Dylann Storm Roof, a Confederate flag-toting gunman, murdered nine congregants at the storied Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on June 17. Emanuel is one of the oldest black churches in the United States. The tragic crime shook the town and reverberated throughout the country, reigniting a painful debate over a controversial symbol that evokes everything from Southern pride to racism, subjugation and fear—the Confederate flag.  

Several positive events occurred in the aftermath of Roof’s cold, premeditated and brutal killing spree. The South Carolina Legislature, amidst a national outcry and support from the state's governor, voted to remove the Confederate flag from the Statehouse grounds in early July. Conversely, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) responded by holding a rally at the Statehouse. “Rebel” protestors waiving the Confederate flag greeted President Barack Obama upon his arrival in Oklahoma City later that same month. The KKK, seeing an opportunity, stepped up its recruiting efforts across the U.S., from all over the South to the suburbs of California.

These events are an unsettling reminder that not all extremists wave the black flag of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Extremists of all types – including white supremacists, Islamists, and others – share several key characteristics: They espouse a singular and simplistic interpretation of a particular history; believe that their way of life is under attack and must be defended; and use symbolism and imagery to inspire their followers and instill fear in their targets.

Extremists have a very parochial and warped interpretation of a particular history. Many white supremacists and white separatists claim to display the Confederate flag as a celebration of Southern heritage. Their view of what constitutes so-called “Southern heritage” is actually romanticized, if not completely fictional. Despite all their rhetoric about “the rebels” and “the war of Northern aggression,” theirs is a history based on selective memory that can best be boiled down to this – white people and white culture are superior to that of non-whites.

Islamic extremism is grounded in a similarly selective historical reading. Like white supremacists, Islamic extremists romanticize a golden age and an interpretation of Islam that conveniently highlights only carefully selected aspects of the past. The concept of a modern caliphate as propounded by ISIS is a near fantasy, ripped from the days when Islam was monolithic under the first four caliphs, who were successors of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic extremists’ misinterpretation of historical fatwas are another example of historical cherry-picking. Muhammad issued fatwas that allowed women to choose their husbands and seek divorce and created safe spaces for religious minorities. And yet, what we see from Islamic extremists today ignores that rich heritage and historical complexity in favor of religious purity, which conveniently gives its leaders absolute power and the right to enslave and punish those who do not adhere to their strict and narrow interpretations.

Both extremist ideologies only recall a past in which “the other” is an adversary. There can be no middle-ground, no interfaith or interracial tolerance – no coexistence. There are only manipulated facts in support of dominance and hate.

Both white supremacists and Islamic extremists believe they are victims and their way of life is under attack. White supremacists in the United States will cite concerns about black-on-white crime and oppose the "mixing of races," arguing for “traditional families” that are “pure.” Today, the KKK continues to recruit using slogans like, “Save Our Land. The KKK wants you. The brown is bringing us down,” and more blatantly, “Help Save Our Race.” Roof repeated the messaging found echoing in the dark caverns of white supremacist sites, expressing fear that people of color were raping women and “taking over the country,” a narrative common to white supremacists throughout the world.

Islamic extremists similarly believe their religion is under attack and is being diluted by Western democracies. Moreover, any Muslim who veers from the extremist Islamic narrative is labeled kafir (an infidel). All kuffar (infidels), whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or others, are targeted by extremist terror. Bolstering the need to perpetuate victimhood, Islamic extremists repeat references to centuries-old grievances such as the Crusades, or build intricate conspiracies around the presence of foreign soldiers  in the Middle East, particularly those from the U.S. 

Symbols matter, especially as tools of power and fear. Extremists use symbols to broadcast a message and exert power over others. The Confederate flag was popularized among white supremacists during the 1950s and 1960s as a direct response to the growing civil rights movement. Not only does this confirm the Confederate flag as a racist symbol, but it also illustrates how white supremacists use it to assert dominance over non-whites. Some white supremacists have appropriated yet another anachronistic symbol, the apartheid-era South African flag. The banner is appearing more and more often at white power marches and online forums.

Similarly, ISIS extremists misuse the Quran and Muslim traditions to justify their brutality and inspire fear. They adhere to a strict interpretation of the Quran, carefully picking words to legitimize their violence. A particular passage from the Quran is often used as a justification for beheadings, though it is contradicted by other passages. In another example, a particular passage is used to encourage jihad and self-defense, yet the Quran explicitly prohibits the killing of civilians and innocents.

The black banner, flown by al-Shabab, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and now ISIS, dates to the 8th century and the Abbasid Caliphate. It bears the words, “There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.” This shahada, also on the flag of Saudi Arabia, is a Muslim faith declaration, but today has come to symbolize the brutality and bloodshed of extremist propaganda videos.

The ISIS flag, the Confederate flag and other symbols evoke an ideology and shape a threatening narrative. They help assert a power over others and perpetrate the very violence and oppression that they claim to resist.

White supremacists and Islamic extremists of course have different origins, ideologies and goals. Nonetheless, they use some of the same tools and present similar dangers, both to America and humanity as a whole. They both must be rejected and overcome.

At what point did Jaylyn Young, the daughter of a police officer, transition from being  a high achieving, practical chemistry major at Mississippi State University to a meticulous planner of a one way trip to join ISIS in Syria with her boyfriend Muhammad Dakhlalla? In online conversations with FBI agents posing as ISIS recruiters, Young allegedly said that she could not “wait to get to Dawlah [ISIS-controlled territory],” so she could be “amongst brothers and sisters under the protection of Allah and to raise little Dawlah cubs in sha Allah.”

When and how did Ali Shukri Amin become so viciously radicalized? Amin, 17, will be spending the next 11 years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. The youth, from Manassas, Virginia, recruited and propagandized for ISIS on online platforms like Twitter and Ask.fm. In his blog, he glorified ISIS atrocities, defended beheading Western journalists and urged his followers to donate to ISIS anonymously using Bitcoin. At least one person, Reza Niknejad, was radicalized directly and went to Syria in January 2015. No one knows how many others were similarly affected.

In middle school and high school, Ohio resident Christopher Lee Cornell had been a wrestler. After graduation, he lived at home and was unemployed. His father said converting to Islam brought his son inner peace. Maybe not. Cornell was arrested in January 2015 in Cincinnati after he purchased two rifles and rounds of ammunition and stands accused of planning to attack the U.S. Capitol with pipe bombs and firearms to kill employees and officials. “… I would have unleashed more bullets on the Senate and the House of Representatives members, and I would have attacked the Israeli embassy and various other buildings full of Kafir [nonbelievers] who want to wage war against us Muslims.”

And what transformed Asia Siddiqui and her accomplice Noelle Velentzas, of Queens, New York, into alleged self-taught bomb-makers? They were arrested in April and were charged with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. Objects found in their apartments allegedly included propane gas tanks, soldering tools, pipes, a pressure cooker, fertilizer, flux, machetes, daggers, and bomb recipes.

It is estimated that more than 20,000 people from around the world have traveled to join ISIS and other terror groups. America has not been immune to this troubling modern phenomenon.  In addition to joining or attempting to join ISIS, the Nusra Front and other groups, Americans stand accused of planning attacks on U.S. soil, providing financial assistance, or propaganda support to extremist groups.  Sixty-six of these homegrown extremists are profiled on CEP’s Global Extremist Registry, a unique searchable database and interactive map that details the world’s most notorious extremist leaders, propagandists, financiers, and their organizations.  

What can be done to prevent more Americans from becoming converts to a violent interpretation of Islam that condones rape and murder and has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of peace loving and tolerant Muslims around the world?

First, the evidence is clear that many people become exposed to violent hate-filled rhetoric through social media platforms. Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have been a colossal force for good in empowering individuals and shining a bright light on abuses of power.  Yet these same platforms have now also become powerful tools exploited by extremists to radicalize and encourage violent behavior.

To counter this growing problem, CEP launched #CEPDigitalDisruption in late 2014 – an effort to find and expose ISIS fighters on Twitter. Through deep manual research into jihadi Twitter networks, CEP uncovered, exposed and reported hundreds of extremists inciting violence online. And under pressure from CEP and other like-minded organisations, Twitter broadened its rules of user conduct to include violence promoted by terrorist groups. Progress has been made but significant work remains to be done.

