The promise of division is used as a rallying cry by this extremist organization, and others like it. At this point, we're really just driving people into their ranks.
That is exactly the reason they fuel a cycle of violence. The rest of the World responding with force is exactly what they want, but on other hand its impractical to just turn the other cheek all the time. Buying into that is supporting the misinformation that terrorists use to grow their ranks - there is a difference.
We cannot isolate one side for blame by looking at the past, it has to be understood as individual players acting with outcomes in the present, and using those past behaviours to understand the natures of future threats. The discussion isn't about who might be more justified in violence, that would be a massive waste of time and impossible to come to any practically accurate conclusion.
Remember lots of countries suffered the growing pains of the rise of humanity, Germany was wiped out, Japan got nuked, the Cold War saw nations used as geopolitical pawns by both sides, hundreds of millions killed for believing the "wrong" thing etc. So it's not the past which defines these nations, it is their capacity to move forward in a way which accepts the things listed in documents like the UNs UDHR, and some of the core elements of our Doctrine. There is unlimited resources in the past if people want to construct a victim mentality for bad things (which often didn't even happen to them), not just people in the Middle East - but that approach leads to hatred, suffering, stagnation, decay etc.
I reckon understanding the cycle of violence has to be kept true to the causal chain, and its those who want the cycle to continue, and fuel it to that end where fault must lay. As you point out, terrorists want the cycle of violence to escalate. In Belgium, it is only the fault of the people who supported the creation and detonation of the bombs, for example. I don't think its useful to blame the people who feel they have no choice but to use violence to try and stop the cycle - it is why the law of war focuses on assessment of violent action to be proportionate, have clear distinction and be necessary to that end, and the military study, train and are held to account for acting in accordance with it. Terrorists do the opposite -they act out of proportion to the threat (civilians are not a threat), do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants (target civilians!), and act at soft targets which do not have capacity to threaten them (to create fear, mistrust in authority). Terrorism is not war, its just organized crime of a political nature.
As silly as it sounds, it boils down to there being the good guys wanting to stop violence and create a peaceful successful society, and the bad guys who want to create violence so they can exert their own nature of society. Now as an individual we can all assess which outcome we'd prefer and align our views according to how that side sees the world, because good and bad are subjective, but if viewed in terms of human suffering and trying to for some universal 'improvement' in living, the choice becomes obvious I think. Remembering its the decisions and actions which define someone, not their excuses.
The sad thing is the only reason terrorism exists is because we have the freedom's to allow it. Perhaps they do not realize that the rest of the World can move to a tighter more controlled society without loosing our core values, it is just we'd rather not.... but I don't think they think it through that much, considering if they really want the future to be the past, then they must have little to zero creativity, hope and since curiosity seems to be on the most powerful things in driving brain health, probably not the most switched on chickens in the roost. Should violent Islamic extremism be viewed a mental health crisis!!!!
:ohmy:
Topic Author
