This weekend saw the emergence of Al-Qaida figurehead Osama bin Laden and the continued redefinition of Al-Qaida's jihad against the U.S. amid reports of a growing threat faced in Europe. The normally reclusive leader, who releases a handful of audio tapes usually annually, released two tapes this weekend in a ploy to rally support among Muslims. The consecutive releases of tapes raise several concerns, specifically with the recent revelation that OBL was connected to the recent plot thwarted in Europe.
Al-Qaida's resources are dwindling, and the necessities to implement a large-scale plot like 9/11 does not exist. However, the ability to take individuals (such as Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi) who actively pursue training abroad and then commit to executing terrorist attacks remains the most relevant and difficult threat to counter. The operational war against terrorism is the easiest fight, but the ideological aspect remains difficult to address by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Bin Laden's latest tapes went back to an issue released in a recording from January this year - climate change. This issue perhaps gained insertion due to the floods that devastated Pakistan a couple months ago. Bin Laden faulted Arab governments, lending credit to the UN for its response and accusing the regimes around the Middle East for closing their eyes to the suffering. The plight of the Palestinian people is no longer an opportunity for recruitment apparently, as the focus has shifted and the tapes no longer mention the continued stalemate among Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, bin Laden again makes a subtle cry for Muslims to avoid the U.S. economy (perhaps to attempt to gain more finances for his group's diminishing finances) and identifies the significance of each Muslim's role in his battle with the West.
This latest tape continues the normal message of blaming Arab governments for turning a blind eye to the suffering of Muslims. The reality is bin Laden is struggling in the battle to remain relevant. The surge Al-Qaida experienced as the superpower of jihadist groups for 9/11 has diminished, replaced by groups seeking to instigate the Palestinian-Israeli conflict even more. Hizbullah's global dominance and established assets present the clearest threat to Israel and its allies, however the group understands the necessity of maintaining a covert threat. Bin Laden has constantly lost the recruiting power he once held, with his franchises operating in other groups like AQIM, AQAP, and now al-Shabaab. Recruits now are forced to independently travel abroad, in hopes of being considered trustworthy by al-Qaida and Taliban contacts inside Pakistan. Otherwise, they must travel to Yemen or Somalia with the same goal, but the ability to recruit from within the U.S. solely relies on the individual's radical leanings.
OBL now must utilize whatever global development he can, playing the role of the Muslim father trying to protect his suffering Muslim brothers and sisters. However, Sheikh Nasrallah has continuously been considered in poll after poll among Muslim nations that he and his group take up the Muslim fight best. Hizbullah's recruiting has not dwindled, nor its assets, unlike bin Laden. The desperation for OBL to continue to pursue his fight against the U.S. has made the group seem almost uninterested in the Israeli-Palestinian saga that seems almost too easy to utilize if Al-Qaida was interested in establishing legitimacy among Muslims. The dependence on individual's willing to pursue suicide or creating bombs will be the only thing that carries on the jihad when Al-Qaida is no more, with or without bin Laden. It is only when this is adequately addressed by Muslim nations, as well as Western nations, that the struggle to confront terrorism and its roots can begin.
9-11-01
Showing posts with label homegrown jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homegrown jihad. Show all posts
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
9/11: Reviving U.S.-Muslim Relations with a new perspective
September 11, 2001, is a date that everyone will remember. The pain and anger that resulted from that day was felt by many worldwide, changing the dynamics of the United States-Muslim relationship. This week, everyone watched as Pastor Terry Jones announced plans to burn the Qu'ran as a demonstration against radical Islam, inciting a flash wave of anger amongst Muslims worldwide. This abuse of freedom of speech, driven by a narcissistic leader of a small congregation, sabotaged a day filled with remembrance for victims. Jones acknowledged he did not know the victims of 9/11, had not read the Qu'ran, and then attempted to state that this was a protest of radical Islam. The fact of the matter is by burning and desecrating a religious text used by followers of any faith, it is not targeting the problem-makers, but rather is offensive to all.
The complexity of the Muslim world is something that has baffled the experts at all levels of government, and accomplished virtually nothing when it comes to official policy. The fact of the matter is the organizations linked to the government - whether it be Department of Justice, the Pentagon, or even in the White House - all are questionable.
