Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Responding to Islamist Terrorism: Are We Too Late?
Dearborn, MI Ordinance Officer Amal Chammout.
As I assess the US attitude toward Islamism and terror, I’m concerned that we are deluding ourselves about the dangers of terror in this country, and how soon we may find ourselves in deep trouble. John Kluge wrote an excellent post on how the US assesses Islamism. I believe this post takes his ideas even further, providing evidence that the danger is even more immediate than we realize. My biggest issue, however, is that I’ve had to rely on the mainstream media, whose overall credibility has been challenged to some degree, to counter-balance the information I’ve discovered. For that reason, in two out of three of my major points of evidence, I leave it to you, the reader, to decide where the truth lies.
First, in assessing our terrorism risk, many people claim that once we defeat ISIS, we will be much safer. I’d like to suggest that defeating ISIS is probably a pipe dream. ISIS may eventually be defeated in Syria, but the organization is already preparing to expand its territory. Thursday’s Wall Street Journal reported that as they lose territory, ISIS will return to Europe and their home countries, while other ISIS operatives are sent to join Syrian populations in Germany where they will blend in. Another European counter-terrorism expert is investigating whether they will be able to re-locate to countries where they currently have no presence. ISIS also is adept at using the internet for recruitment, and although authorities continually take down their websites, new sites continue to crop up.
Aside from ISIS, there is also Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. According to a counterterrorism report,
AQAP operates throughout Yemen, primarily in the country’s southern and central regions. In many of these provinces, AQAP governs small pockets of territory with sharia (Islamic law) courts and a heavily armed militia. AQAP attempts to appeal to the Yemeni people by meeting their basic needs and integrating into the local population, including by conforming to the local governance structures. In addition to controlling territory in Yemen, AQAP is believed to pose a major terrorist threat to the United States. (Italics mine.)
There is a likelihood that these organizations will continue to adjust to counter-terrorist activities and find new ways to spread terrorism internationally. I suspect they’re already here.
Second, some people take comfort from the knowledge that we are not in danger of becoming another Europe. Unlike the European countries, we have a history of being successful at integrating our immigrants. That may have been true in the past, but present circumstances, particularly in Michigan, contradict that tradition. I emphasize that not that all Muslims are radicalized or even potential terrorists. But in an effort to provide a well-rounded picture, let me explain a few things.
In the town of Hamtramck, four of the City Council’s six seats are held by Muslims. Politico reports that residents are more afraid of Donald Trump and Republicans than fearing their city will become a breeding ground for radical Islamism. But Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a widely recognized Somali immigrant, is concerned that the City Council will incorporate Sharia into the city’s laws.
Another town dominated by Muslims is Dearborn. In a video produced by Robert Spencer at JihadWatch, a Dearborn resident drove around the city and Spencer recorded video and audio. Again, it’s important to state that not all Muslims are terrorist threats, but a small percentage of that community might be.
Third, there is the issue of homegrown terrorism. Pew Research provides an overview of the Muslim population in the US:
In 2015, according to our best estimate, there were 3.3 million Muslims of all ages in the U.S., or about 1% of the U.S. population. Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study (conducted in English and Spanish) found that 0.9% of U.S. adults identify as Muslims. A 2011 survey of Muslim Americans, which was conducted in English as well as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, estimated that there were 1.8 million Muslim adults (and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages) in the country. That survey also found that a majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants.
When we think of terrorists in our country, we prefer to believe radical Muslims are immigrants, misfits, unemployed and alone; Foreign Policy reported on a study that doesn’t confirm those perceptions. The report studied of 112 individuals “who the U.S. Department of Justice indicted for Islamic-related crimes between March 2014 and August 2016.” The report stated:
The average age of the 112 individuals is 27, with almost a third over 30. Over 40 percent were in a relationship, with a third being married. Nearly two-thirds went to college. Three quarters had jobs or were in school. All of this is quite similar to the United States population as a whole.
The other common perception of terrorists is that they come to the United States from abroad. This idea is simply out of date. One of the key findings of the study is that the vast majority of the 112 individuals are U.S. citizens. Nearly two-thirds were born in the United States, and nearly 20 percent were naturalized citizens. This is in sharp contrast to individuals who had been indicted for al Qaeda-related offenses between 1997 and 2011; only 55 percent of those were U.S. citizens. Only three were refugees — two from Bosnia and one from Iraq. The latter came to the United States as a refugee in 2009 and was radicalized sometime thereafter.
Foreign Policy was making the point that focusing on immigration from Muslim-majority countries might not serve our security needs as well as we think it will.
Finally, the last point, and perhaps the most contested, is whether we already have terrorist training camps in this country. PJ Media reported on a project that identified several camps in the US.
The Clarion Project has unearthed Federal Bureau of Investigations documents detailing a 22-site network of terrorist training villages sprawled across the United States. According to the documents, the FBI has been concerned about these facilities for about 12 years, but cannot act against them because the U.S. State Department has not yet declared that their umbrella group, MOA/Jamaat ul-Fuqra, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
An article in the Washington Post labels this information as conspiracy theory. I will leave the decision about the credibility of these camps to you.
