The Enemy Within: How Extremists Go From Hashtags to Terrorism

An upstate New York mother of two is arrested for allegedly raising $30,000 for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. American activists travel to Tehran and chant "death to America" on Iranian state TV. A pop-up extremist group called Dample appears online almost overnight — and just as quickly goes dark. How does radicalization move so fast, and who's pulling the strings from abroad?

Jay Solomon and Hagar Chemali sit down with Lara Burns — former FBI special agent with over 20 years in counterterrorism, now head of terrorism research at George Washington University's Program on Extremism. She led the DOJ's largest-ever terrorism financing case, the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation.

They discuss how propaganda escalates into material support and violence, why "pop-up" groups no longer need hierarchy or headquarters to mobilize, the unprecedented role of foreign adversaries like Iran and China in sowing discord online, and a chilling historical parallel: how the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran united far-left and Islamist factions to topple a modernizing state. Burns calls it "radicalization by applause" — and argues that defeating it can't fall on law enforcement alone.

Find Lara Burns's work at GW's Program on Extremism, and on her podcasts Intifada: Hamas in the US, Then and Now and Echoes of Terrorism.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:04

Welcome to the Threat Podcast, where we talk about the most pressing yet not always so visible threats to global and domestic security. I'm Jay Solomon.

SPEAKER_01 0:14

And I'm Hagar Shamali.

SPEAKER_00 0:16

Last week, the FBI announced it had arrested in upstate New York a 37-year-old mother of two named Catherine Beth Washburn for allegedly raising $30,000 for the international terrorist group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and attempting to pay one of its operatives using cryptocurrency. Prosecutors describe Washburn as being a member of a US-based extremist group called the Direct Action Movement for Palestinian Liberation, or Dampel, which emerged last spring. Dample has agitated online, publicly supporting the assassination of Israeli officials and orchestrated a string of sabotage operations, or as they are called, direct actions, to support the Palestinian cause. These include vandalizing college campuses and public squares, as well as Jewish and Israeli organizations. Washburn's arrest illustrates how quickly extremists in the U.S. can move from petty crimes and online incitement to actually supporting international terrorism or trying to gauge it themselves. And Washburn isn't alone. This week, we saw a group of radicalized American youth, including the pro-Palestine activists Cala Walsh and Jackson Hinkle, traveled to Tehran to mourn the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khalemee. They were seen chanting death to America and death to Israel on Iranian state television. Hagar, this washborn story is pretty pretty something. She recently covered to converted to Islam and hasn't hit her extremist views from her community in upstate New York. Her husband recently left her. What do you make of this?

SPEAKER_01 2:06

Well, it sounds like her husband was smart, first of all. And second of all, I uh well, first, can we make a quick joke about the name Dample? Um clearly they didn't have a strategic uh comms expert thinking of the name for that one because it sounds so blah, like right, like like a dimple. Yeah, like dimple but gone wrong, right? I mean, just of all the juvenile terrorist groups, this is their their own name makes it sound like they're so effective and weak. Um but but all joking aside, all joking aside, I actually really think that this single story is actually a point, and I mean this is why we talk about this stuff, Jay, is something that needs to be watched that isn't really being watched or taken seriously, at least that's how it seems. Um you know, I'm asked all the time, I teach at Columbia University as as you know, and I'm asked all the time what it what what I see in Gen Z and the and youth in general and their propensity for being radicalized, uh their whether or not they're taking funds from foreign entities and so on. And I and I'm not trying to stereotype everybody for sure, but I just you do see among youth in particular, and this woman is not that young, but but you do see among youth this uh vulnerability where they're being exploited, and uh it's you know, the this extremism and this argument of aga being against the oppressor, being against the elite, that Islam is the way to uh combat that. This is growing and it's scary. And I'm I don't want to over, you know, I don't want to be alarmist about it, but um but it is it's a trend that's certainly growing, and I think it and it freaks me out.

SPEAKER_00 3:50

Well, to discuss Catherine Washburn, Dample, pardon the name, and domestic extremism in the US. We're lucky to have on the podcast this week our colleague from the program on extremism, Laura Burns. Laura is an expert on domestic extremism, an attorney, and a former FBI agent who focuses on count who focused on counterterrorism for over 20 years at the FBI. And as a special agent, she led the Department of Justice's largest ever terrorism finance financing investigation and prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted of raising funds for Hamas. So, Lara, thanks for joining us.

SPEAKER_02 4:31

Well, thank you, Jay, for having me. It's a privilege to be here and uh very excited to discuss this topic today.

