Home AuthorsAll posts by Arturo Siguenza
Author

Arturo Siguenza

LGBTTerrorism

Another Mass Shooting in America, Another Retreat to our Fail Safe: the 2nd Amendment

written by Arturo Siguenza

Saturday, June 12th, marked yet another horrific case of mass homicide in America—another shooting to emblazon headlines, another series of lives lost at the mercy of a speeding bullet. The occurrence of mass shootings has become so ingrained in the normalcy of American society that the Orlando massacre did not raise the question of “how”, but rather implored the statement of “not again.” Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he has had to address the nation 14 times in the aftermath of a mass shooting. He led 14 speeches calling for prayers, 14 speeches denouncing the fruition of hate crimes, 14 speeches demanding change. The events of this past weekend proved no different, as the President stepped on to his podium to debrief the nation on the tragic events:

Today, as Americans, we grieve the brutal murder—a horrific massacre—of dozens of innocent people.  We pray for their families, who are grasping for answers with broken hearts. We stand with the people of Orlando, who have endured a terrible attack on their city.

        In the residuum of Saturday night, we face another massacre of horrific proportions. As Americans we grieve, as humans we mourn, and as an international community we lament in solidarity. However, we cannot allow this tragedy to fade into history books, or timelines, or emotional speeches that plea for change that goes unmet. It is easy for the world to unite in emotional support for Americans. It is easy to change our Facebook filters, write impassioned articles and posts, or illuminate our monuments for the victims and families of the Orlando massacre, but it is far more difficult and demands a far greater exertion to enact lasting changes that will deter this from happening again.

        The Orlando events highlight to American society, yet again, the extreme public threat that gun violence poses in our country. From 1996 to 2012, the US has been the breeding ground for nearly a third of the world’s total mass shootings. So what makes the US so prone to gun violence? In a country where where gun regulations vary tremendously—only 13 states  require background checks performed regardless of the type of gun or how it is sold—it would seem clear that a link between gun laws and mass shootings would be made. Yet the deadlocked debate between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Obama administration has continued to persist.

        To understand the impact of gun control, we can look to our Aussie allies. In April of 1996, a young man killed thirty-five people in Australia’s deadliest mass killing to date: the Port Arthur Massacre. Unlike the United States, this event spurred massive change in Australia’s gun policies. Despite a gun culture paralleling that of America, Australians chose to put these sentiments aside and enact intense gun buyback programs and stricter gun access laws. Since these enactments, Australia has seen declining gun-death rates and has had no gun-related mass killings since 1996. However, despite this success, many Americans refuse to accept gun control as a realistic option. The NRA leads this refusal, bashing the Australian comparison. It claims the country’s government went against the will of their people by confiscating guns and deprived citizens of the right to defend themselves.

        In the wake of Orlando, the US has united against the atrocity of these attacks, but opponents of gun control continue to dominate. BBC reports that the assailant was a US citizen of Afghan descent, whom the FBI had interviewed twice inconclusively for Islamic State (IS) affiliations between 2013 and 2014. He had also legally purchased the assault rifle and handgun used for the attacks within two weeks of the events. With this in mind, two conflicting positions reappeared. These can be clearly seen in the presumptive presidential nominees’ responses to last Saturday’s events. In a speech in Cleveland, Hillary Clinton addressed a crowd calling for stricter gun control laws and rebutted her NRA opponents in stating:

I know some will say that assault weapons and background checks are totally separate issues having nothing to do with terrorism. Well, in Orlando and San Bernardino terrorists used assault weapons, the AR-15. And they used it to kill Americans… We have to make it harder for people who should not have those weapons of war. And that may not stop every shooting or every terrorist attack, but it will stop some and it will save lives.

Avoiding the topic of gun control, Trump instead resorted to his obdurate stance of banning Muslims from the US as solving the root of the issue:

I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger but now many peers… are saying that I was right to do so… I will use this power to protect the American people. When I’m elected I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.

