Are the Taliban "The Enemy" or Not?

By Jeffrey Imm

Once again, another national leader of an American "ally" in the "war on terror" has offered to help the Taliban regain political power. AP has reported that Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai offered "to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks and give the militants a high position in a government ministry as a way to end the rising insurgency in Afghanistan." AP reports that Karzai stated: "If a group of Taliban or a number of Taliban come to me and say, 'President, we want a department in this or in that ministry or we want a position as deputy minister ... and we don't want to fight anymore ... If there will be a demand and a request like that to me, I will accept it because I want conflicts and fighting to end in Afghanistan." This echoes comments this week by the UK Defense Minister that "the Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process".

In February 2007, the Afghanistan parliament granted immunity to the Taliban's Mullah Omar and other Mujahideen for 25 years worth of activities. Now Afghan President Karzai wants to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace talks to allow the Taliban to join the Afghanistan government. (There is no word if the U.S. State Department would continue to offer $10 million for the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, although he is no longer on their main page of wanted terrorists.) Taliban leader Mullah Omar was reputed to have signed last year's Taliban peace truce with Pakistan.

But isn't the Taliban "the enemy" of the United States of America?

If not, what exactly does the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) call for? The AUMF called for war against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations", which surely included the Taliban. Furthermore, there are 171 clustered references to the Taliban in the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission. What more exactly does the United States need to view the Taliban as "the enemy"? Based on the AUMF, how can the Taliban be any less of an enemy to the United States, than Al Qaeda itself?

And if the Taliban are "the enemy", how can Americans accept the Taliban or the Taliban ideology in any political organization of an "ally" nation, let alone ones that American taxpayers provide millions of dollars to? Where is the outrage from American political leadership on this? Why is there no outrage among American political leaders at offers to "legitimize" the same Taliban that helped Al Qaeda in its Jihadist camps to kill 3,000 Americans? As previously discussed, the lack of clarity in identifying the enemy in this war is precisely what allows such disturbing realpolitik considerations.

What do such "peace at any cost" negotiations with an enemy of the United States mean to Jihadists in justifying the use of political terrorism? If the Taliban regain political power in Afghanistan, does American leadership agree that we should lose the Afghanistan war to end the fighting? Isn't that what, in other words, we call "surrender"? Or has our ambiguity about the identity of the enemy gotten so dense that American leadership can now rationalize the Taliban itself?

Earlier this month, Karzai called for peace talks with the Taliban, but the Taliban rejected such talks until "foreign troops" leave Afghanistan. This is a demand that Karzai has rejected on the basis: "[i]t should be very clear until all our roads are paved, until we have good electricity and good water, and also until we have a better Afghan national army and national police, I don't want any foreigners to leave Afghanistan". Is Karzai saying that he just doesn't want western aid to stop, as it did for Hamas?

Karzai's offer for political empowerment to the Taliban in Afghanistan comes as UPI and the Daily Telegraph report that the Taliban has publicly released its "Constitution of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan", which provides insight into what the Taliban would do if indeed such political empowerment was realized. The Daily Telegraph reports that the "23-page document envisages a country where women would remain veiled and uneducated, 'un-Islamic thought' would be banned and human rights would be ignored if 'contrary with the teachings of Islam' ", where "violators will be punished according to sharia", and that stipulates that all other constitutions are void. Furthermore, the Taliban constitution has called for "good relations" with those countries supporting Afghanistan "during jihad". I think we can make an educated guess that the Taliban would not consider such countries to include the United States.

Is this the legal system with "its roots in Islamic law" that the UK Defense Minister was stating this week would be a solution to fighting in Afghanistan?

This follows the August offer by Pakistan President Musharraf to help the Taliban become a mainstream political organization. At the August 12 jirga meeting, President Musharraf reflected that as "Taliban are a part of Afghan society", and "all of them are not diehard militants and fanatics", that reaching the Taliban and pro-Taliban population required "a more comprehensive political and development approach". President Bush was reported to have congratulated Pakistan President Musharraf on his efforts at the jirga.

Realpolitik negotiators may believe that there is a "bad Taliban" and a "good Taliban". In Presidents Karzai and Musharraf's views, the "bad Taliban" is violent, and the "good Taliban" is well, just simply "fundamentalist" in their Islamist view of the world. Does America agree with that assessment? Because that is the direction that war in Afghanistan is going based on these outreach efforts to bring the Taliban into the political mainstream. Realpolitik negotiators may believe that bringing the Taliban into a "democratic" political process will end the conflict and fighting in Afghanistan.

Did bringing Hezbollah into the Lebanon government end fighting in Lebanon?
Did Hamas' election to the Palestinian government bring peace to the Palestinian territories?
Did the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic government in Iran bring peace to Iran and its relations with the world?
Has the growing influence of Islamist political and other groups in Pakistan brought stability and peace to Pakistan?

Yet NATO, UN, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the US are all tolerating the idea of peace talks with the Taliban to bring them back into political power in the Afghanistan government. Americans don't even have to compare this to Islamist Iran as an analogy. We have already seen what the Taliban did when they held political power in Afghanistan. Our national homeland was physically attacked and thousands of Americans died as a result. On this near anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, how could we forget that? What next - will we be negotiating a political "mainstream" party for Al Qaeda?

Moreover, with their latest constitution, the Taliban has told us specifically what they plan to do, if they do get back into power. We know who and what the Taliban are and what they plan to do if they regain power. Yet still, American leadership is not denouncing talks to allow the Taliban to return to Afghanistan government power.

If so, this begs the obvious question, what are we fighting for?

Read More »

Fault Line on Jihad: Why the Omeish Reaction is Important

By Jeffrey Imm

On September 28, the Investigative Project on Terrorism's (IPT) Lorenzo Vidino was on FOX news addressing IPT's release of videos regarding Muslim American Society (MAS) president Esam Omeish showing his documented support of Jihad. The interview points out once again the problems with the America government failing to clearly identity the enemy and failing to have a clearly defined policy on Jihad and on political Islamism. Moreover, we need to agree on the definition of "Jihad" and not be misled by apologists, as pointed out by Walid Phares.

America has to come to grips with the question: "What does it mean for Islamists to call for Jihad?" While for IPT and many others, myself included, the answer to this is obvious, without a clear American policy on Jihad, the ambivalence on Jihad will continue to undermine American national security efforts, where the FBI defines its "fight" against terrorists, but cannot address the ideological issues. The reaction of the Washington Post, Alan Colmes, and others to Omeish's resignation once again highlights this massive fault line in American national security.

Last month, Virginia Governor Kaine appointed MAS president Esam Omeish to a Virginia state immigration commission. After the release of the IPT videos of Omeish's comments on Jihad, on September 28, Esam Omeish resigned from the commission, telling the Washington Post that IPT conducted a "smear campaign". On September 29, the Washington Post has a follow-up article on this subject, where it quotes Omeish as stating that in his previous speeches where he called for "the Jihad way", that he meant Jihad as a broad term meaning "struggle".

In a video showing a December 2000 Washington DC area Jerusalem Day rally, Omeish clearly supports Jihad for Palestinians stating "you have learned the way, that you have known that the jihad way is the way to liberate your land." (The complete video is here). Moreover, as IPT reports, Omeish "congratulates Palestinians for giving up their lives for the sake of Allah in another video."

Yet Governor Kaine, the Washington Post, and FOX News Commentator Alan Colmes seem determined to defend Esam Omeish's views. It is as important to ask why they defend Omeish's views, as it is to reveal research on individuals like Omeish, because America continues to face an ongoing problem with its lack of a policy on Jihad and political Islamism, as previously addressed.

The Washington Post publishes without questioning that Esam Omeish's call for "the Jihad way" at rallies in the Washington DC area are nothing more than a call for "struggle" as Omeish says in the September 29 Washington Post. Moreover, the Washington Post provides character references for Omeish, such as well-known Stalinist Brian Becker of A.N.S.W.E.R. organization (and Communist Worker's World Party). The Washington Post report quotes Stalinist Becker on the IPT revelations of Omeish's call for "the Jihad way" in DC rallies as stating: 'we were stunned and shocked that a small group of right-wing anti-Muslim bigots would launch a campaign' against him."

In the September 28 interview of IPT's Lorenzo Vidino, FOX News' Alan Colmes challenges IPT's criticism of Omeish for calling for "the Jihad way". Alan Colmes asks Lorenzo Vidino "isn't this conservative political correctness? lets say he's got radical views, whats wrong with having a commission.. we have all kinds of views, even extreme views.. on a commission." When Lorenzo Vidino replies that Omeish endorsed Jihad in Palestine at the peak of October 2000 intifada, Alan Colmes replies: "is it possible to see his point of view that he feels that the Palestinians have been the victims of violence and he is countering that?" and asks "is he truly a threat to the United States?" It is also enlightening to see comments to the IPT YouTube posting of this interview condemning IPT's research as "propaganda" and saying to IPT that "their day will come".

Here once again, the fault line in American national security regarding Jihad and political Islamism can be seen in stark relief. There is no national hue and cry against Alan Colmes for criticizing IPT's reporting that someone called for "the Jihad way" in a Washington DC rally is nothing more than mere "conservative political correctness", because there is no agreed upon policy on Jihad, on political Islam, and on the war and identity of the enemy that we are fighting today.

In the debate over details, logistics, and tactics, it is vital that such massive national security strategic fault lines are not ignored. This is just another warning sign.

