Consequences of Hate-Filled Political Rhetoric and Illegal Military Interventions

In recent years, the number of terrorist attacks and hate crimes in western countries has risen to levels never seen before, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens. Recent studies suggest that there are clear connections between terrorism, illegal military interventions in the Middle East, and those politicians who regularly use hateful rhetoric against immigrants.

This has been more evident in the UK, which has suffered four terrorist attacks in just four months, the latest against the Muslim community only a week ago. In the aftermath of those attacks, the number of hate crimes increased fivefold in London and 530% in Manchester, according to the Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks).

Screenshot from 2017-06-23 10-47-17.png

Source: The Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime, Home Office. 12 months to March in year shown

A Met police spokesperson said that the number of hate crimes against Muslims had increased sharply in the last four years. They recorded 343 incidents in 2013, 1009 in the year before March 2016, and 1260 in the year prior to March of 2017.

Last year, the UN the body Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination argued that the continuous anti-immigration rhetoric used by British politicians during, and after the Brexit campaign, resulted in a significant increase in the number of hate crimes and in the potential radicalization of several individuals.


The committee reported that more than 3,000 allegations of hate crimes were made to UK police in the week before and the week after the Brexit vote, an increase of 42% over the two corresponding weeks in the year before. It also pointed out that numerous politicians and journalists regularly fail to condemn hate crimes against ethnic minority groups.

The UK military interventions in the Middle East have not seemed to help reduce the level of terrorism. Instead, they have served as a platform for ISIS to carry out its massive proselytizing, especially to those vulnerable people who often feel discriminated against by society.

The Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn recently said, “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought against other countries and terrorism here at home.”

“That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and held to account for their actions. But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people and will fight rather than fuel terrorism.”


It seems clear that explicit support for an illegal war overseas often backfires with unpredictable consequences. And then that action, far from reducing terrorism, boosts it.

Rhetoric that is hostile to an ethnic group, including locals, or any action that could be understood as hostile by them, will do nothing but feed their perception that they will always be targeted, resulting in the radicalization of numerous individuals.

Numerous right-wing politicians and journalists remind us how the constant discrimination against ethnic minorities fuels terrorism, resulting in the backlash which the enormous tragedies previously mentioned represent.

To believe that Islamist terrorism is going to be eradicated anytime soon would be very naive. However, western governments could easily reduce the number of terrorist incidents in their respective territories by ending their hate rhetoric against immigrants and by building bridges between communities.

Tolerance is the key to reducing tensions and solving the existing problem. Although there are many distinct communities in the world, and each one has its own peculiarities and customs, all of them have things in common, and most importantly they are all made up of human beings.

For that reason, it is important to emphasize those common points and downplay the differences that set those community apart.  Even though this may sound utopic, it is crucial to remember that people and people alone determine what is real and what is not. By persuading governments of the importance of leaving their hateful rhetoric aside while showing the importance of building bridges between communities, global society will move a step closer to achieving unity and getting away from division once and for all.


7 thoughts on “Consequences of Hate-Filled Political Rhetoric and Illegal Military Interventions

  1. Excellent post. Unfortunately the Trump administration and many conservatives and republicans in the USA are hell bent on pursuing divisive policies. It is easy to see a great deal more terror like that the west has been experiencing. You ultimately reap what you sow.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I agree that intervention (i.e. killing people) is a certain cause of terrorism. It’s less clear to me that intolerance is, but I don’t find it helpful, either. I don’t consider immigration policies to be inherently intolerant, as many progressives seem to. I think they are creating intolerance by insisting that there should be no policy at all. It’s wrong to put all the blame on “the right”. To some degree, they are responding to unreasonable policies on the left. A lot of Trump’s so called “racist” policies are actually Obama’s policies. Obama was much more tactful, is all.


    1. I agree that some of Obama’s policies contributed to an escalation of intolerance, racism, and terrorism. He is the one who set up several secret prisons to torture thousands of innocent people worldwide. Rather than focussing on left or right, I focus on specific policies and on the person. By the way, the US Democratic Party would not be a leftie one in Europe. If you compare its program with any European right-wing party, you will see that they are almost identical.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree entirely, especially on focusing on specific policies. Even our (Canadian) liberals, who are (currently at least) far more left leaning than the establishment Democrats, they are still centrist. While the right (even people as rational as Stefan Molyneux for example) paint Obama and the Democrats as card carrying Communists, I think Jimmy Dore is far closer to the mark when he says there is no difference between the establishment wings of either party. I do see a difference between Bernie and the establishment, and I thought that Trump’s populism was more than an act, though that’s looking a little doubtful. In the end, they are all politicians, even Bernie.


  3. Unfortunately we have failed to integrate our Muslim neighbours – many, particularly women live within their own communities in complete isolation.
    We all as individuals and governments bear responsibility.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Well articulated. The question remains – what is the solution? Or, is one even there? Do well managed societies with rule of law in general have a responsibility towards others that do not have one? Eventually all life on Earth is tied together one way or another.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s