,
10 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1) Jihadists have been calling for revenge attacks and inciting violence following the #NewZealandTerroristAttack. The attack against Muslims presented jihadists with a golden opportunity to push their “us versus them” and “Islam is under attack, do something” narratives.
2) Jihadists are exploiting the attack, hoping that Muslims’ anger and emotions will drive some of them to align with jihadists, ideologically if not physically. I.e, they are using the event as a recruitment tool.
3) That’s why jihadists have been urging wide circulation of the graphic shooting video, saying all Muslims must watch it, to shock them into action. The word "crusade" while common jihadist lingo is being used more than usual.
4) A theme in jihadist reaction that appeared early on and was later somewhat dropped as it appeared baseless was the “double standards” of the West.
5) They said Western authorities and media only labelled as “terrorist”, attacks carried out by Muslims, and that non-Muslim attackers were often described as “mentally ill”.
6) Sticking with the "double standards" narrative, they also claimed Western and Arab media gave attention and sympathy to terrorist attacks against non-Muslims, but were indifferent to similar attacks against Muslims.
7) IS supporters also incited attacks and made many posters to that effect. However, a strong theme in their reaction has been: what about Baghuz?
8) They either drew parallels between the victims in the mosque shootings and people killed in Baghuz, or said what’s been happening to “civilians” in Baghuz is greater and more tragic, yet the world didn’t care.
9) It is no surprise that extremists of both sides – jihadists and far right – feed off each other's actions and narratives of hatred and use them to drive their “us versus them” agendas.
10) But the real danger is when extremist and some "mainstream" narratives converge
