Terrorism is much more than any physical act of violence or intimidation. It is the ensuing psychological warfare that fuels terrorists, as their goal is to ultimately elicit a response. This response can be fear, open condemnation, or a large-scale military response from a certain government. Whether we as civilians realize it or not, we play a role in terrorism. After an attack we take to social media, argue about who did it, how or what the response should be, and put pressure on our government to act a certain way. We end up terrorizing ourselves! This is what terrorists want. They utilize the reaction (or “overreaction”) of the government and of the civilians to confirm to their followers that the hatred against their group exists. They point to what government officials say in denouncing their acts, to what our media is saying, and to what individuals are saying on social media to harden their hearts and substantiate their ideology of being “oppressed”. This strengthens their cause as they relay the message of, “See! They are openly and outwardly attacking our cause.”
As explained by Walter Laqueur in “The Future of Terrorism”, propaganda par le fait, meaning propaganda by the deed, has been used by many throughout history. The terrorist act is just the provocation; it is propaganda for their ideology. The physical attack is only the beginning. It equates to the “Lone Wolf” act of today although it can be carried out by a Lone Wolf group that associates itself with a larger organization. Examples of this are the Sri Lanka Easter bombings in 2019 (linking themselves with ISIS) and the Christchurch shooting in the same year (he being linked with White Supremacy). Here we need to discuss and clarify a point that FBI director Christopher Wray made recently about the difference between ideology and organization in reference to Antifa (He explained that Antifa was an ideology, not an organization). His comments were shared and amplified to a great extent by one side and were used as justification against Antifa being labeled as terrorists. The examples above are enough to point out the fact that terrorism is based on ideology, not on an organization. An organization in fact holds an ideology. His comments unfortunately may have given them a carte blanche to continue with their actions although he clearly was not prescribing to this. The U.S. does designate certain organizations as terrorist organizations but these organizations are labeled as such because of their ideology and actions made because of their ideology. In the same space, white supremacy is also an ideology, Islamist extremism holds an ideology, and fascism is an ideology as well. We’ve seen some horrendous acts made in part to these ideologies have we not? By openly attacking an ideology though, we end up stepping in their crap…and then spreading it by walking in crap-covered shoes. If we attack an ideology, we harden their stance and create more reason for them to act a certain way and to believe in their ideology more strongly. This is why we should reference terrorism in public as a blanket issue instead of focus on certain areas and groups (Islamist extremists, white supremacists, etc.). The goal here being to not give them the attention that they so desire. Media organizations escalate these issues by picking sides and holding extreme biases to what and how they report. Exposing this lazy approach is a great article by Hugo Micheron and Bernard Haykel, where they discuss terrorist attacks in France and the misrepresentation done by both the left and the right. In fact, Director Wray walked back his earlier comments only one week later by saying, “Antifa is a real thing, not a fiction. The FBI has seen Antifa engage in organized tactical activity”. He also stated that “we do not view how nationally organized something is as a proxy for how dangerous it is”. In today’s society the damage was already done because sound bites like that that can be used for advancing an argument, spread like wildfire. Curiously enough, the media did not highlight his later clarification as much as they did the initial statement. Another issue highlighted by this example, is that of using video versus a written article. The media understands how we consume our “news”. Generally, emotions are captured by videos and they are shared and consumed by just clicking a button. On the other side, written articles more often shroud the real facts. A news outlet can write an article that covers the facts with the knowledge that less people will take the time to read it. I use the word shroud above because this is one way that they can claim due diligence and correct reporting even though far more people will watch and consume a video that may include misrepresented sound bites over actually reading an article. In fact, I would be surprised if you were still reading this now. In many cases, society should let the experts handle and discuss what should be done. As I pointed out in a previous post, the ease of access to information has made society dumb instead of more informed. The goal of terrorism is to terrorize – this is mental and we do it to each other every day online. The idea of increasing the influence of a terrorist organization by focusing on that group in public and spouting their name and ideology is clear now. We gave Al-Qaeda global recognition, which is what they wanted. Using Al-Qaeda, let us examine 9/11 and its impact.
9/11 was the ultimate propaganda by the deed. 3,000 Americans lost their lives’ and this more than elicited a response from the strongest nation in the world. The U.S. immediately attacked in Afghanistan and soon everybody knew about Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. But, this was the desired effect. The terrorists were hoping for a reaction and that reaction is still ongoing today. In 2003, Khaled Sheikh Muhammed (KSM) confessed about his part in being the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. In his book titled, “Enhanced Interrogation”, CIA contract psychologist James Mitchell, recounted his interrogation where KSM stated, “The media, either on purpose or without realizing it, would promote Islam’s cause and champion tearing down the measures put in place to protect the American people”…he said, “your leaders will turn on you. It will play out in the media and strengthen the hearts of the brothers. It will recruit more to Allah’s cause because the press coverage will make the U.S. look weak and divided. Eventually, America will expose her neck to us for slaughter.” Shortly after, this proved to be true when the methods used to gain information were attacked. Cries for Guantanamo Bay to be shut down were throughout the country. This created some division right away, even before the miscalculated decision to go into Iraq took place. Here is a perfect example of how our reactions unwittingly confirm to the attackers that the U.S. is against all of Islam. This furthered the division inside the U.S. and ultimately perpetuated the convoluted subject of ISIS and our indirect (and unwanted) aid to Iran (the U.S. ridding many Sunni Muslims in Iraq making way for Iran’s Shia sect’s influence to grow in the area). Drones and surveillance techniques then drastically changed and as Snowden leaked, the U.S. had capabilities to listen/watch citizens. Again, the division was given more ammunition (see my earlier post on how technology is outgrowing our intelligence). Fast forward to the “Muslim Ban” (named this by the media which was a disservice to the U.S. people and a service to terrorists) and we can see how this escalated over the course of 15 – 20 years.