We needed to begin more aggressively planning for the threat of Islamist terror years ago. We’ve taken some steps, but many of them appear to be minor. Let’s hope it’s not too late to begin taking effective action now.
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Progressives still seem to be pretty confident about their culture.
I want the phrase “a better life” banned, along with clichés like “nation of immigrants”. It’s one of two things;
They wanted freedom and they thought we had more of it than their native land; or
They wanted more money.
If they’re in the first category (and the present wave isn’t) they wouldn’t be trying to take away our rights of free speech.
And if they’re in the second, there’s no particular reason they should realize that aspiration at American citizens’ expense.
They’re bold in their hatred of their own culture .
Hypatia, thank you for your passionate comments! My question (and I asked someone else the same one) is are you suggesting a permanent ban or a temporary ban that Trump suggested?
They do indeed, Zafar. That doesn’t mean their beliefs are moral or realistic.
If any of you missed the video (just above in this comment) in the OP, I encourage you to take a look. Ours is a delightful and educational discussion, but the video created (for me) a visceral reaction.
I support exactly what Trump wants to do: suspend immigration from those Muslim countries where terror is bred until we figure out “what is going on” as he said.
There is one statutory provision which prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality or religion, which I feel speaks to permanent immigration,I.e., resettlement here. There is another which gives the executive power to temporarily suspend immigration or entry by “any class” of alien, which is what Trumps EOs attempt to do. I read the most recent opinion by the 4th circuit; it mentiona the statutes but says it doesn’t have to construe them, for some reason having to,do with the posture of the case and the lower court’s opinion. Unless the statute allowing temporary suspension is struck down, the president can and should impose a temporary ban.
Couple that temporary suspension with an informational campaign in those countries about the strict surveillance Muslim individuals will be under once they do get in. A campaign that counters what Islamist writers preach: that our own principles of religious and speech freedom will hamstring us from interfering with their subversive efforts. I dont even care if the propaganda isn’t true. They oughta be scared s— to come here.
It was this kind of information campaign which succeeded in reducing illegal crossings of our Southern border by 93% since Trump’s election. 93%. It’s difficult to imagine a physical wall could have accomplished so much so fast.
Suspend. Continue the development of effective vetting. And spread it around in Muslim homelands that the US is not going to be the easy pickin’s they’ve been led to believe.
That’s what I support.
I would draw the line at accepting immigrants who are willing to destroy that which makes us an open culture. There is no way to figure this out by interviewing the immigrants, so we have to use other proxy methods.
I concur. I wasn’t aware of the two types of statutory provisions. Thanks for clarifying!
Thanks, R. I also wonder how interviews will reveal people’s intentions. Maybe we’ll learn from the Israelis; they certainly have learned a bit about profiling people, which is what we’re talking about. Any other thoughts on how we can figure out their intentions?
It’s not just the intentions at the time of immigration, though, because we have seen that intentions are susceptible to change.
If you’re suggesting that we need to figure out what they might do at some future time, I think that will be nearly impossible. A number of the terrorists who came to this country were radicalized after they arrived, in some cases long after. It raises a serious question about vetting people: can we do that effectively before we even let them in? It will be interesting to see the process they develop.
Yes, I’m suggesting we need to make some intelligent guesses about what they might do at some future time. And what they might do at some future time is probably, in part, a function of how many there are.
There is s still a significant problem as Islam is practiced around the world. I think, only when we fact that truth, can we move forward and fix the problem. The Fundamental Islamism preaches death. That is what we see around the world. We cannot look at westernized Muslims in America and assume that is what we are going to get.
People totally clung to their old ways of life when they came here in the past. The whole idea that they did not cling to their old ways of life is just wrong. It is that now after several generations most of what they clung to has fallen away or been integrated into the general American culture and so no longer seems foreign. Today you are looking not at 4th or 5th generation but 1st generation immigrants and you are asking why they can’t speed things up.
And how good is our ability to perform such divination? This just seems like a Rorschach Test for whatever prejudices we happen to have.
I saw that article in my Sunday paper. This absolutely right. It is very difficult to prevent. I was struck with these two points from the report. First:
There were a few ricocheti last week that were trying to make the argument that a prospering Muslim world would deminish terrorism. Wrong. It has nothing to do with economics It is a cultural thing. Second:
So what are we going to do, continue to dig the hole with more immigration? The current islamic immigrants are a sunk cost. We can’t ship them back. But we can start dissapating the problem for future generations. Stop Islamic immigration. We have been lucky to only be at 1% of the population. As you can see in Europe, when it builds to 5-6% you reach a critical mass where a detrimental subculture builds within your country.
Yes, and that’s why we should halt all Islamic immigration.
First off, why would anyone of sane mind take a chance, and your underlying assumption is that Muslims will discard their faith. A critical mass of a particular culture in a democracy will certainly affect the laws and more importantly the culture of the home country. You may not be particularly devout, but that doesn’t mean others aren’t. There are some so devout they are willing to blow themselves up over it.
