An American prosecutor told jurors in closing arguments on Monday in the first U.S. war crimes trial at Guantanamo against Yemeni captive Salim Hamdan that he ‘knowingly swore allegiance and gave vital services to “the world’s most dangerous terrorist’.” (more…)
Recently I wrote about an article in which it is argued that Al Qaeda is quickly losing popularity in the Arab world. Increasingly more Arabic Muslims - Muslims in other parts of the world tended to be not (so) supportive of Al Qaeda beforehand - believe that what Al Qaeda is doing is immoral, and not in the interest of Muslims. They see that Al Qaeda kills Muslims and non-Muslims alike, not caring who suffers. (more…)
Yet another set of articles in a major newspaper / magazine / etc. implies that the war against the West isn’t going well for Al Qaeda or at least not as well as Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen hoped 7 years ago, when they attacked the World Trade Center in New York City. We, the West, are winning while they, Al Qaeda extremists, are making increasingly more enemies. Additionally, Al Qaeda has been weakened by the war on terrorism and by its own actions. (more…)
Amir Taheri wrote an interesting article for the New York Post about Al Qaeda’s new strategy. One of AQ’s main intellectuals (if one can use this word to describe these people) argues in his new book that Islamists have to ‘turn the world into a series of “wildernesses” where only those under jihadi rule enjoy security.’ (more…)
Iraqi security officials are reporting that Abu Ayyab al-Masri, the man who succeeded al-Zarqawi as the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Excellent news, though these groups are notorious for being capable of replacing heads as soon as we cut them off, like a bomb-toting Hydra. Still, they can keep growing them, but I’m not going to complain about anything that involves kicking terrorist a$€
It seems that Al Qaeda - and terrorist organizations like it - have a minor problem: they have great difficulty recruiting terrorists, and especially suicide bombers. The reasons? Al Qaeda has a hard time killing Americans: instead, foreign Al Qaeda fighters who enter Iraq, hoping to attack Americans are forced to attacks Iraqis. Muslims. As if that’s not enough, many of them don’t succeed in their plans. O, and Al Qaeda has become increasingly unpopular (Sunni Iraqis have turned against the Sunni terrorist organization). (more…)
In his latest video, Al Qaeda Terrorist-in-Chief Osama Bin Laden threatens the European Union. He’s angry with Europe because European newspapers had the audacity to publish the so-called “Mohammed cartoons.” (more…)
It seems that, according to most, Senator John McCain made a major mistake when he said recently that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq. After all, Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization, whereas Iran is a country run by Shi’ites. Reading the stories on McCain, then, gives on the impression that he knows as much about the different religious groups in the regions as George W. Bush did when he gave the order to invade Iraq. (more…)
The Dutch government and Parliament have decided to stay in Afghanistan until 2010. A few months ago, the Dutch cabinet already said that it wanted to prolong our stay in the Afghan province of Oruzgan, but now most other MP’s have agreed to stay in the war-torn country for a couple of years more as well. (more…)
One of the major battles in the War on Terrorism, is “the war of minds.” Both sides in this conflict try to win the sympathy of the masses, and then especially of the Muslim masses. Al Qaeda has used every propaganda technique known to mankind to spread it’s radical message and to influence the way Muslims in the Middle East think. The West has done the same. As it is, it seems that the West is - slowly but surely - winning this battle. (more…)
An Al Qaeda leader, the Saudi Jar Allah aka Abu Yasir al-Saudi, was killed Wednesday, by a guided missile fired from a US Military helicopter. “According to the military, al-Saudi conducted numerous attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces, including a Jan. 28 bomb attack that killed the five U.S. soldiers.” (more…)
The Wall Street Journal took on apologists for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) today, saying:
These are not ordinary crimes. "For sure, I’m American enemies," said KSM in his broken English. "When we made any war against America we are jackals fighting in the nights. . . . the language of the war are killing." The proper venue to address his mass crimes against humanity is not some civilian jurisdiction. Terror cases committed as acts of war, by their very nature, require a separate judicial process.
A major commander in the remaining Taliban forces has been captured by Pakistan.
The real good news here may not be merely the capture of the Taliban commander, but rather the evident increased willingness of Pakistani forces to attempt to control their northwestern tribal areas and the border with Afghanistan. If it continues, the tide may finally begin to turn in al-Qaeda’s last remaining strongholds.
Al Qaeda nerd Adam Gadahn has called on Muslim extremists in the Middle East to receive American President George W. Bush with bombs, booby-traps and so on when he visits the region and he tore up his American passport, saying that it was symbolic gesture and that every person who’s compassionate, honest, moral, etc. should feel ashamed to carry such a passport.
