Entry 2151, on 2021-09-10 at 22:53:50 (Rating 4, Politics)
The 20 year anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks is coming up, New Zealand just experienced an Islamic terror incident, and a few years back in 2019 we had our worst atrocity of this sort when Brenton Tarrant murdered 51 people during the Christchurch terror attack. Also the "war on terror" has sort of unofficially ended with the departure of US forces, and their allies, from Afghanistan.
Clearly, terrorism is a very important and topical subject, so maybe it's time I had something to say about it. OK, here goes...
First, what is terrorism?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". That seems pretty fair, except I would use a wide defintion of the word "political" to encompass aims which extend beyond the narrow definition, into areas such as religion.
Note that terrorism is specifically unlawful. Military hostilities which comply with international laws might cause far more harm than unlawful violence but they are not terrorism. You might make a case to say they are just as bad, or even worse, but they are outside the bounds of this discussion.
So, we know what terrorism is. The next question is, how big a problem is it?
I have seen plenty of stats to show that in most parts of the world it is insignificant. Despite the high profile of terror attacks when they do happen, they account for a very small number of injuries and deaths compared with other causes.
Here are some stats from "Our World in Data": Over the past decade, terrorists killed an average of 21,000 people worldwide each year. The global death toll from terrorism over the past decade ranged from 8,000 in 2010 to a high of 44,000 in 2014. In 2017, terrorism was responsible for 0.05% of global deaths. Terrorism tends to be very geographically focused: 95% of deaths in 2017 occurred in the Middle East, Africa or South Asia. In most countries terrorism accounts for less than 0.01% of deaths, but in countries of high conflict, this can be as much as several percent.
Here's another stat: In the 9/11 attack about 3000 people were killed. That is about the same number of people killed every month on the roads in that country.
So superficially it doesn't seem like terrorism is such a big deal, but the effect goes beyond the numbers. Clearly the psychological effect of a certain number of people being the victims of terrorism is far greater than that same number succumbing to most other causes.
And in many other cases there is a necessity or a positive effect associated with the cause as well. For example, there might be 3000 people per month killed on US roads, but for that negative outcome people get the positive of the freedom to move around to where they need to be. And deaths by cancer or heart disease are bad, but those are just inevitable consequences of living and cannot be completely avoided, although any way to reduce their effects is welcome, of course.
But what are the positive effects of terrorism? Even if the terrorists succeeded in their aims, they might see that as positive, but the vast majority of people in the world wouldn't. Do we really want more Islamic states ruled under Sharia Law, for example?
So I would say that the negative effects of terrorism are greater than the mere numbers would suggest, and I question the simple quoting of stats which reject that conclusion.
Next question: what is the cause of terrorism?
Well, given that the definiton specifically mentions political aims, clearly there has to be some extreme ideology involved, and remember that I prefer a wide defintion of the word
"political" so that it extends to religion and other belief systems.
So the causes involve violent acts in support of an extreme ideology. I have said in the past that the worst extreme ideology in the world currently is Islam, so it should be no surprise that a large fraction of terrorism around the world is inspired by Islam. Note that I am not claiming that it is the only cause. In the Christchurch terror attack, for example, Muslims were the victims.
I have many sources of statistics on this, and Islam clearly stands out as being the biggest motivation behind most terrorism. For example, in 2017 a total of 7 out of the 10 most active terrorist groups were Islamic, and most of the others were Communist or Maoist inspired. These figures were almost identical in 2019.
Note that there are many other extreme political views which result in terrorism too, such as extreme conservative or right-wing politics, and "white supremacy". Unfortunately given the media's bias these tend to be exaggerated, but globally Islamic and leftist politics are the most significant causes. Just for the record, I equally condemn any political view which uses terrorism to achieve its ends.
But I do think Islam is a fundamentally problematic religion. I know that Christianity has nothing to be proud of in its history, but at least the founding figure of that religion had a primary message of peace and tolerance. Mohammed, on the other hand, seems to have often promoted the complete opposite, both in his actions and words. It is hard for a Christian to justifiably promote violence, but relatively easy for a Muslim. Note that this in no way means all Muslims are violent and all Christians are peaceful. Far from it.
So when our prime minister keeps saying don't blame Muslims, I agree. But I do partly blame Islam. And I wish her messaging was a bit more consistent, because she blamed right wingers, gun owners, and "white supremacists" in general for the Christchurch terrorist's actions, but refused to make the same connection this time. As per usual, she's just completely wrong about everything.
Final question: what can be done?
In hindsight the latest terrorist incident here in New Zealand, the Auckland supermarket knife attack, should have been predictable and could have easily been prevented. The terrorist was under surveillance by authorities and was a known threat. He was a political asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, but the laws we have didn't allow him to be expelled from the country, even though he had requested to have his citizenship revoked.
He was such an extreme and obvious case that maybe we could reasonably expect the authorities to have prevented it, but in general it is not easy. The more preventative measures which are put in place, the less individual freedom we have. And if restrictions are introduced for obvious terrorists today, who is to say they won't be extended in the future. As someone with sometimes controversial political views myself, how can I be confident I won't be targeted?
I know this is a "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge" argument, but I think the idea is still valid. Restrictions on individual freedom, once introduced, are a lot easier to strengthen than to eliminate. To quote Benjamin Franklin again: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
In summary, what am I saying?
I'm saying terrorism is bad, and that it is bad out of proportion to the actual number of casualties it causes. I am saying any ideology which uses violence as a mechanism to achieve its ends is bad. I am saying that Islam is the biggest cause of global terrorism at the moment. And I am saying that we need to be careful how we deal with it, or the cure will be worse than the disease. Let's try some preventative measures, but let's make sure they are rational and carefully considered, instead of just being a knee-jerk reaction to a single incident.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2021-09-16 at 13:57:13:
You say "terrorism is bad" but doesn't kill many people but many other things do. So why is it bad?
Comment 2 by Anonymous on 2021-09-16 at 14:30:20:
I think most people are, on some level, aware of the risks inherent in driving a car. They know that safety is a product of their own and other people's driving behaviour. We all know the risks and are prepared to accept the inbuilt potential negative consequences of driving.
The thing about terrorist attacks (for example on trains, planes, etc) is that they are external. They have nothing to do with the inherent risk (e.g. mechanical breakdown, falling asleep at the wheel etc) of moving from A to B. These deaths come about because of a deliberate effort to make something unsafe.
So, even though the number of people killed in road accidents is higher than those killed in terrorist attacks, this comparison has little meaning because one group of deaths (road accidents) is, in some way, unavoidable (or at least can be minimised), and the other group (bombings) is most certainly optional.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2021-09-17 at 09:31:34:
In response to comment 1: I judge how bad something is based on more than just the death rate. Other factors negatively affected by terrorism: individual freedom, attitude to other people, general societal happiness, economic progress. I'm not saying these are as bad as deaths in the first instance, but long term they might be even worse.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-09-17 at 09:33:40:
In response to comment 2: Yes, I agree with that, and that was partly the case I was making in my post. We can accept deaths which arise from a necessary activity which we have some control over, but terrorism seems pointless and uncontrolled. That's what gives it greater impact.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE