The Problem Presenting Itself Today

Nearly half a century ago, Raymond Aron made an observation that was as prophetic as it was poetic, “Strategic thought draws its inspiration each century, or rather at each moment of history, from the problems which events themselves pose.” What are the problems presenting themselves to us today? Most obviously, there has been a spike in violent attacks. What do these attacks have in common? With few exceptions, they were all committed by Islamic State, or at least that’s what the media is telling us. No doubt, some of them were committed by IS. But to automatically assume that every violent attack is Islamic terrorism and that Islamic State is behind them all, is symptomatic of a much larger problem. This approach is dangerous because it’s creating a society in which anyone can become an instant celebrity by going on a killing rampage. We regulate other activities that incite violence. The promotion of violence should be more closely regulated as well- as should the selection of violence that the media promotes. However, the problem presenting itself today isn’t just sensational reporting and an utter lack of responsible feedback from politicians and terrorism scholars. The greater problem is the human tendency to divide reality into an “us vs. them” framework. The media is simply reflecting the assumptions that we all make, and those assumptions are grounded in the subjectivity of the way we view the world. This same subjectivity is blurring our understanding of Islamic extremism and terrorism. First of all, we’re asking the wrong questions. Terrorism attempts to coerce political concessions. If there are no political concessions demanded, then our first assumption should not be terrorism. That’s comparable to the police filing every single missing person report as a kidnapping, whether there’s a ransom note or not. Second, rather than assume that the majority of violent attacks are committed by Islamic extremists, we need to be realistic about the fact that many of these “terrorist attacks” are nothing more than random acts of violence carried out by copycats and other misguided souls who, for whatever reason, crave their moment in the spotlight. Once we have sufficient reason to conclude that a particular incident was indeed a terror attack, we still need to ascertain who committed it and then we can begin to address why. Unfortunately, we’re in the habit of putting the cart before the horse. This is by no means new, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any particular religion or demographic group. Instead, it’s entirely political. It used to be that al Qaeda was behind everything, and before that it was the “communists.” Before that it was the “Jews.”

Why Do Violent Attacks Keep Happening?

Our prisons are filled with countless nameless, faceless murderers, but we only remember the notorious ones. That’s because we only celebrate the truly sensational acts of violence. And we continue to set the bar higher and higher for those that would commit mass murder for recognition. It’s this promotion of violence through the media (and not necessarily any particular religious ideology), that not only serves to “radicalize” impressionable and unstable people, but also turns them into instant celebrities once they kill. The truth is, it’s not Islamic State that creates the majority of “terrorists.” We do by making celebrities out of them.

Islamic Extremism

The religion of Islam is not an inherently violent religion. Islamic extremists comprise a minuscule percentage of the total Muslim population, and they interpret Islam’s sacred writings in a way that justifies violence. This is not a strictly Muslim phenomenon, nor is it a strictly modern one. We can find examples of violence in the sacred writings of most world religions, and we can also find examples of people throughout history who used those texts to justify committing acts of violence. However, this is not the message that the average consumer of the news receives. The media not only promotes nearly every act of violence as terrorism, it also automatically assumes that the perpetrator was an Islamic extremist (neither of which are always true). I call this the media-terrorism industrial complex. This message distorts the facts and makes the threat of Islamic extremism appear to be much more serious than it actually is. Shark attacks are a comparable phenomenon. Popularized by the movie Jaws and other films and kept alive by urban legends and folk tales, the common consensus is that sharks are far more dangerous to humans than they really are. However, only one in twelve million people are attacked by sharks and less than one in 265 million are killed by sharks. Alternatively, the odds of dying as the result of extremist violence are roughly one in 400,000. Not quite as low as being attacked by a shark but certainly not anywhere near the top of the list of the most deadly threats to humanity. As an American who lives in the Middle East, I can assure you that not all Westerners are Islamophobes, and not all Muslims hate America. To even imply that all Muslims hate America is to suggest that they’re all somehow the same. This, of course, is utterly ridiculous. But still, many allow themselves to be boxed into this kind of mind set. Furthermore, not all Muslims are Islamic extremists (on the contrary, very, very few are). Additionally, there are varying degrees of Islamic extremism, and not all Islamists engage in terrorism. In fact, most are non-violent while the majority of those who are violent are insurgents, not “terrorists.” To put it another way, only a very tiny number of Muslims are Islamists, and an even smaller number of Islamists are violent, and an even smaller number of these are “terrorists.” How serious is the threat of Islamic extremism? To put the threat in context, only 1 in 74,000 people are likely to become Islamic extremists. Granted, that’s still 1 person too many. But we have to keep the threat in perspective. As stated above, not all Muslims are Islamic extremists and not all Islamic extremists are involved in terrorism. Most Islamists are non-violent and the tiny percentage of those that are violent (jihadists) are mostly insurgents, not “terrorists.” Yet, we automatically assume that every violent attack is an act of Islamic terrorism until proven otherwise. And that’s not the worst of it. The real threat is that, due to both a lack of information and the sheer oversimplification of the facts, the average individual has been encouraged to equate terrorism with Islamic extremism and Islamic extremism with mainstream Islam- painting all Muslims with the same terrorist brush (one suicide vest fits all). This demonization of entire groups of people has historically led to systematic violence on a far greater scale than the comparatively random violence caused by terrorism. There’s another reason why this type of policy is dangerous. In the West, it seems obvious to us that no group wants to be discriminated against, nor should they be. What’s less obvious to most Westerners (who are in the practice of separating church and state) is how people in the Muslim world are likely to react to such discrimination and oppression. For 1.6 billion people (nearly 23% of the earth’s population and growing), the separation of church and state is still a relatively new concept. The last caliphate ended less than a century ago. Given that the secularization of society is much less institutionalized in the Muslim world than it is in the West, it’s much more likely to be rejected altogether in times of severe difficulty when Islam can be presented as a preferable option. If you’ve ever wondered why Islamist parties do as well as they do in democratic elections, it’s not because the majority of Muslims prefer sharia. It’s because a growing number are convinced that Islamist governments can offer a desirable alternative to the corrupt secular regimes they have now. When nearly 25% of the world’s population exercise their rights in free and fair elections, we tend to see it as a victory for democracy- unless, of course, Islamist parties win the election. When that happens, Western powers scramble to isolate the party, control it, and if possible, manipulate a different outcome. This reaction only serves to strengthen the jihadist message that man-made laws are an affront to Allah and that corrupt, Western-backed puppet regimes must be overthrown through violence, not peacefully replaced through the democratic process. By our own hypocrisy (insisting on elections but refusing to accept the results) we’re already gradually increasing the overall number of jihadists in the world. When we add discrimination and oppression to the mix, the result will invariably be more violence.