In this we see two opposing sides. On one hand, we have those who admit this was an act of terrorism, but realize it has taken place within the scope of gun access. On the other, there are those who choose to blame Islam and ban immigration as opposed to addressing the ease with which Americans can purchase guns. But I beckon this question: would a ban on Muslims have miraculously stopped the mass shootings that occurred on US soil by shooters with no affiliations to the Islamic State? Would this have stopped the 20-year-old Danny Lanza from fatally shooting 20 school children in 2012, or Dylann Storm from killing 9 in Charleston?  Regardless of whether the shooter had IS affiliations, we cannot let this dissuade us from realizing this is also a matter of growing gun violence in America. More importantly, we cannot let xenophobia take hold of our country and criminalize a whole religion for the actions of a select few. IS is not a representative of Islam. Nor is the religion, or its followers, at blame for this attack. Omar Mateen was a US born citizen and riddled with homophobic sentiments. He sought refuge in the preachings of a vicious terrorist organization. However, a immigration ban on his entire religion could not have prevented his hate from culminating. Was this an act of terrorism? Yes. But did lenient gun laws play a role? Yes, they did.

        The NRA argues, “Gun laws don’t deter terrorists.” But they do deter access to lethal weapons of war capable of shooting 45 rounds per minute. Whether we choose to focus on the shooter’s terrorist affiliations or not, the fact remains: weak gun regulations continue to facilitate mass shootings. Terrorism and gun control are not mutually exclusive. Just because terrorism is an issue does not mean gun access is not. Our second amendment right should not enable another mass shooting. So I will leave you with these wise words from Full Frontal’s Samantha Bee:

There is no shortage of troubled 20 somethings out there. And whether they’re radicalized by ISIS, or homophobia, or white nationalism, or a dislike of movies, we are making it far too easy for their derangement to kill us.

Our prayers go out to those affected by the Orlando shootings and the LGBTQ community. The Generation stands with you.

 

June 18, 2016 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
From Right to Left: Christiane Amanpour, Daniel Pearl Magnet High School Student Journalists, Susan Oh, Arturo Siguenza UCLA Photography
UCLA and the World

The Evolution of Journalism – An Exclusive Interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour

written by Arturo Siguenza

On April 13, 2016, CNN’s chief international correspondent and award-winning journalist Christiane Amanpour spoke at UCLA’s Korn Convocation Hall for the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture Series. The series was created to commemorate the life and work of Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal who was kidnapped and brutally murdered by Pakistani militants in 2002. Ms. Amanpour, who sits on the board of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, has covered breaking news from across the globe for over 20 years and is known for her exclusive and hard-hitting interviews with world leaders, including former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Both during the lecture and in an interview with The Generation Editors Arturo Siguenza and Susan Oh, Ms. Amanpour spoke about the power and importance of journalism as a civic duty and the changing environment of journalism today.  

Amanpour began by addressing how important it is for Americans to be connected to the world. 9/11, she recounted, was a game changer for Americans. It impacted not only our response to terrorism, but the manner in which we absorb and emit news in the international sphere.

9/11 is the modern day equivalent of Pearl Harbor and all of that which made the world and brought the world home for Americans in a way that hasn’t been true in the previous generation or so. I have always believed that 9/11 or no 9/11, the world is a massively important place that Americans particularly cannot get along with not knowing about.

9/11 forced America to be engaged and conscious of the world outside our borders, and the need for this awareness has grown exponentially. “It’s a two way street, and there’s no choice… other than to be engaged,” she argued, and it is foreign correspondents, like Daniel Pearl and Amanpour herself, that serve as conduits for this interdependent relationship. It is journalists who “have dedicated their lives to being your eyes and ears around the world, and actually sacrificed their lives to make that happen.” This is where the power of journalists stands firmly. Journalists and foreign correspondents respond to a calling to connect the world we live in by telling the stories of those desperate to be heard. These stories cross borders, dissect political views, and unite people through the words and images that journalists proliferate.

Born in Iran, Amanpour responded to the call. She experienced firsthand the toppling effects of the Islamic Revolution on her friends, family and country, fueling her passion for journalism.

So I came to the United States, with the idea of being a journalist, because the revolution in Iran taught me, bizarrely, to be interested. It fired my imagination. It fired my curiosity, born of a very personal life experience. I wanted to understand what was going on in the world that could all of a sudden turn my life, and my friends, and my parents, upside down.

From then on, she came to push the boundaries of journalism, covering stories from Bosnia to Iraq, from Rwanda to Somalia, from Afghanistan to Turkey, and far more.