After he destroyed it he said that he doesn’t “need it to travel” anyway. (more…)
H/t Weasel Zippers, via Nobless Oblige
From ABC News, with my emphases [the complete transcript is here and here]:
The Fourth Rail reports:
The Diyala Campaign is underway. As part of major offensive operations throughout the belts regions of Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. forces have launched a large scale operation in the city of Baqubah, the provincial capital of Diyala. Dubbed Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the offensive is massive in scale. This is a division sized operation of “approximately 10,000 Soldiers, with a full complement of attack helicopters, close air support, Strykers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles.” Over 30 al Qaeda operatives have been killed since the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division kicked off the operation with a “quick-strike nighttime air assault.”
Elements of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, and the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade, are operating in Baqubah, along with the 2nd Brigade of the 5th Iraqi Army Division. American forces are in the lead of the assault, with the Iraqi Army in support. The 2-5 Iraqi Army Brigade killed four al Qaeda after receiving sniper fire, and captured 2 others.
The New York Times, which incorrectly reported the operation as consisting of 2,000 U.S. troops, reported that the western portion of the city of Baqubah has been sealed off with ground a and air units as troops pursue the 300 to 500 Qaeda believed to be operating in the area…
Back in May, we noted Diyala has become the main hub of al Qaeda’s operations. Al Qaeda in Iraq made Baqubah the capital of its rump Islamic State of Iraq last year. Since the inception of the Baghdad Security Plan in mid-February, the security situation, which was deteriorating after U.S. forces pulled back last fall, has markedly worsened. Al Qaeda has prepared fighting positions, supply bases, IED traps, bomb rigged buildings, and training camps in the province.
The question is - of course - will the US be able to kill most AQ terrorists, or will the terrorists simply flee the neighborhood and start killing and kidnapping people there? Criticism aside, it is - of course - a good thing that the US fights AQ like this. The more AQ members are killed or captured, the better. I’m starting to think, however, that the US should - quite simply - send in Shia militias. Let the Shia militias take care of Al Qaeda - let them kill each other; they’re killing to birds with one stone.
A short while after I published a post about an article that appeared today in the Washington Post, I received an e-mail from the National Journal’s Neil Munro. Neil shared two things with me: first, an article he wrote which appeared in the 5/12/07 edition of the National Journal; second, information from what will remain an unnamed source. According to the source, “there is a fundamental flaw” in before mentioned WaPo article: the US doesn’t know “who is killing whom.”
Let’s start with Neil’s article first (called “Sunnis Break With Al Qaeda”): in it, Neil explains that “most observers agree that the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, particularly in the Western province of Anbar, is splintering.” Some Sunni insurgent groups join forces with the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government and US military forces. There is, however, one question: is this a “short-term phenomenon or a longer-term trend that could help turn the tide against the insurgency”?
In the province of Anbar, “the divisions are changing the battlefield” (also read this article at TIME about that). Anbar “has been the heartland of the Sunni insurgency since 2004.” Recently, however, many Sunni tribes in the region “united into the Anbar Salvation Front, which claims to have deployed 20,000 militiamen against Al Qaeda.” Besides that, “U.S. military officials, trying to deepen the splits through economic aid and deals with Sunni tribes, say they have recruited more than 4,500 locals — including former insurgents — in recent months to serve in the Anbar police force. Together, the U.S. military and the Iraqi security forces, according to numerous recent media reports, have largely pacified Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, which one Army intelligence report last year wrote off as lost.”
Neil quotes US Col. Steven Boylan who said that the before mentioned change in Anbar “does matter.” He added that “the bigger issue is that the sheiks in Anbar and their tribes realize … they’re going toward a potential future” of cooperation with the Baghdad government.
What might have triggered the split is debated: some believe that Al Qaeda overreached “when it announced the formation of the ‘Islamic State in Iraq’ and declared the state’s leader to be a mysterious man named Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, titled ‘Prince of the Faithful’.” The combination of his name and title ” - which asserts that he is a Sunni from Baghdad and a descendant of Muhammad - is one step short of declaring him to be the Islamic caliph, who serves as both monarch of all Muslims and as Allah’s representative on earth.”
Others say that Sunni leaders initially thought that they would be able to beat the US forces and take over the Iraqi government (also with the help of other Sunni countries). That’s why they invited Al Qaeda - who does not want to compromise with the Shiite-dominated government - to join the fight. The United States, however, “has prevented any overt intervention by neighboring Sunni states, has won support from some Sunni communities, and has been able to capture or kill many insurgents.” Besides that, Shiite insurgents are taking revenge: whenever Al Qaeda kills Shiites, Shiite militias strike back hard. In other words, Sunni leaders have, according to this theory, concluded that they cannot win this battle and that it is in their interest to work together with the US and al-Maliki et al. Al Qaeda doesn’t want to compromise, Al Qaeda wants to continue fighting, thus, Al Qaeda has to be eliminated.
Lastly, “Sunnis in Saudi Arabia are also nudging Iraqi Sunnis to turn against Al Qaeda… Saudi Arabia’s primary goal is the eradication of Al Qaeda, and it is using its plentiful money and Arab tribal connections to firm up an anti-Qaeda front.”
Sounds nice and all, but there are problems: American soldiers often complain, for instance, that the Iraqi government “often hinders even such simple cooperation with the Sunnis as the delivery of reconstruction funds, police payrolls, uniforms, and ammunition.” Also, Sunnis might join forces with the US for now, just to make sure that the US withdraws as soon as possible. If Al Qaeda loses its foothold in Iraq, some Sunni leaders might think, the US will withdraw and full scale civil war can break out (which they still hope to win).
It’s a highly interesting article which should be read by every single one of you.
The situation in Anbar is improving, we are told, but at the same time sectarian violence is, according to this article in the Washington Post, on the rise. Sudarsan Raghavan writes that “more than three months into a U.S.-Iraqi security offensive designed to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, Health Ministry statistics show that such killings are rising again.”
The source I mentioned at the very start of this post, e-mailed that Raghavan’s article contains “a fundamental problem”: the US does not know “who is killing whom.”
As far as anybody knows, “some of the deaths are ordinary crime,” which are of course “the least politically disruptive.” Other deaths are caused by Shia groups fighting against each other. Interestingly enough, the source points out that this option “may be the most dangerous, because it could create a civil war among the Shia.”
There is, however, more: some of the deaths, included by the Washington Post in the statistics, are caused by Sunni insurgents fighting against fellow Sunnis. This is considered to be “arguable good and desirable, insofar as less-bad Iraqi nationalist Sunnis” kill “more-bad” Al Qaeda terrorists.
Of course, there is also the Iraqi government which is backing “a dirty war” against Sunni insurgents. This is both “undesirable and unnerving,” but is, ironically enough, “perhaps the major factor” in causing the Sunni-Sunni killings, which - again - aren’t considered to be all that bad.
Furthermore, “some of the deaths are AQ or Iranian-funded terrorism against economic targets – doctor, real-estate agents, trash-workers, professors, etc.” These murders are quite effective in disrupting the economy. These people form the backbone of the Iraqi economy.
Lastly, one has to realize that quite a lot of deaths are caused by “Shia groups’ freelance killing of Sunni civilians, property-owners, doctors, ex-Baathists, Air Force pilots, etc.” These killings are “the most sectarian and destructive.”
So, the question Sudarsan Raghavan should have asked himself is… who are these people and who killed them? If Sunnis want to eliminate Al Qaeda, and if they are doing their best to kill as many Al Qaeda fighters as possible, it is quite logical for the death count to go up, but, in this scenario, more deaths can hardly be considered to be a bad thing; in fact, it would be proof that the new American strategy might be paying off. On the other hand, if the ones being killed are Sunni civilians, doctors, etc., the situation drastically changes; in that case, one might very well argue that the surge is, indeed, not working.
It has to be repeated time and time again: as cold as this may sound, what matters is not how many people are being killed, what matters is who is being killed and why. Over the years, Iraq has become a safe haven for terrorists of all stripes. If one wants to create a stable and democratic Iraq, these terrorists (or insurgents) have to be either kicked out of the country, imprisoned or, yes, eliminated.
Interesting stats about Muslim Americans:
One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.
The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country’s Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.
Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.
While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.
“It is a hair-raising number,” said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.
He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation — a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with
Israel.U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: “People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas.”
Other findings include:
* 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion
* Six in 10 said they are concerned about a rise in Islamic extremism in the U.S., while three in four expressed similar worries about extremism around the world.
Also, directly from Pew:
And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.
Mostly, compared to Muslims living in other Western countries, quite positive stats. On the other hand… that isn’t a compliment.
Marc Schulman: “While Pew considers the finding that two-thirds of an estimated 2.35 million Muslim Americans don’t see a conflict between devotion and modernity, I find it highly disturbing that about 800,000 of them do see a conflict.”
Michelle Malkin: “The AP gets the headline wrong.”
MSNBC reports that an Al Qaeda-led group in Iraq says it is holding American soldiers.
U.S. troops backed by helicopters have been searching for three American soldiers who went missing in an al-Qaida stronghold near Baghdad after an ambush that killed four other U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi army interpreter.
“We will provide the full details of this blessed operation as soon as they are available,” said the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq in a statement posted on the Internet.
If the three are, indeed, taken captive / kidnapped by Al Qaeda, videos will most likely appear soon.
h/t Holly
Pajamas Media reports that Iraqi authorities said that “the leader of al-Qaeda’s political front organization the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, was killed in the Ghazaliya district in western Baghdad this morning.”
The US army declined to comment thusfar, but U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver did say that ‘a news conference would be held later on Thursday to announce the “success” of an operation against al Qaeda. He stressed that the topic would not be Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.”’
I can just repeat / summarize what I wrote when rumor had it that al-Masri was killed: it would be an important strike, it would once again signal / prove that no Al Qaeda member, not even the most important terrorist leaders, are safe: they can be hit, they can be killed, no matter who they are. However, al-Baghdadi will simply be replaced by someone else. Today’s terrorist organizations and especially Al Qaeda are not dependenton one or or even five people. Every single Al Qaeda member is replaceable.
UPDATE
H/t Elrod: the Washington Post has an article up about this as well: it was not al-Baghdadi who was killed, it was Muharib Abdul Latif al-Jabouri a “senior al-Qaeda in Iraq leader who helped orchestrate the kidnappings of American journalist Jill Carroll and Virginia peace activist Tom Fox.”
In a way, this might be more important:
Jabouri was identified as al-Qaeda in Iraq’s senior information minister, responsible for crafting propaganda efforts and coordinating the flow of money and foreign fighters.
Leaders can easily be replaced, or so it seems, but what about those who coordinate the flow of money and are in charge of propaganda? Strangely, sometimes, it is more difficult to replace people like that than the true leaders.
The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq was believed killed in a battle between insurgents north of Baghdad, Iraqi security ministers said on Tuesday, but an al Qaeda-linked group denied the reports.
The United States ambassador to Iraq and the U.S. military said they could not confirm Abu Ayyub al-Masri had been killed.
Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani said “primary information” showed Masri was dead, telling a news conference that details would soon be released to the media.
“Some good news was received about the killing of Abu Ayyub al-Masri … The reliability of this information is high,” Bolani said alongside Defense Minister General Abdel Qader Jassim, who also said Masri was believed killed.
Asked again to confirm Masri was dead, Bolani said: “If he has not been killed today, he will be killed tomorrow.”
If this is true, it is an important victory for America, the Iraqi government and, of course, the Iraqi people. It would be quite a big blow to Al Qaeda. On the other hand, and this is something we must never forget, Al Qaeda does not operate as, say, Germany’s national socialist party did: if Hitler would have been killed it would have effectively meant the end of Nazi power. Al Qaeda, however and sadly, is much ‘bigger’ than any one person. If al-Masri got killed, well, he will simply be replaced.
I wrote if this is true because it is far from sure: the story is not yet confirmed and Think Progress has a post up saying that it is part of a misinformation campaign. Awaiting more information.
More at Captain’s Quarters, The Heretik and Jules Crittenden.
Andrew Sullivan’s Quote for the Day:
“When a newly revitalized al-Qaeda carries out a 9/11-scale attack, you will own that one,” - Senator Kit Bond, yesterday, to his Democratic colleagues in the Senate.
The Saudis have arrested 172 terroristsmilitants. Some of the reportedly “had trained abroad as pilots so they could fly aircraft in attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil fields.” The Interior Ministry ‘issued a statement saying the detainees were planning to carry out suicide atttacks against “public figures, oil facilities, refineries … and military zones” _ some of which were outside the kingdom.’
More:
“They had reached an advance stage of readiness and what remained only was to set the zero hour for their attacks. They had the personnel, the money, the arms. Almost all the elements for terror attacks were complete except for setting the zero hour for the attacks.”
An - obviously - important catch. Besides the 172 extremists, the Saudi police also seized $32.4 million in the operation. The operation is “one of the largest sweeps against terror cells in the kingdoms.”
Not all of the terrorists were Saudis.
The arrested terrorists are, most likely, members of… Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda.
If there is one country filled with extremists and terrorists it is Saudi Arabia. 172 sounds like many terrorists to us, but if the Saudis were to arrest all members of terrorist organizations living in the country, they would have to build a couple of extra prisons.
The Washington Post reports that a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday says that “captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides ‘all confirmed’ that Hussein’s regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.”
The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community’s prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.
Interestingly enough, the report got released on the same day that “Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq ‘before we ever launched’ the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.”
Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, after the U.S. invasion.
Get over it already. There were no (relevant) ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was “not in bed” with Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein did not support Al Qaeda in any significant way. To suggest otherwise is to ignore all evidence surfaced since the war against Iraq started.
More at the Gun Toting Liberal, Liberal Values and The Washington Note.
|
|