Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
INITIAL REPORTS FROM last night’s terror attack in Vienna suggest it was inspired by Islamic State. Austrian prosecutors have stated that the armed attacker shot dead by police on Monday night was convicted in April of 2019 for attempting to join Islamist extremists in Syria. He was released in December 2019.
Emerging reports indicate that the Vienna attack differed from last Thursday’s attack in Nice, France in a number of ways. The Nice attack had the hallmarks of a classic Islamic State-inspired ‘Lone Wolf’ attack.
Such attacks were especially frequent across European Union member states from 2015 to 2017 – during the height of the Islamic State’s so-called ‘Caliphate’ in Syria and Iraq. During this three-year period alone, 347 EU citizens were murdered by individuals and groups inspired and supported by the Islamic State.
‘Lone Wolf’ vs last night’s attack
In the case of ‘Lone Wolf’ attacks, the perpetrators acted alone and used simple and crude methods to kill their victims.
For example, in the Westminster Bridge attack in London of March 2017, the assailant, Khalid Masood simply drove into pedestrians in a rented Hyundai Tucson. He then began a marauding attack using a knife to stab and kill four pedestrians and a police officer – 49 were injured in this attack.
In Thursday’s attack in Nice, the perpetrator seemingly acted alone, mounting a marauding attack with a knife, killing three.
In these attacks – and in the majority of over 100 separate Islamic State attacks in European Union cities since 2014 – most of the perpetrators were shot and either killed or apprehended by ordinary local police acting as first responders.
Last night’s attack in Vienna appears at the time of writing to have been a more sophisticated attack. The 20-year-old assailant who was shot dead had a previous criminal record and was on the security and intelligence radar.
He is reported to have been armed with at least two automatic firearms – a handgun and an automatic rifle. He is also reported to have been carrying a large amount of ammunition and to have been wearing a fake suicide vest.
Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurtz has stated that this was a ‘very professionally planned’ attack and ‘definitely a terror attack’. The Interior Minister Karl Nehammer has suggested that there may have been more than one attacker, stating that ‘We have brought several special forces units together that are now searching for the presumed terrorists … these are mobile perpetrators’.
Whether or not there was more than one assailant remains to be seen. However, reports from last night’s attack suggest that it was intended to be a mass casualty incident – not unlike the Paris attacks in November 2015 when 130 innocent civilians were killed by a number of gunmen carrying automatic rifles and handguns.
The Vienna attacker is reported to have mounted a ‘hybrid’ marauding attack over six locations in the city centre. Reports of shots fired range from ‘over 100’ to ‘about 50 shots’.
Eyewitnesses are reported as saying that the attacker ‘fired wildly’ at people in outdoor restaurants. The attack appears to have started at 8 pm local time and to have ended when local police shot the perpetrator a short time later, near St. Rupert’s Church.
It may be the case – given the eyewitness accounts thus far – that the gunman may not have had an opportunity to reload his weapon more than once, with a large amount of ammunition found on his person. If this is the case, Vienna had a very lucky escape last night.
The death toll of four killed – so far – is relatively low compared to other gun attacks in European cities in recent years. Though extremely tragic, the death toll in this cobbled area of Vienna’s First District – not unlike the greater Grafton Street area in Dublin – full of restaurants, bars and cafes, could have been much higher.
A new wave of IS?
In the aftermath of the Nice and Vienna attacks, concerned citizens will worry about a resurgence in Islamic State attacks across Europe. The destruction of Islamic State’s so-called Caliphate in Iraq and Syria certainly coincided with a dramatic drop in terrorist murders in Europe from a high of 150 in 2015 to just 13 deaths in 2018 and only 10 across the EU in 2019.
However, during this period, the number of attempted and botched attacks by Islamist extremists remained high, with a total of over 50 terror operations in just the last three years.
Despite the loss of their so-called ‘Caliphate’ in Iraq and Syria and the loss of their leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi – killed during an operation by US forces this time last year – Islamic State continues to adapt and evolve to its new operating environment.
With a new leader, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al Qurayshi, Islamic State has re-located or shifted its centre of gravity of activities to new theatres of operation throughout Asia and Africa.
IS has mounted operations in the Philippines this year, killing 11 Philippine Army soldiers in April of this year. IS continues to be very active in Afghanistan and are believed to be responsible for murdering 19 people in Kabul University this week.
IS is also very active throughout West Africa, Central Africa, Egypt and Yemen. According to the UN’s Counter-Terrorism Chief, Vladimir Voronkov, Islamic State is reorganising and is recruiting actively, with 10,000 active fighters in Syria and Iraq, and over 3,500 fighters in the newly configured ‘ISWAP’ – Islamic State West Africa Province.
International defence and intelligence agencies believe that Islamic State has not ‘gone away’. Rather, it continues to be a threat. Some believe it has used the cover of Covid 19 to reorganise in Europe and to target and groom young men and women in a period of greater social isolation and unemployment.
The new leader of Islamic State has aggressively called for a resurgence of attacks against western targets.
