Terrorist Attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait

[Horza]

Shia extremism has historically been driven the religious hierarchy, which is far more institutional in character than the Sunni ulema and wields greater authority. As a consequence the forms of Shia activism tend to be based on mass movements, overtly political in character and rarer, because as Gears notes, Shia are a minority across most of the region.

Religious political violence from Shia groups comes either through state sanctioned activity via Iran or Hezbollah, or at the hands of communal groups. As such, Shia jihadism has a much more political flavour and is usually tied to the defence of Shia communities. When Mosul fell to IS last year, Ayatollah Sistani beseeched Iraqi Shias to form militias to fight a jihad in defence of the state. Although he stressed that they only fight IS and take orders from the government these groups have been caught up in the toxic sectarian atmosphere created by the Iraqi civil war.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Shia extremism has historically been driven the religious hierarchy, which is far more institutional in character than the Sunni ulema and wields greater authority. As a consequence the forms of Shia activism tend to be based on mass movements, overtly political in character and rarer, because as Gears notes, Shia are a minority across most of the region.

Religious political violence from Shia groups comes either through state sanctioned activity via Iran or Hezbollah, or at the hands of communal groups. As such, Shia jihadism has a much more political flavour and is usually tied to the defence of Shia communities. When Mosul fell to IS last year, Ayatollah Sistani beseeched Iraqi Shias to form militias to fight a jihad in defence of the state. Although he stressed that they only fight IS and take orders from the government these groups have been caught up in the toxic sectarian atmosphere created by the Iraqi civil war.

This might be a huge misperception on my part, but it seems Shia extremists are generally more controlled, or not as brutal as Sunni?

Take Iraq for example. Im sure many of the Shia militias there are very conservative/traditional with plenty of questionable deeds, but none (as far as I know) have approached the levels of cruelty of ISIS or the Taliban.

Of all the "radicalized" Islamists in the west, none appear to have take up with an extremist vision of Shia Islam.

Hezbollah is a Shia terrorist organization, but it seems to limit itself to fighting Israel and explicitly condemns attacks on Western civilians ( not Israeli ones unfortunately). It also condemned the World Trade Center attack, though was silent on the Pentagon attacks.

While brutal and fundamentlist, Shia "extremists" seem to follow more "rules of war" as opposed to Salafist/ Wahabbit counterparts.

Kind of funny, but apparently ISIS doesn't even consider Shias Muslims. In all their statements and publications they refer to Shias as "the Persians" or the "Safavids"

[Horza]

This might be a huge misperception on my part, but it seems Shia extremists are generally more controlled, or not as brutal as Sunni?

Take Iraq for example. Im sure many of the Shia militias there are very conservative/traditional with plenty of questionable deeds, but none (as far as I know) have approached the levels of cruelty of ISIS or the Taliban.

Of all the "radicalized" Islamists in the west, none appear to have take up with an extremist vision of Shia Islam.

Hezbollah is a Shia terrorist organization, but it seems to limit itself to fighting Israel and explicitly condemns attacks on Western civilians ( not Israeli ones unfortunately). It also condemned the World Trade Center attack, though was silent on the Pentagon attacks.

While brutal and fundamentlist, Shia "extremists" seem to follow more "rules of war" as opposed to Salafist/ Wahabbit counterparts.

Kind of funny, but apparently ISIS doesn't even consider Shias Muslims. In all their statements and publications they refer to Shias as "the Persians" or the "Safavids"

I'd say that's something of a misperception on your part. Shia militias have done utterly horrible things in the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars, and both Hezbollah and Iranian backed groups have committed their fair share of atrocities. In the sectarian civil wars of the past decade (not to mention the Afghan and Lebanese civil wars) no group has followed the rules of war.

The difference with groups like Al-Qaeda or IS is that the latter have an ideology that gives them much more ambitious aims. It's from the need these Sunni groups have to unite the entire Sunni world behind them that they derive methods like Bin Laden's 'Far Enemy' strategy (result, 9/11) or AQI/IS's 'Management of Savagery'.

[Gears of the Beast]

It should also not be forgotten that the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa regarding The Satanic Verses was pretty significant in terms of shaping the current conflict between Islamism and the West.

[Ramsay Gimp]

This might be a huge misperception on my part, but it seems Shia extremists are generally more controlled, or not as brutal as Sunni?

From what I've read, this seems to be the case. Sunni Extremists are also much more likely to provoke sectarian violence than Shiites are (which makes sense since Shiites are in a minority)

I'd say that's something of a misperception on your part. Shia militias have done utterly horrible things in the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars, and both Hezbollah and Iranian backed groups have committed their fair share of atrocities. In the sectarian civil wars of the past decade (not to mention the Afghan and Lebanese civil wars) no group has followed the rules of war.

