An Op-Ed: What makes young foreign fighters want to join ISIS?

By Ines Kagubare

In recent years, several young men and women from western countries such as the U.K. and the U.S. have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join the terrorist group known as ISIS. According to the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, there are currently more than 20,000 foreign fighters who have joined ISIS in the past year. About 150 foreign fighters are American citizens while another 4000 are from Western Europe. Most of these fighters are in their late teens and early 20’s. Most of these foreign fighters are crossing the Turkish border in order to join ISIS camps in Syria and Iraq. ISIS leaders have promised these young fighters that they will be treated well once they arrive there and that their lives will be much better than where they are coming from. They also remind them that they are fighting for a just cause and that they should be willing to do anything, even if it’s geared towards violence, to protect the religion of Islam.

 

The question still remains, why do all these young fighters, especially women, want to leave their somewhat comfortable lives to join ISIS. I use the word “somewhat” because some of these young fighters who are leaving countries such as the U.K. and the U.S. might not necessarily live comfortable lives. Most of them live in poor neighborhoods that are racially and ethnically segregated. Some of them drop out of school and are unemployed. They have limited opportunities to succeed in life, which leads them to have no hope, no ambitions or goals for their future. There are some exceptions of those who are successful and have a bright future ahead of them but still choose to join terrorists groups such as ISIS. Those who are impoverished don’t feel appreciated and are sometimes discriminated against by the country they call home, which leads them to despair and that’s why these young fighters think they will find comfort from their struggles when they join ISIS. They believe that ISIS will provide them with opportunities they lacked back in their home country.

 

For them, ISIS is an exciting, adventurous group that has a mission and a purpose that they previously did not have. ISIS “preys on a recruit’s sense of identity,” said CNN writer Holly Yan. They feel that they finally belong in a community that appreciates them compared to the western society where they felt isolated and treated as outsiders in their own country no matter what how hard they tried to assimilate. One can also argue that they feel a sense of patriotism and pride of their Muslim heritage that they cannot fully express living in western countries since they are a minority compared to the majority who are Christians.

 

One aspect of this issue that has been raised is the role of women in ISIS. There has been an increasingly number of young girls in their late teens traveling to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. Why do they willingly decide to join this terrorist group and what purpose do they serve is still unclear at this time. Many of these young girls are still in school and they have never been in trouble with the law. Their families are as shocked as law enforcement about their daughters’ decision to join a terrorist group such as ISIS. The parents were unaware of their daughters’ plans and did not notice any red flags that could have indicated that they had become radicalized. They may or may not know that their freedom will be restricted and that they will have to submit to men. Most of these Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia, treat women as second-class citizens and not as equals. It’s difficult to determine if these young girls are simply naïve or if they know exactly what situation they’re getting themselves into and that they are ready to face the consequences once they join ISIS.

 

The first step in resolving any problem is to understand the roots of its cause. Once we have a solid understanding of the issue (although it’s not always simple) we can determine the various steps we can take to find effective solutions that will work in the long run. It’s not by using drones to kill ISIS leaders that we are going to stabilize the region and reduce the threat of terrorism overnight. On the contrary, the more we engage with them using drone strikes the more radicalized extremists want to join terrorist groups such as ISIS. Killing one leader will only generate more hatred and bring about more leaders and fighters. It becomes a vicious cycle that everyone is trapped under because we are only focusing on short-term solutions that benefit us in the present and not really looking for long-term solutions that will benefit future generations.

The Discussion about Charlie Hebdo Isn’t Dead Yet

By Ines Kagubare

Although an international community has rallied around Charlie Hebdo magazine following the attack at its office that left 12 people dead, not all are in solidarity with its satirical methods.

The Charlie Hebdo attack that occured in Paris on January 7, 2015 spurred a wave of international demonstrations that were held in memory of the cartoonists who were killed. Several world leaders went to Paris to give their condolences and support to the French president, François Hollande, and his citizens.

The movement brought about 3.7 million people who gathered in Paris with “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) signs to not only pay their respects to the victims but to also show their support of the magazine. They felt that the attack was a direct threat to their freedom of speech and expression. Still, some have expressed that the satirical magazine is very provocative and offensive, especially to the Muslim community.

Since the attack, there have been heated debates about where the line should be drawn in freedom of speech and who should make that decision. Well, the answer is complicated because it’s not a black or white issue. It requires a deep analysis of both sides of the issue. We have to look at the underlying factors of the issue in order to come to a somewhat fair conclusion.

Some argue that the satirical magazine was within its rights to use its freedom of speech to express its views even if it might be provocative and offensive to some people. They believe that’s the whole premise of freedom of speech. Some people are going to disagree and actually be offended by their views or comments but as long as they express them in a non-violent way it should be fine. On the other hand, others argue that the satirical magazine was portraying Muslims with negative stereotypes, which in the long run could be destructive to the Muslim community living in Europe. Some people even called the magazine islamophobic and disrespectful to the Muslim faith.

