Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[The Bread Guy]

Latest from New Jersey's Dep't of Homeland  Security - examples local, but also includes a bit of broader analysis ...

Background

    ISIS—also referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the Islamic State, or Daesh—is a Salafi-jihadist militant group that split from al-Qa’ida in June 2014 to establish its self-proclaimed caliphate.

    ISIS has 13 official affiliates throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and claims responsibility for operations on behalf of these affiliates in an attempt to highlight a global reach. ISIS’s official media outlet that produces propaganda, al-Hayat Media Center, releases weekly updates detailing the casualties and equipment losses of its enemies.

    Since ISIS’s territorial peak in 2015, the group has lost approximately 99 percent of its land holdings in Iraq and Syria, including Raqqa, its self-proclaimed capital, and Mosul, its largest conquered city. Due to this loss of territory, ISIS is now primarily operating in the Euphrates River Valley along the Iraq and Syria border and reverting to insurgent tactics.

Threat to New Jersey: Moderate

The terror threat from ISIS to New Jersey is moderate due to the group’s ability to inspire homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) to conduct attacks in the State and surrounding region on behalf of the organization ...

Full one-pager attached.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A couple of American reports out ...

National Counterterrorism Center Report: Envisioning the Emergence of Shia Homegrown Violent Extremist Plotters in the US

We assess that a Shia homegrown violent extremist (HVE) attack in the US is highly unlikely absent a catalyzing event that could galvanize some US-based Shia to engage independently in violence. Given sustained bilateral US-Iran tensions, the occurrence of such a catalyst could prompt Shia HVE activity relatively quickly, underscoring the benefits of early engagement with Shia communities about indicators of HVE radicalization. Potential triggering events for such Shia HVE violence include US military action against Iran and Lebanese Hizballah, Shia leadership or senior clerics sanctioning violence in the US, prominent Sunni government attacks on Shia, or high-profile anti-Shia activity in the US, judging from the results of a structured NCTC brainstorming exercise.

There are no confirmed cases of Shia HVEs who plotted attacks in the US, probably because support for fundamentalist ideology is less prevalent among US Shia than US Sunnis, the hierarchical nature of Shiism, and the absence of a violent triggering event against Shia overseas or in the US. Even if Shia HVE plotting were to emerge, the pool of Shia HVEs would be smaller than that of Sunni HVEs, limiting the scale of the potential threat.

We identified three key enablers that would probably increase the likelihood of Shia HVEs mobilizing to violence in the wake of a catalyzing event: the emergence of charismatic US-based Shia extremist voices, a persistent online Shia extremist cohort advocating violence in the US, and anti-US rhetoric from Shia media calling for violence in the US ...

More @ link here.

National Counterterrorism Center Guide: Sunni Extremist Attacks and Plots in the US Before 9/11 *

NCTC assesses that the Sunni extremist threat to the US before 9/11 was characterized by diverse extremist organizations and lone actors motivated by multiple ideological narratives and other factors, including Salafi jihadism, Palestinian nationalism, theological disputes within Islam, anti-Semitism, and anti-Hindu sentiments. We have identified a dozen successful attacks, four disrupted plots, and one attempt to set up an extremist training camp in the US between 1973 and 2001, underscoring the persistent threat from al-Qa‘ida–associated extremists, Palestinian terrorist groups, and Sunni extremist lone actors in the decades leading up to 9/11. These extremists chose a wide array of targets, with the majority of their attacks before 1993 focused on Hindu, Jewish, or Muslim individuals or institutions. Most attacks after that date were against civilian or US Government targets, because of al-Qa‘ida–associated extremists’ focus on indiscriminate mass casualty attacks. In some cases, we lack clear insight into the attackers’ motivations because of information gaps, and FBI disagrees about the motivations underlying two of these attacks ...

More @ link here

* - For some extra "after" data, here's a July 2017 report, "National Counterterrorism Center Guide: Sunni Violent Extremist Attacks in the US Since 9/11"

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Just a small point here: Iran is mostly a Shia muslim country, whereof Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni and of the Salafist school. The former teaches that jihad is an internal struggle to God, while the former teaches that jihad is an actual fight in the physical world against all non-believers.

Question: By associating with the Saudis as opposed to Iran, is the West backing the wrong horse?

 

[Journeyman]

Question: By associating with the Saudis as opposed to Iran, is the West backing the wrong horse?

