Aisha Ahmad is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto, specializing in jihadist financing.
Aisha Ahmad, Globe & Mail - In
the aftermath of the deadly attacks in Paris, we have learned
that the organizers were “homegrown terrorists” with Islamic State
links. They were not refugees. And yet, officials across Europe and the
United States have called for a moratorium on refugee flows from Syria,
claiming that migrants pose a security threat.
For IS, the attack was not just about
killing 130 people; it was a chess move in its global game, aimed at
provoking exactly this reaction. But those of us who have studied jihadist
extremists for years are not fooled. We have analyzed their internal
messages in every language, tracked their financial resources, and
dissected their strategies across the world. This move was predictable.
We have known for several months that IS has been trying to seal
European borders and incite hostilities against refugees as part of its
broader strategy.
How we react to the
Paris attack is therefore critical. It will not only determine the fate
of the refugees, but will also tip the balance of power on the
battlefield. If we take the bait, we will enrich and empower IS even
further. But if we respond strategically, we have the ability to
undercut the financial base of IS, disrupt its recruitment, and prove
that its toxic ideology holds no weight. Saving the refugees is not just
a moral issue; it is an inseparable part of the strategic plan to
destroy IS.
The fact is that the
refugee crisis hurts IS badly. The compassionate response of many
Western nations toward refugees undercuts the so-called caliphate in
three key ways: money, men and messaging.
No comments:
Post a Comment