Terrorism: Why Suicide Bombers?

“Perhaps most important, coldly efficient bombings tear at the fabric of trust that holds societies together.”

Recently, terrorist groups have been moving towards utilizing suicide bombers in their attacks. We might ask why they would send their own people into an attack to die? And how do they recruit people who are willingly blowing themselves up? It turns out that there is some sort of strategy, or so it seems, behind using these suicide bombers.

These suicide bombings happen much more frequently in the Middle East than anywhere else in the world. In the Middle East and Asia, suicide bombings are more popular in terms of terrorism, but in the United States these “martyrs” tend to be armed gunmen who plan to die “via ‘suicide by cop.’”

“The fundamental characteristics of suicide bombing, and its strong attraction for the terrorist organizations behind it, are universal: Suicide bombings are inexpensive and effective. They are less complicated and compromising than other kinds of terrorist operations. They guarantee media coverage. The suicide terrorist is the ultimate smart bomb.”

The element of surprise is probably the biggest advantage that suicide bombers have. However, the fact that the attackers do not have to plan an escape route is also a major advantage that suicide bombers have over “conventional” terrorists. There is no physical profile for suicide bombers, as they can be any age, gender, or class. Sadly, even women and children have been recruited as suicide bombers since they are lesser suspects than men.

While there are no identifiable physical characteristics of suicide bombers, they can be profiled based on other traits. Suicide bombers are usually “’introverted, loners, quiet, non-gregarious, and inhibited’ as well as ‘socially marginal and downgraded by the people around them.’” These recruits are vulnerable people who are easily manipulated.

“A count released through ISIS propaganda channels said 90 suicide bombings were carried out in January alone.”

ISIS is calling these suicide bombings “martyrdom operations executed by Islamic state fighters.”

To make matters worse, suicide bombers are getting better at hiding their bombs. They used to be easier to spot, but now it is getting harder and harder. Suicide bombers used to carry bombs in duffel bags or backpacks, but now they have different strategies, keeping the bombs hidden in places like vests, belts, or even cars and trucks.

“Suicide bombs are even more effective because they present no immediate target for retributive justice, which can create political pressure for the victim country to engage in excessive or futile punitive military actions; this is often the very goal of the attack. With gunman attacks, the response and the hunting-down of the gunmen is itself a satisfying act of retribution.”

So the question still stands: Why are these people willing to kill themselves?

One of the most popular and recent suicide terrorist attacks in America is the attack that happened in Chattanooga in 2015. Muhammed Abdulazeez opened fire at a military center and a Navy facility killing several members of the United States military and wounding three others, including a police officer. It turns out that Abdulazeez was suffering from depression, drug usage, and was having suicidal thoughts.

“’Martyrdom’ has become a dangerous loophole: it is the only way Islamic suicide attackers believe they can guarantee their own death, and yet go to heaven instead of hell.”

Previously, research suggested that instead of seeing these bombers as people who are ready to kill themselves, they should be viewed as the “psychological equivalent” of soldiers who are willing to “risk their lives – and die, if necessary – for a cause they passionately believe in.” However, this research had been proven false, as most of these suicide missions are carried out by people with serious mental illnesses.

The answer to decreasing these attacks may lie in searching for an alternative option to killing these gunmen. If police can safely capture them instead of killing them, there may be less of an incentive for these terrorists to commit the crime:

“Along with broad efforts to change global perceptions of suicide attackers, it is thus worth considering whether there is some less lethal method we could employ to more often keep these individuals alive. For those who desperately want to be killed in action, this might actually make them reconsider.”

-Alexa Saffelle

 

Should We Have an International Terrorism Court?

International Courts have been around for some time now. The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) deal with. The ICJ is part of the United Nations, and deals with legal issues presented by nations or states. The ICC deals with trials of four types of crime: genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity.

In my previous blogs, I have been very critical of President Trump and how the general population views terrorism. In those blogs I expressed that terrorism isn’t the most pressing issue we should be focusing on as a country. However, just because there aren’t as many terrorist attacks in America as there are elsewhere, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be focusing on the attacks happening in other places around the world.

