World famine, Malaria, HIV, AIDS and many more, contributing to the biggest death tolls in the world DAILY. Issues, that in general, with funding, can be ‘cured’ or resolved. Alas, instead on focusing on the world’s biggest issues, we focus on ISIS, an Eastern group that captivates daily slots in newspapers and television shows. With the foreleader, ‘Jihadi John’ and his little entourage of mask-wearing, AK-wielding extremists. Perhaps it is rightly so that their movement is so strongly documented, with the brutal and ‘unjust’ murdering of many innocent civilians such as James Foley, David Haines and John Cantlie. This being said, due to the mass reporting on such incidents, is our focus being shifted elsewhere?
Let me iterate this before trailing further into the depths of this article. This is not some conspirator rant in order to convert peoples beliefs, nor is it to belittle or offend any of those closely affected by ISIS’ or 9/11 victims. It is simply a different outlook; a rose amongst thorns of theories.
Closely following the events of September 11th 2001, it is a FACT that social stigma towards Muslims raised significantly. They were victimised, segregated by many, shunted and generalised. All of a sudden, the media turned on all Muslims as a representative of the select few who decided the fate of 2977 innocent civilians. The typical Muslim ‘figure’ was attacked; the dark-skinned, turban wearing faith-follower being the forefront of all comments. The perpetrators of the attack, Al Qaeda, were known instantly as ‘Muslim Extremists’. Emphasis placed on the word ‘Muslim’. This was backed up through George Bush’ speech on the ‘war on terror’, dedicating a whole section on why Muslims are ‘so close to him and the nation’, yet directly blaming specific Muslims on the attack. As to be expected, the vast majority of Americans, and people globally, joined the stigmatic attacks on Muslims. They feared their safety around them, they hurled racist attacks, and the lives of Muslims world-wide changed. All because of that one day.
This day was, as of publishing, 4958 days ago, or 13 and a half years. In most respects, this extreme racism and seemingly ‘hatred’ towards the Muslim ideology began to dissipate. Although the implications of 9/11 remained; increased security, airline safety modifications, and emergency service changes, the focus on Muslims shifted. Instead, school shootings and international relations with North Korea took over. The Muslims had a ‘break’.
This is where my ‘theory’, or alternate ideology, comes into play. Perhaps the re-ignition of Muslim fear through the Islamic State (ISIS) was predetermined. Perhaps, by the conveniently times appearance of ISIS, America could regain global morality, much as it did with Al Qaeda and the downfall of Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps with ISIS showing its ugly face, America could have a cause to fight for, a cause that all Americans could back with the fiery image of the Twin Tower attacks burning through their vision. They wanted to protect themselves in a bout of dignity and pride, to avoid another such attack, so universal acceptance on the war against ISIS could be taken. Could this be predetermined? Possibly. Who am i to decide such a point, though. In my eyes, it is rather convenient that this issue becomes so prominent close to the next presidential election, and so soon after global focus shifted from School shootings, then to North Korea, then to Ebola. We were due another ‘pandemic’ issue to painfully stick to, it is but only our basic human instinct to be inquisitive and latch onto something that captivated our imagination. Ebola made people fear for zombies, School shootings brought debate over gun laws, does ISIS bring back the euphoria of a ‘country in arms’, a country united against a common enemy?
9/11 was only 8 months after George Bush came to office, and as to be expected, this gave considerable favour to his re-election a few years following. At the time, he was seen as the ‘Father of the war against terrorism’. He quotes, “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but does not end there” and so it has not. With his following member of Presidential Reign, Barack Obama has continued this. Where he ended one period of terror with the killing of Bin Laden, he begun anew, ISIS. Perhaps their visions are skewed. Perhaps through the further retaliation to ISIS and other associated terrorist groups, we are only poking the burning embers. We are the oil to the flame, further igniting tension and anger. Perhaps if we retaliated differently, with the avoidance of un-necessary casualties of war, ISIS will burn out; a candle starved of oxygen. Where their actions cannot be justified or ignored, there must be alternatives to bombing cities and villages that yield a higher innocent casualty rate than terrorists killed.
Put it this way; If America beheaded an Eastern innocent civilian, and that civilians national country retaliated by bombing an American city, what would happen? It is extremely likely America will further retaliate with heavier arms, soldier movement, occupation of the territory, and the possibility of nuclear threat. Who is in the right? Neither. Sure, in this scenario, America started the conflict, but the retaliation of destruction holds no benefits.
This example can easily be used with ISIS. Sure, they should not have beheaded and murdered innocent civilians of American and British nationalities, but by our retaliation, we are just giving them further cause to take more actions. We are but two squabbling sides, like children arguing over toys. Resolution will only come through solutions between the two, not the complete destruction of one-another. We are only an aggravation to each other.
We must find a peaceful resolution to this issue, because much like the issues with Al Qaeda following September the 11th, death tolls will only rise. We need to focus on the true issues, working on world peace and aid, rather than world domination and control. Through this, unity and alliance can form, with one common goal; eradicating true world issues such as famine, poverty and illness. Why should we contribute more to deaths, when we can contribute more to life?
-Benjamin John Wareing