CHATTANOOGA SHOOTING: the many faces of Jihad

By Patrick Bahzad

The investigation into yesterday's shooting at Chattanooga has only just begun and it is obviously too early for the officers in charge to make any statement, but this shouldn't prevent a good (first) look at what happened and what it might possibly imply.

Let's be clear about one thing though right away. Not being involved in the investigation, I have definitely more leeway in my take on things and it doesn't really matter that much if I draw the wrong conclusions and make a fool of myself. Still, I'll go out on a limb here and declare yesterday's shooting a Salafi/Jihadi terrorist attack perpetrated by a single gunman (which doesn't mean he was a "lone wolf").

A homegrown Jihadi ?

The only thing unclear at this point is whether Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez saw himself more as an Al Qaeda style "Imghimassi", i.e. a particular type of activist and fighter who chooses to strike from within "enemy lines" (whatever that means when you shoot at a military recruitment centre in a quiet little town in Tennessee), or a follower of the "Caliph" and his "Islamic State".

You might argue it doesn't make much of a difference whether he had pledged allegiance to al-Zawahiri or al-Baghdadi, but it does. Not so much from the point of view of his MO, but for average Joe and even more so Joe Politico, it is important to know which organization - if any -  supported or encouraged Abdulazeez' actions one way or the other.

The level of misinformation, cynical "realpolitik" or just sheer blindness among the political and to a lesser degree military establishment in D.C. is quite staggering. Just a couple of days ago, a nominee to the job of Vice-Chairman to the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated publicly that "organizations having grown around ideology articulated by al Qaeda" were no real threat to the US homeland.

The threat awareness in the US and Europe

Fortunately, people like current FBI director Comey have made it clear that the US is in no way immune from home-grown Jihadis and that the "crowd-sourcing of terrorists" has opened new recruitment opportunities for the Middle-Eastern sponsors of terrorism in the West.

My personal experience with this led me to believe that people in the US (law enforcement agencies and anti-terrorism task forces set aside) tend to considerably underestimate the threat they're facing. People have the feeling they're not exactly exposed to the same risk as European countries and the large pool of European would-be Jihadis joining ranks with ISIS or Al Qaeda gives Americans a bit of a distorted sense of safety.

Over the years (since 9/11), a number of attacks, or attempted attacks, have been foiled by law enforcement agencies on US soil, some of them just recently. There's no doubt in my mind that the officers in charge of fighting and preventing terrorism in the US are very aware that the threat is real and growing.

This awareness however has not been reflected in the public debate about those issues, where especially ISIS is seen as a barbaric nuisance affecting the good people of Iraq and Syria, while not being a problem at home.

A mistaken sense of relative safety

This is a mistake, fostered probably by the belief many Americans have that Muslims in the US are not as prone to adhering to an extremist ideology as Muslims in Europe. The often blamed "exclusion" of Muslims in Western Europe is cited as a catalyst for radicalization, one that does not exist in America, where Muslims are supposedly free to practise their religion and stick to any dress-code they see appropriate, unlike countries like France or Belgium.

The social and economic disenfranchisement of European Muslims also is a recurring argument in the rationale for the large recruitment pool these populations constitute for organisations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda.

This is true of course and there is a difference in that regard between the US and most of Western Europe. But focusing only on social and economic hardship to explain the rise of Salafism doesn't cut it.

There's another side to that medal, one that observers of Islam in the US are often forgetting. Besides the elements that plead for less extremism and radicalism among Muslims in America, there are a number of factors that make the US more likely to see radicalization and jihadization unfold among some of its Muslim populations.

Specifics of the Jihadi threat potential in the US

It would be too long to list all those factors here. Some of them are related to American society itself, especially its propensity to produce individuals capable of mass-shootings in the name of a sometimes obscure ideology, or out of a personal grudge.

Others are linked specifically to the structure of the still small but growing Muslim population in the US, in particular the countries of origin of more recent Muslim immigrants to the US.

This aspect has gone largely unnoticed, but it is of real significance. Contrary to Europe, which often has a second or even third generation Muslim population coming from former colonies or areas of influence, i.e. countries that are not part of the "heartland" of the current Jihadi organisations, there is a much higher proportion of Muslims in the US who actually come from countries where the Salafi creed that Al Qaeda is preaching, or even the Takfiri version of ISIS, are much more present.

Looking at a break-down by country of origin, the difference between Muslim immigrants in France for example (or French citizens of Muslim/Arabic extraction) and their counterparts in the US is quite obvious: Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, Gulf States and others feature prominently among US immigrants, but they are totally absent from the figures regarding France.

All too often also, the large number of European Muslims doing their "Hijra" and joining the "Islamic State" is seen as a benchmark for the domestic threat in European countries, while the US are considered more immune – although not exempt – from such "migrations". This however is a dangerous and misleading line of thought.

