The Profile

If he does indeed prove to have been the perpetrator of the mass murder in Manchester, Salman Abedi fits a familiar profile. Consider:

  • He was born in the country that he attacked.
  • He was a Muslim.
  • His parents were immigrants, in his case from Libya.
  • He had shown signs of radicalization which went largely unremarked upon.

Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston), Rizwan Farook (San Bernardino), and Omar Mateen (Orlando) all fit similar profiles. I think that the pressures of being in an immigrant family both from the society at large and from within the family can be just too much for some people to handle.

My conclusion is not that we should ban immigration, the immigration of Muslims, or the immigration of Muslims from certain countries. I think we should recognize the pattern, consider it a cost of immigration, and engage in early interventions to head off future problems.

33 comments… add one
  • Janis Gore Link

    You say interventions, but I have no idea what they might look like. Counter gang programming?

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    My observation is some immigrants go native after barely a year, while some are strangers to their adopted land after 30, 40 years – and passing it on to their kids (a strangers to their birthplace).

    It’s somewhat significant that the parents seem not to live in England anymore. There’s a correlation in how attached you are to an ancestral country and degree of assimilation.

  • That touches on an issue of concern to me, CuriousOnlooker. I think that in the age of Skype attachments to the “ancestral country” remain stronger than in days gone by. That should figure in our assessments.

  • What I’m thinking about is something analogous to the early intervention programs for kids with disabilities. I don’t have it completely thought out.

    The point is we clearly need to do something and IMO trying to help people in anticipation of a potential problem is better than punishing them after they’ve killed a couple of dozen people.

  • Janis Gore Link

    What happened to PD Shaw? I bring this up here because his wife is a psychologist and he might’ve commented in the past.

  • I think he got P. O.’d after a vitriolic exchange in comments here and is taking a break.

  • Janis Gore Link

    Ah. Just so he is well.

  • Guarneri Link

    ” I think that the pressures of being in an immigrant family both from the society at large and from within the family can be just too much for some people to handle.”

    And in other news –

    In what has become a repeating pattern, yet another immigrant Irishman suicide bomber, identified as Sean O’Hara, killed 40 people at a London nightclub. Witnesses said O’Hara yelled Erin go bragh before detonating himself. Prime Minister May admonished people to “go about their normal business” and called for more funding of the Irish Assimilation Awareness and the Early Intervention – Finger Painting for Anger Management programs.

  • Different cultures have different ways of coping with stress. The Irish drink. Arabs apparently blame other people for their problems.

    If we reject the alternative of bottling people from the Middle East up in their own hellholes, maybe we can try anticipating the problems they’ll have here.

  • Bombing their countries and overthrowing their governments don’t seem to be solving the problem.

  • CStanley Link

    Doesn’t your idea of early intervention presuppose that the immigrant families have a desire to assimilate?

  • I don’t see that. I just think it requires us to be aware of the risks.

  • CStanley Link

    I was thinking specifically of the comparison to early intervention programs for kids with disabilities. Those are only possible because everyone pretty much agrees on the goal of the interventions.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    Arabs apparently blame other people for their problems.?
    Muslims are taught that non believers must die, and that is an opportunity for them to please Allah and live forever in the afterlife abusing numerous virgins. Think, DEEP, DARK fantasies…

  • Gray Shambler Link

    And, this is nothing like the altruism of Christianity. The promised reward in Islam is cruel domination. There is no other way, Muslims must change or die. We don’t have much time left.

  • You and I see Islam very differently, GS. I think that in terms of its teaching it’s as altruistic as Christianity. The misfit isn’t in terms of doctrine but in terms of practice.

    In practice what we’re seeing isn’t Islam but the re-emergence of pre-Islamic cultural practices—the stuff Mohammed was reacting to. I see a deep sense of entitlement and resentment among Gulf Arabs that they’re using billions in oil money to spread all over the Islamic world.

  • Andy Link

    Dave,

    That’s theory doesn’t explain why 2nd generations muslim immigrants commit atrocities in western countries, but Christians do not commit similar atrocities anywhere except for parts of central Africa. Christian populations are being actively killed and forced out of places they’ve lived for generations yet they aren’t blowing up Muslim children in suicide or any other attacks. Actually, self-described Muslims are the ones that blow up Muslim children in sectarian squabbles.

    We also don’t see the types of things that happen along the Christian-Muslim seem in east Africa, where al Shabaab militants will enter a village in Kenya and murder all non-Muslims.

    While I agree with you that this isn’t “Islam” as most Muslims practice it, it is Islam for a non-trivial number of Muslims and so far peaceful Muslims have been unwilling or unable to stop their brethren from committing violence. In western countries we still do not have a grasp on what to do about our own citizens who decide to sacrifice themselves, along with as many unbelievers as possible, much less how to stop them ahead of time.

