To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

As Muslim communities celebrated Eid al Fitr last weekend, mosques across the globe welcomed worshippers for the celebration–except at Iraq’s Great Mosque of al-Nuri, a thousand-year-old structure recently reduced to rubble in the battle for Mosul.

Islamic State’s Amaq news agency has claimed the mosque was destroyed by a U.S. airstrike, but both U.S. forces and the Iraqi army have stated that ISIS militants destroyed the mosque as they retreated from Mosul. Video evidence shows the blast that toppled the building exploding from within multiple levels of the minaret rather than from the impact of an airstrike.

The al-Nuri Mosque has joined the long list of monuments and historic sites destroyed in the Middle East over the past twenty years. Many cultural heritage sites in the Middle East have been systematically erased, from the Buddha statues of Bamiyan destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan to the dozens of temples and historic cities that have been decimated by ISIS over the past three years. The justification for this destruction is often that the ancient sites celebrate idolatry or polytheism but sometimes, as in the case of the al-Nuri Mosque, the intentional destruction of the site is not motivated by a higher cause–a site that represent generations of tradition and history is simply seen as expendable. Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has claimed that blowing up the al-Nuri Mosque was a declaration of defeat and a clear sign that ISIS is losing the battle for control of the city–but the destruction of the mosque is still a heavy blow to Mosul, as Iraqi military leaders had privately hoped to liberate the mosque and celebrate Eid al Fitr within its hallowed halls.

The leveling of historic sites is often written off as “collateral damage” but an important International Criminal Court case in 2016 could change that. An Islamic militant who destroyed the shrines of Timbuktu was sentenced to nine years in prison after the ICC labeled cultural destruction a war crime. ISIS militants who are captured would of course be put on trial for far more violent and severe crimes than cultural destruction but consider that the International Committee of the Red Cross’ definition of war crimes does include “making buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes or historic monuments the object of attack, provided they are not military objectives.”

The destruction of the al-Nuri Mosque and sites like it do impact the cultural legacy of a nation and should be treated as serious crimes. During the bombings of World War II, cultural sites were burnt to the ground every night but we are now in a different era of warfare and should set different standards. Mosul’s air, water, and land have been polluted and torn apart by the battle for the city but Iraqi forces will seek to rebuild once they have expelled ISIS forces. A structure like a large mosque is important for the rebuilding process on a logistical level as it would serve as an ideal place to set up shelters, food and clothing distribution and a headquarters for relief efforts–but we must also think beyond the practical. The al-Nuri Mosque was a symbol of a shared identity and heritage that defined Mosul–and the militants who destroyed it are committing a form of cultural genocide.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Should We View the Destruction of the al-Nuri Mosque as a War Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Britain Raises Threat Level, Anticipates More Attacks

British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level in the country to its highest level yesterday evening, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester on Monday night. In a speech late last night, May declared that the government anticipates more attacks. She said the move to raise the threat level was based on “not only that an attack remains highly likely, but that a further attack may be imminent.” The heightened threat level, set to the maximum for the first time in 10 years, means as many as 5,000 troops could be soon patrolling the streets. Military personnel will assist police officers in “guarding duties at key fixed locations.”

UK prime minister says threat level has been raised from “severe to critical”; another attack “may be imminent.” https://t.co/A8P88DB3nl pic.twitter.com/0TgcSxkVzm

— ABC News (@ABC) May 24, 2017

May also said that the police are investigating whether the bomber, Salman Abedi, was acting alone. “The work undertaken throughout the day has revealed that it is a possibility that we cannot ignore, that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack,” she said. Some of the victims have now been identified, and one of them was only eight years old.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a meeting last week with top Russian officials, President Donald Trump discussed classified information regarding an Islamic State threat, according to current and former U.S. officials. The revelations sparked outrage in Washington, even among high-ranking Republicans, and raised international questions about whether the U.S. under Trump is a reliable intelligence-sharing partner.

According to the Washington Post report, Trump shared an ISIS plot involving commercial aircraft and laptop computers with the Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The president also reportedly shared the name of a Syrian city in which the intel was collected by an unnamed ally in the Middle East. White House officials denied the report, and said Trump did not disclose how the classified intelligence was gathered, or by which Middle Eastern ally.

But early Tuesday morning, Trump took to Twitter to confirm that he did indeed share intel with the Russians concerning an ISIS plot, for “humanitarian reasons.” The president tweeted:

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

Still, the main concern is that Russia, which is backing Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, could glean how and from whom the U.S. receives its intelligence in regard to the fight against ISIS. A senior European intelligence official, speaking anonymously, told the Associated Press on Tuesday morning that if the Post’s report was accurate, his country, which the official did not want to be named, could stop sharing intelligence with the U.S.

Top Republicans were dismayed by the report that the Trump Administration was embroiled in yet another controversy, less than a week after Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey. “The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “To compromise a source is something that you just don’t do, and that’s why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close as to prevent that from happening.”

Sen. John McCain, perhaps the most vocal Republican critic of Trump, called the intelligence sharing “deeply disturbing.” He continued, in a statement on Tuesday: “Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future.” Top Senate Democrats also responded with concern:

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians. https://t.co/CRiSC024F7

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) May 15, 2017

Before the Post story was published on Monday, the White House denied its claims. For its part, the Kremlin derided the report as “complete nonsense.” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the sources and methods of the intelligence gathering was not discussed in the meeting, “and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” In a press conference on Tuesday, McMaster indicated that Trump was unaware the information he shared with the Russian officials was classified, and that the discussion that took place was “wholly appropriate.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Confirms He Shared Classified Intel with Russian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles late Thursday night, marking its first direct strike against the Syrian regime in the country’s six-year civil war. Authorizing the strike from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, on the first day of a two-day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to signal the U.S.’s willingness to escalate its role in the conflict. He said it was a response to the chemical attack on Tuesday, which killed up to 100 civilians, and was believed to be carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” The strikes, which commenced at 8:40 p.m. EST and lasted three to four minutes, launched from two U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

With the strike, Trump signaled to Syria, its allies Russia and Iran, and the rest of the world that the U.S. is changing its calculus in a region where it has long resisted direct action. Former President Barack Obama–whose “weakness and irresolution” was to blame for Tuesday’s chemical attack, the new administration said–was reluctant to directly strike the Syrian regime, afraid that deposing Assad would only make things worse.

As a result of Obama’s failure to stop Assad, Trump said on Thursday, “the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” According to U.S. officials, in a meeting on Wednesday with military advisers, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Trump was presented with three options in responding to the chemical attack. He chose the “one-off” missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield, which advisers describe as the tamest option.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said an early review indicated the strike “severely damages or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment…reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.” Trump’s decisiveness was welcome by a host of international and domestic actors–from Israel and Syrian activist groups to a bipartisan cohort of senators and some former Obama officials.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint-statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also applauded the decision to strike. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. Others said his decision was rushed and, if unaccompanied by a long-term vision, potentially dangerous and ineffectual. 

By directly striking Assad, Trump could jeopardize any further cooperation with Russia in fighting Islamic State, which has a substantive–yet shrinking–footprint in the country. A Russian spokesman said the strike “deals a significant blow” to U.S.-Russia relations, and “creates a serious obstacle” to fighting terrorism. Though its stated goal in joining the fight in Syria a few years ago was to combat terrorism, Russia has played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime. Russia, the Pentagon said, was notified of the strike beforehand; no Russians were killed in the attack.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to meet with Russian officials next week in Moscow. U.S. officials said Thursday’s strike was meant to provide leverage in the talks, and to show the Russians they can no longer act with impunity in Syria. “This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said. “The more we fail to respond to the use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Missile Strike in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

On October 17, Iraqi Security forces, with the help of the Kurdish Peshmerga, irregular Iraqi forces, U.S. special forces, and American air power, began their assault on ISIS with the hope of retaking Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul. Not only is Mosul one of the largest and most economically important cities in Iraq, it also serves as a symbol of ISIS’s rise in the country as well as the Iraqi government’s inability to secure its land. The assault promises to be a long campaign, but if successful, could signal the impending end of ISIS in Iraq.

Read on to find out more about the campaign to retake Mosul, its significance in the fight against ISIS, and what it would mean for Iraq to regain the city.

History and Significance of Mosul

The city of Mosul emerged on the former site of Nineveh, an Assyrian fortress. The city’s rise began with it serving as an important link between Syria, Anatolia, and Persia. By the 8th century, it became the major city in Northern Mesopotamia, which is modern-day Iraq. Mosul reached its height in the 12th century under the Zangid Dynasty when it was a hotbed for metal work and miniature paintings. It was subsequently destroyed by Mongolian conquerors in the 13th century.

Mosul was slowly rebuilt and later ruled by the Ottoman Turks from the 16th to the 20th centuries. The British conquered the city during World War I and occupied the surrounding area for several years. It was later incorporated into Iraq. In the Lausanne Treaty negotiations  following the war, Mosul proved to be a contentious issue between the British and Turkish governments. The issue was eventually resolved by the League of Nations, which concluded that the city should be a part of Iraq, but the dispute shaped the way Turkey views the city today.

Prior to ISIS’s rise, Mosul was the capital of Iraq’s Northwestern Province. It had a population of approximately 2 million people before the invasion in 2014. Originally, Mosul was situated on the western bank of the Tigris River, however, it expanded across the river and now occupies parts of the eastern bank as well. In addition to being a regional capital, Mosul is also the commercial center of Northern Iraq. Not only is it home to several major industries and oil production, it also serves as an agricultural marketplace.

Mosul Under Saddam Hussein and the Iraq War

Mosul has also been the site of significant ethnic strife. Traditionally, Mosul was a major center for ethnic Kurds, however, in the 1970s Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party initiated a resettlement plan that moved a large number of Arabs into the area to displace them. Hussein’s plan was successful, eventually leading to a large Arab majority in the city. The new Arab majority responded favorably to Hussein and eventually there were as many as 300,000 Baath Party members in Mosul. Along with displacing the Kurds as a result of his Arabization policy, he also waged a war against them in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which left another 100,000 Kurds dead.

During the initial occupation of Mosul in 2003, U.S. forces managed to establish order in the city. However, when the American force was reduced, ethnic tensions spilled over with Kurds controlling one half of the city and Arabs the other. The strife broke out as Kurds tried to reclaim what they viewed as stolen property. This led to an insurgency of former regime members culminating in the Battle for Mosul in 2004. A coalition of American and Kurdish forces managed to push back the insurgents, at which point the battle lines returned to their status quo on the east and west halves of the city.

This was not the end of the insurgency, however, as the resistance shifted from former Baath members to al-Qaeda in Iraq. In early 2008, following the U.S. surge a year earlier, another round of fighting broke out between American and insurgent forces. The city was once again cleared of insurgents and greater efforts were then put in place to engage the community and avoid another conflict.

Mosul under ISIS

Capturing Mosul was key to ISIS’s rise in the region. ISIS derives much of its income from oil revenues and taxes.  Mosul offered both as it is close to key oil fields and has a massive population that could be taxed. Its location was also strategically important in allowing ISIS fighters to freely move about. Lastly, by conquering the ethnically and religiously diverse city, ISIS could claim the superiority of its own ideology.

ISIS’s takeover of Mosul came swiftly, marking a significant embarrassment for the Iraqi government and military. In June of 2014, ISIS fighters headed toward Mosul with the hope of occupying certain parts of the city for a short period of time to make a statement. But instead of just making a statement, ISIS was able to take the entire city and most of the surrounding region. The Iraqi security forces left to guard the city were undermanned and outgunned, yet another result of the government infighting that had plagued the nation. In their retreat, Iraqi forces also left behind weapons and other supplies that only strengthened ISIS’s capabilities.

Life under ISIS has been harsh for the city’s residents. While it was tolerable to some at first, especially those who supported the group, conditions have deteriorated, particularly after coalition bombings increased. ISIS became increasingly unable or unwilling to provide basic services such as electricity, fresh water, sanitation, and adequate food. Additionally, ISIS quickly embarked on a city-wide crackdown, forcing residents to abide by its strict religious and moral codes or receive punishment or even death. The city has slowly morphed into a prison-like atmosphere as the group has refused to let anyone leave.

The video below looks at the importance of Mosul to the Islamic State and why it is important for Iraqi forces to gain control of the city.

Taking back Mosul

The fight to take back Mosul is expected to be especially grueling and difficult. One of the Peshmerga generals predicted it may take up to two months to actually retake the city. That long timeline might surprise outside observers who look at the lopsided number of coalition forces and see a clear advantage–coalition forces have nearly 100,000 troops while estimates suggest there are at most 7,000 ISIS troops in Mosul. The matchup is even more advantageous for coalition forces because they will have significant air support while ISIS does not.

However, the assault on Mosul has not been a secret, although the exact dates have not been clear until recently. This lead up has given ISIS ample time to set up booby traps, lay IEDs, and develop defensive structures like tunnel networks. The group is also employing other familiar deadly weapons such as suicide bombers. Some even believe ISIS has mustard gas, an extremely harmful chemical agent, which it may unleash as a last resort. The group is unlikely to relinquish the position without a fierce fight, as it is symbolic of ISIS’s strength in Iraq. After all, Mosul is where the caliphate was originally declared. Losing Mosul would then be a significant blow for ISIS in Iraq.

The following video looks at the effort to take back Mosul:

Aftermath of the Battle for Mosul

What exactly happens for those involved once Mosul is liberated? The answer starts with the civilians on the ground; the United Nations, the Iraqi government, and the United States have already announced plans for humanitarian aid that will be desperately needed once ISIS has been ousted from the city. This includes basic survival goods that may need to be supplied for up to 12 months.

Building off of that, many of the people who are likely to flee the fighting are Sunnis. One of the major issues within the government, and one that helped sow the seeds for ISIS’s rise, was discrimination against Sunnis by the current and former Iraqi governments. The people in charge will have to figure out how to create a more inclusive country, instead of continuing to seek to redress old wrongs. The other side of that same concern is the role of the Kurds.

The Kurds make up a significant part of the force attempting to retake Mosul, however, there is an agreement in place stopping them from entering the city’s center in order to avoid political tensions. The Kurds’ power has only grown and solidified over the last two years as they have played a pivotal role in the fight to defeat ISIS, while the official Iraqi government has basically just weathered the storm. If ISIS is defeated in Mosul as many anticipate, in the wake of the victory the Kurds may finally feel strong enough to declare an independent state of their own in the north.

Lastly, it is important to look at the battle’s significance for ISIS itself. What would losing its Northern Iraq stronghold mean to the group? It will likely mean the end of the ISIS-proclaimed caliphate in Iraq and Syria, where ISIS is also losing territory. However, it does not mean the end of the group and certainly not the end of ISIS-style extremism. ISIS still has bases in other countries with weak governments and where Sunni minorities are ostracized, such as Libya and Yemen. As long as those conditions exist, ISIS is likely to thrive. And even if it is not ISIS, another group will likely emerge to replace it, much like how Al Qaeda in Iraq led to ISIS in the first place. The main issue then is the social, economic, and political exclusion of certain groups. These conditions have often been exaggerated by Iran and Saudi Arabia’s battle for the Middle East, which must be addressed to prevent the influence of terrorist groups in the region.

Conclusion

Even if the battle for Mosul is a success, will it be viewed as a success for everyone? The Kurds certainly look to gain with the elimination of their main rival in the North. The fall of ISIS in Mosul, combined with other gains that the Kurds have made since ISIS emerged, has them in a position to potentially seek a state of their own.

However, an independent Kurdish state may not be particularly appealing to the Sunni Arabs in Mosul, who have long battled Kurds for control of the city and have felt marginalized by the Shia-dominated government in Baghda. Speaking of the Iraqi government, will Iraqi citizens trust a fractious government to protect them going forward when it just let them fall under the control of an extremist group?

Will this also be the end of extremist groups in the region or will simmering Sunni discontent lay the groundwork for another group or some form of ISIS resurgence? Only time can answer these questions, but even if the battle for Mosul is successful, it may not be the last one in the near future.

Resources

Institute for the Study of War: The Fight for Mosul

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mosul

Business Insider: One Paragraph Explains how ISIS Managed to Seize Iraq’s Second-Largest City

CNN: Mosul offensive: Territory Recaptured from ISIS

The Guardian: Life Under ISIS in Raqqa and Mosul: ‘We’re Living in a Giant Prison’

Reuters: As Mosul Fight Approaches, Worries About the Day After

Newsweek: The Battle Against ISIS in Mosul Could Lead to an Independent Iraqi Kurdistan

CNN: What happens after ISIS loses Mosul?

Human Rights Watch: Claims in Conflict Reversing Ethnic Cleansing in Northern Iraq

ARA News: Peshmerga Official says Kurds Won’t Enter Mosul City

Rudaw: The importance of Mosul for ISIS

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle for Mosul: The Fight for ISIS’s Stronghold in Iraq appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in over two years, Iraqi army units have entered the outskirts of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and the Islamic State’s final staging ground in the country. According to Major General Sami al-Aridi of the Iraqi special forces, his troops got as far as the neighborhoods of Gogjali and Karama on Tuesday, pushing through fierce Islamic State (ISIS) resistance to retake a state television building, and breach the city limits. The closest unit to the city center is still six miles out.

“Daesh is fighting back and have set up concrete blast walls to block off the Karama neighborhood and our troops’ advance,” al-Aridi said, referring to the Arabic name for ISIS, Daesh. The push into Gogjali and Karama began with Iraqi troops firing artillery, tank and machine gun fire toward ISIS positions, supported by airstrikes from a U.S.-led coalition. ISIS responded with firing guided antitank missiles, and used small arms to resist the advancing Iraqi troops.

BBC Arabic team were caught in the crossfire between #IS and #Iraqi special forces near #Mosul pic.twitter.com/2W8xxBs2Yb

— Feras Kilani (@FerasKilaniBBC) November 1, 2016

An officer with Iraq’s Counter-Terrorism Force told CNN that ISIS also planted scores of mines and improvised explosive devices, or IEDs along the route to Gogjali. The officer also said as many as 20,000 civilians were trapped in Gogjali, many of whom ISIS is using as human shields. As the fight contracts into the denser areas of Mosul, fighting is expected to move into a house-to-house, street-by-street operation, and could take weeks, perhaps months, to liberate the city from ISIS control.

In a televised news conference with Iraqi forces in Qayara, a city south of Mosul, Col. John Dorrian, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, spoke of the dwindling options for ISIS. “If Daesh stand and fight, they’re going to be killed. There’s no question about that. If they run, they will either be captured or killed. They are not going to be allowed to escape,” he said.

The operation to retake Mosul from ISIS began two weeks ago. After Iraqi troops abandoned the city over two years ago, fleeing from an emboldened and emerging ISIS, the city was governed under the extreme jihadist group. The U.S. military, which is supporting the effort with special ops forces on the ground and airstrikes from the sky, estimated 4,500 to 7,500 ISIS fighters remain in and around the city. The liberating forces–led by Iraqi troops, and bolstered by Kurdish fighters, Shiite and Sunni groups–is approximately 40,000 strong.

