We live in an unstable world. Just as one series of events begins to fall into place, and ideas crystallize around its interpretation, something new crops up that shows them in a different light, or maybe simply obscures them altogether.
So it is, that in seeking to write about a new development on the chemical weapons front – the manufacture and use of chemical weapons by Islamic State in Syria – and putting this into the context of renewed allegations against the Syrian government, that context must now be re-evaluated because of a sudden and unpredicted terrorist attack in New Zealand. We are all as blind to such events before they occur as those poor people praying in the mosque, or almost all - the ability both to see into the future and to control it is the prerogative – and supreme strategic advantage - of those who plan and perpetrate such terrorist attacks, or cyber-attacks.
While trying to avoid being drawn into the kneejerk reaction of the mainstream media and their predictable treatment of the “tragedy” resulting from the “killing spree” of a “white supremacist”, there is much to be learnt from observing the reaction of different parties to this horrific attack on innocent and defenceless people; what is said, and what is not said, and how this differs from the reaction of those same parties to similar acts of “Islamic terrorism” committed in Western capitals and in MENA war-zones.
Others have already reacted strongly and correctly in protest against the hypocrites in our governments who now feign sympathy and solidarity with the very victims of the Islamophobic climate they have created. Nowhere is this more the case than in Australia, the home of the murderer. Only two months ago, on “Australia day” there was a rally of far-right Australian nationalists, with open antagonism to local Muslim immigrant communities who were already being bad-mouthed by some government leaders.
While New Zealand’s PM Jacinta Ardern could quite truthfully say following the atrocity that “this is not who we are”, Australia’s Scott Morrison disingenuously parroted her. Increasingly it seems this is who we are, or have become ever since John Howard made “stopping the boats” (of asylum seekers) his mantra.
At the same time as Morrison and his ilk have tried to distance themselves from the Islamophobic right, left-leaning online activist groups like GetUp have condemned them, and rushed to present a united front “against hatred”, urging supporters to sign a petition against Islamophobia, bigotry, and hate in politics. Fine sentiments, shared particularly by ordinary Muslims, for whom Islam is a faith in community and peace.
But consider how different is the context and the reaction from – for instance – the Barcelona van attack. Here the motives of the attackers were presumed before anything was known about them, beyond their appearance, and the rhetoric followed from the same playbook – “they want to destroy our way of life”, because “they hate our freedoms and democracy”. The public response is then dictated as “not giving in”, and not changing our behavior, even as we see the streets populated by heavily armed para-militaries, and look suspiciously on people in Islamic dress.
Almost invariably too, the attackers and their terrorist acts are called “cowardly” – even though the act may have been suicidal. This was not the word that was immediately tagged onto Brenton Tarrant, despite his slaughter of unarmed worshippers in an open space being as cowardly as “shooting fish in a barrel”. The reason for this perhaps is that his activity looks little different from that of our military “heroes” who bust into suspect houses at night with a spray of bullets, or who operate predator drones and “take out targets” with the right “profile” in Yemen or Afghanistan.
The cultural training of such people is through military magazines and violent video games like “Call of Duty”, socially acceptable in our society while studying the Quran under the influence of extreme Salafist Saudi Imams is not. It’s also important to note that the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world and their Imams never condone acts of terrorism against civilians of any faith by Islamic jihadists.
The extent of hypocrisy and double standards over “our terrorism” and “their terrorism” is, however, most evident in the place where the two come together, in Syria and Iraq, and in the guise of “the Islamic State”. As the long stage play in our media called “the battle for Baghouz” and “the end of the Caliphate” finally nears its end, all the focus has been on the trivial issue of our citizens who went to join ISIS and are now washing up in the dregs of the Islamic State. Only days ago, Australia’s PM Scott Morrison declared that Neil Pradesh, an Australian who joined IS and is now in a Turkish jail, would be stripped of citizenship. This was because he had spread propaganda for IS, which “was fighting Australia”.