Whichever way people choose to interpret this issue, they should always examine all sides of the matter before coming to a conclusion since there’s no easy solution to it.

I’ll leave you with my final thoughts about this issue, which is although I strongly believe in freedom of speech, I also believe that as civil human beings we should be respectful and considerate of other people’s faith and culture.

Charlie Hebdo panel raises the question: Just because you can say it, should you?

Nous Sommes Tous Charlie Symposium

By Amanda Nero

The Charlie Hebdo attack was the topic of discussion at the Nous Sommes Tous Charlie symposium at MU on Jan. 3.

MU Professor Sandra Davidson talks about free speech at the Nous Sommes Charlie symposium on Jan. 3. Photo cred: Olivia Paggiarino.

The symposium opened up talks about freedom of speech, hateful speech, and speech permitted by the law. The discussion was led by a panel of MU Professor Sandra Davidson, political cartoonist and author Khalil Bendib, and director of the Ethical Journalism Network Aidan White.

Political cartoonist and author Khalil Bendib speaks at the Nous Sommes Tous Charlie symposium on Jan. 3. Photo cred: Olivia Paggiarino.

Gunmen Cherif and Said Kouachi walked into the Charlie Hebdo office and proceeded to shoot resulting in the death of 12 people on Jan. 7. The attack was in retaliation for the  cartoons about Islam that the satirical magazine previously ran.

A political cartoon from Khalil Bendib’s website displayed at the Nous Sommes Tous Charlie symposium on Jan. 3. Photo cred: Olivia Paggiarino

The track record of Charlie Hebdo publishing culturally offensive content was discussed. Both White and Bendib debated if and where the publication should have drawn the red line.

It was unanimous that acts of terror like this are always unjustifiable, but agreement on when it becomes a hate crime to publish belligerent commentaries about other groups remained gray.

By the end of the discussion all the panelists related the Charlie Hebdo story to numerous freedom of expression examples from around the world.

Read more

Related articles: Letter from the Editor

Letter from the Editor

By Co-Editor-in-Chief Niki Kottmann

Today is a bittersweet day for me.

I’m excited to write my first “Letter from the Editor (Abroad)” editorial, but it isn’t going to be the I’m-About-to-Leave-for-France-and-This-Is-Gonna-Be-Wicked-Awesome post that I was initially anticipating.

For anyone who doesn’t know, Paris and the surrounding region was the location of multiple acts of violence this week. 12 people were shot and killed in the office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo Wednesday and a police officer in the southern Montrouge area of Paris was killed Thursday.

This morning, American media outlets reported on two hostage situations related to the Wednesday shooting. One situation was just outside of Paris in Dammartin-en-Goele where the two Charlie Hebdo shooting suspects, Said and Cherif Kouachi, were holding a printing press owner hostage in his factory. The other involved the suspect of the Thursday police officer killing, Amedy Coulibaly, who held multiple people hostage in a kosher grocery store on the eastern side of Paris.

It was confirmed late this morning that all three of the aforementioned suspects were killed by French authorities. The hostage at the printing press was freed as well as those at the grocery store, but French president Francois Hollande just announced that four people were killed in the store siege.

French authorities are now searching for Coulibaly’s alleged accomplice, Hayat Boumeddiene, who is the only remaining suspect. Police union spokesman Pascal Disant believes that she may have escaped the scene of the supermarket siege.

Now, back to my main point: On Wednesday, I’m moving to Reims, France to study abroad for the semester. Needless to say, this is a news story that I’ve been following very closely.

“Are you worried about how safe France is now?”

This is one of the many questions I’ve been asked in regards to how I’m feeling about the situation in France, and frankly, I’m not really scared. A natural first reaction to a situation like this is fear, so of course it was incredibly unsettling at first. However, especially after all they’ve done today, I have faith in the French authorities and their ability to control the situation. And honestly, I’m even more excited to get over there now than I was before these attacks happened.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m incredibly saddened by the devastation that these events have brought upon the lives of innocent people. The family and friends of these victims will never get the closure they’re probably craving because, as Jon Stewart said in his opening monologue Wednesday night, “there is no sense to be made of this.” The reason why my fear has been replaced with increased excitement is that I don’t think I’ve ever been more proud to be a journalism student, and now is such a fascinating time to be a journalism student in France.

This graphic is now the most recognizable symbol of support for the magazine post-attack.

