« "The military virtue of an army." by Carl von Clausewitz | Main | "Do it yourself" realities in the policy world »

11 December 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I do not claim to be correct but it appears to me that it is only through HUMINT in differing communities and constituencies, that we will be able to gain some insight to individuals who are the in the radicalization processes. There is going to have to be significant trust established among all the varying groups that make up the fabric of America to prevent any of these events, including the Timothy McVeigh type, from plaguing us and increasing in frequencies.

I do not wish to propose we compromise our civil rights without stop but we once more seem to dance around the fact that our face is on fire and all the popping jays in politics propose to beat the flames out with a meat tenderizer.

Babak Makkinejad


At the turn of last century there were numerous terrorists attacks and bombings in US by the Anarchists.

How did the United States deal with that, does any one know?


Babak, a very good question and now I have some homework to see if there is a credible answer to how it disappeared.


I believe they hired the Pinkertons to kill them all.


At the time I came here back in early 70s there was a lot of bombing by Porto Ricans specially in NY, how that ended, is a lot difference, that didn’t have a religious demission, in my opinion this has, unfortunately this is becoming a war of ultra conservative radical Sunni Islamists against the infidels which is the rest of the world including Majosis. IMO, US and partners are greatly responsible for allowing this to happen, besides in the beginning like the case in Afghanistan they thought they can control this and use it against their enemies, that mistake was repeated in Iraq and intensified in Syria.
Those planers here in the west, who thought or still think, these people ( same Jihadi folks who attended yesterday’ conference in KSA for further democracy instructions ) can be controlled and used to settle their differences with Iranians, Russians, etc. at cheep need to have “their heads examined”.



"that mistake was repeated in Iraq." How? pl


I have no expertise at the national level, but, as you note, it was a period of violence marked by protests over labor issues and political issues including assassinations linked to anarchists. The most famous legal response I think was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti#Madeiros_confession

William Fitzgerald


Not only anarchists. Other social movements, including organizing workers into labor unions, were in play.

State governments at that time used National Guard units and there were several incidents of mass killings as a result. Prosecutions resulting in long prison sentences and, sometimes, execution were also a feature of the times. I think that most would say that those measures were not effective and increased the sense of rage.
Economic reforms during the Theodore Roosevelt administration probably took
some of the impetus from those movements; and The Great War, which brought prosperity to America and a sense of exhaustion over social issues were the factors which defused the enthusiastic radicalism of the early part of the century.


Abu Sinan


This is the point I am making with my friends and those I speak with. A large chunk of this, in the West at least, will involve HUMINT in the communities themselves. It isnt enough to say that "these people dont speak for us" or taking a page from the takfiri guidebook and saying "these people arent Muslim". The Muslim community must step up and actively engage the extremists on every level.

Unfortunately, this mindset is not common.


IMO, consequence of invading Iraq ( for geopolitical reasons )changed the regional balance of power, on sectorial and ethnical natural dividing lines. Arab Sunni and Arab nationalists, were not and for some time to come are not ready to accept that, still both sides including the gainers blame the US and the west.


In answer to Babak's question, here is a Wiki entry:
Some anarchists, such as Johann Most, advocated publicizing violent acts of retaliation against counter-revolutionaries because "we preach not only action in and for itself, but also action as propaganda."[122] By the 1880s, the slogan "propaganda of the deed" had begun to be used both within and outside of the anarchist movement to refer to individual bombings, regicides and tyrannicides. From 1905 onwards, the Russian counterparts of these anti-syndicalist anarchist-communists become partisans of economic terrorism and illegal ‘expropriations’."[123] Illegalism as a practice emerged and within it "The acts of the anarchist bombers and assassins ("propaganda by the deed") and the anarchist burglars ("individual reappropriation") expressed their desperation and their personal, violent rejection of an intolerable society. Moreover, they were clearly meant to be exemplary, invitations to revolt.".[100] France's Bonnot Gang was the most famous group to embrace illegalism.

However, as soon as 1887, important figures in the anarchist movement distanced themselves from such individual acts. Peter Kropotkin thus wrote that year in Le Révolté that "a structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite".[124] A variety of anarchists advocated the abandonment of these sorts of tactics in favor of collective revolutionary action, for example through the trade union movement. The anarcho-syndicalist, Fernand Pelloutier, argued in 1895 for renewed anarchist involvement in the labor movement on the basis that anarchism could do very well without "the individual dynamiter."[125]

State repression (including the infamous 1894 French lois scélérates) of the anarchist and labor movements following the few successful bombings and assassinations may have contributed to the abandonment of these kinds of tactics, although reciprocally state repression, in the first place, may have played a role in these isolated acts. The dismemberment of the French socialist movement, into many groups and, following the suppression of the 1871 Paris Commune, the execution and exile of many communards to penal colonies, favored individualist political expression and acts.[126]

