Future Terrorism: Mutant Jihads

By Walid Phares

The Fall 2006 issue of the Journal of International Security Affairs published my article "Future Terrorism: Mutant Jihads." The JISA also published articles by esteemed collegues from the CTB. In this piece I attempted to provide a global assessment of the Jihadi threat five years after September 11, 2001. Following are the short introductory paragraphs:

The strategic decision to carry out 9/11 was made in the early 1990s, almost ten years before the barbaric attacks on New York and Washington took place. The decade-long preparations and the testing of America’s defenses and political tolerance to terrorism that took place before September 11th—were a stage in the much longer modern history of the jihadist movement that produced al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers.

Decades from now, historians will discover that the United States, the West and the international community were being targeted by a global ideological movement which emerged in the 1920s, survived World War II and the Cold War, and carefully chose the timing of its onslaught against democracy. Undoubtedly, the issue that policy planners and government leaders need to address with greatest urgency, and which the American public is most concerned about, is the future shape of the terrorist threat facing the United States and its allies. Yet developments since 2001, both at home and overseas, have shown that terror threats in general—and the jihadi menace in particular— remain at the same time resilient and poorly understood.

Defining the war

The jihadi war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War—and the struggle against the United States and some of its allies thereafter—are all part of a single continuum. Over time, jihadi Salafists and Khomeinist radicals alike have become proficient in selecting their objectives and infiltrating targets. Indeed, an analysis of the security failures that made 9/11 possible clearly demonstrates that the hijackers exploited systemic malfunctions at the national security level. Learning these lessons is essential for better counterterrorism planning in the future. But the jihadists are also learning, and the advantage will go to the side which can adapt most quickly. If the jihadists learn to understand and anticipate their opponents, their tactics and strategies will mutate.

Read the whole article here.

Indonesian JI Ties to Somali Gun Runners Arrested in Yemen

By Zachary Abuza

On 16 October 2006, Yemeni security forces arrested a group of eight foreigners who were involved in running guns to the Islamic Courts Union, the Islamist group that has taken control of the Somali capital of Mogadishu. [See the excellent posts onthis site by Douglas Farrah on the situation in Somalia]. The eight foreigners included a Yemeni and four Europeans - a Dane, Britain, German, an undisclosed European national - all converts to Islam. It also included three Australian nationals - though there are some reports that a fourth Australian was also detained. Two of the Australians are brothers, born to an Indonesian father. Australian security officials disclosed that all three Australian nationals were students at the al-Iman University in Sanaa, which was run by Abdul al-Majid al-Zindani, who has previously been cited by the US Government as having links to al Qaeda.

Australian security officials have expressed concern that the two brothers, Abdullah and Mohammed, have some connection to Jemaah Islamiyah. It is now reported that they are the children of Abdulrahim Ayub. Abdulrahim and his twin brother Abdulrahman were senior JI members who were in charge of establishing JI’s Mantiqi IV in Australia. Abdulrahman fought in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

The brothers arrested in Yemen were arrested with their mother Rabiah Hutchinson. Rabiah converted to Islam when she married her husband in 1984 in Indonesia. The Ayub twins were Australian residents, but Abdulrahman was forced out of the country in 1999. He has been tracked to Mindanao, in the southern Philippines where he is thought to be leading training for new JI recruits. Abdulrahim and his wife fled Australia immediately after the 12 October 2002 Bali bombings, which killed 202 people. They were thought to be hiding in the outskirts of Jakarta. It is not known whether Abdulrahim is with his family in Yemen, or if he is still hiding in Java.

The Ayub twins are some of the most senior dozen JI members at large.

Chicago Hamas Trial: Former Israeli Security Agent Takes the Stand

By Steven Emerson

The last three days of the Mohammed Salah and Abdelhaleem al-Asqar trial for their alleged support of Hamas has featured the direct examination by the government of a former Israeli Security Agent known only as “Nadav.” The Courtroom was cleared of spectators but the public and media were allowed to listen to the proceedings in an overflow courtroom. Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid J. Schar questioned the witness in detail concerning his interrogations of Defendant Mohammad Salah in January and February of 1993. Nadav spoke of the good rapport that the two men had and how Salah spoke freely with his interrogator. The government played a series of tapes of the interrogation for the jury.

For a comprehensive summary of Nadav's last three days on the witness stand, go here.

The prosecution is expected to conclude their direct examination of Nadav tomorrow, at which point the defense attorneys will begin their cross-examination. Judge Amy J. St. Eve believes that Nadav will probably remain on the witness stand for the rest of the week.

The first American Crisis in the Middle East

By Aaron Mannes

I was pleased to also contribute to the latest issue of the Journal of International Security Affairs, along with my co-CTbloggers Olivier Guitta (who wrote on trans-Atlantic relations) and Walid Phares (who wrote an excellent article entitled, "Future Terrorism: Mutant Jihads.")

My contribution was a review of Joshua London's Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation. London's book describes this first U.S. engagement with the Middle East. Although the events took place two centuries ago, the many parallels between the war with the Barbary pirates and today's war on terror are uncanny.

Here's an excerpt:

Past as prologue
By Aaron Mannes

Joshua E. London, Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation (Hobocken, NJ: J.W. Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2005), 276pp., $24.95.

Faced with a choice of appeasing hostage-taking Middle Eastern despots or overturning the international order, the United States hems and haws as its prestige wanes—until finally an outraged American public demands action. The European powers watch carefully, and maneuver to gain their own advantage. After marginal pinprick strikes, American forces mount a major campaign, receive rapid capitulation, and predictably fail to press their advantage.

The year was 1804.

Read more.

