Why make the distinction “self-radicalized” for terrorists?
This caught my eye:
A law enforcement official said it appeared that Wednesday’s attack — which left 14 people dead and 21 wounded before the two attackers, Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, were killed in a shootout with police — may have been inspired by ISIS. But none of the officials said that ISIS directed or ordered the attack.
“This is looking more and more like self-radicalization,” a law enforcement official said.
It’s a distinction that sounds like it means more than it does. After all, ISIS recruits through its propaganda, and has an enormous online presence that the killers are reported to have tapped into. ISIS has long encouraged so-called “lone wolf” attacks on soldiers and infidel civilians in Western countries—see this, this, and this, for example. The latter article contains this from over a year ago:
The post is titled “To the Lone Wolves in America: How to Make a Bomb in Your Kitchen, to Create Scenes of Horror in Tourist Spots and Other Targets.” It includes bomb-making instructions and a list of ingredients, even how to pack it with shrapnel, WCBS 880’s Rich Lamb reported…
The post on the ISIS message board detailed how to use Christmas tree lights, bleach, sugar, matches, and clocks to build homemade bombs in America.
A similar explosives recipe was used in the Boston Marathon bombing in April 2013. The ISIS post includes instructions for pressure-cooker bombs like the ones used in Boston.
For well over a year, ISIS has been explicitly urging lone wolf attacks. That is one of the main ways the group seems to function in Western countries, rather than relying merely on tight, officially and centrally organized and directed cells. The former type of terrorist seems to be called “self-radicalized” as opposed to the latter, and apparently more-old-fashioned, type. The former type is actually more dangerous rather than less, because its inspiration does not rely on direct contact with the source, and therefore can potentially and easily reach the many many millions of Muslims in the Western world (and the over a billion that includes the Muslim world, because ISIS wishes to take over that world, as well). Even if it inspires only a small percentage, that’s still a huge group that can wreak enormous havoc.
If the term “self-radicalized” is meant in part to soothe us, it certainly ought to fail. Perhaps it merely means that authorities aren’t necessarily looking for others in a local San Bernardino cell, but that wouldn’t make much sense, either, considering the extraordinary amount of firepower the terrorists had amassed and how expensive it would be. That would seem to indicates a lengthy period of planning and help from others.
Certain fashionable terms just set my teeth on edge.
“Self-radicalized terrorist” is certainly one of them. I really do not know what it is meant to convey.
The other one–sorry Neo- is “lone wolf terrorist”. I do know what that is supposed to convey, and I disagree vehemently with respect to the Islamic Jihadists. They all have some sort of support, even if it remains hidden from view. Those two Cretins in San Bernardino certainly did not put that arsenal together without some assistance. For one thing, that much ammunition cost a considerable amount of money. He was a low level county worker; don’t know if she worked at all. Someone taught them to shoot, apparently pretty accurately those fairly sophisticated weapons. (76 rounds, 35 casualties)
I have to believe that some of these terms are used to obscure more than to enlighten.
For me, self-radicalized isn’t soothing, but rather more disturbing. It means that the radicalized individuals aren’t attending meetings or in contact with known terrorists and therefore are harder to spot before they turn killer.
And if that is what we have, self-radicalized Muslims, then the solution is not more surveillance, or immigration control, but rather for a large body of the populace to go armed and prepared to interdict these killers immediately when they reveal themselves with their attacks. Police will be to late, investigations will not pick them up. The only alternative is a dispersed and widespread body of men and women ready to stop them in place long before a 911 call and police response can happen.
Steven Hayward had it right in the arming of the unorganized militia, that is by law all males 18-45, but by history all able-bodied males and in these modern times all able-bodied men and women. No need to draft or coerce. Enough will volunteer to go armed. The government’s role would be to facilitate carry permits, override “no gun” zones (at least on government controlled properties) and fund training opportunities. There would be no organization but this body of individuals would be in place for Posse Comitatus when needed by local sheriffs. You know, that sounds a whole lot like what we had before government decided THE PEOPLE should be disarmed and easy prey.
We could easily define this as human IEDs, which would give the strategy a direct link to our previous experiences in the Middle East.
We are beginning to deal internally with where this will take us as a society. I have to believe that behind the scenes there are professionals at work telling each other the truth. We know that between government and media, these professionals know they can’t tell us everything they know at risk of their professional lives (we discuss the reasons this is true here every day), but they have to be truthful with each other.
