Friendly fire and terrorism acts!

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Friendly fire and terrorism acts!

Sarteep Mawlood, post-graduate student «KROK» University

Дружній вогонь і терористичні акти!

Сартіп Мавлуд

Майже щодня ми чуємо про терористичні акти та злочини по всьому світу, в наслідок яких гине або залишається пораненими та інвалідами багато людей, знищуються будівлі, втрачається державна та приватна власність. Але оцінка злочину, як акту тероризму часто залежить від країни, де він відбувся та національної приналежності винуватців. Суспільство розуміє, що загроза терором призводить до збільшеного страху, незалежно від того до якої національності, релігії або країни належать терористи. Це створює враження, що критерії визнання злочину терористичним актом є еластичними і в деяких випадках він може бути визнаний, наприклад, як дружній вогонь (вогневий контакт проти своїх військ або військ союзника, який призвів до військових утрат), в залежності від потерпілої сторони. Це може стосуватися кількох випадків та поширюватись на феноменальні ситуації, в яких щось виходить з-під контролю відповідальних за безпеку та порядок.

Відсутність чітких рамок поняття терористичного акту заплутує суспільство щодо зрозуміння, того, що належить до прояву терору, а що ні. Це небезпечний прецедент. Він ставить закон про терористичні акти під сумнів, призводить до дискримінації та конфлікту у майже однакових випадках у різних місцях та країнах. До класифікації однакових злочинів застосовуються різні процедури, протоколи та звинувачення: в одних випадках його вважають терором високого ступеня, у інших, наприклад, дружнім вогнем, з метою розглядати його просто як звичайну кримінальну справу, а не як терористичний акт. Це являє собою не просто очевидну дискримінацію з юридичної точки зору але й спонукає радикалів та прибічників тероризму не думати належним чином про інші національністі, раси чи стать, що, своїм чином, призводить до сумного кінця та гуманітарних катастроф. Замість того, щоб називати тероризмом, те що їм не є, або маскувати терористичні акти під назвами звичайних кримінальних справ, краще зізнатися в правді та поставити крапки над і, щодо окреслення поняття терору й з'ясувати шляхи урядових дій, щоб покласти йому край, чи принаймні його зменшити. Заяви деяких політичних лідерів і чиновників, що за їх думкою, борються з расизмом, поширють релігійну, національну та етнічну ворожнечу. Сьогодні світ живе в нервововій напруженності. Прийняття однієї нації іншою перестало бути такім, яки було раніше. Оскільки це одна з основних причин предмету дослідження, у статті наведено кілька прикладових випадків з різних місць та причини їх виникнення.

Ключові слова: дискримінація, тероризм, дружній вогонь, точне визначення терору, подвійність процедур і звинувачень, звинувачення невинних людей, плутанина, інтенсивний страх, поширення ненависті між різними релігіями, національностями та етнічними групами.

From time to time and almost every day we hear terror and criminal acts in all around the world that many people sacrifice from those acts as soul, wounded, building, general and private properties in particular to foreign communities without classifying the acts as terrorism. It is clear to societies that terror is state of intense fear without despite of nationality, religion, passport, which country the terror actors belong to, but it seems the definition of terror is elastic and can be classified as a friendly fire which is by own side. This issue goes up from just several cases to phenomenon situations which goes out of control in one hand as well confuses whole society regarding what the exact terror is. It is dangerous precedent and put the terrorism act law under questions due to discriminations and conflict in almost the same cases in different locations and countries, but the procedures, responsibilities and the charges are different which in some cases counted as a high degree of terror and in some counted as friendly fire just to put the act out of terrorism act and count it just as a simple criminal case.

It is not just an obvious discrimination among cases in different places and countries, but pushes radicals and even others not to think properly over another nationality, races and gender which leads to sadness end in a humanitarian disasters. Instead of covering the terrorism acts and disguise it, better to confess the truth and put points on the letter which means to solve it and find out which ways the government can take to end it or at least lessen it. Nowadays the world lives in nervous, the merciful from a nation to another is not as before due to statements addressed by some political leaders and racism officials which spreads the hatred among various religions, nationalities and other minorities, as it is the one of the main reason of the case and during the article several experimental cases have been studied in different places with the causes behind each case.