Read More »

A Tale of Two Tunisis? Questions About the Latest Al-Qaida Casualty in Iraq

By Evan Kohlmann

This morning, the Pentagon conducted a press briefing with Brigadier General Joseph Anderson, the Chief of Staff of Multinational Corps-Iraq. In a video linkup from Camp Liberty in Baghdad, General Anderson addressed a number of issues--chief among them, the reported killing of a "high level" Al-Qaida commander--Tunisian national Abu Usama al-Tunisi--near Musayyib, Iraq on September 25 in a targeted strike by U.S. warplanes. According to General Anderson:

"Abu Usama al-Tunisi [was] a close associate and part of the inner circle of close advisers to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, or otherwise known as AAM, the overall leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, and his likely successor... Abu Usama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders within al Qaeda in Iraq. He was the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq, and as I stated, part of the inner leadership circle of al Qaeda in Iraq who had direct contact with Abu Ayyub al-Masri. He was originally from Tunisia, and was a primary facilitator for the movement of foreign terrorists into the country... He operated in Yusufiya, southwest of Baghdad, since the second battle of Fallujah in November '04 and became the overall emir of Yusufiya in the summer of '06. His group was responsible for kidnapping our American soldiers in June '06. He was known to have direct access to the al Qaeda in Iraq senior leader AAM. He facilitated foreign fighters in the Yusufiya area and helped equip them for improvised explosive device, vehicle-borne improvised explosive device and suicide attacks in Baghdad. He took command of the Aisha battalion after its former leader, AAM, was promoted to al Qaeda in Iraq emir status."

Oddly enough, this is not the first time that Abu Usama al-Tunisi has been reported killed. Over a year ago (in May 2006), Al-Qaida supporters posted online announcements declaring the "martyrdom" of Abu Usama al-Tunisi. The news of al-Tunisi's death was distributed on, among other places, the highly credible Al-Hesbah Islamic Network--which has been directly endorsed in past propaganda films produced by Al-Qaida in Iraq. According to that announcement (a translation of which was posted shortly thereafter on Globalterroralert.com):

"The martyrdom of Abu Usama al-Tunisi, the commander of [Al-Qaida’s] Aeisha Brigade... He caused much desperation and anxiety among the Americans and he spread frustration among their soldiers. The Americans knew Abu Usama al-Tunisi very well, because he was one of the commanders who led the Battle of Abu Anas al-Shami during which he served as the military commander responsible for one of the four frontlines of the mission... Abu Usama first entered Iraq two years ago. He used to always smile when talking to his brothers and had a profound faith in Allah. Abu Usama was killed in the area of Al-Yusifiya during an air strike that also killed four other brothers."

This naturally leads us to the problem of addressing this obvious discrepancy. Is it possible that there are two separate Abu Usama al-Tunisis serving as commanders for Al-Qaida in Iraq? Perhaps... but the likelihood of this incredible coincidence rapidly plummets when one considers that both of these men have been identically described as the commander of Al-Qaida's Aeisha Brigade and active in the area of al-Yusifiya. If we put aside this theory, we are left with quite limited possibilities. It would seem that either Al-Qaida supporters were engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign on their own password-protected chat forums, or else the U.S. military has potentially been the victim of questionable intelligence. It should be further noted that Al-Qaida has prided itself in the past on providing accurate and timely information concerning the "martyrdom" of its military commanders. When former Al-Qaida commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in mid-2006, the same Al-Hesbah Network was one of the first sources to correctly confirm the news of his death on behalf of Al-Qaida.

Click to view Biography of an Al-Qaida Operative “Martyred” in Iraq: Abu Usama al-Tunisi (Globalterroralert.com)

IPT Video Sinks Muslim Brotherhood Appointment in Virginia

By The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT)

Esam Omeish, President of the Muslim American Society and a newly appointed member of the state's Commission of Immigration, resigned Thursday, a few hours after Gov. Timothy M. Kaine was informed of online videos, posted by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), showing Omeish railing against Israel and advocating "the jihad way."

For more information, including the videos, click here to go to the IPT's website.

More Schisms Among Jihadists and Muslim Brothers in Iraq

By Douglas Farah

The NEFA Foundation has translated a fascinating document from the main spokesperson for al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

The message of Abu Omar al -Baghdadi is striking because it consists almost entirely of attacks on other Muslim groups, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. These are not merely passing shots or polite disagreements, fighting words and calls to executions.

There have been vitriolic outbreaks of angry attacks of the old guard al Qaeda against Hamas and the broader Ikhwan, particularly when Hamas chose to participate in elections.

But these attacks accuse the Muslim Brotherhood in general and Hamas in particular of treason to Allah and the _jihadist_ cause, calls for their death and urges a further purging of _jihadist_ ranks of traitors.

