Taliban Activities in Kabul

This Economist article discusses the January 14th suicide bombing of an Afghani hotel. The bombing was notable because it exemplifies a recent shift in Taliban targets to include expatriates living in Kabul. This supports Bruce Hoffman's definition of terrorism: "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear..." (see Inside Terrorism, p. 40). Because defining terrorism has been a central part of readings, class discussions, and papers, it's important that we recognize the role of fear as a goal of terrorism. Surely the Taliban wants to stir fear in Kabul's foreigners (many of whom are Westerners and byproducts of globalization...which, as discussed in class on Friday, is often severely disliked), otherwise they would not have shifted their violence to include these expatriates, who had thought their hotel to be secure. Why do terrorists want the power to make others afraid? Because enough fear can cripple those who are currently stronger than them. (Remember Paul Pillar defined terrorism as "the quintessential weapon of the weak against the strong" on p. 1 of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy.) Fear may be used to chain supporters or to chase away potential targets.

Spreading of Afgan Violence Into Pakistan

In the New York Times for Friday, January 18th, it contained an article about the spread of violence from the Taliban and Al Qaeda into Pakistan. I thought this was particularly an interesting article because of the change of strategy of many of the Taliban. Obviously the Taliban have an ultimate goal of regaining control of Afghanistan, but many of them are taking refuge in parts of Pakistan. In the town of Peshawar they are especially having difficulties with the Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents. There appears to be an attempt to overtake the town by the insurgents and according to many involved in the fight, the insurgents are doing quite well. The people are starting to lose their faith in the government and the police fear for their safety. It appears that the insurgents could very well take this territory for their own. I thought that was kind of interesting because I was not aware of too many areas where the insurgents really held land other than small tribal areas outside of this town. It would be interesting to see how the fight evolves from there. I also wonder, what really would be the significance and result if the insurgents did take a town like Peshawar? Especially since Pakistan is not a region that American forces have been fighting the insurgents.

Counterterrorism Calender

*Please do not count this as a graded post*
I know you've all been waiting for this, but the time has finally come. The National Counterterrorism Center has just released the 2008 Counterterrorism Calender. It includes all sorts of interesting information on terrorism, from profiles of the most-wanted terrorists in the world, to terrorist logos, how to spot a fake passport, and something titled "TNT Equivalents for Various Explosives and Fuel-Air Mixtures".
Here it is in pdf form. FYI, it's like 24 mb, so make sure you have a strong internet connection.

Habeas Corpus and Detainees...

Reading the Padilla article brought me to searching the net for more on the Detainees' Appeal to repeal the Detainee Treatment act.

Here is the interesting article about the rights of the detainees in Gitmo as they currently stand. It seems the detainees suddenly really like the western world, they embrace the constitution and all of its intricacies, claiming they have a right to Habeas Corpus. How can someone go from working to topple the government of the US and then whole heartedly expect that the US would give them any rights let alone the same rights as a citizen.

The founding fathers had a clear understanding that treason would be treated as a death penalty offense and in regards to those who participated in British attacks on Americans, or were caught sharing intel with the British would be killed with a simple trial requiring that the evidence be presented and judgment passed. I do think the trials are taking longer than necessary to complete, but the persons still being held are the ones which a legitimate threat has been found, not the other 4000 we have released without harm.

I am obviously a constructionist in this matter but when dealing with traitors why should we grant them the rights they so willingly gave up when plotting attacks against us? Doesn't being a citizen come with any special rights? (ie bill of rights, for the people of the US, not the people against it)

Padilla's Sentencing

I have to say I am oh so fond of how caring our judges are to terrorist conspirators and how concerned we all are over their "treatment." It seems that we are quick to forget that these conspirators sought to kill, maim, destroy Americans and our interests. Regardless of their status as a citizen or not, upon committing treason and such acts, in my mind you have in large part forfeited your generally applicable constitutional rights. I do not condone detention of innocents and people who have no formal charges brought against them, but then again I am not for indefinite appeals and abuse of our legal system by terrorists and criminals. A "Quick and speedy trial" is not just the government's duty to ensure, but is also a responsibility of the accused. So often I see our system abused by those who have informal connections with other governments, private interest groups or other wealthy backers. Justice is not blind in this country. We have become a country full of people who sell our justice for a price, and sometimes it doesn't even cost that much, and our judges just coddle criminals because they have their own agenda, which is a far cry from the oath which they are supposed to uphold. See article on Padilla's sentencing.

