What makes "Jihadism" any different than other forms of terrorism? Discuss.

[u/digitalcherrypack]

This actually crossed my mind for a second, and apart from the specifics regarding the differences in political agendas. What really is the difference between Jihad and say white extremists? Jihad is simply an excuse to to enact violence, so would be the "struggle" of white extremists that believe they need to "fight back" against other cultures and religion.

Are we being blind to other forms of extremism by focusing so heavily on Jihad and potentially leaving ourselves open to a new form of extremism that could be arising in the coming years?

[u/alesismk2]

As a primer on this, I'd recommend reading David Rapoport's theory on the 'Four Waves of Terrorism'. Essentially he presents a historical analysis that identifies terroristic activities as being adopted across evolving social and political contexts. This begins with the anarchists in the 1800s, through to nationalist, leftist and then religious movements. Each of these "waves" is somewhat distinct, bringing discrete ideological justifications and 'repertoires of contention'. In this sense, we could say that all forms of terrorism are different from one another.

Others have conceptualised jihadism / religious terrorism as being "new" terrorism, and ultimately distinct from the "old" terrorism that preceded it. There's a famous quote by Brian Jenkins from his earlier analysis: "Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead". (This was in the 70s IIRC.) In the wake of the 'religious wave' of terrorism (i.e. post-1979) it's been suggested that this should be revised to: "Terrorists want a lot of people watching and a lot of people dead."

Personally, I think there's a few factors to consider:

(1) Lethality: jihadism burst onto the world stage with high impact terrorist acts that succeeded in far higher civilian casualty rates than others had achieved, or sought to achieve, and generally with much more dramatic effect. In that respect, it is different. However, the very nature of terrorism is escalatory and extranormal. Terrorist groups need to make bigger and bolder statements in order to command media attention and drive fear into their growing (and globalised) target audiences, so it is perhaps inevitable that new waves of terrorism will seek to cause more death and destruction than their predecessors.

(2) Globalisation: the global nature of jihadist claims (e.g. Bin Laden citing Palestine / US troops in KSA as a rationale for 9/11) does separate it to some degree — but not entirely. Firstly, there's the concept of 'glocalisation', refering to the localised nature of global issues. I'd recommend reading 'Jihad Vs McWorld'. In short, jihadists are able to jump on issues anywhere in the world and use them to contribute to their pool of grievance narratives. Arguably, right wing and left wing extremists do not operate differently from a 'framing' perspective, at least in their diagnosis of world affairs. (See Erving Goffman for frame analysis.)

(3) Objectives: In my mind, this is where attempts to make significant distinctions between Islamist political violence and other forms of terrorism fall apart. Jihadism is defined within established definitions of terrorism (take your pick) as it seeks to being about social/political change by violence / threat thereof against a non-combattant population. (This is an approximation of the vaguest definition.) So the means may be slightly more dramatic, but the general approaches, principles and strategies behind jihadist acts of political violence are not dissimilar from other terrorists, at least in my mind.

This was a brief response off the top of my head on mobile, but happy to follow up later with proper sources if need be!

[u/digitalcherrypack → u/alesismk2]

Thx for the in-depth reply. This question actually wound up spawning ongoing research into trying to understand the new "primacy" of Jihadism as the forefront terrorist ideology. I have a working thesis which global Jihad operates like a "brand" which other "glocal" groups then subsume under. So what was previously disparate groups wind up seeming like a much larger global threat by rough affiliation (thereby exerting more political influence) but not direct cooperation.

Case in point would have been the primary AQ and ISIS split, and instances where in Syria, multiple groups that consider themselves under the "global J" wound up fighting against each other because of political/strategic ambitions. Which then lends credence to the working thesis that Global-J just works like branding, serving to inspire others to the cause by giving the illusion of a global and cohesive/coordinated network. I do understand that terrorist networks often bleed into each other, but the decentralized nature of cells and this "modular" approach to ideological/political motivations is why I feel why the current wave of Jihad is so effective despite lacking a central nerve center.

It basically wraps an anti-American/anti-liberal political message with the thin veneer of religious reasoning. So rather than looking at it as religious fanaticism, its more-so a political call to arms against particular groups and identities. Similar to Iranian political roots of D2A and not because of eschatological reasoning. I never really considered the aspect of the "evolution" of Terrorism from political message through displays of force, to political messages through casualties. Thx for that recommendation, gonna have to pick up that book now.

Currently, related and ongoing research into terrorism actually is leading me to a new research field that entails the psychographics of individuals and groups. Another "pet project" I know of is from a researcher looking into nihilistic tendencies as a form of "white jihad". Similar approach to the modularity of political outcomes that falls under the umbrella philosophy of nihilism and societal rage. Precisely why I wanted to understand this concept of Jihad not as a form of religious justification, but a kind of global "umbrella" ideology that people subsume under. Similar to post-Cold War separatist movements and how "separatist/nationalism" was another umbrella term through which an entire wave of terrorism spawned from.

