• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

"Lone Wolf" ISIS attacks aren't

It also depends on what is meant by 'lone wolf'. Egging someone on does mean ISIS would be involved with inspiring an attack, but to say ISIS coordinated and executed the attack isn't accurate either.
 
All of them?

We can't prove "all"--sometimes the data is simply missing.

ISIS propaganda and the perpetrator makes it 2 already. ISIS is an ideology and anyone can use it . However in Europe the attacks in Paris and Belgium were clearly coordinated, including assistance in some cases from the UK.
A single man with a knife could be a one man job.
 
All of them?

We can't prove "all"--sometimes the data is simply missing.

Yeah, but your article seemed to only say "sometimes." Where the claim that they "are being managed every step of the way" seems more dubious. Surely, there are some who merely read the propaganda, maybe have a conversation where they are egged on, and not actually "managed every step of the way."
 
We can't prove "all"--sometimes the data is simply missing.

Yeah, but your article seemed to only say "sometimes." Where the claim that they "are being managed every step of the way" seems more dubious. Surely, there are some who merely read the propaganda, maybe have a conversation where they are egged on, and not actually "managed every step of the way."

Only sometimes is it proven.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/04/world/asia/isis-messaging-app-terror-plot.html?_r=0

lone wolf attacks, that is. They're being managed every step of the way, just remotely.

Yeah... no.

In the most basic enabled attacks, Islamic State handlers acted as confidants and coaches, coaxing recruits to embrace violence. In the Hyderabad plot, among the most involved found so far, the terrorist group reached deep into a country with strict gun laws to arrange for pistols and ammunition to be left in a bag swinging from the branches of a tree.

There's nothing "remote" about that. The operatives managing the actual attacks had to be present right there in the country for that to be the case, and would have had to have a strong enough presence to be able to smuggle weapons and ammunition into the same. It's not like they shipped the weapons all the way to India from an Amazon warehouse or something.

What you're basically seeing here is an extended terrorist network extending INTO India and using the internet to hide its footsteps. The anonymity of the contacts is the story here, not their remoteness.

More importantly: this kind of management is only possible in the first place when the managers have very good intelligence on the ground and a network of personal connections extensive enough to be able to move people and materials from one place to another covertly. That necessarily implies those operatives would have to be VERY familiar with the areas they're planning to attack, and are only able to manage unfamiliar operatives by being able to describe very clearly what they're going to do and how they're going to do it.

Put this another way: you, being a pretty smart person, probably couldn't coordinate a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. You don't know anyone in Saudi Arabia, you don't speak the language, you don't know local customs or shipping practices, and you definitely couldn't arrange for weapons and explosives to be hung from a tree in a park somewhere; you wouldn't even know what park to pick where that shit wouldn't draw attention.

You could, however, easily arrange that kind of attack in a city you live in. You know what soft targets could be attacked, you know what sort of things will and won't draw the attention of the police, you know about some of the hidden places and dark corners where someone might be able to make a weapon drop without being noticed. If you know the right people, you might even know who to talk to about getting your hands on restricted weapons and items. There's nothing "remote" about that kind of management; in that case you're an infiltrator managing the local strike team.
 
Yeah... no.

In the most basic enabled attacks, Islamic State handlers acted as confidants and coaches, coaxing recruits to embrace violence. In the Hyderabad plot, among the most involved found so far, the terrorist group reached deep into a country with strict gun laws to arrange for pistols and ammunition to be left in a bag swinging from the branches of a tree.

There's nothing "remote" about that. The operatives managing the actual attacks had to be present right there in the country for that to be the case, and would have had to have a strong enough presence to be able to smuggle weapons and ammunition into the same. It's not like they shipped the weapons all the way to India from an Amazon warehouse or something.

What you're basically seeing here is an extended terrorist network extending INTO India and using the internet to hide its footsteps. The anonymity of the contacts is the story here, not their remoteness.

More importantly: this kind of management is only possible in the first place when the managers have very good intelligence on the ground and a network of personal connections extensive enough to be able to move people and materials from one place to another covertly. That necessarily implies those operatives would have to be VERY familiar with the areas they're planning to attack, and are only able to manage unfamiliar operatives by being able to describe very clearly what they're going to do and how they're going to do it.

Put this another way: you, being a pretty smart person, probably couldn't coordinate a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. You don't know anyone in Saudi Arabia, you don't speak the language, you don't know local customs or shipping practices, and you definitely couldn't arrange for weapons and explosives to be hung from a tree in a park somewhere; you wouldn't even know what park to pick where that shit wouldn't draw attention.

