Is It Possible That ISIS Is Claiming Responsibility For Attacks It Didn’t Plan?

Introduction

One of the most troubling aspects of the ongoing global terrorist threat is the use of false claims of responsibility. This article explores the likelihood that ISIS might be falsely claiming credit for attacks it didn’t plan. The discussion will delve into the motivations behind these claims, the nature of ISIS as an organization, and recent examples of such false claims.

Motivations for Falsely Claiming Responsibility

There are several motivations for organizations like ISIS to falsely claim responsibility for attacks they didn't plan. One key reason is the desire for honor and admiration. For ISIS, falsely claiming credit can boost its reputation among both its existing members and other terrorist organizations. This exaggeration of their capabilities and achievements gives them a sense of visibility and influence.

Additionally, falsely claiming responsibility can serve a political purpose. The non-Trumpistan news media, particularly in Western nations, often scrutinize such claims. By attempting to portray themselves as greater enemies, ISIS can keep themselves in the spotlight and maintain a narrative of constant danger.

The Nature of ISIS as an Organization

ISIS is not your average terrorist organization. It operates more like an ideological movement than a strictly structured group. Unlike Al Qaeda, where attacks were often planned and organized in a centralized manner, ISIS is much harder to pin down. Its decentralized nature allows individuals to radicalize and act in their own name, often aligning themselves ideologically with ISIS without direct contact.

ISIS has urged supporters to carry out acts of violence and even provided specific instructions for such actions. For example, in 2014, the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi urged supporters to run over filthy French people. This level of direct and detailed instruction further complicates the issue of attributing responsibility.

Recent Examples of False Claims of Responsibility

Recent history provides several examples of attacks that were initially suspected to be ISIS operations but later turned out to be independent actions. In Germany, for instance, some minor attacks initially suspected of being perpetrated by ISIL were later discovered to have been carried out by lone individuals or small, independent cells.

However, ISIS does seem to have a clear pattern in terms of their preferred methods of attack. The list below outlines a series of attacks that have a questionable claim of responsibility:

May 2014 ürümqi attack: A ramming incident involving throwing bombs off the vehicle. 2014 Jerusalem tractor attack: A ramming attack on Israeli police. 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack: A ramming attack targeting Canadian soldiers in uniform. October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack: A ramming attack in Israel. November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack: Another ramming attack in Israel, this time with a metal crowbar. 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack: A failed ramming and stabbing incident in the West Bank. 2014 Dijon attack: A ramming attack in France. 2014 Nantes attack: A ramming attack in France. 2015 Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack: A ramming attack of gas cylinders and decapitation in France. 2016 Nice attack: A ramming attack in France. 2016 Ohio State University attack: A ramming and stabbing attack in the United States. 2016 Berlin attack: A ramming attack in Germany.

These examples suggest a pattern where ISIS is willing to claim responsibility for certain attacks, even if there was no direct contact or involvement with its operatives. The question now is whether these claims are more a result of extensive and direct involvement by ISIS operatives or whether they are indicative of a broader terror cell that aligns itself with ISIS’s ideology.

The implications of these false claims are significant. If ISIS can successfully shepherd individuals into carrying out such attacks, whether directly or indirectly, it demonstrates a level of influence and control that extends beyond what is immediately apparent.