Hand-wringing over religious-based terrorism only lasts until one gets to the oil reserve metric;  KSA has 267M barrels, and Iran has 158M.  We can only sustain so much angst at the occasional chopped-up journalist and war crimes in Yemen.  :

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hand-wringing over religious-based terrorism only lasts until one gets to the oil reserve metric;  KSA has 267M barrels, and Iran has 158M.  We can only sustain so much angst at the occasional chopped-up journalist and war crimes in Yemen.  :

Are you suggesting our western righteousness is proportional to the price at the gas pumps?

 

[Journeyman]

Are you suggesting our western righteousness is proportional to the price at the gas pumps?

a)  Noooo….. that would make me seem cynical.
b)  Noooo….. we have the Carbon Tax to hate on for that.

 

[AbdullahD]

Just a small point here: Iran is mostly a Shia muslim country, whereof Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni and of the Salafist school. The former teaches that jihad is an internal struggle to God, while the former teaches that jihad is an actual fight in the physical world against all non-believers.

Question: By associating with the Saudis as opposed to Iran, is the West backing the wrong horse?

Hey OGBD just wanted to address the fiqh assumption here mate please don't be upset.

A link regarding jihad from one salafist school of thought my friend gave me.
https://youtu.be/Ef8NE1l_hiA

Walaikumassalam warahmatullah wabarakaatuh

I have studied under teachers that may have classified themselves as Salafis and I used to identify myself as one in the past as well. Due to the variations within the group, I have chosen to not label myself as such but do believe in the commonly known Salafi theology.

As far as Jihad is concerned, I was never taught jihad being a purely physical struggle rather during my education, focus was placed on other spiritual manifestations of jihad.

Common Salafis are very silent on politics and Salafi teachers brush off most political questions as being "unnecessary" or "non-beneficial". In those circles, discussing jihad's present day manifestation as a physical act is almost never discussed

Especially in Saudi Arabia, scholars speaking in public would never bring up the issues that are even remotely political. And whenever jihad is mentioned in its physical sense, it is always in light of the battles fought in the past.

*People mix salafis with ikhawanis. Can't say I have wrapped my head around fully but yeah..I stay out of these topics lately.*

Had to reach out to a friend of mine, had a discussion regarding the allegation that Salafism practices physical Jihad only. That was his response on it, I do consider him an authority on this subject.

Due to the nature of his work, position in life etc he does not wish to be named and for that I'm sorry. I prefer quoting sources with their name.. it makes this quote far weaker I understand.. it checks out in my books if that matters.. any rate.. it is what it is. The asterix parts was from another part of the conversation.

Now regarding Saudi.. yeah, they may be the wrong horse to back.. they are definitely not Angel's. I do try to stay out politics, messy subject that it is.. but Saudi, has had issues with extremism and I am personally against salafism and see links between salafism and extremism.. but whether it is causation or correlation I do not know.

I post to correct or educate, we have an issue with a small  percentage of people within the Islamic community radicalizing and it needs to be combated. For that we need to understand it completely. Of course I also think their is a percentage of people in all ethnic, religious or ideological groups that are or at risk for extremism and we should combat that as well.

Any rate enough of my ramblings for the day.
Abdullah

 

[YZT580]

Abdullah, you are absolutely correct.  There are extremists in every group.  Unfortunately for the religion of peace, the victims of other than Islam number in the dozens per year.  The victims of Islamist extremists number in the thousands.  Most of us here of a western background don't understand the difference between the different Muslim sects.  All we know is what we read.  I fully accept that the jihadists are in the minority but there numbers are growing exponentially so how do we stop them and still support those who do not go to these extremes.  We need to stop blaming upbringing and culture and poverty and identify the true nature of the teaching that condemns Jews and Christians oh and Hindus and Buddhists as well and figure out some way to stop them.

 

[Singh47]

https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history

Why don't we cut to the case and state that any religion which condemns all non believers to hell is horrible.

Christians or the Post Enlightenment West can't really claim moral superiority after genociding 3 continents, and still being in the process of forcing their morals down everyone's throats.

Islam is no angel but it atleast accepts difference.

The Liberal West wants everyone to be like them with maybe a coat of paint to hide the internal cultural homicide genocide that's taken place.

Furthermore, and finally let us ask if Islam radical or not would even have survived without the significant support Western powers lent Turkey and later Pakistan?