 

Before I go on a passionate rant, I want to make one thing clear: I struggle with voicing my opinion on this topic because my feelings about Charlie Hebdo as a publication are mixed. No, I’m not a fan of the cartoons that they published with satirical renditions of the Prophet Mohammed. As a journalism student, I’m taught to treat all subjects fairly and tastefully, and many of their cartoons go against the values I’ve developed in school, both related to and not related to journalism.

However, my opinion about the content of the magazine doesn’t really matter because I believe in freedom of speech, even speech that I don’t agree with. I was born and raised on this concept, the idea that as I writer, I can record and share my opinions without living in fear of repercussion. I don’t particularly enjoy reading editorials or other pieces of writing that I would consider prejudiced or offensive, but I have to respect them because I believe that everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, and refusing to hear another’s viewpoint is elitist and ignorant.

When I saw pictures of the swarms of French demonstrators standing proud in the streets of Paris (and across the world, for that matter), pens and pencils in the air, I felt more inspired than I ever have throughout my two and a half years in journalism school. I don’t know if I would consider the staff of Charlie Hebdo journalists, but there is no doubt in my mind that they were writers, cartoonists, satirists and just plain human beings whose actions didn’t warrant murder.

What matters right now is that there’s a serious problem with not only terrorist attacks against freedom of speech, but French law that criminalizes certain kinds of speech. As Jonathan Turley wrote in the Washington Post, the French government is more of a threat than terrorists in this regard.

“…if the French want to memorialize those killed at Charlie Hebdo, they could start by rescinding their laws criminalizing speech that insults, defames or incites hatred, discrimination or violence on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sex or sexual orientation,” Turley wrote.

Charlie Hebdo was threatened many times under these laws, and their refusal to give up is what helps me believe that freedom of speech is something worth fighting for. As France continues to impose restrictions on journalists, I’m excited to live and learn in a country that’s going through such a historical period. These attacks were horrific, but the one light at the end of the tunnel is that these events sparked a conversation that is incredibly necessary in France right now.

Just as the protestors’ sign in central Paris read, I’m not afraid. Even though I’ll be 89 miles from the site of these attacks, in the hometown of one of the suspected shooters, I’m excited to be a journalism exchange student living in a culture at a huge turning point in the history of journalism and free speech.

The Ebola outbreaks in West Africa cause a ripple effect in American media

By Jessica Karins

In wealthy countries like Spain and the United States where the Ebola virus is beginning to take hold in a handful of cases, it’s just a disease. A disease with grotesque symptoms, yes, a disease that frightens people, but nonetheless, it’s purely a medical problem.

In West Africa, where the virus claims almost all of its victims, it’s another story entirely. There, it’s one symptom of an ongoing crisis that encompasses governments’ inability to care for their citizens, infrastructures and healthcare systems that dramatically underserve populations, and a world around them that isn’t interested in helping. In Africa, Ebola is a social disease.

As the first few Western cases have emerged, there’s an almost shocking disconnect present in the way the news media covers these two types of crisis.

One article in the LA Times referred to experts trying to stop the virus from spreading in the US as “leading the fight against history’s worst outbreak of Ebola”. For context, almost all of the virus’ nearly 7500 victims died in West Africa. There has probably been more news coverage of the dog Spanish officials decided to put down in case it spread the virus than their has been of any single African person who died of Ebola. Now that Ebola is happening to us, it’s suddenly front-page news.

What is the reason for this gap in coverage? What are we missing that prevents us from seeing each individual life lost as valuable, regardless of national origin?

It’s actually a symptom too – of a deep strain of racism and xenophobia in American culture that prevents us from seeing the deaths of those in other nations, especially those that are predominantly non-white, as equal in value.

There’s nothing like fear as a motivation for journalism, and as a motivation to read the news. Something like the Ebola virus provokes the understandable and human reaction of horror that something like this could happen here. So even when we don’t feel personally imperiled, it’s easier to feel a sense of injustice when the victim is someone like us.

If we want to create change, though, we have to do better.

There are thousands of tragedies like this happening all the time, and no one to tell those stories to the people with the power to help. It’s a breakdown all the way down the line – no leaders demanding more progress on the issue, no public invested in pressuring them to, no media to inform them of what it is that’s wrong.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to the public to help them empathize with stories that are distant and unfamiliar. We can’t expect most people to seek out this information, but it needs to be made available–in the form of front-page headlines and solemn opening segments on the nine-o’clock news. When we focus on only those stories that are already easy to understand, both for ourselves and our readers, we don’t help them understand anything new. Just as importantly, though, we fail the people who could benefit the most from having their stories told.

As the first vaccine trial for Ebola begins, we all need to ask ourselves why it didn’t happen sooner, and why now is the tipping point for change. None of us, whether scientists, journalists, or citizens, are free from bias. Whether or not this crisis becomes one the world shares, now is the time to ask how many lives our failures of empathy have taken, and how many more they may put at risk.