There are no words to describe the devastating horror of the recent ISIS attacks. Paris, Malaysia, Syria, Turkey, Beirut, Nigeria, the list is seemingly endless, as is the palpable fear that is emanating across the globe. Whilst many are standing shoulder to shoulder, showing solidarity and love in a time of hatred and suffering, others are retaliating with a sense of violence and aggression that caused the attack in the first place. The most obvious display of these opposing responses is in politics. Politicians, as ever, seem to always find words to describe events such as these. Whether they are representing their people’s views or attempting to gain the ever-sought after publicity they so desire, the news is not short of their jargon and spiel, no matter how well-intended their words.
To put my inner cynic back in her place, I want to share with you the views of famous (or infamous, depending on your stance) politicians across the globe.
Let’s start with someone close to home – our very own Dave. In a recent statement, Cameron said it was his ‘firm conviction’ that Britain should extend its airstrikes against Islamic State (ISIS) targets from Iraq to Syria. This is essentially increasing military intervention in Islamic States, resulting in probable civilian deaths. As a response, Corbyn took a different approach (shock), urging Cameron to not ‘feed a cycle of violence and hatred’. Although Corbyn has said if he was PM he would ‘shoot to kill’ known extremist militants residing in the UK, he disagrees with Cameron’s desire to extend military airstrikes that would merely incite more violence and risk unnecessary killings.
Corbyn referenced Obama in his statement, as the President said ‘ISIS grew out of our invasion of Iraq and it is one of its unintended consequences’. Obama went on to say an increasingly aggressive military stance in Syria ‘would be a mistake because we would see a repetition of what we’ve seen before’. This has resulted in a backlash of anger from Republicans, who wish to see an immediate retaliation from the Western world, much similar to one Cameron is suggesting.
Lastly, the view from the man at the centre of the American Press, at the centre of the hyperbolic, press-pansying chatter, and potentially at the centre of the most powerful Government in the world – Donald Trump. His views, while to me seem ludicrous and overtly racist, have increased his popularity, with him ‘rising in wake of the Paris Attacks’. He has insisted that ‘U.S. mosques would have to be closed in response to the threat of terrorism’, and he is ‘going to bomb the sh*t out of [ISIS].’ Trump told Yahoo that he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database, or even more distressingly, mandating that they carry special identification cards that note their faith. Sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it?
What alarms me most is the very vocal call for violent retaliation. I joke about Donald Trump regularly, almost forgetting that his views heavily influence the American population and what he is saying is being taken seriously by many people. And it’s not just him. Even centrist, conservative, sensible people are crying out for violence, for “justice”. Would the world be a better place if Syria was bombed in hopes of destroying ISIS? Would it even be successful? Is inciting hatred a solution for hatred?
At the end of the day, we need to seek justice in these situations – the deaths of these innocent people should not go unpunished. But at what cost? Should we risk other civilians’ lives for the sake of maybe targeting ISIS members? The answer is, I have no answers. We can just hope people with more authority than me do.
References:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/obama-responds-to-paris-terror-attack/
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/260708-trump-rises-in-wake-of-paris-attacks
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/20/opinions/obeidallah-trump-anti-muslim/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/trump-security-paris-attacks/