Key words: discrimination, terrorism, friendly fire, precise definition of terror, double face of procedures and charges, accusing innocent people, confusion, intensive fear, spreading hatred among different religions, nationalities and ethnics.

Formulation of the problem

Climate changes, huge numbers of refugees and displaced people, wars between Russia and Ukraine, disputed issues among countries, conflicts among armor groups inside countries have direct or indirect psychological influences on people besides all of these unusual situations increases hatred and confusion among societies regarding terrorism acts due to non-fair and unjust charging and persecuting of terror cases inside and outside a country for reasons which do not belong to the own case at all makes criminal innocent and innocent criminals as so called friendly fire.

Study of the problem

Every so often unlawful and huge intimidation acts happen against civilians by radicals, devouts, extremists and unorganized person or people who do not or might belong to terrorism groups, because of having extremist beliefs and idea in those people such as nationalism, fascism, religious and other fanatic ideas in those who are filled in excessive and single mined zeal in all around the world. According to the minimum standards definition of terror all those acts in this way should count as terror acts despite of which country the person belongs to but, unfortunately due to several reasons such political, nationality, religion, powerful, other illegal and acceptable reasons, it counts as friendly fire or just simple criminal events. It means all the procedures, charges of accusing, persecutions are different from terror acts. Several cases were studied which already happened on the ground in different places and countries as well as different reasons behind the terror acts especially against foreign societies in host countries. Regarding the problem, Schmid A, in his publication "Terrorism-the definition problem, Volume36, Issue2, 2004" clarified the definition of the word terror is unobvious and even the young people almost have no idea about the term terror or terrorism and whom they fight, besides an official website of the United States Government in "What we investigate, FBI" mentioned the domestic terrorism is more dangerous than international, Beardsley E in his "Kurds in Paris believe a recent shooting at a cultural center was an act of terrorism, 2022" shows the importance of taking the case and article seriously in one hand, in another hand reconsider the case properly before making any decision, but unfortunately not just the case was solved but even there was not unanimous agreement on some basic and crucial phrases and cases regarding the article such as the word domestic terror or only terror, domestic terrorism laws, not recognize domestic terror as a terror.

Aims: Deal with the terror acts equally and justly when the acts are terror even there are several degrees of the terror acts and the case is different to another and from place to another but, it is a terror at the end without procrastination and lenient with the case despite of the nationality, religion, or other facts. The main aim here is to reform the law of terrorism in a proper way to cover both domestic and international terror and makes no discrimination in cases with nationalities or other unreasonable reasons.

Results

"Terrorism" may well be the most important word in the political vocabulary these days. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent worldwide to bring this particular form of violent political crime or illicit mode of waging conflict under control while people die every day from acts of terrorism. Nevertheless, some people do not seem to bother to define terrorism nor do they consider it worthwhile defining the concept. But surely, when governments ask young men and women to fight a "war on terrorism," the soldiers, policemen and other first line responders are entitled to a proper answer to the question of what exactly they are supposed to fight in the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). Is it a metaphorical war like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty" or is it a real war? The United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change noted that lack of agreement on a clear and well-known definition undermines the normative and moral stance against terrorism and has stained the United Nations image. Anthony Quainton, the former Director of the Office for Combating Terrorism at the United States State Department, has said that this problem of definition has bedeviled the development of an effective counter-terrorist strategy at both the national and international level. Terrorism is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon and the term is used promiscuously for such a wide range of manifestations (e.g. Norco-terrorism, cyberterrorism) that one wonders whether it is a unitary concept.

