DB 1 replies
#1
The power of ISIS has grown substantially since 2004 and continues to rise from the terrorist mindsets fueling this militant group. Based on history.com, this group initially was known as “Al Queda in Iraq” and then progressed into ISIS as different leaders came into play. But the main premise or ideology behind them is that of power and religion. In their eyes, seeing all of the Middle East and other countries under an Islamic state is ideal. This is why the initials stand for, I-Islamic, S-State, I-Iraq, and now S-Syria. Sharia Law is the focus to push onto the people they overtake. As stated in the article, “The group focused on creating an Islamic state and implementing sharia law—a strict religious code based on traditional Islamic rules and practices” (history.com).
Boko Haram is another Islamist militant group with very similar thinking coming out around the same time as ISIS. However, they originate in Nigeria. The very meaning of Boko Haram is “Western education is sinful.” Children have been kidnapped and used for multiple horrific reasons such as sex slaves and suicide bombers. Both groups believe the West should be eliminated and demand Sharia Law all across Nigeria. An insurgency was set in place to declare an Islamic caliphate. “The insurgency has forced around 2,4-million people to flee their homes in the four Lake Chad Basin countries – Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria” (enca).
Again, this group similar to ISIS values powers but mainly religion fuels their goals. I can understand anyone wanting to be proud of their religion or country but to force others and demand that anyone bow down so to speak to their way of thinking is extreme.
https://www.enca.com/africa/ten-facts-about-boko-haram
https://www.history.com/topics/isis
#2
By the actions of Boko Haram and ISIS, the only path to peace from my understanding is to wipe them out. I honestly see no other way persuade them to stop their terrorism, and so by force, may be the best route. By wiping them out, directly means war against them since it would be by heavy machinery, killing them off. This sounds harsh to even talk about, for me to even say, but honestly, they seem very persistent in their pursuit of taking over by extreme terrorism, which they relate back to as conversion to Islam. By withdrawing from Iraq may have meant a free will to dominate, no competition around, allowing conflict to spark again. I believe re-engagement has aggravated the region at least at this point. Lastly, different perspectives of human nature lead to different responses to terrorist groups because one see the problem as inevitable and the other may see it as a possible the opportunity to make something happen.