Iraqis Stepping it Up

I read this this morning, and a few things struck me as particularly interesting. First was the young age of the bomber, 13 or 14! I did not know that terrorist groups recruited kids that young. Second, and more profound in my view, is that the local people condemned the act, even burning the house of the family of the bomber. In the 6th paragraph, they quote one of the locals as saying "We will not permit anyone with this ideology to stay in our village." I'm wondering if this viewpoint, an open and violent rejection of radical Islam, is more widespread than reported in the media. Certainly it would help the United States if the locals also took it upon themselves to eradicate radical Islam as they do not benefit from terrorism any more than the US does. I think that they media portrays the Iraqis as not liking the American presence, but I also believe that, as shown in this article and a documentary I recently watched in another class (Frontline: The Insurgency), that Iraqis need the help of the US to fight the terrorist. Iraq would be in a catastrophic state if we weren't there and if we leave too soon. (Yet one more reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton: "I will get the troops out within 60 days of taking the presidency." Yeah right.) However, I do believe that the Iraqis need to start taking more responsibility in their government. The US can not be their crutch. And as this article shows, the Iraqis are sick of terrorism too and are taking matters of destroying terrorism into their own hands, which can only be beneficial for the US.

Sympathizers Seek Answers From al-Qaida

http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012100817_3.html

Apparently al-Qaida opened a website for a limited period of time in which sympathizers could ask questions of the organization. A broad range of questions were asked concerning al-Qaida's intentions and strategies for future attacks. Many sympathizers wanted to know why further attacks had not been made against the U.S., and those claiming to be part of al-Qaida asked for direction for future attacks. The Associated Press isn't certain that the site is legitimate, and they don't know if the claimed sympathizers are actually members of al-Qaida. No answers to the hundreds of questions posed to al-Qaida have been answered. I don't know what to make of the site. It seems a bit hokey. Any comments?

Terrorism mis-defined

Like my last post, I found another article that describes a recent event in which I believe the term "terrorism" was incorrectly applied. You can find the article here

Besides some perhaps suspicious activity, the government of Kenya has no reason to believe that these individuals are involved in terrorist organizations.

I guess it's possible, and likely, that the government of Kenya has a different definition of terrorism then the US gov't does, but I don't see how this suspicious activity (and it is suspicious) can be identified as terrorism so quickly.

Lankan President lauds Indian policy on terrorism

Hey guys I read this article on Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse and his interaction with India. He said, Colombo was having regular interaction with New Delhi on the developments related to ethnic conflict in the island nation. It looks like Rajapakse is working with India to fight terrorism. I was wondering if anyone knows what terrorism groups are in the region. Or if anyone knows the United States views on this. I hope you like the article and it brings some good feedback.
Thanks
austin
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200801201412.htm

Tamil Tigers' Tactics

The Tamil Tigers are again wreaking havoc in Sri Lanka. According to an Economist briefing from the January 12-18 edition, a government official was killed in the bombing near Colombo. (I couldn't find it on the Economist website, but it's on p. 8 of the journal under the heading "A violent state of affairs"). I've read a few NYT articles on the recent bombings and shootings, trying to find more information, but none of them mentioned the death of a government minister. However, the mentioning in the Economist caught my attention because it could shed greater light on the Tigers' strategies. If they are randomly exploding bombs in public places, perhaps they are just trying to get international attention (and influence within the state). Yet, if the Colombo bomb was purposefully exploded to kill the late government minister, then perhaps they were employing the "decapitation" strategy discussed in class. Granted, they did not assassinate the head of state, but they did kill a state leader. We can't really make this call without more information though; to identify the strategy (or strategies) used, we would need to know if the minister was a deliberate victim of the terrorist act.

MAKE SURE I CAN TELL WHO YOU ARE

This is Brent Mangum. Prof. Payne has asked me to keep track of who is posting or commenting. I can usually look through email names or match up initials to the person who deserves credit, but let's not make my job unnecessarily hard. If you want to stay semi ananamous, just a first name or last name is fine. Also, if you've gone back a few days and commented on an old post, let me know. I usually go back a few days to see if there are new comments on old posts, but if you want to make sure I don't miss yours, again, let me know. Thanks.

More violence in Iraq

The Article


Today in Iraq is the Shi'ite holy holiday of Ashura. A suicide bomber exploded a bomb near a mosque in Baquba and killed eight people and wounded another fourteen. What is interesting about both the location of the attack as well as those targeted in the attack is that over the past few years, the US military has been fighting Sunni and al Qaeda insurgents in the area and the area has been described as very violent. In fact, the article states that suspected al Qaeda attacks have killed over 171 during the holiday of Ashura in 2004. While the article mentions no suspects, (other than the bomber himself), al Qaeda can be considered a prime sponsor suspect. This particular bombing reminds me of what we learned in class regarding terrorist strategies. This is an example of indirect action. Sunni insurgents hope that by committing terrorist acts that the government will brutally repress the people and that the people will respond by revolting against the government. This principle is happening right now in Iraq. In response to previously bloody Ashura's, the government is cracking down on people's liberty in order to minimize death. For example, the government has imposed vehicle curfews all over southern Iraq in order to protect Shi'ites observing Ashura. Sunni militants also hope that their attacks will provoke a violent response by Shi'ites thereby escalating the level of violence in the country.

Tamil Tigers Continue to Kill in the Wake of Ceasefire...

the article...
Wednesday morning the Tamil Tigers struck at a bus of civilians, initially using a roadside bomb to blow the bus off the road, and then shooting at the fleeing survivors. 26 were killed with another 62 injured.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa commented, ''This is a brazen demonstration to the whole world of its unchanged commitment to terrorism and the absolute rejection of democracy and all norms of civilized behavior in the pursuit of its unacceptable goal of separation.''
The Tamils are labeled as a terrorist group in both the US and the EU.

In class the other day we were discussing the desire of terrorist organizations to do things that would get the attention of the media and the world. However, it seems that the Tamil Tigers are not in the mood to accept responsibility for the attacks they make. This is interesting because it is so different from the frequency other groups, such as Al-Qaida, claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated. In class we also discussed the possibility of a group claiming responsibility for attacks it did not commit, but the idea of not claiming responsibility was not discussed, and at least I did not even consider it. Perhaps this is the Tamil's way of trying not to appear as a terrorist organization...?

Modernity and the spread of Terrorism

This article is important for a significant number of factors. First, it is a perfect example of how Al-Qaeda and other similar terrorist organizations use the internet for propaganda and publicity towards their cause. Second, it helps debunk the myth that most terrorists are poor and uneducated. And third, it throws light on the fact that terrorists use the technological means available to achieve their objectives and that the media is indispensable to spreading their cause.

This leads me to speculate about the extent to which modernity is both a cause and a means of terrorism. I believe that it may be a cause because terrorism is in many ways a response to western cultural imperialism, be it the colonization of foreign territories or signing of treaties which allow one ethnic group to usurp the homeland belonging to another ethnic nationality(for example: Israel) . Similarly, I believe that advances in the field of communication and transportation have been used by terrorists as a means to gain publicity towards their cause.
This may be something we want to think about as a class.

Great Terrorism website

Here is a link to a website I found that has tons of terrorism resources. This should definitely be helpful for our presentations. You can search for a terrorist group by region, or ideology. You can also search terrorism incidents by location, number of fatalities, or even weapons used. It also has a database of known terrorist leaders. Basically, it has everything you could ever want to know about terrorist groups. The links section includes tons of other useful websites. The further reference section contains tons of articles on terrorism. It's a really interesting website to just browse through. Some of the stuff they have is surprising. Anyone that has taken Pl Sc 328 will find the National Counterterrorism Center WITS Dataset interesting (And if you haven't taken 328, and can avoid it, don't take it). Enjoy!

Congressional Terrorist

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U76PK82&show_article=1

This link will take you to an article that discusses the involvement of former US congressman and UN representative Mark Deli Siljander, a Republican from Michigan, in aiding a known terrorist in Pakistan. The allegation goes, that Siljander was working as a fundraiser for an Islamic charity that was sending money to supposed orphanages that later turned out to only be the addresses of personal property of a known terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Moreover, Representative Siljander is accused of taking $50,000 from the Islamic American Relief Agency for lobbying. As it turns out the $50,000 dollars was supposedly stolen from the US Agency for International Development. In other words, a US representative accepted stolen money from a charity that was using its donations to fund terrorists linked with the Taliban and Al Qieda. The same representative also aided the organization in gaining the funding that it needed to operate. Does Siljander qualify as a terrorist?
I feel that as long as he knew that he was supporting an organization that was directly funding a terrorist he is also a terrorist. Our readings point out that different members of terrorist cells and organizations have different responsibilities. Former Representative Siljander may not have ever fired a weapon or detonated a bomb, but he was fundamental in securing funding for organizations that are engaging in just such activities.

Ex-US Congressman lobbies for Al-Qaeda

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hw36mXsH7fbogLzqW06NU31aQAmgD8U77NV81

Today, former US Congressman (GOP, MI) Marc Deli Siljander was indicted for his role in laundering at least $130,000 to al-Qaeda. For his work as a lobbyist for the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA), Siljander is said to have received $50,000. Instead of using its donations from USAID for development in Africa, IARA paid Silijander $50,000 and sent the rest of the money to an al-Qaeda contact in Pakistan.

In class today, we talked about the means whereby terrorists carry out their operations; one of those means was fundraising. It’s truly scary and appalling to find out that a US congressman was involved in such activities. I can’t help but point out a parallel between this occurrence and what Moroni wrote in Ether 8:23-25:

“Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries…”

Evolution of Terrorism or a Decline of Terrorism in Iraq?

On the New York Times web site, there was an article posted in which it talked about a recent attack that took place in the Iraqi region of Diyala. The interesting circumstances about this attack versus many others was the fact it was conducted by a woman. I guess the trend is turning toward more attacks by women. The post on the article actually has changed to some degree since I originally read it, so I'll share some of what it mentioned additionally. Apparently it suggested two opposing viewpoints as far as what this trend really means. U.S. officials suggest that this means the insurgent forces are losing numbers and are required to rely upon women in order to carry out such attacks. The opposing view is the idea that women are typically considered to be less of a threat and their clothing make it easier to conceal explosives and so it is advantageous to use women to carry out such attacks.

These opposing viewpoints really bring up some interesting issues. The first viewpoint was suggested by U.S. officials. It's reasonable to ask if this is just spin coming from the government in order to help support the effort in Iraq. It does seem reasonable that women could become the new suicide bombers because insurgent forces are reduced to few but women, but the likelihood is questionable. Now the other theory suggests an evolution in terrorist tactics by using women for the reasons stated above. For me, this seems a bit more likely of an outcome, especially because women are not treated as equals in most Arab cultures, so it seems like they would be more "expendable" for terrorist organizations. Certainly there seems to be a lot of strength in this tactic because of Western chivalric attitudes toward women. Women are not typically seen as threats and as potential combatants and certainly there is an attitude of preserving women from attack and doing them no harm. If this really is an evolution in terrorist tactics, it appears that it will be another difficult battle for counterterrorist forces to learn how to combat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316986,00.html?sPage=fnc.specialsections/waronterror

The link above should take you to an article concerning the escape of a suspected terrorism from a Pakistani prison. This suspect was supposed to be awaiting trial for a plot to blow up a British airplane. I chose to post this article because I feel that it punctuates an important problem with counter terrorism. At times cooperation between nations is at best limited. Pakistan has allowed many US and NATO participant operations within their borders since 9/11 compared to before. However, a large problem arises when are allies (even if they are limited allies) do not have the capability to carry out operations of their own. This may result from limited resources, or from elements of their societies who sympathize with the terrorist causes. Some governments may also realize that they cannot jeopardize international relations with world super powers if they are going to compete in a global economy, but only make marginal efforts to help. For example, Indonesia has responded to terrorist attacks against Western citizens, but their response is generally incredibly lenient. One individual convicted for the Bali blast in 2005 by Indonesia, received a two year sentence, which was later commuted after only 18 months.

Death of bin Laden?

I was browsing through international news agencies and came across this report found on a Russian? news site:

Benazir Bhutto named Osama bin Laden’s killer before her death

Bhutto said, "Omar Sheikh is the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." Bhutto said this in an interview with Al-Jazeera on Nov. 2. You can view it here: Video. I haven't heard this claim on the U.S. news wires and wonder why.

Greg Scott