comment: >
  
  The closer the date is to 09/11/2001and greater the melanin content the skin of the POTUS the more it matters according to the US right wing.
context: It still is. For example, the Wikipedia main page for today says:
  
  A suicide bombing in a mosque in Peshawar, Pakistan, kills 100 people and injures more than 220 others. >
  
  This seems to be antiislamic terror ? >
  
  I would classify it as intra-islamic terrorism. >
  
  I’m really not looking forward to having to deal with “Post-Modern Islamic Terrorism.” >
  
  It's a problem, just not as much of a problem in the West.
  The biggest potential threat for Islamist (not Islamic, there's a difference) terrorism in the west post-9/11 was almost always "lone wolf" attacks against soft targets.
  Well, the decisive action against ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, and similar organizations both crippled their ability to fund such operations, diminished their reach via social media, and severely crippled their leadership structures. After all, nobody wants to take an afternoon drive and get hit with a slap chop missile that doesn't leave enough left to fill a doggy bag. >
  
  
  It's a problem, just not as much of a problem in the West.
  
  I'd edit that to the US, not the west. Europe has issues still, though they are less than years past as we have mostly destroyed the large organizations. >
  
  ISIS is now only a shell of what it was before. After government forces recaptured Mosul, that was pretty much its last stand. It became relegated to being tiny and extremely demoralized fighting cells in the desert. Less war like conditions now and therefore less people being displaced. Many of the people who went there to fight with ISIS have become disillusioned after seeing ISIS for what it was. They are either being prosecuted in their home countries or rendered stateless after leaders of various countries have revoked their citizenships. 
  Today, Iraq has entered a period of relative stability after ISIS had been significantly weakened and US forces being ejected by the Iraqi government. Syrians are still leaving Assad's regime, albeit at smaller numbers than before. Boko Haram's leader has been killed and its camps have been destroyed.
  A huge but here... Al-Shabaab is still a major concern but more as a domestic concern. Every year, there are several attacks in Mogadishu and other cities throughout Somalia. >
  
  I would add that a group of militants attacks Southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique. >
  
  I'm actually not sure they are gone but they're definitely in retreat. USA and friends capped a lot of their leadership. They're either in retreat and rebuilding, or just done. I can't answer for Europe but I can also say that the focus in the USA is shifting to domestic terror.
  Sorry if my response is too brief. I don't believe the answers are that complex. Religious government is on the rise, authoritarianism also, so they're busy at home. Oppressing the women. >
  
  I believe this is what it is too. Focus has shifted. >
  
  Because ISIS was destroyed. Tens of thousands of its fighters were annihilated. And more importantly, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states which exported fundamentalist Islamism are moderating a bit. 
  It’s still a major problem though, just not in the West. The Sahel for instance is constantly ravaged by Islamist violence and there was just recently a massive terror attack in Pakistan. >
  
  Probably mainly because there haven't been any major Islamist terror attacks lately, while our attention has been drawn away by all the other scary stuff happening.  Also Al Qaeda and ISIS are only a shadow of their former selves by now. >
  
  Here in France, there's still several "Islamic terrorism-adjacent" murders each year - ie. acts carried out by mentally deranged people that have latched onto Islamism as a motivating idealogy - there was a mass stabbing in Gare du Nord about two weeks ago. >
  
  That’s scary, and I don’t think we even heard about it over here >
  
  A) All the leaders are dead. 
  B) They’ve probably seen all the chaos in the West over the past decade and realize attacking is a waste of time. >
  
  Because there's a war on Christmas, CRT, the border, and litter boxes in schools happening instead.  It will come around again. Our tiny brains can only deal with 3 or 4 drumbeats at a time. >
  
  The GOP can't really harp on Islamic terrorism while American rightwing terrorists are on the uptick. >
  
  I think COVID is the thing you're missing. It kinda distracted everyone for a while, and it killed a lot more people than terrorists ever did. Terrorism was always a massively-overinflated threat for the US and Europe, so it was easy to ignore it when an actual threat came along. >
  
  Now it’s Christian nationalism that’s our biggest national threat. Go figure >
  
  Eh, Christian extremists haven't flown two planes into skyscrapers or shot up an LGBT nightclub or bombed a stadium full of kids or beheaded a teacher because he dared to draw Jesus.  I'd say we're a ways away from Christian nationalism being a threat. >
  
  No. They bomb abortion clinics and attack liberals and democrats. They launch insurrections when their candidate loses. Christian extremists call for a real-life version of Gilead here in America. They are a much bigger threat than Islamic radicals because they're homegrown terrorists. >
  
  And my point is that a possible threat is far better than two planes crashing into the Twin Towers, which was an actual threat. >
  
  But it’s not a threat now. It’s an event that happened two decades ago. To the point of the OP, this type of extremism is no longer viewed as a threat in America. Recent history suggests that terrorism in the US will much more likely be committed by right wing Americans instead. We shouldn’t need another OKC bombing scale attack to acknowledge that. >
  