Iraqi forces continue to advance into Mosul, signaling dangerous new stage of urban combat against Islamic State https://t.co/lwZVL6gdyw pic.twitter.com/w1jcrhgXMe

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) November 1, 2016

According to the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, the number of casualties in the country is at its highest since June 2014: “A total of 1,792 Iraqis were killed and another 1,358 were injured in acts of terrorism, violence and armed conflict in Iraq in October 2016,” the group’s latest report said. In September, 1,003 people were killed, and 1,159 were wounded.

As troops fighting for his government inch toward Mosul, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi expressed confidence that the effort will prove successful. “There is no way to escape, either surrender or die,” he told the state-run Iraqiya TV.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Operation Mosul: Iraqi Troops Enter City Limits for the First Time in Two Years appeared first on Law Street.

Iraqi forces, aligned with local tribal units, Kurdish peshmerga fighters, and U.S. Special Operations troops began the operation to wrest the city of Mosul from the claws of the Islamic State this week. As the nearly 100,000-strong coalition crept closer to the city proper on Wednesday, villages on its fringe are being liberated, fierce battles are being fought, and some citizens are fleeing their homes for neighboring Syria.

However, ISIS is not ceding control of the outlying villages without a fight. In Qaraqosh, a Christian village 30 kilometers east of Mosul, ISIS militants and an Iraqi-led force exchanged heavy gunfire, a general involved in the fight told CNN. He said ISIS forces are concentrated in the center of the village, as parts of the fringes have been liberated, while airstrikes rain down to support the Iraqi-led troops. Reuters reported that villages just outside of the city are booby trapped with tunnels and bombs.

In June 2014, Iraqi forces fled Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city with a population upwards of two million, ceding control of the city to ISIS. The jihadist group has ruled the city under a strict Islamic code ever since. Women are forced to be covered in public, smoking and drinking alcohol is prohibited, and minor offenses could result in a beheading. The offensive, announced by Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi early Monday morning, is expected to take months.

Once Mosul is free from ISIS control, it’s unclear how power will transition and to whom exactly it will transition to. Many of the city’s residents are Sunni Muslims, while the bulk of the Iraqi government are Shia. Years of sectarian tensions between Sunni citizens and Shia leaders has led to deep mistrust. In addition, the Iraqi government is concerned that the Kurds, who are helping them in the fight against ISIS, might seek to control the city themselves after ISIS is forced out.

“We would have loved to have a political plan along with a military plan, how to manage Mosul, how to administer Mosul, because Mosul has a variety of religions, with ethnicities,” Iraqi Kurdish President Massoud Barzani told CNN. Acknowledging a political plan “would have taken a longer time,” Barzani said that the Peshmerga and Iraqi forces are looking for a “good solution” for Mosul.

The good news is that Mosul is the last large city under ISIS control in Iraq, and retaking it could deliver a knockout blow to the group’s operations in Iraq and beyond.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is Happening In Mosul? appeared first on Law Street.

Events in Yemen over the past week have drawn America deeper into the country’s two-year conflict than it has ever been in the past. And now, in an attempt to lessen the potential for greater involvement, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will work to negotiate a 72-hour ceasefire between the warring parties, in order to “create some kind of climate where a political dialogue or a dialogue can begin again,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner said on Friday.

“We need to de-escalate obviously given the events of the past week and that is where the priority is right now,” Toner said.

Since last Saturday, the conflict has been a ping-pong match of missile strikes and diplomatic posturing. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia, the foremost backer of the Yemen government, bombed a funeral service, killing over 140 people. The U.S., which supports the Saudis in the conflict, responded by announcing a review in its commitment to Saudi Arabia’s goals regarding Yemen. Then, Houthi rebels, one of the main groups opposing the Yemen government, fired missiles at U.S. ships, failing to hit any targets. In retaliation, the U.S. launched strikes toward Houthi-held territory in the western tip of the country, destroying three radar installations that helped the rebels coordinate strikes of their own. 

Yemen, like the reality in nearby Syria, is a tangled web of alliances, proxy fighting forces, and lone wolf jihadist groups, all threatening to tear the Gulf nation apart. Two years ago, groups loyal to a former president backed the Houthi tribe and sacked the capital city of Saana, forcing the government to flee. Iran, a sworn enemy to Saudi Arabia, backs those groups, while Saudi Arabia, bolstered by the U.S., backs the exiled government forces. Amid these actors are Islamic State cells and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Kerry has spoken with a host of Saudi, Emirate, and other Gulf nations’ diplomats and top government officials to coordinate and discuss a possible cessation of hostilities. He also spoke with Boris Johnson, the U.K. Foreign Minister. Kerry is no stranger to ceasefires. He helped broker one with Russia over Syria a few weeks ago, which barely lasted a week before the country devolved into some of the worst violence in its nearly six-year civil war. We’ll have to see if any progress can be made in Yemen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With Yemen Hurtling Toward Chaos, John Kerry Seeks Ceasefire appeared first on Law Street.

When a 22-year-old Syrian man at a train station in Leipzig, Germany posted a message on a social media site asking for a place to crash, two fellow Syrian refugees scooped him up and brought him to a third friend’s apartment. The man, Jaber Albakr, was on the lam after police raided his apartment, suspecting him of plotting a terrorist attack.

As Albakr slept on Sunday night, the three Syrian friends, realizing that he was the fugitive who had evaded the police, tied him up with electrical cords, and alerted the authorities. They arrested him Monday morning, and now, the three Syrians who tied him up are being hailed as “heroes.”

Anti-migrant sentiment has gripped Germany like it has the rest of Europe. Political groups running on nationalist, insular, platforms have sprung up from London to Leipzig. But on Tuesday, after three Syrian asylum seekers thwarted a fellow Syrian immigrant (who was granted asylum as one of the 890,000 migrants allowed into Germany last year), it was those least trusted by some Germans who perhaps saved the lives of many.

Leipzig is the largest city in the eastern state of Saxony, the base of a prominent anti-immigrant group, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA). Messages from groups like PEGIDA were overshadowed on Tuesday by the heroism of Syrian refugees. Leipzig Mayor Burkhard Jung called what the Syrians did a “very courageous act.” In the German newspaper Bild, one of the Syrian saviors voiced his appreciation for Germany: “I am so grateful to Germany for taking us in. We could not allow him to do something to Germans.”

The identities of the Syrian friends have not been released by authorities. Investigators in the case said Albakr seemed to be targeting a Berlin airport. They found over three pounds of explosives in his home, as well as evidence of ties to the Islamic State.

Franz Josef Wagner, a columnist for Bild, heralded the Syrians’ actions in an op-ed published on Tuesday. He began his piece with “Dear Heroes” and noted that they may come from a different culture, “But beyond language and tradition, you know what good and bad are. That makes you friends.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Syrian Refugees Deemed ‘Heroes’ After Thwarting Leipzig Terror Suspect appeared first on Law Street.

The media output and amount of propaganda coming from the terror group ISIS has dropped dramatically as the group has experienced increasing military pressure, according to a new study. In August of last year, which was the peak of ISIS’s media activity, the group released 700 media items from official sources in Syria and other countries. This past August, it only published or released 200 items.

The propaganda by ISIS has from the beginning focused on how the group is creating a functioning new society with thriving businesses and happy citizens–a new caliphate, meaning a unified Muslim country. Foreign Muslims were “invited” to move to Syria and live in a peaceful, thriving Muslim community, specifically in Raqqua. The propaganda material often featured pictures of happy children and a life of prosperity. But as the fighters face defeats and mounting pressure, Aleppo is in ruins, and some high profile leaders have been killed, that image becomes harder and harder to uphold.

Daniel Milton from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who wrote the new report, told the New York Times:

It’s not just the numeric decline. The caliphate was their big selling point. Now there’s an inability to say we’re doing the things that make us a state. And that was behind their broad appeal.

Very interesting piece on falling ISIS media output. Sobering last question on traumatised youth growing up in Raqqa https://t.co/UWnS8iboKX

— Julian Sayarer (@Julian_Sayarer) October 11, 2016

Another figure that illustrates the Islamic State’s shrinking influence is how many foreign fighters join the cause. According to the Pentagon the number of fighters going to Syria and Iraq from other countries has shrunk from about 2,000 a month a year ago to only 200.

Milton believes the decreased media output is due to the military actions against ISIS. The fact is that the “caliphate” is not an organized state. It is a group of militants trying to fight for a cause, but this means that the people publishing media content are also soldiers. When they fight, no one is there to put out media content, and when they get killed, the army shrinks even more. Also many media outlets, like Twitter, have made an effort to block radical Islamic accounts.

But even though the new information points to decreased power when it comes to territory as well as propaganda, experts warn that the ideology and mentality of the Islamic state will keep attracting lone terrorists for a long time. There is also the risk that Islamic fighters will return to their real home countries in the West, and carry out terror attacks like the ones seen in France. And, lastly, there is the problem of how to take care of the kids that have grown up during the war and been fed with propaganda for their whole lives.

“How do you deal with all the children who have had these experiences and who have been exposed to this worldview? This is going to be a long-term problem,” said Milton.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Has ISIS Propaganda Production Decreased? appeared first on Law Street.

Comments from diplomats on Thursday, as well as developments on the ground in Aleppo, Syria signal an increasing divide between the U.S. and Russia, just one week after a ceasefire brokered by the two powers fell through. Responding to remarks made by State Department spokesman John Kirby on Wednesday, a Russian diplomat and military general echoed suspicions that the U.S. is supporting an “international terrorist alliance.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. is “on the verge of suspending the discussion” of cooperation with Russia in Syria.

Recent developments in Aleppo, which is in a bloody tug-of-war between rebels and the government, are bleak as well: in its intensifying campaign to retake rebel-held areas in the city’s eastern sphere, government airstrikes have killed hundreds over the past week, and took out two major hospitals on Wednesday. Access to medical supplies–and food–is all but blocked, and the city has only 30 doctors left.