CEP is also working to promote promising youth-led local efforts at the local level to combat violent extremism that can be adapted and scaled up to meet specific community needs. In June, Missouri State University bested eentries from 23 universities from around the world in the first State Department sponsored “P2P (Peer to Peer): Challenging Extremism” initiative competition.

Called “One95,” the Missouri State program targets middle school-aged children, teaches collaboration and learning across cultures to help people unite and rise above violent extremism. In a very short period of time, the Missouri State team made contact with people in more than 90 countries and spread the hashtag #EndViolentExtremism across social media.

CEP is working with Missouri State to make the One95 platform a virtual permanent gathering place where youth from around the world interested in CVE can meet and share ideas and experiences; highlight positive success stories in building resilience against violent extremism; and link local, regional, and national youth-based and CVE-relevant programs around the world.

Clearly, combatting violent extremism continues to be a complex challenge. However, given the, dedication and persistence of non-profit groups, government and youth, many fewer people around the world will fall victim to radicalization in the future.

I recently wrote about Ahmad Jibril, an Islamist preacher in Michigan who has become one of the most influential cheerleaders for foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria. Jibril is not the only Islamist preacher living in relative comfort under Western tolerance, however. British authorities recently arrested Islamist cleric Anjem Choudary for providing support to ISIS. But just as Jibril remains free in the United States, there is another Islamist in the United Kingdom who not only lives freely, but also reportedly receives government welfare support.

Hani al-Sibai is an Egyptian-born cleric who trained as a defense attorney and reportedly provided legal defense to Egyptian Islamist groups before moving to England in 1994. He also has a long relationship with al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who previously led the terrorist group Egyptian Islamic Jihad before it allied with al-Qaeda in 2001. Al-Sibai was also reportedly the mentor of ISIS executioner Jihadi John, identified as the British citizen Mohammed Emwazi. The United States and the United Nations have both designated al-Sibai as part of al-Qaeda. The United States accuses him of “training and providing material support” to the terrorist group, as well as “conspiring to commit terrorist acts.” Al-Sibai denies all ties to al-Qaeda.

Al-Sibai requested asylum in Great Britain in 1994 after an Egyptian court convicted him in absentia of plotting terrorist attacks. Al-Sibai claimed he had been tortured because of his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Britain denied his request for asylum but has been unable to carry out his deportation, despite calls from lawmakers, because of a legal prohibition on deporting people who could face torture or death upon their return.

Since making his home in England, Al-Sibai has repeatedly praised terrorism against the West and called the 7/7 bombings in London a “great victory” for al-Qaeda. He has called Osama bin Laden “one of the lions of Islam.” Jihad, he believes, is “mandatory” for all Muslims “when Muslim land is occupied by non-believers.”

Al-Sibai is also the founder and director of the Maqreze Center for Historical Studies in London, which he runs out of his home. The center’s website—which has since shut down—hosted a number of al-Sibai’s lectures and videos and reportedly influenced young British jihadists, such as Emwazi. In appearances on Al Jazeera and other programs, al-Sibai claims he is merely a Middle Eastern political analyst as he praises Islamist fighters and denigrates the West. In March, he appeared on a Lebanese news program, but female host Rima Karaki refused to give al-Sibai a soapbox. The interview devolved into an argument after Karaki tried to steer al-Sibai back to the topic. He proceeded to tell Karaki to shut up and yelled that he could say whatever he wanted because it was “beneath” him to be interviewed by her. Karaki then cut his microphone.

Al-Sibai’s exploits are well known to the British government and public, and yet he remains a free man who reportedly lives with his wife and five children in a west London home worth £1 million. He and his wife also reportedly collect disability payments from the British government. Al-Sibai allegedly receives £50,000 a year.

This is not the first time the United Kingdom has faced this problem. The Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada fought British deportation for more than a decade while undergoing multiple arrests for ties to terrorism. Jordan had accused him of involvement in two terrorist plots in that country. Qatada had also been tied to Chechen terrorists, and he had once been described as Osama bin Laden’s “spiritual ambassador in Europe.” Britain finally negotiated a deal last year with Jordan to guarantee Qatada a fair trial upon his return. Two Jordanian courts subsequently acquitted him.