Maybe someday we can hear the truth. In four hundred and thirteen days. maybe.
Maybe not. Time will tell.
“Self-radicalized” sounds like it is describing someone like the Unibomber who came up with his own ideology and decided to hurt people in order to achieve his own, bizarre goals.
In the case of Farook and his wife, they were radicalized by a radical islamist ideology that is already out there. What about the half a dozen middle eastern men who were seen coming and going from Farook’s house? Where are these people? Who were these people? Why is no one talking about WHO ELSE was helping this couple amass $30K+ in weapons, ammo and bomb making supplies????
That is NOT self-radicalization. Sorry. That term is ridiculous for this event. And downplays the true seriousness of these two people and what their actions mean.
Oldflyer,
I don’t think the Left realizes that “self-radicalized”, “lone-wolf” means government is not the solution but an armed populace is. If the threat is from organized people, investigation can root them out. But if is just a guy or gal who watch the news and read the internet, then the only solution is a lot of good guys mixed in the population ready to act in their own self defense when these people reveal themselves. No gun control, no crushing of civil liberties, just people ready and equipped to stop the threat when it becomes imminent.
Saying they are self-radicalized is just a way to deflect attention from the greater Islamist community.
I agree with Lyle. Everything our government does is intended to “deflect attention” from the Muslim community until they have imported the critical mass of Muslims needed to openly practice jihad against the infidels.
“self-radicalized” means any Muslim any time can catch a few ISIS videos and go all jihadi. I’m not sure the apologists thought this through.
Neo, I’m not sure where “self-radicalization” falls in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but in the first sentence of your last paragraph you may have meant to say “self-radicalized.”
“Saying they are self-radicalized is just a way to deflect attention from the greater Islamist community.” Lyle
Saying they are “self-radicalized” is defining the terms used, so as to control the narrative.
Saying they are self-radicalized is part and parcel in obscuring the source of their radicalization, which is Islam.
ISIS is just the most devout of Islam’s proxy arms of aggression. Islam’s goal is territorial expansion, the surest means of increasing its adherents.
MollyG:
Thanks, will fix.
In part too, self-radicalized may — to the simple and dedicated Islamist — signify the incapacity or failure of the infidel (how not!) to grasp the intimacy and omnipotence of Allah’s motions in the world, or as the world. What has this “self” to do with it, after all? The phenomena of the world are one and all wholly, solely governed by an immensity these humble souls of Islam cannot refuse to attribute to Allah’s will (well, supposing they know what’s good for them from the wretched state of human knowing).
I read somewhere that the guys father has hired a lawyer (I don’t believe his dead son will be prosecuted), who is saying that the shooters were handcuffed and placed in the back of the SUV. Somehow, someone is going to try to extort a little money from the cops. BUt this makes me think the son was partly padicalzed by his sleazebag father.
The Koran plainly states that infidels are to be killed, conquered or converted. That’s mainstream Islam, nothing radical about that.
Oldflyer,
From news reports the islamic terrorists had 2,000 rounds of 9MM, and somewhere around 3,000 rounds of .223. I keep track of ammo prices, even for calibers I do not shoot, and a quick check tells me the total cost of the reported ammo stock was as low as $1,300; certainly not beyond the means of a California civil servent. And, the explosive devices reported would probably require an outlay of less than $500. Add in the cost of the firearms and magazines and we’re talking about a less than $5,000. Jihad of this nature is cheap.
The regime’s parsing of words and phrases is beneath contempt. This erases any doubt that the regime is on the side of the death cult.
IMO, the Obama administration, with its lawfare approach to Islamic terrorism, is setting up a huge victory for the GOP in November 2016. If there is one more attack of this sort (and who would say it won’t happen?) with the usual tepid response, how many voters will be willing to vote for candidates who pussy foot around the issue?
Hussein’s regime doesn’t have lawfare against Islamic Jihad. It has lawfare against US patriots, the same way ACLU and Cair has lawfare against US patriots.
People have no real idea what is going on, they still continue to cling to their outdated precepts, concepts, and paradigms.
If the term “self-radicalized” is meant in part to soothe us, it certainly ought to fail.
The words used in political discussions around the water cooler, in media, and in academic papers are an embarrassment to thought, reason, and clarity. Such words deceive and intimidate, serving no purpose other than declaring faction.