-The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial. The reality of the matter is the group has held links to terror-financing operations since 1994. This excerpt from a Fox News report by David Lee Miller with CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor was featured in an assessment on CAIR by the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
Miller: Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me - CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?
Saylor: I'm telling you in a very clear fashion - CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.
Miller: That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah.
Saylor: Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question.
Miller: It's not no. It's not whether I like or dislike it. I was asking you if you can sit here now and say - CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.
Saylor: The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.
Video here.
In summary, a blanket rejection of the tactic, but not the groups that use it. Perhaps it's CAIR's links dating back to 1994 to Hamas fundraising that makes it so difficult in denying a group whose founding charter "commits the group to the destruction of Israel." Or the group's claim that suicide bombings are the equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet. Why did this organization ever even receive the time of day with government officials?
Perhaps the biggest embarrassment to attempting to moderate with the Muslim community lies somewhere in Yemen. The new face of terrorism, viewed more dangerous than Osama bin Laden by some, is Anwar al-Awlaki. A former U.S. citizen, Awlaki spoke at the U.S. Capitol just weeks before the 2001 attacks that would evacuate that same building. How did someone with such radical beliefs receive an invitation to become an ambassador for Islam on Capitol Hill?
The list goes on and on of instances where the government outreach to the Muslim community has backfired. The problem is not with Muslims, but rather the sheer incompetence of the government to understand that there is a liability with those that empathize with Hamas and Hezbollah. So long as the groups use terrorism, and the United States designates them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, there should be a firm stance to disregard any individuals affiliated with any groups on that list. Islam is not an organization, but a religion practiced by a fifth of the world. The strength lies in the outreach and ability to communicate with the people, not an organization.
The complexity of the Muslim world is something that has baffled the experts at all levels of government, and accomplished virtually nothing when it comes to official policy. The fact of the matter is the organizations linked to the government - whether it be Department of Justice, the Pentagon, or even in the White House - all are questionable.
-The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the notorious Holy Land Foundation trial. The reality of the matter is the group has held links to terror-financing operations since 1994. This excerpt from a Fox News report by David Lee Miller with CAIR Legislative Affairs Director Corey Saylor was featured in an assessment on CAIR by the Investigative Project on Terrorism:
Miller: Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me - CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?
Saylor: I'm telling you in a very clear fashion - CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them.
Miller: That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah.
Saylor: Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question.
Miller: It's not no. It's not whether I like or dislike it. I was asking you if you can sit here now and say - CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is.
Saylor: The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens.
Video here.
In summary, a blanket rejection of the tactic, but not the groups that use it. Perhaps it's CAIR's links dating back to 1994 to Hamas fundraising that makes it so difficult in denying a group whose founding charter "commits the group to the destruction of Israel." Or the group's claim that suicide bombings are the equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet. Why did this organization ever even receive the time of day with government officials?
Perhaps the biggest embarrassment to attempting to moderate with the Muslim community lies somewhere in Yemen. The new face of terrorism, viewed more dangerous than Osama bin Laden by some, is Anwar al-Awlaki. A former U.S. citizen, Awlaki spoke at the U.S. Capitol just weeks before the 2001 attacks that would evacuate that same building. How did someone with such radical beliefs receive an invitation to become an ambassador for Islam on Capitol Hill?
The list goes on and on of instances where the government outreach to the Muslim community has backfired. The problem is not with Muslims, but rather the sheer incompetence of the government to understand that there is a liability with those that empathize with Hamas and Hezbollah. So long as the groups use terrorism, and the United States designates them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, there should be a firm stance to disregard any individuals affiliated with any groups on that list. Islam is not an organization, but a religion practiced by a fifth of the world. The strength lies in the outreach and ability to communicate with the people, not an organization.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The risk of making terrorism a criminal matter
We are a nation at war. The near bombing of Northwest 253 on Christmas day serves as a stark reminder that this is not some foreign conflict, but rather one that essentially contains many fronts that all arrive on our streets eventually. It is the men and women in law enforcement and the intelligence community that are tasked with a difficult duty of allowing no margin for error. As witnessed in the Christmas day incident, it took just one lapse in the system to jeopardize the lives of nearly 300 people aboard that plane.