The number of Westeners joining ISIS as a misleading indicator

Obviously, it's not reassuring to know there are hundreds of young Frenchmen, Germans or Brits somewhere in Iraq or Syria, doing who knows what. In the case of France however, and with one notable exception, none of the terrorists who planned or carried out attacks in recent years had fought their Jihad in the Middle East or Afghanistan. None of them, bare one, had ever left the country, but they still managed to enter the famous process of "pre-radicalization, self-identification, radicalization, jihadization".

This would be no different in the US, which, by the way, also had a significant number of nationals or legal residents somewhere between Raqqa and Mosul, or in Somalia (around 250 in total). That figure is  less worrying than the number of Europeans present in those areas, but it is far from being insignificant.

Combined with today's methods of "crowdsourcing" that social media provide for, an area where ISIS in particular has become more and more proficient, this should certainly be a concern for anyone dealing with such issues.

Another often overlooked factor that makes the US vulnerable is the fact that America is a country where religion is more present in daily and public life, and is seen as a normal personal feature. The number of Americans who claim adherence to one religious group or another is much higher than in secularized Europe.

Conversion and converts as an upcoming trend in America

This in turns results in a higher "turnover" of conversions, with a significant number of US citizens and residents switching to at least one or two other religious beliefs in the course of their lives.

With Islam's growing presence on US soil, the number of Muslim converts is bound to increase as well. Knowing there's always a small fraction of slightly "off balance" people who pick a religion for all the wrong reasons, there is a case to be made here for particular caution when it comes to converts.

As I mentioned above, there are a number of factors that are more specific to the US and plead for a more careful approach to the risk of the home-grown Jihadis. However, the aim of this piece is not to give an complete list of profile features one should be looking for in a prospective Jihadi, but merely to reflect upon certain general considerations related to the latest attack.

In the case of the Chattanooga shooting however, there are certain elements that show, in hindsight, that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez may have been on a path of radicalization for some time already. What is most striking – if true – is that he never surfaced on any law enforcement agency's radar.

Back to the Chattanooga shooting

It's probably too early to try and connect the dots, some of which might still be in the dark anyway, as not much is known about Abdulazeez' online activities. His family background (son of a Kuwaiti mother and a Palestinian father who lived as a refugee in Jordan for a while), his recent trips "back home", his strong religious beliefs, the circumstantial evidence pointing to financial support given by his family to terrorist organisations in the past and some of Abdulazeez' online statements, all of this makes for a consistent picture though.

And that picture is one of a young Muslim who led a perfectly normal life in his country of adoption, until something happened that made him go over the edge. Did he start this radicalization process when he went back home a few years back ? Did he get hooked by an ISIS or Al Qaeda online recruiter on the look-out for gullible, idealistic and naïve young men of Muslim and Arabic extraction living in the West ? Or was it somewhere else, with people in his environment, that he changed his outlook on America and life in the US ?

Quite possibly, a recent DUI charge filed against him was the final straw in a process that had started long before. Possibly also, this had nothing to do with it. The current investigation will have to look into all those questions and come up with answers.

Current ISIS' hype possibly obscuring Al Qaeda involvement ?

Right now, all bets are on though regarding the two main suspect organisations behind the gunman. Ever since al-Baghdadi's men took Mosul and declared a new Caliphate, in the summer of 2014, most of the talk has been about ISIS, a mixture of terrorist group, insurrection movement and state-like entity.

The recurring online calls by various figures of the "Caliphate", arguing for attacks against targets in the West, have also prompted many observers to systematically blame this organization whenever a new attack occured.

In yesterday's shooting however, serious caution should be exercised before attributing responsibility to ISIS. Several pieces of evidence indeed point to a possible link between the gunman and Al Qaeda handlers.

Some of Abdulazeez' travel arrangements, in particular trips to Jordan and Yemen, might be an indication of possible involvement of Zawahiri's group, rather than ISIS. The MO of the attack which, indiscriminate as it was, specifically targeted military personnel, might also be worth looking into.

There's lots of work to do for the investigators, but what this case shows already, is that the profiling of potential security threats is not an easy task. The truth is that there are many faces to Jihad and Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was just one of them.

 

 

 

Comments

[turcopolier]

PB

Great work! Thanks. The Kuwaiti mother thing is interesting. Typically Palestinians who have emigrated to other Arab countries with Jordanian passports/citizenship marry Palestinian women. They lack the local connections to do otherwise. pl

[William R. Cumming]

Thanks for another excellent analysis! Wondering if he had dual citizenship?