While the ultimate objective of the Brotherhood and al Qaeda is the same, there are clearly deep tactical differences over what victory is and how to achieve said victory. It is also clear from the speech that the Brotherhood, in the form of Hamas In Iraq and the 1920 Revolution Brigades, have armed groups in Iraq. My full blog is here.

Removal of Content

By Douglas Farah

In light of the ongoing investigations into allegations that Alexis Debat has fabricated news stories, the Counterterrorism Blog has removed his contributions on the site, pending the outcome of the current controversies.

Similar Threats, Similar Approaches: Improving Transatlantic Counterterrorism Ties

By Michael Jacobson

A piece I wrote on how to improve transatlantic counterterrorism ties, which have been seriously tested over these past several years.

With U.S. government assistance, three "homegrown" terrorist suspects were arrested in Germany several weeks ago. Despite this success story, transatlantic counterterrorism ties have been seriously tested over the past three months: prosecutors in Munich called for the extradition of CIA agents allegedly involved in abducting a German citizen; an Italian trial began against twenty-six CIA employees charged in absentia with kidnapping an imam in Milan; and Britain released a report accusing the United States of ignoring its concerns regarding terrorist "renditions."

These latest developments have undoubtedly reinforced perceptions on both sides of the Atlantic that U.S. and European counterterrorism efforts have been at odds since the September 11 attacks. Unfortunately, significant commonalities have been lost amid the heated rhetoric, both in terms of approach and problems encountered. Shifting these perceptions is critical for future counterterrorism efforts and should be a priority for U.S. and European policymakers.

To read the rest of the piece, click here

As expected, Iran's media edited out criticism of Ahmedinijad

By Walid Phares

Et voila, as expected, the Iranian official media edited out the stories about the Ahmedinijad visit to Columbia University. President Bollinger's "harsh" questions were deleted and the Iranian President's quotes lionized.

As I told Fox News and a number of radio shows, the Columbia fiasco will be mainly about weakening the resolve of the Iranian people, who would be made to believe that their leader was well-received by the largest democracy on earth, and that no one in the international community is critical of the Mullahs' man.

A very bad choice by Columbia University which will help the authoritarians to accentuate the oppression of their civil society.

Find the Iranian media text below, with my emphasis added in certain sentences:

Read More »

New Al-Qaida Transcripts, Terrorism Legal Documents Now Available

By Evan Kohlmann

In recent weeks, Al-Qaida-led terrorist franchises based in Afghanistan and Iraq have released several new recordings of speeches by senior Al-Qaida leaders--including both Usama Bin Laden and the commander of Al-Qaida's "Islamic State of Iraq" known as "Abu Omar al-Baghdadi." English-language transcripts of these various speeches are now available for download care of the NEFA Foundation website. The audio recording released on September 14 from Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was particularly significant--especially to those who follow the very serious internal schisms opening up between Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq. In his address, al-Baghdadi directly attacked other Sunni insurgent groups--such as the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Hamas in Iraq, and the Iraqi Islamic Resistance Front (JAAMI)--as "backstabbing" traitors who have abandoned their commitment to jihad. Needless to say, al-Baghdadi also reserved a strong dose of vitriol for the "degenerate crusader nation of Sweden", where cartoons were recently published that were viewed as disrespectful to the Prophet Mohammed. In response, al-Baghdadi promised to launch punitive terrorist attacks by mid-October on Swedish "industrial giants" such as Volvo, Scandia, Ikea, and Ericsson--in addition to killing both the cartoon artist himself and his Swedish editor.

The NEFA website also features a collection of new terrorism-related legal documents, including exhibits filed in the criminal case against Pete Seda, a former official of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in Oregon. Earlier this month, I testified as an expert witness on behalf of U.S. federal prosecutors during an initial bond hearing for Seda, and--among other things--I offered comment and analysis regarding several of these exhibits.

These new documents can be accessed via the NEFA Foundation "Featured Documents" website sub-section, or else from the main NEFA homepage.

Another Round of Reform for the FBI-Will it Make a Difference?

By Douglas Farah

There is another long-overdue reform brewing in how the FBI handles terrorism cases. This one, six years after 9/11, would finally bring together analysts and field agents in an effort to spot trends and set investigative strategies.

This has been a crying need for analysts to be elevated above their traditional second-tier status to be given more say in driving counterterrorism. The career paths available, the status within the agency and other factors mitigated against attracting the best and the brightest there.

This is a worthwhile endeavor, but one that is likely to run into entrenched institutional norms and conceptions that have consistently hobbled serious reform efforts in the past, to our detriment.

A new book and depressing book by Amy Zegart, Spying Blind, argues that there were 12 major intelligence reform studies from 1991 and the end of the Cold War, to just before 9/11.

Out of those, she finds 340 terrorism-related reforms, almost all of them the major themes of the 9/11 Commission, where most were recommended again.