Mississippi Woman Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison for Conspiring to Provide Material Support to ISIL

Jaelyn Delshaun Young, 20, of Starkville, Mississippi, was sentenced today to serve 144 months in prison for conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S. Attorney Felicia C. Adams of the Northern District of Mississippi and Special Agent in Charge Donald Alway of the FBI’s Jackson, Mississippi Division made the announcement.

On March 30, Young pleaded guilty before Chief U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi, who imposed today’s sentence and ordered Young to serve a 15 year term of supervised release following her imprisonment.

Young pleaded guilty to conspiring with Muhammad Oda Dakhlalla, 23, also of Starkville, to provide material support to ISIL.  Dakhlalla pleaded guilty to the same charge on March 13 and will be sentenced on Aug. 24.

The investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Jackson Division Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Washington Field Office.  The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Clay Joyner and Bob Norman of the Northern District of Mississippi and Trial Attorney Rebecca Magnone of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section.

North Carolina Man Charged with Conspiring to Provide Material Support to ISIL

A Charlotte, North Carolina, man was arrested this morning on a federal complaint charging him with conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Erick Jamal Hendricks, 35, tried to recruit people to train together and conduct terrorist attacks in the United States on behalf of ISIL, according to a criminal complaint unsealed today in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio.

The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S. Attorney Carole S. Rendon of the Northern District of Ohio and Special Agent in Charge Stephen D. Anthony of the FBI’s Cleveland Office.

According to the complaint, in June 2015, an individual (CW-1) was arrested in the Northern District of Ohio after attempting to purchase an AK-47 assault rifle and ammunition from an undercover law enforcement officer.  CW-1 had pledged allegiance to ISIL in social media and made statements expressing interest in conducting attacks in the United States.

Hendricks had contacted CW-1 over social media to recruit him in the spring of 2015, according to the complaint.  Hendricks allegedly told CW-1 that he “needed people” and wanted to meet in person; that there were several “brothers” located in Texas and Mexico; that he was attempting to “get brothers to meet face to face;” and that he wanted “to get brothers to train together.”

According to the complaint, CW-1 said that Hendricks tested his religious knowledge and commitment, inquiring about his willingness to commit “jihad,” to die as a “martyr” and his desire to enter “jannah” (paradise).  CW-1 understood these statements to mean that Hendricks was recruiting people to train together for the purpose of conducting a terrorist attack in the U.S. and to see if CW-1 was suitable for recruitment, according to the allegations.  CW-1 allegedly believed that Hendricks and the “brothers in Texas and Mexico” may have been responsible for a thwarted terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, on May 3, 2015, and therefore CW-1 decided to stay away from social media for a period following the attack to minimize detection by law enforcement.

Hendricks also allegedly communicated over social media with several other people, including an undercover FBI employee (UCE-1).  According to the complaint, on April 16, 2015, Hendricks instructed UCE-1 to download the document “GPS for the Ghuraba in the U.S.”, which included a section entitled “Final Advice” which advocated that “brothers and sisters” should not allow themselves to go to jail.  This section also allegedly encouraged Muslims to die as a “Shaheed” (martyr), to “Boobie trap your homes,” to “lay in wait for them” and to “never leave your home without your AK-47 or M16.”  According to the complaint, Hendricks also directed UCE-1 to communicate online with other people and stated “It’s hard to sift through brothers;” “Allah chooses only the few;” and “Everyday I do this day in and day out.”