(1) It is classified to have two kinds of terrorism such as International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state- sponsored). Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

(2) This analysis focuses on terrorism, which is defined as the deliberate use-or threat-of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals and create a broad psychological impact. Over the past two years, there has been a rise in the percentage of domestic terrorism attacks and plots at demonstrations. This phenomenon is linked to the proliferation of demonstrations and counter-demonstrations in some areas caused by political polarization, Covid-19 mandates, racial injustice, elections, and other factors. A condition of instability and spiraling violence makes security the first concern for groups and networks. When individuals seek to protect themselves by acquiring weapons, others react by acquiring arms of their own. As tensions rise, it becomes difficult to know the intentions of others. The security dilemma has occurred overseas in situations of emerging anarchy, such as the collapse of a state. Notably, this trend has emerged amid extremist rhetoric that increasingly portrays political conflict in martial or revolutionary terms-whether as a call to action to prevent violence by opponents or, as in accelerationist ideologies, in an attempt to hasten the violent collapse of the state.

(3) It's been a violent weekend in Paris in December 2022. It opened with a gunman, who had already served time for a racist attack against migrants, firing on a Kurdish cultural center.

Members of the Kurdish community in Paris marched in response. French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin said the man clearly wanted to attack foreigners, but had acted alone, and had probably not specifically targeted Kurds. But the large Kurdish community in Paris disagrees. Thousands of Kurds, anti-racist activists and far-left politicians gathered on Christmas Eve to protest the violence and denounce the French government for not doing enough to protect its Kurdish community. This is not a normal racist attack against any refugees here.

Fig. 1 An Image shows the loss and increase of domestic terrorism in United States of America (5)

(4) It seems like the domestic enemies outnumber the foreign ones. In a statement before the House Homeland Security Committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray explained that domestic terrorists have been responsible for more American deaths than international terrorists in recent years. Americans are much, much more likely to lose their lives to gun violence, which kills 36,000 people in the United States each year, than foreign terrorism. Despite the outsized fear of foreign terrorism in our post-9/11 world, you're twice more likely to be shot and killed by a toddler than you are to be murdered by a terrorist. And despite the rhetoric we often heard from President Trump, Muslim Americans are more likely to be victims of terrorism than perpetrators. Director Wray's statement highlights a dangerous trend-one that requires immediate action. As administration continues to focus its rhetoric and resources on enemies abroad, we must recognize that more frequently, the enemy is one of us. Too often, domestic terrorism takes the form of hate crimes, and more likely than not, the suspects will use a gun. A recent FBI report found that 65% of lone-wolf domestic terror attacks between 1972 and 2015 were committed with legally purchased firearms. This is what we saw in the heinous shooting in El Paso in August, in which a white nationalist shooter drove 10 hours to massacre members of the Latins community.

In 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a report raising the alarm about right-wing extremism and was immediately attacked for speaking an inconvenient truth. The report issued by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Napolitano claimed, "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks. While the FBI claims to have stepped up its efforts to combat domestic terrorism attacks in recent years and months, evidence suggests that these efforts are falling short. The FBI's most recent hate crimes report indicates that while hate crimes dipped slightly in 2018, violent hate crimes reached a 16-year high.

(5) Interestingly, a study in Jordan indicates that individuals with weak social bonds, e.g., single people with no family or children or with no connection to a particular tribe structure, and who may experience depression and seek protection and belonging, are more likely to be triggered to violent radicalization. It is concluded from the NAMA database collected from focus groups with youth in the governorates of Zarqa, Irbid and Tafileh in August 2016 that the very low level of violent extremism in Jordan is due to tribal laws and customs that protect individuals; the government's counter violent extremism programs; acts of moderate Islamist groups; and Jordan's culture in general. In Tunisia, the Centre for Research and Studies on Terrorism, affiliated to the Tunisian Forum on Economic and Social Rights, conducted a study of 'Terrorism in Tunisia through Judicial Files' in 2016 on a sample of 1,000 people (965 males and 35 females) 22 who either confessed or were proven to be members of terrorist organizations. The relationship between vulnerability and violent extremism is not sufficiently investigated in the different studied countries.

An interesting study on this relationship that seems to be relevant to different countries in the region is Erica Harper's investigation of the psychological drivers of radicalization in Jordan. She argues that a vulnerable individual moves through three stages before he or she engages in acts of violence extremism. First, radicalization starts with individual vulnerability (threats, incitements, revenge, etc.); second, vulnerability usually 'combines with psychological factors, such as fragmented social identity, indoctrination into a religious ideology, frustration with social injustice, mental health conditions, and desire for material rewards'; and third, a vulnerable individual becomes a radical only when a group is available to offer material or nonmaterial opportunity. Harper's concluding argument is that these three stages from individual vulnerability to violent extremism require an enabling political and cultural environment to operate - individual vulnerability does not lead to violent extremism on its own.