    I can’t see how this ends. I don’t buy into the “clash of civilizations” narrative, but elements of it are hard to refute and even harder to actively counter.

  • Dave, Please read the following mini-drama as it applies to this post:

    SMALL CHILD: Look at the pretty stovetop..gonna touch it. (a few seconds later) OUCH, mommy, I hurt myself!

    MOM: Let’s get you a band-aid and fix that. Remember, don’t touch the hot stove. That way you won’t get burnt, OK sweetie?

    SMALL CHILD: Thanks Mom, believe me I’ll ‘member. That really hurt! Won’t touch that stove anymore!
    **************************************
    I agree with you that the children of immigrants face some extra stress. And maybe they handle it differently.

    So what?

    ‘Stress’ that isn’t handled in a socially acceptable way is criminal activity, especially when it injures others. Most of the other legal immigrant groups that have come to America have assimilated perfectly well.

    Why should Islam get a pass?

    These ‘stress’ incidents get more and more common and the apologists still sing the same old song, trying to make us feel like the wisdom that SMALL CHILD displayed above is ‘Islamophobia’ ‘raa-aa-cism’ or goodness knows what.

    http://www.watcherofweasels.org/uk-left-europe-needs-just-get-used-attacks-like-manchester/

    Even worse, we both know there are plenty of decent Muslims out there. Many of them came here to get away from Islam’s inherent misogyny, violence and totalitarianism. Trying to rationalize the behavior of jihadis is eventually going to make the lives of Muslims who simply want to live in peace hell.

    As for Muslim migrants in both Europe and America, the later, more assimilated ones have worked out, but increasingly, the newer ones are economic migrants whom haven’t, either in terms of paying their own way or preying on the Infidels, particularly women. Or perhaps you’re not aware of what’s going on in Europe right now. The reason is simple. The Medina Qur’an, which all 4 Muslim fiqhs have said takes precedence over the earlier Mecca Qur’an makes no provision for a Golden Rule that applies to everyone as most other major religions do. Islam’s equivalent only applies to Muslims. Infidels can be raped, murdered, bought and sold, plundered, deceived and lied to with no ethical baggage. Many Muslims, a majority do not act in that way, but for those whom choose to, Islam sanctifies this behavior.

    Simple solution: don’t touch the hot stove anymore. Monitor suspected Jihad mosques. Stop the migration of Muslims whom aren’t totally vetted from certain countries. Block jihadi websits. Deport migrants and/or citizens or green card holders who ally themselves with jihadist groups after a tribunal. Declare the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups terrorist organizations and make them illegal, just like the KKK.

    And ally ourselves with decent Muslims who respect our constitution, our laws and our customs instead of people like CAIR.

    My apologies for a long post, but you pushed one of my buttons, my friend.

  • Rob:

    I think we’re trying to accomplish different things. I’m interested in mitigating risk. These measures:

    Monitor suspected Jihad mosques. Stop the migration of Muslims whom aren’t totally vetted from certain countries. Block jihadi websits. Deport migrants and/or citizens or green card holders who ally themselves with jihadist groups after a tribunal. Declare the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups terrorist organizations and make them illegal, just like the KKK.

    won’t do that in the age of the Internet. Barring Muslims from the United States, banning immigrants from the United States, barring Muslim immigrants from the United States, or barring Muslim immigrants from MENA from the United States are all non-starters. There are clearly risks. How do we mitigate them?

  • Hi Dave,
    Interesting you should mention the impossibility of jamming jihadist propaganda. As one more success of Trump’s recent trip, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Emirates have blocked al-Jazeerah, or JihadTV as we call it around here. No reason we can’t, just as Al-Manor,Hezbollah’s station is blocked here.
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230156

    As for immigrants, there’s no law that states we have to take in any immigrants the president deems a security risk. Obama did this to migrants from Iraq during his presidency and no one, media or otherwise said a damned word. The faux opposition to President Trump’s perfectly legal order comes from a couple of Obama-appointed far left judges, one of whom got his appointment because he was a long time crony of Obama’s in Hawaii and was in his class at Harvard. Both raised money for his campaign. It’s all about politics and ‘resistance’ and won’t hold up in court.I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on the legality in banning migrants for any country or region.

    BTW, I didn’t suggest banning all migrants from MENA. I merely suggest that they be thoroughly vetted, and if this can’t be done that we be very wary about letting them in at all. Keep in mind that ISIS has bragged repeatedly about infiltrating the ‘refugees’ and recent events prove they weren’t lying.

    While Muslims can certainly assimilate with a free society, Islam doesn’t play well with others. Why keep touching that hot stove?

    You want to minimize risk? Implement the steps I mentioned above, terminate the refugee resettlement program and be a lot more selective about who we let in…let’s put the immigration emphasis on value added immigrants.