The irony is that the real propaganda message has come from our leaders, for whom this fiction forms the basis for their illegitimate war on Syria. Not only have the Western powers created, directly or indirectly, the terrorist groups they claim to be fighting in Syria and Iraq, but their justification for the illegal presence there is because of the danger these terrorists might pose tous! While expressing extreme “humanitarian” concern for some groups in Syria under threat from IS, or – allegedly – the Syrian government, such concern is limited entirely to what suits their interests.
Perhaps we need a few reminders about just who have been the chief victims of Islamic State terrorism, though “reminders” may not be the right word. Little or no attention has been paid to these innumerable atrocities in Western media, with a few notable exceptions.
One such exception – and one of the most telling omissions from Western media of the whole Syrian war was the cavalcade of Islamic State fighters that drove across the open desert from Raqqa to Palmyra, under the watchful eye of US satellites. For veteran UK journalist Robert Fisk, the US’ failure to take any action to stop this huge army, or even acknowledge its movement, saw a conversion in his thinking – as well as a decline in his popularity as an interviewee and commentator on Western mainstream media.
Many Syrian soldiers died trying to prevent IS from capturing the town of Tadmor next to the ancient ruins of Palmyra, and then had to fight and die again following its recapture eighteen months later. But before IS reached Palmyra they had seized the Tabqa airbase across the Euphrates south of Raqqa in August 2014. Following this they committed one of their trademark massacres, marching at least 250 soldiers captured from the base out into the desert and executing them – on video. The slaughter of such prisoners of war is universally recognized as the most egregious war crime, yet the BBC, along with the UNHRC which investigated the event, suggests that since the victims were called “Shabiha”, and since the Syrian government had allegedly used “barrel bombs and Chlorine” and targeted hospitals, this atrocity should be seen in a different light.
There were no candlelight vigils for the 250 young Syrian men killed by the terrorists of Da’esh held in Western capitals, nor interviews with their grieving fathers and mothers and wives at home in Aleppo or Homs by our media; no calls of solidarity with the heroes of Tabqa, who fought and died on the front line against the brutal jihadist invaders. By contrast, those mercenary invaders lived on to fight another day, but not against Australians or French or Brits. Some of the thousands of fighters who have evidently – though we never see them – emerged from the tunnel city under Baghouz in the last month may well have taken part in the Tabqa massacre five years earlier, and innumerable other violent crimes against Syria’s defenders since, on behalf of their paymasters.
There is yet another twist to the story of Tabqa because that part of Syria West of the Euphrates is still occupied by US-backed militias. Rather as Sharmine Narwani’s memory of a plot against Tehran’s electricity grid was stirred by credible reports that the Venezuelan power grid was disabled by a US cyber-attack, we can now reflect on the events that led to the disabling of the Tabqa dam’s turbines. We might also speculate whether the US bombing of the bridges across the Euphrates south of Raqqa six months earlier was advance planning for the ongoing occupation of the “former Caliphate” once the shock troops of Da’esh had been moved on.
We may not have the advantage of foresight, but we may be forewarned and so forearmed as we reflect on this: on the Ides of March six years ago there was a similar terrorist attack on a mosquewhich shocked a whole community, killing a much respected 83-year-old imam and 42 worshippers. Just as in Christchurch, this community didn’t discriminate between different sects, and Mohammad al Buti, the Sunni imam of Damascus’ Ummayad mosque attracted all Syrians to his services. And as in Christchurch, Damascus residents gathered together in grief, and condemnation of the terrorists who carried out this atrocity.
They too said, “this is not who we are”. But unlike the countries who have fought so hard to destroy Syria’s unique multi-ethnic and multi-religious social fabric, after six years fighting the barbarian terrorist armies of their enemies, Syrians are more united in their differences than ever before.
*(Top image credit: Call of Duty vido game)
WRITER
No comments:
Post a Comment