Source: Zawahiri Likely Alive, Bajur Accords on Hold

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

I just spoke with a military intelligence source who confirmed that the Bajur airstrike (see Andy Cochran's post on it) was conducted by a U.S. Predator, adding that helicopters were also involved. The strike occurred around dawn, as people in the camp were preparing for their morning prayers. My source is skeptical of speculation that Zawahiri may have been killed in the strike, saying that Zawahiri sightings are a dime a dozen. He says it's possible that Matiur Rehman was killed, but is also skeptical of that.

The strike came just as the Bajur accords were supposed to take place (similar to the Waziristan accords that now prevent Pakistan's military from operating in that region). Officials within the Pakistani government were supposedly worried when early reports surfaced that Faqir Mohammed may have been killed. Faqir Mohammed is a Taliban leader in the region who would have been a major signatory to the accords: if he were killed, the Pakistanis wouldn't know who could enter into the accords with them (or, to put it cynically, with Faqir Mohammed dead they wouldn't know who they were supposed to surrender to). However, Mohammed survived. He apparently felt so confident in his safety that he gave an interview to NBC News at the scene near the blasted school, and also attended -- and spoke at -- the funeral for the 80 who died in the strike.

At this point, the Bajur Accords are on hold. While we will probably see some payback from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, my source noted that there's not a whole lot more they can do: these groups tried to kill Musharraf less than a month ago, and are already carrying out terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

It's worth noting that Faqir Mohammed also hosted Zarqawi when a U.S. strike missed him back in January, and left before that strike as well. It's unlikley that Mohammed had advance warning of either the Damadola strike or this one (too many high-value terrorists were killed at Damadola, and Mohammed almost certainly would have alerted them). Some guys are apparently just that lucky.

Civil Liability is Crucial in the War on Terrorism: A Response to the Wall Street Journal.

By Victor Comras

Ted Frank’s provocative Op-ed in Friday’s Wall Street Journal questions the rationale for allowing victims of terrorism to hold third-party institutions potentially liable for their own contributory actions. He wants Congress to enact new restrictions on attorneys and on the judicial system to lessen the risk that banks and other financial institutions might run if they provide financial and other services to those associated with terrorism. “Plaintiffs' attorneys,” he writes, “are weaving creative legal theories to hold legitimate third parties liable for the intentional acts of terrorists. This friendly fire could end up doing almost as much financial damage as the terrorists themselves, with the lawyers getting rich in the process.” But his conclusions are based on false premises and on his prejudging the facts and outcome of cases yet to be litigated. His proscription that civil lawyers stay clear of the war on terrorism, and leave it to criminal prosecutors and regulators may sound good; but it would truly constitute a major setback to holding terrorists, and those that finance and support them, accountable.

The fact is that most major terrorism’s financial abettors and supporters, whether for al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah or other terrorist entities, have successfully avoided criminal prosecution. Witness Youssef Nada, Ahmed Nasreddin. Wael Hamza Julaidan, and Yasin Al Qadi, to name only a few internationally designated terrorism financiers. The record on closing down entities and institutions feeding terrorism is even more dismal. The failure of the international community to come to terms with a universal definition of terrorism shouldn’t provide an excuse, as it seems to be doing, for institutions here or abroad to do business with known terrorist groups. Yet, it is still business as usual in many countries with at least some of these terrorist groups. The fact that civil liability cases in US courts may now be able to reach out beyond our borders to individuals and entities associated with terrorism may constitute the best constraints we have against their activities and our best chances to hold them accountable.

Mr. Frank’s op-ed is keyed to recent Federal District Court decisions denying motions to dismiss lawsuits against NatWest and Credit Lyonnais. Those suits allege that both institutions provided banking services for charities and other entities known to fund Hamas. He also cites in justification of his thesis an earlier case involving the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He derides NY Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Figueroa's instructions in that case which he characterizes as persuading the jury” …that the terrorists who planted a truck bomb in the World Trade Center garage in 1993 were only 32% responsible, while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was 68% responsible.” That statement is really off the mark given that the allegations against the Port Authority in that case dealt with their alleged negligence and not any complicity with terrorism.

Senior Federal District Court Judge Charles Sifton’s legal opinion and order in the NatWest case (mirrored subsequently in the Credit Lyonnais case) was solidly grounded on common law rules of procedure and tort law, and on US Anti-Terrorism legislation which provides civil remedies, including treble damages, for the victims of terrorism. The key questions for liability in these cases, the Judge held, was whether plaintiffs could ultimately show that the banks knowingly provided material support or resources to, or for the benefit of, a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) and/or whether they knowingly collected or provided funds to or for the benefit of an FTO. This preliminary ruling means only that plaintiffs will be allowed to present facts to the judge and jury on these points. But, Mr. Frank seems to view even this preliminary ruling as “baseless.” And he suggests that it’s a sign that the courts are now acting irresponsibly in carrying out their mandate under the Anti-terrorism legislation. It leads him to conclude that “Congress should amend {these laws} to make clear that civil liability is limited to those who commit criminal acts of international terrorism, and those who aid and abet with specific intent to commit terror.” This would equate the standard for civil cases to that for criminal conviction. And just how does Mr. Frank think that any civil lawyer could handle that subjective burden which has already defeated so many legitimate criminal prosecutions?

Mr. Frank also has problems with Judge Sifton’s rejection of NatWest’s contention that they are protected here by international comity. He buys-in completely to NatWest’s argument that since the accounts and transactions were both outside of the United States they should be governed exclusively by local rules in the banks home jurisdiction. In other words let’s leave it completely to foreign governments to set their own standards here on who is a terrorist and who isn’t. But, as Judge Sifton recognized, such an approach would give institutions around the world free passes to fund terrorist groups so long as their own governments had not designated the groups for what they are. Imagine leaving such a determination to the likes of Iran, Syria and other terrorism supporting countries. Judge Sifton’s reasoned that “Although British Law does not require that NatWest cease to provide banking services to Interpal {a British Charity linked with funding Hamas} or that it cease transactions with HLF, Al-Aqsa, the Jenin Committee and the Tulkarem Committee, it also does not mandate that NatWest {which also has a presence, and does business in the United States} continue providing such services. Accordingly, NatWest is free, and, indeed, obligated, to follow the more stringent American law. Principles of international comity do not demand otherwise.”

