How Al-Qaeda Will Perish

How Al-Qaeda Will Perish

"There really is a broad rethink sweeping the Muslim world about the practical utility -- and moral defensibility -- of terrorism, particularly since al Qaeda began targeting fellow Sunni Muslims, as it did with the 2005 suicide bombings of three hotels in Amman, Jordan. Al Qaeda knows this. Osama bin Laden is no longer quite the folk hero he was in 2001. Reports of al Qaeda's torture chambers in Iraq have also percolated through Arab consciousness, replacing, to some extent, the images of Abu Ghraib."

"[Muslims] have come to know al Qaeda as fundamentally a radical movement -- the antithesis of the traditional social order represented by the local sovereign, the religious establishment."

It appears that there is a counter al-Qaeda movement throughout the Muslim world, especially amongst the Sunni Muslims because the tactics of al-Qaeda (torture and bombing/killing of fellow Sunnis) has pushed them away from bin Laden's and al-Zawahiri's radical interpretation of Islam. It appears that the pendulum is swinging towards our favor (rather away from al-Qaeda). This can be viewed as a decline for al-Qaeda, similar to one described by Heymann. Eventually, al-Qaeda will perish.

~Greg

Suicide Videos

If you were a terrorist and were about to kill yourself what would you say ? Click here to find some good suggestions 'Plotters made suicide videos'. This came about in a court case where they are presenting evidence of the guys that are responsible for you not being able to take liquids on the airplane. The interesting information that this brings to light is what is required to convict a terrorists ? In this case the prosecution is taking place in the UK but.. .. If you were on a jury could you be open-minded about someone who was caught sneaking explosive material onto an airplane ? What should be the punishment for people like this ? Jack Bauer would probably torture them to death .... what about in real life how do we deal with these terrorists what should be the penalties for attempted terrorism ?

Who wants brownie points?

I really hate to bid farewell to our comrade Tirofijo, mostly because the colors in the Colombian flag make a really lovely header. But all things must pass, so here we go again.

In honor of our new header graphic, I am sponsoring a little contest. Here are the rules: The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post. Good luck!

1) What is the name of the alleged terrorist depicted in this mural?

2) In what terrorist organization was this person a volunteer?

3) For what crime was this person twice incarcerated?

4) What was the highest political office to which this person was elected?

5) How did this person die?

6) What is the date of the final entry in this person's secret prison diary?

Schneier on Security

For those of you that don't know, Bruce Schneier (cryptanalyst extraodinaire) writes an article for Wired magazine called Security Matters. In this weeks article, he talks exactly about what we have been discussing in class, the difference between feeling secure, and actually being secure. It's a really interesting article that puts into perspective some of the things we've been learning, so you all should check it out.

Big Brother's watching us

We spoke in class yesterday about the Government's surveillance programs and the limits they place on listening in to phone calls etc. Here are two articles (number 1) (number 2) detailing the ACLU's issues with the surveillance that's taking place. The first article describes a secret government memo that the ACLU claims says that the government doesn't think the fourth amendment applies to terrorism suspects. However, the ACLU has not seen the memo in question since it is still classified. The second article details ACLU lawsuits over alleged information sharing between the DoD and the FBI. The ACLU argues that the DoD has the ability to collect only certain types of information (such as bank records) and that the FBI can collect other types of information (such as emails). But apparently, the ACLU argues, the two cannot share information with each other in pursuit of potential criminals. They must do it on their own.

These articles relate to our discussion in class regarding the merits and trade offs of increasing security and moving towards an intelligence state. At this point, for obvious reasons, the government does not disclose the specifics of their surveillance programs for fear that the terrorists they watch will know what's going on. However, this leads to other problems such as groups like the ACLU demanding full disclosure and fearing the worst (true or not) when they do not have all the information. This dilemma of how to go about gathering intelligence and how much information to disclose about their programs will haunt the government's efforts for the foreseeable future. I believe it is in our interests not to know what is going on to a certain extent. I propose that an independent intelligence oversight board of some sort be created with access to all the efforts and programs the government uses to gather intelligence. This board would then rule on the constitutionality and legality of any method or instance of info gathering. This group would represent the public and the public's interests. That way, the government would not be able to abuse their power and move us too close to a Stallinesque Intelligence State while at the same time allowing the government to gather intelligence without suspects knowing about their methods and preventing frivolous lawsuits and uninformed complaints by groups such as the ACLU. What do you guys think?

New Gaza show for kids

Here's a new show for kids in Gaza. In this episode, a little kid murders Bush as revenge for the death of his parents. Note that this is from the official Hamas television station. Are they really fooling anyone when they say they want peace? It's things like this that show Hamas systematically brainwashing their children into becoming killing machines. In my opinion, there's no doubt they intend on dulling their children's sense of violence in order to further the conflict.

Memri1
by luvnews

US Attorney General Says Piracy Helps Fund Terrorist Attacks

http://www.dbtechno.com/internet/2008/03/31/us-attorney-general-says-piracy-helps-fund-terrorist-attacks/

US Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed that piracy, along with counterfeiting, helps fund terrorist organizations; he made this claim in an address at the Tech Museum of Innovation at Silicon Valley. According to Mukasey, “Criminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities.” I have never pirated anything before, and I was wondering how easy it is to do so. Also, I was wondering how the class feels about Mukasey's statement. Do most people pirate entertainment or other forms of information on the internet? If so, do you think Mukasey's statement will have any effect on piracy?