Clearly, 9/11 is not the sole event responsible for today’s divide but it has certainly contributed and kicked things off while strengthening the cause for the terrorists responsible. Just like any child with siblings, if one gets more attention, it will be pointed out by the other siblings. So now, any event that appears to be racist, oppressing, or offensive is highlighted as much as possible. Not only do we have political leaning news outlets that bring on opposing sides so we can physically see the dichotomy, we then turn to social media as private citizens. Meanwhile the terrorists are hosting an office party opening a bottle of bubbly and lighting cigars as they watch their favorite show called, “America attacks itself”. It is impossible to log onto social media without seeing a political post (generally not of original thought). We amplify their message and even allow other countries to take advantage of our misplaced and miscalculated rage. We can play the blame game and post articles, memes, and/or videos that explain how bad some guy is but that accomplishes absolutely nothing in the positive. To the contrary, it only brings on negativity. Social media engagement is built and based on emotions. They even have emojis for us to display our emotions (like, love, care, sad, laughter, angry, etc.). All of this information is monitored, put into algorithms, returned back to the consumer with more emotion grabbing content, and then this information finds its way into the hands of groups that can utilize it to do the U.S. harm. Russia knows what we are bickering about and enters itself to further the chaos which is currently creating a social catastrophe. A society that is beginning to work under the “mob rule” escalates it further by trying to get anybody fired that has a different opinion. It is despicable that news outlets do not educate people on this. It would be amazing if they would simply acknowledge their responsibility and say this is the aim of such and such, these are their motives, and we are pulling for truth, not ours or anybody else’s agenda. The problem is that the news is reported in such a way because they know how we as individual citizens react. They know our level of gullibility, our need for information that fits our agenda, and they know that we do not really know very much (only what they have given us). We have a responsibility to maintain a level of awareness and to protect the vulnerabilities of our nation. We need to understand that in today’s society the people are the first to see and spread information. It is irresponsible of us if we share information that is only half true or not true at all. It’s easy to click the share button on something because the title fits our line of thought. It’s difficult to do some research and have an awareness of the potential consequences in spreading (mis)(dis)information. In the military they call this “choosing the hard right over the easy wrong”. Be accountable.
Media is a major tool of terrorists as for the most part, news outlets and civilians do the work for them. Terrorists want to take responsibility for an attack so that the media will talk about them. Who commits an atrocious crime and then wants as many people as possible to know about it? They claim responsibility for a reason…to spread whatever ideology it is that they hold. We always want to know who did it rather than why it was done. In my own workplace after a school shooting, I heard an individual say, “I bet it was another white dude”. This is not a healthy way of thinking, but it is what has been created. As a “white dude” myself I could have been offended and responded with an emotional tirade. But this would have been feeding into the propaganda of the enemy. It would have made the situation worse and caused division within my own place of work. See how this chain reaction happens with such ease in a world of ill-informed individuals? Maybe this is the new form of modern day terrorism done to the United States. A bomb would be easy to see because of the physical damage, and it would more than likely bring people together so that type of carnage doesn’t happen again. On the other hand, fanning the flames of discontent via social media in the U.S. would be much more difficult to locate and call out. It would put one side against the other and soon a great nation like the U.S. would be fighting against itself. Using the technology, the way we consume information, and unfortunately our high level of laziness, terrorists could let us attack ourselves while saving their own time, resources, lives, and energy. Please do your civil duty and refrain from participating in the division of our nation lest we “show our neck for slaughter”. We should be unified as one and not waste time, resources, energy, and money on spreading contrasting ideologies while opening the doors for our enemies. We all carry this responsibility. There’s this book you may have heard of called The Bible. I believe it’s still available for purchase but who knows for how much longer. It directs our path here in 2 Timothy 2:23 – “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels”. Also Galatians 5: 13-15 says, “For you brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this you shall love you neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!” In effect, we are all in charge of our own personal security and are responsible for our actions – combined with everybody in the U.S. we have the ability to make up a solid force for counterterrorism. Our mission is to not give into the temptations that enhance the stance of our enemies. Be still, be aware, do some critical thinking, and help protect the vulnerabilities of our nation.
Wilks Wroasting 