Her bold and courageous reporting style has set her apart from her peers, as she not only tells a story, but takes a stance and calls for action from the global community. She recounted her coverage of the Bosnian War in the early ‘90s explaining how she and her colleagues used their platform as journalists to push for world leaders to respond to the atrocities they witnessed, especially the massacre in Srebrenica.

I think the fact that we were able to do that in Bosnia made a difference and eventually brought an end to the war, because our reporting made it impossible, eventually, for Western democracies to turn away.

Since then, she has made it her mission to “take the torch of light and truth and shine it in all the dark corners,” and bring justice to places where she finds impunity. “If that makes me an activist,” she added, “then yes, I am an activist.”

In her years as a journalist, she reported directly from battlefields, experiencing the dangers of her profession firsthand. However, as she looked back, Ms. Amanpour reflected on how much has changed. She noted that while journalists have historically been caught in the crossfire of war and conflict, it was during the Bosnian War that journalists started to be deliberately attacked. “[Daniel Pearl] was perhaps the first of the brutally murdered journalists in our generation…Today, and especially since 9/11, the leading cause of death for journalists is murder…people want to shut us up.” The increased risks of death, kidnapping and imprisonment for journalists today makes it incredibly difficult to report from war-torn places like Syria, which has led to underreporting of the war. She believes the lack of information from Syria, coupled with the West’s reluctance to intervene, has allowed ISIS to grow, terrorism to flourish and has resulted in a refugee crisis in Europe–an issue that Western countries are scrambling to mitigate. This is precisely why she argues that the global community must be engaged and invested in what is going on around the world.

The world is way too interconnected now for…any country to sit contentedly in its fortress…This is too globalized a world for anyone to be able to make it, for anybody, any country to be able to make it alone.

Amanpour reminded us that journalists hold the ability of forcing the world and its leaders to take notice,  “whether it’s your school leader, whether it’s community leaders, whether it’s the mayor’s office, the governor’s office, the president, Congress, dictators around the world, whoever it might be, the more we shine the light on these stories, the more difficult it is for impunity to take hold.”

In addition to the concerns she has about the increased dangers of reporting from the field, Amanpour is also troubled by how journalism is consumed today. In today’s age of smartphones, social media and the barrage of viral content, she is concerned that journalism is losing its ability to garner focused attention to pressing issues. With more people self-selecting the news they want to read and superficially lending attention to stories via “likes”, she feels that society is losing its collective consciousness, or the “critical mass that [we] need to affect any kind of reaction to what is happening”.  She fears that this “flash in the pan” reporting, makes everything seem important, while at the same time, makes nothing important at all. We came together to #BringBackOurGirls in Nigeria and #JeSuisCharlie after the Paris attacks, but she asks, “What now?” She admits that journalists are still trying to figure out “how to make [technology] work” for them and, in her case, how to engage activism in today’s climate of fleeting attention.

Today, journalists walk a  fine line between performing a civic duty to the world, and putting their lives at risk in the face of leaders and organizations that deem us enemies. From Syria to Egypt, from Russia to Turkey, from Mexico to the Philippines, leaders have aimed to punish journalists not only physically, but also by voiding freedom of expression.

They don’t have to kill you, although they do, but they can put you in jail. They can put you on trial. They can just silence you whichever way they want to.

Amanpour has dedicated significant time to questioning those who seek to silence and suppress journalism, sitting face-to-face with leaders like Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and bravely pushing them for answers. However, she recognizes the evolving nature and danger journalism has taken on. While she faces increased challenges of spreading truth to the masses and increased danger in the field, she remains committed to her religion of truth–the same religion of truth that Daniel Pearl risked his life to uphold–to be the “eyes and ears” for all of us at home.
A link to the full audio of the interview can be found here. 

