Summary
The New Orleans attack, where U.S. Army veteran Shamsud-Din Jabbar killed 14 while flying an Islamic State flag, highlights the group’s ongoing ability to inspire violence despite territorial losses.
ISIS remains active through decentralized cells, executing attacks globally, including Russia, Iran, and Somalia, and attempting a resurgence in Syria after Assad’s fall.
U.S. officials warn of lone wolf attacks, like Jabbar’s vehicle-ramming, as ISIS-Khorasan also poses risks.
Experts believe ISIS’s territorial ambitions are unlikely to succeed but caution about its capacity for widespread, random violence and influence.
Okay admittedly I didn’t know a lot of the history between Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but first we should establish something: Al-Nusra was established as a subsidiary of Al-Qaeda, not ISIS. Note that in 2011, Al-Julani and a few other people were sent by Al-Qaeda with a mandate and funding to establish an Al-Qaeda branch in Syria. They were friendly with ISIS until 2013, but they weren’t ISIS except in Al-Baghdadi’s mind, which is why Al-Nusra abandoned them as soon as push came to shove. Also in terms of motive and actions, Al-Nusra was an Islamist Syrian rebel group dedicated to establishing a caliphate in Syria, which is very distinct from ISIS’s global Jihad objectives.
Now to hop onto Al-Julani specifically: Al-Julani did serve between 2003 and 2006 in AQI/ISI, but because of his arrest he wasn’t involved in most of the things we associate with ISIS. Then in 2011 he sided with Al-Qaeda and only maintained friendly ties with ISIS. The idea that both Al-Nusra and Al-Julani were former ISIS is interesting and has more merit than I thought, but it’s ultimately not a useful way of thinking about either of them.
Which brings us back to the root of our disagreement
We’re in agreement that he was part of ISI. I think we’re also in agreement that ISI became ISIS
So do you consider ISI/AQI to be substantially different enough organization from ISIS to be worth drawing a distinction?
To me, I’d consider the distinction to be similar to quibbling over whether a software engineer worked for alphabet vs google, or Facebook vs meta. It’s essentially the same organization with most of the same leadership, goals, methods, etc. just with some restructuring and a name change. A useful distinction if you’re talking shop about the specific details of their structure and operation, but for the average layperson having a casual discussion on Lemmy they can be generally understood the be the same organization.
Yes, because AQI came before a lot of the baggage we associate with ISIS.
Was it? The way I understand it they were more of a resistance militia fighting against the US occupation of Iraq. Maybe it’s because they didn’t have the power to do more than that yet, but the average AQI-era soldier wouldn’t be involved in the kind of flagrant attacks against civilians or human rights abuses that characterized and continue to characterize ISIS. I mean why would you attack civilians with the US army right there?
Al Qaeda has always been pretty clear on their Intentions in Iraq, in 2005 they specifically outlined a 4 stage plan
Step 1: expulsion of US forces from Iraq
Step 2: establish an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq
Step 3: extending the jihad to surrounding countries
Step 4: “the clash with Israel”
So yes, they were in opposition to the US occupation, but that was more of a means to an end, not exactly altruistic Iraq freedom fighters. And around that same time they were also carrying out attacks on Iraqi tribespeople and clashing with nationalist insurgents. Yes they got somewhat more extreme over time, but like you said a lot of that can be attributed to them growing in power, and arguably dealing with the US occupation was more pressing to them at the time so that’s where most of their resources went.
And step 3 definitely seems to be in line with expanding operations into Syria.