SPEAKER_00 4:38

So immediately after news broke of Washburn's arrest, you said you weren't surprised at all. The evolution of extremists from propagandizing for terrorist groups to actually trying to support them or join them can be rapid. Can you talk a bit more about this?

SPEAKER_02 4:55

Yes. Um, and and I'll start by saying, you know, when Dampel was first brought to my attention in 2025, I had not heard of them. But as soon as I began to review their rhetoric and their calls for action, I knew they were going to be a thing. Um, and this is based on over 22 years working counterterrorism with the FBI, spotting and assessing, you know, threats, and then two plus years now doing the same thing from the program on extremism is that this entity was going to be an issue. And unfortunately, you know, this progression, this type of progression is neither neither new nor especially surprising. Radicalization is often a process, process rather than like one event. And one of the clearest warning signs is the steady normalization of what? Of violence. Individuals and movements frequently begin by justifying or celebrating terrorist attacks and portraying the terrorists who committed those attacks as heroes and framing violence as legitimate or a moral duty to respond to political grievances. And over time, rhetoric that once seemed merely provocative, can become a catalyst for action, particularly when leaders encourage followers to move beyond speech and show that they're committed to the cause through increasingly visible and concrete acts, right? And so here, the allegations against Catherine Washburn, who's allegedly a leader within uh the direct action movement for Palestinian liberation, um, the allegations illustrate why law enforcement and researchers have to closely monitor this trajectory. According to the criminal complaint, the case moved beyond inflammatory rhetoric, calling for quote unquote action into alleged attempts to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. And that transition reflects a pattern seen in numerous terrorism investigations. And that pattern is propaganda fosters ideological commitment. And then that commitment encourages personal identification with a cause. And then some individuals at that point ultimately seek to translate those beliefs into tangible acts of assistance and even acts of violence.

SPEAKER_01 7:29

Lara, you mentioned how Dample first appeared online in the spring of 2025. And afterward, its members begin claiming sabotage operations around the world, uh, including places like Boston and Canada and Berlin. I'm wondering, what do you make of these seemingly, you know, quote-unquote pop-up extremist groups and how they use social media to proliferate in particular?

SPEAKER_02 7:53

So very interesting question. One of the defining characteristics of modern extremist movements is that they no longer need that formal hierarchy. They don't need a physical headquarters, they don't need years to build a following, right? Social media allows even a tiny group of committed individuals to create this illusion of a large global movement almost overnight. And all they need is to begin, really, with this is a platform. And unfortunately, those platforms usually feed off of personal grievances, or those platforms exploit ongoing conflicts, promoting hatred and violence as a solution. And then through that propaganda, dramatic calls for direct action and constant amplification across multiple platforms on social media, these groups that can inspire sympathizers far beyond their immediate membership. And the objective is not simply to publicize their activities, it is to what? Recruit, radicalize, and convince others that violence is effective and expected. And that is why, you know, we what you refer to as these quote, so-called pop-up extremist groups deserve serious attention. I mean, while many of these movements ultimately fade away, some don't and evolve into something far more dangerous by encouraging supporters to provide material assistance to terror organizations, to commit acts of sabotage like you referenced, or carry out violence themselves. Um, you know, in today's digital environment, extremist movements can emerge, grow, and mobilize at a speed that was unimaginable even a decade ago, making, you know, it very important for law enforcement to be able to recognize the signs early and intervene as soon as possible.

SPEAKER_00 9:45

In the name of Dample is direct action, which I don't know, it could sound kind of benign maybe to someone, but when you hear that term direct action, what what does that mean to you and why should the public be concerned when people are starting to say, oh, you know, we're gonna start taking direct action?

SPEAKER_02 10:05

Well, I mean, direct action can can be you know an innocuous term, right? Depending on the context. It's a broad term that can imply various avenues for followers of any cause to pursue. But with groups like Dample, where that call to action is platformed on top of praising terrorism, murder, um, and and repackaging violent acts as legitimate resistance, when that's the platform, and then the group calls for a direct action on that behalf, that's when we can quickly proceed from acts of vandalism and property damage to the very violence that's being promoted in the rhetoric they're using to call for that direct action. It's all about context.