And, by the way, what does Mr. Frank think about British Courts and British libel laws being used to silence American and other investigative reporters and writers that are digging into terrorism and terrorism financing. Perhaps that should be the subject of another Wall Street Journal op-ed. (POSTSCRIPT: Subsequent to writing this blog I learned that Mr. Frank has, in fact, frequently criticized the use of British libel laws to quell free speech, and particularly with regard to those writing on terrorism. I include a link here to his most recent posting.

More Action on Weapons Trafficker Viktor Bout

By Douglas Farah

The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) took the unusual step of redesignating arms trafficker Viktor Bout and some of his henchmen for their activities in arms trafficking in the troubled Democratic Republic of Congo. The move was authorized by an Executive Order signed Friday by President Bush.

The designations coincide with the publication (with Steve Braun) of this Foreign Policy piece on Bout's network, a preview of our upcoming book.

Bout and one of his close associates, Sanjivan Ruprah, were already "Specially Designated Individuals" by the U.S. and on similar lists in the United Nations, for their support of the Liberian regime of Charles Taylor. Today's announcement includes, for the first time, Douglas Mpano and Dimitri Popov. Both worked for the Bout-associated Great Lakes Business Company and Compagnie Aerienne des Grands Lacs. My full blog is here.

More Ceasefire Violations in Mindanao, Pressure Mounts as Deadline in Peace Talks Nears

By Zachary Abuza

The ongoing investigations and allegations that MILF Chairman Ebrahim el Haj Murad was involved in the mid-October bombings that rocked central Mindanao have led to a fraying of the peace process. Already under strain from a year and a half’s worth of deadlocked negotiations, 2006 has seen a number of breakdowns in the ceasefire that has held fairly well since 2004. On 26 October, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) helicopters violated the ceasefire by strafing MILF positions in Lanao del Sur province. Sunday saw yet another violation. According to the AFP, a group of MILF attacked an AFP unit in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao. Eid Kabalu, the MILF spokesman, claims that pro government paramilitaries, known as civilian volunteers' organization (CVO) provoked the attack and were then joined by AFP mortar fire. The AFP initially claimed that four MILF were killed, though there was no confirmation of this by the rebels on their website. In a separate incident last Thursday, security forces raided a welding shop that the MILF used as an armaments factory that manufactured RPG-2s. The AFP claimed that the shop was “owned by a top-ranking” MILF leader, though without disclosing whom.

Why all the recent breakdowns in the ceasefire? In part it is a negotiating ploy by both sides who want to remind the other of the consequences of a deadlock in the peace talks. Following the breakdown of talks in Kuala Lumpur on 6-7 September, the GRP side requested until 31 October to present a new proposal on Ancestral Domain. The MILF, on their website this weekend, expressed doubt that the government was going to present a meaningful proposal with real concessions. Both sides are raising the specter of a renewed conflict.

The bombings in central Mindanao from 10-15 October were clearly the work of the ASG and JI; but it is also clear that there was some MILF hand in them. The ASG have no real presence in that part of the country and the operations could not have been executed without a degree of MILF complicity. There is no proof that Murad gave the order, though clearly the MILF may have wanted to send a not so subtle reminder to the government about the consequences of the stalled talks. Hardliners in the MILF may simply want to scuttle the talks. The criminal charges leveled at Murad, however, are going to prove to be a disastrous mistake on the part of the government.

The normally reticent, but powerful second in command of the MILF, Aleem Abdul Aziz S. Mimbantas, issued a rare public statement on 25 October. The statement characterizes the charges as “baseless” and “character assassination.” “In the light of the impasse at the peace talks, the latest move by the Philippine government is a clearly a ploy to pressure the MILF to return to the negotiating table and to use these trumped up charges as leverage and as a bargaining tool to impose its unacceptable conditions in the negotiations on the Front.” Mimbantas continued with a threat: “As Vice Chairman for Military Affairs of the Front… I am serving notice to the Philippine Government that we consider this latest affront… no less than an act of hostile provocation whose dire consequences will widen the cleavage between the MILF and the Philippine Government.” “The Philippine Government thus should ponder over the serious implications of this provocative act. For this will definitely and detrimentally affect the peace process and hinder its movement forward…”

The threat came as the Australian Ambassador for Counter Terrorism Mike Smith, came to Mindanao to inspect Philippine progress in CT operations amid growing concern that the Southern Philippines the soft underbelly for regional security.

In other news from Mindanao, the AFP announced that an additional 1,500 troops would be deployed in Jolo against the Abu Sayyaf and members of JI, bringing the total to 7,500.

Terror Down South: India Battles Terrorist Threats Beyond J & K

By Animesh Roul

At least two events have been haunting India’s security establishment at present: an email threat to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ahead of his visit to southern most State of Kerala scheduled on October 31, and the arrest of two suspected Pakistani nationals with alleged link to Al Badr terror outfit in the neighboring Mysore (In Karnataka).

Not long ago, Manmohan Singh observed terrorism as a hydra headed monster and the most dangerous threat.

The email threat could be a silly prank. However, security agencies should not be complacent looking at the content of the alleged email threat. It asks for the release of Afzal Guru, the man sentenced to death in the Dec 2001 Parliament attack case and Abdul Naseer Madhani, an accused in the 1998 Coimbatore serial bomb blast case.

