comment: >
  
  It's interesting after Trump came to power the ISIS were pretty much obliterated.  They no longer had new hummers coming in
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. >
  
  There’s your answer. The Taliban have returned to their roots. Terrorizing their geographic locals. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  The GOP can't really harp on Islamic terrorism while American rightwing terrorists are on the uptick. >
  
  Who specifically are the right-wing terrorist that are on a uptick? >
  
  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. >
  
  I'd say you're mistaken since Christian Extremism in the United States namely white nationalist extremism is and has been the fastest growing terrorist threat in the US since the 70s and when all added togethor, (unfortunately most get labeled as a "lone gunman" or having "mental health" issues, which is a whole other can of worms I don't really feel like opening rn) they are responsible for more deaths on American soil than any other group over the same time period.  
  Ironically when you dig into all of these "lone" perpetrators in mass shootings, the Oklahoma City bombing, Church burnings, abortion clinic bombings, etc they all happen to have a history of pushing and believing conspiracy theories that all share the same roots in white nationalism and anti semitism. 
  To this day they've morphed those conspiracies into the Q Anon cult following of Trump that even in the last couple yrs you can draw a direct line from instances like the mass shooting on the 4th in IL, the assassination attempt on Pelosi that lead to her husband almost being killed, a candidate in NM I believe it was who after losing had his opponents house shot up and a few other democrats houses just for good measure I guess, and a few other mass shootings, not to mention Charlotsville and Jan 6 and the recent mass shootings in LGBTQ communities >
  
  Your Christian prejudice is a 10 out of 10. It's odious, hateful, and has caused you to falsely label anyone you consider right wing as somehow being "Christian extremists". In reality, none of the groups that you mentioned call under the proper definition of Christian extremists.
  Most notably White nationalists I have nothing to do with Christian extremism. White nationalists are defined by their belief in some form of white supremacy and political views described as nationalist. 
  Christian extremism is like Islamic extremism. Some random Muslim whom murders his wife is not an Islamic terrorist. Islamic terrorists are people motivated specifically by their interpretation of Islam to commit violence for the purpose of bringing glory to Islam and their targets are non-muslims or people who are especially opposed or antagonized to Islam. >
  
  Unfortunately sir you again are mistaken, white nationalists and Christian white nationalists are very much intertwined. In fact the Klan were very much Christians, as where many of the other extremists mentioned. Along with AOG , (Army of God) and multiple others. 
  While i may be an atheist now, I was raised Christian, my mother was a Christian who fought Muslims in Jordan when the Muslims tried to eradicate the Christian population. Contrary to what you may think, I'm well versed in both forms of extremism, and in fact my mother was extremely devout, when she left my father never even dated another man because of her religious beliefs. 
  Stating that I've "labeled" anyone or that I "hate" Christians is pretty weird since I in no way condemned any average practicing theist, be it Muslim or Christian. I think maybe you tend to do more assuming than researching from your response, I'd recommend the reverse, you'll look less ridiculous in the future also if you maybe slow down on the completely unfounded and incorrect accusations, both to those with a different perspective, a d apparently to the Muslims you've chosen to lump in as extremists by declaring them the largest threat even though statistically your chances of being killed by a Muslim extremist in America are about 100x lower than the chances of you being killed by a cop or a junkie.
  Edit* and semantically separating a terrorist from an extremist makes no sense. When an extremist decides to force their beliefs through violence they are still a terrorist, whether or not they belong to any specific terrorist organization. You do not have to belong to a group to be a terrorist. >
  
  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. >
  
  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 >
  
  Besides what many people are saying (which is correct of course), there’s also just the simple fact that for the last 6 years the news cycle has completely shifted away from stuff like that (covid, war, trump). We all just get scared of whatever they decide to show us as being a threat every year. >
  
  It was never a problem. The corporate news exaggerated the threat so we could spend $10,000,000,000,000 killing them >
  
  It was never a real problem for the West. An annoyance at best. It was used by the media and the MIC as a vehicle to sell stuff and by western politicians to advance an aggressive agenda. Now that Russia has brought real meat back on the table and China is bleating about their superiority the thin fare that is “Islamic terrorism” gets rightfully put back into the annoyance column. >
  
  Because Biden armed isis and the taliban with billions of military equipment left in Afghanistan so they don’t want to talk about it. >
  
  It was a charade. They had to justify the billions they were laundering through Iraq and Afghanistan.  Terrorists are like fire ants, annoying but manageable if properly motivated…. >
  
  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 >
  
  Media in the us isn’t liberal. >
  
  most if it very much is. redditors just tend to be very far left of the rest of the country, and the majority of the world at that. >
  
  The right wing wants everyone to fear transgender people now. They are the new "other" to hate. >
  
  In America we have white supremacist domestic terrorists as our biggest threat now >
  
  Kurds in Syria helped crush Isis before Trump abandoned them. We pulled out of the middle east as well which was a large part of their hatred of us. Right wing extremists in America are also a far larger and still growing threat. They've been attacking Democrats, and FBI offices as well as trying to overthrow our democracy. >
  
  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. >
  
  I mean, we just took out a leader in somolia like a week or so ago. You can google isis news... it's just not as prevalent in the news cycle. Probably got lots of monitoring systems going on in the background (obv) but ya know... now it's all Russia Russia Russia, wqr in Ukraine. Now there's the chinese balloon and whoever all is in cahoots over there. >
  
  It's the media, hyping whatever "crisis of the day" is. They're the echo chamber for the Republicans who generate the "crisis of the day" to ensure hate and fear don't diminish enough for people to relax and live their lives. >
  
  Because the FBI is doing a good job at it. Give them the powers to fight domestic terrorism and white supremacists, and I'll guarantee you, we will never see anything remotely resembling January 6 again. >
  
  If the FBI was doing its job then January 6 would have never happened. The insurrectionists were being very open about what they wanted to do for weeks beforehand.
  Edit: Also, the FBI are white nationalists. >
  
  In retrospect Islamic terrorism was hyped to justify plundering Middle Eastern resources and strengthen a global system of control. Apparently a better enemy was covid, its everywhere, invisible and can kill you at any time. >
  
  Covid is a legitimate enemy though. Killed magnitudes more people than terrorism did. >
  
  I don't know if I can agree to quite that level of hyperbole, but it does seem like Islam focused on simply moving its influence into Europe rather than trying to fight the U.S.  Countries like France seem to have much more of an Islamic influence than they did 20 or even 10 years ago, much to their detriment.  It's a garbage ideology. >
  
  The US Government stopped funding those groups so they aren’t a threat anymore. >
  
  Aside from 9/11, I thought it was always over represented as an issue in the public imagination*.
  Even 9/11 itself:  roughly 2300 people died as a result of driving instead of flying after the attacks.
  That said, perhaps the efforts of the west to prevent islamic terrorism were so effective that it was made less of an issue - maybe it was worth it. Perhaps, though, the west's strategy caused more global terrorism than necessary - it's hard to say, but I'd bet on it.
  Terrorism is designed to make societies over react to it, though, so none of this is surprising.
  *I'm deliberately speaking from a western point of view here, terrorism in Africa and the middle east is whole other discussion. >
  
  Because it never really was a problem. I grew up in the pre 9/11 world. Islamic terrorism at its height still has a lower body count than domestic terrorism. It was just an excuse to create the current surveillance state we live in now. >
  
  Theres no suicide bomber volunteers? I think they try to get away with a knife now days.
  Would anyone like to blow themselves up for 10k? Theres a reward at the end. >
  
  They are just letting us eat each other alive instead. More effective and much cheaper. >
  
  Because our partisan pundit driven media infrastructure can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Conditions in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and Yemen haven't improved. Things are actually worse in some regards. The Iranians are supporting Russia in Ukraine with tech and hardware. Similarly Syria is helping Russia with personnel. 
  The Republican party has abandoned public discussion surrounding foreign affairs. There is a libertarian strain to the Republican base that prefers isolation. So while traditional GOP members actively support aid to Ukraine and want stricter sanctions against Iran & Syria it isn't a discussion being had amongst pundits who serve are the party mouth pieces. 
  As public debate over foreign affairs has grown silent the public's awareness of foreign matters has shrunk. >
  
  Is it possible that when President Biden finally got us out of the jrbush Wars for Oil, the jihadists lost their "recruiting poster" for attacks against the West, and they're not getting volunteers anymore? Might also be the realization that we've gotten real good at just killing the leaders, so its not as much fun for them to send their lemmings out to attack us. I'm leaning toward the second possibility. >
  
  Because the rightwing fear/outrage machine moved on to other threats like Critical Race Theory and trans kids. It will circle back around eventually. >
  
  Russian oil and gas pipes, military installations are burnt, exploded last year - they blame it on US and it's friends. Earlier - on islamists >
  