European immigration most certainly changed the United States over time. There is no question in my mind that for better or worse the US became more of a centralized state with a bigger welfare safety net because of European immigrants. The whole notion of unions came from Europe. And I speak as a child of immigrants. You better believe that people adding to a voting block changes the home cuontry. I have no desire to change toward Sharia or Islamic culture.
I agree. But predicting is going to be extremely difficult. I appreciated hearing John Kelly’s saying that they are working on the screening criteria, but I don’t envy him.
Point taken, Valiuth. I’m sure the first generation did hold on to their traditions; even today, orthodox Jews still do. But again, we didn’t worry about people coming here, some of them with the objective of killing the infidel.
The easiest way to screen would be to simply halt Muslim immigration from those seven countries, and then to give preference to religious minorities who want to come from Muslim-majority countries.
Screening is not the problem. Islam is the problem.
Any Muslim who wants to take their faith seriously will soon find that the Qur’an, Hadith, and the writings of 14 centuries of Imams all celebrate jihadi violence. Their theological literature provides a self-correcting mechanism that ensures that violent jihad will always remain within the mainstream of Islam. This is why screening will not work. Second or third generation immigrant Muslims may go full jihadi at any unanticipated time.
This is the problem comparing immigration of Muslims today with any immigration of any nationality or religion in years past. If we guess wrong now, it means the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of American citizens. Perhaps the communists sneaking in during the Cold War had the objective of eventually overthrowing our government and changing our way of life. But we were, as a nation, much stronger then. The communists had to hide in the shadows and act like normal Americans. The Islamists of today with our PC culture can move about freely, associate in the open in their Mosques, and plot to destroy with abandon. Also their means of obtaining devastating weaponry is vastly improved. I agree with @manny. The real solution right now is a ban on Muslim immigration. That is seemingly politically impossible. The court rulings against the Trump EO’s makes that pretty clear. Therefore @hypatia‘s idea of making it as unpleasant as possible to come to the USA for Muslims may be all we can do. It is extremely frustrating.
How did the US handle Russian Sleeper spies in the past? This doesn’t particularly seem to be a new problem…
I abhor the propositions that involve reforming Islam. First, such a thing should originate inside the believers, not outside. Just think how (justly) rankled we were when Hillary said Catholics need to change their beliefs.
The Christian reformation was still reading scripture. We would be hard pressed to change to say gay marriage is OK and that abortion is a right when there exist passages concerning bearing false witness, not delighting in wrong doing, and the importance of life.
Islam needs to figure that out on its own without outsiders getting involved.
That said, stop immigrating them. There is an issue and I don’t trust those who think otherwise and making our problems worse isn’t going to make life pleasant for the moderates that are already here.
If we are willing to take our current levels of terrorism as a fact of life, than we can develop a policy for only allowing in x% of our population in every x # of years and make that a policy discussion.
Personally, I’m not interested.
Our ability to do that is not good. My prejudice is in favor of liberal democracy, and I would hope those of us who still value it would make good guesses that would not let it be destroyed. But there is a lot of history of emigration through the ages that we can learn from. We can study how some immigrants (even some conquering immigrants) are changed by those they came to conquer, and how some immigrants are absorbed into the people they came to live with, and lots of stuff in between. We can try to learn from human experience.
Minnesota and North Dakota developed a socialist tinge due to immigrants from northern and eastern Europe. However, it wasn’t just a matter of where they came from, but also when they came.
It’s kind of ironic, though. Starting even before the civil war, it was usually the wealthy capitalists who wanted mass immigration, while the existing worker classes (for lack of a better term to describe them) opposed it. So the capitalists got their immigrants, who came and helped make their new country more hostile to capitalism.
I’ve not heard anyone suggesting that outsiders should reform Islam, Stina. Those who are trying, that I’m aware of, are Muslim. But I see little progress or energy regarding a powerful movement in that direction. It’s an uphill battle, from what I can tell.
I agree. No one but Muslims can reform Islam, if that is even possible. The religious texts say what they say and you can’t write an addendum. The only way to change the situation is to reinterprete the religious texts, but then that requires a universal acceptance of the reinterpretation. Obviously Osama’s followers aren’t going to accept it.
I should point out that people at the time did worry that these new immigrants will bring their Papist mentality, communism, and all sorts of other disreputable philosophies.
The problem though is not the immigrants but disillusioned and radicalized 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants. In which case they really represent a case more of domestic terrorism like socialist anarchists of old or the KKK. Theoretically to remove or lessen our threat now we would have had to ban people 20 years ago from entering when the current problem wasn’t a problem for us. My fear is that people think a Muslim ban will solve the problem, when I think it doesn’t even address it. So you make a show of banning them, but then what? If the plan is then to go around and grab up citizens and and conduct some sort of ideological inquisition I am worried that this will be open to all sorts of political abuse.