Terrorism and the ISIS Threat

By Kat


The threat of terrorism has been trending in the news lately. Recently, Prime Minister Tony Abbott raised the terrorism alert to high, and as a result all kinds of articles have been published in relation to whether or not his decision was justified. Is there a real threat of terrorism? Or has this been exaggerated by public figures?
Politicians aren't the most reliable of people. Recently, Abbott appeared on Channel 7's Sunrise, stating that "Parliament House certainly is a potential target", despite the fact that many terrorist claims are in fact false allegations, based on largely unfounded evidence. Countries like Australia and the US have joined forces, however, to combat ISIS, even as their actions are highly reflective of the military conflict they are trying to prevent.
Which brings me to my main point. Australia launched its first attack around a week ago, when two RAAF Super Hornet fighter jets set off and joined the fight against ISIS. But like many things, it seems we are coming at this wrong. The UN is supposed to be a diplomatic entity, and now even when we feel as if military action is a necessary measure, the truth is that violence begets violence, and the war against ISIS won't end anytime soon if this continues.
It is true that military intervention is sometimes necessary. Especially in such extreme cases, it is impossible to completely forgo such measures. But certain countries take it too far.
America's drone strikes are an example of the extent to which such action can go wrong. Currently, civilians in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen live in fear of the deadly missiles that may strike at any moment. Foreign fighter Abu Ousama stated that "if they are blackmailing America or anybody saying don't shoot a missile that is going to kill 50 or 60 people for one bloke - how can we say that's even equivalent to it being a wrong?" In some cases, the "one bloke" eventually is found innocent of their allegation. We cannot condone the recent beheadings of foreign innocents, but still we find global superpowers (who seem to claim the moral high ground) sending out deadly missiles from their own backyard, with little consideration for how their plan might affect entire countries. The drone attacks are described by a Yemeni as "the face of America", and perhaps soon, it will be the face of Australia too.
Of course, the actions of ISIS could never be considered justified in an ethical sense, but on the other hand, how are the actions of Australia and America any different? The UN needs to reassess the situation at hand- the increased terrorism alert levels and subsequent military action is almost like adding fuel to the fire- this is precisely what Abu Ousama refers to in his testimony.
ISIS is a problem that most certainly needs to be resolved. But it seems that developed countries- those who are supposed to have the means to change in a manner reflective of their global status- are taking the wrong actions to resolve it. It is important for countries to step back and look at their actions, coming together not as a dominant and unjustified military superpower but an impactful and diplomatic entity that balances its attacks with its reason.