The difference with groups like Al-Qaeda or IS is that the latter have an ideology that gives them much more ambitious aims. It's from the need these Sunni groups have to unite the entire Sunni world behind them that they derive methods like Bin Laden's 'Far Enemy' strategy (result, 9/11) or AQI/IS's 'Management of Savagery'.

But I think the less ambitious ideology of Shiite militants is what he was referring to. I can't think of a Shiite group that calls for the death of all Sunnis around the world the way ISIS does for Shiites.

It's also worth keeping in mind that many (not all) of the Shiite atrocities against Sunnis are in response to Sunni attacks. Al-Zarqawi started it with his deliberate strategy of provoking them in Iraq

[Horza]

But I think the less ambitious ideology of Shiite militants is what he was referring to. I can't think of a Shiite group that calls for the death of all Sunnis around the world the way ISIS does for Shiites.

It's also worth keeping in mind that many (not all) of the Shiite atrocities against Sunnis are in response to Sunni attacks. Al-Zarqawi started it with his deliberate strategy of provoking them in Iraq

What I was getting at is that the Shia groups can be as murderous and as apocalyptic, but their atrocities are in most cases outside of the directives of their nominal leadership, while AQ and IS incorporate brutality and spectacle into their tactics as part of a broader strategy. For Shia jihadis, it's possible to despise Sunnis and desire their conversion ahead of the final battle (there are apocalyptic Shia prophecies as loopy as the Sunni ones) but as a matter of basic strategy trying to massacre their way to leadership of the Islamic world is a non-starter.

[Prince Alexander]

re: extremes being equal - no, of course not, and it's a good thing.

progressive western world should not be retaliating (officially, or on vigilante level) in a similar manner that islam extremists do. this is a sign of progressive thinking and faith in ability to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner

but the big question, i think, in light of all the attacks, is: should the western governments be doing more to protect its citizens?

[straits]

re: extremes being equal - no, of course not, and it's a good thing.

progressive western world should not be retaliating (officially, or on vigilante level) in a similar manner that islam extremists do. this is a sign of progressive thinking and faith in ability to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner

Isn't official counter-attacking (or initial attacking) exactly what the west has been doing in recent history? I guess the progressive component here would be better weapons and equipment.

[Arakan]

What I was getting at is that the Shia groups can be as murderous and as apocalyptic, but their atrocities are in most cases outside of the directives of their nominal leadership, while AQ and IS incorporate brutality and spectacle into their tactics as part of a broader strategy. For Shia jihadis, it's possible to despise Sunnis and desire their conversion ahead of the final battle (there are apocalyptic Shia prophecies as loopy as the Sunni ones) but as a matter of basic strategy trying to massacre their way to leadership of the Islamic world is a non-starter.

And American soldiers could be as brutal as Waffen SS.

When we speak of global islamist terror we are speaking of Sunni terrorism. And the biggest victim of this terrorism are by the way Shia Muslims. I don't know how many tens of thousands of Shia muslims have been bombed to death in the last 20 years, across the globe.

[The guy from the Vale]

@straits: Pretty much. We've constantly been running into their trap for the last 15 years now.

[Prince Alexander]

Isn't official counter-attacking (or initial attacking) exactly what the west has been doing in recent history? I guess the progressive component here would be better weapons and equipment.

West has never targetted civilians on official level

Vigilante attacks vs civilians have been minimal

And American soldiers could be as brutal as Waffen SS.

When we speak of global islamist terror we are speaking of Sunni terrorism. And the biggest victim of this terrorism are by the way Shia Muslims. I don't know how many tens of thousands of Shia muslims have been bombed to death in the last 20 years, across the globe.

And how many african tribes attacked and killed members of each other?

This is besides the point. A country is obligated first of all to defend its citizens and then citizens of its allies (NATO) and then citizens of UN.

The question is: what can the western governments do to defend its citizens against the islam extremist threat, and are they doing enough of it.

My #1 concern is the people of my country and its allies. I'm not out to be policing the entire world.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

But Shia extremists seem to target people and things for strategic purpose instead of for the sake of "punishing the infidel"

For the past 25-30 years they mostly have targeted Israeli or American soldiers, or Israeli ambassadors. Terrible sure, but they don't seem to have blown up clubs, bars, or even churches/ sunni mosques in order to "punish the infidel" ( though they punish "sin" and apostasy in their own countries/regions)

I just find it a bit strange that no western chump who gets sucked into "Radical Islam" and tries to behead someone/blow something up ever seems to be sucked into "Radical Shia"

Idk if the Shia even have the same level of contempt for Sunnis, that the wahabbi/salifists have for them

[Sullen]

The attackers are trying to amplify Islamophobia. It pushes more marginalized people into their camp.

Reminds me of this.