Of those 340 recommendations, mostly directed to the CIA and FBI, only 35 were fully implemented. Another 30 were partially implemented and seven were implemented to an unmeasurable extent, meaning that 79 percent of the total-268 recommendations-were not acted on at all. My full blog is here.

Why Is New York's Governor Inviting Terrorists to Get a NY Drivers License?

By Michael Cutler

You cannot control illegal immigration purely at our borders, but must also create an inhospitable environment for illegal aliens who succeed in entering and making their way to the interior of the United States. The immigration laws of our nation are clear that anyone who induces aliens to enter our country illegally or reside in our country in violation of law or conspire to do so are violating our laws. Section 1324 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is quite clear on this issue:

Section 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)(A) Any person who...
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or
reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of
the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be
in violation of law; or
(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding
acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

The governor of New York State has made it known that he intends to provide drivers licenses to illegal aliens. I find it incredible that the Governor, who had been the Attorney General, would not understand that the promise of providing driver's licenses to illegal aliens provides clear incentives for terrorists to illegally enter our country and to illegally reside in the United States and secure illegal employment. I find it especially disturbing that the Governor of the State that suffered the most casualties and destruction from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 would so blithely ignore the lessons of those attacks, as articulated in the 9/11 Commission Report on the Terrorist Attacks and in the 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel.

Read More »

The Anatomy of a Betrayal

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

More information has recently emerged about the killing of Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi (also known as Abdul Sattar Abu Risha), who led the Anbar Salvation Front. The Associated Press reported on Saturday:

[Lt. Col. Jubeir] Rashid said Friday that Abu Risha's security chief, Capt. Karim al-Barghothi, confessed al-Qaida in Iraq had offered him $1.5 million for the slaying but that he was arrested before he could collect the money. Two other bodyguards as well as some of Abu Risha's neighbors were also detained, Iraqi police said. The arrests took place two days after the bombing. Al-Qaida front group the Islamic State of Iraq claimed responsibility for the assassination. Abu Risha, who organized 25 Sunni Arab clans into an alliance against al-Qaida, died along with two bodyguards and a driver when a bomb exploded near his walled compound just west of Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad.

I spoke with a senior American military intelligence officer yesterday who filled me in on some of the details emerging from the investigation. He said that al-Barghouti had been in debt to some people in the car smuggling racket in Mosul who were affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The men in the car smuggling racket had a deal with AQI: the terror group would allow them to operate, guaranteeing their security, and in return they would pass information to AQI about who was in debt to them. The men in the smuggling racket passed on information about al-Barghouti's debt, and AQI told them to pressure on him to repay the debt immediately -- something he was unable to do.

This put al-Barghouti in a no-win situation. He couldn't go to the authorities because doing so would have exposed his corruption and illegal activities. Then AQI approached him to offer a way out: they would repay his debt in exchange for al-Barghouti admitting al-Rishawi's assassin to the compound, and not asking too many questions while he was on the way in. In this way, AQI created problems for al-Barghouti in order to proffer the solution.

This shows the sophistication of AQI's intelligence network. Being able to selectively apply pressure in this manner is a hallmark of professional intelligence services. Abdul Sattar's probable assassin -- Fallah Khalifa Hiyas Fayyas al-Jumayli, a.k.a. Abu Khamis -- was never part of the Iraqi intelligence services, but was reportedly the student of an AQI leader who was former in Iraqi intelligence. AQI has benefited immensely from former Iraqi intelligence and military personnel entering their ranks. This has helped not only AQI, but the broader al-Qaeda network as well.

Immigration Fraud and National Security Threats - Deja Vu All Over Again

By Bill West

On September 24, the Cybercast News Service ran a story about a GAO report issued September 21 reflecting that our Diversity Visa program was at notable risk of fraud abuse and that risk was particularly vulnerable to misuse by foreign terrorist operatives seeking to enter and remain in the United States, utilizing the program to gain “legal” immigration status and cover. The Diversity Visa program was initially established to facilitate immigration from countries with otherwise low levels of immigrant entry. This currently includes terror sponsoring countries like Iran, Syria and Sudan.

The report indicates fraud within the program is complicated by the easy potential for terrorist aliens obtaining genuine identity documents in false identities in their home countries, or such aliens who are not already known to US and allied Intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and therefore not in the various lookout systems, slipping through the alert network. Additionally, the report notes once Diversity Visa aliens are admitted into the United States, there is virtually no follow up effort by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or any other US Government agency to verify their location or activities.

Read More »

A Time to Outline Iran-Al Qaeda Ties

By Douglas Farah

One of the more surprising things about Iran and the
visit of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is that Bush administration's unwillingness to lay out the case of Iran's unusual complicity with al Qaeda.

I say unusual only because Shi'ite governments do not often make common cause with Sunni radicals, although tactical alliances among non-state actors is not so unusual.

