- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34,258
- Reaction score
- 64,969
- Points
- 148
This is actually a good thing to bring up for debate to stir the pot a bit. Because, in this case, Fartbango is correct.
The four attacks, Hood, Boston, San Bernadino and Orlando are all cases of domestic terrorism. None of the fuckers were trained, equipped or financed by any outside organization. They were independent actors who used Islam as an excuse and, in all but one case, it is debatable if Mohammedanism was the primary motivating factor.
It brings to question how should we classify true foreign-based terrorism. ISIS, in these cases (except Hood as that pre-dated ISIS), had nothing to do with these people outside somewhat claiming credit for their actions and the sort-of, kind-of lip service paid them by the perpetrators. Compare and contrast that to Al-Qaeda's attacks, and attempted attacks on the US.
If ISIS tweeting a thanks at anyone that kills in the name of Allah, even if they had no hand in the matter, is the criteria for classifying foreign versus domestic terrorism, should we then also classify Dylann Roof's attack in Charleston as foreign terrorism because of his expressed admiration for Rhodesia and being inspired by an Austrian-born former German corporal?
Is an idea that inspires the same as material support? Should we re-evaluate what we consider foreign terrorism because the nature of terrorism itself is evolving?
Shouldn't we consider that ISIS/AQ/radical Islam are deliberately urging these kind of lone wolf attacks, and that the perpetrators are actually listening to/being inspired by those urgings? In the case of Major Hassan, for example, there was clear evidence that he not only was inspired by Anwar Al-Awlaki, but even communicated with him directly.
That contemporaneous communication with forwign leadership, either two-way or even one-way, is not an element present with respect to Dylann Roof.
Radical Islam is inherently a transnational ideology that isn't defined by national borders, but rather by the beliefs of its adherents, no matter where they are. Still, the organizational and religious core of that movement, and all of its most influential leadership, is overseas. And because of modern technology, they don't need to be co-located with recruits/jihadis to inspire them, or even to "sign them up", nor do those recruits need to be co-located in order to accept those orders/directives.
I think if the leadership and direct inspiration is overseas, and actively encouraging such attacks, then we ought to take those domestic jihadis at their word in terms of their motivations/loyalties, and consider them agents of an overseas authority.
Last edited: