If there is one constant playing out in recent terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. it is that terrorism can occur by inspiration and imitation alone, not by direction. Hatred is the key motivational factor and it is too often passed off as ideology.
So it was for Omar Mateen, the 29-year-old self-radicalized Islamic terrorist who stormed an Orlando nightclub last month with an assault rifle and automatic pistol in hand. The end result was 50 dead and 50 wounded in the worst mass shooting in United States history and the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001, in New York City, Washington D.C. and rural Pennsylvania where close to 3,000 people perished as commercial airliners were used as weapons of mass destruction.
“When we talked about these incidents, we have to be a little more holistic when assessing who might be tomorrow’s next perpetrator,” warned Dr. Errol Southers, the Director of Homegrown Violent Extremism Studies at the University of Southern California, who was among several terror experts who addressed security executives at the SIA Government Summit in June.
Dr. Southers strongly believes that it is the homegrown terrorist who presents a clear and present danger to both the U.S. and Europe. His statement was substantiated yet again last night when more than 80 people were killed and 100 wounded in the resort town of Nice on the French coast when a man using a large truck plowed into victims as they watched Bastille Day fireworks.
The driver of the truck in has been identified as Mohamad Lahouaiej Bouhel, according to a senior French government official and a French anti-terrorism official. The anti-terrorism official said Bouhel is a 31-year-old French-Tunisian and resident of Nice.
This attack in France comes a little more than a year after a series of coordinated terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, and the city's northern suburb, Saint-Denis on November 13, 2015. Beginning that evening, three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis, followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and a music venue in central Paris.
The attackers, all homegrown French citizens, killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan theater, where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. Another 368 people were injured, 80–99 seriously. Seven of the attackers also died, while the authorities continued to search for accomplices. The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II and the deadliest in the European Union since the Madrid train bombings in 2004. France had been on high alert since the January 2015 attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine and a Jewish supermarket in Paris that killed 17 people and wounded 22, including civilians and police officers.
The style of attack was reminiscent of the 2008 assault on the Indian city of Mumbai carried out by 10 members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic militant organization based in Pakistan, in a series of 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai. The attacks, which drew widespread global condemnation, began on Wednesday, November 26, and continued through Saturday, killing 164 people and wounding at least 308. World police organizations became to refer to such terror tactics as Mumbai-style attacks.
“Things have drastically changed over the last several decades with incidents involving hostages. During my time on SWAT, we would go in and secure a location, talk to the hostages, give them food, negotiate, but Columbine changed all that. Changed the way we responded to active-shooter incidents. What has changed is that the threats now move from target to target – like they did in Mumbai and in Paris,” said Dr. Southers, a former FBI Special Agent, who added that all major city police forces are now trained on the Mumbai-style attacks.
“So this attack scenario is now new. But what is not new is that the individuals engaged in Paris were Frenchmen. This is a new reality now – homegrown terror threats -- whether they are here in the U.S. or in Europe,” he said.
The Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007 defines homegrown terrorism as “the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objective.” By this definition, a foreigner or immigrant that is based in the United States can be considered a homegrown terrorist. This definition also allows the targeting of immigrants, foreigners and warrants travel restrictions for those who are suspected of being homegrown terrorists.
In a presentation to Annual Conference of the International Studies Association in Toronto, Canada in 2014, Ashlie Perry and Binneh Minteh of Rutgers University, presented a paper entitled, “Home Grown Terrorism in the United States – Causes, Affiliations and Policy implications,” which cited several studies that have examined the demographics of homegrown terrorists. Included were their socioeconomic status, age, education level, religion, international connections, professional prospects, and possible mental illnesses. Studies have found that individual characteristics of the homegrown terrorist have some similarities. They are generally male, young (under the age of 35), educated, lack a criminal record, are not of the lowest socioeconomic class and are likely to be second or third generation immigrants.
A recent study assessed over 227 individual homegrown terrorists in the EU and found that most terrorist were of non-European “extraction” but that a significant amount were born or raised in Europe. Many of the terrorists were second and third generation immigrants. In Europe, most homegrown terrorists are thought to come from middle class, while “general” terrorists are part of the lower and middle class socioeconomic groups. In the U.S., homegrown terrorists are mostly from the middle class socioeconomic group as well.