SPEAKER_01 11:02

Lara, before we before we continue to the next question, would you be able to also answer? Because this just came to me as we were discussing, that I'm not sure we introduced Dample enough, like you know, how it was established. I mean, we know we said first appeared online, but like who's behind it? Do we know who's behind it? Do we know how many members it has? Um, or is it kind of, you know, amorphous? Can I ask that question? Amorphous. Yeah. Okay, so I'm gonna ask it now. Um, I'll ask it now, no problem. Laura can I can I take a step back actually? Because it's so hard for me to wrap my mind around what a damp it is and you know, how it was established. Um what I mean is like, do we know who is behind it? Uh, or who is behind it? Do we even know who? Do we know how many members it has? It's so weird for you know, I worked in counterterrorism a while ago in government, and it was we we knew who the founders were, we knew how generally how many members, we knew the fighters, we knew the administrative people, right? This one seems so amorphous. Can you give us a little bit of background on on what we know about Dample?

SPEAKER_02 12:20

Well, I think um those of us in the private sector, right, uh separating us from what the government knows, um, we know less uh than than we actually know, right? Because it is a very um, it's a very, it's a there are a lot of facts that we just don't have a grasp on. This this entity, this movement, emerged in 2025 and very quickly started committing these acts of vandalism when no one really even understood who they were, much less the leadership of it. And we talked, uh I think I mentioned it earlier, you know, there there's not necessarily a hierarchical leadership structure in this organization. But the information that's available in open source doesn't even really tell us a lot about the membership. I mean, we we understand some individuals are members because there have been, you know, uh criminal processes that have been filed against, you know, various of them. But I really think that um we we don't know a lot about this entity. Now, the hope would be that because there have been multiple arrests uh of individuals who have a role in DAMPL, that the government knows a lot more than we do. And these facts may come out very quickly in these various legal proceedings. And we have the one, um, the legal proceedings in Massachusetts, where the state charges against uh Jeremiah Sowakid, um, that case will be proceeding um either to some sort of resolution, but I believe it's set for trial. And then with this latest uh complaint against Washburn, you can expect that there will be a lot of information that comes out throughout that uh pretrial and trial process that may enlighten us a lot more on the leadership structure, who they are, where they are, how how many members they have, how much support they have. But in reality, right now, uh what's available in open source is very little.

SPEAKER_00 14:27

I mean, it's weird because just as quickly as Dampell appeared, it activities seemed to kind of stop in the fall of last year, partly because of these arrests that you were mentioning. But we also see other extremist organizations that emerged, like the Turtle Island Liberation Front. And I've seen some online traffic where members of the like the Turtle Island Front describe some comradeship with Dample. Um, do you think there are connections between these groups or are they just kind of coming from the same ecosystem, the same sort of worldview of, you know, whether it's the war in Gaza or anti-imperialism? It's it's more just there's just a very amorphous kind of ecosystem out there that feeds off of social media.

SPEAKER_02 15:16

Um there is. Uh, and I will say, you know, like you mentioned, after the August 2025 arrest of Sawakid for his criminal acts, uh, vandalism and all of that, the overt online presence of Dample diminished greatly, as you reference. But I would caution that this does not mean that they ceased action or communication, because you know, we see this often uh with not just terrorist groups, but criminals as well. When they understand that they are exposed and under law enforcement scrutiny, they go dark. And that means not necessarily ceasing activity, it means moving to encrypted online messaging platforms where they can operate freely or more freely out of the sight of the general public. And you know, their intent is to operate outside the view of law enforcement. And the hope would be that law enforcement is still able to use uh legal process to track those, but there are platforms I know from my work in the government that just are very difficult to penetrate. So I don't think we know if if Dample has ceased its operations or if it's just operating in the dark. And then, as you said, you know, we see organizations like the Turtle Island Liberation Front, you know, they claim in one social media post, I think you saw it, I saw it, uh, they claim an affiliation with Dample, but it's not real clear from what's available for us to review and analyze is whether they are affiliated with them in ideology alone, or is there actual collaboration? Um, but I think that also facts related to that relationship may um develop for us with the prosecution of the individuals that were arrested, that were affiliated with Turtle Island Liberation Front and were, you know, um arrested for plotting the New Year's Eve terror bombings. You know, before that, about a month before that arrest, the the Turtle Island Liberation Front in that social media post where they were they they said, you know, we embraced the return of our comrades at Dample, presumably referring to Sawakid, and said, quote, free Palestine or scorch the earth. And then a month later, you had members of the TILF arrested for plotting New Year's Eve terror bombing. So with that prosecution, it may become more clear. Are these organizations just ideologically ideologically bonded, or is there a more direct affiliation and collaboration between the two?