Although Kerala has never witnessed a terrorist strike or even an arrest, it is suspected that the territory has been used as a hibernation place for active militants.

Torturer Toto Tells Terrorist Tale of Immigration Woe

By Bill West

There was some justice given out the other day in Federal civil court in New York. Unfortunately, it received only a little notice in the media. It deserved a lot more attention. The case involved a civil lawsuit brought against Emmanuel “Toto” Constant, a Haitian who is under a deportation order but who continues to live in the US. Constant is the former head of something called the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti, or “FRAPH.” FRAPH, unlike its benign sounding name, was an organization composed of thugs, murderers, torturers and assassins that worked in league with the various paramilitary dictators who ran Haiti during the early 1990s.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of several victim plaintiffs by the Center for Justice and Accountability and the Center for Constitutional Rights in 2004, resulted in a Court finding of culpability by Constant being issued on October 24. Constant, in this Federal civil case, has been established to be the human rights violator the US Government, at least the immigration law enforcement authorities within the US government, have contended he is for many years. In fact, his deportation order is in large part based upon those same findings.

Therein lies the ironic “rub” of Constant’s case and how it relates to the Government’s counter-terrorism efforts. After "fleeing" to the US, Constant came to the attention of the former US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the 1990s as a potential human rights persecutor target. Constant, living in the Maryland/DC area at the time, was arrested on deportation charges, detained and ultimately ordered deported even though he fought the charges. Through a series of legal actions, including his own lawsuit against the US Government seeking to prevent his deportation wherein he claimed he had been a CIA operative, he was ultimately released from custody under an order of supervision by immigration authorities. The reality was, the State Department feared Constant’s return to Haiti would be a major destabilizing effect there and, in spite of the protest of INS authorities, it was decided to allow Constant to remain in the US indefinitely. Foreign policy concerns outweighed justice in this case.

Radical Australian Cleric Al-Hilali's Sermon in the Context of a Growing Fringe of Home-Grown Militants

By Zachary Abuza

[Author’s note: I do not like to comment on issues/events outside of Southeast Asia, but I would like to post this brief piece on the comments of Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali of Australia, that are getting significant attention in the international media. They must be seen in the context of a growing threat of home grown Islamist militancy Down Under, that has not been addressed to the degree it should have been on the Counterterrorism Blog.]

This week a Ramadan sermon by the controversial Supreme Muslim Cleric, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali aired in the national media has created a furor across Australia. The comments, in which the sheik blames women for rape, are only the latest in a string of incidences by radical Muslims who refuse to integrate and abide by Australia’s liberal-democratic and multi-ethnic core values. While the radicals comprise only a small number of Australia’s 300,000 Muslims (who come from some 20 countries), their vociferous and intolerant discourse is disturbing. It also adds increasing light to the problem of home-grown Islamist militancy in Australia.

Last year, the firebrand imam, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, originally from Algeria but who eventually became an Australian citizen, went on national television and stated unequivocally that he could not tolerate any religion but Islam: "According to my religion, here, I don't accept all other religion except the religion of Islam… I am telling you that my religion doesn't tolerate other religion. It doesn't tolerate. The only one law which needs to spread, it can be here or anywhere else, has to be Islam."

Benbrika, who described Osama bin Laden as “great man,” also caused a stir by inciting Australian Muslims to go to Iraq and fight coalition – including Australian – troops; stating that it was a religious obligation for Muslims to do so.

Benbrika was arrested last November for being the ringleader of a terrorist plot. According to police officials from the State of Victoria, though the plot was in its "developmental stages,” Benbrika and his followers (two cells, one in Sydney, the other in Melbourne), were clearly inspired by the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London and were planning a major attack. In a telephone conversation intercepted by the police, Abdulla Merhi, said he "could wait months but not years" to carry out jihad. "You shouldn't kill just one, two or three," Mr Benbrika allegedly responded. "Do a big thing." "Like Madrid?" Mr Merhi allegedly inquired, to which Mr Benbrika was said to have replied: "That's it." He continued, "If you kill, we kill here 1000, because if you get large numbers here, the government will listen." Members of the Melbourne cell were allegedly filming the Australian Stock Exchange and Flinders Street Station, the main commuter rail terminus in Melbourne.

The group was self-financed. Members of the Melbourne cell each donated $100 a month while several others were involved petty crime, credit-card fraud and selling stolen mobile phones to finance the plot. The Sydney cell members had amassed a number of firearms and a small cache of chemicals needed to produce TATP, the explosive used in the London bombings, lab equipment, over 150 detonators, over 130 digital timers, and al-Qaeda literature and bomb-making manuals. Cell members attended simple training sessions in remote areas in 2005, and allegedly Benbrika was given a demonstration of the explosives. Two of the 17 people arrested in November 2005 and March 2006 had received explosives training in Afghanistan. Currently there are 13 people standing trial in this case.

While Australia has done a superb job at assisting the governments of Southeast Asia investigate and break up Jemaah Islamiyah, Australian officials are now bracing for a rise in home grown militancy. Australian security officials from both Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have recently commented that there are roughly 12 terrorist cells with some 60 members that are being investigated. The threat of home-grown militancy has never been greater in Australia.

And for that reason, al-Hilali's sermon, published in today’s The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20653032-601,00.html, deserves another look because it is exclusionary, inciting and is a direct challenge to Australian tolerence:

"But when it comes to adultery, it's 90 per cent the women's responsibility. Why? Because a woman possesses the weapon of seduction. It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail.
…
"But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, scholar al-Rafihi says: 'If I came across a rape crime – kidnap and violation of honour – I would discipline the man and order that the woman be arrested and jailed for life.' Why would you do this, Rafihi? He says because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it."

"If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you're crazy. Isn't this true?

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen.

"That's why he said she owns the weapon of seduction.
…
"The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.