It is not clear if the Nice and Vienna attacks herald such a resurgence. In the last three years, EU police and intelligence agencies have demonstrated their ability to successfully identify and disrupt and prevent such attacks.
Dr Tom Clonan is a former Captain in the Irish armed forces. He is a security analyst and academic, lecturing in the School of Media in DIT. You can follow him on Twitter.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I think I’d honestly rather have Trump as president than this nutjob.
He’s a well respected lawyer and has brought some useful bills to fruition in his time and got them over the line. He passed through Princeton and Harvard Law too. Seems the evangelicals came out in big numbers and got him over the line.From what I’ve seen of him his religious credentials seem to be all about votes. You’ll recall John McCain becoming a baptist in his republican race, Trump too went off to Church last week.
McCain believed in evolution, this wack job does not. Ergo Moron.
The fact that anyone who doesn’t believe in hard scientific facts can still be taking seriously as a leader by millions of people is testament to the wide-scale ignorance under which many people still live.
In 2016…terrifying.
You’re quite right Fozz. It is indeed the current year.
He absolutely believes in evolution. He just says he doesn’t to appeal to the people who don’t. Every word that comes out of any of theses guys mouths is a lie to get elected. That’s much worse than ignorance.
@the bull
Agreed but so does every politician, which ever colour, in the world
Of the 44 American presidents since the civil war, none have claimed to be president. Strange really when the Pew Religious Landscape survey reported that as of 2014, 22.8% of the U.S. population is religiously unaffiliated, atheists made up 3.1% and agnostics made up 4% of the U.S. population. So 30% of the general population are non – religious. So that’s generally means that almost 1 in 3 American presidents have lied about their beliefs.
That should read “None have claimed to be atheist”. Apologies.
I would never trust a politician who was being backed and financed by a large Corporate interest or lobby. This only makes that politician beholden to them at the expense of the people they are meant to represent. If I was an American citizen I’d investigate which candidate(s) has been bought by a Corporate interest or lobby and not vote them. All you are getting is more of the same – a puppet president not serving the peoples interests. Trump is far from perfect but he has entirely financed his own campaign and I believe that he genuinely puts the considerations of the American people before any corporation or lobby.
Ha ha , now that trump is gone , media are branding cruz as the new nutjob .. you would swear Clinton was the virgin Mary herself
Trump is not gone yet. Please understand the subject before commenting.
I think Reagan lost Iowa too – there is a long way to go yet.
Cruz was ALWAYS branded a nutjob, and a very dangerous one at that ..
Great just what America needs an evangelical nut
I wouldn’t worry about it. The GOP establishment have decided Rubio is their man in the same way Dem establishment have ‘Hill dog’ as their preferred candidate, and given Microsoft are doing the tallying of votes at these caucuses and the company has donated tens of thousands to both of those candidates, I reckon they’ll be running by hook or by crook.
Rubio and Clinton are the same on just about all major issues, particularly foreign intervention, the TPP and immigration. The issues on which they do disagree are cosmetic and of no concern to establishment elites (the likes of the Koch brothers, Goldman Sachs or Hillary’s foreign donors) and amount to shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic in the grand scheme of things. Expect media like Buzzfeed, the Guardian, and NRO to put an undue amount of focus on ridiculous and frankly inconsequential topics such as transgender bathrooms, playing up the minor differences to draw attention from their glaring similarities.
In the mean time, expect more idiotic articles about things such as the “BernieBros” as the media attacks any candidate their corporate paymasters may not be able to 100% control.
Enjoy your “choice” America.
It’s really really annoying when people don’t do what you tell them
I didn’t know that -surely thats a conflict of interest? Microsoft is one of Cruz’biggest donors yet got to do the counting!
The Hillary stories are worse. The counts for her vs. Bernie went to coin flips in six different places, and Hillary just happened to win all six. This is beyond a joke.
With what happened to the left wing government in Greece last year, where there was an attempt to stop them holding a referendum as it would be ‘undemocratic’, and what’s happening to the right wing Law and Justice government in Poland, with the EU taking steps to suspend their right to vote in laws and take direct control, I hope people will start to realise it doesn’t matter if you’re “right” or “left”. If you dare to vote outside the narrow postage stamp of ‘Officially Approved Ideologies’(tm), you’re going to get screwed, or your campaign will be snuffed out before it gets off the ground.
It’s not such a new thing to suggest democracy is dead, but I think the real power-brokers have just decided to stop playing ‘Weekend At Bernie’s’ with the corpse.
I’m confused if he was born in Calgary how is he eligible exactly? I thought you had to be born in the US or is an american mother enough?
There are still questions over his eligibility to run. His parents’ nationality and the fact that they voted in Canadian elections around the time of Cruz’s birth calls into question his eligibility. It’s all very confusing. And the least worrying thing about Cruz. He’s a nasty little man.
His mother is a US citizen, he was therefore entitled to citizenship.But of course if he is on target to become President there will be a challenge.
Same here john, I am really confused that a Canadian born Cuban-American is running for the president of America and one of his main platforms is anti emigration. I thought you had to be born in the USA to run for president.
