Moner Mohammad Abulsalha was a Florida native who journeyed to Syria to fight with the rebels in the Syrian Civil War. He fought alongside the Sunni rebel majority, which is supported by Saudi Arabia, against the Shiite dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, propped up by Iran. Two years ago, on May 25th, 2014, “Mo,” as he was called by his childhood friends in Florida, drove a truck packed with explosives into a Syrian government outpost. Moner Abulsalha is likely America’s only suicide bomber. He was raised in Florida by his Palestinian father and Italian-American mother, and authorities say he grew up learning a strongly fundamentalist view of Islam, attending the same mosque as the Pulse Nightclub shooter, Omar Mateen. When he was only 22, Moner joined the rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, which purportedly has ties to Al-Qaeda.
Abusalha then spent two months training with the rebels in Syria along with other foreigners hoping to make an impact on the war. Before Abulsaha’s death, he was asked by a few of the locals why he felt he needed to commit suicide. He replied, “This is nothing like suicide.” He also was asked by the Syrians why he was in Syria, saying that the best quality of life was obviously in America. He responded, “No. I will never go back to America. I like it here.” Abulsalha recorded a video just before committing his act, tearing at an American passport with his teeth, then lighting it on fire. He then told President Obama and the West, “we are coming for you ... you big infidels!” Clearly it is not only foreigners or refugees who are responsible for recent terror attacks.
The rise of homegrown terror in our nation is alarming. We typically hear about homegrown violence directly after an attack. This topic is often absent in political discourse and insufficient efforts are made to reform the faulty infrastructure which lets these stealthy radicals pursue their violent goals. In San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and more recently New York and Minnesota, each of the terrorists were legal U.S. persons, radicalized primarily in America using online resources. Many cite the FBI’s ineptitude and lack of capabilities for allowing this disease to spread. The Patriot Act, drafted within months of 9/11, did not stop the phenomenon of homegrown terror. Generally, it is agreed that only 5% of the NSA findings under the Patriot Act were related to terrorism. After Edward Snowden’s traitorous disclosure revealed the extent of the capabilities of the National Security Agency (NSA) in June of 2013, the Patriot Act was not renewed, and, instead, lawmakers drafted the USA Freedom Act, which many say leaves the NSA and FBI poorly outfitted for counterterrorism. The killers in New York, Boston, and Minnesota were all investigated by the FBI, but the agency could not find anything damning. The entire surveillance debate hinges on one’s opinion on the correct balance of civil liberty and national security. On one hand, our constitution prevents invasive probing into the lives of ordinary citizens, which is a violation of our right to privacy. On the other hand, we are at war with an enemy who thrives in the shadows and lives effectively hidden in plain sight among us. Consider the irony that the Trump and Clinton campaigns and large corporations broadly surveil your internet and spending habits and use your data to better their chances. In this way, our candidates are better equipped to fight domestic terrorism during their campaign than when they enter the White House.
Our security organizations ought to be able to better control and surveil online resources for terrorists. Common sense censorship of websites that encourage violent behavior (for instance, how to build a pipe bomb) would be a step in the right direction. Both Ahmad Rahami and Syed Farook (the New York and San Bernardino bombers, respectively) built pipe bombs in their spare time after viewing sites such as Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine and ISIS’s Dabiq. However, the abundance of outlets available to easily sway radicals is only the tip of the iceberg. The root of self-radicalization is often a mix of isolation and uncertainty as to cultural identity, combined with religious indoctrination. Especially in the Muslim community, youth are often socially isolated, ostracized, or left to discover and determine their own principles; unfortunately, these errant young people may turn to violence after reading incendiary propaganda. As the Wall Street Journal notes in an article about the radicalization of Ahmad Rahami, the Times Square bomber who nearly inflicted several casualties, mosques are often run by an older generation. Typically, political discourse is not allowed in the mosque space, leaving the youth, as Rahami did, to look for answers elsewhere. This is noteworthy because both Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, and Moner Abusalha, the American suicide bomber, both attended the same South Florida mosque. Before we jump to conclusions that radical doctrine was being practiced at this mosque, isn’t it possible that both attackers simply felt abandoned and were forced elsewhere, to internet sites preaching radicalism? It can be a recipe for disaster when a young Muslim hears of the persecution of his or her religion and is refused the chance to discuss it with an Imam, perhaps a critical authority figure in his or her life, especially if they are having a difficult time at home or at school. He or she is then further told and persuaded by online propaganda about the persecution of his or her race and how it can be rectified through sacrifice to Allah by killing infidels.