This map from the Global Terrorism Database shows the concentration and intensity of terrorist attacks in each location from 1970-2015. It includes data on domestic and international terrorist attacks.

As you can see, terrorist attacks happen more frequently in other places than they do in America. The concentration and intensity of these attacks are also higher in South America, Africa, Asia, and Europe than they are in the United States. According to the Institute for Economics and Peace:

“In 2014 the total number of deaths from terrorism increased by 80 per cent when compared to the prior year. This is the largest yearly increase in the last 15 years. Since the beginning of the 21st century, there has been over a nine-fold increase in the number of deaths from terrorism, rising from 3,329 in 2000 to 32,685 in 2014.”

The Institute for Economics and Peace also stated:

“There is now a growing consensus that tools to counter the ideology that drives violent extremism are needed since military forces alone cannot defeat violent extremism.”

Now that we have seen these numbers and statements, how do we expect to eliminate or at least decrease terrorism?

In 2015, Spain proposed the idea of an international terrorism court to the United Nations. This is the second time a terrorism court is being proposed. The first time was in 1937. While the idea of a terrorism court sounds great, the reality is that 93% of terrorist attacks around the world are domestic, meaning that 93% of the terrorist attacks in a country are carried out by people from that same country.

If nations are holding citizen terrorists accountable and prosecuting the people in their respective countries, this leaves 7% of terrorist attacks in the world to be “dealt with” by this new international court. The United Nations has 19 different documents that address terrorism and include plans to combat it, but there is only one section of the UN that deals with combating terrorism: the Counter Terrorism Committee.

With the proposition of this new terrorism court, I can only imagine the things that could go wrong. There is no doubt that the United States is a powerful nation. It is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and it has the most power military in the world (just to name a few examples). If an international terrorism court is born, the most likely thing to happen is that the United States would have lots of say into how the court is structured and ran. Several nations including the United States would most likely use the court for their own agenda to combat the 7% of international terrorist attacks happening in their countries only. And the places that need the most help will likely not receive it.

At first, the international terrorism court may seem like a good idea, but it wouldn’t be in the works for years, and there are a lot of questions that countries proposing the idea need to answer. Which countries would be in charge of the new court? What happens to these convicted terrorists and where would we keep them? And probably the most important: Would it actually hold terrorists accountable?

-Alexa Saffelle

Post 9/11: A Moral Panic

Moral panic erupted after 9/11, lasted for years, and is still prevalent in American society. A moral panic is defined by its 5 characteristics: concern, hostility, consensus, disproportionality, and volatility. The characteristics are defined as:

Concern – a potential or imagined threat

Hostility – disapproval towards the actions of those who are responsible for inflicting them

Consensus – agreement among the majority of people that the actions perpetrated are inappropriate

Disproportionality – a greater perception of harm than usual

Volatility – fear and panic evolves immediately

The most predominant characteristics still existing in America today because of 9/11 are hostility, consensus, and volatility. The hostility is directed towards Muslims, Arabs, and “Radical Islamic Terrorists.” The consensus is that terrorism is a serious problem, and it should be a high priority in terms of national security. Last, the volatility is still present because American citizens are more terrified about terrorism today than they ever have been before.

9/11 changed America in ways that today’s children will never understand. Prior to 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security did not exist. It is a department that was created by the Bush-administration shortly after 9/11, and its primary goal is to “ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.” This new department combined 22 already existing programs/agencies, and started new programs like ICE – Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Deportations in America have doubled since 9/11. As I mentioned in my blog last week, the people we have to worry about the most, in terms of terrorism, are the people who were born here, in America. However, new programs such as the Secure Communities program, were given the go-ahead to deport any undocumented immigrants in the criminal justice system, whether convicted of a crime or not.

The “War on Terror” has fueled hostility towards Muslims and Arabs in the United States, and increased horrible stereotypes about Muslims and the Islam religion. Islamophobia is a term used to express the fear and volatility United States citizens direct towards the Muslim people. While recent Pew Research polls show that attitudes towards Muslims are warming up, they are still the least “approved of” religion in the United States a decade-and-a-half later.

