Nationalities of terrorists striking America

[KyleReevis]

Nationalities of terrorists striking America:

Trump's order banning the entry of immigrants into the US -- presumably to prevent a terrorist attack -- affects citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries:

• Iraq.
• Syria.
• Iran.
• Libya.
• Somalia.
• Sudan.
• Yemen

But what are the nationalities of those who have committed terrorism attacks against the US following the 9-11 attacks in 2001?

Acts designated as terrorism by the US Government, in order of most fatalities following the 9/11 attacks:

12 Jun 2016
Orlando, Florida
50 dead, 53 injured.
Shooting attack at nightclub.
US citizen.

2 Dec 2015
San Bernardino, California
16 dead, 23 injured.
Shooting at social services center and subsequent shootout with police.
U.S. citizen; and Pakistani-born lawful US permanent resident.

5 Nov 2009
Fort Hood, Texas
13 dead, 44 injured.
Shooting at Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood.
US citizen.

2-22 Oct 2002
Multiple locations in Maryland and Virginia
13 dead, 1 injured.
Sniper attacks in 8 communities
2 US citizens.

17 Jun 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
9 dead, 1 injured.
Shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
US citizen.

5 Aug 2012
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
7 dead (including perpetrator), 4 injured.
Shooting attack at Sikh temple
US citizen.

8 Jan 2011
Tucson, Arizona
6 dead, 13 injured.
Shooting at political event.
US citizen.

7 Jul 2016
Dallas, Texas
6 dead (including perpetrator), 10 injured.
Sniper attack on police at protest rally.
US citizen.

16 Jul 2015
Chattanooga, Tennessee
6 dead, 2 injured.
Shooting attacks against two military recruitment centers.
US citizen.

9 Oct 2001
Washington, DC
4 dead, 7 harmed.
Anthrax-laced letters mailed to Washington, DC
US citizen.

So, how many of the above perpetrators came from the countries affected by Trump's ban?

• Iraq = 0
• Syria = 0
• Iran = 0
• Libya = 0
• Somalia = 0
• Sudan = 0
• Yemen = 0

In summary, acts of terrorism against the US have been committed by:

• 1 citizen of Pakistan (who was a legal US resident).
• And 11 citizens of the US.

Notes:

• I believe that the work above is accurate. If you see anything that is incorrect, just let me know and I will correct it.
• While I myself researched the nationality of the perpetrators, credit for the list of attacks goes to Wm. Robert Johnston who compiled the list of attacks. No, I didn't ask his permission to use his data here. Link to data and his home page
• You'll have to excuse the awkward formatting of information below. I performed a block, copy, and paste of Johnston's page, then edited in or out what I did or didn't want.

 

[wheres_the_beef]

Not an inaccuracy but something entirely missed by the analysis is which group is the major transnational terror that exists in the world today. That is currently ISIS, a group that is skilled at using modern communications to inspire and support attacks. Your list includes attacks in the United States that are linked to IS. Every country on the list is home to IS or an IS affiliate except Iran. Iran is a state sponsor of terror along with Syria and Sudan.

The notion that it is either an effective or desirable policy is separate. The list is pretty well targeted if you had to build one based on the biggest threats in 2017.

 

[OldJourno]

Not an inaccuracy but something entirely missed by the analysis is which group is the major transnational terror that exists in the world today. That is currently ISIS, a group that is skilled at using modern communications to inspire and support attacks. Your list includes attacks in the United States that are linked to IS. Every country on the list is home to IS or an IS affiliate except Iran. Iran is a state sponsor of terror along with Syria and Sudan.

The notion that it is either an effective or desirable policy is separate. The list is pretty well targeted if you had to build one based on the biggest threats in 2017.

There you go, ruining a perfectly good C&P.

 

[Conager]

Not to mention, what were the nationalities predominant in the communities in which these US citizens were radicalized?

Lets bring mooaarrr in so those communites grow, expand and become mooooarrr vibrant.

The same people that SCREAM about what a threat to progress christian culture is have NO problem encouraging stone-age immigrants and their entire culture. They're truly bipolar in their belief systems.

 

[wheres_the_beef]

Not to mention, what were the nationalities predominant in the communities in which these US citizens were radicalized?