Hendricks allegedly told another person that his goal was to create a sleeper cell to be trained and housed at a secure compound that would conduct attacks in the United States.  He mentioned that potential targets included military members whose information had been released by ISIL and the woman who organized the “Draw Prophet Mohammad contest,” and he claimed to have 10 members signed up for his group, according to allegations in the complaint.

On April 23, 2015, Hendricks allegedly used social media to contact Elton Simpson, who, along with Nadir Hamid Soofi, was inspired by ISIL and launched the attack on the “First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest” in Garland.  Simpson and Soofi opened fire, wounding a security guard, before Garland police returned fire and killed both Simpson and Soofi.  According to the complaint, Hendricks also connected UCE-1 with Simpson via social media; communicated with UCE-1 about the contest in Garland; and directed UCE-1 to go to the contest.  Hendricks allegedly said: “If you see that pig (meaning the organizer of the contest) make your ‘voice’ heard against her.”  According to the complaint, he also asked UCE-1 a series of questions related to security at the event, including: “How big is the gathering?” “How many ppl?” “How many police/agents?” “Do you see feds there?’ “Do you see snipers?” and “How many media?”  Shortly thereafter, Simpson and Soofi committed the attack on the cartoon drawing contest.

A criminal complaint is merely an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

If convicted, Hendricks faces a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.  The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes.  If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

This case was investigated by the FBI’s offices in Cleveland; Columbia, South Carolina; Baltimore; and Charlotte, North Carolina, with assistance from the Justice Department’s National Security Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Northern District of Ohio, District of Maryland, District of South Carolina and the Western District of North Carolina

Virginia Man Arrested for Attempting to Support ISIL

Nicholas Young, 36, of Fairfax, Virginia, was arrested today on charges of attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization.  Young is employed by the Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) as a law enforcement officer.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente of the Eastern District of Virginia and Assistant Director in Charge Paul M. Abbate of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement.  Young’s initial appearance is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa C. Buchanan of the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Young has been employed as an MTPD officer since 2003.  Law enforcement first interviewed Young in September 2010 in connection with his acquaintance, Zachary Chesser, who had been arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.  Over the next several years, Young allegedly had numerous interactions with undercover law enforcement personnel and an FBI confidential human source (CHS) regarding his knowledge of and interest in terrorism-related activity.  Many of these interactions were recorded.  Law enforcement also interviewed Young’s family and co-workers.  In 2011, Young met with an undercover law enforcement officer, and several of these meetings included another of Young’s acquaintances, Amine El Khalifi, who later pleaded guilty to charges relating to his plan to conduct a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol Building in 2012. 

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, in 2011, Young traveled to Libya once and attempted to travel there a second time.  Young told FBI agents that he had been with rebels attempting to overthrow the Muammar Qaddafi regime.  Baggage searches revealed that Young traveled with body armor, a kevlar helmet and several other military-style items, according to the allegations.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, on about 20 separate occasions in 2014, Young met with the CHS, who posed as a U.S. military reservist of Middle Eastern descent who wanted to travel overseas to join ISIL.  During these conversations, Young allegedly advised the CHS on how to evade law enforcement detection by utilizing specific travel methods and advised the CHS to watch out for informants and not discuss his plans with others.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, also in 2014, the CHS led Young to believe that he had successfully left the United States and joined ISIL.  In reality, the CHS had no further contact with Young.  All further communications between Young and the CHS’s email account were actually communications between Young and FBI undercover personnel posing as the CHS.  In June 2015, Young emailed the CHS asking for advice from the CHS’s commanders on how to send money to ISIL.  Young said, “[u]nfortunately I have enough flags on my name that I can’t even buy a plane ticket without little alerts ending up in someone’s hands, so I imagine banking transactions are automatically monitored and will flag depending on what is going on.”

In December 2015, the FBI interviewed Young, ostensibly in connection with an investigation into the whereabouts of the CHS, according to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint.  Young allegedly said that the CHS had left the United States to go on a vacation tour in Turkey approximately one year ago.  In addition, according to the allegations in the complaint, Young said that he knew of no one in the United States or overseas who helped the CHS cross the Turkish border into Syria.

On July 18, 2016, Young allegedly communicated with a person who he believed to be the CHS regarding purchasing gift cards for mobile-messaging accounts that ISIL purportedly uses in recruiting others to join the terrorist organization.  According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, on July 28, 2016, Young sent 22 gift card codes to the FBI undercover officer posing as the CHS with a message that stated: “Respond to verify receipt . . . may not answer depending on when as this device will be destroyed after all are sent to prevent the data being possibly seen on this end in the case of something unfortunate.”  The codes were ultimately redeemed by the FBI for $245, according to court documents.

A criminal complaint is merely an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

If convicted, Young faces a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes.  If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The MTPD initiated this investigation and continues to work collaboratively with the FBI Washington Field Office’s Joint Terrorism Task Force on the case.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gordon D. Kromberg and John T. Gibbs of the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney David P. Cora of the National Security Division.