SPEAKER_00 18:00

I'll also say that the Turtle Island folks seem to be escalating even because according to the plot that you talked about in the indictment, they they were trying to set off a a lot of like pipe bombs, right? And they were caught off in the Mojave Desert training up. So it does seem like they were even moving the scale of violence kind of beyond what the Dample folks have been doing.

SPEAKER_02 18:24

Yes, according to what we can see from you know the the legal proceedings in that case, such so far, is that they had moved all the way to the end of that spectrum, right? They went from rhetoric to action to acts of violence, like we talked about earlier. Um, they were there.

SPEAKER_01 18:41

Can you, I wanna, Lara, if we can broaden it out a little bit and uh you know, take this beyond the domestic scene of it. And if you if you can tell us how active you think foreign terrorist organizations are in trying to recruit supporters in the United States for their causes. Because Catherine Beth Washburn forged these ties to Palestinian Islamic jihad and Cala Walsh, for example, is essentially working with the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hezbollah. So it seems like those foreign connections are also somehow being built. And I'm curious how these connections even happen, and if we know who is seeking out whom or how that works.

SPEAKER_02 19:25

So this is a a huge area of concern. And I'll say, in my opinion, I think the level of foreign influence in the activities that we're seeing across the country today, especially those calling for violence, is unprecedented. Um and I think you know, you asked about foreign terrorist organizations. Certainly they have an interest in this activity. And then you have your state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, but then you also have other adversarial foreign entities, like the country of China, that are in this sandbox. Um, and they have an interest in spreading chaos and sowing discord in our country. And I believe that their level of influence is due in part to the ease through social media of those foreign adversaries, you know, the ease that they have in co-opting large numbers of followers with a stroke of a key. Um, and then, you know, also, especially since October 7th, 22, 2023, and the Hamas terrorist attacks, those foreign adversaries have seen the fruits of their labors in the masses in Western society who now publicly supports open conflict, who are advocating for violence and advocating for, in fact, the destruction of Western society. So they think they're winning. And it's like it's all hands on deck. And, you know, let's not forget to add into that mix in another example, because you mentioned the example of uh Washburn, and then you also mentioned Kala Walsh. Let's not forget to add in the mix Charlotte Cates, who is a U.S. citizen from New Jersey, who I think lives in Canada, and who is now, or who was the international coordinator for the now designated terror front, Samadun. She promoted support for terror, advocated for the release of individuals responsible for grave acts of terror, and in return traveled to Iran to receive an award for her good work from the oppressive Islamic regime of Iran. And so, you know, you have a ton of foreign influence. And I think it goes well beyond just your your foreign terrorist organizations. It is foreign adversaries who seek to sow discord in this country and they're able to do it easily online. They know how to use the algorithms, they know how to operate under false pretenses, and they think they're winning.

SPEAKER_00 21:55

Lara, putting on your counterterrorism hat, do you see? Sort of common traits amongst those who seem to be the most susceptible to being radicalized, whether it's Washburn or um Kate's or Cala Walsh. I mean, what is driving these people? I mean, you've probably seen these videos of like Kala Walsh shouting death, death to America at an Iranian rally. It just looks nuts, but there must be some profile of these people that these foreign actors feel like they can prey on. And I'm curious if you see any common traits.

SPEAKER_02 22:33

You know, that uh that type of profile has evolved since I began working terrorism and certainly looks a bit different now than it did, right, 20 years ago. Um, and we could talk about factors and things like that. We could be here for hours. Um, but at the bottom of it all, the one, the especially like the call of washes, I kind of have a theory. Um, and although there are very you like series, there are various causes, right, for US persons who are being radicalized to support terror. But I think we cannot discount or overlook one aspect of it. And it's what I call radicalization by applause. And that is when terror groups and foreign adversaries, you know, they've long sought to alter history, discard facts, and replace dialogue with emotional discourse that wreaks havoc among our society. And they succeeded in many places, not the least of which are our university campuses, on social media, even mainstream media. And so now, instead of factual debate, these foreign adversaries masquerade under the cloak of free speech, meanwhile, labeling anyone who disagrees with their speech as racists, bigots, biased, or worse, as promoting genocide. Um, and and the algorithms feed into that. And they get clicks and likes and fans and followers. They get labeled as heroes and warriors for justice. All the while, you know, any voices who are pragmatic and pro-peace and seeking factual dialogue and conflict resolution are shamed into non-existence. You know, in certain campus settings, since October 7th, the question that's posed by these groups that are forcing this emotional discourse and this radical dialogue is are you a good person? If so, you're on the side of the resistance. And if not, you are a bad person. So, what do we expect our youth? Because you talked about our youth, what do we expect them to do when they're trying to figure out who they are? And then they're faced with this false dilemma, are you good or bad? And they no longer have an option to educate themselves, to seek facts, to enter logical debate. And instead, what do they do? They fall in line where they receive praise for this moral victory, which is really nothing more than the blind following of a moral distortion. And for what? For applause, for praise.