American...white Americans in fact. Some if that list is not IS linked but white supremacist linked which skews things even further away from simple demographics.

 

[Ishmael]

Not to mention, what were the nationalities predominant in the communities in which these US citizens were radicalized?

Lets bring mooaarrr in so those communites grow, expand and become mooooarrr vibrant.

The same people that SCREAM about what a threat to progress christian culture is have NO problem encouraging stone-age immigrants and their entire culture. They're truly bipolar in their belief systems.

The one predominantly salient feature of progressivism is the ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs to be true.

Ishmael

 

[Conager]

.....

 

[colddiesel]

Saudi Arabia accounted for 20 of the 9/11 attackers. Egypt 3.

Egypt is the home of the Al Qaeda leader.

Pakistan's intelligence service has protected Bin Laden and the Taliban for years.

Those 3 countries are not on the list. Any comments?

I favour leaving the Arabs to fight each other and the Iranians, but discouraging any offensive military action by the Israelis. So long as ISIS only kills fellow Arabs how is that a problem? If the Israelis get involved that will unite all all shades of Moslem opinion, Arab and non-Arab.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Iran is Shia. They fight radical Sunni groups. If they export terrorism it is confined to the M.E. and support of Shia groups.

Osama bin Laden and Daesh would shoot dead a Shia before turning gun on a Christian or Jew.

Iran is a totalitarian state which oppresses it's own citizens. That is enough to be their enemy. Plus their hatred of Israel.

Hezbollah is about the only so-called terrorist group that is Shia. Al-Houthi in Yemen is too I believe. Hezbollah is more of a Lebanese and Palestinian nationalist organization. But has some Druze Christians in it's ranks. Suicide bombing is not part of Shia ideology. Nor is it a part of the Afghan Taliban. Suicide bombers in Afghanistan are foreign Sunnis. Kurds may be using suicide bombers if Turkey is to be believed.

Iran should be sanctioned due to being a totalitarian state based on religion not for international terror exportation.

 

[KyleReevis]

Not an inaccuracy but something entirely missed by the analysis is which group is the major transnational terror that exists in the world today. That is currently ISIS, a group that is skilled at using modern communications to inspire and support attacks. Your list includes attacks in the United States that are linked to IS. Every country on the list is home to IS or an IS affiliate except Iran. Iran is a state sponsor of terror along with Syria and Sudan.

The notion that it is either an effective or desirable policy is separate. The list is pretty well targeted if you had to build one based on the biggest threats in 2017.

I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

Just to be clear, the title of the thread is "Nationalities of terrorists striking America", not other countries; and the thesis (if I can use that word) is that Trump's order keeps out immigrants from countries that have not to date provided perpetrators of terrorism against the United States.

I think that ISIS is one of the scariest entities Americans and other peace loving people across the globe have faced in decades. If I was the president, I would commit a million troops to wiping that scourge from the face of the planet. But Trump's order is not going to significantly protect the US from terrorism.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

Just to be clear, the title of the thread is "Nationalities of terrorists striking America", not other countries; and the thesis (if I can use that word) is that Trump's order keeps out immigrants from countries that have not to date provided perpetrators of terrorism against the United States.

I think that ISIS is one of the scariest entities Americans and other peace loving people across the globe have faced in decades. If I was the president, I would commit a million troops to wiping that scourge from the face of the planet. But Trump's order is not going to significantly protect the US from terrorism.

We tried to wipe the scourge of National Socialism from the world once with a million troops. You can see Nazis marching down American streets. Even in ex-Communist Russia, the archenemy of the Nazis, they have Hitler lovers.

Nice idea but not 100% effective.

 

[Ishmael]

I appreciate your thoughts, thank you.

Just to be clear, the title of the thread is "Nationalities of terrorists striking America", not other countries; and the thesis (if I can use that word) is that Trump's order keeps out immigrants from countries that have not to date provided perpetrators of terrorism against the United States.

I think that ISIS is one of the scariest entities Americans and other peace loving people across the globe have faced in decades. If I was the president, I would commit a million troops to wiping that scourge from the face of the planet. But Trump's order is not going to significantly protect the US from terrorism.

Understood, but there is a problem with that purely statistical view.

How many of those you listed were Muslim? And how many were first generation native born?