  Trans kids, drag queens and women having human rights are the current boogeymen. Simple as that. >
  
  ISIS was the most recently prominent of these organizations, and most of their work was enabling lone actors via online propaganda. As their leadership started being frequently targeted by military attack and their online resources frequently smacked back to the darker parts of the internet, they had both less manpower and influence. In addition, internal infighting and the lack of their prophesied doomsday largely led to them falling apart. Al-Qaeda's lost most of the leadership that was interested in destabilizing the west. The Taliban never really targeted western organizations, and has now taken back Afghanistan, and I'd wager the current leadership sees no interest in giving the west an excuse to invade right after withdrawing. >
  
  It's not as big a problem because people are out there making it no longer a problem. It's not just naturally going away. >
  
  I think social media, a global surveillance network, etc has done a lot to curb lone wolf attacks in the bud. Often times lone wolfers depend on other attacks to spur their own, to give them courage, to give them a sense of community. We see this with mass shooters, who are emboldened when others do what they do, and often launch their own attacks very soon after one occurs in a high profile way. Attacks breed more attacks. But in the case of Islamic Jihad, a lot of that was quelled, and so if there are lone wolfers, they likely still have grievance, but stew alone. This is why it's so dangerous for a society to let small things slide, like slurs or hate crimes. This is why alt-right nationalism is the new terrorism front, because they are emboldened, they are stirred up, they have actual representatives in Congress. >
  
  Today we have to worry more about our youth more than any outside threat. Which is super sad and waaay under addressed. Fingers get pointed at guns and that’s it >
  
  The reasons why it's just not a problem in the West include:
  
  Freedoms and rights: muslims in the west have (and should have) a lot of freedoms and rights. Even the fundamentalists or extremist types have the freedom to express pro-fundamentalist speech. If muslims didn't have any, then we'd probably see a very radical and original Islamic terror group, that's endemic to the West. Fact is infringing on/denying the rights of a group, is often a justification for insurgent/terror groups and a catalyst for well, terrorism.
  Treatment: not saying that muslims don't face bigotry or hatred in the West, or issues from their governments, neither am I trying to say that "islamophobia" or insulting the prophet mohammed justifies Islamic terrorism and that "we should stop or else we'll create Islamic terrorism", but compared to more totalitarian countries with equally oppressive societies, muslims in the west are treated much better. I mean there's no muslim concentration camps in the West, bigotry against them is looked down on by the majority. And while there's hate based violence against them. which is unfortunate, it's nothing compared to some of the most extreme cases outside the West.
  Border and immigration security: this is definitely gonna be a hot take, but thanks to strict border security and immigration rules, it's very hard if not impossible for groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda to send their fighters to the West, to do terrorism. They best bet, is radicalizing muslims who were born in those countries, and unless if the West were to suddenly revoke all of the rights for musilms, that's more difficult than radicalizing those born in say Iraq or Afghanistan. To put it simply, Islamic terrorism isn't a problem in the West, for some of the same reasons why it's non-existent in countries like say Japan. Just saying, there's a reason why it's far easier to imagine Islamic terrorists entering a country with lax border security and little to no immigration laws, than ones with the exact opposite. >
  
  Once Trump supporters became terrorists I think the conservatives laid off their anti-terrorism stance. They might not outright work with Islamic terrorists… yet >
  
  Counter terrorism operations have improved, also the US has stopped actually being involved in bombing the middle east as much so there’s less anger >
  
  I think Islamic terrorism being a problem in the West was always a misconception. Islamists want islamist control in muslim-majority countries first, to limit western/secular influence in these countries secondly, and to radicalize muslims in that fight thirdly. Terrorist attacks in the west serves the third purpose, but that is not very high on the agenda. >
  
  The government changed our entire way of life in order to protect us.   Let’s give credit where credit is due.  It isn’t because the terrorists just miraculously left us alone.  Our government has done an amazing job of protecting us (both democrats and republicans).   If our government even starts “slacking up”in the least, Islamic terrorism will be one of our #1 threats again. >
  
  Because Russia just took the world to "Hell's Annex" with their stupid nonsense.  Get over it no one wants Russia.  No one wants to invade or take what you have.  Keep it with my thanks and just leave the rest of us alone. >
  
  It was always an exaggerated evil used to justify unending war crimes to pump money into the arms industry >
  
  Western intelligence got their shit together. The ISIS heartland, which was a major motivator for terrorists, collapsed.