[jarl the climber]

But Shia extremists seem to target people and things for strategic purpose instead of for the sake of "punishing the infidel"

For the past 25-30 years they mostly have targeted Israeli or American soldiers, or Israeli ambassadors. Terrible sure, but they don't seem to have blown up clubs, bars, or even churches/ sunni mosques in order to "punish the infidel" ( though they punish "sin" and apostasy in their own countries/regions)

I just find it a bit strange that no western chump who gets sucked into "Radical Islam" and tries to behead someone/blow something up ever seems to be sucked into "Radical Shia"

Idk if the Shia even have the same level of contempt for Sunnis, that the wahabbi/salifists have for them

Well in 2013 in retaliation for Sunni car bombings of Shia neighborhoods in Lebanon, two bombing were carried out at Sunni mosques. So at least Hezballah is not above doing stuff like that under the right circumstances. As far as doctrine goes I'm not sure that the Shia approve of suicide bombings, they've done it in the past, if they were behind the attack on the American barracks back in the 80's but I can't think of anything very recent.

[Ramsay Gimp]

But Shia extremists seem to target people and things for strategic purpose instead of for the sake of "punishing the infidel"

Well, ISIS targets people for strategic purposes too - even if it's just tourists on a beach or shoppers in a Shiite neighborhood, the attacks are intended to get a certain response. It's just they are way more bloodthirsty than Hezbollah, and less...civilized is the only word I can think of.

[jet199]

Re. Sunni and Shia, wahabism is a Sunni movement which states that fellow Muslims who do not follow wahabism can be considered non-believers and treated as such. It is even permissible to call attacking non-wahabi Muslims jihad. This is why wahabism was so useful to the House of Saud when it was conquering Arabia in a way not dissimilar to what ISIS are doing now. I don't think Shia has any movement which allows them to declare fellow Muslims unbelievers so they can not target Sunnis in the same way.

[Horza]

But Shia extremists seem to target people and things for strategic purpose instead of for the sake of "punishing the infidel"

You're presenting this dichotomy of 'strategic' Shia extremist violence and 'uncontrolled' Sunni extremist violence, but it's almost completely the other way around: that type of spectacular 'punish the infidel' violence is a part of IS and al-Qaeda strategy. When Shia groups commit massacres and sectarian atrocities it's quite often the work of militias acting on their own initiative in a tit-for-tat sectarian conflict.

I just find it a bit strange that no western chump who gets sucked into "Radical Islam" and tries to behead someone/blow something up ever seems to be sucked into "Radical Shia"

This is because the political structures of Sunni and Shia jihadist groups are different. Shia organisations like Hizbollah and the Badr brigades are quasi-official organisations based in particular countries and drawing support from the Shia communities in those countries. Their objectives are focused around the political advancement of their communities. Sunni organisations tend to have much bigger objectives, including the overthrow of the all the regimes of the region and the creation of some kind of Islamic state ruled on extremist salafist lines. Their strategy for this involves the polarisation of societies via spectacular terrorist attacks and recquires that they operate as an underground society or out in the stateless stretches of the world and it puts them in constant conflict with the Western world. IS in particular requires a lot of cannon fodder, particularly as they rely on suicide bombing on the battlefield, hence that's why they put a lot more effort into recruiting and why Shia groups have practically no need for Western bozo converts.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Re. Sunni and Shia, wahabism is a Sunni movement which states that fellow Muslims who do not follow wahabism can be considered non-believers and treated as such. It is even permissible to call attacking non-wahabi Muslims jihad. This is why wahabism was so useful to the House of Saud when it was conquering Arabia in a way not dissimilar to what ISIS are doing now. I don't think Shia has any movement which allows them to declare fellow Muslims unbelievers so they can not target Sunnis in the same way.

I thought those were Takfiris? From what I've read Wahabbis are very conservative and devout, even militant, but in theory they don't view fellow Sunnis as fair game for violence just because they aren't Wahabbi. If those Sunnis serve an "apostate regime", or side with infidels, that's another matter

[Lord Freypie]

I thought those were Takfiris? From what I've read Wahabbis are very conservative and devout, even militant, but in theory they don't view fellow Sunnis as fair game for violence just because they aren't Wahabbi. If those Sunnis serve an "apostate regime", or side with infidels, that's another matter

Takfirism is an old current of islam some analysts rate as influencing or being similar to modern Wahabbi/salafist ideology. But current terrorist groups don't recognize themselves as Takfir.

[jet199]

I thought those were Takfiris? From what I've read Wahabbis are very conservative and devout, even militant, but in theory they don't view fellow Sunnis as fair game for violence just because they aren't Wahabbi. If those Sunnis serve an "apostate regime", or side with infidels, that's another matter

Takfir is a doctrine of wahabism.

Takfirism is an old current of islam some analysts rate as influencing or being similar to modern Wahabbi/salafist ideology. But current terrorist groups don't recognize themselves as Takfir.

ISIS don't recognise themselves as either wahabism or Takfir because they don't hold to the "one king" tenant of wahabism which the Saudis do but their ideas are much the same.