The relationship between Moscow and Washington is as bad as it has been since Russia joined the fight, in support of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, nearly one year ago. On Wednesday, Kirby said if U.S. and Russia stop cooperating in Syria, extremist groups will carry out “attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags.”

This, two Kremlin representatives said, proved the U.S. supports “terrorists.”

“We can’t assess those statements as anything else but a call, a directive for action,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. A spokesman of Russia’s Defense Ministry said Kirby’s comments were “the most frank confession by the U.S. side so far that the whole ‘opposition’ ostensibly fighting a ‘civil war’ in Syria is a U.S.-controlled international terrorist alliance.”

Because of the dwindling possibility of a cooperative strategy with Russia in combating the Islamic State in Syria, an enemy to all sides, U.S. officials are considering alternative responses to Assad’s barrage in Aleppo. Military options are on the table, a U.S. official privy to the discussions told Reuters.

But even with the frayed relationship between the U.S. and Russia, a spokesman of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin is still open to co-operate with the U.S. He also blamed the U.S. for the moderate rebel groups who failed to comply with the ceasefire by distancing themselves from jihadist groups.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As the Battle for Aleppo Rages, Trust Between U.S. and Russia Reaches New Low appeared first on Law Street.

Rudy Giuliani set Twitter aflame on Monday when, speaking at a Donald Trump event in Ohio, he said: “Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States.” Attempting to contrast terrorism in America under Obama and Bush, Giuliani instead left people confused and angry–obviously, the famed 9/11 attacks happened before Obama’s presidency, during Bush’s time in office.

But let’s assume Giuliani did not mean exactly what he said. Not only was he the mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11, but he also spent a good portion of his speech on Monday discussing 9/11. It’s fairly obvious he didn’t simply forget about that gruesome day. So then, in light of Giuliani’s remarks, we decided to take a look at how terrorism has changed from the Bush years to the Obama years. Have there been more or fewer attacks? More fatalities? Injuries? Apart from omitting 9/11, was Giuliani really that far off the mark?

Rudy Giuliani is under fire for his terror comments https://t.co/bhPwVFWWTl https://t.co/FVi8coPezm

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 16, 2016

Number of Attacks

First of all, let’s define terrorism. The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) compiles statistical information regarding global terrorist attacks since 1970. GTD defines a terrorist attack as “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non‐state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.”

According to the database, from 2001 to 2008, when Bush held the White House, there were 168 total terrorist attacks in the United States. From 2009 to 2015 (the database does not include data for 2016), under Obama, there were 137 total terrorist attacks. Of course, that figure does not include 2016 attacks, so it’s unclear if by the end of 2016 the number of attacks under Obama will be higher than those that took place under Bush.

Severity of Attacks

Four attacks happened on September 11, 2001 that resulted in more fatalities and injuries than all other terrorist attacks in U.S. history combined: the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City were taken down by hijacked airplanes, killing 2,764 people and injuring scores more; another hijacked airplane hit the Pentagon, killing 189 and injuring 106; a fourth airplane was taken down in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing all 44 passengers onboard. All of this happened under President Bush, a point Giuliani did not mention when he said “we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States” before Obama.

Due to the 9/11 attacks, the total number of casualties and injuries under Bush are much, much higher than those under Obama and every other U.S. president combined. According to GTD, 37 of the 137 terrorist attacks during Obama’s presidency resulted in at least one death, with 114 fatalities overall. Thirty-three of the 137 attacks resulted in at least one injury, with 546 people injured overall. Under Bush, 13 of the 168 attacks resulted in at least one death (including the four 9/11 attacks), and 17 of 168 attacks resulted in at least one injury.

So to recap: fatal terrorist attacks have been more frequent under Obama than Bush, but the 9/11 attacks resulted in heavy casualties, by far the most in U.S. history, under Bush’s or anyone else’s administration.

Motivation Behind Attacks

With the spread of the Islamic State and its ideology, attacks inspired by “radical Islam” dominate our definition of what a terrorist attack means. Giuliani–and Trump, who gave a speech on foreign policy following Giuliani’s remarks–mentioned “radical Islamic terrorism” time and time again. But even considering Islamic-inspired attacks other than 9/11–which was masterminded and executed by al-Qaeda operatives–Giuliani’s statement is not exactly accurate, though it is close.

The most striking example of “radical Islamic terrorism” under Bush, other than 9/11, came in March 2006, when a man drove his SUV through the University of North Carolina’s Chapel Hill campus. There were no casualties, but nine people were injured. In a letter written by attacker Mohammed Taheri-Azar, he stated his motive as avenging the deaths of Muslims around the world. He listed a 9/11 hijacker as one of his heroes. Another prominent attack motivated by radical Islam came in December 2001, when Richard Reid, or the “shoe bomber” boarded a plane in Miami with explosives in his shoe. The bomb failed to detonate, so nobody was hurt.

this fire truck in nyc must have melted itself, according to rudy giuliani pic.twitter.com/2BZrG84k9Z

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) August 15, 2016

By contrast, when Obama took office in 2009, the United States was entrenched in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. His withdrawal from those wars, coupled with the Arab Spring protests that deposed strongmen in Egypt and Tunisia, led to power vacuums in many corners of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen are currently in turmoil, overrun with extremist groups: ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabaab, and others. Since 2014, ISIS has been the  number one exporter of worldwide terror. Its soldiers have directly attacked cities in Europe–including Nice and Paris in France; Brussels, Belgium; and four cities in Germany a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens inspired by ISIS’s radical ideology have hit cities across America–Orlando, Florida; San Bernardino, California; the Fort Hood military post in Killeen, Texas.

All told, the context with which Obama’s administration has operated in is vastly different than the period between 2001 and 2008 when Bush was in the White House. The threats Bush faced and those Obama currently faces are vastly different. When Giuliani said “under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States,” on Monday, he was wrong. Not just because he neglected to include 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history by far. But also because there were other terrorist attacks under Bush’s watch, even a few that were carried out under a “radical Islamic” ideology. However, terrorist acts committed under the auspices of Islamic radicalism are on the rise and are certainly more prevalent in the Obama years.

2015 and 2016 were outliers in the last three to four decades in terrorism-caused deaths in America and elsewhere in the West. According to a New York Times analysis of GTD data since 1970, terrorism in the West was worse in the 1970s and 80s than it is today, though it is on the rise. Terrorism remains a greater source of deaths in the Middle East and Africa, however, though that number has been decreasing in recent years.

Rudy Giuliani, mayor of NYC during 9/11, said there were no successful terror attacks before Obama got in office.

Son, he is out his mind.

— brandon jenkins (@Jersey_Jinx) August 16, 2016

And in an interview with the New York Daily News on Tuesday, Giuliani blamed his omission of 9/11 on “abbreviated language.” He vowed to continue his shorthand way, saying, “will I again say things in the future that can be taken out of context or misinterpreted? Of course I will.” He added, “I didn’t forget 9/11. I hardly would. I almost died in it.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fact-checking Rudy Giuliani: U.S. Terrorism Under Obama and Bush appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State is ”inevitably going to be defeated,” said President Obama at a press conference on Thursday. The President met with reporters after a briefing at the Pentagon from his national security team on the fight against ISIS.

He said that even though ISIS will certainly be defeated, the networks from the terrorist group will probably keep trying to commit acts of terrorism:

As we’ve seen, it is still very difficult to detect and prevent lone actors or small cells of terrorists who are determined to kill the innocent and are willing to die. And that’s why… we’re going to keep going after ISIL aggressively across every front of this campaign.

Although the press was supposed to focus on the war against terrorism, a lot of the questions ended up being about the Trump situation. But after a few, the President had had enough.

I would ask all of you to just make your own judgment. I’ve made this point already multiple times. Just listen to what Mr. Trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad.

See Obama’s speech here.

Today @POTUS convened his @NSC44 at the Pentagon for a regular meeting on efforts to degrade & destroy ISIL.https://t.co/XhNlSMdNfj

— WH National Security (@NSC44) August 4, 2016

Also on Thursday, the Egyptian army confirmed that it killed an important ISIS-allied leader, Abu Duaa al-Ansari. In total 45 terrorists were killed and weapon and ammunition supplies destroyed in the airstrikes by the army in the Sinai Peninsula.

Al-Ansari was the head of the group Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which prospered in the chaos after the Government of Egyptian President Mubarak was overthrown in 2011. The group entered an alliance with ISIS in 2014 and was responsible for bombing a gas pipeline between Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the crash of Russian flight 9268 in 2015.

Russia got a reprimand from Obama for its continued support of the Syrian government and attacks on opposing forces. But the U.S. will continue to attempt to cooperate with the nation to jointly bring down ISIS.

However, as Obama pointed out at the press conference, independents inspired by the Islamic State may very well keep attacking people in public spaces such as subways or parades to spread fear, which is why the U.S. must keep up the work of fighting against the terrorist group.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama: Islamic State Will Be Defeated, But Independent Attacks Still a Threat appeared first on Law Street.

Monday marked a new collaborative effort between the U.S. and Libya aimed at debilitating the Islamic State in its last stronghold in Libya, the port city of Sirte. Responding to requests from the U.N.-backed Libyan government, the U.S. began precise airstrikes against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, targets–namely tanks and other vehicles. Fayez Serraj, the head of Libya’s presidency council, the central government cobbled together and recognized by the U.N. last December, said ISIS experienced “major casualties” as a result of the U.S. effort. Monday’s strikes are the first by U.S. forces since February, and the third overall since ISIS planted its roots in the North African country in 2014.