Despite the lack of any clear connection between involvement in violent extremism and an individual's economic circumstances amongst Muslims in Western societies, economic deprivation in some areas of the region has been regarded as a factor in such involvement, coupled with dissatisfaction by young people with those, such as tribal elders, who are perceived as unable to improve the economic situation. Interviews conducted in Egypt indicated that supporters of the government view the basis of extremism as the political Islam groups and their religious discourse, which exploits social, economic and political problems to broaden the extremism. Interviews with young activists in Egypt indicated that they considered authoritarian rule to be the main reason for violent extremism. An interviewee who is an expert on Islamic militancy stated that 'It is possible that the closure of the political sphere and eliminating all legitimate and peaceful means of change is the main cause for the spread of despair and anger which produces armed tendencies'. He added that 'in my opinion, the reason behind the emergence of violent religious movements is the blocking of peaceful participation in the political process.

(6) Ideology appears as a constant feature in the radicalization process related to various forms of terrorism. Indoctrination constitutes a relevant factor in the radicalization of a small but significant minority of persons dissatisfied with the socio-political context in which they live. This, in turn, contributes to consolidating violent ideas and attitudes and eventually generates a sub-culture of violence. In addition, the word "violent" also needs further qualification. Socialization into violence is not necessarily co-terminus with socialization into terrorism. While there are various forms of violence, not necessarily of a political nature, terrorism is a special kind of political violence. Among the various expressions of terrorism, suicide terrorism stands out as a particular phenomenon.

Arguably, there is only a partial overlap between the pathways to political violence in general, terrorism in particular and suicide terrorism as a special case where the perpetrator is among the victims of an attack. Furthermore, the term "radicalization" is problematic in that its relationship to "radicalism" as an expression of legitimate political thought, still reflected in the titles of some political parties in Europe, is confusing. Radicalism as advocacy of, and commitment to, sweeping change and restructuring of political and social institutions has historically been associated with left- and right-wing political parties at times even with centrist and liberal ideologies and involves the wish to do away with traditional and procedural restrictions which support the status quo. As an ideology, radicalism challenges the legitimacy of established norms and policies but it does not, in itself, lead to violence. There have been many radical groups in European political history which were reformist rather than revolutionary. In other words, there can be radicalism without the advocacy of violence to strive for the realization of social or political change.

(7) Radicalization happens when a person's thinking and behavior become significantly different from how most of the members of their society and community view social issues and participate politically. Only small numbers of people radicalize and they can be from a diverse range of ethnic, national, political and religious groups. It should be emphasized that becoming radicalized does not automatically mean that a person is engaging, or will engage, in violent or dangerous behavior. While someone with radical beliefs may seek to substantially transform the nature of society and government, in most instances their behavior does not pose a danger to the Australian community. Experts and authorities have identified a diverse range of factors and motivations that can influence a person to become radicalized, and from there possibly commit extremist violence. While the list of possible causes is extensive.

(8) The term "preventing and countering violent extremism and radicalization that lead to terrorism" (P/CVERLT) refers to a spectrum of policies, programmes, and interventions intended to prevent and counter extremism related to terrorist radicalization. This framing adopted by the OSCE emphasizes the link between radicalization and extremism, on the one side, and, on the other side, acts of violence and criminalized terrorism. In this way, the OSCE explicitly underscores the importance of preserving fundamental freedoms when working to prevent these security threats. Counter-terrorism, in contrast, refers to the suite of activities undertaken primarily by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and sometimes by the military, "aimed at thwarting terrorist plots and dismantling terrorist organizations" and criminal justice responses that investigate and bring to justice those who have committed terrorist crimes. While P/CVERLT national strategies and plans of action are primarily designed and driven by state authorities, their implementation is typically not limited to national government actors and includes a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including local and other subnational authorities, civil society, and the private sector. (9)