June 15, 2016 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Security and ConflictTerrorism

The Next Commander in Chief—Where the 2016 Presidential Candidates Stand on Foreign Policy and Why it Matters

written by Arturo Siguenza

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in the Milwaukee Democratic Debate last February, “When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the commander-in-chief. And it’s important that people really look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are, and who is best prepared for dealing with them.” Although a clear plug for her past experience, Clinton highlights a crucial element to the presidency that can easily be lost in the media circus surrounding the 2016 election. A time meant to showcase credentials and visions for the future has quickly turned into the spectacle and squabble of entertainment television. The media has succumbed to treating this race for the presidency as just another reality TV show MTV would proudly stream alongside The Real World. With the most recent GOP debate spotlighting personal banter rather than prevailing issues, it is time for us as audiences but most importantly as voters, to make ourselves informed and conscious of the power that one of these presidential hopefuls will soon attain. One of these lucky selected few will soon run this country and the US armed forces, inheriting what can arguably be deemed as the most powerful position in the world. In the wise words of Uncle Ben, “with great power comes great responsibility,” and the power in this case, among an extensive list of others, comes from the role of Commander in Chief.

In the digital age, remarks on the campaign trail spread like wildfire across news platforms having immediate impacts on citizens nationally and on the perception of the United States internationally. Case in point: Trump’s rhetoric inciting violence against immigrants with the recent assault of a homeless hispanic man by two brothers, one of which stated, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported,” and Trump responded with “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again.” Conversely government heads such as former President Fox of Mexico, in an interview with CNN, voiced that Donald Trump reminds him of Hitler. Although this is but one candidate’s views, it foreshadows the extremely real mindset a presidential frontrunner will take as President and as Commander in Chief and the international denunciation of his views.

These comments and plans for US interaction with the world demand a great deal of attention considering the vast foreign policy challenges that currently exist. The new president will be stepping into a world plagued by terrorist attacks —al-Shabab claiming the most recent bomb attack on a Somalian airplane in reaction to the Turkish airline’s state affiliation to Western operations; will have to face the escalating hodgepodge of civil war against President Bashar al-Assad and proxy war against IS in Syria, along with the snowballing refugee crisis they have kindled; the budding international rivalry with Russia; and the augmenting threat of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, to name a few. As the primaries are in full swing, positions on these international aspects may be greatly impacted by the scrimmage for votes, but they do paint a very real picture of how these candidates will espouse this role. A depiction of this can be quickly processed by simply viewing the way each candidate has titled these issues on their respective websites. Hillary Clinton: “National Security.” Bernie Sanders: “War and Peace.” Donald Trump: “The Military.” Ted Cruz: “Defend Our Nation.” Marco Rubio: “Build American Strength.” These headlines show clear distinctions, with Republicans siding for a militaristic approach and the Democrats opting for diplomatic engagement. To elaborate on a few of the frontrunners’ perspectives, Clinton’s platform seeks to establish a strong economic foundation for diplomatic influence and military defense, aims to disrupt terrorist infrastructure on the ground and online, and hopes to strengthen current partnerships and work to build new ones. Sanders views the role of Commander in Chief as defending this nation, but seeking diplomatic solutions before military action, stating, “war must be a last resort, not the first option.” Trump asserts the military as a primordial force, declaring,—and I quote— “I will make our Military so big, powerful and strong that no one will mess with us.” Following a similar path, Cruz views rebuilding America’s military as key in maintaining national safety and exerting our leadership on the global stage, because “what is best for America is best for the world.”

One of the biggest issues affecting the international sphere, as previously mentioned, is the ongoing war against terrorism primordially sparked by the Islamic State and its affiliates. With a new attack emerging at an almost weekly basis and the scope of these organizations reaching the United States with the most recent San Bernardino shooting, the threat of terrorism has once again reached a security level on par with the period immediately following 9/11. A line connecting the candidates, both Democrat and Republican, is the defeat of IS. However, their projected methods of accomplishing this and tackling its interconnected aspects differentiate their stances. Journalists have outlined the candidates’ positions from accepting refugees, to instituting a no-fly zone, to declaring war. The divide seems clear between the two parties on accepting refugees, but when it comes to military action party lines begin to blur. The Republican candidates have been clear in opposing any further acceptance of Syrian refugees in light of the recent domestic terror attacks, while Democrats have protested anti-refugee and anti-muslim rhetoric in supporting increases in refugee acceptance. Now in the logistics of the war: Cruz and Sanders are both against sending in more US ground troops, while Trump, Clinton and Rubio agree that more troops are needed—with Clinton and Rubio specifying their support for the sending a special ops team. Clinton and the Republicans also both advocate for instituting a no-fly zone in Syria, while Sanders stands alone in his opposition of it. Additionally in terms of invoking NATO Article 5 (the principle of collective defence, requiring all parties to assist in collective action, including the use of armed force, when one or more signatories is attacked), Rubio has favored invoking it, while the rest of the candidates remain unclear In their position for it. IS must be eliminated, they all hail, but how they will achieve this is where divisions come into play.

