Bangladeshi Officials to U.S: Ullah is a Homegrown U.S. Terrorist

Bangladeshi government officials have told the U.S. that Akayed Ullah is a product of U.S. homegrown terrorism.

Bangladesh has communicated with the US government that it has no record on Akayed Ullah’s involvement with the militancy here and termed him as a “homegrown US terrorist,” a senior Bangladesh government official said on Tuesday.

Here is the Affidavit in support of the Complaint against Ullah. Among other things, it states that Ullah wrote on his FB page, "Trump you failed to protect your nation."

The Affidavit states Ullah told authorities his attack was ISIS-inspired and he began following ISIS sites online in 2014. (What took him so long to act, and why now, after ISIS has lost so much ground in Syria and Iraq?)

ISIS has been calling for homegrown attacks in the U.S. and Europe since shortly after it declared its Caliphate in June, 2014. Deceased ISIS spokesman al-Adnani called for homegrown attacks in September, 2014. [More...]

The 4th issue of ISIS' Dabiq magazine, published in October, 2014, also called for lone wolf type attacks on the west. It added one thing to Adnani's recent statement -- it told would be attackers to make sure they give credit to ISIS:

Every Muslim should get out of his house, find a crusader, and kill him. It is important that the killing becomes attributed to patrons of the Islamic State who have obeyed its leadership. This can easily be done with anonymity. Otherwise, crusader media makes such attacks appear to be random killings.

In January, 2015, al-Adnani released "Die in Your Rage":

Likewise, we renew our call to the muwahhidīn in Europe and the disbelieving West and everywhere else, to target the crusaders in their own lands and wherever they are found. We will argue, before Allah, against any Muslim who has the ability to shed a single drop of crusader blood but does not do so, whether with an explosive device, a bullet, a knife, a car, a rock, or even a boot or a fist. Indeed, you saw what a single Muslim did with Canada and its parliament of shirk, and what our brothers in France, Australia, and Belgium did – may Allah have mercy upon them all and reward them with good on behalf of Islam. And there were many others who killed, ran others over, threatened, frightened, and terrorized people, to the extent that we saw the crusader armies deployed on the streets in Australia, Canada, France, Belgium, and other strongholds of the cross to whom we promise – by Allah’s permission – a continuation of their state of alert, terror, fear, and loss of security. And what lies ahead will be worse – with Allah’s permission – and more bitter, for you haven’t seen anything from us just yet.

After the Charlie Hebdo killings, I wrote:

The West is so focused on “returning fighters” it is missing the ball on those who present a greater danger: The ones who never left. ....The ISIS videos are worth watching because they are not just recruitment videos. They provide a road map of what is to come. In this latest video, they threaten more attacks on the West, using images from France and Canada and the logos of various TV stations. They clearly say why they are attacking the West. It’s retaliation for the airstrikes.

After the killings in Tunisia in June, 2015, I again wrote about the difference between ISIS-inspired vs. ISIS-directed attacks:

I don’t think ISIS has any intention of planning, directing or micro-managing lone wolf attacks against Westerners. It wants its supporters to act on their own. From Almedy Coulibaly to Tunisia, I think what we are seeing is ISIS-inspired but not ISIS directed.

I also think "sleeper cell", by definition, is the wrong term to use in connection with these attacks against Westerners. A better term is grass-roots jihadists. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that ISIS sent people to Tunisia, France, Canada, or the U.S. with instructions to lay dormant until receiving activation notice from ISIS.

Authorities will search high and low for accomplices in these attacks, and they will likely find some. But I doubt the accomplices are likely to have had any more direct contact with ISIS than the perpetrators.

The point being immigration had nothing to do with Ullah's attack. He came here in 2011. He was radicalized here, by material he read online and his anger at the U.S. actions in the Middle East.

< New Report: Trump White House Viewed as Most Corrupt | Alabama Senate Exit Polls >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    he meets this definition (none / 0) (#1)
    by linea on Tue Dec 12, 2017 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    of homegrown terrorism: `terrorist activity or plots perpetuated within the United States or abroad by American citizens, permanent legal residents, or visitors radicalized largely within the United States.' [from wikipedia]

    from the reports:
    Akayed Ullah is a Bangladeshi citizen. He came to the U.S. on a F43 Visa six years ago when he was 21 years old and has LPR status in the United States. Ullah had an arranged marriage in Bangladesh last year and his wife and 6 month old child live in Bangladesh.

    as an aside, for women, an `arranged marriage' is often a forced marriage.

    and sometimes it isn't (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 12, 2017 at 07:54:30 PM EST
    true (none / 0) (#3)
    by linea on Tue Dec 12, 2017 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    sometimes ot isn't.

    i'm not a fan of arranged marriages obviously.


    the US Embassy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 12, 2017 at 08:02:50 PM EST
    in Bangladesh explains the difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages.

    thank you (none / 0) (#5)
    by linea on Tue Dec 12, 2017 at 09:02:55 PM EST
    I read the provided apologetic.

    I'm sorry, I don't have a very high opinion of arranged marriages particularly in countries like Bangladesh. According to Human Rights Watch, Bangladesh has one of the highest rates of child marriage in the world.

    I suppose it would have been more correct had I written, `for girls and women, arranged marriages are often coerced marriages` as young women are often subjected to intense pressure by parents and family and are often too young and inexperienced to make a truly informed decision.

    Just my opinion. I'm not trying to start an argument with the site owner.


    Honest Question (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Wed Dec 13, 2017 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    Have you ever met anyone in an arranged marriage and asked them about it?

    You are talking about child marriages and forced marriages, but that's not the same thing as an arranged marriage.  The key difference is consent.  In an arranged marriage, you have the option to consent or not, in a forced marriage you don't.  An arranged marriage is more of a dating service than anything.

    "A forced marriage differs from an arranged marriage, in which both parties consent to the assistance of their parents or a third party (such as a matchmaker) in choosing a spouse."