Terrorist groups which could have taken Al-Qaeda's and ISIS's place in the early 21st century?

CaliGuy

Banned
In our TL, al-Qaeda and ISIS were arguably the biggest enemies in the U.S.'s public imagination in the early 21st century.

However, what I am curious about is this--with a PoD of 1990 or later, which other terrorist groups could have taken al-Qaeda's and ISIS's place as the biggest enemies in the U.S.'s public imagination in the early 21st century?

Any thoughts on this?

Also, for the record, the terrorist group(s) in question would have to launch a massive attack on U.S. soil like al-Qaeda did as well as to create a mini-state--even for a couple of years--like ISIS did.

Finally, to avoid any misunderstanding about this, I am simply curious about this; indeed, I am curious to see what alternatives there could have been for this considering that al-Qaeda and ISIS would probably live on as big enemies in the U.S. public imagination for decades to come--long after their physical presence will be decimated.
 

Magical123

Banned
I'm not honestly sure what beyond say a different Islamic set of terrorist groups,

If the Cold War continues and communism remains viable you might the USSR supporting communist groups.

Oh wait did you say 1990 hmmm well the conditions that led to Al-Qaeda and its spinoffs were well advanced. I dunno.

Maybe have a stronger brand of ecological terrorism. Smashing SUVs killing loggers, vandalism. Ecoterrorists usually aren't much in the way of killing people change that and you could have a a bunch of treehugging hippies in the public imagination killing people, destroying property and causing chaos.

Maybe have a more successful series of Maoist and related communist movements in the 90s. Have an at least semi-successful Naxalite insurgency in India and Maoist Nepal, maybe have a bunch of Maoists kill lots of US soldiers in the Philippines.

Narcoterrorism? Perhaps an earlier drug war in Mexico?
 
The biggest thing I can think of is if Ayman al-Zawahiri's group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, or one of it's Islamist predecessors, takes their act global. This was one of the major groups behind al-Qaeda, but was largely limited to Egypt. Maybe get someone besides Osama bin Laden funding things, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad (with a different name) or another Egyptian Islamist group from the same network of Egyptian Islamists can hit targets globally. Sudan's a pretty good base for them once the Egyptian government cracks down (they sure did OTL). And of course they can go to a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan once they draw too much attention.

Well, that sounds a bit like al-Qaeda, but maybe they might act differently. Caliph Ayman al-Zawahiri? If he's in a strong enough position, would he do that? Or would another Islamist leader who would be taking both his and Osama's place do so--hell, that individual is probably one of the many "al-Qaeda number three's" killed OTL, or otherwise died/was executed in Egypt many years ago.

Other than that, the one that springs to mind is a more organised and clever network of anti-government people like Timothy McVeigh. But that's more of a US thing. I suppose they could link up with people of the mindset of Anders Behring Breivik and such, but that's a very Western sort of terrorism and not the same global brand of your al-Qaeda and ISIS types.

Which that leaves you with the Maoists and other crazy leftists. More Shining Path sort of people. And maybe in the US, Bob Avakian (just naming a crazy Maoist, there's probably others out there, but Avakian had some level of influence) truly goes crazy and starts to think the only way to get people down with BA and the BAsics is to organise terrorist attacks. Truck attacks like in Nice, mass shootings, some bombings here and there, and maybe you'll get school shooters and other "typical" mass shooters saying "I praise Maoism" or whatever as they commit their massacres, like how we see people with no link to ISIS praising ISIS as they kill people. They'd have to also inspire Maoists and such elsewhere in the world, if not be funding them in some sort of International. Seems as though Avakian's group was part of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, which did include the Shining Path, amongst other groups more noteworthy than Chairman Bob's movement.

Narcoterrorism? Perhaps an earlier drug war in Mexico?

The Medellín Cartel was pretty bad at their height. It's interesting that there's many Colombians in the United States but it seems few Colombian street gangs. More Colombian crime in the United States? Not that the crimes committed by immigrant street gangs (like the Mexican street gangs linked to the Mexican cartels) are exactly on the tier of ISIS or Al-Qaeda.