Fact is, Islam and the West were made for each other.

Both think something written in a book trumps observed reality and put both on a masquerade every few years of how they've changed after committing another atrocity।।

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।

 

[AbdullahD]

https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history

Why don't we cut to the case and state that any religion which condemns all non believers to hell is horrible.

Christians or the Post Enlightenment West can't really claim moral superiority after genociding 3 continents, and still being in the process of forcing their morals down everyone's throats.

Islam is no angel but it atleast accepts difference.

The Liberal West wants everyone to be like them with maybe a coat of paint to hide the internal cultural homicide genocide that's taken place.

Furthermore, and finally let us ask if Islam radical or not would even have survived without the significant support Western powers lent Turkey and later Pakistan?

Fact is, Islam and the West were made for each other.

Both think something written in a book trumps observed reality and put both on a masquerade every few years of how they've changed after committing another atrocity।।

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।

Extremely interesting first post, especially registering today to make this specific post.

I'll assume you are Sikh then? I followed your link, read it as best I could and noted some dates/numbers. Stated up to 6 million dead, sadly. With issues regarding Islam allegedly starting shortly after 600 ad. Which means 4,300 person per year died, either combatant or not. Which is very sad, India and the Islamic empire did have some very sad history on both sides.. but I feel it outside the scope of this thread. I am open to discussing it in another thread if you wish.

Also I feel you confuse or tie the west and christianity as one. When it is not, separation did happen and different Christian sects act and did act differently on many subjects. Some of which lack the black eye, say the Catholics suffer from.

Also Islam I would argue heartily was at no risk what so ever of disappearing without the west. With Muslims from China, to Russia, to India, to Arabia, Morocco and Somalia any localized issues would hardly dent the Islamic world. Take a look at how Muslims in China are being treated and yet they still exist etc etc.

I have yet to run into a religion or ideology older then say a hundred years, that does not suffer a black eye of some sort. Including the Sikh community. The difference is just because members of your community does something bad in history, it does not neccesarily reflect on the community to this day.

So yes, some western/Islamic leaders have done dastardly deeds, but we can still claim that they are amongst the best. Islam as a religion and the west as political and judicial examples. The "wests" track record of righting wrongs is far superior then any other block I know of and is a model for the entire world to follow.

So yes, some "westerners" get a little to excited in thinking the west is the best and without flaws and make some silly statements. I agree to an extent with them regardless, the west specifically Canada is the best and I'm damned proud to be Canadian. Yeah we have a few flaws, but who doesnt? But before you start calling everyone out, make sure your house is in order. Cause ain't to many places that look better then Canada in the world.

Sure the west was made for Islam, but Islam was made for the west too, in fact Islam was made to be adaptable for any culture.

Abdullah

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The Liberal West wants everyone to be like them with maybe a coat of paint to hide the internal cultural homicide genocide that's taken place.

Not really.  The neocons and maybe a few others on the centre-left of the western political spectrum do.  What most of us in the "liberal west" want is to retain our institutions and for others to have the opportunity to choose to use them, if they wish.  And the east/orient, as traditionally understood, is immense, diverse, and in no danger of cultural genocide except by its own hands (see: western institutions, choosing to use).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't condemn modern day Muslims for the historical wrongs of Sunni Islam (Suppression of other cultures, slavery, colonization by force, etc). I do judge the religion by how it is acting today. My sister inlaw was fighting to change it from the inside till cancer took her. If not she would have been targeted by her own government and the hardcore fundamentalists. there are others also trying to change it, but for now their are a small choir in a typhoon, one that has been funded by the Gulf States for about 2 generation. I am under no illusion that it will likley take 3-4 to fix that damage. The Shia's I worry less about, Iran has a nutbar government, but the people in general are not as easily duped by their leaders/imans as the Sunnis are. Most of the other smaller sects are to busy trying to survive in local areas to be a concern. The Ismali's here have been to busy making money and being good citizens to be up to no good. 

 

[Singh47]

Dr Elst Stated in the first paragraph that it was way more than 6 million.

You're lying, obfuscating and apologizing for mass genocide.

What do you mean both sides? I know you think that when it comes down to the 2 options you hate people who choose the third - fight back.

You saying that there were problems on both sides is like saying it's so sad that Jews fought back against Hitler when they could.

It's worse actually because that affair was over swiftly while this one is ongoing.