    Why the great urge to bring in migrants from that part of the world? What do we gain, except more risk?

    We just lost an online friend of mine, a SW engineer in the Netherlands with an inch of degrees after his name. He speaks English, has a wife and two children and no other issues. Being Jewish, he’d become very concerned at what’s happening with the growing population of Muslims there and the ensuing rise in crime, sexual assaults and other incidents. His first choice was America, but after ten months of being jerked around by ICE, he applied to Australia and to Israel.

    The Israelis were fastest on the mark. Not only were he and his family told about all the benefits they would get as Olim (immigrants), they were given reams of advice on moving, taxes, getting an apartment, ulpan (schools where they could learn Hebrew) and even personal contacts where he was likely to find work. Their paperwork was processed in just over two weeks.

    The Ozzies took a little longer. They had him and his family approved and ready to go in 5 weeks. He chose Israel and is employed and settling in just fine as I write this.

    This is the kind of immigrant we’re losing, as opposed to importing some unskilled migrant from Somalia or Syria with views far out of the American mainstream. Which do you think is riskier, Dave?

    FWIW, I’d actually suggest that we put together the same system they have in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and other countries who are prime immigration targets. That means getting rid of the country quotas and going to a points system based on knowledge of English, skills necessary to America, lack of criminal record, financial resources, good health and lack of questionable political/religious affiliations.

    That’s exactly how immigrants used to be handled in America, except a large number of laborers or relatively unskilled workers were allowed in, because the economy had need of them. Today, we don’t. We also made them swear allegiance to the United States, something President Obama eliminated. Not a good situation.

    Take care,OK?

    -Rob-

  • Better vetting even if possible will do nothing about the native born children of the people who are already here and, as is the point of the post, they’re the ones who pose the greater risk.

  • CStanley Link

    But what is the common thread that makes you feel that some kind of intervention could ameliorate those risks?

    In the Manchester attack, it’s still too early to tell but I’ve seen suspicions that it was actually a family cell. To the extent that this is happening, those families aren’t part of your target group.

    In other cases it seems that an ordinary life stressor triggers radicalization, or the person had already embraced a radical form of Islam and then acts out when something in his personal life goes wrong. But how would we be more able to prevent that then we are in preventing Americans from “going postal”?

  • CStanley Link

    (“Americans”- what I should have said was “US citizens who aren’t immigrants or children of immigrants”) IOW, resorting to violence when triggered by extreme stress isn’t unique to the immigrant experience and we haven’t figured out how to prevent people from crossing that tripwire.

  • I’m open to other suggestions but what I’ve seen so far vary from the politically impossible to the misdirected.

    I guess what I’m suggesting is that the stresses to which children of MENA immigrants are subject may be distinctive.

  • CStanley Link

    I think it’s a fair criticism of my position that I don’t offer alternative suggestions. I agree with your assessment that there is a lot of risk from the second generation immigrants but I have no idea what can be done about it. Since it seems pretty hopeless, I guess I’d say it leaves us back where we started in that it bolsters the arguments to reduce current immigration to those that can be vetted, so that at least we’re not planting the seeds for the future when the next generation comes along.

  • Janis Gore Link

    Programs that are now designed for at-risk minorities would seem to be a good approach. Many of the stressors are common. They could be tweaked for the communities they serve.

  • CStanley Link

    With all due respect, the more I read about the Manchester attack the more I feel angry that you’ve brought up this idea of host countries needing to be proactive and sympathetic to the needs of Muslim immigrant families. I’m not saying that’s entirely wrong, but it feels misplaced when we’re in the aftermath of a heinous attack where the suspects father had known ties to terrorist groups and the authorities apparently missed FIVE opportunities when suspicions about Abedi were reported- including the imam from the mosque he was attending, which banned hm and reported him.

    Why on earth should we be talking about adjustment issues or the need to be preemptive when it’s looking like this was a simple failure to heed clear warning signs? And isn’t there a danger that the kind of program you’re suggesting actually adds to the climate of concern about profiling, which may in this case even have been a factor in those complaints being ignored?

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    I start this comment by stating my respect for the commenters and author of the post.

    I see Dave’s proposal as belonging to a group of solutions roughly termed “deradicalization”. While it is better then doing nothing (what we do now), I am skeptical deradicalization by itself is a solution. The first reason is that it is already tried, has been tried, and the results at best are mixed. This article shows a German example similar to Dave’s proposal, intervention through social services to youth at risk of radicalization prior to taking action on beliefs. The article documents how it failed and the person went on to commit violence. Telling in the article is one of the defenders talks about its worth it if the success rate is 30%, if a defender is thinking 30%, what’s the hope to get it to 90, 99% given the number of at risk youth?
    A not as relevant example comes from Pakistan, where the problem is that even in success cases, these people have to be watched the rest of their lives because they are a high risk to be the support network for other radicals.