He had dual citizenship at one point. Canada and US, so he renounced his Canadian citizenship.
Good point John. That whole ‘you had to be born in one of the 50 states’ was a big thing in the so-called birther movement against Obama. Having an American mam wasn’t enough for those people objecting to Obama, even though it was proven that he was born in the 50 states. But now it’s ok for Cruz cause we KNOW he wasn’t born in the states, but because his mam is American?
the rules state you must be born of the land to run for president. There’s legal challenges to his candidacy which he is keeping under wraps for the moment it seems.
You have to be a ‘natural born’ citizen to run for prez. Opinions differ, but majority of legal eagles agree that as he was a citizen at the time of his birth ( his mother is from U.S. ), he’s qualified, regardless of where he was born.
The criteria isn’t being what they call a natural born US citizen, rather than just a US citizen. The government cleared natural born citizens born in other territories when John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) was questioned and the senate validated his run. Cruz qualifies under the same criteria. We’re not as fussy, as some Americans (i.e. Martin O’Malley) qualify for Irish Citizenship and can run for president here.
The gotcha could most likely be the “natural born citizen” requirement. Most legal scholars agree that means born in the United States. Cruz is arguing that simply being born anywhere with a legal entitlement to citizenship is enough. If it’s challenged, I don’t think he would win.
Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee were the last two winnners of the Republican nomination in Ohio, neither of whom went on to be the nominee for President. Ohio tends to pick the most religious nutter. Despite how the media is trying to spin it, this is not a setback for Trump. He’s going to do a lot better in New Hampshire.
Agree I think trump will win new Hampshire and north Carolina but I think the fact Rubio came a reasonably close third could be significant.
Rubio is who the Democrats fear most and for that reason I believe he will be the candidate
Iowa??
What has Ohio got to do with this?
whoops..Iowa of course…ye knew what i meant!
@ P.J
Agreed, Cruz will likely fall off the way Santorum did in the last campaign. It will likely be a Trump vs Rubio contest. The “establishment” will get behind Rubio now, so will be interesting to see if that’s enough to beat Trump.
If it does come down to trump and Rubio the Establishment’ as you put will be between a rock and a hard place. Do they support Rubio to beat trump but what if he runs as an independent?
The shock here isn’t the support that Cruz got. That was around the level expected. The real story is the amount of supporters that seemed to shift from Trump to Rubio. As you said, the Iowa support tends to go to ‘Mr. God and Jesus’ which isn’t really Rubio’s game.
I think Trump has already publicly stated that he won’t run as an independent if he doesn’t get the nomination…would be hard for him to roll back on that.
Trump has probably gone to far in this primary race to turn around and go independent now
Trump will roll back on anything. He flip flops on plenty of issues almost weekly. At one stage he was non interventionist, then he wanted to ‘bomb the sh*t out of’ people and ‘kill their families’.
If he was to declare open war on the GOP establishment and run independent his supporters would be ecstatic. They’d rather kill the ‘RINO’ or more distastefully ‘cuckservative’ campaign and have another shot at the primaries in 2020 than see Rubio or Cruz win. Remember if the GOP gets the White House, that man will be running again in four years. That wouldn’t suit Trump at all.
@scewmadd
Now I thought I was cynical!
But I’m not saying that you are completely wrong
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” -Barry M.Goldweather ,1994.
Be afraid,be very afraid.
#FeelTheBern
#HashtagsAreForTwitter
“I will carpet bomb Isis until the sand glows”
Gospel according to Ted
Trump is not a nutjob. He is very dangerous and while I disagree with almost everything he has to say there is some sense to his extremist views. Cruz, on the other hand, is a complete nutcase.
Hillary v Sanders ……six coin tosses to decide in six areas and Killary won all six……lol…..democracy ? You got to be kidding me….
I live in Alberta 5 months a year and although a Trump fan myself I can assert with all honesty that I haven’t heard a god word about Cruz or a bad word about Trump. Everybody is mystified by yesterday’s Iowa vote.We fully ecpected Trump to win. Cruz wouldn’t have a hope in hell here in Alberta if……..
What does Alberta, Canada have to do with a United States election?
@Mr Hoffman……………..100,000 US citizens live in Calgary.
You must’ve misunderstood his question.
@Guybrush Threepwood……..I ought to have given some background to my original comment. Albertans in general, and Calgarians in particular, are quite like Americans and have in the past considered joining the US. So Cruz having connections to Calgary,Alberta one would imagine strong or some support for him in Alberta. I have not heard any favourable comments for Cruz but Trump definitely turns Albertans on. Too bad about Iowa.
BTW Americans,unlike Irish, can vote in US elections.
A right wing nut job won’t get elected so if the Republicians pick one they’re phucked. Having said that, it’s great to see that the Donald got some feathers pulled in Iowa. He’s gonna be totally plucked in a few weeks. Quack, quack, quackery quackers!
But what if the Democrats pick a socialist?
Rubio the most likely – obvious if you look hard enough.
have your say