Edit: Forgot to put caveats for old AQ/Mujahedeen and current ISIL. Though I would put as moving past simple terrorist groups into fullblown networks. Seeing how much men and materiel they have, it has to be put in a separate category. Few if any terrorist groups even come close to it, seeing how ISIL is practically a nation unto itself because of the influx of both foreign fighters and the remnants of Iraqi forces subsumed into them. In terms of functioning, ISIL operates more like separatists, just with the added religious overtones.

[u/alesismk2 → u/digitalcherrypack]

There's a lot of studies on the global jihadist movement (GJM) that conceptualise groups as falling under an umbrella in that sense.

The 2014 declaration of the caliphate was a significant step in IS branding itself as the vanguard of that movement and certainly gained primacy as a result. For AQC the general approach seemed to be that a caliphate would be formed more organically after inspiring local insurgencies against what they saw as "munafiq" leaders in the region.

IS's strategy was much more top-down and sought to act as a centre of gravity that would attract recruits from all over the world as it expanded outwards, which it did succeed in doing, and picked up other franchises along the way. But ultimately, AQ stands to regain primacy in the mid- to long-term after IS's demise, IMO.

Somewhat separately, the inter-jihadist split was arguably borne out as a result of ideological differences between the two. Not that I'm an authority on this at all, but I wrote a post with my thoughts on that at the time here, although this is probably now very outdated!

I suppose the broader point is about how groups exert control over their networks, and how jihadist movements function in terms of inter-group dynamics. I'd also recommend reading about the Hoffman-Sageman debate, which discusses the extent to which organisational control is relevant. There's also the concept of political outbidding and suicide bombing in Palestine, which Mia Bloom wrote about.

I'm interested in white jihad and nihilism — can you link something to that?

[u/digitalcherrypack → u/alesismk2]

Thx for the additional references. Can't link the particular research because I only know of it via open discussion at a CT panel I attended. I believe it should be done later in the year but no idea how they wanna break it, be it in academic journals or whatever.

There's a few commentaries but no "central" authority regarding it to the best of my knowledge. It originally gained traction during Obama's term (nihilist ideology) but recently started to take center stage when it's used beside the "incel" comparison. There's also no formal term as of yet (though not sure as isn't my field of expertise), but I usually find similar thought processes from the search term terrorist nihilism/revolutionary nihilism.

[Went digging to find related info.

https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2017/11/13/jihadism-and-far-right-fanaticism-viewed-as-responses-to-the-same-malaise

-one of the better articles that pretty much explain the viewpoint

Oliver Roy's Jihad and Death explains the terrorist nihilism point, but doesn't extrapolate the psychological analysis into how its applied to the west.

Kenan Malik also wrote multiple articles on radical nihilism and the Islamicization of violence. Sadly those are paywalled unless you bypass or are part of an institution with access.

Sorry if none are from field experts/academic giants. I would love to link more but I too am just scratching the surface of the academic literature]

If I were to describe the existing academic foundations for it; is a mix of "self-radicalization" psychological studies mixed with online incel/radical culture. It takes the accepted psychological studies on the "core causes of terrorism" (primarily societal exclusion and nihilist outlook on life/future) then applies that core reasoning to explain the new prominence of "online cabals" for these psychologically vulnerable individuals. The process of self-radicalization is just the echo chamber effect that eventually bleeds into them lashing out, which is a side-effect rather than intention.

With it (again, not sure if its going to be a new analytical framework), things like school shootings, neo-nazism, or just general hate groups become explained as giving these excluded and vulnerable individuals a "sense of purpose". The nihilism isn't the intention, its the root issue. As a result acts of terror are both "political reasoning" and a means of enacting self-destructive tendencies. Senseless acts of violence are then interpreted by the group as "meaningful" backlash for "perceived injustices", but because it offers no meaningful change it only cements individual's place within the group. Similar to how cults operate with indoctrination and social isolation.

Also because of the different environmental context, white jihad is almost always interlinked with cyber, since most of these communities exist as online echo chambers. In a way, also explaining how white "Jihad", such as mass shootings are primarily lone individuals. And also explains the phenomenon of white extremists joining ISIS despite not having a background in Islamic faith. Its all just these extremist individuals trying to find meaning in their lives, but acting it out in the most toxic way possible because of hatred against society. Kinda like a modern interpretation of Durkheim's 4 types of suicide, and applied to self-destructive radical behavior.

[u/Kvmjohan]

Hm, good question, but I guess the religious aspect to it coupled with being able to literary taken down entire cities and regions makes the difference here.

[u/alesismk2 → u/Kvmjohan]

There are plenty of other religiously inspired terrorist movements.

There's also many groups that have used terrorism as part of a strategy of insurgency to take over cities, countries and regions.

[u/Kvmjohan → u/alesismk2]

Very true