Countering terrorismTerrorists can be defeated by fighting fear with cooperation

By Robert Imre

Published 19 September 2014

From anarchists in the 1920s and radical leftists in the 1960s, to fringe, extreme-right Christian bombers or gunmen in the United States in recent decades, or radical Islamists such as Islamic State today, terrorist groups have one thing in common. They seek to shock, while simultaneously portraying themselves as victims. While their beliefs can vary wildly, what they all share is the “propaganda of the deed” in their extreme violent activities. Given that we have seen a number of terrorist groups come and go over the decades, it bears scrutiny how these various groups were successfully stopped, as well as where governments failed. At present, radical Islamic terrorists do not appear to have the capacity to develop well-organized cells in places like Australia or Canada, and will most likely dissipate as previous anarchists and ultra-Marxists did decades ago. The next big question in all of this is how to de-radicalize. What has worked and what has failed in terms of de-radicalization efforts by various governments? Hopefully, the government is engaged in a careful consideration of this, and has thought about how other countries have handled the problem of domestic terrorism.

From anarchists in the 1920s and radical leftists in the 1960s, to fringe, extreme-right Christian bombers or gunmen in the United States in recent decades, or radical Islamists such as Islamic State today, terrorist groups have one thing in common. They seek to shock, while simultaneously portraying themselves as victims. While their beliefs can vary wildly, what they all share is the “propaganda of the deed” in their extreme violent activities.

Typically, political violence in the most extreme form — terrorism — usually will see groups fracture in to smaller sub-groups. Once violence is legitimated, it then becomes a way to settle internal disagreements as well.

Given that we have seen a number of terrorist groups come and go over the decades, it bears scrutiny how these various groups were successfully stopped, as well as where governments failed. Buying in to media hype actually helps terrorist organizations to create public suspicion, division among groups and eventual social disorder where terrorism can thrive.

Whether it is in Iraq, Australia, Britain, or Canada, radical groups will try to draw legitimate political authorities into a violent confrontation of some kind.

Public and government reprisals against any defined group is precisely what terrorists want. It legitimates their standing as victims rising up against their oppressors through the use of violence, ever more extreme.

This is at least one reason why launching military raids against Islamic State is so risky. It is also why large-scale invasions of homes — although sometimes necessary — must be managed carefully to avoid creating deeper community divisions, which can inadvertently play into the terrorists’ hands.

And there are lessons from overseas — including from Canada, Northern Ireland, Indonesia and Malaysia — on how we might manage today’s terrorists threats.

Canada’s handling of violent separatists
In the 1960s and 1970s, Canada faced its own “homegrown terror cell”: French-Canadian nationalists the Front de libération du Québec (or FLQ). The FLQ had a history of deadly armed robbery and more than 200 bombings. In October 1970, they kidnapped a British diplomat and demanded the release of twenty-three prisoners in return for releasing him.

Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s response to what became known as the October crisis was criticized by some at the time. But it is widely seen now as a political masterstroke.