We face an enemy that is by all standards, an anomaly. Without an Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida will still live on. Without Al-Qaida, the war against jihadists will still remain. There is no domino effect in this to eliminate the motivations of this enemy.
While the intelligence community is under scrutiny for its shortcomings with the Christmas day plot, there is a much greater vulnerability in our system that is inadequate at handling terrorism cases. With the Obama administration's move to put terrorists like Abdulmutallab or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in American courtrooms, the natural pattern will be that they will end up in American jails eventually. This ultimately may benefit the spread of the jihadists and will most certainly place severe strains on the corrections system.
One does not need to look far to see the impacts of housing jihadists among general population prisons. In the UK, a study by the Quilliam Foundation found severe lapses inside jails that housed radical Islamists. Among those listed:
"Prominent pro Al-Qaida ideologues such as Abu Qatada have been able to smuggle messages out of prison to their supporters"
"In 2008 and 2009, two of the most prominent Arab jihadists imprisoned in the UK released pro-jihadist propaganda and fatwas from within Long Lartin prison"
"..a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, produced written pro-jihadist tracts from within prison aiming to refute criticism of Al-Qaida, while Abu Qatada issued fatwas from within prison which legitimised jihadist attacks worldwide"
In 2006, Belmarsh jail in the UK was reportedly "taken over" by a Muslim gang called "The Muslim Boys." The group reportedly attacked those who failed to convert to Islam with everything from hot water to razor blades attached to brushes. Guards also fell victim to attacks during the group's weekly "religious meetings." At the services being held, guards sat idly by not understanding a word said by Al-Qaida members housed in the jail. There was significant concern that the group may have been capable of using such a time to discuss plots. One official stated,
"We can't even tape the service and get it translated because it is against human rights. It's frightening."
At a separate prison, Whitemoor, a similar report in May 2008 found almost identical concerns amongst staff who reported that the nearly 200 Muslim prisoners had become "more of a gang than a religious group." Both reports addressed fears that jihadists housed inside the facilities were actively recruiting members from within the prison population.
The simple fact is that prisons are made up of a diverse community that are all commonly linked by their criminality. The potential to exploit anger of a common criminal towards the American justice system by a jihadist remains. If these people enter back on the streets after being indoctrinated with a hatred for a government that put them in a jail and a belief that Islam calls for them to wage jihad on America, we are adding to the enemy rather than containing it. This is not a question of denying people rights, but rather doing what is best to stop the spread of radical Islam. By treating jihadists as separate militants and isolating them from a general population, we are eliminating their potential to breed more militants. Without containment the jobs of all those involved in the fight on terrorism expands even greater, allowing the potential for more Abdulmutallabs to slip through the cracks.
We face an enemy that is by all standards, an anomaly. Without an Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida will still live on. Without Al-Qaida, the war against jihadists will still remain. There is no domino effect in this to eliminate the motivations of this enemy.
While the intelligence community is under scrutiny for its shortcomings with the Christmas day plot, there is a much greater vulnerability in our system that is inadequate at handling terrorism cases. With the Obama administration's move to put terrorists like Abdulmutallab or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in American courtrooms, the natural pattern will be that they will end up in American jails eventually. This ultimately may benefit the spread of the jihadists and will most certainly place severe strains on the corrections system.
One does not need to look far to see the impacts of housing jihadists among general population prisons. In the UK, a study by the Quilliam Foundation found severe lapses inside jails that housed radical Islamists. Among those listed:
"Prominent pro Al-Qaida ideologues such as Abu Qatada have been able to smuggle messages out of prison to their supporters"
"In 2008 and 2009, two of the most prominent Arab jihadists imprisoned in the UK released pro-jihadist propaganda and fatwas from within Long Lartin prison"
"..a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, produced written pro-jihadist tracts from within prison aiming to refute criticism of Al-Qaida, while Abu Qatada issued fatwas from within prison which legitimised jihadist attacks worldwide"
In 2006, Belmarsh jail in the UK was reportedly "taken over" by a Muslim gang called "The Muslim Boys." The group reportedly attacked those who failed to convert to Islam with everything from hot water to razor blades attached to brushes. Guards also fell victim to attacks during the group's weekly "religious meetings." At the services being held, guards sat idly by not understanding a word said by Al-Qaida members housed in the jail. There was significant concern that the group may have been capable of using such a time to discuss plots. One official stated,
"We can't even tape the service and get it translated because it is against human rights. It's frightening."