SPEAKER_00 25:22

I mean, how big of a threat do you think this is? And do you see parallels in US history? I mean, I remember I've read a lot about the late 70s, early 80s, where you had the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground. I think people remember Patty Hearst and the Sibyanines Liberation Army. It does seem like there have been periods where you have this kind of anti-imperialist, far-left radicalization, but you also didn't have all the social media and the tech. So in some ways, it seems like this this threat could grow much more rapidly because of all this high tech. So how big of the threat is do you think it is?

SPEAKER_02 26:04

I think we're underestimating the threat. Um, I I think as a society, we're underestimating the threat. I think that we hold this false belief that because we live in Western society, that the enemies within will never succeed in defeating our democracy. And, you know, I've always believed that that good wins out over evil, and that our country is the greatest country in the world, and that, you know, democracy will always prevail. But when you're talking about reviewing historical, you know, events, I think that one thing that I've been looking at recently and studying is what led to the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, where you had an Islamist regime, one of the most oppressive in the world, topple a monarchy and then rule for forty-something years through terror. And how did that come about? And it came about through radical dialogue that was pro-Islamist on one side, and radical dialogue that was far-left Marxist ideology on the other side. And although the two groups were completely different in their mindsets and their ultimate perspective on what society should look like, they came together over what? Anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, anti-Western uh values, anti-Americanism. And in that process, which did not take very long in the scheme of things, a country that was progressive in the region and promoting women's rights and constitutional rights and things like that, that was really heading toward becoming a successful uh Western society was toppled. Um, and then, of course, you know, one side of that um alliance won out, and that was the Islamist regime in Iran that has ruled through terror for 40-something years, and the individuals who had collaborated with them on the left that were anti-imperialist and anti-capitalists, and naively believed that they could share in some utopia of a government were quickly, you know, massacred, imprisoned, exiled, and ceased to exist. So I I think that, you know, we think in Western society that that sort of thing can't happen and let's hope that it can't. But I think it's very important for us all to understand how historically these types of uh circumstances have led to really, really terrible things.

SPEAKER_01 29:16

Lara, I'm so glad that you who mentioned this because I also always, when I talk about, you know, um far left extremism in particular, I always highlight the Islamic Republic of Iran and how they came to power and that their whole shtick was fighting the oppressors and fighting the elites and fighting the West through Islam and what it ended up producing, and that sometimes I see, you know, not to over-exaggerate here, but sometimes I see f uh similarities in the in the DSA. So not I'm exaggerating a little bit because they're not pursuing violence, but they've said some pretty scary things. Um and I always tell people we can't rest on our laurels, right? If we don't, if people don't understand our principles and values and freedoms, then um then it creates these vulnerabilities. So I I find it so fascinating. You were you you just said that. I'm curious, you know, particularly given your background in government, uh, what do you think the FBI and the Department of Justice need to do to help stop this spread of extremism?