Al-Hilali has been in the news before. He was nearly deported several times before gaining citizenship owing to his radical preaching and tirades. He called the 9/11 attacks "God's work against oppressors" and continues to astound people with his virulent anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. These statements got him expelled from the Prime Minister's Muslim Advisory Board.

Another radical cleric, Sheikh Mohammed Omran, a spiritual leader of Ahl as-Sunnah wal Jama’ah, a Salafi organization, has led the media campaign denying Muslim links to either the London or Madrid bombings, as well as to the 9/11 attacks. "I don’t believe that even 11 September… I don’t believe that it was done by any Muslim at all… I dispute any evil action linked to bin Laden," he said on national TV. Instead, he explained, they were "inside job" of the United States. Omran has encouraged followers to wage jihad against the west, glorified suicide bombers, and encouraged Madrid and London-style attacks in Australia.

Public pressure, in particular from Australia's moderate Muslim community (I.E. The Islamic Council of New South Wales called his comments “un-Islamic, un-Australian and unacceptable”), forced al-Halali to apologize for his remarks, and he has agreed to a 2-3 month suspension from preaching though the Lakemba Mosque refused to dismiss him. Yet, he refused to resign until “After we clean the world of the White House first.”

Australia, which has troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and whose government is closely allied with the Bush Administration, will continue to be vilified by Islamic militants, named in Al Qaeda and JI statements, will also see a rise in home grown militants, inspired by radical clerics such as Benbrika, al-Hilali, and Omran.

AMIA Background

By Aaron Mannes

I've also followed the AMIA bombing for some time. The Argentine request for Rafsanjani's arrest is an important symbolic step - although real justice will continue, unfortunately, to be delayed. Iran has a record of evading the consequences of supporting terrorism. Over two years ago I wrote an article on Britain's failure to fulfill an Argentine extradition request for Hadi Soleimanpour, who had been Iran's ambassador in Buenos Aires when the AMIA bombing occurred.

It is important to note that in Iran's last presidential election, Rafsanjani was considered the moderate.

The AMIA attack was a textbook Iranian-Hezbollah operation, meticulously planned and aimed at achieving both mass murder and political goals. Terror is part of Iran's diplomatic tool kit - a fact that ought to focus attention on Iran's ongoing efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.

Following is an excerpt from an article I wrote for National Review Online last July on the anniversary of the AMIA bombing that gives background on the AMIA bombing and places it in the context of Iran and Hezbollah's international operations.

Terror in Buenos Aires
A lesson in Hezbollah terror.

By Aaron Mannes

Last Tuesday morning, a siren sounded in Buenos Aires to mark the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the AMIA building, the chief offices of Argentina's Jewish community. The bombing killed 85 people and injured over 250. It was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. It was the work of Hezbollah, working closely under Iranian sponsorship, and it perfectly illustrates Hezbollah's intentions, capabilities, and modus operandi. As the West hurtles into a confrontation with Iran, sparked by the current Israeli-Hezbollah conflagration, it is worth examining this deadly effective attack in Argentina over a decade ago.

To read the rest, visit my blog here.

Small Progress in Argentina

By Douglas Farah

After 12 years of dogged work hindered by corrupt judges and investigators in their own ranks, Argentine prosecutors have finally reached the point of asking a federal judge to order the arrest of senior Iranian and Hezbollah officials for the 1994 car bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires.

This important step is unlikely to have any immediate impact on those seven people charged with having planned the attack, which killed 85 people and wounded 200 others. Former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani still holds an official position within the government, former intellignece chief Ali Fallahijan and former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati are protected, and the Hezbollah operatives who actually put it all together are not to be found.

Still, the statements of the prosecutors and their willingness to press forward are extremely important, as is the willingness to state clearly and concisely what the investigation has concluded:

"We deem it proven that the decision to carry out an attack July 18, 1994 on the AMIA (Argentine Jewish Mutual Association, a Jewish charities association headquarters in Buenos Aires) was made by the highest authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran which directed Hezbollah to carry out the attack," Argentine chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman said.
My full blog is here.

Two Terrorism Experts "Get Political" in Op-Eds

By Andrew Cochran

I'm amazed by the op-eds written by Peter Bergen in today's New York Times tiled, "What Osama Wants," and by Michael Scheuer in yesterday's Washington Times, titled, "Another bin Laden victory." Both men are luminaries in the counterterrorism community on the basis of their brave and objective work inside terrorist cases and events, and also due to their open criticism of numerous elements of current national security strategy. Mr. Bergen is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, known in Washington more for criticizing President Bush than for agreeing with him. But both men endorse the current strategy in Iraq, and Mr. Scheuer says the loss of GOP control of the U.S. Congress would be an outright victory for Al Qaeda and jihadists (edited to remove an inaccurate reference to Mr. Bergen's comments, with appreciation for his response). Frankly, I never would have imagined that either man would write this so close to the election. Given their backgrounds, their views should be taken seriously as a forecast by two world-reknowned and objective experts of probable jihadist reaction to the election.

Here's an excerpt from Mr. Bergen's op-ed: "But for the United States to pull entirely out of that country right now, as is being demanded by a growing chorus of critics, would be to snatch an unqualified disaster from the jaws of an enormous blunder... A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists... Yes, there is little doubt that the botched American occupation of Iraq was the critical factor that fueled the Iraqi insurgency. But for the United States to wash its hands of the country now would give Al Qaeda’s leaders what they want."

And from Mr. Scheuer: "If Americans vote for what sounds like sweet reason from the Democrats, bin Laden and company will rejoice. What they will hear is the death knell for any prospect of effective U.S. military resistance to militant Islam. With the Republicans out, the Islamists will be confident that Democrats will deliver the best of both worlds: less emphasis on military force and a rigid maintenance of U.S. foreign policies that are hated with passion and near-unanimity by 1.3 billion Muslims."