Maybe you can get another nation like Guinea-Bissau on your side too, since that country derives in recent years a large portion of money from drug-related business. But they have rather minimal power and income to spend on narco activities. If they wanted to become a full-on narcostate and fund drug-related crime globally to increase their income, they'd be smacked down hard by the relevant western power. Many nations think very little of nations openly funding narco crime. And a full-on narco Guinea-Bissau isn't quite the obstacle Taliban Afghanistan posed.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The biggest thing I can think of is if Ayman al-Zawahiri's group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, or one of it's Islamist predecessors, takes their act global. This was one of the major groups behind al-Qaeda, but was largely limited to Egypt. Maybe get someone besides Osama bin Laden funding things, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad (with a different name) or another Egyptian Islamist group from the same network of Egyptian Islamists can hit targets globally. Sudan's a pretty good base for them once the Egyptian government cracks down (they sure did OTL). And of course they can go to a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan once they draw too much attention.

Well, that sounds a bit like al-Qaeda, but maybe they might act differently. Caliph Ayman al-Zawahiri? If he's in a strong enough position, would he do that? Or would another Islamist leader who would be taking both his and Osama's place do so--hell, that individual is probably one of the many "al-Qaeda number three's" killed OTL, or otherwise died/was executed in Egypt many years ago.

Question--would Egyptian Islamic Jihad be interested in trying to launch 9/11-style terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?

Other than that, the one that springs to mind is a more organised and clever network of anti-government people like Timothy McVeigh. But that's more of a US thing. I suppose they could link up with people of the mindset of Anders Behring Breivik and such, but that's a very Western sort of terrorism and not the same global brand of your al-Qaeda and ISIS types.

Which that leaves you with the Maoists and other crazy leftists. More Shining Path sort of people. And maybe in the US, Bob Avakian (just naming a crazy Maoist, there's probably others out there, but Avakian had some level of influence) truly goes crazy and starts to think the only way to get people down with BA and the BAsics is to organise terrorist attacks. Truck attacks like in Nice, mass shootings, some bombings here and there, and maybe you'll get school shooters and other "typical" mass shooters saying "I praise Maoism" or whatever as they commit their massacres, like how we see people with no link to ISIS praising ISIS as they kill people. They'd have to also inspire Maoists and such elsewhere in the world, if not be funding them in some sort of International. Seems as though Avakian's group was part of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, which did include the Shining Path, amongst other groups more noteworthy than Chairman Bob's movement.

Would any of these crazies be able to create their own state--even for a couple of years--like ISIS did in our TL, though?
 
Question--would Egyptian Islamic Jihad be interested in trying to launch 9/11-style terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?



Would any of these crazies be able to create their own state--even for a couple of years--like ISIS did in our TL, though?

Why wouldn't EIJ want to do a 9/11 style attack if they have the capability to? Of course, they wouldn't be called Egyptian Islamic Jihad (since it isn't just Egypt who's the enemy)--I want to say a snappier name like "Global Islamic Jihad", but that just sounds like a fictional terrorist group from some cheesy action movie and not what an actual al-Qaeda type group would call themselves. Question is--could they succeed at doing 9/11?

Chairman Bob in the US couldn't, but the Shining Path certainly could make a good shot in Peru, and Chairman Bob would be behind them all the way (at least until they did something he didn't approve of, see the Sino-Albanian split for how Maoists don't all get along). That Revolutionary Internationalist Movement also included some Nepalese Maoists, so I guess get these particular Maoists to the forefront of the Nepalese Civil War, though they'd just be one of many factions. The more famous Naxalites of India as well as some other third-world Maoist insurgents had support from them although not being members of this group.

I guess Shining Path-ruled Peru would be your Taliban/ISIS sort of state. If you have Maoist terrorism, they'd be helping support it. And I guess you can be stupid enough to poke the US in the eye like state-sponsered terrorism inevitably does, even if they wouldn't be necessarily funding Bob Avakian's organisation. It's worth noting that if the Shining Path somehow took over Peru it would just be another phase of an incredibly bad civil war and some other faction (the ones the US likes, for instance) would be on the counterattack.

But Maoist terrorism on that scale seems like a pretty over the top wank of post-Cold War Maoism. Especially since the Shining Path was declining by the 90s. But maybe it would make the Columbine shooters choose a different date than Hitler's birthday and have them make references to how awesome Mao and communism were (which the media would love to hear and report, of course--Doom, Marilyn Manson, and Chairman Mao). Same with other mass shooters. As I said, not much different than how the media has attributed some recent shootings to ISIS despite minimal (if any) links--I suppose that's a tactic too. Get people to self-radicalise using easily available materials (like Al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine or ISIS's various magazines), or even just make it look "edgy" and "dangerous". One huge problem is that if this is the 90s, the Internet isn't quite what it is today.
 
Top