Another key issue headlining foreign policy talks is US-Russian relations. The ongoing rivalry is no secret, regarding the presence of both forces in Syria particularly and the Middle East in general. Despite the rivalry, there is distinction in how the presidential candidates will interact with Putin. On this gradient of views, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio stand strongest in condemning Russia’s President declaring him as “a bully and a dictator” and “a gangster and a criminal” respectively. Cruz calls for asserting US strength in Syria by expanding missile defenses in Eastern Europe while highlighting the country’s human rights violations to deter Russian resurgence. Rubio has accused Putin of “trying to destroy NATO” in challenging US dominance in the Middle East in addition to his support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In the middle of the gradient lies Hillary Clinton, who has gone head to head with Putin in her past role of Secretary of State. She affirms her belief that Russia has aimed to undermine and confront American power and that the US must counter this; however she admits that when it comes to Syria, the solution must comprise Russian participation. Diverting even further into a diplomatic approach, Sanders promotes a collaborative actions with allies against Russian aggression in placing economic sanctions and international pressure on Putin as “an alternative to any direct military confrontation.” Now on the far side of the gradient is the very pro-Putin candidate Donald Trump who, unlike his peers, seems to be carrying on a friendly relationship stating, “I’ve always felt fine about Putin,” and that “Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect,” in response to Putin’s endorsing him.

This breakdown is only a soundbite of the extensive decisions one of these frontrunners will take on. Domestic goals are undeniably a prevailing aspect of this race, but do not let the emphasis on the domestic distract you. We are about to elect a new Commander in Chief. Foreign affairs vastly impact the national, and one Presidential hopeful will inherit the power to overhaul world order as hegemon in the international sphere. It is easy to get caught up in the drama and, more recently, outright brawls, between the presidential hopefuls on the debate floor. However, this election can no longer serve as mere entertainment. Voters must watch debates with critical minds and must investigate what candidates best align with their views. Candidates’ platforms are not a mystery.  Answers are literally a click away.  There is no excuse for ignorance.  Use the Internet. Let it be  your informant, let it be your voice. The proliferation of information is our greatest strength in this election.  Whether you “feel the Bern”, want to “make America great again,” see “Hillary for America,” believe in “A New American Century” or remain undecided, keep yourself informed and vote for who you believe can best represent this nation as not just President, but further as Commander in Chief.

March 3, 2016 0 comment
2 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
EuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsMiddle EastSecuritySecurity and ConflictTerrorismUncategorized

In the Shadow of Terror—The Global Response to Terrorism in Light of the Paris Attacks

written by Arturo Siguenza

November 13, a day that will surely be ingrained in the nightmares of thousands, began as any other day in Paris, with the promise of an exciting evening of friends, food, and music. No one predicted the horror that would ensue as the sun set, namely that a group of strategically organized terrorists would infiltrate various locations throughout the city. At 9:20pm explosions erupted in the locality around the Stade de France, triggering the beginning of multiple attacks. Over the next four hours, cafes and restaurants were targeted in a slew of bombings and shootings, culminating at the Bataclan Concert Hall. Those hoping to enjoy an evening of rock music headlined by the American band, Eagles of Death Metal, instead faced a group of armed militants that entered the venue and opened fire at unsuspecting crowds. Within a few hours, the city of Paris was consumed by panic and terror as thousands fled these targeted centers in search of safe havens from the attacks.

The city of Paris lost 130 lives throughout the course of the night and 351 people were left injured. An attack meant to indiscriminately stir fear not only in France, but globally, has successfully shaken spirits worldwide. Empathy for France was instantaneous as social media reacted in support. Facebook instituted a safety check system, a tool previously reserved for natural disasters, allowing users in Paris to notify their loved ones of their status. Feeds flooded with profile pictures donning a blue, white and red filter in solidarity. Across all social media platforms, people showed their support using the hashtag #prayforparis, and governments worldwide showed their solidarity, projecting the French flag over their monuments and gathering to discuss collective action. Just two days after the attacks, world leaders met at the G20 World Summit in Turkey, vowing to increase military response against IS. Since the World Summit, an international coalition including the USA, France, the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and recently Britain, has formed using air strikes to bomb IS targets in Syria aiming to weaken the organization’s strongholds. With the ever-increasing support for France and the reactionary discussions among government heads, the Paris attacks marked a pivotal point in the war against IS and its affiliates. Claiming responsibility for the horrific attacks, IS has demonstrated its ability to not only effectively inflict its militant terror tactics within its territorial strongholds but also to extend this destructive reach internationally.

