Al Qaeda and Weapons of Mass Destruction

I read an article today concerning an increase in the number of video and audio instructions released by Al Quaeda. The article discussed a new video tape that urges supporters to use WMD technology to attack the West. Many different scholars do not feel that use of a WMD is likely. There are too many incentives for terrorists groups to avoid this action, and generally not enough resources to materialize the threat. The new video has been identified as a conglomeration of different clips taken from multiple previous Al Quaeda releases. Most of the community that keeps up on this stuff feels these are the words and views of the political base of the movement and not leaders or direct participants in the organization.
Terrorist organizations are flattening. The hierarchical structure is disseminating into autonomous cells. In this atmosphere I feel that this kind of propaganda is more dangerous than if an intact hierarchical organization had published the message. Leaders of a terrorist group do not want the consequences associated with using a WMD. They want to be noticed, but they also want to exist. Even though the actual Al Quaeda organization continues to follow this kind of reasoning, the ideology they preach to produce support induces in the public a mentality of finality and an apocalyptic present. In these conditions members of the movement who are not responsible to any leader may act according their own intentions.
As has been previously outlined, most terrorist organizations do not have the assets necessary to be a realistic WMD threat. Even fewer individual terrorists have this ability. However, the incentives that keep the best developed and funded terrorist groups at bay, do not manifest themselves in the soul individual, the member of the movement without a leader. Here is where a threat could surface, even if the possibility was incredibly low.
Well this class is definitely over, and for myself, my class room days in an undergraduate Political Science course have come to a close. I am working for the local government now and working towards law school. I posted a couple of weeks ago; wondering if anyone would still contribute. I think this forum is a good way to express our views on different issues surrounding terrorism and other its role in US foreign policy. Being involved in as many ways as possible keeps me on my toes. I feel at times like an embodiment of Plato's political animal. Perhaps no one will ever read what is posted here again, but I highly doubt that. We are in Google's search base now.

Terrorism in India

It seems that India is among the most recent nations to be struck by a terrorist attack, the first in India a a while. though no group has claimed responsibility for the attack, India has presumed it to be a "foreign group" which usually means Pakistan the article hints towards this being a way to disturb the peace process between India and Pakistan, which makes sense at least to me. what is interesting to me is the assumed continued use of terrorism by groups associated with Islam, regardless of what their motives could be.

Curious

I was just curious if anyone was going to continue to contribute here just for fun.

Suicide bombing by Hamas

Here is an article about a suicide bombing in Gaza acted out by Hamas. Hamas said that it was a step forward for those who are awaiting freedom. Hamas is attacking entry points in an attempt to start a humanitarian crisis that will force international actors to put pressure on Israel.

From what I understand, Hamas is claiming that their purpose is to help the Palestinian people regain their land. If this is their goal, then why are they killing those that bring aid into areas that contain Palestinian people? Even if it forces international actors to step in, is the cost in lives equal to the benefit? Will this have any effect on how much support Hamas later gains?

Jemaah Islamiah!

I recently came across this article which announces that the Indonesian government has endorsed a court decision to outlaw JI. One thing I found interesting with this article is that it mentions that JI was not previously outlawed because the government did not recognize it as an official organization. I think that this parallels our discussion about terrorism and "war." Personally, I don't think that the ban will have any substantive effect on the JI network, and that the ruling won't be enforced or binding. Does this move simply give JI more legitimacy and power? Singapore-based terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, who we read the other week, called the verdict "a huge victory against terrorist," but it is hard for me to see how this will affect JI.

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

Here is another article concerning Jimmy Carter and his venture to speak with the leaders of Hamas. This article focuses on whether or not his visit to the Middle East will be effective and worthwhile. As of right now it has been reported that Islamist militants have reported that they would respect a peace treaty ratified by Palestine.
However, many people are skeptical about whether or not Israel and Palestine will really respect and obey this treaty.
I am still confused as to what Jimmy Carter thinks will be accomplished by going over and meeting with the Hamas leader, I don't see any logical reason for this. In my mind it will not make things any better...if anything, I see it as making the situation worse.