Each of the killers in the past five years was likely familiar with Anwar al-Awlaki, a hailed pioneer of terrorism, killed by a U.S. CIA drone strike in Yemen. His legacy among jihadists still remains via online content. Ahmad Khan Rahami in his writings lauded al-Awlaki and vowed to avenge him. It is believed that Nidal Husan, the Fort Hood psychiatrist and US Army officer who killed 13 and injured several more in 2009, was mainly inspired by al Awlaki in committing the murders at the Texas military base. The Boston Marathon bombers as well as Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub (Orlando) murderer, both gave praise to al Awlaki, and proclaimed him as one of their heroes. In terms of self-radicalization, al-Awlaki’s teachings are like an instruction manual for any disenfranchised, lost Muslims. In Ancient Rome the government had the right to erase certain figures from all memory, calling this damnatio memoriae. Especially on the internet, incendiary and explicit content from figures like Osama Bin Laden, who was also praised by recent jihadists, along with al Awlaki should be erased from the internet, leaving no footprint for anyone to follow. While the national view on surveillance is highly polarized, it should hardly be debatable whether anyone should be able to read al-Awlaki’s or Bin Laden’s teachings, which are currently just a click away from anyone with access. In such a broad topic as domestic surveillance and terrorism, there have been many varied attempts to implement efficient and legal programs, yet the inclusion of censorship has rarely been explored Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate arbiter of censorship given Americans’ treasured right of Free Speech as enshrined in our founding documents.
Moner Mohammad Abulsalha was a Florida native who journeyed to Syria to fight with the rebels in the Syrian Civil War. He fought alongside the Sunni rebel majority, which is supported by Saudi Arabia, against the Shiite dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, propped up by Iran. Two years ago, on May 25th, 2014, “Mo,” as he was called by his childhood friends in Florida, drove a truck packed with explosives into a Syrian government outpost. Moner Abulsalha is likely America’s only suicide bomber. He was raised in Florida by his Palestinian father and Italian-American mother, and authorities say he grew up learning a strongly fundamentalist view of Islam, attending the same mosque as the Pulse Nightclub shooter, Omar Mateen. When he was only 22, Moner joined the rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, which purportedly has ties to Al-Qaeda.
Abusalha then spent two months training with the rebels in Syria along with other foreigners hoping to make an impact on the war. Before Abulsaha’s death, he was asked by a few of the locals why he felt he needed to commit suicide. He replied, “This is nothing like suicide.” He also was asked by the Syrians why he was in Syria, saying that the best quality of life was obviously in America. He responded, “No. I will never go back to America. I like it here.” Abulsalha recorded a video just before committing his act, tearing at an American passport with his teeth, then lighting it on fire. He then told President Obama and the West, “we are coming for you ... you big infidels!” Clearly it is not only foreigners or refugees who are responsible for recent terror attacks.