A statement by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook postured the “precision airstrikes” as a supportive effort aimed at bolstering Libyan forces while erasing the lingering ISIS presence in Sirte, a Mediterranean port city that serves as the group’s operational hub in North Africa. “The U.S. stands with the international community in supporting the GNA as it strives to restore stability and security to Libya,” the statement read, citing the Libyan Government of National Accord, or GNA, which arose out of a power struggle that broke out in Libya in 2014. “These actions and those we have taken previously will help deny ISIL a safe haven in Libya from which it could attack the United States and our allies.”

While the exact number of ISIS fighters remaining in Libya is unknown, officials estimate that a 6,000 strong force as of just a few months ago is steadily dropping. A few hundred are thought to be left in Sirte, a city that an ISIS force of 1,500 once held and ruled under its strict interpretation of Islamic law. U.S. support will not be limited to airstrikes–intelligence and surveillance will also be provided, officials said–but will not extend to boots on the ground. “This is the time for the international community to live up to its promises to the Libyan people,” Serraj, who is effectively Libya’s prime minister, said.

Officials briefed on the details of the U.S. plan–approved by President Obama after recommendations from Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford–said the strikes will last for at least a few weeks, or as long as Libyan forces require assistance. ISIS has faced territorial losses over the past year, but its influence continues to terrify the globe, as its members or followers have killed scores of innocent people. The group’s terror does not discriminate between hemispheres, as targets in the east–Baghdad, Iraq and Bangladesh–and west–Nice, France and Orlando–have been hit in recent months.

Swaths of its territory has been retaken by government forces in Iraq in recent months, but Sirte remains one of ISIS’ last redoubts. In 2011, Libya was liberated from its dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, who was killed during the so-called Arab Spring, a protest movement that swept through the region. A power vacuum fractured the country into tribal and ethnic factions, allowing militant groups like ISIS to flourish. GNA, the U.N.-backed government formed in late 2015. Whatever ISIS’ precise number of soldiers left in Libya is, Dunford, one of the two men who recommended the airstrikes to Obama, said the group has “suffered significant casualties.” He added: “I don’t think there is any doubt that the Islamic State in Libya is weaker than it was some months ago.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With a Fresh Round of Airstrikes, U.S. Joins Fight Against ISIS in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

The past week in Germany has been rife with bloodshed and full of dread. At four public sites across the country starting last Monday, 10 people have been killed and scores more injured–some critically–in suicide bombings, stabbings, and in one instance, an ax-wielding teenager. On Sunday evening, in the most recent attack on German soil, a 27-year-old Syrian man blew himself up and injured 15 others at a fair in Ansbach, a town 90 miles north of Munich.

As information from the investigation into the attack trickled in on Monday morning, one troubling tidbit came to light: the man, identified by a neighbor as Mohammad Daleel, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, or ISIS, on a cell phone video shot just moments before he detonated his backpack full of explosives, according to Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann.

“I believe that after this video we cannot doubt that this attack was an Islamist terror attack,” Herrmann said. In the video, the suspect says Germans “won’t be able to sleep peacefully anymore,” while describing his impending attack as a “revenge act against Germans because they are standing in the way of Islam.”

In the early stages of the investigation into the attack–the week’s second to take place in the German state of Bavaria–it is unclear whether or not the man had directly communicated with ISIS, or if he had acted of his own accord, inspired by the ideology of the terrorist group. He is the second attacker in Germany this week to voice support for ISIS. The first came last Monday, when a 17-year-old Afghan asylum-seeker attacked people on a subway with an ax, injuring five. The attacker was the incident’s only fatality. 

The week’s attacks reignited the conversation in Germany over its refugee policy. In 2015, Germany absorbed nearly one million migrants, most of which were Muslims from war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan. As terrorist attacks have spread around the western world over the past year, far-right movements have gained traction, most of which run on the promise of stricter immigration policies. Three of the four attacks last week in Germany were carried out by asylum-seekers, and calls for less accommodating asylum practices are growing louder. Sunday’s suicide bomber sought asylum in Germany in 2014 but was denied due to his initial asylum request in Bulgaria, where he was to be deported to.

German officials involved in the investigation said the man had attempted suicide twice before and was in a psychiatric clinic at some point. His successful suicide and public attack was embraced by ISIS, who, through their media affiliate Amaq referred to him as a “soldier.” Since 2014, when its caliphate was officially born, ISIS has been directly responsible or has been the inspiration for 2,043 deaths in 29 countries.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Week of Terror: Latest Attacker in Germany a “Soldier” of ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

As we celebrated the long weekend in the U.S., the latest round of ISIS attacks sent shocks of terror across the world.

Since Friday, major attacks attributed to ISIS took place in Baghdad, Dhaka, and Saudi Arabia. And earlier last week, on Wednesday, the attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport made world headlines after terrorists caused 44 casualties at one of the world’s busiest airports.

The terrorist group has reportedly called for more attacks during Ramadan, a month of fasting and reflection for the over 1 billion Muslims across the world. And it seems that ISIS followers have heeded that call, bringing death and destruction upon major cities and sites around the world. While it is still unclear if some of the recent attacks were directly ordered by ISIS or simply inspired by them, all most certainly followed the radical doctrine prescribed by the group.

Here’s what you need to know about the targets in the group’s latest spree of terror:

Friday, July 1: Dhaka–a hostage attack at a cafe

On Friday evening, the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, Bangladesh was a site of terror after gunmen attacked and took patrons hostage. The cafe, located in the wealthy neighborhood of Gulshan, was reportedly a site for many foreign nationals and diplomats, likely making it a target for the attacks.

The horrific 12-hour ordeal ended early Saturday after commandos stormed the facility, leaving 28 dead. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, and reportedly posted pictures of dead victims on an affiliated site.

Sunday, July 3: Baghdad–the deadliest ISIS attack this week

On Sunday, a suicide bombing targeted a shopping district in Baghdad, reportedly killing at least 215 people so far and injuring at least 175 more. The bombing occurred in the predominantly Shia area of Karrada, where many were shopping for the upcoming Eid holiday. The minority sect of Shia Islam has often been a target of attacks by the group, which is predominantly Sunni.

Earlier this month, the Iraqi government wrested control of Fallujah from ISIS, a possible provocation for the attack. The bombing was Baghdad’s deadliest since 2003, and was by far the deadliest attack carried out by ISIS this week.

Monday, July 4: Saudi Arabia–3 suicide bombings in various locations, including the Prophet’s Mosque

Saudi Arabia was the target of three separate, but coordinated, suicide attacks. The first was at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, where policemen were injured and the attacker was reportedly the only casualty.

The second attack took place in the city of Qatif, where a bomber attempted an attack on a Shiite mosque. He failed, however, only successful in taking his own life.

The third attack took place in Medina, where a bomb went off in front of the Prophet’s Mosque (also known as Masjid an Nabawi). The mosque is a major holy site in the Islamic faith, as it houses the grave of the Prophet Muhammad and is a location frequented by many making religious pilgrimages. This attack led to the deaths of four people, with an additional person injured.

The attacks of the past week show the wide reach of the group’s terror, as it hit multiple countries and regions throughout the world. Even without a centralized authority, ISIS is able to carry out its attacks through people who latch on to its poisonous ideology. As Ramadan winds down this week, its final days have unfortunately been classified with bloodshed and tragedy.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About ISIS’s Weekend of Terror appeared first on Law Street.

The couple that gunned down 14 people in San Bernardino, California last December exchanged private messages on Facebook nearly two years before the attack, discussing jihad and martyrdom. In the hours following the massacre, Tashfeen Malik–one of the killers–pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State on her Facebook feed. The couple’s social media use prior to and after the attack reiterated ISIS’s savvy online; it also spurred action by the Department of Homeland Security, which announced a few months later a vague commitment to enhance its screening of social media accounts of immigrants who apply for certain immigration benefits, as well as Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.

Now, there is a push to increase surveillance of the social media accounts of all foreign travelers coming into the U.S. A Customs and Border Protection proposal filed in the Federal Register on June 23 recommends an additional section to forms filled out by tourists and immigrants at customs: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—provider/platform—social media identifier.” The proposed change to the form would be voluntary, and would not ask for passwords. For some, the voluntary aspect of the new proposal renders it useless.

“What terrorist is going to give our government permission to see their radical jihadist rants on social media?” Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) said in a statement. Buchanan is the author of legislation that is currently in Congress, the “Social Media Screening for Terrorists Act,” which includes similar proposals to CBP’s, although his bill would make filling out social media account information required. He said the new revision “lacks teeth.” 

Social media has proved an effective tool for proselytizing ISIS’s extremist ideology. But platforms like Twitter and Facebook struggle with policing accounts without breaching First Amendment rights. There is a general consensus that it is not the federal government’s role to impose restrictions on social media. But since the San Bernardino attacks and subsequent terrorist attacks around the globe, the U.S. government has increased its capacity to combat online radicalization. In its proposed revisions to the current customs form, CBP commented: “Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity.”

However the U.S. government ends up beefing up its ability to monitor the social media accounts of people entering the country, ISIS continues to recruit people online. It is definitely an issue to keep an eye on in the coming months.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Customs Form Could Soon Include Section for Social Media Information appeared first on Law Street.

One of the missing Chibok schoolgirls abducted by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram back in 2014 has been found alive and well in Nigeria. She is the first of the girls to be brought back since the kidnapping, not including the 57 that were able to flee before they were taken. There are 218 allegedly still missing, and activists say they are heavily guarded somewhere in the Sambisa Forest in the northeast of Nigeria.

According to reports, the girl is Amina Ali Nkeki, and activists from the Civilian Joint Task Force (JTF) claim to have found her with a baby in her arms and in the company of a man who said he was her husband. He was also a prisoner of Boko Haram. Allegedly they walked out from the forest, asking for help.