Loss of support

Last week, we discussed the view that the Global War on Terror has lost support because of the Bush Administration's zealousness. This article supports that assumption. It describes the current predicament which 50-year-old Sami al-Arian finds himself in. This Palestinian professor who taught computer science and legally lived in the United States has been arrested and convicted on charges that he aided the US-recognized terrorist organization "Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

Apparently al-Arian and the US government made a deal were he would plead guilty and be deported in exchange for not having to testify in additional cases. However, the government says the latter part was not part of the deal as al-Arian is reporting it to be. His situation is doubly messy because his earlier sentencing to 57 months in prison has recently been fulfilled...but the government still wants to make him testify in additional cases, so Immigration and Customs Enforcement now has custody over him since he can't really be held in prison.

But the real issue that pertains to decreased support for fighting terrorism is the result of 17 accussations about his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. For six months he stood trial for different terrorism-related crimes, but the jury acquitted him on eight counts, and it couldn't reach a consensus on the other nine. Clearly, this didn't make the Administration look good. Instead, it just fed the fire that the Bush Administration is too aggressive and overreaching in its hunting of terrorists, and that it isn't cautious enough--sometimes attempting to convict people of crimes they can't be proven to have committed.

Pakistan: A Slippery Slope.

Earlier today, British foreign secretary David Milliband renewed Britain's pledge to help Pakistan in the latter's counter terrorism efforts, and also voiced support for reconciliation with those militants who are willing to renounce terrorism.
Both these steps are a part of a state's counter terrorism strategy as suggested by Paul Pillar and Heyman respectively, namely, countries should aid other countries in their fight against terrorism. However, evaluating Pakistan's situation, it is difficult to say whether this will help the country or not.
By helping America in its War on Terror,Pakistan faced a near definite possibility of a break-up after a relentless civil war between the Kemalist sections of the Pakistani army led by General-President Parvez Mussaraf against the Jihadist factions led by more fundamentalist groups. There is a lot of support for the fundamentalists from rogue armies like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Pakistan continues to faces a dilemma: if it continues supporting the War on Terror, it will face a civil war in the near future, and if refuses to help America, there is a possibility that America will attack Pakistan in order to hunt down the Jihadists, or destroy Pakistan's nuclear plants before the Jihadists get to it.
Sometimes it is difficult to see what a country should do, I think that they should continue supporting the war on terror and "big brother" should come to their aid in case a civil war breaks out over this particular issue. What does everyone else think?

Threat level

In the last day of class we discussed what we believe the terrorist threat level to be, and a recent suicide attack has made me think more about this. This suicide attack was in Iraq at a restaurant popular among Iraqi police officers. I heard on the radio that for this specific suicide attack at the restaurant a man walked into the restaurant, yelled "God is great" and tried to detonate his vest but it failed. The man was arrested by the police. About thirty minutes later, a different man walks into the same restaurant, yelled the same thing, but this time his vest did not fail. The amazing thing to me is that at least 10 people were killed in the blast (the radio said 15...). I figure that some of those casualties were employees but who in their right mind would stay at that restaurant after someone tried to blow it up? I definitely would not stay there to finish my sandwich, and I would probably not go back to that restaurant again soon. I tried to imagine what the people there were thinking... maybe they believe that there is always a high threat for a suicide attack in their area so they figured they managed to dodge a bullet, or maybe they really don't think that the threat is that great.

To the grader - sorry, this post is half an hour late. Please grade it for the week ending April 20th.

Pakistan

Recently a report was issued on the United States' anti-terrorism plan in Pakistan. The report, compiled by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (or GAO), was a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's efforts to rid Pakistan of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorist threats since 2002. The report specifically stated that the United States has had no continuous, comprehensive plan for anti-terrorism in Pakistan. I quote, “No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, recommended by the independent 9/11 Commission, and mandated by congressional legislation.”