You could, however, easily arrange that kind of attack in a city you live in. You know what soft targets could be attacked, you know what sort of things will and won't draw the attention of the police, you know about some of the hidden places and dark corners where someone might be able to make a weapon drop without being noticed. If you know the right people, you might even know who to talk to about getting your hands on restricted weapons and items. There's nothing "remote" about that kind of management; in that case you're an infiltrator managing the local strike team.

The point is the lack of any apparent contact between the attacker and ISIS doesn't mean they weren't being managed by ISIS. They're not self-radiacalized lone wolves.
 
Yeah, but your article seemed to only say "sometimes." Where the claim that they "are being managed every step of the way" seems more dubious. Surely, there are some who merely read the propaganda, maybe have a conversation where they are egged on, and not actually "managed every step of the way."

Only sometimes is it proven.

Loren, this is so typical of you: Find some instances of something which I believe to be true all or most of the time => conclude it is true all or most of the time.
 
Only sometimes is it proven.

Loren, this is so typical of you: Find some instances of something which I believe to be true all or most of the time => conclude it is true all or most of the time.

We have some proven to be guided.

We have some where there are definite hints of guidance.

We have some for which we have no data.

We have none shown to be true lone wolves.

What's the most likely conclusion?

Just because it doesn't fit your idea that terrorism is organized from above rather than self-creating due to oppression doesn't make it so.
 
Yeah... no.



There's nothing "remote" about that. The operatives managing the actual attacks had to be present right there in the country for that to be the case, and would have had to have a strong enough presence to be able to smuggle weapons and ammunition into the same. It's not like they shipped the weapons all the way to India from an Amazon warehouse or something.

What you're basically seeing here is an extended terrorist network extending INTO India and using the internet to hide its footsteps. The anonymity of the contacts is the story here, not their remoteness.

More importantly: this kind of management is only possible in the first place when the managers have very good intelligence on the ground and a network of personal connections extensive enough to be able to move people and materials from one place to another covertly. That necessarily implies those operatives would have to be VERY familiar with the areas they're planning to attack, and are only able to manage unfamiliar operatives by being able to describe very clearly what they're going to do and how they're going to do it.

Put this another way: you, being a pretty smart person, probably couldn't coordinate a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. You don't know anyone in Saudi Arabia, you don't speak the language, you don't know local customs or shipping practices, and you definitely couldn't arrange for weapons and explosives to be hung from a tree in a park somewhere; you wouldn't even know what park to pick where that shit wouldn't draw attention.

You could, however, easily arrange that kind of attack in a city you live in. You know what soft targets could be attacked, you know what sort of things will and won't draw the attention of the police, you know about some of the hidden places and dark corners where someone might be able to make a weapon drop without being noticed. If you know the right people, you might even know who to talk to about getting your hands on restricted weapons and items. There's nothing "remote" about that kind of management; in that case you're an infiltrator managing the local strike team.

The point is the lack of any apparent contact between the attacker and ISIS doesn't mean they weren't being managed by ISIS. They're not self-radiacalized lone wolves.

Being in contact with operatives who provide you with weapons, equipment, intelligence and information about your target is NOT the same thing as "lack of any apparent contact."

This looks like a job for Captain Obvious. A "lone wolf" carries out acts of violence without outside support; these guys had outside support, therefore they are not "lone wolves."

Absent from this entire line of discussion is something that would explain how or why this is relevant, except to point out the blatantly obvious fact that a Daesh terrorist is a Daesh terrorist.:thinking:
 
Loren, this is so typical of you: Find some instances of something which I believe to be true all or most of the time => conclude it is true all or most of the time.

We have some proven to be guided.
We ALWAYS knew that some of them were guided. That isn't exactly news.

In relation to your OP: When exactly did someone suggest that THESE terrorists were unguided? And how is that relevant to terrorism in general? Or, for that matter, terrorism in the United States?

We have none shown to be true lone wolves.
Dylan Roof
The Tsarnaev Brothers
The San Bernardino Shooters
Omar Mateen
Wade Michael Page
Eric Rudolf
Timothy McVeigh
Ted Kazinski

These were all shown to be lone wolves.
Perhaps you are confused?
 
Loren, this is so typical of you: Find some instances of something which I believe to be true all or most of the time => conclude it is true all or most of the time.

We have some proven to be guided.

We have some where there are definite hints of guidance.

We have some for which we have no data.

We have none shown to be true lone wolves.

What's the most likely conclusion?

Just because it doesn't fit your idea that terrorism is organized from above rather than self-creating due to oppression doesn't make it so.

I hold no belief that terrorism is self-creating due to oppression. I challenge you to provide evidence from my posting history to support that that claim.

I suppose there could be instances where that is true, but generally I would consider terrorism to be a phenomenon with many different causes. Rather, I am pointing out your faulty reasoning, and propensity to indulge in hasty generalizations.
 
Back
Top Bottom