Matthew Levitt, Treasury Official and Former CT Blog Expert, Testifies at Chicago Hamas Trial

By Steven Emerson

The first witness for the government in the Chicago trial of alleged Hamas operatives Mohammed Salah and Abdelhaleem al-Ashqar was Matthew Levitt, current Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department, former Director of Terrorism Studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a former Contributing Expert to the CT Blog (see his archived posts). He is also the author of "Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad," considered a leading text on the terrorist group. He testified as an expert witness for the government on the history, structure, and activities of Hamas.

Dr. Levitt testified that Hamas was founded in 1987 in the Gaza Strip by Palestinians associated with the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood. The Government asked him to explain how Hamas reacted to the Oslo Accords and the Movement’s views on the territories. Peace talks which would divide historic Palestine is in opposition to the views of Hamas, which considers the entire territory to be Muslim land. Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Ferguson questioned Dr. Levitt in detail about the Hamas charter, with Arabic and English copies admitted into evidence. Two of the most important sections of the charter which pertain to this case read that “The Jihad (جهاد) for Palestine is an individual duty” and that “Whosoever mobilizes a fighter for the sake of Allah, he himself is a fighter.” William Moffitt, the lead defense lawyer for Abdelhaleem al-Ashqar, claimed in his opening statement that Ashqar merely sent books to poor Palestinians and voiced his dissent concerning the Oslo Accords. Dr. Levitt confirmed in his testimony that a person who sends books and preaches encouraging Jihad is a fighter for Hamas who “mobilizes a fighter for the sake of Allah….”

One term discussed in some detail is “Economic Jihad.” U.S. Attorney Ferguson asked Dr. Levitt if he was familiar with the term and he replied that he was, causing William Moffitt, Ashqar's lawyer, to raise an objection. Moffitt objected to the use of this term because according to Moffitt, “Economic Jihad” was a term invented by Dr. Levitt and Steven Emerson, and therefore was not a Hamas word. Dr. Levitt continued stating that actually “Economic Jihad” is an Arabic term “al-Jihad bil Mal” (الجهاد بالمال) and certainly was not invented by him or by me. In fact, testified Dr. Levitt, Hizballah’s leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah frequently uses the term. The terms concerns individuals who can’t physically engage in Jihad being able instead to engage in a financial Jihad with their money, contributing, for instance, towards the purchase of weapons.

Czech Report Shows Egyptians Probing Flight Defenses

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

In a September 18 article for the Daily Standard, "Practice Makes Terror," (blogged about here) I argued that the "rash of false alarms" following the August 10 revelation of a foiled transatlantic air terror plot may not have been entirely false. I argued that there may be casings and dry runs occurring -- and that a number of incidents that were casings may not end up being remembered as such.

Now a new article in Norway's Aftenposten lends further credence to the view that casings are indeed occurring:

Czech security police (BIS) have reported an attempt to storm the cockpit of a flight from Oslo to Prague. The BIS annual report for 2005, released on Tuesday, mentions flight OK 447 in September 2005, where three Egyptian citizens tried to gain access to the pilots. According to BIS spokesman Jan Subrt, police terrorism experts believe that the three Egyptians were not trying to hijack the plane but rather testing the security measures on board the plane, which was owned by Czech Airlines (CSA). "The crew on board discovered the three Egyptians trying to open the door into the cockpit. When the stewards intervened they immediately gave up their attempts and gave the excuse that they were looking for a staff member because they wanted to buy chewing gum," Subrt said. BIS managed to identify the trio but could not demonstrate any links to Islamist terrorist organizations. The three were apprehended upon landing and Czech security police escorted them to Egypt after questioning. Subrt said that their suspicions were based on more than that the incident just "concerned three Arabs" but would not divulge details that led BIS to believe that there was a terrorism link to the event.

Hamas Trial in Chicago - Week 1

By Steven Emerson

Last week the government began its case against alleged Hamas operatives, Mohammed Salah and Abdelhaleem al-Ashqar (and Hamas Deputy Political Chief Mousa Abu Marzook who was charged in absentia). The trial is expected three months and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller is scheduled to testify on behalf of the prosecution. A few months before the trial began, al-Ashqar hired William Moffitt, who represented Sami al-Arian, so the prosecution can probably expect a similar defense strategy of, amongst other tactics, twisting material support for a terrorist organization as protected under the First Amendment. IPT Analyst Scott Rosenbaum has been following the case in the Northern District of Illinois and below are the links to his coverage of the trial:

Opening Statement of the Government

Opening Statement of Michael Deutsch, Mohammed Salah’s lawyer

Opening Statement of William Moffitt, Abdelhaleem al-Ashqar’s lawyer

The Islamic Courts Union Readies a Final Push Into Baidoa

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

My most recent article for The Weekly Standard (co-authored with Bill Roggio of The Fourth Rail) details the alarming rise of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in Somalia. On June 5, the ICU won control of Mogadishu, and it has steadily made strategic gains throughout the country since then. The transitional federal government (TFG) is now hunkered down in the south-central Somali city of Baidoa. The situation in Baidoa has been precarious for some time, as the ICU has demonstrated its capacity to take the city. There are now signs that the ICU may be beginning its final push into Baidoa to crush the transitional government.

Members of the ICU have indicated that this final push is coming. Today the number two leader of the ICU, Hassan Turki, announced the group's intention to chase the transitional government from Baidoa. SomaliNet News reports that Turki promised to bring all of Somalia under the ICU's rule, and that he declared war on the semiautonomous regions of Somaliland and Puntland, which have been resistant to the ICU's rule. Adnkronos International reports that unnamed members of the ICU leadership told the pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that an attack on Baidoa is now planned.