In a response to CEP inquires, dated August 28, the British Home Office confirmed that al-Sibai remains on the United Kingdom’s consolidated list of financial sanctions targets and that it “actively” pursues the removal of people such as al-Sibai “whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good….”

The Home Office also noted the UK’s “proud tradition over many years of providing a place of safety for refugees who need protection. It does not do so lightly….” Asylum applicants are subject to “a series of background and security checks.”

This is likely why al-Sibai was initially denied asylum. As the Home Office points out, the United Kingdom is “sometimes faced with individuals who do not qualify for asylum but who we are unable to return because of the situation in their home country.” Britain keeps events in the home country “under review” in order to “quickly try to remove the individual if circumstances change.”

Perhaps, as it did with Jordan and Abu Qatada, Britain can negotiate an agreement with Egypt to deport al-Sibai, internationally recognized as an al-Qaeda adherent. Or perhaps it is time for the United Kingdom to recognize that al-Sibai is in the country for the foreseeable future and enforce its other laws that would treat him like the criminal he is.

As of early July, al-Sibai was under investigation for benefits fraud. Well, that’s a start.

At the funeral of a slain police officer, Ahmet Camur, Turkish President Recep Erdogan stated, “We bid a farewell to our martyr that we believe has reached martyrdom. How happy is his family, how happy his nears!”

The cult of martyrdom is a well-documented psychological tool used by Islamists to recruit individuals for jihad. It is interesting to see Erdogan’s use of the same jihadist rhetoric against the Kurds, but not ISIS. ISIS has already called for the fall of Istanbul and challenged the authority of Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), calling Erdogan “treacherous” and a “taghut” (idolater of false gods), “who trick people into becoming slaves of the crusaders,” as reported by Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman.

For Erdogan, ISIS is a threat to the larger Middle East but not to Turkey, where the Kurds pose the biggest threat to Turkish sovereignty. The slain police officer died in clashes against the PKK (Kurdistan Worker’s Party), a militant faction within the larger pro-Kurdish rights movement in Turkey. The group is part of a separatist movement that has gained momentum since the establishment of a de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussain. The AKP fears a loss of Turkish territory to a larger Kurdish state should the PKK and other Kurdish separatist groups keep gaining strength.

Ironically, Turkey’s governing political party, the AKP, originally gained prominence by being an inclusive party and by promising to recognize Kurdish identity and language as part of Turkey’s national identity.

Instead, Erdogan now appears to be doubling-down against the Kurds.  Domestically, Kurdish identity remains unrecognized. Moreover, Turkey has assimilated more than one million Turkic-refugees from places like Dagestan, Afghanistan and Iran. This has resulted in an upheaval of local demographics.  Already-present minorities like the Kurds, who comprise approximately 15 percent of the total Turkish population, are likely to see that percentage shrink in the next generation should this policy continue. 

Further, Erdogan continues to label pro-Kurdish activists as terrorists, turning Kurds into a national security threat to improve AKP’s poll numbers and chances for an electoral sweep in expected elections later this year.

It is likely Erdogan hopes that ISIS will wipe out the nascent state of Kurdistan in Iraq’s north before targeting ISIS directly. Unfortunately, by invoking jihadist rhetoric against the Kurds, Erdogan risks opening the door to pro-ISIS radicalization in Turkey and increasing the country’s instability, not strengthening its sovereignty as he hopes. Both the AKP and ISIS are Islamist parties vying for their respective versions of an Islamic state. Like ISIS, the AKP believes in the superiority of Islamism over other ideologies like secular democracy and capitalism. ISIS is merely a more violent strain of the Islamist movement the AKP represents. 

By targeting the Kurds instead of negotiating with them, the AKP is increasing the likelihood that factions within the Kurdish nationalist movement will be co-opted by pro-ISIS Islamists.

The Islamist narrative transcends borders, turning regional issues wherever Muslims may be present into a global “Muslim cause.” The anti-Russian and secular Chechen nationalist movement was hijacked by Islamists through this rhetoric as was the Iranian revolution after the fall of the Shah in 1979. Today, Islamists are manipulating domestic problems from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to hasten the overthrow of what they perceive as corrupt governments in favor of an Islamic state. Erdogan, as an Islamist himself, does not realize that he and his AKP party are simply another corrupt government that requires removal in the eyes of ISIS. While Turks are unlikely to respond to Erdogan’s call for martyrdom against the Kurds, there is a chance that some within Turkey will respond to ISIS.

Incidents recently in Turkey bear this out. A pro-ISIS Turkish Kurd bombed a rally organized for the liberal Turkish-Kurd HDP party on June 5, 2015, days before the country’s national elections, killing four and wounding more than 100. In the following month, another pro-ISIS Kurd killed 32 people and wounded 100 in an attack at the Turkish border town of Suruç. Such incidents are likely to empower minor players like the Turkish Islamic Front or Hezbollah in Turkey. Both groups have ties to foreign Islamist groups and states.

For now, there has been pushback against Erdogan’s jihadist rhetoric. A Twitter-storm erupted after Camur’s funeral following further statements by Erdogan to the effect that more Turks should become policemen as it is a path to happiness because martyrs sit next to prophets in heaven.

One anonymous individual tweeted:  “Let ministers of the AK Party send their kids for military service to be happy.”

Another chirped: “I don't know what to say [about Erdogan’s remarks]. The only think that I know is I felt ashamed to be a human.”

It would be in the AKP’s best interests to negotiate with secular Kurds if the party truly wants to protect Turkish sovereignty and be a real regional player in the Middle East.

The modern culture of the West tends to promote tolerance and respect for individuals, including those in immigrant or minority ethnic communities, no matter how illiberal their worldview, as long as they are not violent. Thus, while Western governments vigorously prosecute the war on terror, they often overlook essential ideological sources of “violent extremism.”

It is within this context of moral relativism and political correctness that Prime Minister Cameron delivered a stem-winder of a speech on July 20 in Birmingham, England. His remarks were intended to spur governmental and civil-societal resistance to “the growing scourge of radicalization” in British society. It called for decisive action to stigmatize barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation in the Muslim community and summoned universities to challenge the core tenets of the Islamist narrative – anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, for instance – in the same way they challenge Holocaust denial. It deserves to be remembered as one of the most ambitious and tough-minded addresses by a Western political leader about the growing threat posed by religious fanaticism.

Cameron’s message has been a mighty long time in coming. Thanks to ISIS’s control of vast swaths of Iraq and Syria, its expansion into Libya and Yemen – and its extensive recruiting power through social media – the subject of extremist ideology now commands attention worldwide. More often than not, however, the response of world leaders has been characterized by complacency and confusion.

Cameron broke from this pattern, advancing the argument that “any strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it.” Every decent government opposes violent extremism. Where Cameron parts company from the Western governing class is his insistence in calling the threat by its right name: Islamism.

For the prime minister to acknowledge the connection between an ultraconservative interpretation of Islam and violence - rather than to indulge the conceit that Islam is simply “a religion of peace” - serves a dual purpose. First, it brings pressure to bear on the agents of intolerance that have eclipsed liberal and reformist voices in Muslim communities. In modern-day Britain, Muslim victims of Islamism have been forced to endure female genital mutilation and forced marriage, among other characteristics of the “honor” culture. The past insouciance of British institutions toward these vulnerable members of society is nothing less than a betrayal of citizenship.

The second purpose of recognizing the faith-based ideology at the root of this violent menace is to support the voices of a more modern and diverse Islam, in Britain and beyond. Given the battle of ideas raging in the Islamic world, it does no good for open societies to pretend they are neutral, or, more bewildering still, to deny that any battle is being fought. For the sake of their own security, Cameron argued, British institutions should actively encourage “reforming” voices in Muslim communities who embrace liberal values.

For too long, political leaders have refused to confront Islamic extremism out of concern for cultural sensitivity or liberal tolerance. This has all but guaranteed that it would fester, and spread. To cite but one example: British Muslims who count themselves as supporters of ISIS now outnumber Muslims who serve in in the British armed forces. The triumph of liberal civilization over the illiberal ideology in our midst depends on staring the enemy full in the face. Prime Minister Cameron deserves our thanks for having done so.