Airport security has drastically increased since 9/11, and is most likely the biggest change in the everyday lives of American citizens. People travelling on airplanes prior to 9/11 never had to take their shoes off. They could carry any amount of liquid they desired through airport security, and they were even allowed to have pocket knives. Because of the consensus between Americans that terrorism is such a large issue, the benefits of airport security outweigh the costs of long security lines and throwing away a bottle of water before undergoing the metal detector screening.

But even with all of these relatively new safeguards, polls show that Americans are more afraid of terrorist attacks today than they ever have been:

“40 percent of Americans now believe the country is more vulnerable to terrorism than it was in 2001, the highest ever.”

So who is to blame for this fear? Should we point to our nation’s leaders maybe? Or perhaps to the mass media?

This quote by President Donald Trump (from June 2016 about the Orlando night club shooting) is just one example of how the fear of terrorist attacks is so prominent in America today, and how volatility has not dwindled since 9/11:

“If we don’t get tough, and if we don’t get smart, and fast, we’re not going to have our country anymore… There will be nothing – absolutely nothing – left.”

The fear that President Trump is instilling in people’s minds is only going to further the moral panic that has ensued in the past 15-16 years.

“It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.”

The quote above from President Trump is a statement claiming that the media does not cover terrorist attacks. While this false statement most likely has underlying motives to generate support for his ban on immigrants and citizens (mentioned in my first blog), this quote from the President will only further instill fear in U.S. citizen’s minds about terrorism.

Coverage of terrorist attacks and aftermaths receive plenty of air-time, even though the media is sometimes hesitant to give terrorists the attention they are seeking. Unfortunately, terrorism receives so much air-time that Americans are still in a moral panic about the issue of terrorism. The consensus, hostility, and volatility shared between United States citizens will not diminish any time soon.

Why Don’t We Call Them Terrorists?

It is no surprise that President Trump would rather focus on foreign terrorism than white extremist terrorism. His favorite phrase may actually be “radical Islam terrorists.” In my previous blog, I talked about the new immigration ban the Trump administration is enforcing on seven countries in the Middle East.

Keep in mind: “There have been zero fatal terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 1975 by immigrants from the seven countries listed in Trump’s executive order.”

Now the President wants to change the U.S. government program known as “Countering Violent Extremism,” to “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism.” The program is aimed at countering any kind of terrorist attack, foreign or domestic, but President Trump apparently believes that “Radical Muslims” are the only terrorists that Americans need to worry about. So, President Trump… White supremacy is no longer a threat to American citizens?

On Monday, January 30, 2017 an attack occurred at a Muslim Mosque in Quebec, Canada. This shooting was executed by a white French-Canadian university student. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognized the attack as a terrorist attack, but it wasn’t so easy for President Trump, who still has yet to comment on the matter.

President Trump actually published a list of terrorist attacks, which he claims the media has not covered in enough detail. This list includes the attack on the Charleston, South Carolina church, and the San Bernardino, California attack, but did not include the attack on the Muslim mosque in Quebec. Both the Charleston shooting and the San Bernardino terrorist attack were discussed on most, if not all, national media platforms for days after they happened.

These two events, the attack in Quebec and the list being published, sparked an on-air debate between CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota and Congressman Sean Duffy, a Representative of Wisconsin. During this debate, Camerota asks Congressman Duffy:

“Why isn’t the President talking about the white terrorist who mowed down six Muslims who were praying at their mosque?”

In response to the question, this is what the Congressman had to say:

“I don’t know. But I would just tell you there’s a difference, again, death and murder on both sides is wrong, but if you want to take the dozens of scenarios where ISIS-inspired attacks have taken innocents, and you give me one example of what’s happened, I think that was in Canada, I’m going to condemn them all. But you don’t have a group like ISIS or al-Qaeda that is inspiring around the world to take up arms and kill innocents. That was a one-off. That was a one-off, Alisyn, and you have a movement on the other side.”

After the Congressman makes these remarks, claiming there is a “difference” between “Radical Islam” attacks and white extremist attacks, a shocking exchange happens between the news anchor and the Representative:

CAMEROTA: How about Charleston, congressman? He was an extremist. He was a white extremist?

DUFFY: Yes, he was. OK?

CAMEROTA: How about that? That doesn’t matter?