Although the presence of Ethiopian troops protecting Baidoa may have previously deterred the ICU's advance, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys (the head of the ICU's shura council) has now declared war on them: "We have been asking the Ethiopians to leave our country for a long time. This is the end of that request. We are now telling them that from now on, their graves will be littered everywhere in Somalia. . . . We will now start fighting. I am calling on all Somalis wherever they are to start jihad against the invaders and those who support them."

My sources in military intelligence also believe that the ICU's final drive toward Baidoa is coming. This is an important situation to follow. If the ICU is set on taking Baidoa, they will in all likelihood not be stopped. There are, however, two critical questions when their final push comes. The first is whether the ICU ends up triggering a war with Ethiopia in the process: there are reportedly around thirty Ethiopian armored vehicles in the vicinity Baidoa, as well as Ethiopian roadblocks designed to protect the city. The second question is whether critical TFG leaders are captured or killed by the ICU, or whether they are able to escape to Ethiopia or another friendly country. It is clearly preferable that TFG leaders escape alive to serve as a thorn in the ICU's side. In fact, the Ethiopian armored vehicles may be stationed around Baidoa not to serve a defensive purpose, but rather to whisk away the TFG leadership when the attack comes.

Knowing the Enemy, Understanding the Enemy

By Douglas Farah

One of the greatest weaknesses five years after 9-11 is the striking inability of the political leadership and body politic to define and reach a consensus on who the Islamist enemy is and what the enemy wants. There is a striking lack of intellectual curiosity, or perhaps fear because of concerns about political correctness, that have blocked a serious discussion of what bin Laden and al Qaeda really think, what their real targets and objectives are and how that group fits into the broader Islamist project of converting the world to an Islamic state ruled by _sharia_ law.

Hence we have the absurd ridiculing in Newsweek magazine of President Bush's use of the word "caliphate" in discussing the Islamist project (and the even more absurd CAIR response that talking about the caliphate is anti-Islamic). We have the inability of senior people whose job it is to study and understand the Islamist project unable to identify the two major branches of Islam, never mind how they differ and what such divisions might mean.

The caliphate, from its historical signficance to the dream of its recreation, is perhaps the best way to understand how the different currents of Islamist thought relate to each other, support each other and form a coherent whole that embraces the Muslim Brotherhood to the historic al Qaeda. My full blog is here.

Explosives found near US Embassy in Venezuela

By Aaron Mannes

Venezuelan daily El Universal reports:

The Baruta Municipality Police Corps Monday found two alleged explosive devices near the US Embassy in Valle Arriba, southeast Caracas.

One of the presumed bombs was found in a box containing leaflets making reference to Lebanese radical Islamic group Hezbollah.

"One person was arrested by the Baruta Police and we are waiting for their report and information from the (political police) Disip," a spokesman of the US Embassy told AFP.

Local TV news network Globovisión reported that one of the devices was in a flowerpot near the Embassy, while the other was outside a school, near the diplomatic premises.

Wilfredo Porras, acting director of Baruta Police, said they arrested a man carrying a "backpack with 100 black powder bases, pliers, adhesive tape, glue and electric leads."

The man declared that "the devices were set to explode in 15 minutes. At first, we thought he was crazy, but we concluded he is not because of the features of both devices and the contents in the backpack," Porras said.

First, this was NOT a Hezbollah operation. If Hezbollah sets out to blow up an Embassy - you'll know it. They hit the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 and 1984, as well as the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992. Hezbollah coached al-Qaeda in the 1998 double Embassy bombings in Africa. Hezbollah has a long record of successfully hitting hard targets. Based on the information available so far, this does not look like a meticulously planned operation.

But, Venezuela has a large Arab (and particularly Lebanese) population, many with strong ties to the home country. Isla Margarita, a Venezuelan free trade zone, has long been suspected of harboring Hezbollah fundraising cells. (See Hezbollah in Venezuela: A Footnote from my blog.) Chavez's alliance with Iran, as well as his open door to immigrants, have undoubtedly given Hezbollah a chance to expand these networks. So what is likely is that the erstwhile bomber was involved in this extended logistics network (which is built on extended families) and was inspired to act. Also, it is the end of Ramadan, so passions are high. This is the most likely explanation.

This explanation does not exonerate Chavez or Hezbollah. While it is true that this sort of lone wolf terrorist can arise almost anywhere or time - they are more likely to appear when the wind is at their back. Anti-Americanism within Hezbollah is well established. But Hugo's rhetoric, particularly against the backdrop of Venezuela's upcoming elections, is undoubtedly creating a fertile environment for this sort of freelancing.

Alternately, the bombing could have been orchestrated by the regime or its militias to intimidate the Embassy (the U.S. and Venezuela have been playing diplomatic tit for tat for some time now - see U.S. vs. Venezuela: UNDiplomacy). This is not likely - particularly since this attempt embarrasses Venezuela's ally Iran (they just organized a "Large Investment Strategic Fund.")

Another important story from that region, El Universal reports that Columbia will formally submit evidence to the governments of Ecuador and Venezuela that top FARC leaders are in those countries.

More on both of these stories as it comes in.

Cross posted to ProfilesinTerror.

Transatlantic cooperation on terrorism not that bad after all?

By Olivier Guitta

I just wrote an essay for the Journal of International Security Affairs on Euro-US relations on terrorism, Iraq... The full essay can be found here. Here is an excerpt:

French President Jacques Chirac has put it quite bluntly: “I have one principle regarding foreign policy. I look at what the Americans are doing and I do the opposite. Then I am sure to be right.” On the other hand, Edouard Balladur, a close ally of Chirac and former French Prime Minister, sees things very differently: “Europe has no advantages in systematically opposing the U.S. Our fundamental interests are closely linked.”

