Oh, the Hypocrisy!

In a week where ISIS released propaganda footage showing the immolation death of a Jordanian pilot, the biggest uproar seemed to be reserved for President Obama and his comments at a National Prayer Breakfast.  Invoking the historically documented savagery of many of the movements over the years that have utilized religion, mostly Christianity, as moral justification for their heinous actions, pundits and politicians couldn't resist the urge to claim utmost offense from this speech.  Let that sink in for a minute.  Footage of a living person being set alight, and dying what was surely a horrific and awful death, took second billing to the President reminding the nation and the world that we are not without fault when it comes to brutality.  From the Crusades to the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, religion, again Christianity for the most part, has been used as a cloak for justifying brutality on a scale equal to or greater than any that ISIS or any other Muslim group has felt compelled to unleash on the populace.  And if religion isn't the cited justification, one needs to only look at what has transpired since the events of September 11, 2001.  A war on terror, an infinitely open ended one at that, led us to believe it was okay to waterboard suspected terrorists and take humiliating pictures of them arranged in the most sexually graphic poses and in states of sheer terror and fright all in the name of protecting our inherently good democracy.

As if that amount of hypocrisy wasn't enough, one needs to only look to the calls for revenge against the ISIS terrorists that utilize the very tactics listed above.  Somehow, in some morally justifiable way, utilizing waterboarding on ISIS suspects is condoned.  An eye for an eye will be the generally given reasoning.  At the same time, it's unclear to anyone calling for this that it's exactly what the President was invoking in his speech and trying to demonstrate to the world that even though we are not without guilt ourselves regarding these matters, we certainly will not resort to such brutality in order or exact revenge.  We're supposed to be more civilized than that.  Showing no waver in the face of, what seems like, unimaginable savagery is supposed to one of the reasons why America is afforded the ability to take the moral high ground on so many issues.  Calls for such retaliation would not only squander the little amount of good will we actually have in this world; it would also serve as ideal recruiting fodder for these groups and would thus only expand their ranks when we're desperately trying to shrink them.

At this point, there's very little the President can say that won't be greeted with the same knee-jerk reaction that it's either intentionally offensive or blatantly false.  Having historical facts questioned and simply reminding the world that we also have blood on our hands, some spilled very recently, is perhaps a poignant reminder how hard his job really is.

Wages of Terror

The terror attack at a satirical newspaper in France and its bloody resolution this week served to underscore the idea that radical Islam is a persistent and worrisome threat to democracies around the world, especially those with rooted interests in the Middle East and, what may be construed as, harmful intentions and public support for the suppression of those practicing the Muslim faith in territories as varied as Palestine and Syria.  Outright hostility to immigrant populations and the rise of political parties endorsing far right policies in terms of limiting immigration serves only to deepen a distrust that's already at the tipping point due to high levels of unemployment and dissatisfaction with the current state of government.  This toxic stew of factors has created the perfect storm of mistrust amongst neighbors and a growing fear of the "other."  

Invariably, when these types of incidents occur, world leaders feel compelled to react with promises to exact vengeance on those responsible, which is completely natural and logical.  Calls for unity amongst the population are also levied, and, out of a sense of trying to show the terrorists that they won't be intimidated and won't alter their lives, this is what happens.  Solidarity reigns for a time, and everyone feels as if they've taken back what has been stolen from them in a act of sheer brutality.  However, one has to wonder how effective these types of stances are in the grand scheme of things.  Terror attacks are as old as civilization itself, and it's highly unlikely that any time a world leader vows to bring the culprits to justice that it dissuades anyone from trying to carry out similar attacks in the future.  Marches under the banner of unity serve as temporary gauze on the wound.  The vulnerability is still there, and the terrorists are aware of this.  

The twenty-four seven news cycle doesn't help matters any.  Throughout the coverage, numerous talking heads are allowed to espouse opinions on all matter of topics, from the motivation behind the attacks to the possibility that the terrorists exhibited traits highly suggestive of their having been professionally trained in the handling of military caliber weapons and standard cover formations.  Where this type of discourse goes off the rails is when you have so called experts waging personal attacks on the alleged perpetrators.  Questioning whether or not there was some thought put into the operation and claiming that it's likely that those involved won't be able to escape capture for long, as if it's a given, serves no purpose.  Showcasing a "tough guy" stance doesn't detract from the fact that a tragedy has occurred.  It does nothing to diminish the horror and outrage that should follow.  If it were the case that these types of indictments held any sort of sway with the actors, then it should follow that we'd see a decrease in these attacks.  We haven't, and we probably won't.

Take, for example, ISIS.  They were supposed to be on the verge of defeat numerous times throughout this past year, once the U.S. led air strikes commenced.  In that case, you had many of these same experts writing the obituary for ISIS, saying it was only a matter of time before they would be so severely degraded in their ability to wage attacks across Syria and Iraq that it would only be a matter of time before this threat was quashed, a sort of flame out was thought to likely occur as ISIS was burning the candle a little too hot and at both ends.  Land that they easily captured would surely be reclaimed.  A funny thing happened, though.  The downfall of ISIS didn't and hasn't occurred.  In fact, you now have more groups from across the globe pledging allegiance to ISIS as they are now seen as the go to terror network.  They are barbaric and brutal in their tactics and actions, but they have written the blueprint for waging a successful terror campaign in the Middle East, as has Boko Harem in Nigeria, an all but forgotten state of affairs. 

A more cautious and restrained view would make matters seem more realistic in terms of finding a balance between a need for caution and a deviance that the terrorists won't win.  Declare the desire to bring those responsible to justice, but do so in a manner that does not seem overly aggressive in the face of a threat that isn't going to be easily extinguished.  Live life in a manner that isn't restrained by an unknown fear, but do so in a way that one can still be aware of the way life is, especially when the melting pot of cultures and religions is so highly visible, as it is throughout Europe.  By all means live freely and don't be cowed but do so in a manner that's not antagonistic to the very forces which see you as the enemy.