[DC]

Patrick, this killer was a nut. He fits under the umbrella of a small percentage of nuts in any given population that employ a cause as justification for violently expressing themselves. In order to convince me of your argument -- at least, I think this is your argument -- that Muslims in American are inherently prone to more violence than any other sub-population or group that adheres to whatever ideology or belief-set you care to come up with -- then you would have to present data showing that Muslims as a group in America are inherently more prone to violence than, say, Christians. But it would be even more enlightening if we had data concerning the percentage of violent offenders in, for example, U.S. Salafist or white supremacist or black supremacist or even antiabortionist (not "pro-life" if you get the difference) groups. I would speculate the beliefs of those groups would show to be inherently more prone to violence because...they are extremist.

Then compare the data to ultraviolent offenders in Europe, and see what you get. I'm not so sure that the Islamic religion generally, as a whole, gets you anywhere as an explanation for such violence there, either.

[Patrick Bahzad]

Agree that the "mixed" mariage is not the norm for Palestinian refugees in Arab countries. My guess is, Gulf War I and the fact Kuwait expelled all Palestinians from their country afterwards (Arafat had sided with Saddam in the war), may have created a family environment that wasn't too healthy for the kids at home ... Pure speculation on my part, but wouldn't be surprized if there had been some serious tensions between the father and the mother.

Couldn't get more into detail at such short notice, although there are a number of other things that did strike me as interesting/odd in the CV of the shooter.

Also wonder whether the Al Qaeda connection is not the more likely one, despite recent ISIS hype. I guess the investigators will provide answers, unless one organisation or the other claims responsibility and publishes of posthumous video "testament" of the attacker.

In any case, it should be a wake up call for all those who couldn't see past the alleged Russian, Chinese and Iranian threat to the US homeland !

[Matthew]

PB: "Quite possibly, a recent DUI charge filed against him was the final straw in a process that had started long before."

From all reports he was not a loner, was popular at school, etc. Hence, all the clichéd explanations for his murders are unsatisfactory.

"There's lots of work to do for the investigators, but what this case shows already, is that the profiling of potential security threats is not an easy task."

Short of investigating anyone who researches these Jihadi websites, what in the world can the government do?

[Patrick Bahzad]

You're putting words in my mouth. My contention is not the argument you're making. Besides, I don't do social sciences. If numbers is the only thing you believe in, better look somewhere else.

If the guy was just a nut job, why kill four US Marines in particular ? Why drive to a military recruitment centre ? Why not go to his local mall and start spraying bullets into the crowd ?

you're entitled to believe what you like. Personally, I don't really care. What is important to me, is that we ask ourselves the right questions so we can take the appropriate measures.

For future reference, I'd rather you don't distort the points I'm making, specifically don't say I'm making a case against Islam. Keep that in mind, and no lessons in political correctness here, thx !

[Matthew]

DC: How did you determine that he is a nut? Because he committed multiple murders? The belief that every act of violence is "irrational" is itself irrational.

We know that only a small minority of Muslims are violent. And only a few Caucasians are Violent Extremists....but we need to figure out why this minority is willing to commit mass murder whether in Chattanooga or Charleston.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Another Sunni Muslim terrorist originating from outside of the borders of former Seljuk Empire; why am I not surprised.

Unless we acknowledge that we are in a multi-religious war and thus name things correctly we cannot hope to restore order.

[Fred]

DC,

Let me get this right:
Muslim shooter in Chattanooga is a "Nut". Please provide statistical evidence ......;
White shooter in Charleston is not a nut or a drug addict, no statistical evidence required to declare him a "White Supremacist".

[Fred]

PB,

Very interesting points. I think the general public here is definitely in the dark about many of the points you make.

[cville reader]

Presumably that would depend on the results of the investigation.

One common denominator in Islamic inspired violence in the US appears to be the role of certain imams in certain mosques. That the NYPD was surveilling local mosques would seem to confirm this.

One useful distinction -- one that PB pointed out -- is that in the US, the Muslim population is primarily the result of recent immigration. So the question becomes -- should we reconsider our immigration policies from countries that are known trouble spots for islamic radicalization? And to what extent should the building of new mosques around the country be a concern?

FYI, this is not the first time that I have seen some posters here try to make the comparison between violent "antiabortionists", white supremacists and foreign inspired terrorists. Implicit in this kind of reasoning is that the US has no national identity, and that we as a people, are not entitled to define what is foreign to us.

My guess is that most Americans have no problem doing so, as can be seen by the surging popularity of Donald Trump.

As for "antiabortionists" and white supremacists, they are homegrown problems that are the result of historical circumstances unique to the US. Most Americans are keenly aware of the motivations for that kind of violence.

There is nothing wrong with the impulse that seeks to prevent additional sources of civil strife.

[cville reader]

"Unless we acknowledge that we are in a multi-religious war and thus name things correctly we cannot hope to restore order."

The people who refuse to see that the Supreme Court's "gay marriage" ruling has the potential to compromise other citizens' right to free exercise of religion, are the same ones who refuse to acknowledge the religious dimensions of Islamic terrorism.