But, it seems, if the cause is big enough, tactical alliances can be made and endure. Hatred for the United States and a shared desire to create Islamist states seem to be enough in this case to unite the old guard of al Qaeda with the Ahmadinejad regime.

The tactical alliance is not new, but it is passing strange that, in light of the relationship, the current administration does not focus more explaining the Iranian threat.

This alliance alone is enough to negate Ahmadinejad's request to visit Ground Zero in New York. He scored tactical points by making the request and having it denied, although it would be akin to allowing an accomplice to lay a wreath at the grave of the victims. My full blog is here.

Internal and External Threats to the Jihad Media War

By Evan Kohlmann

Several Sunni insurgent factions fighting in Iraq have recently released official communiqués addressing brewing conflicts over the jihad media war--including divisions that exist within the mujahideen community itself. On August 29, the Mujahideen Army issued a statement accusing their "dear brothers" from the Al-Furqan Foundation--the official media wing of Al-Qaida's "Islamic State of Iraq"--of distributing a video of a military operation that had already been claimed months earlier by the Mujahideen Army. In due course, the ISI's Al-Furqan Foundation issued a response acknowledging, "the operation had indeed been executed by one of the central brigades of the Mujahideen Army... However, following the establishment of the ISI, this particular brigade pledged its allegiance to Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi and, therefore, their media archives became the rightful property of the Al-Furqan Media Foundation." The ISI has also sparked controversy with the recent release of an audio recording by its leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, including accusations that several major Sunni insurgent organizations are now working in conjunction with U.S. forces. One of the groups singled out by al-Baghdadi--the Iraqi Islamic Resistance Front (JAAMI)--has issued its own letter firmly denying these allegations and demanding that "the gossiping cease from all those who posted harsh words on the Al-Hesbah web forum." Separately, Asaeb al-Iraq al-Jihadiya ("the Iraqi Jihad Union") has announced the expulsion of several prominent activists within its organization for unauthorized contacts with unspecified "outsiders." Finally, the ISI's Al-Furqan Foundation has released a statement condemning a series of recent electronic attacks by "crusaders" on notorious jihad web forums--including the Al-Hesbah network.

- 7/29/07: Asaeb al-Iraq al-Jihadiya Declares Expulsions of Dissidents for Unauthorized Contacts
- 8/29/07: Mujahideen Army Statement to ISI's Al-Furqan Foundation
- 9/3/07: Al-Furqan Foundation Response to Statement from the Mujahideen Army
- 9/13/07: Al-Furqan Foundation Statement Regarding Recent Attacks on Jihad Websites
- 9/16/07: Iraqi Islamic Resistance Front (JAAMI) Response to Speech by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi

See also:
- [CTBLOG]: "Operation Niche: The Conviction of Mohammed Atif Siddique"
- Report: "State of the Sunni Insurgency in Iraq: August 2007"

Is Al Qaeda Iraq a Threat to Sweden?

By Walid Phares

The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq recently offered a bounty encouraging the assassination of a Swedish cartoonist and his editor for having published drawings deemed insulting to the religion of Islam. Omar al Baghdadi, in an audio statement said Lars Vilks, who "dared insult the Prophet", should be killed for a reward of $100,000 and, if "slaughtered like a lamb", the killer will receive another $50,000. In addition, he offered a Jihadi financial reward of $50,000 for the murder of Ulf Johansson, the editor of Nerikes Allehanda, the Swedish paper that printed Vilks' cartoon on August 19.

In the context of Global Jihadism, this second cartoon drama -- after last year's Danish cartoon crisis - displays a dimension very relevant to the ongoing War on Terror. Indeed, the identity of the threat issuer is important, because it is al Qaeda in Iraq. This development should send a significant message into the American and international debates about that conflict, especially as a significant faction within the US Congress, some of whom claim that Iraq is fighting only a civil war, is pressing for a rapid withdrawal of US troops.

What the "Jihad bounty" tells us loud and clear is this: al Qaeda's operation in Iraq is not, nor will it be, "only" about an American, Western or international presence. As the AQI press release shows, there is clear evidence that those who are beheading, killing, maiming, kidnapping and blowing up people and things in the Sunni Triangle and in the rest of Iraq have an agenda of international violence.

Iraq is merely their launching pad.