But what does this social response and acceleration in government action tell us? The terrorist attacks in Paris and the response that followed showed a collective empathy that cut across national boundaries, but also conversely emphasized the stark contrast in the attention garnered by terrorist attacks in other regions. With everyone from celebrities to prominent government officials making statements and sending their condolences and prayers to Parisians, one begins to wonder why other countries do not receive the same treatment. For instance, earlier last year a suicide bomber killed 12 people during a funeral in eastern Afghanistan. In April, al-Shabab militants attacked and killed 147 at Garissa University in Kenya, most of whom were students. Just a day before the attacks in Paris, a suicide bombing orchestrated by ISIS hit the city of Beirut killing 43 people. These are but a few of the acts of terrorism this past year and the majority of these brutal incidents share one common factor: none garnered the outpouring of global attention and empathy that the Paris attacks had.

My intention is not to shame the solidarity shown for Paris, but to highlight the stark contrast between how these events are treated.  This contrast makes it impossible to continue ignoring the chronic perception that terrorism occurring in countries situated in regions more prone to violence, such as in the Middle East and Africa, can be waved aside as normal or habitual occurrences. At the G20 Summit in November, President Obama referred to the events in Paris as not just an attack on France but as “an attack on the civilized world.” This raises the question as to how and what we can identify as “the civilized world?” This loaded statement calls forth the idea that world governments, popular media, and ordinary individuals dismiss some regions as backwards and their confrontations with violence as the unfortunate but dismissible status quo—until bombs go off in their own backyards. What is most distressing is that attacks subsequently launched against terrorist organizations often result in the upheaval and loss of many innocent civilian lives; consider the civilian death toll in the War on Terrorism following 9/11 and the warzone that Syria has become. Civilians in countries that seem to be too “uncivilized” to foster global attention or completely lost in micro-aggression, are often neglected and their already chaotic surroundings decimated.

So what does this mean for the future in the aftermath of the Paris attacks? It is clear that IS and its affiliates will not stop anytime soon in their ongoing terror rampage. They have already claimed sequence of more attacks, since the Paris events. In Nigeria two bomb attacks carried out by Boko Haram killed 31 and injured 72. This past week a suicide bomber—and suspected member of IS—killed 10 in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet Square and the organization also orchestrated a series of attacks in Jakarta leaving 2 dead and 20 injured. A new IS propaganda video, titled “Paris Has Collapsed,” was released on November 20th glorifying the Paris attacks and vowing continuation of threats to not only France, but also the U.S. The hacker-activist group known as Anonymous also released a list of future IS targets it claims to have uncovered suggesting plans for strikes in the U.S., Indonesia, Italy, and Lebanon. Additionally we also see the domino effect IS attacks have on its ongoing rivalry with Al Qaeda for Islamic supremacy. Shortly after the Paris attacks, Al Qaeda launched an attack that killed 19 in a Mali hotel on November 20th.  A dangerous future of competition between the two organizations is becoming progressively more apparent.

The West, or the “civilized world” as described by President Obama, is entering a state of emergency as the war against terrorism escalates indefinitely. The next steps will undoubtedly bring massive change to the international sphere. In this, we must remember that government and social response can empower terrorism as much as it can end it; justice is our duty but retaliation is not. We cannot permit ourselves to repeat the mistakes following 9/11 with an emergency response that does not consider further consequences in war-torn countries. For every innocent life lost in distant battlefields and each person at home that allows their fear to turn them away from the idea of human rights, plays into the hands of terrorist organizations moving us towards an increasingly militant global climate fueled by terror.

 

My prayers go out to all those affected by the recent terrorist attacks and those who continue to experience the aftermath of past episodes. Your stories will not go forgotten.

January 15, 2016 1 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest