy 2005). However, from the International Humanitarian Law perspective, it can be counter-argued that the US is detaining combatants by creating a category based on a weak claim supported by reliable facts. They are arrested for an indefinite period without providing them the rights of prisoners. From the International Human Rights approach, a State is obliged to fulfill its international commitments over the persons who are present under its authority and control. This global outreach of the subject founds its applicability even in the areas beyond national jurisdiction, thus holding the US responsible for Guantanamo Bay that lies outside US territory.

Counter-terrorism measures are abused on the pretext of discrimination (Kaponyi 2007). General Assembly Resolution and UN Council on Human Rights Resolution prohibit discrimination that treats people from one ethnic or racial origin, religion or belief, disability different from the others. The creation of plausible legality of human rights violations by the state establishes a requirement to promote human rights (Sanders 2017). Where the UN General Assembly and Security Council have taken several counter-terrorism measures to combat terrorism, UN bodies also aim to respect human rights even in emergency cases. Law is undoubtedly evident that counter-terrorism measures cannot be fulfilled without considering human rights (Kielsgard 2013). States should respect human rights along with its counter-terrorism and security measures.

Conclusion

The real issue lies in determining the legality of counter-terrorist measures that occasionally fall short of the state’s international commitments under its human rights regime. It has been observed that the absence of any definition of terrorism provides ample scope for the state to interpret the term ‘terrorism’ with a political bias favoring its interest (Kaponyi 2007). Further, a State can easily justify its actions in the name of national security that denies human rights to the individual and ultimately raises questions on the rule of law (Duffy 2005). Under the case laws, judges have shown an inclination to respect the international commitments on human rights regime. However, this cannot be said affirmatively for the legislature and enforcing authorities.  It is not the counter-terrorism measures, but their abuse is problematic. Arbitrary and poorly-implemented counter-terrorism measures have their consequences. Co-lateral damage must be proportional. Since both counter-terrorism measures and human rights are important issues for a country; thus, it is essential that a balance be struck between them. It should be noted that fight against terror and the observance of human rights must go hand in hand. The State’s responsibility is to respect human rights and not use counter-terrorism measures as a justification for their violation.

REFERENCES

  • Acharya, Upendra D. (2009): “War on Terror or Terror Wars: The Problem in Defining Terrorism,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol 37, pp 653.
  • Boumediene v Bush (2008): 553 U.S. 723
  • Duffy, Helen (2005): The “War on Terror” and the Framework of International Law, Cambridge University Press
  • General Assembly, Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, A/RES/58/187 (2003)
  • General Assembly Resolution, U.N. Doc. A/RES/49/60 (Feb. 17, 1995)
  • Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (2010): ECHR 28 (2010)
  • Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2006): 548 U.S. 557 (2006)
  • Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004): 542 U.S. 507
  • Kaponyi, Elisabeth K. (2007): “Upholding Human Rights in the fight against terrorism,” Society and Economy, Vol 29, pp 1.
  • Kielsgard, Mark D. (2013): “Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: Uneasy Marriage, Uncertain Future,”Journal Jurisprudence, Vol 19, pp 163.
  • Miranda v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2014): EWHC 255 (2014);
  • Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008): “Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism” <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf>
  • Philips, Dennis (2006): “Hamdan v Rumsfeld: The Bush Administration and ‘The Rule of Law’,” Australian Journal of American Studies Vol 25, pp 40.
  • Rasul v Bush (2004): 542 U.S. 466
  • Sanders, Rebecca (2017): “Human rights abuses at the limits of the law: Legal instabilities and vulnerabilities in the ‘Global War on Terror’,” Review of International Studies Vol 44, pp 2.
  • UN Commission on Human Rights, Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2003/68: Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, E/CN.4/RES/2003/68 (2003)
  • Wald, Patricia (2010): “National Security versus Human Rights: An uneven playing field,” American Society of International Law, Vol 104, pp 458.

Continue Reading

Terrorism

Pakistan’s fight against terrorism inside its borders

Published

on

When Pakistan first appeared on the map, it had little to no idea how its neighbors would harness its land. It came quite clear after the separation of East Pakistan that the land of the pure would require more foresight in dealing with those around it. They might even need to fight to maintain peace on its soil.

Since the birth of Pakistan, it has been subjected to different fights to maintain its status. With all its struggles, finding peace for the valley, and balancing its economy, the country has faced many turbulences. It has proven itself against all sorts of malicious endeavors. Some that had the potential to harm its name in the international society.

It was 9/11 that not only shook the whole world but this nook of the Asian continent as it plunged into instability. It seems like someone was busy hiding a terrorist network in Pakistan. From terrorism attacks on the APS school to the attack on the five-star PC in Gwadar. The country has been struggling to keep its face clear even though it has suffered from Islamophobia in the international community.

Pakistan and its army have been heading strong and determined to keep the citizens of Pakistan safe along with protecting the people on the globe who accept the hostility of the country to open its land for tourism. Since 2010 the country has been busy weeding out terrorist organizations. Many casualties have been taken as the roots of terrorism were attacked. The blood of martyrs has colored the land, but success has come in bits and pieces. The country was not facing armed militia but organized troops funded by the neighbors.

The terrorist funding trail reveals India’s involvement. These are no more allegations, and evidence of 22 billion PKR expenditure for the nourishment of such networks in Pakistan are available. This is quite a question, especially when keeping in mind the economy of the country. Besides, Narendra Modi’s support for extremism is simply a dot that needs to be connected.

The attack on APS was the boiling point for the whole nation. When every eye cried. Investigations were made to let the world know that Pakistan will not tolerate terrorism of any sort. Peace will be kept, and any intention against it will be answered with unpleasant outcomes. It has been, and the number of terrorism incidents has remarkably gone down.

As per the UN charter, the intrusive involvement by patronizing any country’s domestic issues is a clear violation. With ISIS contributing their share to terrorism in further Asia, it has been investigated that Indian intelligence agencies are trying to knit a scarf of deception by linking ISIS by creating “Daesh-e-Pakistan.”Adding firmness to their plan, they have already admitted 30 Indian militants in this organization and relocated them to camps along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Two Indian agency representatives were responsible for handing over these militants to Daesh commander Sheikh Abdul Rahim.

The geographical advantage that Pakistan holds brought a ray of sunshine with the CPEC project. But as the country started working on its economy’s progress, the state has witnessed countable heart-wrenching fights against terrorist groups. While Pakistan struggles to keep global security and safety and fights against incendiary of this terrorism, Indian state policy has internalized terrorism as an instrument. With Modi’s incumbency, the Kashmir valley has burned, but Muslims in Delhi face their wrath.

Hence, the policy was not a joke, it was a serious mission, and satisfactory amounts were sent to sub-nationals through humanitarian assistance to cause unrest in Balochistan. With Peshawar police attack on 11 May 2020 to target killing and eventually linking with a suicide attack on Mardan Judicial Complex in 2016. Pakistan has been highly receptive to all intelligence gathered to averting a colossal attack on 14 August 2020. Maj Fermin Das, an official from Indian intelligence, was found to be the mastermind behind the planning of this attack. This person was operating from Afghanistan, which failed obviously!

It’s been no secret to everyone with Indian involvement in creating instability in Jammu Kashmir. Gilgit Baltistan is not far from it, sharing the same boundaries. Out of 60 implanted IEDs, 22 were successfully diffused, but 38 exploded and took 13 civilian lives and 48 military personnel. The explosives used in those IEDs have been traced back to, you guessed it, India.

No matter how many times Pakistan will try to keep out the pest from its soil, they seem to be crawling back inside. Safety is not just the issue of Pakistan but is the issue of the whole world.  Countries funding their neighbors to keep unrest in the continent requires global attention, and determined action should be taken.

Continue Reading

Terrorism

Jihadist terrorism in the EU since 2015

Published

on

Security patrol activity to prevent terrorism. Photo by Manu Sanchez on Unsplash

Europe has experienced a series of terror attacks since 2015. Who are the terrorists? Why and how do they act?

Jihadist terrorism is not new in the EU, but there has been a new wave of islamist attacks since 2015. What do jihadist terrorists want? Who are they? How do they attack?

What is jihadist terrorism?

The goal of jihadist groups is to create an Islamic state governed only by Islamic law – Sharia. They reject democracy and elected parliaments because in their opinion God is the sole lawgiver.

Europol defines Jihadism as “a violent ideology exploiting traditional Islamic concepts. Jihadists legitimise the use of violence with a reference to the classical Islamic doctrine on jihad, a term which literally means ‘striving’ or ‘exertion’, but in Islamic law is treated as religiously sanctioned warfare”.