You don't strike me as anything but an intellectual sort, a nerd. So I'll leave it at that,

Good day.

 

[Singh47]

>The Liberal West wants everyone to be like them with maybe a coat of paint to hide the internal cultural homicide genocide that's taken place.

Not really.  The neocons and maybe a few others on the centre-left of the western political spectrum do.  What most of us in the "liberal west" want is to retain our institutions and for others to have the opportunity to choose to use them, if they wish.  And the east/orient, as traditionally understood, is immense, diverse, and in no danger of cultural genocide except by its own hands (see: western institutions, choosing to use).

I don't look towards the majority of the population, but the population who holds the majority of the power. An army is judged by its leaders, after all.

 

[AbdullahD]

Dr Elst Stated in the first paragraph that it was way more than 6 million.

Which I referenced from the article as well as the alleged start date using the holocaust numbers, due to no agreement existing on death tolls.

You're lying, obfuscating and apologizing for mass genocide.

I used your article as the basis for my reply, were did I lie, muddy the point or apologize for mass murder? Admitting their are issues on both sides does not lessen the gravity of the situation on either side.

What do you mean both sides? I know you think that when it comes down to the 2 options you hate people who choose the third - fight back.

That is patently untrue.

You saying that there were problems on both sides is like saying it's so sad that Jews fought back against Hitler when they could.

That comparison has nothing to do with this conversation. A better one would be the allied forces war crimes including russia, when fighting against Hitler or after they won.

It's worse actually because that affair was over swiftly while this one is ongoing.

Of course bloodshed that is currently happenig is worse because it is ongoing, whereas historical bloodshed is over. That is not being debated.

You don't strike me as anything but an intellectual sort, a nerd. So I'll leave it at that,

Good day.

A nerd eh? Considering I'm so inept I need my wife to run our household electronics lol

I have not had someone call me a nerd online before that I can recall.

My friend, you are making a mistake that I used to make. You are far to close emotionally to objectively discuss this subject. Step back, take a breath and lets discuss this like adults. Without the insults, Muslims have done some very very bad things, I do not and will not deny this. But on the same hand conflicts that are hundreds of years old are extremely complex subjects and very rarely is one side purely evil for the entirety of it. How it started and what it evolved into are usually two separate things that need to be addressed individually. You seem to think or appear to think it is all the same.

Any rate, I am happy to discuss things as I can, albeit I am not an authority on Islam or Islamic history. To be honest, Colin likely has a better grasp on some things then I do in regards to history and current events regarding Islam.

But we will not, have any more dialogue if you can not show me at least some respect. No name calling, if you think I am lying tell me so and why and allow myself the opportunity to clarify, it is more likely I was just confused or you misread me same for all the other subjects.

Abdullah

 

[Singh47]

Nothing more to discuss May the Lord of all Things

Bring Blessings on all things.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।

 

[brihard]

Dr Elst Stated in the first paragraph that it was way more than 6 million.

You're lying, obfuscating and apologizing for mass genocide.

What do you mean both sides? I know you think that when it comes down to the 2 options you hate people who choose the third - fight back.

You saying that there were problems on both sides is like saying it's so sad that Jews fought back against Hitler when they could.

It's worse actually because that affair was over swiftly while this one is ongoing.

You don't strike me as anything but an intellectual sort, a nerd. So I'll leave it at that,

Good day.

You are badly out of line if you think that’s how you appropriately approach discussions here. You’re a couple of days and a couple of posts in, and are attacking a member who is quite reasonably discussing things. You’ve denounced him as an apologist for genocide and a liar, and are simply attacking him personally. All of that based on absolutely nothing. Ad hominem attacks on his credibility do nothing to bolster your own position.

If you wish to have any future as a member of this site, you’re not on a good track.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ironically this thread seems to be derailing, microcosm-like, in a fashion similar to the whole 'Global Terrorism' thing...

"A fanatic is a man who consciously over compensates a secret doubt." Aldous Huxley

 

[OldSolduer]

Ironically this thread seems to be derailing, microcosm-like, in a fashion similar to the whole 'Global Terrorism' thing...

"A fanatic is a man who consciously over compensates a secret doubt." Aldous Huxley

Winston Churchill also had a saying about fanatics as well. I’m too feeble minded to remember what it is.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Winston Churchill also had a saying about fanatics as well. I’m too feeble minded to remember what it is.

'A fanatic is one who can not change his mind and will not change the subject.'