Discussion: when international level does not have unitary agreement on a word terror and its definition, then to what extent they will agree on the real act of terror which happens on the ground? The experts of this field assure how negative effects have the non-standard and specific measurements of the definition. It is frankly confess by some official ranks of different governments such as United States that there is domestic Terrorism and not only international terrorism which is done by organized extremist groups. It is very important not just to focus on terrorism abroad but, the domestic terrorism which many people went sacrifice because of those acts every year and it sounds increasing in numbers recently due to nationalism and extremist ideas. Some countries pretend equality among its subjects, minorities and ethnics whereas the law is opposite to it on the ground and more likely to encourage extremist in a way or another. There is nothing relation between vulnerability and terrorism as researches, studied proved several cases on the ground, but the problem is with those things out of vulnerability of a person. But the political parties play better role in this field if they want peaceful living among societies.

Conclusion

The outcomes of the study are these following points:

1. Before taking any step it is important to have standard concept and definition of word terror in both international and national levels.

2. Every country has its subjects, no matter how powerful the country is, so the country should confess the true act and clarify to public as it is on the ground, no need to disguise facts and changes from terror to another case. It leads to national and international chaos, no country will extradite the accused person for terrorism acts against other countries.

3. Carrying specific passport or nationality cannot change the facts especially in case of terrorism. There is clear discrimination in cases from place to place and some parties try to deface specific religions or parties, charge them in extremism without any touched evidence or proof.

4. There should be some measurements to count and put cases in terror form, otherwise some judge cases depends on mood not on the facts, those measurements should not be elastic. Due to bias to specific cases and countries, many terror cases disguised and hidden in the name of internal issues of a country and sovereignty.

5. In some cases leaders of political parties killed as pretended by friendly fire and happened by mistake just to topple opposition parties. In some countries the foreign societies are targeted by extreme groups and pretend as friendly fire or change the case to normal case.

6. Sacrifice of human being is the same despite of language, color, sex, nationality, the soul is soul. The hatred and extremism idea should be stopped from religion, ethnic, nationality to another through education, media, flyers, other means.

7. No divine religions proponent hatred and extremism among different nationalities and ethnics, in contrast it prevents it and encourage love, kindness from one to another. Those laws which increase hatred and extremism among religion, nationalities, and other ethnics must be eliminated or at least changed to more ones.

8. A vulnerability of a person does not change the act from terrorism to normal act even if the person/people have some kind of healthy issues.

9. The policy of a government and political parties play crucial role in the field of extremism, the government should play impartial to the case. The gap among different nationalities, society's increases day after day, and the good example for it is winning the radical parties in election lately in Europe countries which is the dangerous precedent.

References

1. Schmid A., 2004, Terrorism-the definition problem, Volume36, Issue2

2. An official website of the United States Government, What we investigate, FBI

3. Doxsee C., Jones S.G., Halstead K., Hwang G., Thompson J., 2022 Pushed to Extremes: Domestic Terrorism amid Polarization and Protest, CSIS Briefs

4. Beardsley E., 2022, Kurds in Paris believe a recent shooting at a cultural center was an act of terrorism

5. Chipman D, 2019, The Enemy Within: Why Domestic Terrorism Poses a Greater Threat than Foreign Terrorism

6. Winter D.A., Dr. Matar A.M., Haj Salem M., Musbah M., Tohamy A., 2017, The Role of the Sub-National Authorities from the Mediterranean Region in Addressing Radicalization and Violent Extremism of Young People, European Committee of the regions

7. Reinares F., Alonso R., Bjorgo T., Porta D.D., Coolsaet R., Khosrokhavar F., Lohlker R., Ranstorp M., Shmid A.P., Silke A., Taarnby M., Vries G.D, 2008, Radicalization Processes Leading to Acts of Terrorism A concise Report prepared by the European Commission's Expert Group on Violent

8. Angus C., 2016, Radicalization and Violent Extremism: Causes and Responses

9. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2020, A Whole-of-Society Approach to Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalization That Lead to Terrorism, A Guidebook for Central Asia

Размещено на Allbest.ru