The al-Qaeda network and the so-called Islamic state are major representatives of jihadist groups. Jihadism is a sub-set of Salafism, a revivalist Sunni movement.

Who are the jihadi terrorists?

According to Europol, jihadist attacks in 2018 were carried out primarily by terrorists who grew up and were radicalised in their home country, not by so-called foreign fighters (individuals that travelled abroad to join a terrorist group).

In 2019, nearly 60% of jihadi attackers had the citizenship of the country in which the attack or plot took place.

Radicalisation of home-grown terrorists has speeded up as lone wolves are radicalised by online propaganda, while their attacks are inspired rather than ordered by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda or IS.

Europol explains that these terrorists may not necessarily be very religious: they may not read the Quran or regularly attend mosque and they often have a rudimentary and fragmented knowledge of Islam.

In 2016, a significant number of the individuals reported to Europol for terrorism were low-level criminals, suggesting people with a criminal history or socialised in a criminal environment may be more susceptible to radicalisation and recruitment.

Europol draws the conclusion that “religion may thus not be the initial or primary driver of the radicalisation process, but merely offer a ‘window of opportunity’ to overcome personal issues. They may perceive that a decision to commit an attack in their own country may transform them from ‘zero’ to ‘hero’.”

The 2020 Europol report shows that most jihadi terrorists were young adults. Almost 70% of them were aged 20 to 28 years old and 85% were male.

How do jihadi terrorists attack?

Since 2015, jihadist attacks have been committed by lone actors and groups. Lone wolves use mainly knives, vans and guns. Their attacks are simpler and rather unstructured. Groups use automatic rifles and explosives in complex and well-coordinated attacks.

In 2019, almost all completed or failed attacks were by lone actors, while most foiled plots involved multiple suspects.
There has been a tendency for jihadist terrorists to favour attacks against people, rather than buildings or institutional targets, in order to trigger an emotional response from the public.

Terrorists do not discriminate between Muslim and non-Muslim and attacks have aimed for the maximum of casualties, such as in London, Paris, Nice, Stockholm, Manchester, Barcelona and Cambrils.

The EU’s fight against terrorism

EU measures to prevent new attacks are wide-ranging and thorough. They span from cutting the financing of terrorism, tackling organised crime, and strengthening border controls to addressing radicalisation and improving police and judicial cooperation on tracing suspects and pursuing perpetrators.

For example, MEPs adopted new rules to make the use of guns and the creation of home-made bombs more difficult for terrorists.

Europol, the EU’s police agency, has been given additional powers. It can set up specialised units more easily, such as the European Counter Terrorism Centre created in January 2016. It can also exchange information with private companies in some cases and ask social media to remove pages runs by IS.

In July 2017, the European Parliament created a special committee on terrorism to evaluate how to better fight terrorism at EU level. MEPs produced a report with concrete measures they want the European Commission to include in new legislation.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Health & Wellness29 mins ago

COVID-19 threatens global progress against malaria

Gaps in life-saving interventions are undermining efforts to curb malaria, amid fears that the coronavirus pandemic could set back the...

Americas2 hours ago

Biden’s victory: An Opportunity for Transatlantic Reconciliation after Trump and Brexit?

Joe Biden’s victory Last November came at a critical point during the Brexit negotiations between The European Union and the...

Americas4 hours ago

Exit the Clowns: Post-Trump America

As America emerges from the election in grindingly slow fashion, with the soon-to-be-ex-President constantly tweeting frivolous accusations of voter fraud...

Environment6 hours ago

The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it

A host of countries have recently announced major commitments to significantly cut their carbon emissions, promising to reach “net zero”...

Economy8 hours ago

Future Economy: Micro-Manufacturing & Micro-Exports

Recovery now forces economies to emerge as dynamic entrepreneurial landscapes; today, the massively displaced working citizenry of the world may...

Africa10 hours ago

Scientific and trade cooperation between China and Africa

China was crumbling into misery, degradation and despair, in the middle of that 109-year period (1840-1949) known as the era...

Defense12 hours ago

The Need to Reorient New Delhi in the Indo-Pacific

Beijing’s overt expansionism in South Asia and the South China Sea (SCS) continues to threaten India’s maritime security. The rise...

Trending