“I don’t think we can look at what is happening here at home without linking it to with what is happening overseas and the resurgence of Islamic terror organizations overseas. Syria has obviously been at the forefront of this activity. You have the largest convergence of foreign fighters that are co-mingling with Islamic extremist organizations and it’s in a scope that we have not seen since the 1980s in Afghanistan. You have had almost 40,000 foreign fighters from 120 different countries flock to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other affiliate groups,” said Maseh Zarif, a professional staff member of the House Homeland Security Committee, during the recent SIA Government Summit. “From a Homeland Security perspective, we’ve seen more than 7,000 Westerners – individuals from Europe, Australia, and Canada – who have passports that allow them Visa-free travel into the United States. That is a massive number. Almost 7,000 that have gone over and received military-style training and then brought back, deployed and gone on to attack us – especially in Europe.”
Zarif went on to say that the attack in Orlando really drives home the nature of the threat faced by the United States from Islamist terrorist. He admitted that the country is currently facing the highest threat environment from Islamic terrorists since 9-11.
“Drilling down into ISIS, which is the top tier within the category we are talking about, today in the U.S., according to FBI Director (James) Comey, there are more than 1,000 investigations in all 50 states that relate to homegrown Islamic terror organizations, of which 80 percent of those cases are related to ISIS. Since 2014, law enforcement authorities have managed to arrest more than 100 people across 24 states in ISIS-related incidents. The individuals have been attempting travel overseas, providing support for ISIS in Syria and Iraq, as well as plotting attacks or aspirational plans for attacks,” said Zarif.
According to Zarif, the events of radical terrorism can’t be seen in a vacuum: that the ideology must be viewed in a big picture way. He believes the world is at war with radical Islamic terror groups around the world.
“These are not a series of one-off criminal incidents and we have to approach it like a war that has come to our doorstep,” stressed Zarif. “There is this ideological fight. We are not fighting just specific groups, but individuals and groups that have an underlying ideology. It can be put in the same framework as we used during the Cold War with Russia, in that we weren’t just combating the Soviet Union but Communism as an ideology. During World War II, we weren’t simply fighting Hitler and Nazis, but the spread of world Fascism and totalitarianism. So I think it is important that we tear down the artificial divides of what is happening here in our country and overseas. I would argue very vehemently that the threat level rising here is a direct consequence of the ability Islamic terror groups to build and regenerate their networks.”
Zarif added that the United States needs to take the offensive on the homefront in both tightening border controls and enhancing communication with other countries facing terror threats.
“We need to close gaps in our defenses and how people are coming into our country. Concerns over visa waiver countries is something Congress is examining right now because so many Westerners, especially from Europe have traveled to conflict zones, received military training and deployed backward. We are looking at which countries these individuals are from and adding another level of security vetting for those coming in from those countries to the U.S. Most European travelers were previously under a visa-free program, where individuals would book tickets and board their planes without talking to officers from local embassies. We have now reinstituted that layer for citizens that have traveled to conflict zones like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia,” he said.
“Another strategy is looking at partner capacity. We are examining not only how we can shore up our defenses at home, but how we can push that line out. What are the capabilities of our European partners? We are taking a look at what their gaps may be and how we can help fill them in the wake of the Paris and Brussel attacks,” Zarif concluded. “Ultimately the source and core of the enemy we are fighting here today are rooted in their sanctuary safe havens and their ability to exploit those types of environments overseas. So I think a big aspect of this fight is the determination and will to go on offense to employ all the tools of a national power to be able to prevent these groups to have safe havens, sanctuary, regenerating and bringing support to their cause. There is the physical aspect of that, but as we have seen with ISIS, there is the inspiration to incite jihad even if these recruits never travel to the conflict zones using radicalization through the internet. It is a multi-front war.”
About the Author: Steve Lasky is the editorial director for SouthComm Security Media, which includes Security Technology Executive and Security Dealer & Integrator magazines, SecurityInfoWatch.com and is also the conference director for Secured Cities. He is a 30-year veteran of the security media industry.
