terrorism

In an era where nearly all activity has shifted to the digital space, terrorism has also evolved. Terrorists no longer need territory to establish training camps, ideological teachers, or secret meetings in the middle of the night. All they need now is an internet connection, a social media account, and closed, hard-to-trace chat rooms. This is the new face of terrorism: invisible, borderless, and infiltrating our daily lives through the small screens in our hands. This phenomenon creates a threat that is far more difficult to address than the conventional forms of terrorism that have historically been the primary focus of states.

This transformation of terrorism is no longer an academic prediction, but it is already happening. ISIS is the most obvious example. When its physical territory collapsed in 2019, analysts expected the group to slowly fade away. In fact, they have emerged even more dangerously through the digital world. By utilizing social media, Telegram, dark forums, and professionally polished propaganda videos, ISIS has succeeded in establishing a “virtual caliphate” with followers spread across the globe. In Indonesia, the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) even noted that the majority of radicalization of terrorists over the past decade has occurred online. This means that violent narratives are now spreading faster than the state can control them.

This phenomenon raises a far more serious problem: terrorism no longer takes the form of large groups easily targeted by security forces but rather individuals or small groups inspired online. This is known as lone wolf terrorism. Many perpetrators have never met their network leaders, never entered a training cell, or even left their homes. They learn to make bombs through anonymous PDFs, discuss discussions in encrypted groups, and gain legitimacy through calls to digital jihad. The most obvious examples come from lone wolf attacks in Europe and America, including those radicalized simply by watching YouTube videos or following propaganda accounts on social media.

Indonesia is no exception. The 2021 suicide bombing at Makassar Cathedral Church is one of the most prominent examples of how digital radicalization works. The perpetrators were known to actively consume extremist content online and interact in groups affiliated with Jamaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD). They never underwent organized physical training. The entire recruitment process, indoctrination, and even action direction were conducted digitally. This is a new form of terrorism that is much more difficult to map, spreads much faster, and is far more dangerous.

Even more worrying, technological advances such as artificial intelligence (AI) are giving terrorists new tools that never existed before. Deepfakes, for example, allow someone to create videos of religious figures calling for jihad that appear “authentic.” AI-based disinformation can also amplify conspiracy theories and encourage easily triggered individuals to commit violence. Cybersecurity experts have even warned that in the next few years, AI-based terrorism could produce forms of attack never imagined in previous eras, including automated attack scripts, measured psychological manipulation, and personalized propaganda—something impossible to do manually.

The problem is, state strategies both in Indonesia and many other countries are still lagging behind. Our counterterrorism policies still focus on physical threats: arrests, network dismantling, weapons confiscation, and headquarters raids. These are certainly important, but not enough. States often fail to understand that today’s radicalization doesn’t occur in small mosques or secret training camps but rather through social media algorithms that unwittingly push extremist content to vulnerable users. Digital regulation has also moved much slower than the technological innovations exploited by extremist groups.

State weakness is also evident in the limited ability of law enforcement to track encrypted communications. Apps like Telegram, Discord, and WhatsApp have end-to-end encryption systems that make messages unreadable to third parties. Meanwhile, terrorist groups are quickly shifting their activities to the most difficult platforms to monitor. Without comparable technological capabilities, states will always be left behind. Ironically, the majority of national security budgets are still focused on conventional strategies, even though the greatest threats now emerge from the digital space.

This situation demands a comprehensive change in approach for the state. Anti-terrorism strategies in the digital age must combine security policies with a deep understanding of the technology ecosystem. First, modern cyber surveillance capabilities are needed, not in the sense of violating public privacy, but rather in the sense of enhancing collaboration between governments, social media platforms, and digital service providers. Technology companies like Meta, Google, and TikTok must become strategic partners in efforts to remove extremist content and prevent algorithms from spreading radical material.

Second, the state must strengthen international cooperation. Digital terrorism knows no borders. Attacks in Indonesia could be initiated from Syria, the Southern Philippines, or Europe. Cooperation with Interpol, ASEAN Counter-Terrorism, and other global institutions is crucial for tracking transnational networks that utilize the internet for propaganda and coordination.

Third, deradicalization must also adapt. The old approach, which relied solely on face-to-face counseling, is no longer sufficient. Digital deradicalization through counter-narratives, moderate influencers, and creative content targeting young people is imperative. Extremist narratives must be countered in the same place where they thrive: social media.

Fourth, digital literacy must be part of the national security strategy. Many individuals are exposed to radicalization not because they are ideologically extreme, but because they cannot distinguish credible information from propaganda. Teaching the public to recognize misinformation, conspiracy theories, and radical content is the most fundamental form of defense in this era.

And lastly, the state must raise awareness that terrorism today no longer originates in physical spaces but in the digital spaces we use every day. This threat may be invisible, but its impact is very real. If the state does not immediately update its security strategy and adapt to changes in the digital world, the radicalization of the younger generation will not only be difficult to prevent, it will also continue to increase unnoticed.

Terrorism in the digital age is a new battlefield that no longer relies on guns and bombs but rather on narratives, algorithms, and propaganda that spread in seconds. We have only two choices: adapt or be left behind. Amid rapid technological change, national security can only be assured if the state moves faster than the ever-changing threats. Otherwise, we will continue to be surprised by attacks that actually started long before the perpetrator hit the “upload” button.

Judges are reviewing the UK government’s decision to ban the activist group Palestine Action under counter-terror laws. Al Jazeera’s Sonia Gallego was at the court where police were arresting people for displaying pro-PA signs.

Nov. 25 (UPI) — The families of hundreds of U.S. citizens killed or injured by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, accuse cryptocurrency exchange Binance of supporting terrorism.

The families of 306 U.S. citizens harmed or killed during the attack filed a 272-page federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota on Monday.

They say Malta-based Binance marketed its services to “terrorist organizations, narcotics traffickers and tax evaders” by emphasizing that Binance is “beyond the reach of any single country’s laws or regulations,” the lawsuit says, as reported by The New York Times.

The plaintiff families accused Binance of conducting transactions that totaled more than $1 billion on behalf of Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

Binance officials handled the transactions despite being warned of potential illegality by its compliance vendors and did not use common security checks, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs also claim Binance willfully handled at least $50 million in transactions for Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israeli civilians that killed 1,200 and kidnapped 254 others.

The lawsuit was filed a month after President Donald Trump pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao after he earlier pleaded guilty to money laundering charges, according to CNBC.

Zhao is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, along with Guangying Chen and Binance Holdings Ltd., who are accused of intentionally creating Binance to serve as a “criminal enterprise to facilitate money laundering on a global scale.”

The plaintiffs say the Binance officials knew Hamas and other designated foreign terrorist organizations regularly used the cryptoexchange and actively assisted them “at a time when Hamas, in particular, was publicly directing its donors to send funds” to its Binance cryptowallets.

Binance officials also disregarded filing required suspicious activity reports and manipulated how qualifying transactions were reported to prevent any scrutiny by U.S. banking regulators, the plaintiffs argue.

Binance “actively tried to shield its Hamas customers and their funds from scrutiny by U.S. regulators or law enforcement — a practice that continues to this day,” the plaintiff families say.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial, treble damages due to alleged international terrorism-related activities, legal costs and other damages.

Binance officials told UPI they are aware of the federal complaint but cannot comment on active litigation.

The crypto exchange said it fully complies with internationally recognized sanctions laws and in 2025 had a direct exposure to illicit flows of less than 0.02% of platform volume, which it said is significantly below the industry average.

“We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, expanded our global compliance-related workforce to over 1,280 specialists (22% of our entire workforce), and built real-time intelligence-sharing partnerships with law enforcement worldwide,” Binance said.

“We remain steadfast in our commitment to working with regulators, law enforcement and our users to protect the integrity of the global digital-asset ecosystem.”

Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan escalated on Tuesday after the Taliban accused Pakistani forces of air strikes in eastern Afghanistan that killed nine children and a woman. Islamabad has not commented. The bombardments follow a series of recent attacks in Pakistan, which Islamabad attributes to militants operating from Afghan soil. Last month saw the deadliest confrontation between the two neighbors since the Taliban seized power in 2021, with dozens killed in air strikes and ground clashes along the 2,600 km (1,600-mile) border.

Accusations and Counter-Accusations

Pakistan claims that militants, particularly the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), are based in Afghanistan and launch attacks into its territory. Recent high-profile attacks include a suicide bombing in Islamabad that killed 12 civilians and bombings targeting paramilitary forces in Peshawar and Waziristan.

The Taliban administration denies sheltering Pakistani militants and says it does not permit Afghan soil to be used for attacks against other nations. A ceasefire signed in Doha in October collapsed after Kabul refused to provide written guarantees against militant activities, leaving Pakistan frustrated.

Who Are the Pakistani Taliban (TTP)?

Formed in 2007, the TTP is a jihadist organization based primarily in northwest Pakistan, drawing ideological inspiration from al-Qaeda. While historically allied with the Afghan Taliban, the TTP has carried out major attacks on markets, schools, military bases, and security forces in Pakistan. Despite repeated military campaigns, Pakistan has struggled to eliminate the group completely.

After the Taliban Took Power in Afghanistan

Initially welcomed by Pakistan in 2021, the Taliban’s return to power has not reduced cross-border threats. Islamabad accuses Afghanistan of harboring TTP fighters and Baloch insurgents seeking independence in western Pakistan. Pakistan also alleges that India is supporting these groups through Afghanistan a claim New Delhi denies.

Implications for the Region and the World

The renewed Afghanistan-Pakistan tensions threaten regional stability in South Asia. Persistent cross-border militancy could destabilize both nations, strain relations with neighboring India, and potentially create a vacuum for other extremist groups. Global powers, including the U.S., China, and the EU, face challenges in balancing security cooperation, counterterrorism efforts, and humanitarian concerns in a region critical for trade, energy routes, and counterterrorism strategy.

Analysis

This situation highlights how state fragility and ungoverned spaces fuel persistent conflict. Pakistan’s security concerns are genuine, but unilateral strikes risk escalating violence and civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the Taliban in Kabul faces the difficult task of balancing governance, legitimacy, and regional diplomacy while being accused of harboring militants. Globally, the crisis underscores the fragility of peace in border regions where militant groups exploit political and geographic fault lines, showing that even well-intentioned interventions can have unintended consequences if not coordinated carefully.

With information from Reuters.

Nigeria is in the news again due to recent attacks by armed groups, involving the kidnapping of many students from schools and an assault on a church service. These events have increased pressure on the Nigerian government, especially after U. S. President Donald Trump hinted at possible military action owing to the reported persecution of Christians in the country.

The attacks lack clear responsibility claims, but they resemble those by gangs seeking ransom. These armed groups, referred to as bandits, use intimidation and violence, abducting victims and escaping into forests. Recently, 25 students were taken from a Muslim girls’ school in Kebbi state, marking the first mass school kidnapping since a larger incident in March 2024. Additionally, another 64 individuals were kidnapped from Zamfara state, and two people were killed during an attack on a church in Kwara state, where 38 worshippers were also abducted with a ransom demand made. On Friday, more students were kidnapped from St. Mary’s Catholic school in Niger state, with reports indicating 52 students taken.

Experts believe these attacks are financially motivated, particularly targeting schools due to weak security. Kidnappers find it easier to demand ransoms from parents willing to pay to get their children back. The northwest of Nigeria is especially plagued by insecurity, with armed groups operating in remote areas. Meanwhile, in the northeast, extremist groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP have caused significant humanitarian crises, resulting in over 2 million displaced persons and many deaths.

Tension in Nigeria also arises from ethnic and religious conflicts, especially in the central regions where the Christian and Muslim populations clash over various issues. Despite claims of specific persecution against Christians, some argue that the situation is more complex and that Muslims also suffer violence. The Nigerian government rejects assertions of complicity in religious violence by security forces.

The U. S. is considering actions to pressure Nigeria into better protecting religious freedoms. Nigeria’s military leads the counter-efforts against these armed groups, with traditional leaders also engaging in peace negotiations. However, attacks continue amid reports of increasing violence, with thousands of civilian deaths this year alone. President Tinubu has dispatched officials to oversee rescue efforts for kidnapped schoolgirls.

With information from Reuters

Kanu’s Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) wants a swathe of the southeast, the homeland of the Igbo ethnic group, to split from Nigeria.

A Nigerian court has convicted separatist leader Nnamdi Kanu on charges related to “terrorism” after a years-long trial.

In his ruling on Thursday, Nigerian Judge James Omotosho said prosecutors proved that Kanu’s broadcasts and orders to his now-banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) group incited deadly attacks on security forces and citizens in the southeast.

The violence was part of his push for an independent Biafra state for the ethnic Igbo-dominated region.

“His intention was quite clear, as he believed in violence. These threats of violence were nothing but terrorist acts,” Omotosho said.

Kanu, who has been in custody since his controversial re-arrest in Kenya in 2021, shouted angrily in objection to the proceedings and was ejected from court ahead of the ruling. He had argued that his unlawful extradition from Kenya undermined any chance of a fair trial.

Kanu pleaded not guilty in 2021 to seven charges that included “terrorism”, treason and perpetuating falsehoods against Nigeria’s former President Muhammadu Buhari.

Kanu was first arrested in 2015, but fled the country while on bail. His social media posts during his absence and his Radio Biafra broadcasts outraged the government, which said they encouraged attacks on security forces.

Ultimately, security agents brought Kanu to court in Abuja in June 2021 after detaining him in Kenya, where his lawyer alleged he was mistreated. Kenya has denied involvement.

In October 2021, Kanu’s lawyers argued that his statements on Radio Biafra shouldn’t be admissible in a Nigerian court since they were made in London.

“I can’t see how someone would make a statement in London and it becomes a triable offence in this country,” Kanu’s lawyer Ifeanyi Ejiofor told reporters at the time.

Kanu, a dual Nigerian-British citizen, started Radio Biafra – an obscure, London-based radio station – in 2009 after he left Nigeria to study economics and politics at the London Metropolitan University.

In one broadcast, Kanu said: “We have one thing in common, all of us that believe in Biafra, one thing we have in common, a pathological hatred for Nigeria. I cannot begin to put into words how much I hate Nigeria.”

IPOB wants a swathe of the southeast, the homeland of the Igbo ethnic group, to split from Nigeria. An attempt to secede in 1967 as the Republic of Biafra triggered a three-year civil war that killed more than one million people.

A fuel blockade by al Qaeda-linked militants has severely impacted the capital of Mali, raising concerns that the jihadist group, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), might attempt to impose its rule in the country. While analysts believe that JNIM currently lacks the resources to seize control of Bamako, they view the blockade as a strategy to weaken the government by cutting off fuel supplies, which has led to school closures and affected local businesses.

The blockade aims to pressure the military government, which took power in 2021 after promising to combat the Islamist threat. Analysts speculate that JNIM seeks to provoke another coup in Mali, potentially the third since 2020, which could destabilize the nation further and provide JNIM with more opportunities to gain power and resources. A recent report warned that the government’s stability is at high risk in the coming weeks due to the increasing pressure from JNIM.

JNIM announced the blockade was aimed at the ruling authorities, accusing them of oppressing citizens, particularly outside the capital. The group has been advancing from northern Mali into central areas and neighboring countries, increasing its attacks on military posts and acquiring more weapons. Recently, JNIM reportedly received a large ransom for hosting Emirati hostages and has begun extending its operations in southern Mali, intensifying its focus on Bamako.

The blockade is viewed as both an economic tactic and a means of instilling fear among Bamako’s leadership and its residents. Although there haven’t been significant protests despite the fuel crisis, tensions among military leaders and the arrest of several generals could threaten the current regime’s stability. Observers caution that the potential collapse of Mali’s government could have a domino effect on neighboring Burkina Faso and Niger, where military-led governments are in place, thus destabilizing the Sahel region.

Malians have remained relatively quiet about the fuel shortage due to fear of government reprisals. One resident explained the struggles of finding fuel, while the military continues to deal with internal challenges. Analysts believe that the situation may make the current military leaders vulnerable to being ousted, given the growing pressures from both political factions and armed groups.

If JNIM were to gain control of Bamako, it could lead to significant restrictions on daily life, as seen in areas previously occupied by the group. Recent warnings from foreign embassies have urged citizens to leave Mali, yet there hasn’t been a significant exodus or an increase in flight bookings at this time. The future remains uncertain, with risks of JNIM attempting to advance into the city still possible, according to diplomats.

With information from Reuters

Nigeria’s presidential spokesperson welcomes US assistance ‘as long as it recognises our territorial integrity’.

Nigeria says it would welcome assistance from the United States in fighting armed groups as long as its territorial integrity is respected after US President Donald Trump threatened military action in the West African country over what he claimed was persecution of Christians there.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said  he had asked the Department of Defense to prepare for possible “fast” military action in Nigeria if Africa’s most populous country fails to crack down on the “killing of Christians”.

A spokesperson for Nigeria’s presidency, Daniel Bwala, told the Reuters news agency on Sunday that the country would “welcome US assistance as long as it recognises our territorial integrity”.

“I am sure by the time these two leaders meet and sit, there would be better outcomes in our joint resolve to fight terrorism,” Bwala added.

In his post, Trump said the US would immediately cut off all assistance to the country “if the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians”.

Earlier, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu pushed back against claims of religious intolerance and defended his country’s efforts to protect religious freedom.

“Since 2023, our administration has maintained an open and active engagement with Christian and Muslim leaders alike and continues to address security challenges which affect citizens across faiths and regions,” Tinubu said in a statement.

“The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians.”

Nigeria, a country of more than 200 million people, is divided between the largely Muslim north and mostly Christian south.

Armed groups have been engaged in a conflict that has been largely confined to the northeast of the country and has dragged on for more than 15 years. Analysts said that while Christians have been killed, most of the victims have been Muslims.

‘No Christian genocide’

While human rights groups have urged the government to do more to address unrest in the country, which has experienced deadly attacks by Boko Haram and other armed groups, experts say claims of a “Christian genocide” are false and simplistic.

“All the data reveals is that there is no Christian genocide going on in Nigeria,” Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian humanitarian lawyer and analyst on conflict and development, told Al Jazeera. This is “a dangerous far-right narrative that has been simmering for a long time that President Trump is amplifying today”.

“It is divisive, and it is only going to further increase instability in Nigeria,” Bukarti added, explaining that armed groups in Nigeria have been targeting both Muslims and Christians.

“They bomb markets. They bomb churches. They bomb mosques, and they attack every civilian location they find. They do not discriminate between Muslims and Christians.”

Ebenezer Obadare, a senior fellow of Africa studies at the Washington, DC-based Council on Foreign Relations, agreed and said the Trump administration should work with Nigerian authorities to address the “common enemy”.

“This is precisely the moment when Nigeria needs assistance, especially military assistance,” Obadare said. “The wrong thing to do is to invade Nigeria and override the authorities or the authority of the Nigerian government. Doing that will be counterproductive.”