But the Nigerian army has an opposing story. Army officials claim that they retrieved the girl in a rescue operation, and that her name is Falmata Mbalala. At the same time they confirmed that they were talking about the same incident. It remains to be seen whether the stories are about two separate girls, or just a case of miscommunication.

Over two years ago, in April 2014, 276 schoolgirls were taken from their secondary school in Chibok by the terror group Boko Haram. The kidnapping sparked reactions from all over the world and was the origin of the social media campaign #BringBackOurGirls, strongly supported by Michelle Obama.

Most of the girls were Christian, and believed to have been forced to convert to Islam, since Boko Haram released a video of the girls reciting the Koran about a month after the kidnapping. Another video, shot on Christmas Day 2015, showed some of the girls wearing long black robes, saying they were treated well but wanted to go home.

Boko Haram was founded in 2002 and its main opposition is to a Western political and social lifestyle. The group wants to prohibit people from participating in elections, wearing Western clothing, and getting a secular education. In 2009 it initiated military operations to create an Islamic state, but today most of its territories have been recaptured by Nigerian military.

The discovery of the girl comes just a few days after reports of a thawing relationship and reconciliation between Nigerian and American governments, with the hope they will cooperate to defeat Boko Haram.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BringBackOurGirls: First Chibok Schoolgirl Freed from Boko Haram appeared first on Law Street.

Here we are, in the aftermath of a global tragedy, letting fear divide us. This statement could apply to any number of historical events in the history of the United States, going back as far as World War II and the internment of thousands of Japanese-American people.

It is not the mid-1900s, but yet again we find ourselves the victims of fear. Rather than fighting the source of our terror, we are fighting each other. Rather than helping the helpless, we are scapegoating them, judging them based on their appearance, their homeland, and their religion. For that reason, ISIS has already succeeded in a country it has yet to directly attack.

It is entirely hypocritical of the United States to deny assistance to a group of people who are fleeing not only an organization we have vowed to take down, but also an area that we as a country have helped to unhinge. Some of the unrest in the Middle East is directly related to American involvement in that region over the past decade, and to say otherwise is fallacy. We are fighting a “war on terror” and in fact, records show that residents of Middle Eastern countries, and more specifically Muslims, are the group most affected by terrorism.

But what do we do when the terrorists are claiming the same religion as their victims? That is simple: ISIS and all its associated monikers are not true representations of Islam, and we should not judge the millions of people who practice Islam by ISIS’ actions. It calls itself the “Islamic State,” but the only word that should be associated with its members is “terrorists.” Arguments that Islam as a religion actually promotes such terrorism are not based in fact, but rather false stereotypes that have circulated for years. Just watch Professor Reza Aslan skillfully defend Islam in this interview with CNN last year, which has resurfaced since the Paris attacks:

Blatant facts are usually not enough to curb the rising panic of American Islamophobia, though, especially when a Syrian passport was allegedly found near one of the Paris suicide bombers. The facts and origins of this passport are hazy, and it calls into question not only the motives behind the suicide bomber carrying such a passport, but also the security of European countries, not America.

Why would a jihadist who expressly rejects all notions of modern citizenship take his passport on a suicide mission? So it gets found.

— Charlie Winter (@charliewinter) November 15, 2015

ISIS has blatantly stated that its goals are to fan Islamophobia throughout the West, proving to itself and to Muslim people that the West is a land of corruption and ISIS holds the key to eternal happiness. On his website, Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow Aaron Zelin has collected ISIS videos explaining its motivations. Their latest video is entitled “Would You Exchange What Is Better for What Is Less?” and warns Muslims against fleeing to Christian lands where they will be persecuted. Zelin explains along with the video:

The reality is, The Islamic State (IS) loathes that individuals are fleeing Syria for Europe. It undermines IS’ message that its self-styled Caliphate is a refuge, because if it was, individuals would actually go there in droves since it’s so close instead of 100,000s of people risking their lives through arduous journeys that could lead to death en route to Europe.

And we are falling right into ISIS’ trap.

Since the Obama administration has announced that the United States still plans on accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, something we have been planning to do for months, several governors have written statements that they will not allow refugees access to their state. However, according to the Refugee Act of 1980, they don’t have the power to do so. The federal government will still resettle hundreds of refugees in each state, regardless of what these governors say. The federal government cannot, however, dictate the welcome these refugees will receive, and since so many Americans are giving into the fear of ISIS-incited Islamophobia, that welcome–or lack-thereof–could be terrifying in itself.

And it isn’t just American citizens who are letting fear dictate their actions. Politicians are joining in the frenzy as well. Sen. Rand Paul even went so far as to introduce a bill that would immediately halt refugee visas.

Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Monday:

Making policy based on this fear mongering is wrong for two reasons. It is factually wrong for blaming refugees for the very terror they are fleeing, and it is legally wrong because it violates our laws and the values on which our country was founded.

Those values are written plainly on the Statue of Liberty. We say “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” But as John F. Kennedy sardonically wrote in his 1958 book “A Nation of Immigrants,” America has taken to adding: “as long as they come from Northern Europe, are not too tired or too poor or slightly ill, never stole a loaf of bread, never joined any questionable organization, and can document their activities for the past two years.”

We should be outraged that those words are as true today as they were in 1958. Yet our outrage is currently misdirected at refugees, rather than at the terror they are seeking refuge from. What adds to the irony is the argument coming from conservatives and conservative leadership that we should take care of the homeless, especially the homeless veterans, on U.S. soil before offering to help foreigners. The reality is that the past seven bills introduced in Congress that would have assisted those homeless vets were blocked by Republicans.

Which brings me back to this: American people and politicians are fighting each other rather than facing the problem as one unified force. We are giving into the fear that has historically produced some of the ugliest eras in our country’s history. In this pivotal moment, we must prove ISIS wrong. We must not persecute or blame the refugees, but lead the charge against the enemy we share.

We must remember that united we stand, and divided we fall.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post By Reacting to Fear, We Let ISIS Win appeared first on Law Street.

In light of the recent tragedy in Paris, the fight against ISIS is likely to retake the spotlight. In a press conference on Monday, President Obama was forced to defend his current strategy for the Middle East, as his opponents argue that the United States needs to take a stronger approach to prevent future terrorist attacks on the western world.

Currently, the United States is leading an international coalition of airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In addition to airstrikes, a force of over 3,000 U.S. advisors is on the ground in Iraq to train the local military. The focus of the campaign is to build up ground forces in the region, notably the Iraqi army and moderate Syrian rebels, while supporting established groups as they fight ISIS. So far, the goal has been to contain ISIS, prevent it from taking additional land, and slowly take back territory without the direct use of American soldiers on the ground.

At the end of October, the president announced that he was sending up to 50 special operations troops in Syria to coordinate ground forces there. While the addition of American ground forces in Syria marks a possible departure from Obama’s promise not to use ground forces in Syria, he emphasized that the general strategy remains unchanged. We also know that prior to that announcement, U.S. special forces have been embarking on covert raids against ISIS. One such raid led to the first American combat fatality in Iraq since 2011, while U.S. forces rescued 70 hostages facing what anonymous sources told CNN was “imminent mass execution.”

The Obama administration argues that training local forces, rather than using U.S. troops, is crucial for stability in the long term, but doing so also requires a lot of time. One aspect of the U.S. strategy that has generally failed is the effort to train and build up a force in Syria. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently told Congress that the army has only managed to train about 60 Syrian fighters to take on ISIS. As a result, the Defense Department shifted its plan in Syria to support existing forces rather than build new ones.

President Obama’s strategy has been relatively successful in terms of containing and pushing back ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but in light of the recent attacks in Paris many argue the current response is not strong enough. While criticism of the current strategy in the Middle East is easy to find, an alternative strategy is more elusive. Most, like Republican candidates, argue that the United States needs to take a stronger tone in the region, but few have said how they would actually do so. John Kasich argues that boots on the ground are necessary to defeat ISIS, but he has not yet said how many would be required. Lindsey Graham is so far the only candidate who has given a specific policy plan for the region, calling on the United States to deploy 20,000 troops to Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS.

Donald Trump has said that he would “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, but he has been generally vague on details beyond that–though if you ask him, vagueness is actually his intention. Jeb Bush has said that the United States needs to declare war on ISIS, which would include the imposition of a no-fly zone. He has also called on Obama to consult with military leaders to figure out how to defeat ISIS and then enact that strategy, but he has not directly offered a plan beyond the need for U.S. leadership in the region. Marco Rubio has criticized the current strategy while coincidentally offering a plan that looks very similar to the current strategy. However, he argues that only Sunni forces will be able to defeat ISIS, who claim to be Sunni Muslims themselves.

In a press conference at the G20 Summitt on Monday, President Obama addressed his critics while stating that the current strategy in the Middle East will remain in place. He reiterated his view that using local forces to fight ISIS is the most effective way to build stability and prevent a resurgence. When asked about the use of U.S. troops, he highlighted the threat that ISIS poses beyond its territory in Iraq and Syria:

And let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else — in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia?

The nature of the threat posed by ISIS is becoming increasingly more complicated as the group begins to act outside of its territory in Iraq and Syria. Critics argue that the United States needs to take a much stronger stance in Iraq and Syria, but few have proposed a vision of what that would look like.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS? appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is well known for its brutality and fighting prowess. However, to create a caliphate and establish its own vision of Islam, ISIS leaders have done more than win battles and intimidate enemies. Taking a page from the Arab Spring, the group has adopted a very modern approach to attracting its followers and spreading its message. Read on to learn about ISIS’ use of social media and the results of its campaigns.