That is because they fundamentally reject the concept of the religious impulse, and think of it merely as a hobby to be practiced outside of the public realm.

[Tyler]

DC,

Yeah, I'm sure you believe Dylan Sprouse was a nut as well.

Liberal rationalization hamster in action.

[Tyler]

PB,

When you talk about blindness, you hit it on the head with the way this country works. Pointing out Muslim terrorism is a "thing" will make you a pariah among the Borg/Cathedral types. You only have to look at Obama running to the Crusades (a defensive war) or the Inquisition (an in house cleansing) to see the kind of moral relativism the Left routinely engages in. This is what informs the "privilege theory" that is so in vogue over there.

How many of us heard of this last year?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/highway-shooting-cases-rise-20-kansas-city-police/story?id=23279434

Maybe because the shooter was a Muslim convert.

http://pamelageller.com/2014/04/muslim-arrested-kansas-city-highway-sniper-shootings-charged-wth-18-counts-20-shootings.html/

Just another example of the Borg/Cathedral to silence anything that goes against the Narrative.

[Patrick Bahzad]

Matthew,

I think being popular at high school doesn't mean anything. He may have been the poster boy of his hometown and still have real issues. Have you read his statement in his high school year book ? Do you know what his family background is and what he has experienced there ? No you don't and you don't seem to realize that one can hold extremist views and still look perfectly normal for a number of years !

[Tyler]

America: So awful for Muslims they keep on immigrating here to be treated awfully.

[Patrick Bahzad]

Tyler,

I'm afraid what you're referring to is a pretty widespread affliction in the West. Trying to put a name on things is not gonna win you a popularity contest in France either. Things are changing here now because people are more aware that things have gone wrong for too long and that we can't go on like this.

[Will Reks]

Patrick,

We have nothing to gain by not calling a spade a spade so I'm in agreement. What realistic policies should we adopt in the West to stop things from going on like this?

Its interesting to compare the reaction over mass shootings in general on the part of some on this blog to the reaction to events involving Islamic terrorism. There is quite a difference.

[Will Reks]

I think this is quite a broad generalization. Spin this however you want.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2007/05/22/muslim-americans-middle-class-and-mostly-mainstream/

http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/a-portrait-of-muslim-americans/

[Matthew]

PB: why do you think we disagree? The cliche I was referring to was poverty. This case shows that this man made a personal choice. I just want to know why. I'm not asserting anything to diminish his individual responsibility for these murders.

[DC]

Honestly, Patrick, I could not discern from your narrative exactly who or what you believe the threat to be. As an outside observer/reader, I interpreted "Muslims." I do not in the least disagree that a threat exists and I appreciate your thoughts.

Note: I do believe the SC shooter was likewise a "nut." How anyone could interpret his psychology otherwise is strange, imo. But I am no psychologist.

[no one]

PB,

According to an USA Today article, he was always deeply religious, but recently diverted to a Jihadist strain of thinking, "But the clean-cut sport fighter was increasingly turning his attention to other things. He maintained an Islam-focused blog that explored the sacrifices Muslims should make in the name of their religion, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which tracks online terrorist activity.

Three days before the shooting, Abdulazeez published a series of posts stating that "life is short and bitter" and that Muslims should not let "the opportunity to submit to allah…pass you by," according to SITE. He also stressed the sacrifice of the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) with mention that they "fought Jihad for the sake of Allah," according to the group.

"Every one of them had to make sacrifices in their lives and some even left all their wealth to make hijrah (migration) to Medina," Abdulazeez wrote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/16/chattanooga-shooter-mohammed-abdulazeez-profile/30265707/

[Patrick Bahzad]

DC,

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough: the threat is diverse and evolving, with the profiles of "persons of interest" changing over time, which makes the task so difficult. There is no more 'one size fits all' of jihadi terrorists. What needs to be acknowledged though is that all jihadi terrorists are Sunni Muslims. If there is something wrong with saying this, maybe it means there's something wrong with your view of the world, not mine. I know lots of Muslims, many of whom I call friends, some are family. Maybe you're the one who's prejudiced and afraid to appear as such ?

[Tyler]

Will,

Do I need to preface my comments with sarcasm tags now? There's an article floating around that quotes the shooter's sister about how badly they have it being refugees in America because Americans are so anti-Muslim.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/life/entertainment/story/2010/nov/15/muslim-teens-seek-acceptance-understanding/34453/

Reads like a lot of shit that didn't happen.txt + look at what a victim I am, but that's the mentality these people have.

[Tyler]

Will Reks,

I agree. There's always a fifth column ready to jump up and defend Islamic terrorism as "oh its just some crazy person" but any hint of a racial shooting and to hell with due process let's burn some mothafuggahs at the stake because raycism.

Good point thank you for bringing this up.