DUFFY: No, it does matter. It does matter. Look at the good things that came from it. [Then-South Carolina Gov.] Nikki Haley took down the Confederate flag, that was great.

But you want to say I can give you a couple of examples. There’s no constant threat that goes through these attacks. And you have radical Islamic terrorists and ISIS that are driving the attacks, and if you want to compare those two, maybe you can throw another one ―

CAMEROTA: You can.

Congressman Duffy actually tried to make light of the Charleston shooting by saying that taking down the Confederate flag was a “good thing” that came out of the situation. Trying to even slightly justify or rationalize an attack that took so many innocent lives is dumbfounding.

The debate, in which Rep. Duffy challenges Camerota to name two white terrorist attacks, goes on for thirteen minutes, but my questions to the Congressman are: What about all of the terrorist attacks on American soil that have been committed by white extremists? Are white supremacists not inspiring people to hate and commit acts of terror on certain groups? Do neo-Nazis, the KKK, and other white supremacists not inspire hatred and the killing of innocent people?

Here is a list of 39 white supremacist terrorist attacks since the Oklahoma City bombing for Congressman Duffy to refer to.

The bottom line here is that white extremists who execute acts of terror are, in fact, terrorists, and they continue to jeopardize the safety of U.S. citizens whether the government wants to acknowledge it or not.

 

 

-Alexa Saffelle

President Trump and His Big Ban

During his campaign, President Trump mentioned his future plans that requires Muslims to carry some sort of religious identification or enter themselves into a database. When a reporter asked if Trump’s future requirements for Muslims might be reminiscent to the Jews in Nazi Germany, he replied, “You tell me.” All of this was an attempt to show how combating foreign terrorism was going to be high on Trump’s list when he would take office.

Donald Trump has been busy signing executive orders during his first few days as the new President. Soon he will sign an executive order banning immigrant and non-immigrant entry into the United States from seven countries. This block will be upheld for at least 30 days. Along with this ban, he will implement a 120-day delay on allowing refugee entrance into the United States.

What did Mr. President have to say about this ban?

“[these countries] have tremendous terror… and [people from these countries] are going to come in and cause tremendous problems.”

Another quote from the President about the ban:

“You’re looking at people that come in, in many cases with evil intentions. I don’t want that. They’re ISIS. They’re coming in under false pretense. I don’t want that.”

These seven countries include: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia. All of these countries have a population that is mostly Muslim. This begs me to ask the question: While he claims his motives for the ban are “terrorism” and “ISIS,” is this the Muslim Ban Donald Trump spoke of during his campaign? Is he allowed to do this?

The most shocking part of this news is that a President can end all entry into the United States from any country he desires “without any justification or approval from Congress.”

This U.S. Code states that President Trump has the power to execute such an order:

U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Exactly how “detrimental” are the immigrants, non-immigrants, and refugees that are entering the U.S.? While I am 100% in support of combating foreign and domestic terrorism, we must look at the facts. In Seth Sweet’s blog post “Safety in the Age of Terror,” he mentions that it is “highly unlikely” to be a victim of a terrorist attack in the United States today. We are more likely to die of heart disease, cancer, or while driving home from work.

Seth also mentions the problem that these orders may play a role in aggressive recruitment for terrorist organizations: “ISIS believes that if we alienate the majority of Muslim Americans, many will defect to the terrorist organization.”

The two largest terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States in the past two years were committed by people who had no ties to any of the seven countries:

“Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, June 12, was a U.S.-born Afghan-American who’d traveled to Saudi Arabia in recent years. And Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the married couple who killed 14 people in San Bernadino, California, Dec. 2, 2015 also had no ties to those seven countries. Farook was born in the U.S. to Pakistani immigrants, and his wife was a recent arrival from Saudi Arabia, which Farook had visited.”

While terrorism is a problem that should not be taken lightly, President Trump could be doing more productive things during his first few weeks as President than banning immigration in an attempt to stop terrorists from entering the United States, no matter what country these immigrants are coming from. By implementing the ban, he may be doing more harm than good.

So is the United States really combating foreign terrorism by halting the entrance of immigrants and refugees from certain countries? Or are we wasting our sweet time trying to fix a problem that was “highly unlikely” to happen in the first place?