Arab summit failures have many asking, Why hold them?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/30/africa/ME-GEN-Arab-Summit.php
I found this article about the Arab Summit. In this article it discusses about this year how the Arab sumbits went. The article discussed how the United States Arab allies boycotted the sumit. On 10 of the 22 Arab countries ended up going to the conference. The conference each year is suppose to unite the Arab nations. However, since at least 2002 all of the Nations have not been there or members have had arguements, boycotts and walks outs. In this year conference there was a last minute walk out by the newly governed Iraq. This is because out of the countries there, they would not pass anything to condemn terrorism. It looks like this maybe the last Arab Sumbit unless somekind of deal to work. This deals with Terrorism in a couple different reason. The first reason is that since there was no condemning of terrorism, this shows to me that some Arab nations are infavor of terrorism, i.e: Iran, Syria and Lebanon. ANother way this effects terrror is that if Arab nations can not agree to stop it, then I feel that it gives terrorist free reign to do what they want and be able to hide in countries. Also, it may allow terrorist to have state sponsorship against the United States. I think if this summit does not continue, in the end it will cause more problems for tthe U.S.
Let me know what everyone else thinks
Thanks
Austin Conners

p.s-This post was suppose to go the week of the 24-30th of March it did not go through. Please grade it for that week, Thanks

Giving People Another Option...

While reading for last Friday's class from The Age of Sacred Terror, Benjamin and Simon stated something that I thought was quite interesting. On page 409, they say, "Traditional societies the world over are reeling from the impact of globalization, which arrives wearing the face of American popular culture. Poverty is endemic in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as well as in the Middle East and North Africa. Only al-Qaeda has counterattacked with a campaign of violence that aims for total victory through annihilation of the presumed source of these evils." It seems to me that Benjamin and Simon suggest that the world is not doing enough, or really anything, to fight the poverty that is so prevalent in the mentioned places. It only seems natural that people would support al-Qaeda because they are the only organization doing anything at all. Only al-Qaeda is giving them an answer for their miserable state, so of course they are going to join and support them. So, it seems to me that if the world, not just the US, increased their attention and aid to these places and gave the people a viable alternative option to al-Qaeda and other terrorists, perhaps support would dwindle for the terrorist organizations. But again, it is difficult to determine whether or not people in these poverty-stricken areas would even accept Western help. Anyway, just a thought... feel free to share your ideas.

Alpha Anti-terror group

While researching for paper 5, I came across some interesting information that I thought I'd share with you guys. It's about Russia's elite counter-terrorism group known as the Alpha Group.

Not much is known about their history, but one notable operation was in 1985 when 4 Russian diplomats were held hostage in Beirut. The KGB identified the terrorists and the Alpha group kidnapped their families. Since Russia does not negotiate with hostages, they just sent the terrorists some severed body parts from their family members with the warning that more would be sent if the diplomats were not released. Needless to say, the terrorists released their hostages, and no Russian diplomats has been kidnapped in the Middle East for the last 20 years.

I know that we could never do that today, but you have to hand it to the Soviets, they got the job done.

Read more about the Alpha group here

United States--Sponsor of Terror?

In Sunday's New York Times there is an article discussing Venezuela's sponsorship of terrorism. The Colombian government claims to have recovered files in Ecuador connecting the Venezuelan government with the FARC. This hardly comes as a surprise to anyone. Hugo Chavez's sympathy towards the FARC is notorious. However, the United States still has not placed Venezuela on its list of State Sponsers of Terrorism. Why is this? Are the motivations purely political....or economic....or both. The United States is a consumer of Venezuelan oil. Despite the rhetoric on both sides, the countries continue to do business. Who is the biggest hypocrite. Hugo Chavez, who at every turn, calls the United States an evil empire, yet continues to sell us oil. Or the United States government, who calls Hugo Chavez a despotic dictator and continues to purchase oil from him. Which, they now in turn, is used to sponsor terrorism aboard. Though some might disagree, it would appear that the United States "War on Terror" and those who sponsor it does not begin within. Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/americas/30colombia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Fatwa in a new light.

Muqtada Al-Sadr called for a truce between the government and his militia, six days after the government cracked down against his bases in Basra,Iraq. While he asked the government to release his supporters from prison and stop raiding their homes, he ordered his men to put down their arms and stop attacking the armed forces "because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces." In class we had discussed that a Fatwa, (a religious sanction obtained from a cleric legitimizing an attack) could count as one of the factors that made Islamic terrorism more dangerous, because people seek Fatwas from someone who shares a similar viewpoint, and some individuals (like Bin Laden) even issue Fatwas themselves, thus legitimizing their actions. However, this particular case points towards a positive usage of the Fatwa. Here it is issued to stop violence rather than escalate it. Though there have been reported instances of violence after the statement has been released, it will be interesting to see how this truce develops.