At a separate prison, Whitemoor, a similar report in May 2008 found almost identical concerns amongst staff who reported that the nearly 200 Muslim prisoners had become "more of a gang than a religious group." Both reports addressed fears that jihadists housed inside the facilities were actively recruiting members from within the prison population.
The simple fact is that prisons are made up of a diverse community that are all commonly linked by their criminality. The potential to exploit anger of a common criminal towards the American justice system by a jihadist remains. If these people enter back on the streets after being indoctrinated with a hatred for a government that put them in a jail and a belief that Islam calls for them to wage jihad on America, we are adding to the enemy rather than containing it. This is not a question of denying people rights, but rather doing what is best to stop the spread of radical Islam. By treating jihadists as separate militants and isolating them from a general population, we are eliminating their potential to breed more militants. Without containment the jobs of all those involved in the fight on terrorism expands even greater, allowing the potential for more Abdulmutallabs to slip through the cracks.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Threat Within is a lot clearer...
I have several times mentioned to people my fear of a U.S. or western citizen perpetrating the next terrorist attack here in America. The fact remains clear that courts are beginning to lose the motivation that pushed them to give counterterrorism agencies the power to crack down on not only the actual terrorists, but those who sponsor and endorse it. I remember reading a New York Times article published last year that spoke of a 22-year old living in North Carolina who provided jihadist material on his website, as well as pictures and videos of bombings committed against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Finally, somebody in the media decided to discuss this in the form of an article posted on Foxnews.com. In the article, an official calls Samir Khan's Revolution.Muslimpad a "gateway drug to terror." It is clear that officials understand that bloggers like Khan are just as, if not more, dangerous than a suicide bomber's handler. Just like the handler, authorities can not arrest Khan because he holds no blood on his hands. People suggest that Khan's site is just his version of practicing freedom of speech, but when someone's words promote the taking of life universally because others do not subscribe to your belief system, it has crossed the line.
Freedom of speech is a precious ability that should be used to voice opposition. The fact that some 22-year old wants to encourage some jihadists in the Middle East to kill our soldiers is quite disgusting to me. My problem does not lie with Khan's opposition to elements of American policy, but rather his acceptance and promotion of a violent means of opposition. There is a serious problem with the law-enforcement community and its inability to crack down on the terrorist propaganda. Mark my words, when bin Laden and the other figureheads have lost all power, which it is pretty clear their ability to dictate and lead is dwindling, it will be the bloggers like Khan who provide the propaganda to motivate and enable the next wave of terrorists.
Finally, somebody in the media decided to discuss this in the form of an article posted on Foxnews.com. In the article, an official calls Samir Khan's Revolution.Muslimpad a "gateway drug to terror." It is clear that officials understand that bloggers like Khan are just as, if not more, dangerous than a suicide bomber's handler. Just like the handler, authorities can not arrest Khan because he holds no blood on his hands. People suggest that Khan's site is just his version of practicing freedom of speech, but when someone's words promote the taking of life universally because others do not subscribe to your belief system, it has crossed the line.
Freedom of speech is a precious ability that should be used to voice opposition. The fact that some 22-year old wants to encourage some jihadists in the Middle East to kill our soldiers is quite disgusting to me. My problem does not lie with Khan's opposition to elements of American policy, but rather his acceptance and promotion of a violent means of opposition. There is a serious problem with the law-enforcement community and its inability to crack down on the terrorist propaganda. Mark my words, when bin Laden and the other figureheads have lost all power, which it is pretty clear their ability to dictate and lead is dwindling, it will be the bloggers like Khan who provide the propaganda to motivate and enable the next wave of terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)