Read more: Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

ISIS and Social Media

The use of media by terrorist groups and even Al Qaeda, ISIS’ precursor in some ways, is not new. Under ISIS however, a transformation has begun. It started slowly–when ISIS was first on the rise it engaged mostly in simple, private media communications among its own members or dissidents. But with the fall of Mosul in June 2014, the group finally had its stage and was ready to broadcast to the world audience. Far from the grainy videos of Osama Bin Laden wandering around in the mountains, ISIS began live tweeting its actions and posting statuses on Facebook. On Twitter especially the group has been successful in delivering its message by commandeering popular hashtags.

ISIS Fighters have also taken selfies next to victims or in occupied areas in attempts to show how great life is under the aspiring caliphate. ISIS has even engaged in unsolicited product placement, flashing images of Nutella and Call of Duty in videos and other forms of media. Perhaps most importantly to its Western audience, it started attracting an English-speaking membership that could communicate directly to the English-speaking world. Perhaps no better example exists than the man known as “Jihadi John.” Born Mohammed Emwazi, he graduated with a degree in computer science from the University of Westminster, England. Despite his British upbringing, in 2013 he left Britain for Syria. Emwazi is by now a familiar figure, as he has been involved in some high-profile executions of non-Muslims.

ISIS has even utilized less popular forms of social media. For example, it’s used PalTalk, a video chatroom where radical clerics have convened to praise ISIS and its leadership. The group created an Android App called Fajer Al Bashayer (Dawn of the Good Omens) that provides users with up-to-the-minute updates on ISIS’ movements. The app also includes software that appropriates the Twitter accounts of the downloaders and uses them to further propagate the group’s ideology. ISIS even has its own magazine, Dabiq, which combines graphic insights into violence perpetrated by the group with interviews of its members, resembling a sort of gossip magazine. The video below details how ISIS has been using social media to its advantage.

Influence of the Arab Spring

How did ISIS end up turning to social media to further its cause? Well, it may have taken some inspiration from the Arab Spring. In 2011, one of the catalysts that fueled the Arab Spring movement was the use of social media to coordinate gatherings and denounce authoritarian regimes. While this has been employed for similar causes before, the scope in this case was revolutionary and transformative.

Various Middle Eastern leaders took notice and began to censor social media access they deemed dangerous. This may have had the negative consequences of chasing off progressive voices who lost faith in social media as a means of communication. But, it gave groups like ISIS ideas about powerful ways to attract members and money. The accompanying video explains the way social media has been used from Arab Spring to ISIS.

Have ISIS’ social media campaigns been successful?

How successful has the group been in attracting new fighters and inflows of capital? These results can be broken up into two categories: those who have pledged direct support to the group and the potential lone wolves it has inspired at home in Western nations.

Direct Supporters of ISIS

The first group includes people who have actually moved to ISIS-controlled areas. Many of them, particularly from the West, are drawn by the notion of a Muslim paradise. Often they feel out of place in Western culture. Many are young and eager to find a place where they can be accepted.

The message seems to be finding a plentiful breeding ground too, as thousands of Westerners, including teenagers, have already gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. Evidence of this startling trend can be found all over the West. In late 2014, there were three sisters from Colorado who were stopped in Germany as they were trying to fly to ISIS-controlled territory. More recently, the news has focused on three teenage British girls who are believed to have left their homes to join ISIS.

While ISIS is sinister in every way, its recruitment of girls and young women is especially so. Preying upon feelings of alienation and offering acceptance, ISIS has lured many women from Western nations to its cause. While many of these girls may dream of aiding a movement and finding a soulmate, they often experience something much worse. Their fates can include rape, forced marriages, and even enslavement at the hands of their alleged liberators.

How exactly is ISIS seducing these women and its other alienated recruits? The answer to that question comes in two parts. First, ISIS tries to attract attention and create a bigger name for itself. The end goal here is to project its strength and its ability to stand up to entrenched powers such as the United States. This strategy can speak particularly to people who feel victimized by the dominant cultures in the West.

Secondly the group has made a series of videos depicting how great life is under ISIS. These include highlighting the group’s charity  work, its efforts at establishing an appropriate Muslim state, and choreographed scenes of violence to appeal to viewers. ISIS also has responders who will directly engage Westerners who feel an inclination to join ISIS. These responders act as recruiters, echoing the themes of the videos that show the greatness of life under ISIS and the satisfaction women and others can gain living in an ISIS sphere.

The group is also getting some financial support online. ISIS has used Twitter as a place to receive donations along with recruits, despite the best efforts of the US government.

Lastly the group has been able to garner support and allegiance from other like-minded terrorist organizations through social media. Recently, the infamous Nigerian terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged its support for ISIS and has even begun adopting some of its tactics for publication and recruitment.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Lone Wolves

Along with calling for would-be jihadis to come join the cause in Iraq and Syria or to provide donations, ISIS has also employed another tactic. It’s used social media campaigns recorded in French and subtitled in English to encourage radical action in Western countries. Instead of encouraging dissatisfied men and woman in these areas to come join the war in the Middle East, it calls for them to make war against their own governments at home. In this regard there also seems to be some examples of success on ISIS’ part. The most notorious so far is the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the killing of hostages a few days later in a kosher deli. These, along with subsequent attacks on police officers patrolling the city, have been attributed to ISIS-inspired terrorists, although exact motives remain uncertain. The video below depicts ISIS’ efforts to arouse lone wolves in the West.

Fighting Back

While ISIS has shown a mastery of modern day social networks, Western forces are also fighting back. The United States has already launched a major social media offensive, dedicating a contingent of manpower and materials to fighting ISIS propaganda online. The British have taken a similar approach and adopted the American model for its own program. Both countries are also pressuring companies such as Twitter and YouTube to clean up their sites and rid them of ISIS propaganda.

It is far from clear how effective these efforts have been. Many experts caution against ridding the web entirely of ISIS and its supporters as their posts can be valuable sources of information on the group. Additionally, while the U.S. and British governments are launching their own offensives against ISIS, many people remain skeptical about how effective government-run social media can be. Lastly there are strategic concerns to be considered. While to most people ISIS comes off as repulsive, a mystique could be created about the group by denying it the opportunity to speak, which could further improve recruiting.

Conclusion

ISIS’ use and mastery of social media is intriguing. The fact that it uses sites such as Twitter or Facebook seems almost unbelievable, and stands in direct contrast to common assumptions about the backward nature of terrorist organizations. Additionally, the efforts in response by the United States and its allies also clearly show that the nature of warfare has rapidly changed in the social media age.

Despite the seemingly harmless means by which it communicates and disseminates its messages, ISIS remains a ruthless terrorist organization. It is also clear however, that it is successful both on the battlefield and on the internet. The next step for the West is how to counter ISIS’ message while pushing  back in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately the military part will likely be the easier path, even as debate over putting boots on the ground proofs devisive. There’s a new battle being fought, but this time, it’s on our computers.

Resources

Primary

Anti-Defamation League: Hashtag Terror

Additional

Independent: Mohammed Emwazi

CNN: What is ISIS’ Appeal to Young People?

CBS News: ISIS Message Resonating With Young People From U.S., West

U.S. News & World Report: ISIS Ability to Recruit Women Baffles West, Strengthens Cause

Hill: ISIS Rakes in Donations on Twitter

Newsmax: Tell ISIS Aligned Groups They Are Targets

Fox News: “What Are You Waiting For?”

Daily Beast: Can the West Beat ISIS on the Web?

Daily Beast: ISIS is Using Social Media to Reach You, Its New Audience

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS and the Terrorist Social Network appeared first on Law Street.

Nearly everyone knows what the Islamic State is doing–treacherous acts and the consolidation of control in territories throughout Iraq and Syria–but few realize exactly what the group’s goals are. ISIS is a unique manifestation of radical Islam that is bent on establishing a religious government that enforces what it believes is to be the purest form of Islam. Supporting that vision is its supporters’ closely held belief that ISIS is bringing about the apocalypse. Yes, deeply rooted in its ideology is the idea that establishing an “Islamic State” will eventually lead to a final battle between good and evil near the small town of Dabiq in northern Syria.

Read More: Is ISIS Actually Islamic?

Graeme Wood, a contributing editor for The Atlantic, recently wrote one of the most comprehensive articles available about ISIS and its ideology. In the article Wood says,

Much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

Much of ISIS’ ideology comes from its interpretation of statements attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith, a foundational text of Islam. The Brookings Institution notes that a prophecy predicts the judgment day will come after a final battle in Dabiq. While interpretations of this prophecy and ISIS’ portrayal of it vary, the group’s general plan is to take over Istanbul (referred to as Constantinople, the former capital of the Roman Empire). After defeating the Romans, they will then defeat the Dajjal (a version of the antichrist) in Dabiq with the help of Jesus who will join Islam.

The first issue of ISIS’ propaganda magazine featured a quote from the group’s founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who said, “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify–by Allah’s permission–until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” It goes on to say that according to the Hadith, a collection of sayings and teachings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, that town will be important to the group’s “conquests of Constantinople, then Rome.” Musa Cerantonio, one of the Islamic State’s spiritual authorities who was interviewed in Wood’s article, believes that they will expand to Istanbul then face the army of the antichrist–known as the Dajjal in Islamic scripture.

Dabiq, a small rural town in northern Syria, is crucial to the Islamic State’s ideology and recruiting efforts, though militarily it holds very little importance in terms of their expansion in the Middle East. William McCants at the Brookings Institution explained the importance of Dabiq to the Islamic State in a recent article. According to McCants, conquering Dabiq was extremely important to the organization, so much so that they named their English propaganda magazine after it. ISIS explains the name in its first issue saying, “This place was mentioned in a hadith describing some of the events of the Malahim (what is sometimes referred to as Armageddon in English). One of the greatest battles between the Muslims and the crusaders will take place near Dabiq.”