Immediately, democrats latched onto the reports finding to blast the government, especially the Bush administration, for having diverted precious counterterrorist resources to fight in Iraq when the could have been searching for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Pakistan (he is believed to be in hiding in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA). The White House, without much elaboration, immediately dismissed the report as being a mischaracterization on the part of the Democrats and the reporting committee as a whole. However, partisan politics aside, I wanted to opine on the report’s findings, for I disagree with some of its assessments. And again, I want to do it constructively and as objectively as possible.

Contrary to the current reports findings, I think that the United States has a comprehensive counterinsurgency and counterterror plan for Pakistan in place. I believe that we have consciously chosen to stay low key in Pakistan due to our overwhelming unpopularity amongst the people as a whole. In general, we are on good terms with the Pakistani government, for they are willing to help us in our fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. However, this good will is not harbored amongst many of the Pakistani people, especially the ones from the tribal areas and frontier territories. In other words, if we were to “invade” an area of Pakistan (like the FATA) as was proscribed by the leading critics of our current policy, the people of Pakistan may be brought down into a nasty civil war, and it is very likely that the current government may not win such a war. This is the last thing that the United States needs in its current war on terror. We do not need another failed Islamic state, especially one that has nuclear capabilities. For instance, one nightmarish scenario of a Pakistani civil war could be an Islamic faction gaining control of a nuclear facility and then launching a nuclear missile at an American base in Afghanistan or in Iraq or even at an American ally in the region; this would be devastating.

Therefore, I think it behooves the United States to continue to run its counterterror operations in Pakistan the way it has been doing it, i.e. by providing limited paramilitary support, logistics and by providing training to the Pakistani government and its military. If anyone has any better suggestions, I would love to hear them (and I am not being facetious).

Here is the Article link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080417/pl_nm/usa_pakistan_gao_dc

New anti-terrorism rules 'allow US to spy on British motorists'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/21/nspy121.xml
This is a very interesting article that I read. This article deals with the UK traffic systems and relying the information to other countries throughout the world, including the United States. The camera's take live video of cars and traffic in the Britan and the EU. These camera's then are able to record; registration, and images of the owners. This was hiden from the British parilament until just recently that the information was being allowed to be viewed by other countries. This deals with terrorism, because the information that is sent to the U.S. is placed in computer systems for there "data mining", which is used to try and predict patterns of terrorist. The article deals with are class the last week dealing with civil liberities. Is this crossing the line? Recording peoples images and sending there informations to other countries would that be a price of giving up liberities to possibly find patterns? I say yes. This is because its just camera video that people don't know they are being watched. It also can help data mining which can possibly stop a terrorist attack.
This is my last post! please let me know what everyone thinks about this article! I had a great year, I hope all of you did too!
And THank You Professor Payne for all the knowledge that you have taught me this year.
Austin Conners

lol yes i know another 1150pm sunday night post

Actual Goals vs Obtainable Ones ?

So I wanted to talk a little bit about the goals of terrorists organization and explain why I think that Pres. Carter is doing one of the worst things possible.

1. We studied about a lot of groups who had very large demands over the years. As the demands in most cases were not met they generally died off in attacks and had to attempt at finding other ways to get the attention they wanted, and in most cases just kind of died off and gave up.

2. The few that were successful became legitimate organizations or got some kind of official recognition and as a result were more successful in their claims or at least were able to air their grievances on a more acceptable platform.

3. President Carter negotiating with Hamas is going to legitimize them or ie in the minds of Americans or the media they are no longer radical terrorists groups who cant be dealt with they are more rational. The idea of helping a terrorist group become legitimate I am not against however, Carter is going to them not the other way around so.... Can they truly change in the way they need to without having an internal shift of policy and idea or is Carter going to fix it all ? I don't think and that is why I think that public figures should be very careful on how they treat criminals least they legitimize unfairly.

Agree or Disagree ?

David

Dozens killed in Iraq

Here is yet another article about car bombings in Iraq. Suicide bombings have become a very frequent and seemingly "normal" occurrence in Iraq in the last couple years, it has been a problem for many many years, but it seems to have gotten worse since the United States entered in with forces five years ago.
Would these suicide bombings be considered terrorist attacks or are they simply acts of war? We did invade their country so what is the result? Is it an actual terrorist organization that is committing these attacks or just everyday Iraqi citizens?

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_carter

The author of this article states that Jimmy Carter hopes to help negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine by serving as the spokesman for the Hamas terrorist organization. He believes that beceause Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, their cooperation is essential for peace in the region to be realized. Hamas involvement in peace talks is contrary to the wishes of the U.S. and Israeli governments because both the U.S. and Israel view Hamas as a terrorist organization that should not be negotiated with.

I had a few questions I wanted to pose to the class. Has Hamas ever been involved in any peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine? How long has Hamas been in control of the Gaza Strip, and is it likely that they will continue to hold the region. If they continue to hold the region, will their participation in peace talks become more necessary as they become more established? It seems to me that their involvement will become more important if they continue to exert influence over the Gaza strip.

Crusaders

So I came across this video that was on Hamas television Friday the 11th. In this video, a Hamas MP and cleric rants on and on about the jihadist conquest that will free the world from the hellfire that it is on the brink of. One very interesting thing about this video is that this MP clearly targets Rome. He states "very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constatinople was." He goes on to say that Rome is the Crusader capital and has been very hostile towards Islam. After Rome, this man claims, Islam will sweep over Europe in its entirety then move on two both Americas then the rest of the world. I just thought that it was interesting that another country, besides the United States, was the center of attention. I know that I mainly focus on attacks and hostility towards the United States which leads me to believe that we are always their #1 goal to take down, but the U.S. wasn't even specifically mentioned in this video.

To the grader - Unfortunately, when I was trying to post this at the last minute last night it would not work, so I did it first thing this morning. Please grade it for the week ending April 13th.

One for the road

Well, it's our last day of class, and I thought it might be fun to have one last contest for brownie points. So, goodbye to Bobby Sands, and hello to a new blog header featuring a new alleged terrorist.

The rules are the same as they ever were: The first student with a correct answer to any of the six questions listed below 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.

Questions:

1) What is a definition of terrorism from a scholar, a US government agency, or an international organization that would include this man as a terrorist?

2) What is the relationship between this man and his primary accomplice?

3) What was the weapon he used in his attacks?

4) In what way was his car modified to help him in his attacks, and where did he get the idea for this modification?

5) In what way did the police violate the instructions he left for them during the course of the investigation?

6) In what US states has he been convicted of murder?

Good luck!

In Response to Nepal: A Shot at Cooption

These are all excellent arguments and questions posed on the counter-terrorist strategy of cooption. In spite of these points, however, I would have to say that the success of the co-option method in Nepal will depend not on governmental action but on the nature of the Moist opposition group. According to Benjamin and Simon, for cooption to work and for there to be a diversification and eventual democratization of a given country, several key criteria need to be met. First, the government must extend the olive branch and accept this pariah group into the political arena. This the Nepali regime has done. Second, there must be a mutual trust between reform minded individuals in the targeted regime and moderate members of the opposition. Essentially, both parties have to agree that they are willing to abide by the rules of democracy. This is a more normative question - therefore rendering it more difficult to measure empirically - however, for the sake of my argument, I will assume that this trust has not been fully met. Regardless of this fact, I would venture to posit that part of this trust has been fulfilled since the Nepali regime is allowing the Maoists to run in the current election cycle. And lastly, since successful transitions require “reformers to trust the opposition party’s commitment to democracy” and “willingness and ability to reign in its radicals,” one must look at the ability of the opposition group to moderate itself over a long period of time. An example of this murky last point can be seen in the October elections in Pakistan in 2002. An alliance of six religious parties netted 11 percent of the vote, thus garnering the coalition: several seats in parliament, a partnership in ruling Baluchistan, unprecedented control of the North-West province and the status as the nations leading opposition party. “At first the ruling officials of the opposition party sought to demonstrate their ability to rule” rather than “in provoking the military and President Musharraf.” However, the group sought to push several of their more radical views through parliament without compromise which in turn lead to a breakdown in relations with the ruling government. This breakdown has turned into an impasse which - as of yet - has threatened to bring Pakistan down into a nasty civil war. To recapitulate, if the Maoists try and adopt the same tactics as the opposition groups in Pakistan, then they will fail and so will the method of cooption. However, if the group can continually compromise and retain the trust of the government - and vice versa - then the method of cooption might have a chance in Nepal. All of this will depend on whether or not these groups can put their differences aside and bargain with each other (for a positive example of cooption look at Sinn Fein and the IRA in the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland). In the end, only time will tell if the cooption method can work for in Nepal for only time will us if the Maoists can moderate themselves and truly stick to the rules of democracy.

President arrested on Terrorism Chargers?

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/index.php?itemid=3200
I found this article online, about Jimmy Carter bring arrested. I thought this would be a good article to share with the class since we talked about it the other day in class. In this article I read that it said the former president was arrested because he was trying to meet with members of Fatah. The suspect was a 83 year old white male. It said that the former president will be transfer to Guantanamo Bay.

[Note: President Carter is not going to Gitmo. Unconfirmed Sources is a joke news site like The Onion. --Prof. Payne]

This article was made me think of several things that came to mind. One was what happens if a president supports an opposing terrorist group? Would we do whatever we could to bring them to power? The only things that I can think of the PLO, but that was in a time when the threat of WMD's was not as large. Every other thing that I can think of deals with gurrilla (spelled wrong sorry) fighters that have overthrown governments. I aslo question if we discovered a president of another state supporting terrorism would be try and detain them and send them to Guantanamo Bay or just have them excuted? Let me know what you guys think about this article and the questions that I posed.
THanks
Austin Conners

Nepal: A Shot at Co-option

Though the Maoists in Nepal view themselves as guerilla freedom fighters, we can consider them as terrorists, given their political demands and means used to achieve them. After over a decade of bloody civil war between the monarchy and the Maoists, the government of Nepal is experimenting with the counter terrorism strategy of co-option by allowing the Maoists to participate in the current elections.

The elections held on the eve of Nepali New Year promises peace and end to war in Nepal. The latest poll results show the Maoist party as winning with an overwhelming majority of votes. I believe that the strategy of co-option usually works because it appeases the parties which are stirring conflict. It makes them feel that their demands are being recognized by the entire country and leads them to vent their frustrations through peaceful legitimate means, rather than resorting to spectacular indiscriminate attacks (armed propaganda).

My only question however, is whether the strategy of co-option will work even if the Maoists lose the elections, or would that lead to more violence in the country? Is an election victory the only way to appease rebel groups, or does co-option work irrespective of election results? Since the final results are not out, it will be interesting to see how events turn out.

Ingrid Betancourt

This economist article gives a little update on the FARC's most famous hostage: Ingrid Betancourt. Two weeks ago, the group presentation was about the FARC and they mentioned the often used tactic of kidnapping, as well as Ms. Betancourt being among the terrorist organization's hundreds of captives. This article says that Colombia's president (Uribe) has promised to release all FARC members held in state prisons once Ms. Betancourt has been released. (She is apparently in very poor health, having spent much of her years as a hostage either "held in chains or tied to a tree...some local officials suggested that she might be on a hunger strike"). France recently sent doctors to Colombia to give Ms. Betancourt needed treatment (her son says she needs a blood transfusion), and Mr. Uribe promised to temporarily disband the military in the area where Ms. Betancourt is held in order to give the French doctors a better chance at being allowed by the FARC to see and treat the prized prisoner.

Also, the current belief that the chances of securing Ms. Betancourt's release are higher than they have been in the recent past is a little ironic given the recent killing of Raul Reyes--the FARC's top hostage negotiator.