Numerous heads of state were assassinated between 1881 and 1914 by members of the anarchist movement. On 6 September 1901, the American anarchist Leon Czolgosz went armed with a .32 caliber Iver Johnson "Safety Automatic" revolver (serial #463344[127][128]) he had purchased four days earlier for $4.50 and assassinated the President of the United States William McKinley. Czolgosz was convicted on 24 September 1901 after the jury deliberated for only one hour. On 26 September, the jury unanimously recommended the death penalty and was electrocuted by three jolts, each of 1800 volts, in Auburn Prison[129] on 29 October 1901, just 45 days after his victim’s death.[130] Emma Goldman was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the assassination, but was released, due to insufficient evidence. She later incurred a great deal of negative publicity when she published "The Tragedy at Buffalo". In the article, she compared Czolgosz to Marcus Junius Brutus, the killer of Julius Caesar, and called McKinley the "president of the money kings and trust magnates."[131] Other anarchists and radicals were unwilling to support Goldman’s effort to aid Czolgosz, believing that he had harmed the movement.[132] Bombings were associated in the media with anarchists because international terrorism arose during this time period with the widespread distribution of dynamite. This image remains to this day.

Propaganda of the deed was abandoned by the vast majority of the anarchist movement after World War I (1914–1918) and the 1917 October Revolution.

I am still searching but I believe Stripey is probably on the right track, regarding US Law Enforcement also going after known anarchists but I also believe the whole movement strongly separated itself from violence after WW1.

Babak Makkinejad

I think the major conceptual mistake by all international actors has been in their estimation of the fragility of states and the very real difficulty of creating durable legitimate government structures.

They should have learnt and absorbed the lesson of Somalia; when the dictator was gone, the state was gone with him - just like Zaire later.

Iranian leaders also made that mistake when they helped destroy Najib's Government in Afghanistan - evidently thinking, like others in US or EU or Pakistan - that it is easy to set up a new government once the old one is destroyed.

Part of what we are experiencing now, but only part of it, is due to the crisis of Legitimacy - who or what is the Legitimate Authority - say in Syria or Iraq or Libya or South Sudan or Afghanistan?

In my opinion.



The think tankers who recommended invasion of Iraq, after they got their way with Iraq were saying real men go to Tehran, it means Iraq was used as a vehicle to get to strategic goal of Iran, IMO that was the mistake. Someone should have known Iraq is majority Shia country with deep religious historical family connections to Iran. IMO US policy makers have a Iran problem for some 37 years, which have done everything wrong to resolve it, IMO if they did what they did with this recent talks 37 years ago they would have solved their Iran problem much much much easier and much, much much less costly on both sides.

ex-PFC Chuck

Thank you for this, Patrick. I agree that more attention should be paid to how to detect when, where and with whom this process is under way, and to shutting down each instance as soon as possible. And I can see that the challenges to doing this effectively are formidable. However it seems to me that some of what law enforcement agencies are doing now is counterproductive. I am referring especially to the recurring instances of the FBI announcements that, with great fanfare and chest pounding, they have busted a budding terrorist cell, but which on closer examination have been a case of the agency itself having abetted or even incited the radicalization process itself. More often than not the people ensnared are very young, very naive, and/or not very bright. This is detrimental in at least two ways. First, it breeds distrust of the general Muslim community members who are not inclined to radicalization, inducing these people to be less cooperative in the future. No one likes to see the young people of their community get in trouble, especially when it appears they have been entrapped into the situation. When the Bureau and other agencies are apparently exposed as having done so, alienation from the non-Muslim majority of society is increased. Secondly, for those part way down the radicalization path, each such FBI press conference is a compelling reminder of the need for operational security as they proceed, and thus also increases the intelligence challenge.

I recognize the bureaucratic imperative that drives the agency to let the public know about success stories, but they should limit such performances to situations when there is no question that they have played by the rules.



"it means Iraq was used as a vehicle to get to strategic goal of Iran," you are conflating the ravings of neocon think tankers with actual government policy. That is a fallacy in your argument. pl

Mark Gaughan


Babak Makkinejad

You are dealing with a failure of a Weltanschauung.

Every Muslim - Shia, Sunni, Ebadi or anykind - will confirm to you that Judaism and Christianity are both obsolete and are superseded by Islam.

That is what they have been taught and that is their belief.

[The more polite ones will try to fudge this dealing with a Westerner whom they wish to favorably impress.]

Yet, as I wrote to Tyler, the scarf-wearing crowd is quite prominent among the refugees fleeing to the Lands of the Infidel Faranji in EU.

They are also prominently living among the Infidel Faranji in North America or EU.