The Islamic State frequently refers to the town in its publications and videos, and after beheading Peter Kassig a spokesperson for the group said, “Here we are, burying the first American Crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive.” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group’s leader (pictured above), is considered the eighth true caliph–according to the prophecy there will be 12 legitimate caliphs in total.

ISIS’ end-of-days vision is also essential to understanding the group and its desire to form a caliphate. Its belief that its work is bringing the world closer to the judgment day is also very important to recruitment, as its goal may seem much more real and imminent when compared to other radical groups. Since al-Baghdadi declared a caliphate last summer, ISIS has recruited more than 20,000 people from countries all over the world, including over 4,000 from the western world.

While ISIS’ underlying vision is quite chilling, it reveals important details about the group and has important implications for policymakers. One major takeaway is that in many ways ISIS is predictable and its violence is not completely random. The group has clearly stated goals and has set out to pursue them using terror and fear as its methods. ISIS is not random, and to its supporters it is more than just an organization, it is an idea.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has been at the center of media attention since the group began taking over and controlling large portions of land in Iraq last summer, but amid this coverage, several important misconceptions about the organization and its goals have emerged.

The Atlantic recently published an article titled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which discusses the group’s underlying ideology and the misconceptions about it in the western world. Writer Graeme Wood carefully researched the organization by studying nearly every available source of information about it. Central to Wood’s article is the idea that the Islamic State adheres to established Islamic texts and principles and is not simply a group of crazy people twisting religion to support their blood lust.

While the claim that the Islamic State is Islamic may not be surprising–most radical extremist groups tie their goals to religion one way or another–Wood takes ISIS’ connection to Islam a step further. He says,

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

This argument is important to understanding ISIS–religion clearly plays a vital role in its actions and recruiting strategy–but this quote and the implicit argument throughout his article has dangerous implications for the religion of Islam. While Wood does not make the outright claim that Islam is a violent religion, many readers have interpreted it that way. As a result, some variation of this logic arises: ISIS is the purest manifestation of Islam, and peaceful Muslims are somehow less faithful to their religion.

That argument, however, is a dramatic mischaracterization of the Islamic State and is a serious insult to the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.

I am not an expert on Islam, and determining the proper way to interpret the Quran and its foundational texts should be left to Islamic clerics and individual Muslims. Historically, there have been many different interpretations of Islam, and while ISIS’ ideology represents one interpretation that does not mean it is right or even valid. Not only do clerics believe ISIS misinterprets many of Islam’s sacred texts, they also note that the group’s “literal” interpretation is very exclusive. The passages that the Islamic State chooses to justify its actions are very specific, and the group ignores those that may conflict with its actions.

Nearly all of the world’s Muslims reject the Islamic State and its abhorrent actions that are reportedly done in the name of Islam. In addition to aggressively denouncing the cruel actions of ISIS and the misinterpretation of Islamic texts that supposedly justify them, most Muslims object to ISIS’ refusal to acknowledge the peaceful and compassionate teachings that clerics commonly accept.

Wood’s article ignited a debate over ISIS and its beliefs, so much so that its reception prompted him to write a short follow up summarizing the responses he received. Many respondents acknowledged the importance of ideology to ISIS, but argued that other factors–like group identity and the current circumstances in Iraq–are equally important to understanding ISIS. Some went even further, challenging Wood’s assertion of “the Islamic State’s medieval nature.” John Terry, writing for Slate, argued that the Islamic State selectively remembers the medieval times to fit its modern goals.

ISIS’ ideology is a variant of Salafist-Jihadism, which calls for a return to the “pure” practice of Islam that was established during the early days of the religion using outward violence. The first issue of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine includes a section titled “The World Has Divided Into Two Camps.” ISIS believes that it is the true manifestation of Islam and that all others are in a state of disbelief, which makes them enemies. One aspect of ISIS that makes it unique in the context of radical Islam is its use of takfir, or the practice of excommunicating another Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of its violence is directed toward Muslims and has led its recent rift with al Qaeda.

The nature of the organization and the stated commitment to its apocalyptic goal presents unique challenges for the United States and the coalition against it. The Clarion Project summarizes this issue in a recent article,

“The fundamental problem of Islamists seeking to trigger these end-of-times events will remain. The Islamic State could be crushed, but others with similar beliefs will arise. This entire mindset of fulfilling prophecy through war needs to be challenged by peace-seeking Muslims.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is ISIS Actually Islamic? appeared first on Law Street.

This past weekend “50 Shades of Grey” actress Dakota Johnson showcased her comedic roots while hosting “Saturday Night Live” for the first time. However, it’s not Johnson’s acting range that everyone is talking about now, but rather a controversial skit she appeared in poking fun at the Islamist terror group ISIS.

In the skit Johnson and SNL cast member Taran Killam parody a tear jerking Toyota Camry ad, where a father drops his daughter off at the airport to presumably join the military. SNL’s version had a twist, though, as this time the daughter’s ride was none other than a truck full of armed ISIS members. Their arrival is followed by this hilarious exchange:

Father: “You be careful, ok.”

Daughter: “Dad, it’s just ISIS.”

Father (Looks at ISIS member): “You take care of her.”

ISIS Member whispers:  “Death to America.”

The truck then pulls away with guns blazing while the slogan “ISIS. We’ll take it from here, Dad” appears in the lower right corner.

If you haven’t yet seen the skit in question check out the video below.

It singlehandedly became the most talked-about skit of the night, with many people debating whether the comedy was offensive or not. Below are a few tweets from people on both sides of the debate.

Absolutely floored that anyone would find the #SNL ISIS skit funny. Nothing funny about it, it was tasteless.Desensitized much? #OrangeRoom

— Rebecca (@becca76) March 1, 2015

I’m still sick to my stomach about that ISIS skit. God I hope friends/family of those burned alive or decapitated weren’t watching. #SNL

— JayhawkMama (@JHawkintheSouth) March 1, 2015

Thought the ISIS skit on #SNL was funny as hell. We’ve mocked terror and evil throughout history. Remember this? pic.twitter.com/HurKEvhdqF

— Obnoxious Boston Fan (@realOBF) March 2, 2015

Seriously? SNL is being criticized for mocking Isis, and the people who join it? There’s no group more deserving of ridicule. Thumbs up #SNL

— Katherine Morrison (@kmorrison) March 1, 2015

By turning ISIS into a punch line, SNL openly challenged the group’s ideology. As it turns out, it seems like more people did like it than find it offensive. This morning, the “Today Show” decided to ask its viewers if they thought SNL went too far with the skit. So far the poll has over 12,500 votes, with over half of the voters (54 percent) picking “no.”

Some found the faux ad particularly distasteful after the recent death of 26-year-old American aid worker Kayla Mueller, who was kidnapped and held ransom by ISIS members in August 2013. However, the skit wasn’t mocking Mueller, it was mocking ISIS as an organization and the people who choose to join it.

Personally, I found the skit funny and wasn’t at all offended. SNL has parodied several controversial American enemies in the past including Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, making this terrorist-themed joke neither its first nor most likely its last. There’s something to be said about the ability to take something tragic and scary and find humor in it, thus alleviating its power. As SNL celebrates its 40th anniversary, here’s to hoping they continue to push the envelope and keep us all laughing.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SNL’s ISIS Skit: Insensitive or Hilarious? appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially asked Congress to authorize military force to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The request was sent in the form of a three-page legislation draft, as well as a letter to the members of Congress. It would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The force that Obama requested would be “limited”–although that term is obviously very vague. Essentially, what the Obama Administration is looking for is a three-year long military campaign against ISIS. There wouldn’t be a mass invasion, but rather air force and limited ground support. Particularly, Obama mentioned that U.S. forces would be used for matters “such as rescue operations” or “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Obama also acknowledged that the emphasis should be on supporting local forces, not sending in American troops, saying, “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”

It’s important to note that American forces have been present in the fight against ISIS for a long time now. Obama had previously justified those actions based on the authorizations of force granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11. This new authorization would provide an update, and serve as a political point for Obama. As he puts in the letter:

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

Essentially what that means is that Obama still wants to curtail that original 2001 AUMF, which has been decried by many as being too broad, but still be able to use force against ISIS.

The president explained in the letter that the motive behind asking for this authorization to act against ISIS is based on the threat that the group poses to the region, and by extension, the world. He also brought up the actions that ISIS has taken against Americans–particularly the executions of American citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller, all taken as ISIS hostages. Foley and Sotloff were both journalists; Kassig and Mueller were humanitarians and aid workers. News of Mueller’s death came just a few days ago, although unlike the male American hostages, a video was not released of her execution.

So far, political responses to Obama’s request seem tepid at best from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many are aware of the incredible unpopularity of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at this point. Obama has, at various points, been criticized for being too hesitant and too active in the fight against ISIS. Speaker of the House John Boehner said about the request:

Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an A.U.M.F. against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.

Many Democrats were also less than enthused by the request, many of whom appear to think that it’s still too broad. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) stated: “Part of the feedback they’re getting from some members will be unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace.”

There’s a twofold need to balance here. First of all, it’s not surprising that within this hot-blooded, acrimonious political environment disagreements would be obvious. The politics here don’t surprise me. But what’s important to remember is that while Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between, may fight about what to do against ISIS, no one really has an answer. We haven’t quite figured out how to fight terrorist groups yet; honestly the only thing that can be said with certainty is that they’re not like conventional conflicts. It’s hard to determine whether Obama’s action is right or wrong, and it’s just as difficult to determine which of his critics are right. That being said, what almost certainly won’t work against ISIS is doing nothing–a step toward action is probably a step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.