Read More »

In the Name of God: Islamists Spearheaded Violence over Cartoon in Bangladesh

By Animesh Roul

Hundreds of Islamic hardliners including activists of Hizbut Tahrir, Islami Oikya Andolon, Chhatra Mukti Andolon, and Islami Shasantantra Andolon descended to the streets and later resorted to violence and arson to protest the publication of a cartoon that allegedly made fun of Mohammed, in a vernacular daily. The protesters said this was a deliberate attempt by the cartoonist and the news paper to ridicule Prophet Mohammad. The cartoon appeared on Sept 17 issue of Prothom Alo’s magazine Aalpin. It was titled "Naam” (Name)” which made a childish and harmless (not outrageous at all) fun of the naming custom in the Muslim countries. Even though, the Newspaper editor apologized on the same day for the inadvertent publication of the cartoon and urged to 'forgive the mistake', violence erupted in the National capital on September 21. Clerics have called for the cartoonist (who is in police custody right now) to be punished and the news paper office to be closed. Copies of the newspaper have been burned outside mosques in Dhaka. Defying emergency rule that prohibits protest and rally of any kind, angry protesters attempted to storm the offices of the news paper. However, one could read and see the cartoon to ascertain whether the cartoon (the text included) is blasphemous or the mindless violence and burning in the name of Prophet.

The cartoon has these texts (read it as conversation between a boy and elderly cleric):

Boy, what’s your name? My name is Abu.
It is customary to put Mohammed in front of the name.
What is your father’s name? Mohammed Abu.
What is that on your lap? Mohammed cat.

And the burning of newspapers that followed.

Losing Traction against Syria

By David Schenker

The September 6 Israeli bombing of a presumed North Korean-supplied nuclear weapons facility in Syria highlights the ongoing policy challenge posed by Damascus. More than three years after President Bush signed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act (SAA), Syria continues to support terrorism, destabilize Iraq, meddle in Lebanon, and develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile systems. This week's headlines tell the story: on September 19, yet another anti-Syrian parliamentarian was assassinated in Lebanon; the same day, Jane's Defence Weekly reported that a July 2007 chemical weapons accident in Syria -- involving mustard gas and VX and sarin nerve agents -- killed fifteen Syrian officers and dozens of Iranian engineers.

To date, Syria has proven largely impervious to U.S. sanctions, and Washington's efforts to forge international consensus on isolating Damascus have not gained traction. Although the regime seemed isolated after the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, the trend has recently shifted toward diplomatic and economic engagement. If such engagement continues, Syria may avoid accountability for both the Hariri assassination and Western demands to alter its behavior.

As information begins to emerge about the extent of North Korean-Syrian ties, Washington will have another opportunity to focus the international community on the continuing dangers posed by the Asad regime. The UN's Hariri tribunal will add to the pressure on the regime, but that alone will not suffice. To stem Syria's reacceptance into the international community, Washington needs to convince its European and Arab -- particularly Gulf -- allies to freeze their engagement with Damascus. It should also exclude Syria from the Arab-Israeli peace conference scheduled to take place this November.

In the absence of effective measures, the Asad regime will continue to undermine Washington's hopes for the region. You can read the full-length version of this article here.

Pointless Proposal: EU Seeks to Ban Access to Bomb-Making Instructions Online

By Aaron Mannes

The EU is considering a proposal that would ban websites that post instructions on bomb-making. The proposal is interesting because it does not appear to focus on criminalizing the websites. Instead it puts the burden on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to these sites. While the EU says this is a not an infringement on speech, the ISPs are balking. First it would be a tremendous technical hassle for them and if they failed to successfully block the sites they could be held liable on criminal charges. Obviously a fair degree of self-interest is at play here. However, there is a freedom of speech issue – at least hypothetically - since the ISPs are being asked to do to their customers what countries like China and Saudi Arabia do to their citizens online.

It has the potential to be a big fight – and a somewhat pointless one. First, it won’t work. The Internet is a big place and the ability to migrate information and conceal it is limitless. Secondly, and perhaps more is that it is not really necessary. The major successful terror attacks have all had links to real world training and experience. The record of self-taught bomb-makers is terrible. The recent plot in Germany was serious because the individuals had had training in Pakistan. But the self-taught cells, like the Doctors Cell of this summer, have not been able to construct successful explosive devices.

Although it is conventional wisdom that anyone can build a bomb off the Internet, so far the reality does not support this contention.

The squawk over censoring access to bomb-making sites may distract the EU from the other, more serious counter-terror proposals in the package such as collecting airline passenger data from every flight in or out of Europe and a rapid alert system for lost and stolen explosives. These are the real elements of successful terror strikes – travel to major training centers (such as in London 7/7) and/or acquisition of actual explosives (such as Madrid 3/11).

To some extent one can sympathize with the EU's action. It is a way to appear to be doing something substantial and pressuring ISPs is far easier than pressuring Pakistan or Syria. However, if the EU is willing to endorse high level monitoring of Internet activity, than it would probably be more fruitful to set up online "honeypots" on bomb-making to attract potential terrorists and then track them down.