SPEAKER_02 30:20

So, in general, and I'm gonna get to something um that's very close to my heart that I'll if don't let me forget to come back to it, but in general, I'll say, you know, the threat landscape in the US continues to expand in every direction. And the FBI and the law enforcement community, they're facing greater and greater challenges every day. And they need to continue to aggressively pursue disruption of these extremist actors. But honestly, it can't fall on law enforcement alone. The private sector and frankly, society as a whole need to take an active role in identifying emerging and evolving extremism and report that with detail, report what they're seeing. Society needs to be accountable and begin to change this popular narrative that hate is good and that violence is necessary. Society needs to help replace emotional discourse with peaceful, factual dialogue. And it's time for those in society who understand the dangers of this radicalization that we're talking about to use their voice and be brave, even if they do not immediately receive that applause that we were talking about. And they won't, right? But it's important. It can't just fall on your law enforcement entities. Um, but I want to go back to something where I think in law enforcement and Western society as a whole have always looked the other way and ignored the danger posed by terrorist propaganda. We've given wide birth to terrorist entities and individuals pursuing those terrorist agenda, uh terrorist entities' agendas in disseminating pro-terror propaganda that promotes hate and advocates for violence. Um, we all love our constitution, we all love uh our First Amendment, and I'm not advocating for any of that to change, but there has to be a recognition when speech goes beyond just being individual advocacy to where it's an intentional dissemination of terrorist propaganda for the purpose of radicalizing people to hate and commit acts of violence. And I think that we've all kind of underestimated the power of that propaganda for years. Um, I mean, we talked at the beginning about how I worked uh the you know, the original Hamas financing case. Well, there was a whole nother component to that terrorist organization, and that was the propaganda arm, the radicalization arm. And, you know, when we prosecuted the HLF for sending the money, we left in place the propaganda radicalization arm of that, thinking that if we turned off the money and there was no violence occurring, that we had solved the problem. And we can see with the amount of radicalization that spread and led to the October 7th terrorist attack, where 1,200 people at music festivals and sleeping in their beds in their homes and in their cars going to work were raped and burned and murdered by this terrorist organization. So I think that we have to recognize, again, as a society and law enforcement needs to recognize that there is a difference between free speech and the intentional dissemination of terrorist propaganda for the purpose of radicalizing a population to believe violence is appropriate.

SPEAKER_00 33:47

And just to close and kind of broaden it out a bit, I mean, how much blame do you think families themselves, schools, universities are playing in this? Because, like you said, a lot of this radicalization is kind of portrayed as part of social justice, it's benevolent, it's it's framed as something extremely positive, and yet it can turn violent so quickly. And it's like it's stunning, but it seems like our families, our schools don't really understand this.

SPEAKER_02 34:23

I think it goes to, well, I think there are a number of factors that are contributing to that, but I think it's easier to have a blind eye to you know pretend that it's not happening than it is to face the issue. It's easier to remain quiet in the face of conflict than it is to use your voice and be brave and you know really call out what is happening. And it's not a popular thing and it's intimidating, it's scary for people. And so I think a lot of individuals in society who could make a difference, whether it's parents of children who are consuming this, whether it's school administrators who are seeing this happen on their campuses, whether it's, you know, uh society as a whole, individuals within that that understand what's happening and are choosing not to use their voices because they're afraid, those individuals need to reach deep and be accountable and use their voices. Because if we don't do that, we will lose this battle. And and you know, in society, we can't just say, oh, I'm sure the FBI's got this, right? Right, the FBI will take care of this problem. This is this is not just an FBI problem. It is it is an America problem, it is a Western society problem, it's a democracy problem. And people have to find the courage to speak the truth, to learn the truth, and to have dialogue about this and hold accountable those that are just espousing hate and violence as a solution. It has to happen.

SPEAKER_01 36:10

Lara, you are amazing. I I first of all, by the way, I couldn't agree with you more. And I really hope that, you know, I know I I I hope that schools and communities are starting to understand the role that they have to play. Um, I'm not so sure social media companies do yet, uh, but you know, but hopefully we'll get there because I think you're right. If we keep talking about it more, then uh then we'll get there. And uh I want to thank you so much for joining us and for being so generous with your time and for helping us examine Dample. It's been it's just been amazing. Before we go, where can listeners find you or learn more about your work?

SPEAKER_02 36:49

Well, thank you for asking that. Um I uh am currently head of terrorism research for George Washington University's program on extremism. And so a number of our publications, including publications on Dample, can be found on our website. I also have a podcast called Intifada, Hamas in the US, Then and Now. And that is the a documentary where I actually talk about the evolution of Hamas, both here and abroad, here in the US, uh, from the beginning until present. Um, that's available on all uh platforms, basically, from YouTube to to um Spotify. It's a video uh podcast. It's important to watch the video because I put a lot of the exhibits and and uh visuals in there to help establish what I'm talking about. And then I have another podcast called Echoes of Terrorism, where we revisit prior acts of terrorism and talk about how relevant they are to the threat landscape today. So that's how people can find me.

SPEAKER_01 37:50

Amazing. I have to say, too, just listening to your accent has been such a delight. So thank you for that as well.

SPEAKER_02 37:56

No, thank you guys. I'm it's been a privilege to talk with you both on this this topic and just thank you for for letting me uh join you today.

SPEAKER_01 38:06

Of course. For listeners, if you've made it this far, please consider leaving us a review. Always a good one. It makes a huge difference in helping people find us. And if you have an idea or question for us, or you just want to say hi, please send us a note at thethreatpod at gw.email.edu.