Lone Wolfs not necessarily terrorists
Mike, appreciate the link on the Wall St attack (I wasn't aware of that one).
As you know not all lone wolf attacks are terrorist attacks and it is important to point out the difference. If the attack doesn't have a political agenda then it isn't terrorism, even if it terrorifies those exposed to it. While the numerous school shootings in our country and workers going postal are equally tragic regardless of motivation they are not generally terrorism. I think the attack on the Bath School was a guy that was pushed over the edge and went postal on his family and the school (local gov).
Timmy McVeigh wasn't a lone wolf, but supposedly he was part of a very small cell and his attack on Okalahoma City was clearly terrorism (politically motivated). Some lone wolf terrorists in the U.S. were the unibomber and MAJ Hason at Ft Hood. I agree that lone wolfs are probably harder to detect, and therefore their attacks may be more likely to succeed, but not necessarily be overly effective.
Some tough and slippery questions ...
contained in just two paragraphs:
Quote:
from Bill
As you know not all lone wolf attacks are terrorist attacks and it is important to point out the difference. If the attack doesn't have a political agenda then it isn't terrorism, even if it terrorifies those exposed to it. While the numerous school shootings in our country and workers going postal are equally tragic regardless of motivation they are not generally terrorism. I think the attack on the Bath School was a guy that was pushed over the edge and went postal on his family and the school (local gov).
Timmy McVeigh wasn't a lone wolf, but supposedly he was part of a very small cell and his attack on Okalahoma City was clearly terrorism (politically motivated). Some lone wolf terrorists in the U.S. were the unibomber and MAJ Hason at Ft Hood. I agree that lone wolfs are probably harder to detect, and therefore their attacks may be more likely to succeed, but not necessarily be overly effective.
A valid answer to all of these (but certainly not one providing bright lines) is "it depends" - and that answer then expands multi-fold when you get into the remedies. I've been staring at this post for a half hour thinking about ways to address strategic, tactical and legal differences. Nothing bubbled up.
Obviously, all of this has everything to do with how and why we kill - and the lines we draw to justify or condemn killing. The morals, ethics, legalities, strategy and tactics are much easier to analyze where we have a defined person declared hostile - e.g., as in a targeted killing situation or in a conventional war.
Regards
Mike
In Spokane, a Mystery With No Good Solution (Part 2)
Post 48 referred to a mystery device in Spokane and thanks to CLS mailing:
Quote:
A man with past ties to a white supremacist group was arrested early Wednesday by federal agents in connection with the bomb found on January 17 along a MLK parade route in Spokane, Washington. The suspect was identified in multiple reports as Kevin William Harpham, 36, of Colville, Wash. He was charged Wednesday with one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and one count of knowingly possessing an improvised explosive device. The AP reports that the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups in the United States, says Harpham, who has served in the U.S Army, has been a member of the National Alliance, a white supremacist group.
Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/us/10bomb.html?_r=1
Not much detail and yes the SPLC is not admired by all.
Jihad followers in the USA: an extreme minority
Thanks to a CLS pointer to a Wired story:
Quote:
In a forthcoming report, Brian Michael Jenkins, a terrorism expert and senior advisor at the Rand Corporation, updates a previous study on the subject and counts the number of Muslims in America who’ve participated in jihadist-related crimes from 9/11 through 2010. He shared the results with Danger Room ahead of publication.
181 Muslims have either been indicted, arrested or self-identified (such as through suicide bombings in Somalia) as participating in jihadist-related crimes since 9/11, according to Jenkins’ study. Estimates on the number of Muslims in America population are numerous and inconsistent; the Pew forum fixes the number at 2.6 million, Jenkins uses a figure of 3 million. In either case, the figure lies between 0.007 to 0.006 percent of American Muslims — an extreme minority in the fullest sense of the words.
“This is half-hearted jihad,” says Jenkins. Even if hundreds or thousands of American-based Muslims support or tolerate the radicals on the sly, it’s still a tiny, tiny percentage of the whole.
Link:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...lims-you-suck/
In Spokane, a Mystery With No Good Solution (Part 3)
For those who are following this plot, some details on the device / IED and after a long day not perused:http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...-bombs-makeup/
A Muslim view from Memphis
A long article on an American Muslim who now prefers the label orthodox; it is a good illustration of the difficulties such individuals and wider society face when talk turns to the 'J word'. Not surprisingly it reflects the dilemma for the state in can we talk to such people, who are often now labelled non-violent extremists?
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/ma...&_r=1&emc=eta1
A short UK comment on this dilemma in the UK:http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourking...utm_campaign=0
Entrapment fails as a defence
From the consistently good daily email news round-up from the NY-based Center for Law & Security, available via:
A comment on this US practice:
Quote:
Reuters cites data from the Center on Law and Security to illustrate that entrapment defenses in terrorism prosecutions have not been successful over the past decade. The Reuters report states that “[s]ince 2009, the FBI has arrested 41 people on terrorism charges through sting operations — where law enforcement posed as extremist militants — the Center said. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, 10 suspects in six trials have formally used entrapment as a defense and none were successful.
Link:http://centerlineblog.org/2011/03/25...rism-news-204/
American jihad: Facing up to homegrown militancy
A BBC Radio 4 report:
Quote:
In the years after 9/11 the threat to America from Islamist militants seemed to come exclusively from abroad, but recent events have disproved that assumption - and posed the question how to prevent the radicalisation of Muslim immigrants.
Link to report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13068133
Link to podcast, which is far better IMHO:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010dp1k
In that Peter Neumann, from ICSR @ Kings College London, commented that the USA will now be asking itself the questions the UK has asked for the past ten years. Please do not repeat what the UK state did.
This is a RUSI commentary:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...4D90A51D14AB0/
Are we spending too much on homeland security?
Spotted on the CLS e-alert an article in The Economist, which opens with this:
Quote:
AMERICA has increased homeland security spending by more than $1 trillion in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. A new academic paper from John Mueller (of The Ohio State University) and Mark Stewart (of the University of Newcastle in Australia) attempts to determine whether the return on investment justified those huge expenditures. They also ask whether policymakers ever considered anything remotely resembling a cost-benefit analysis before they spent all that money. The answer in both cases, it seems, is no.
Link:http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...orism?fsrc=rss
Note the academic paper is on a Scribd link within and is approx. 28 pgs. Not read through today; not really a day to read such thoughts!
Pass Em’ Right: Assessing the Threat of WMD Terror from US Christian Patriots
A rather long article, the correct title is: 'Pass Em’ Right: Assessing the Threat of WMD Terrorism from America’s Christian Patriots'; which maybe of interest and is from the abstract:
Quote:
Within the field of terrorism studies, great effort has been devoted to the topic of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their potential usage in the hands of terrorist organisations. This article deepens the discussion of WMD terrorism by focusing upon an oft-overlooked movement that resides within American borders. The Christian Patriot Movement – which rightfully claims the likes of Timothy McVeigh – is a phenomenon that has gone largely unnoticed as American counterterrorism efforts focus largely upon Islamist terrorist organizations. Here we aim to bring the Patriots back into discussions of terrorist threats by assessing their potential to use WMD. We conclude that, although the Patriots have demonstrated intent to employ such weapons, they lack the overall capability to design, acquire, or employ a WMD of significant lethality. We end by looking at the pathways which the Patriots are currently exploring to narrow the divide between intent and capability.
Link:http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/...-em-right/html