The rise of homegrown terror in our nation is alarming. We typically hear about homegrown violence directly after an attack. This topic is often absent in political discourse and insufficient efforts are made to reform the faulty infrastructure which lets these stealthy radicals pursue their violent goals. In San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and more recently New York and Minnesota, each of the terrorists were legal U.S. persons, radicalized primarily in America using online resources. Many cite the FBI’s ineptitude and lack of capabilities for allowing this disease to spread. The Patriot Act, drafted within months of 9/11, did not stop the phenomenon of homegrown terror. Generally, it is agreed that only 5% of the NSA findings under the Patriot Act were related to terrorism. After Edward Snowden’s traitorous disclosure revealed the extent of the capabilities of the National Security Agency (NSA) in June of 2013, the Patriot Act was not renewed, and, instead, lawmakers drafted the USA Freedom Act, which many say leaves the NSA and FBI poorly outfitted for counterterrorism. The killers in New York, Boston, and Minnesota were all investigated by the FBI, but the agency could not find anything damning. The entire surveillance debate hinges on one’s opinion on the correct balance of civil liberty and national security. On one hand, our constitution prevents invasive probing into the lives of ordinary citizens, which is a violation of our right to privacy. On the other hand, we are at war with an enemy who thrives in the shadows and lives effectively hidden in plain sight among us. Consider the irony that the Trump and Clinton campaigns and large corporations broadly surveil your internet and spending habits and use your data to better their chances. In this way, our candidates are better equipped to fight domestic terrorism during their campaign than when they enter the White House.
Our security organizations ought to be able to better control and surveil online resources for terrorists. Common sense censorship of websites that encourage violent behavior (for instance, how to build a pipe bomb) would be a step in the right direction. Both Ahmad Rahami and Syed Farook (the New York and San Bernardino bombers, respectively) built pipe bombs in their spare time after viewing sites such as Al Qaeda’s Inspire magazine and ISIS’s Dabiq. However, the abundance of outlets available to easily sway radicals is only the tip of the iceberg. The root of self-radicalization is often a mix of isolation and uncertainty as to cultural identity, combined with religious indoctrination. Especially in the Muslim community, youth are often socially isolated, ostracized, or left to discover and determine their own principles; unfortunately, these errant young people may turn to violence after reading incendiary propaganda. As the Wall Street Journal notes in an article about the radicalization of Ahmad Rahami, the Times Square bomber who nearly inflicted several casualties, mosques are often run by an older generation. Typically, political discourse is not allowed in the mosque space, leaving the youth, as Rahami did, to look for answers elsewhere. This is noteworthy because both Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, and Moner Abusalha, the American suicide bomber, both attended the same South Florida mosque. Before we jump to conclusions that radical doctrine was being practiced at this mosque, isn’t it possible that both attackers simply felt abandoned and were forced elsewhere, to internet sites preaching radicalism? It can be a recipe for disaster when a young Muslim hears of the persecution of his or her religion and is refused the chance to discuss it with an Imam, perhaps a critical authority figure in his or her life, especially if they are having a difficult time at home or at school. He or she is then further told and persuaded by online propaganda about the persecution of his or her race and how it can be rectified through sacrifice to Allah by killing infidels.
Each of the killers in the past five years was likely familiar with Anwar al-Awlaki, a hailed pioneer of terrorism, killed by a U.S. CIA drone strike in Yemen. His legacy among jihadists still remains via online content. Ahmad Khan Rahami in his writings lauded al-Awlaki and vowed to avenge him. It is believed that Nidal Husan, the Fort Hood psychiatrist and US Army officer who killed 13 and injured several more in 2009, was mainly inspired by al Awlaki in committing the murders at the Texas military base. The Boston Marathon bombers as well as Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub (Orlando) murderer, both gave praise to al Awlaki, and proclaimed him as one of their heroes. In terms of self-radicalization, al-Awlaki’s teachings are like an instruction manual for any disenfranchised, lost Muslims. In Ancient Rome the government had the right to erase certain figures from all memory, calling this damnatio memoriae. Especially on the internet, incendiary and explicit content from figures like Osama Bin Laden, who was also praised by recent jihadists, along with al Awlaki should be erased from the internet, leaving no footprint for anyone to follow. While the national view on surveillance is highly polarized, it should hardly be debatable whether anyone should be able to read al-Awlaki’s or Bin Laden’s teachings, which are currently just a click away from anyone with access. In such a broad topic as domestic surveillance and terrorism, there have been many varied attempts to implement efficient and legal programs, yet the inclusion of censorship has rarely been explored Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate arbiter of censorship given Americans’ treasured right of Free Speech as enshrined in our founding documents.