    The second problem with the deradicalization that CStanley and first article pointed out – successful intervention programs requires the commitment of the individual, family and community. If the individual is old enough (>16), like drug addictions or gambling, deradicalization requires a personal commitment to change, the problem is those willing to die may be the ones most resistant to change. Then there is family, I propose that the families with the most at-risk youth are the ones most resistant to the idea their child needs this type of help.

    The third problem is I see deradicalization is also like substance abuse intervention. One of key things to preventing relapse is to keep away triggers. In the case of radicalization, that would be things or people that advocate for radicalism, like ISIS, Al-Queda, and jihadist social media. That’s why I am upset about Syria, between Russia and ISIS only ISIS has advocated and actually killed civilians in NATO countries, yet we treat as Russia as the bigger problem. Priorities!

    In a roundabout way, isn’t this deradicalization proposal just a backdoor way advocating for limits on immigration from these areas? If society has to spend resources for people coming from certain countries, it raises the question as to why we don’t admit proportionately more people from countries without the issue and save those resources for something else. After all, there is no natural level of immigration from any country, its set by law.

    Perhaps a more effective means is to tell prospective immigrants that there is a expectation of assimilation, that the ties to the old country are expected to be cut. Something like no dual citizenship, minimal funding for learning languages other then English at the primary level. That probably screen out a lot of people who would have attachment issues and pass it on to their kids.

  • In a roundabout way, isn’t this deradicalization proposal just a backdoor way advocating for limits on immigration from these areas?

    I see it more as an acknowledgement that the risk is already present, i.e. that the risk is now an issue. I see proposals for limiting immigration as closing the barn door after the cows have already left (or, in this case, already entered). Will it reduce the future scope of the problem? Maybe.

    Perhaps a more effective means is to tell prospective immigrants that there is a expectation of assimilation, that the ties to the old country are expected to be cut. Something like no dual citizenship, minimal funding for learning languages other then English at the primary level.

    I have supported those measures for a half century. They don’t seem to have any more traction now than they did then.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Another idea is to look at the one true successful program of deradicalization of people who were willing to die for ideology, post world war 2 Japan.

  • Japan isn’t a good comparable. Japan was a top-down society with values of obligation and consensus that aren’t matched in the Muslim world let alone in the Arab world. They aren’t even matched in Japan any more. It’s hard for us to imagine Japan of 80 years ago.

    When the emperor said “Surrender” that was it. Additionally, between 5% and 10% of Japan’s population had died in the war. The comparable number in the Muslim world would be 80-160 million Muslims. The comparable figure in the Arab world would be 15-30 million people.

    Consider that when somebody says we overreacted to 9/11. We misreacted, maybe even underreacted.

  • Hello Dave,
    Bottom line, if we’re having a particular problem with migrants from MENA that keeps recurring, why keep touching the hot stove? Would America collapse without these particular migrants? Or at least most of them? I doubt it.

    One of the reasons Japan has no Islamist terrorism is because they have very few Muslims (about 100K) and don’t let any more in except in very special circumstances. They also keep a close watch on the ones there:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/muslims-japan-government-surveillance-top-court-green-lit-islamaphobia-a7109761.html

    In short, they saw other kids being burned again and again and decided that touching the hot stove was a bad idea.

    Another thing worth mentioning. One of the great things President Trump did in his recent Middle East tour was to address the Muslim nations the way he did.

    The first part of the speech was fairly appeasing, designed to save Arab face. But in the middle and to the end, he said something quite plainly…that it was the responsibility of the Muslim nations to combat Islamist terrorism and radical extremism in their countries and drive it out. And since the Arabs lack the oil weapon now and need American help against Iran, there’s a decent chance most of them understood that. The alternative, something Trump alluded to was that the U.S. wasn’t going to ignore countries who don’t. They would get tarred with the same dirty brush.

    Most of the smarter, more assimilated American Muslims understand this too, but unfortunately we had a president for the 8 years previous who had as one of his chief policy goals appeasing and empowering Islamism here and abroad. He was collaborating with Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and ignoring them.

    It isn’t our job to ‘reform’ Islam or to change our countries laws, Constitution and mores to accommodate them. It’s the other way around.

    Islam’s future depends, as it should on Muslims. It’s time they acknowledged it and did something about it. And if they can’t or won’t, then we need to take the steps I outlined above.

  • We don’t disagree that much, Rob. I just don’t think that restricting present and future immigration will do much about the U. S. citizen children of immigrants (who pose a greater threat than their parents).

    I guess the Supreme Court will have the last say over whether President Trump can restrict the immigration of people from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, etc.

Leave a Comment