A terrifying definition of the data

FIGURES released this week have pointed to a dramatic upswing in the number of terrorist attacks globally. While the majority of these are based in Iraq where the self proclaimed Islamic State is a highly visible presence some in Western media and political circles have picked up on the news as an excuse to call for ever more draconian measures to be implemented in the curtailing of civil liberties.

Since the tragic events of September 11th 2001 for many in the West terrorism has become synonymous with Islam. The history of its use over even the last century has been lost. The actions of the Provisional Irish Republican Army appear to have been forgotten. 

White supremacist bombings in the United States are pushed to one side in favour of a new belief that terrorism is religious rather than political, and by religious the conservative right wing mean Islamic.

The report into the rise in terrorist attacks will not help the debate by making claims that the  four main groups responsible for 66% of all deaths from terrorist attacks throughout 2013, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and the self-styled Islamic State, were motivated by a radicalised and perverted form of Islam.

All four groups used "religious ideologies based on extreme interpretations of Wahhabi Islam", claimed the report before adding, "To counteract the rise of religious extremism, moderate Sunni theologies need to be cultivated by credible forces within Islam."

What the report seems to overlook by counting attacks by groups such as IS and Boko Haram is that terrorism, rather than the ideology of the groups, has changed. These are not loosely organise networks of cells with a clearly defined political agenda. These are highly trained hierarchical insurgent armed forces. If they are to be counted as terrorist groups, which by their methods of instigating fear and anti-state actions they can arguably be claimed as being, then so to should dissidents in Ukraine. So to should drug cartels in South America. 

If we are to get an accurate figure for terrorist actions then it needs to be made clear what a terrorist act is and what classes as a terrorist group. 

While the report itself is a well balanced academic and useful piece it allows for its misuse by the right wing by not addressing this issue clearly enough.

As with any form of data gathering, particularly on such a complex and wide reaching issue clarification of the measurements and ensuring a lack of bias is always going to be a difficult thing to do.

In Israel this week a horrendous attack on a synagogue has left five people dead. There is no doubt that this was a hideous and brutal attack. What could be questioned, however, is whether this was a terrorist attack. There is nothing to say that this was not an act of madness by psychologically traumatised individuals. Indeed if the act had been carried out by a Christians in exactly the same way then this is what it would quite probably have been counted as.

Before we dismiss a rise in killings as a rise in Islamic fundamentalism we must clearly identify what the criteria we are using is lest we taint a religion based on peace and honour unjustly. 

War hasn't ended but it has changed

"THEY shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them." So say the words of the famous ode to remembrance taken from Lawrence Binyon's poem For the Fallen.

One hundred years ago millions of young men, and women, faced the horrors of a war unprecedented in the history of mankind. A war where the grim technology of death turned the fields of Europe into blood soaked patches of mud where the poppy sprung up in defiance, standing strong as proof that life will rise from death and loss shall never been diminished. It is those Poppies which continue to stand as a memorial not only to those who died in the first Great War but to those who have died in every conflict since.

There are those who have argued that after a century we should stop marking armistice, those who  have claimed that calling it the "Great War" somehow glorifies it. It is not nationalism to remember the dead. It is not idealism that allows us to thank those who laid down their lives in a bitter and futile struggle. Great is a reflection of size not glory.  

More than this though is that Armistice day is not just for those who died in World War One. The war to end all wars failed singularly in that particular respect, as in so many others. Only twenty years later the world was once again pitched into a brutal struggle, this time a fight for its soul against the evil of Nazism rather than a battle for land and resources as World War One at its core was. Nor has war ended since. Indeed as technology grows so to does the threat of death, although there are those who have argued that it diminishes it. There are many who would agree that far from being an obsolete idea World War Three is only a matter of time, an inevitability where the only question is if it will occur within our lifetimes. War has not ended, although its face may have. The implementation of violence within and without national borders is no longer the sole mandate of the state. With the emergence of powerful militia and terrorist groups such as in Ukraine, Nigeria, Iraq and Syria and elsewhere war has become an act between polities not states and polities are no longer just the states which once were their representatives.

There is very little that can be done to avoid further conflicts. If the memory of those who deaths have stained the global soul for a century could not prevent it then very little anyone can say or do will now. 

In their memory though we must not forget. Great is not glorification it is a warning. A threat for what will happen again if we fail to remember that they died for our very future. 

EU drives towards "flatter" world

The European Union has always proved to be a contentious subject in recent months, however, it has progressed to being an explosive topic.

For countries such as Turkey membership of the bloc has been something viewed with awe. Concessions have been made and flaming hoops jumped through as it continues down a long road to potential acceptance.

Meanwhile there is Britain which is fighting to rework the European Union into something more amenable to its electorate. For both sides of the debate the challenges can be daunting. For both the road they are walking is likely to be filled with opponents trying to stop their progress. The road has always had people waiting in the verges though to provide a helping hand. These good Samaritans seem to be becoming scarcer on both sides as states look to maintaining their own interests.

Most recently German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned British Prime Minister David Cameron that she was losing patience with him over Europe. In a widely quoted article in the German newspaper Der Spiegel she reportedly said that she would not allow Mr Cameron to introduce limits on the number of immigrants moving between countries within the bloc.

For potential members like Turkey such a move would be catastrophic. The freedom of workers to move around the European Union to follow the jobs has become a crucial part of its ability to maintain as standing as an industrialised trading bloc. This arguing in favour of such movement highlight the ways in which it helps European countries combat the hegemony of America and balance trade. 

Those who support Mr Cameron, many of whom have preferred to stay in the verges rather than risk crossing the powerful Merkel, would argue that this movement tends to be from low skilled workers who take jobs available to the indigenous population. 

Even the most ardent Eurosceptic must see that this argument is flawed. Possibly this is why Mr Cameron's usual supporters remain hidden in the shadows. The free movement of workers would allow countries, such as Turkey, to receive foreign capital as at least a portion of wages cross borders back home. Perhaps this is why right wing groups fear workers from outside their own country. It would make a better argument than unsubstantiated xenophobia or bigotry after all. 

The outflow of capital, however, is more than compensated for by lower wage costs leading to higher profits and therefore companies paying increased taxes. 

It is the reduction of jobs for locals which remains the main concern though. It is one which the honest solution of working harder and doing a good job is treated with genuine anathema amongst antagonists. The failure to realise that it allows for domestic workers to follow the jobs seems to have escaped their attention.

The European Union has moved on from is founding principles. It's growth and subsequent subsumption of countries has overridden the sovereignty of the Peace of Westphalia. It's evolution, however, distasteful to some, is inevitable though as the world becomes flatter. 

Those countries looking to join can saw hope from the fact that no matter what the countries seeking to change the EU may think the world is moving and it is moving towards a closer union.