Looking to the European experience the greater number of attacks have been carried out by first generation native born. Somebody should do a study on the phenomena, and indeed perhaps they have. I just haven't seen it. My own theory is that they are the proverbial "Strange in a Strange Land." Torn between what their parents have told them what is 'right' and what the observe in the Western world. Throw in some strident clerics from the local mosque and you have a prescription for disaster.

So in a very real way you are correct that the extreme vetting is unlikely to change things for some time to come. The initial immigrants are not necessarily the problem. The first generation native born, the visa holders, and those the skip the time restrictions are. The point re. the first generation native born is that they wouldn't be here had not we allowed the parents to immigrate.

Islam, all of Islam, Sunni or Shia', is immiscible with secular law. They neither recognize nor support separation of church and state. That notion is at the very core of their religion and teachings. Even as immigrants to a new nation if allowed to form their own political entities you would find little differences between them or the citizens of 17th century Salem MA. To put it another way, Islam is stuck in an 8th century mentality. There were some progressive thinkers during the Golden Age of Islam but they were expunged or murdered by the 12th century. Their theological philosophy has not moved one inch forward since then, and indeed it is showing signs of regressing.

We have enough of our own home grown homicidal maniacs to deal with without importing more. When it comes to immigration we don't need them, 'need' being used in the truest since of the word. The costs far outweigh any benefit.

Ishmael

 

[sr71plt]

What's missed is where this list came from (originally with the Obama administration) and why. The countries were chosen on the basis of the ability to do reliable vetting. It isn't that vetting--even stringent vetting--isn't already done and the Trump folks have to set up vetting from the bottom. The countries on the list are the ones in such internal turmoil or are not cooperative with the United States on providing vetting information that the United States can't do reliable background checks on the applicants. Maybe if the Trump people took their heads out of their asses and learned why these countries were on the list to begin with . . .

 

[Ishmael]

What's missed is where this list came from (originally with the Obama administration) and why. The countries were chosen on the basis of the ability to do reliable vetting. It isn't that vetting--even stringent vetting--isn't already done and the Trump folks have to set up vetting from the bottom. The countries on the list are the ones in such internal turmoil or are not cooperative with the United States on providing vetting information that the United States can't do reliable background checks on the applicants. Maybe if the Trump people took their heads out of their asses and learned why these countries were on the list to begin with . . .

Maybe if you took your head out of your ass you'd come up with the answer.

Ishmael

 

[Disgustipated]

Not to mention, what were the nationalities predominant in the communities in which these US citizens were radicalized?

Lets bring mooaarrr in so those communites grow, expand and become mooooarrr vibrant.

The same people that SCREAM about what a threat to progress christian culture is have NO problem encouraging stone-age immigrants and their entire culture. They're truly bipolar in their belief systems.

That's some shit, right there.

They were radicalized by the internetz so fuck off with that particular brand of bullshit. Add that to the fact that they are AMERICANS, your argument is invalid.

And if you're gonna bring up hypocrisy, bringing up Christianity is about as bad of an example you can make.

 

[sr71plt]

Maybe if you took your head out of your ass you'd come up with the answer.

Ishmael

I did come up with the answer--and my answer was objective/middle of the spectrum as far as partisanship. Perhaps you had your head too far up your ass (as usual) to actually read my post.

The point on the Trump gang's obvious screw up in the roll out of the immigration "ban" (they can't even agree among themselves on their terminology) is that they didn't bother to check with anyone who knows what is involved and they are clueless and Keystone Cops about it all--in other words, like you, "Ishmael," they perpetually have their heads crammed up their asses.

 

[Ishmael]

I did come up with the answer--and my answer was objective/middle of the spectrum as far as partisanship. Perhaps you had your head too far up your ass (as usual) to actually read my post.

The point on the Trump gang's obvious screw up in the roll out of the immigration "ban" (they can't even agree among themselves on their terminology) is that they didn't bother to check with anyone who knows what is involved and they are clueless and Keystone Cops about it all--in other words, like you, "Ishmael," they perpetually have their heads crammed up their asses.

Let's play 'one' question. Is there any nation on that list that wasn't on Obama's list?