These two perspectives—one antagonistic and one Atlanticist—encapsulate the tug-of-war now underway in Europe over cooperation with the United States. Unfortunately, for now, Chirac appears to be the rule and Balladur the exception. But the reality is a good deal more complex. While publicly, anti-Americanism may be not only fashionable but politically advantageous, when it comes to quiet cooperation (on intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and other issues), Europeans dance to a different tune.

Behind the scenes

Germany is a case in point. Back in 2002, the administration of Gerhard Schröder was reelected on a vehemently anti-American and anti-war platform. But new revelations suggest that in reality, Berlin was not nearly as removed from the U.S.-led war effort against Iraq as Schröder liked to claim. “Despite the troubles in the relationship between Berlin and Washington, the political decision was made to continue the close relationship of the intelligence services,” an unidentified source from the BND told the public German television station ARD. This collaboration, moreover, was approved at the highest levels, with Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Schröder’s then chief of staff and current Foreign Minister) and Joschka Fischer, then foreign minister, signing off on continued intelligence contacts. That close relationship apparently involved the stationing of two German intelligence agents in Baghdad throughout the course of the entire Iraq war, even while Schröder and his coalition cabinet were officially maintaining strong opposition to Washington’s actions. The German operatives allegedly helped American forces by identifying “non-targets” such buildings as embassies, schools and hospitals that should not be bombed. But they also went further, delivering assistance in the identification of high-value targets—including the April 2003 bombing in Baghdad’s wealthy Mansur district aimed at Saddam Hussein and several top members of his regime. An additional German agent reportedly was stationed in Qatar in the office of General Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And all three received the Meritorious Service medals from the United States for their assistance.

Update on a very tense situation in Lebanon

By Olivier Guitta

On this 23rd anniversary of the attacks (it happened on Oct 23, 1983) against our Marines and French troops in Beirut which killed respectively 241 and 58, the situation in Lebanon remains very worrisome to say the least.
In the aftermath of the war, here are a few facts to know while assessing a very gloomy future:

· Hezbollah is against Sunni-Shia divide and is fine coordinating actions with Hamas.
Both are unifying forces against Israel. Hezbollah elements have been in Gaza training Hamas
·Recently Hezbollah thanked Hamas for keeping Israel busy for the past six years while Hezbollah preparing for war.
·Hezbollah's goals regarding hostages was and is to negotiate a total package including the Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas. Interestingly in the past, Hezbollah worked on releasing not only Lebanese Shia but Palestinian Sunnis as well.

·UNIFIL is a disaster in waiting. IT's been a joke for the past twenty eight years and this one is going to be the same. No clear mandate, no willingness to tame down Hezbollah as seen in the recent episode where Spanish troops stood down at the view of Hezbollah fighters.
·Even French president Chirac is counting on a maximum of 4 to 5 months of calm.
·UNIFIL is already seen by some as an occupation force and a European diplomat was recently quoted as saying that after an attack on Unifil, international forces will be gone in 3 days.
·Soon we are going back to square 1,i.e. pre July situation.
·Indeed Hezbollah is rearming and UN Resolution 1701 is far from being enforced anytime soon.
· Also on the Lebanese political scene, Syria is playing with fire and trying to ignite a civil war by pushing Hezbollah and its allies including Christian General Aoun towards a major confrontation with the Siniora government and the Hariri "March 14" forces.
. Finally, Hezbollah might start at any moment a terror campaign in the West or against Western targets. Incidentally just a few days ago, Iranian President Ahmadinejad threatened very clearly Europe.

THE CALIPH-STROPHIC DEBATE

By Walid Phares

Published by George Mason University's History News Network HNN.

It seems that the US is having a hard time winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims, but an equally serious problem can be observed in the intellectual circles of America where some have had a difficulty coming to terms with the terminology of the War of Ideas. If the educated elite of the United States is incapable of identifying the ideology and the strategy of the Jihadists five years after 9/11, we not only have a problem with handling the War in Iraq, but also with the future of American national security as a whole.

An article published in Newsweek magazine on October 13, 2006 illustrates this problem. Entitled “Caliwho?” it asks why President Bush has raised the issue of an Islamic Caliphate. Lisa Miller and Matthew Philips, co-authors of the piece, begin by defining the term, “Caliphate” as a “fifty-cent word” posing a question of why a U.S President would use it four times in one speech. At first read, I thought the Newsweek journalists were lamenting the delay with which the chief executive of the nation has finally begun using this term - half a decade after September 11, and fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, has not the American public demanded that the US Administration and Congress take steps toward “informing” the nation about the enemy, its ideology, and its future goals? Since one of the most important objectives of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Salafi Jihadi networks around the world has been the re-establishment of a Caliphate - incorporating in it all Arab and Muslim states – one can only express relief that the term “Caliphate” has finally entered the President’s speeches.

However, as I continued to read further, I realized that the authors of the Newsweek article were putting forth quite a different view. They seemed to be appalled by the fact that the President “dared” to mention the “word” Caliphate and spoke of the Jihadists’ attempt to “extend the Caliphate, establish the Caliphate and spread the Caliphate.” Miller and Philips, writing with the certitude of Middle East Studies expertise, reminded their readers, oddly, that “many people (in the US) live long without using the word Caliphate” suggesting the uselessness of the President’s vocabulary.

Precisely this absence of understanding of the term Caliphate was the problem in the 1990s. During that decade, most instructors in American classrooms unfortunately succeeded at “dis-educating” the nation about the nature of the enemy by simply leaving out the term “Caliphate” of the curricula for Middle East Studies classes. If American students, many of whom would end up being recruited to newsrooms, have never heard about the Caliphate, Salafism, Wahabism or Khomeinism - let alone Jihadism - then the US was inevitably headed for a big trouble.