  Only if you bought into the media hype, especially Republican media that needs to instill fear and dread of the "other".  I actually had a neighbor who was certain Obama would usher in an era of Sharia law in the US during that time period.
  I tried explaining that ISIS and other such extremist Islamic worldviews were medieval in nature, and incapable of successfully propagating (much) in the modern world. They would eventually just burn out on their own. Worldviews can get outcompeted by more successful ones, just like species can. The vast majority of modern people simply do not want to be beheaded (or ruled) by extremists of any religion or ideology. But too many people unquestionably absorb the narratives they hear on tv.
  And of course the US needs an enemy du jour to justify its $1T/year war budget. So the American people will always be heavily propagandized by the state (corporate) media to fear the designated "terrorist" group, so they don't ever ask if all that money might otherwise be spent on healthcare, a living wage, or some other unicorn and puppies fantasy like that. >
  
  I know your ass isn’t blaming the “republican media” when Obama literally drone strikes so many people we ran out of bombs >
  
  I’m sorry if I didn’t structure my essay as clearly as I intended. 
  Both sides of the US corporate media often push the same false narratives but for different purposes. The Republicans pushed “radical Islamic terrorism” because they hate and fear “foreign” people especially if they are “non Christian”. And because the Democrats are “soft on terror” and “want Sharia law”.
  The Democrats pushed for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and yes unquestioningly allowed Obama’s and then trump’s drone attacks, because “they attacked us on 9/11” and “they are the bad terrorists we must fight over there so they can’t blow us up here” as the pretext (which was also Bush Junior’s line of reasoning), but more truly because the military industrial complex needs liberals to keep paying them hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars every year.  
  Republicans basically hate and fear all Muslims (remember they cheered trump’s Muslim ban), while liberals are only afraid of the “extremist” Muslims that CNN and the NYT tell them to fear. But in both cases, most Americans lost their taste for endless war in the Middle East. It’s much easier to sell them on a new endless war in the Ukraine. Especially since Putin clearly also is a power hungry dictator who made the calculation that he could more easily maintain power as a “war president”, much as the calculation Cheney/Bush made when they decided to invade Iraq (remember George Tenet said it was going to be a “slam dunk” and then we were stuck there for a decade — but the people still re-elected the dumbest and most incompetent president we ever had up to that point). 
  Both political parties are the two wings of the capitalist corporatist militarist party that runs the United States. The American people (all of them regardless of affiliation, religious belief, and education level) are the most heavily propagandized people in the history of the world. The American people could have voted for someone who voted against the Iraq war and who has vocally been against arming the Saudi’s in their Yemen war (Bernie Sanders) in 2016 and then again in 2020 but they voted for the War Mongers of both parties, both times. The vast majority of all Americans would rather spend their hard earned money on keeping their military bloated, rather than giving themselves universal single-payer healthcare or a guaranteed livable wage. >
  
  Every single media outlet pushed war. candi rice and Hilary Clinton were literally just on a podcast still talking about WMD. Every news outlet lied. Every politician lied. The republicans just wore it on their sleeve more and the dems were dropping bombs with HOPE on them.
  Edit: the DNC trashed Bernie’s campaign both times and he rolled over. There is no hope for an anti war party in America. Is there any legitimate pushback with Ukraine ? If you criticize the escalation you get attacked. Was the same thing after 9/11. >
  
  The right wing wants everyone to fear transgender people now. They are the new "other" to hate. >
  
  MaGA Republicans and cancel culture crazies are probably the new terrorists while Islamists are sitting quietly in the back of the bus planning the next 9-11 >
  
  Couple of reasons.
  For starters, a lot of the big catalysts for "Islamic terrorism" are....busy.
  ISIS' main branch is pretty focused on conflict within Afghanistan against the Taliban and as such hasn't had a plethora of Western targets to strike at. Other ISIS franchises have been acting more locally in their country of origin.
  A lot of other networks have been pretty badly crippled by ongoing counter-terrorism efforts and have scaled back or shifted operations. As much of a pig's breakfast as the US has made of terrorism screening and control efforts at the domestic level, we've had a number of years to refine things and get it right enough that we can catch most of the problems headed our way. At least the problems with the backing of actual organizations/networks.
  Similarly, the US is out(ish) of Afghanistan and Iraq which means we're just not there to be the target of attacks or enflame sentiment towards us that makes us the target of attacks. We're just less exposed than we used to be.
  The conflict media cycle has also been living and breathing Ukraine for a year now which has taken a lot of wind out of the attention sails for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. >
  
  It only seems that way if you are an American. If you are a European especially a French, however, jihadism and Islamism are constant threats that need to be destroyed. After the beheading of French schoolteacher Samuel Paty in October 2020, the "centrist" French president Emmanuel Macron and his government finally had enough and have unleashed a huge campaign against the enemies they refer to as Islamo-leftism and Islamist separatism.
  Of course, the liberal media in the United States and the UK hate what the French have been doing. The New York Times even published this opinion article victim blaming the French.
  Color-blind France will not tolerate any challenge to its secular and democratic Republican values including Muslim children. All French Muslims must uphold those values including the ban on hijabs.
  Overall, this is how the French view the paradox of tolerance and freedom of expression.
  Edit: Formatting >
  
  That’s not Islamic terrorism that a coordinated attack by a subjugated and oppressed population in Israel. >
  
  Terrorism: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." 
  You don't get to change the definition of words. >
  
  In America we have white supremacist domestic terrorists as our biggest threat now