Ishmael

 

[sr71plt]

Hey, Ishmael, Chris Christy just leveled the Trump gang, saying the same thing I posted about them screwing up the immigration EO by not consulting anyone who knew anything about how to work it.

http://realtimepolitics.com/2017/02...an-finally-speaks-out-after-trump-abused-him/

Karma's a bitch (and you're a bastard--so you and karma should get along fine).

 

[Ishmael]

Hey, Ishmael, Chris Christy just leveled the Trump gang, saying the same thing I posted about them screwing up the immigration EO by not consulting anyone who knew anything about how to work it.

http://realtimepolitics.com/2017/02...an-finally-speaks-out-after-trump-abused-him/

Karma's a bitch (and you're a bastard--so you and karma should get along fine).

Yah, the roll out was executed ham-handedly.

But your still left trying to explain how the re-institution of Obama's policy, based on congressional action, is now a riot worthy point of contention.

Stop avoiding the question.

Ishmael

 

[Phelia]

Yah, the roll out was executed ham-handedly.

But your still left trying to explain how the re-institution of Obama's policy, based on congressional action, is now a riot worthy point of contention.

Stop avoiding the question.

Ishmael

Care to provide a link to Obama's blanket ban on any and all non-US-citizen visitors from those countries?

Oh, you can't? Okay, maybe just a few 2011 stories of green card holders being detained, or mothers and children being held for 20 hours without food?

Oh, you still can't? That's so weird!

Probably because dumb cuck Obama wasn't tough enough. If he had cajones like the Donald, maybe we could have prevented the tragedy of the Bowling Green Massacre #neverforget

 

[sr71plt]

Yah, the roll out was executed ham-handedly.

But your still left trying to explain how the re-institution of Obama's policy, based on congressional action, is now a riot worthy point of contention.

Stop avoiding the question.

Ishmael

It was a stupid and irrelevant question and further evidence that you didn't absorb what I posted about the list. There's no reason to try to respond to it because you indicate you can't understand the issue.

But here's a couple of clues, which another poster has tried to get across to you--it was the stupid way it was done for one. And it's not the reinstitution of any policy Obama had, for another. Using the same list isn't the same as having the same policy about that list. It's your problem that you can't understand that.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

sr71plt you claimed to have worked for the Great Satan in a military capacity. Aren't a terrorist going by liberal standards. At the very least a war criminal.

 

[sr71plt]

Don't waste the effort, JKT. I put you on ignore as worthless scum a long time ago.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

Don't waste the effort, JKT. I put you on ignore as worthless scum a long time ago.

So is that a yes or you won't respond because other liberals would spit on you? If you put me on ignore my messages wouldn't come up, and if I didn't matter you wouldn't respond. You're a typical liberal though. All for diversity accept diversity of thought. You have nothing intelligent to say, and either try to insult someone or just claim their wrong.

 

[Ishmael]

It was a stupid and irrelevant question and further evidence that you didn't absorb what I posted about the list. There's no reason to try to respond to it because you indicate you can't understand the issue.

But here's a couple of clues, which another poster has tried to get across to you--it was the stupid way it was done for one. And it's not the reinstitution of any policy Obama had, for another. Using the same list isn't the same as having the same policy about that list. It's your problem that you can't understand that.

OK, so my question was stupid and irrelevant, I suppose the action by congress, signed into law, was stupid and irrelevant too, right? It seems that congress, Obama, Trump, and I are all stupid.

Did I mention 'Ham Handed?' Must have flown over your head.

Please, illuminate me as to the nuances of the differences? (Please try to avoid a discussion of what the definition of "is" is.) Be sure to go into a detailed discussion as the the differences of words vs application. I'm quite certain that you, as a former pilot of the worlds hottest bird (*chuckle*) are quite familiar with paying attention to detail.

To be clear it was an act of law passed by congress, so in stating it wasn't Obama's policy is correct. But he signed it into law and then, later, modified it by EO. No one took notice it seems. But now, going back to the law, it's a crisis.

No matter, ultimately Trump will prevail this one. It all reminds me of how the 'progressives' and the press, went apoplectic over Bush's spying on phone calls made by Americans. Then as soon as Obama was elected the word was 'mum.' The program was even expanded and not a word. It wasn't a matter of right or wrong, only which team had the ball, right and wrong have no meaning anymore.

Ishmael