Finally, the debate over ISPs monitoring their customers’ traffic has another important angle – and this debate over bomb-making websites may distract from it as well. ISPs could play a much stronger role in preventing and breaking up the botnets and other cyber-crime activity that is growing so severe that it could threaten the operation of the web itself (see my piece in the Wall Street Journal Europe on the cyber-spat between Russia and Estonia.) If the ISPs are going to be pressed into this kind of activity - it ought to be for a good purpose.

Terror Finance Case: "Operation Cash-Out"

By Jeffrey Imm

The U.S. Attorney's Office announced today that a federal grand jury indicted 39 defendants and one business in an international money laundering case that includes one person accused of concealing terrorist financing. The terror finance case, "Operation Cash-Out", had an international scope with defendants in United States, Spain, Canada and Belgium, with the use of hawala money-transmitting businesses to launder millions of dollars.

Substantive news reports on this came out today from: U.S. Attorney's Office press release, Baltimore Sun, ABC, and NBC, with a potentially related story in Spain reported by AP.

The Baltimore Sun reported that during a news conference on Thursday that 32 of the 39 defendants had been arrested in the past 24 hours: "U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said most of the defendants were under arrest -- at least 16 of them in Maryland -- and that an additional six had been arrested last night". NBC WBAL-11 TV reported that "[r]aids were conducted in Maryland, Washington D.C., New Jersey and Spain on Thursday". The U.S. Attorney's Office press release states that "Operation Cash-Out" includes a total of 46 defendents.

Per the U.S. Attorney's office on "Operation Cash-Out", "[t]he four indictments seek a total of $5,148,000 in criminal forfeitures and ownership interest in two convenience stores located in Snow Hill, Maryland. Five additional defendants have been arrested and charged by criminal complaint with bribery and one other with money laundering."

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said: "Operation Cash-Out was a wide-ranging undercover investigation that yielded evidence of four separate criminal schemes involving at least 46 defendants in the United States, Spain, Canada and Belgium. Three of the indictments involve money laundering hawala schemes exposed through an undercover investigation in which a cooperating witness pretended to operate a business engaged in criminal activity. The indictments allege that the hawala money-transmitting businesses laundered millions of dollars that they believed were the proceeds of illegal activities such as drug dealing, by accepting the money in the United States and returning it in other countries. One of the defendants, Saifullah Ranjha, is alleged to have laundered money that he believed was to be used by al Qaeda, a foreign terrorist organization. The fourth indictment alleges a scheme in which many defendants conspired to bribe public officials with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to illegally obtain green cards and the Maryland Comptroller's Office to receive abatement of taxes owed to the state."

The Baltimore Sun reports regarding "Operation Cash-Out": "[i]n most cases, the money laundering schemes used hawala, a system under which funds are transferred from one place to another, often different countries, through an informal network of people using codes. Although the system is not illegal, U.S. law demands that large money transfers to overseas locations be reported to federal officials and that such businesses have commercial licenses. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the hawala system has been suspected of playing a role in financing some terrorist activities.

It has not yet been reported whether the arrests in Spain today of 2 Pakistani nationals, Anar Muhammad Shan and Preces Mehmood Sandhu, on suspicion of being involved in financing international terrorism is a part of the "Operation Cash-Out" arrests. AP reports that in that case, "among items seized were documents showing $74,360 had been transferred to radical Islamic sympathizers in Arab countries and $9,820 in cash".

Read More »

Bin Laden "Come to Jihad" Pakistan Message Transcript

By Jeffrey Imm

From Laura Mansfield - complete transcript of Osama Bin Laden September 20, 2007 message "Come to Jihad"

Image from Laura Mansfield

Complete message video link - from Laura Mansfield
CTB Analysis posting - September 20, 2007

"Come to Jihad: A Speech to the People of Pakistan
Shaykh Usama bin Ladin
(May Allah protect him)
September 2007/Ramadan 1428"

"All praise is due to Allah. We praise Him and seek His aid and forgiveness, and we seek refuge in Allah from the evil in ourselves and from our bad deeds. He whom Allah guides cannot be led astray, and he who is led astray cannot be guided. I bear witness that there is no God other than Allah alone, without partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger."

"As for what comes after:"

"To my Muslim brothers in Pakistan:"

"Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

"Allah, the Most High, says, 'O Prophet! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be harsh against them. Their abode is Hell, and an evil destination it is.' (9:73) And the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, says, 'There is no one who abandons a Muslim in a place where his honor is violated and his sanctity is infringed upon except that Allah, the Most High, abandons him in a place in which he would like His aid. And there is no one who aids a Muslim in a place where his honor is violated and his sanctity is infringed upon except that Allah aids him in a place in which he would like His aid.' (Narrated by Ahmad)"

"Pervez's invasion of Lal Masjid in the City of Islam, Islamabad, is a sad event, like the crime of the Hindus in their invasion and destruction of the Babari Masjid. And this event has crucial and critical connotations, most important of which are:"

"First, this event demonstrated Musharraf's insistence on co