One has to ask them why such devotees of Islamic Orthodoxy as themselves are choosing to live among the pig-eating, alcohol-consuming Obsolete-religion Infidels whose women folks are nothing but honor-less fornicating harlots.

Or like this Lebanese Shia in US told me 20 years ago: "I asked my relatives (in US) is not the US Government the most Islamic government in the world? And they could not disagree."

You have to name them and shame them - that is the only way.

Patrick Bahzad

It is indeed an issue. People are sensitive about their civil rights and liberties, that is understandable. The wholesale electronic surveillance State that has been implemented since 9/11 was, in a way highly detrimental, to the current requirements in terms of safety and security.

Patrick Bahzad

Unfortunately there is a PC narrative that stands in the way of some of the naming and shaming.

Kyle Pearson

Anarchists were not funded nor trained nearly so well as Islamist militants are.

David Habakkuk

Babak Makkinejad,

Broadly speaking, I agree with you on this – indeed, I think you have, as it were, hit a crucial 'nail' on the head.

One caveat, however, is that this is not a mistake the current Russian leadership makes.

For this, there is a rather simple reason. In the last century, Russia experienced – twice – the complete collapse of the legitimising principles of the existing social order: first in the period leading up to the 1917 Revolution, and then in that leading up to the collapse of communism.

In both cases, the fools and dolts took for granted that, once the combination of myth and coercion that had sustained the old order ceased to be effective, some bright, happy, new order would emerge. In both cases, the outcome showed the fools and dolts to be just that.

Moreover, in both cases, a dynamic resulted which is quite familiar to those of us – it seems very few – who grew up with at least a nodding acquaintance with the history of Britain and Europe in the wake of the break-up of the Catholic order of medieval Christendom.

Where 'individualism' finds its nemesis in anarchy, the simple ability to provide some kind of order may enable a government to claim legitimacy – and indeed, to claim the right to dictate what its subjects should believe: this is what one might call a 'Hobbesian' form of legitimacy.

These old arguments make it much easier to understand the respects in which the Soviet system was 'totalitarian'; and also the fact that the current Russian 'sistema', for all its faults, quite patently is not 'totalitarian'.

It is not simply ignorance of the Middle East, but an incredibly shallow and sanctimonious reading of European history, that enables people to take for granted that, if one disrupts a 'Hobbesian' form of legitimacy, some 'democratic' form of legitimacy is naturally available to all societies everywhere.

Mark Gaughan

Time travel isn’t possible. So no one can go back and undo what some Europeans and the US have done in the MENA area. How to go forward? Most of this committee is wiser than I. It seems to me that a good first step would be to save the Syrian Government from collapse. Then what?

(Pat, once again, thank you so much for you having this forum. I have learned, and continue to learn, so much here. I tell everyone that I know to come here and read, as opposed to getting all of their information from the MSM. [Or at least to listen to, and/or read the MSM and then read your site to get some balance, perspective, and truth.])


Mr. Bahzad

This is an incredibly important point you are making. The terror attacks have been used to create a climate of fear and to use that to build the "national security" state that acts contrary to our constitutional republican history. The enactment of the Patriot Act was a complete giveaway in terms of what the political and national security bureaucracy's real intensions were. How is that such legislation would be passed literally within days after 9/11 unless it was already drafted and in the drawer? Note that only one senator voted against it.

It seems from reading your post and briefly reviewing the NYPD report that what is required is more classic community policing. Developing intelligence assets that can identify those going down the wrong path. Efforts to help families whose kids are being influenced by radical islamists. So many things that can be done to nip radicalization in the bud.

Mass surveillance of all citizens and other tools normally seen only in totalitarian states that have been deployed have been counterproductive. The legitimacy of government is getting lost. When James Clapper lies under oath and there is no consequence and when state secrets are used to thwart judicial inquiry what does it say about our goverment?

I don't understand why there is not a debate on what methods would provide the best approach to identify those being indoctrinated and how to prevent them from acting out their nihilism. And how to prevent jihadists from infiltrating and plotting terrorist acts. Clearly mass surveillance has not prevented Ft. Hood, Chattanooga or SB.


I always wondered (without too much evidence, and some contradictory evidence) whether governments (or actors within governments) in late 19th/early 20th century sought to enlist the anarchists and others to wreak havoc on their enemies. (e.g. Balkan nationalists against their various rivals) The trail seems to get murky around such things, though.

Abu Sinan

I agree 100%, the electronic surveillance issue set the issue back. I agree about worrying about civil rights and liberties. A different tact than the current ham-fisted fashion would be in order.

The two things dont have to be mutually exclusive. Local and national Muslim leaders can, and should work with law enforcement on all levels. As a Muslim in the US, I also think we need to work on sidelining groups such as CAIR who are nothing more than Salafi supported sectarian machines.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad