• Home Page
• Computer Blog
• Chess Blog
• Exercise & Diet Blog
• Theology Blog
• Islamic Terrorism Blog
• Contact Us

If Musharraf Goes: Assessments and Opportunities

There are reports that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will be stepping down in the next few days in order to avoid impeachment. Musharraf has denied these reports, but the prominence of the rumors indicates strongly that the political balance of power has shifting against Musharraf - he will almost certainly be reduced to a figurehead. It is difficult to say how history will judge Musharraf. From the American perspective he was not adequately taking on Islamic extremism. But from the Pakistani perspective he was becoming an American lackey. The truth is somewhere in between. What Musharraf lacked was either the desire or the capability to take on the systemic problems bedeviling Pakistan. It is possible that with his exit from the scene, a new opportunity to take on these challenges could emerge.

On one level, Musharraf has been cooperative on counter-terror issues, arresting high-profile al-Qaeda and acquiescing to missile strikes on Pakistani territory. However, while missile strikes are a useful tool - they are no substitute for a serious policy. They have also contributed to Musharraf’s loss of standing in Pakistan, since he is seen as subordinating Pakistani sovereignty - and lives (these strikes have, unfortunately, killed civilians) - to American priorities.

On the other hand, Pakistan has not successfully taken control of the tribal areas where al-Qaeda is re-grouping. Americans would be wise to temper their criticism of the Pakistani military’s counter-insurgency efforts.

Read the complete post here.

Quilliam Responds

In July, Maajid Nawaz, the co-director of the London-based Quilliam Foundation, was in Washington, testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and speaking at a number of DC think tanks, including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mr. Nawaz and his colleague Ed Husain -- the author of the fascinating book "The Islamist" -- formed Quilliam as a "a counter extremism think tank” and are now actively attempting to take on the ideology they previously espoused. A summary of Mr. Nawaz's speech at the Washington Institute is available at: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2911

In a July 16 posting, Jeffrey Imm took issue with some of Quilliam's stances, including their support for the grand mufti of Egypt. http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/07/false_reports_on_jihad.php

Mr. Nawaz has written a response to this post and to other criticisms which have been directed at Quilliam. I am posting it on Quilliam's behalf.

"The Right and Wrong Voices," Response by Maajid Nawaz, Co-Director of the Quilliam Foundation

Since being invited to Washington in July 2008, the Quilliam Foundation has received an overwhelming response from supportive voices across the political spectrum. As a result of this work, both Ed Husain and I have been invited to return this September. Our forthcoming trip coincides with Ed Husain’s American launch of his book The Islamist, published by Penguin.

Naturally, and after observing the level of publicity our foundation has enjoyed, some voices have asked more detailed questions about our policies. I have been asked to outline our view on a number of issues ranging from our praise of the Mufti of Egypt, Ali Goma; our stance on a British religious leader Dr. Usama Hassan; our stance on Shari’ah “law” and our selection of Quilliam as a name.

The Quilliam Foundation has no formal links with Mufti Ali Goma of Egypt. However, we have named him on our website as a scholastic giant. Some have asked us whether we know of Mufti Ali Goma’s stance on suicide bombings. Firstly, let me clarify that our view on suicide bombings is on the record. We have explicitly condemned the deliberate targeting of non-combatants, in Israel or anywhere else in the world. Ed Husain directly criticised Qardawi’s fatwa justifying suicide bombings whilst in Qatar for the Doha Debates. Furthermore, I personally challenged Azzam Tamimi - Hamas representative in the UK - on this matter in a studio debate on BBC’s flagship Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman:

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/173

It follows, therefore, that we would naturally be concerned if figures we have named as ‘scholastic giants’ were to be discovered as supporting such actions. On July 30th 2008 a letter was sent to Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice by two prominent and respected Senators, Tom Coburn and Jon Kyl. In this letter, the Senator’s referred to a 2003 article in Egypt’s “Al-Haqiqa” newspaper quoting Ali Goma defending terrorist acts in Israel. The respected Senator’s have cited Rabinowitz, Beila and William Mayer from their paper entitled “State Department Funding ISNA’s Propagation of Islam via citizen exchange program” (Pipe Line News, 25 April 2008) as a reference for this allegation against Ali Goma.

Since these questions were raised I did my own research. I have found this source referred to by Rabinowitz, Beila and William Mayer. It is a secondary source that does not quote Ali Goma directly. Rather surprisingly, it is also a Wahabite-Islamist source, being a newspaper that explicitly promotes a Shari’ah-law based Caliphate and attacks Shi’ah Muslims as heretics. I felt, therefore, that it would be helpful for people to know who they are being asked to rely on for evidence. The following extract is taken from an article stating that by far the biggest ‘danger to Islam’ in Egypt is the modernising agenda of Mufti Ali Goma, due to his articulate, learned and popular approach to reform issues:

http://www.haqeeqa.com/index.aspx?status=prodetail&aid=690

يكتسب مصداقية بمخالفة الرأي الرسمي للحكومة والدولة مثل رأيه في العمليات الاستشهادية مثلاً واعتبار من يقول بحرمتها أنه حمار ـ أعزكم الله ـ وذلك بعد تصريح شيخ الأزهر بأنها انتحار محرم بأقل من أسبوع, في تحدي واضح لرأس المؤسسة الدينية في مصر

He (Ali Goma) is not like his predecessor, whose religion was simply the religion of the government of the day. If such a government made something permissible (Halal), he too would make it permissible. If they were to deem something forbidden (Haram), so would he. Consequently, he (Ali Goma) tries to win over credibility by conflicting with the official state and government opinion on matters. An example of this is his opinion on martyrdom [sic] operations, and his view that those who consider them prohibited are like donkeys - may God dignify you. As a clear challenge to the head of Egypt’s theological institution, Ali Goma’s proclamation came after the statement made by the Mufti of Azhar, by less than a week, holding that such operations are to be considered prohibited suicide (Haram).

Contrary to this secondary, hostile and extremist Wahhabist-Islamist source above, we have Mufti Ali Goma’s own words. Below, he explicitly condemns suicide bombings as quoted by him directly in a reliable and professional American news magazine, Newsweek:

As for suicide bombing, Islam forbids suicide; it forbids the taking of one’s own life. In addition, Islam forbids aggression against others. Attacking civilians, women, children, and the elderly by blowing oneself up is absolutely forbidden in Islam. No excuse can be made for the crimes committed in New York, Spain, and London, and anyone who tries to make excuses for these acts is ignorant of Islamic law (shari’ah), and their excuses are a result of extremism and ignorance

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/sheikh_ali_gomah.html

To clarify, my claim is not that Mufti Ali Goma categorically did not support suicide bombings. In the citation above, for example, he did not explicitly mention Israel. My claim is, rather, that the evidence available and cited is definitely insufficient to popularise such a serious accusation at this moment. Mufti Ali Goma must stand innocent until proven guilty. If proven to have endorsed such a tactic, the Quilliam Foundation will be the first to concede his serious and grave error, but we will not accept it based upon Wahhabite-Islamists’ say so, and consequently Goma’s own and general condemnation in Newsweek still stands.

On the matter of support for Ali Goma, it seems rather ironic that right-wing critics share their worries over our stance, probably to their horror, with Marxists on the far-left such as the UK Guardian’s Seamus Milne, who cites the same concern in a scathing attack on our Foundation’s work here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/islam.race

Moving on, another question raised has been that of our gratitude for having Dr. Usama Hassan as one of our official advisors. Dr. Usama Hassan has also travelled the same path of extremism in his youth, only to mature into a progressive and enlightened voice for moderation today. He recently participated alongside Ed Hussain in an official Foreign Office delegation to Egypt to represent a more British understanding of our faith, and is now one of the leading theological voices for British Islam.

Concerns have been raised about Dr Usama’s father, Shaikh Shu’aib Hassan, who is a very conservative voice amongst Britain’s Muslim communities. Suffice to say that Dr Usama is not his father, and Shaikh Shu’aib is not Dr Usama. Dr Usama respectfully disagrees with his father on many of the problematic issues of our day. On the Caliphate, Dr Usama Hassan has stated clearly, and without reservation, in his Quilliam Foundation launch speech - only 10 minutes long and on our website - that he believes in Secularism, and that secularism was indeed always a part of traditional Islam.

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/component/content/article/51-video/150 )

Consequently, Dr Usama believes in using the name Caliphate to reclaim Muslim secularism through it, as he believes that past Caliphates always were secular in nature. The Quilliam Foundation is concerned with substantively challenging those who wish to adopt Shari’ah as state law, not with those who merely use the word Caliphate to mean a secular state; for that would be an exercise in semantics. On this note, it is perhaps pertinent to state that the Quilliam Foundation has time and time again criticised and challenged those who call for ‘Islamist Supremacism’, or the belief that the Shari’ah must be dominant as state law.

Another question raised by some quarters is the concern that William Quilliam, after whom we named our foundation, was an Islamist. Right-wing commentator’s may again be horrified to learn that this claim was first made by the far-left in the UK alongside Hizb ut-Tahrir UK activists in their desperate claim to traditional legitimacy.

Such an anachronistic allegation has already been dealt with on our website. We believe that William Quilliam was a political activist who had no ideological agenda, and no ideology. He hailed from a time of empire and thus spoke and behaved in accordance to the imperial politics of his day. In a typically British manner, he engaged in localised charity and localised politics, challenging his government where necessary. The Quilliam Foundation is not interested in making Muslims apolitical. We are solely interested in encouraging Muslims to engage politically as citizens, challenging where necessary, but with no ideological baggage. I am sure that readers can differentiate between the need for genuine checks and balances and between avoiding an ideologically driven fifth columnist approach. Naturally, like all, William Quilliam was a prisoner to the discourse of the era in which he was born. At no stage, however, did he make the Islamist claim that Islam was a political ideology, unlike the later founders of Islamism; Banna, Nabhani and Qutb. A rebuttal of the anachronistic claim that he was an Islamist is found on our website here:

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/BritainsFirstMuslimActivist.htm

In conclusion, we ask that people on the left and right join with us in our commitment to encourage true pluralism in Muslim political discourse, to support non-Islamist voices, to challenge the ideology and discourse of Islamism and to engender normal politics as alternatives to Islamism. As far as practicable, the right people must be encouraged and the wrong ones must be criticised. We caution that this work, vital though it is, must be tempered with a jealous protection of our liberties, especially freedom of religion and thought, rigorous academic standards and a deep understanding of the theological, ideological and social states of Islam and Muslims today. If we fail in these lofty standards we risk tarnishing the liberal alternative and losing the authority to speak as well as the moral high-ground from which to invite others.

U.S. Appeals Court: The Saudis Immune from 9/11 Lawsuit (A Royal Screwing)

Victims of 9/11 attack, families, receive "A Royal Screwing" from oil pimps, terror financiers

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

15 August 2008: Yesterday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey that keeps Saudi Arabia and four of its princes immune from legal action by victims of the September 11 attacks. The defendants are accused of providing material support to al-Qaeda by financing the terror operations through Muslim charities. Also immune from prosecution is a Saudi banker and charity.

In its 67-page decision, the three judge panel found that the defendants were protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Under the Act, foreign governments are immune from prosecution unless it can be proved that they actively supported terrorist groups. Further, the court also stated that exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the US state department.

France: End of the Mitterand Doctrine?

Over the last few weeks French and Italian sources have spoken of the possible end of the so-called “Mitterand doctrine.” The doctrine, created in the early 1980s by then French President François Mitterrand, granted asylum to those members of the Red Brigades and other Italian left-wing terrorist groups who renounced violence, or, as Mitterand said in a famous speech in 1985, “broke with the infernal machine” of terrorism. Despite predictable and intense criticism from Italian authorities, the policy has been observed by all French government after Mitterand, whether socialist or conservative. Since the 1980s many (some claim more than three hundred) Italian militants have benefited from the policy, creating a new life for themselves across the Alps. For many of them the statute of limitations has run out and they are, therefore, free from the reach of Italian justice. But others, whom Italian authorities sentenced to life in prison or want for crimes to which the statute of limitations does not apply, have not been so lucky.

Since 2002, in fact, Italian authorities have engaged in a new legal/political battle to obtain the extradition of some of the militants. Two high-profile assassinations carried out by the so-called New Red Brigades led the Italians to re-focus their attention on left-wing terrorism and some links to militants who had received asylum in France were uncovered. A list of a dozen names, some of them accused of still being engaged in terrorism, was handed by the Italians to their French counterparts and new extradition requests were lodged. The requests triggered complicated and highly controversial legal battles in French courts. While no militant had been extradited until then, in 2002 French authorities handed over Paolo Persichetti, who had been sentenced in Italy to 22 years for his role in the 1987 assassination of Air Force General Licio Giorgieri. In March 2005, the French State Council expressly stated that the Mitterand doctrine had no legal value. Most recently, Nicolas Sarkozy has declared that the Mitterand doctrine goes against the spirit of judicial cooperation between European countries and declared his intention of breaking with it. Right now French judicial authorities are deciding the complicated case of former Red Brigades member Marina Petrella, convicted for murder by Italy in 1992, jailed by France in August 2007 after 15 year in the country, and currently awaiting extradition to Italy. Sarkozy has expressed his desire to extradite Petrella, but also asked Italian President Giorgio Napolitano to pardon the former Red Brigades militant (the move has led some French leftists to dub Sarkozy as a modern day Pontius Pilate…).

Western countries providing asylum/tolerating the presence of terrorists wanted in other Western countries and even turning a blind eye to their continued activities is hardly a French exclusive. The now popular term “Londonistan” was coined (together with Beirut-on-the-Thames) in the mid-1990s, ironically, by French intelligence officials upset at the British government’s policy of harboring Islamist terrorists, including those who France deemed responsible for the 1995 bombings of the Paris metro. By the same token, Britain has had similar complaints towards the attitude of the U.S. government. London has accused Washington of providing a safe haven for Irish terrorists from as early as the 1850s, when hundred of “Fenians” formed groups in the United States to carry out attacks against Britain. And Italians, who have been so quick at criticizing the French, tolerated the activities of Palestinian terrorists on their soil for decades (just yesterday Italian daily Corriere della Sera ran an interesting interview with former PFLP spokesman Bassam Abu Sharif in which the militant openly recounted how Italian secret services allowed his and other Palestinian groups to operate in the country and transport weapons in exchange for the promise not to attack Italy—the fact has been recently confirmed by former Italian President and Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, who even said that the 1980 bombing of the Bologna station, which killed 85 people, could have been the result of the accidental detonation of two suitcases of explosives Palestinian militants were transporting by train).

The Mitterand doctrine presents differences from these cases, as its precondition was that only those who renounced violence could benefit from it. Its defenders claim that the Italian militants who have moved to France under its auspices have built families and lived a peaceful life since then and cannot pay for crimes committed more than 30 years earlier. Moreover, they claim that the French state cannot fail to maintain its promise and turn its back on those who relied on its word 25 years ago. Its critics counter these arguments with the right of the victims’ families to see justice been served. Moreover, judicial cooperation on extraditions and the respect of other member countries’ sentences have become cornerstones of the EU counter-terrorism strategy and the Mitterand doctrine runs directly athwart them. Soon France will decide on the Petrella case and, probably, on other similar, showing which argument will prevail.

South Ossetia: The perfect wrong war

I am posting an article I titled "South Ossetia, the Perfect Wrong War." In the current hot debate about the South Ossetia-Georgia conflict there are two main trends in the West:

1. Western frustration: To consider Russia's aggressive response as part of a renewed Cold war and thus a signal for the West to mobilize against the Russians, again.

2. Anti-American Critics: To consider US policy as responsible for this and other crises and thus the need to change this policy.

3. Strategic Wisdom: I am suggesting a third way to look at it through the big picture of our War on Terror and how to deal with such conflicts. This thesis may not attractive to the previous main trends, but it would be wise to consider in a post 9/11 era.

The ongoing debate in the West and particularly in the US is showing revealing trends. The critics of the War on terror blame the US. The supporters of the War on Terror split in two camps. One platform recommending an all out mobilization against Moscow, while the Coalition is battling the Jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan and dealing with Iran. And another platform advising to smartly contain the current crisis with Russia and focus on the confrontation with the Jihadi forces. The latter forces of course would be delighted to see the US engaging in two global conflicts instead of one. They will be delighted even more, if the US (and the West) would suspend the War on Terror and re-engage in a new Cold war. Here is the essay.

New Reports on Security Progress & Lack of Political Reconciliation in Iraq

A written report released yesterday and an oral briefing provide expert and eyewitness testimony about the security improvements in Iraq and the potential that lack of political progress could imperil the country's security and result in a renewed Sunni insurgency.

John Nagl, Colin Kahl, and Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security briefed a group of invited guests on their findings during their recent trip to Iraq. They traveled there at the invitation of General Petraeus and received high-level briefings, visited multiple provinces, and spoke with numerous Iraqi politicians and citizens. Nagl recently retired after 20 years in the U.S. Army, and his last assignment was as Commanding Officer of 1st Battalion, 34th Armor at Fort Riley, Kansas. He led a tank platoon in Operation Desert Storm and served as the operations officer of a tank battalion task force in Operation Iraqi Freedom. A West Point graduate and Rhodes Scholar, Nagl earned his doctorate from Oxford University, and contributed to the Army's new Counterinsurgency Field Manual.

They discussed the continued operations near Mosul against Al Qaeda, whose attacks there was discussed on August 4 and on May 31 by Evan Kohlmann. Al Qaeda is estimated to have 800-900 personnel near Mosul. Although infiltration from Anbar province has been sharply reduced, more US combat forces might be needed in Mosul, in part because we are not yet seeing the local support that we have received in Anbar. Overall, the north is still in the "clearing" phase, one to two years behind the rest of country. Al Qaeda is more sophisticated there than it was in Anbar; they aren't targeting civilians (see Evan's May 3 post on the allegations by other Sunni groups) and they're positioning themselves as "protectors of the Sunni way of life" against "Kurdish ambitions."

They three described the security improvements in Iraq brought about by the surge as "remarkable," and Al Qaeda and Iranian militant groups have been degraded and are not a viable strategic threat at this point. But their opinion is that very few of the fundamental political grievances have been resolved.

They described Prime Minister Maliki as "slowrolling" the integration of Sunnis and not reconciling with the most important Sunni groups. They cited the lack of accommodation with the "Sons of Iraq" (SoI), a group of thousands of Sunnis with whom U.S. forces have forged constructive relationships in the past two years. We are paying many of the SoI and want to place 16,000 into the Iraqi Security Forces by the end of this year, but the Interior Ministry has accepted only 600 so far (see this Long War Journal article on the SoI and this National Review Online article in March). The briefers described a vetting process by which we give the Interior Ministry the names of candidates, but only Shia candidates are accepted, not the SoI.

The latest edition of "The Iraq Report" by the Institute for the Study of War and the Weekly Standard details the positive impact of the U.S.-SoI relationship in clearing Al Qaeda out of Diyala.

Rethinking Russia on Terrorism Issues

I am not a Russia expert and defer to Robert Kagan and others to paint the macro picture of what Russia's incursion into Georgia means.

But there are several issues, outside of these, that need to be looked at in terms of Russia in the greater world, and our relationship to Russia, particularly in counter-terrorism and weapons proliferation issues.

What is clear is that Russia is set on selling weapons to those who want very badly to hurt us, and who buy their weapons with the stated purpose of using them for that.

Everyone sells weapons, and yes, the United States plays in the game. But Russia's willingness to arm non-state actors and states that are facing international sanction is qualitatively different.

The three clearest examples are the arming Hezbollah in the summer 2006 conflict (courtesy of their favorite delivery person with almost-plausible deniability, Viktor Bout); Venezuela, which recently purchased an additional $2 billion worth of weapons from Russia, in addition to the $4.4 billion already purchased in the past four years-including two AK-47 factories; and Iran, receiving advanced missile systems.

As noted above, Chavez's pitch for purchasing the weapons was the formation of an anti-US coalition with strategic interests in Latin America. My full blog is here.

Possible Chemical Attack Planned at Democractic National Convention?

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

13 August 2008: The FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Colorado State Police, the Colorado National Guard, and various other state and local law enforcement agencies are involved in investigating the death of a man found in a Denver hotel on Monday. Saleman Adbirahman DIRIE, 29, a Somalian native who had been living in Canada, was dead for at least six days when found inside room 408 at the Burnsley Hotel, 1000 Grant Street, Denver, Colorado.

<b<According to a law enforcement source exclusive to the Northeast Intelligence Network, "a significant quantity of a substance that field tested positive as cyanide was found inside his hotel room." This law enforcement source stated that "police found two large bottles of a powdered cyanide-based substance inside of the room, in addition to other materials consistent with the storage and handling of cyanide."

According to authorities, no passport was found on Dirie or inside of his room.

The Burnsley Hotel is located about four blocks from the State Capitol building, and not far from many events associated with the Democratic National Convention scheduled in Denver later this month.

Despite the circumstances surrounding his death, authorities are downplaying the incident and are being intentionally vague about the identification of the substance. According to public news sources, FBI Special Agent in Charge James Davis stated "that nothing so far has been found to link the case to terrorism or the coming convention."

Assessing the Fight against al Qaeda

This afternoon, the Washington Institute hosted Ted Gistaro, the National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats as part of its 2007-2008 lecture series with senior US government counterterrorism officials. Mr. Gistaro provided a comprehensive assessment on how the US and its allies are doing, nearly seven years after the September 11 attacks, in its efforts to defeat al Qaeda.

Here is an excerpt of Mr. Gistaro's prepared remarks:

We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qaeda to attack the United States and our allies and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland in particular as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These security measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11. That said, al-Qaeda remains the most serious terrorist threat to the United States, and we remain in the heightened threat environment we noted in the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate.

• We are not aware of any specific, credible al-Qaeda plot to attack the U.S. homeland. But we do receive a steady stream of threat reporting from sources of varying creditability, which the U.S. Intelligence Community is investigating aggressively.

• As the election nears, we expect to see an uptick in such threat reporting -- of varying credibility -- regarding possible attacks.

• We also expect to see an increase in al-Qaeda's propaganda efforts, especially around the anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001, which has often been a hook for such propaganda statements. In Osama bin Laden's September 2007 address to the "American people," he labeled the democratic system "a failure." He claimed that there is no difference between Democratic or Republican candidates winning presidential or congressional elections so long as "big corporations" support candidates.

We assess that al-Qaeda's intent to attack the U.S. homeland remains undiminished. Attack planning continues and we assess it remains focused on hitting prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, and significant economic and political aftershocks.

To read the rest of Mr. Gistaro's prepared remarks click here:

Head of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan Reported Killed in Pakistan

Media sources are reporting that Pakistan security forces have killed the general head of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Shaykh Mustafa Abu al-Yazid (a.k.a. “Shaykh Saeed” and "Abu Saeed al-Masri"), in in a clash in the Bajaur tribal area in northwestern Pakistan. If confirmed, this would be a major triumph for Pakistani forces and an important blow to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Evan Kohlmann reported in his NEFA Foundation dossier posted on June 6, al-Yazid was a co-founder of al-Qaida in 1989 and is considered quite close to Al-Qaida Deputy Commander Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. He has been implicated by other Al-Qaida members in sworn testimony as playing a critical role in the financing and coordination of Al-Qaida’s international terrorist operations, including allegedly the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. It was al-Yazid who made numerous important announcements from al Qaeda to the world, including al Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the June 2 suicide bombing attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan and the recent killing of Egyptian Al-Qaida commander "Abu Khabab al-Masri" (a.k.a. Midhat Mursi al-Sayyid Umar) in a U.S. airstrike.

As with all media reports of the deaths of major al Qaeda figures, we need to wait for confirmation of al-Yazid's death. The SITE Intelligence Group reports, "Jihadists on password-protected al-Qaeda-affiliated forums such as al-Ekhlaas and al-Hesbah have expressed their skepticism with the reports of Yazid’s death, and await confirmation from al-Qaeda or al-Fajr Media Center."

NEFA Foundation Photo of al-Yazid

Al Qaeda in Gaza?

Part of the three-part piece that I am writing for the Middle East Times on Al Qaeda's opportunistic strategy, I explored today Al Qaeda's alleged presence in Gaza.
In case you missed the first part, you can read it here.

You can read today's whole article here.
Here is an excerpt:

One of the alleged al-Qaida linked terror groups is the 400-man strong Army of Islam (AI). AI emerged for the first time in June 2006 with the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, in conjunction with Hamas. AI then claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of BBC journalist Alan Johnston in Gaza. While the organization denies being a part of al-Qaida, it acknowledges that it is influenced by al-Qaida, but does not have direct links to it.

Another of these jihadist groups that have recently surfaced, the Army of Believers, is holding the same speech: "We have no organic links with al-Qaida, but we share its ideology. Our goal is not only to liberate Palestine, but to spread Islam everywhere." It is obviously difficult to know how far the connection goes with al-Qaida, but what is sure is that there is a breeding ground in Gaza for such groups. In fact, according to Samir Zoquout, from the Human rights group al-Mezan: "One cannot say if al-Qaida is really present here, but more and more groups are adopting its radical ideology, sometimes as a cover for criminal activities."

But there is a worrisome trend: these jihadist groups are gaining strength. The jihadists feed on the decision of Hamas to become a party in government, in a territory where the Sharia (Islamic law) is not applied. Also some are very unhappy about the recent truce concluded with Israel.

Therefore, Hamas has lost members of its armed wing to the Brigades of Allah or the Islamic Army of Jerusalem that killed a Palestinian Christian and attacked an American school, which was holding a show featuring a coed crowd of boys and girls aged six to 12. In this attack, one bodyguard was killed and seven people were injured including three children after the terrorists started shooting.

But that is not all: the French daily Le Figaro recently revealed that a few dozen foreigners, including half a dozen Frenchmen, entered from Egypt in January 2008, during the 11 days when the border with Gaza was forced open.

A Look At the Resignation of Mazen Asbahi and the Muslim Brotherhood

In the week since the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (free registration required) revealed the ties of Mazen Asbahi to Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups and his immediate resignation as an adviser to the Obama campaign, it has been fascinating to watch the Brotherhood response, particularly those of CAIR and the Muslim Student Association.

This is relevant because of the MB's historical ties to radical Islamist terrorism and the ties of members of legacy groups in the United States to multiple terrorist cases, investigations, etc. The line of inquiry would have been just as valid had Mr. Asbahi surfaced in the McCain camp, or any major political campaign.

(For a more complete look at these groups and their history in the United States, see this report I did for the NEFA Foundation during the Holy Land Foundation trial).

The tactics have been familiar to any who follow these groups: attack the messenger, despite the fact that the postings simply laid out Mr. Ashbahi's multiple ties to MB groups, based on SEC filing and public records-and made no allegations of any illegality or impropriety; attack the Wall Street Journal and Glenn Simpson for following up on the report, and having the nerve to call Mr. Asbahi for comment (which is now described as a right-wing expose-in-the-making, as if belonging to FOUR-not one MB groups, as has been widely reported-were not worthy of comment, or a story when the resignation happened); blame the media et al for Mr. Asbahi's resignation, as if an e-mailed question about the relationship from a journalist were somehow an unacceptable practice in seeking information; and paint the entire thing as anti-Muslim bash-fest by the far right (see this wildly inaccurate and deceptive piece by James Zogby in the Huffington Post; and, finally, fail to address ANY of the substantive issues such associations raise.

For a good critique of the Zogby piece and its factual misrepresentations of the original piece, go here.

One of the favorite tactics is to paint those pushing back against CAIR et al as right-wing zealots. Fortunately, that is not true, although it resonates among many in the Obama camp because it paints the issue, falsely, as one of civil rights.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who recently invited Steve Emerson to testify at a hearing where I was also a witness, refused to buckle to the the groups' pressure tactics and protests aimed a silencing Emerson. See this Action Alert for a taste of their language.

Sens. Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer and Richard Durbin-hardly the right-wing fringe of American politics-have distanced themselves from CAIR and other MB groups, and noted the ties to terrorism and HAMAS. So, another lie, but one that lives on. My full blog, including a reprint of the GMBDR factual outline of events, can be found here.

Russia’s military offensive against Georgia: Preparations for regional war?

Could this be part of a larger military strategy in the run-up to a confrontation with Iran?

Russian military bombs vital oil pipeline that supplies the West

Russia expands military blitz against Georgia - deploys ships

U.S. moves two new carrier groups to the Persian Gulf region

Kuwait finalizing "emergency war plan" as U.S. ships head to Gulf

Over 2,000 killed in fighting in South Ossetia

11 August 2008: A very disturbing confluence of events is currently taking place on the world stage, events that have the possibility of changing the course of our world as we know it. Tensions are mounting over Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions and their intent on the destruction of Israel. The U.S. has deployed two new carrier groups to the Persian Gulf region. At the same time, Russia is mounting an offensive against the independent state of Georgia. The man behind the offensive appears to be the “Big Bear” himself - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The Republic of Georgia is an ally of the West, and wants Russian troops out of the country. They desire to join NATO and want to allow the U.S. to place missile defense batteries on their soil. For expressing their desire to join NATO, Russia imposed a military blockade against Georgia in 2006. Earlier that year, in the midst of a severe winter, oil supply pipelines serving the population of Georgia were sabotaged, with many fingers pointing to Russia as the culprit. Many analysts stated that Russia was behind the attacks, which served as a warning to Georgia NOT to ally themselves with the West or join NATO.

What is the importance of Georgia?

To understand the importance of the control of the Republic of Georgia, one has to take a few steps back and view the larger global picture. Remove the blinders and rose-colored glasses, and dispel all fallacious notions that the current Russian leadership is a friend of the West.

The Republic of Georgia is an important gateway for future Russian military operations, especially those involving Turkey, Syria, and Iran. As tensions continue to mount between Israel and Iran as well as the U.S., Russia, apparently still under the ever-influential control of Putin, is not about to sit idly on the sidelines.

The Republic of Georgia is strategically located between Russia and Turkey, the latter an Islamic country that will likely side against Israel in a future regional conflict. With the Republic of Georgia under the control of Russia, Russian involvement in a regional offensive against Israel for taking action against Iran can be more readily accomplished.

Interestingly, such a scenario coincides with Biblical prophecies like those depicted in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

Apply Kosovo’s model to South Ossetia?

The conflict over South Ossetia -and possibly over Abkhazia's- regions is dangerous development in international stability and particularly for the efforts deployed worldwide in the campaign against Terror forces. For this local ethnic and territorial confrontation, involving now Georgia and the Russian Federation has the potential of absorbing energies and resources, otherwise needed and applied elsewhere in resisting Jihadi offensives and networks.

Georgia is an important ally in the US-led coalition overseeing the stabilization of Iraq and the containing of Khomeinist offensive in that country. An escalation over South Ossetia and Abkhazia will lead (and has already significantly) to a full withdrawal of Georgia from Iraq and eventually drawing US and other Western diplomatic efforts and resources for the defense of Georgia in the Caucuses. This will weaken the position in Iraq, in the Middle East and open an unnecessary front in a different region against a superpower, also drawn into the conflict because of local conflicts.

Russia and the West have a series of disagreement on the "War on Terror" so far. Moscow and Washington didn't see eye to eye in Iraq and are not at ease on the issue of anti-missiles systems in central Europe. It is not wise, strategically to open a military front -via proxies- against the Russian Federation in the Caucuses. While many in Washington and Brussels are still in Cold War mood, we need to realize that present day Russia is also at war with the Jihadi-Wahabi networks. Beyond and above the Chechen crisis, al Qaeda and the Salafi combat movement -chief enemy of the West (US and Western Europe combined) wants Russia down as much as they wish to see liberal democracies defeated. Thus, it is not in the interest of the US-led efforts against worldwide Jihadi forces to engage in a strategic confrontation with Russia, despite all the latter's negative behavior on many issues worldwide. The West needs to rationalize fully at this stage where the so-called "War on terror" is not going extremely well.

Thus it is suggested to move forward and quickly with two main parameters: On the one hand stand by Georgia as a staunch ally of the West and make sure its sovereignty and security are protected. On the other hand stop any potential conflict with Russia in the Caucuses and find a solution which would bring justice to the local parties and encourage Moscow to divert its resources from borders crisis to a world campaign against what is more dangerous to all democracies -old ones and transitional ones. This last effort may not be easy but is crucial if we wish to keep the focus on the greater conflict against Jihadist totalitarianism. Hence, it is suggested to quickly apply in South Ossetia what Americans and Europeans have applied in Kosovo so that local wounds are healed and regional stability is reaffirmed. Here is the model based on the Balkans resolution process.

Massive Explosion Rocks Toronto

10 August 2008: A series of explosions - some massive - set a propane distribution depot located in the Wilson Avenue and Keele Street area of Toronto, Ontario Canada ablaze at about 3:30 this morning.

Amateur Video Here

A portion of the 401 between the DVP/404 and Hwy. 400 has been closed, as well as all ramps exiting and entering that part of the highway. A no-fly zone has also been declared above the area.

Developing...

Islamic Landscape: South and South East Asia

My paper titled "South Asia: Hotbed of Islamic Terrorism", published in the latest issue of the NBR Analysis (The National Bureau of Asian Research, Vol. 19 (4), August 2008, explores the rising menace of Islamic extremism in South Asia while discussing key terrorist groups, networks, and emerging terrorism trends throughout the region.

South Asia has been confronting the challenge of Islamic extremism for many years. At least four South Asian countries—India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and, most recently, the Maldives (each with large Muslim populations)—are considered hotbeds of Islamic terrorism. In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, radical Islamic forces aim to establish Islamic states based on Islamic laws. This region has the highest concentration of Islamic jihadist groups in the world: a rough estimate is that nearly one hundred Islamic extremist groups and jihadi organizations with cross-border linkages are operating with impunity throughout South Asia. India tops the list with more than 50 active or dormant terrorist tanzeems (organizations). Several anti-India and anti-Hindu Islamic groups fighting in Kashmir are based in Pakistan or Bangladesh. Many of these groups have ties with international jihadi organizations based in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan, including al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

This essay explores how South Asian countries, in particular India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, are grappling with Islamic extremism, especially since the catastrophic events of September 11. This essay identifies major terrorist groups and discusses intricate terror networks, their operational developments, and emerging terrorist trends in three country-specific sections. Despite concerted efforts by government forces, including the U.S.-led campaign in South Asia, Islamic terrorism is on the rise, with a new generation of terrorist leaders taking the reins of jihad in their hands throughout the region. The essay also finds that South Asian terrorist groups increasingly prefer to work collectively, even when there is little ideological convergence among their objectives.

The issue titled Aspects of Islamism in South and Southeast Asia has three papers:

Introduction: Islamism and U.S. Policy in South and Southeast Asia by Robert W. Hefner
South Asia: Hotbed of Islamic Terrorism by Animesh Roul
The Fluid Terrain of Islamism in Southeast Asia by Joseph Chinyong Liow

China discovers al Qaeda in its backyard

In a video accusing China’s Communist Government of “mistreating Muslims” a Jihadi group threatened to attack the Summer Games in Beijin. A spokesman of the Turkistan Islamic Party accuses China of “forcing Muslims into atheism and destroying Islamic schools. The “Turkistan Islamic Party” is most likely based across the border in Pakistan, where sources affirm it received training from Al Qaeda.

Weeks ago the organization claimed responsibility for a bombings across the country. The latest video shows graphics of a burning Olympics logo and explosions. This week, attackers killed 16 police and wounded more than a dozen in the Xinjiang city of Kashgar using homemade bombs.

But according to AP reports few months ago, Chinese Police broke up a terror plot targeting the Beijing Olympics while a flight crew foiled attempt to crash a Chinese plane. Per Communist Party officials in the North Western province of Xinjiang, materials seized in a January 27 raid in the regional capital, Urumqi, suggested the plotters' planned "specifically to sabotage the staging of the Beijing Olympics." Earlier reports said police found guns, homemade bombs, training materials and "extremist religious ideological materials" during the January raid in Urumqi, in which two members of the gang were killed and 15 arrested. The immediate question becomes: Is China targeted by a Terror organization? And since the material found was characterized as “extremist religious ideological”, does that mean it is al Qaeda or one of its affiliate? The answer to these questions could change the face of geopolitics in Asia.

Interestingly the Associated Press runs to frame the Terrorists to a local ethnic conflict in one of China’s Western provinces. AP wrote: “Chinese forces have for years been battling a low-intensity separatist movement among Xinjiang's Uighurs, a Turkic Muslim people who are culturally and ethnically distinct from China's Han majority.” The news agency has tried to set the agenda of the debate by scoring three points for the “radicals.” They are separatists, they are representative of a local ethnicity and they are Muslim. In addition the description of the struggle is informative: Chinese forces versus a Uighur movement. In a way a parallel to Kosovo, Chechnya and Kashmir with two projected effects. As framed by AP, the struggle of these “Terrorists” is indeed legitimate even though the means are violent. But is it the case?

Evidently the Chinese Communists are repressive against all other minorities and political dissidents. But as in Russia and India’s Wahabi cases, one would investigate if these particular Terrorists in China are local patriotic elements with liberal outlook. Not really. As under the Russians in Chechnya it looks like the Communists in China are battling another form of totalitarianism to come: Jihadism.

1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings and Denial on Jihad’s Ideology

Ten years ago, on August 7, 1998, Al-Qaeda conducted simultaneous car bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Over 250 died in these attacks, including 10 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, and 6000 were reported injured. The August 7, 2008 East African Standard reports that new intelligence reports show that the Al-Qaeda terrorists planned in Nairobi "to use a device twice as big as the one that exploded." The Kenyan Daily Nation reported that 300 of the injured subsequently died. The majority of the victims of the embassy bombings were African civilians.

But despite that terrible human tragedy and the thousands of pages of documents, indictments, reports, and studies on the 1998 embassy bombings, we still have many today who refuse to confront the ideology behind Jihadist terrorism.

On the 10th anniversary of this tragedy, Kenyan Prime Minister Raila sought to reassure Kenyans that "this Government will do everything possible to prevent us from ever again being attacked." The Kenyan Daily Nation further reported that the prime minister also would not face any "specific groups" that might support such a Jihadist ideology. Prime Minister Raila did not offer any initiatives to challenge the ideologies of Islamic supremacism or Islamism that provides the basis for Jihadist action, but instead focused of "extremism" and "disaffection" as the causes for this tragedy.

As reported by the August 7, 2008 Daily Nation, Prime Minister Raila indicated: "But he ruled out the possibility of targeting specific groups on the war on terror, saying it would be counter-productive. 'It would generate the very disaffection and extremism on which terror thrives. It would be sheer madness to target it, or its followers. Kenya will never do so. Our sole target is terrorists.'" The Kenya Broadcasting Corporation also reported: "He dispelled allegations that the terrorists were acting in the name of Islam, or that the government's anti-terror efforts were directed at Muslims. Raila said the whole world knew that Islam was a religion of peace, adding that its very name was derived from peace."

AFP also reported that President Bush observed the anniversary of the attacks by stating that it "reinforces the need to confront the terrorists, to work with our allies to bring them to justice, and to prevent such attacks from happening again." Meantime, the U.S. 2008 National Defense Strategy is based solely on fighting "extremists," in keeping with the DHS/NCTC "terror lexicon" recommendations on not using any terms such as "Jihad," "Islamist," etc.

The alleged Al-Qaeda mastermind of the 1998 embassy bombings, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, remains at large. In addition, at least seven others named in the embassy bombing indictment are also at large. Four of the Al-Qaeda bombers were sentenced to life in prison in 2001, and two are reportedly being held at Guantanamo Bay detention center (Ahmed Ghailani and Mamdouh Mahmud Salim). The Guardian reported on August 4, 2008 that "Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who has a $5m bounty from the US on his head, was reported to have left his hideout in the coastal resort town of Malindi shortly before a raid on Saturday night." In an ongoing manhunt in Kenya for Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, police have subsequently arrested five and are seeking another man for questioning.

With the 10th anniversary of the U.S. embassy bombings and ongoing manhunt for Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Kenyan Daily Nation has been publishing a series of reports that are allegedly from a diary kept by Fazul that was on a laptop captured by the Kenyan authorities. On August 4 and August 5, the Daily Nation published stories "Diary of a terrorist: Fazul's journey to Pakistan," "Fazul's military quest lands him in Afghanistan," and "Fazul joins camp to begin Jihad." In the alleged diary excepts, Fazul reportedly states that he was led to Islamic supremacism by "the Sudanese school of thought [that] emerged... [that] consisted of a mixture of Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist ideas." (This is the same Muslim Brotherhood that Peter Mandaville has urged engagement with in West Point publications and the same Salafists that Matthew Levitt has suggested "have credibility when it comes to deradicalizing others.") In addition, the McClatchy newspaper chain has done a feature article on the Daily Nation's "Diary of a terrorist" series. These "diary" reports could certainly be apocryphal. But legitimate or not, the willingness of the Daily Nation to publish such anti-American screeds without also offering a challenge to the ideology of the Islamic supremacism behind them is troubling.

The alleged diary quotes by embassy bomber Fazul Abdullah Mohammed reportedly include: "We must, of course, raise our children with the love of jihad. We have to raise a new generation with an education totally opposed to the Western education that is imposed on us."

This quote concisely demonstrates the root of the problem with Islamic supremacism in general as a supremacist ideology that rejects values of equality and liberty, and seeks to promote an alternative Islamic supremacist value system. Such Islamic supremacist goals remain the root cause and motivation behind the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, even though Prime Minister Raila and President Bush don't understand that as they continue to only tactically pursue "extremists" and "terrorists," without ever honestly asking why so many died.

Ten years is a long time to clearly remember such a tragedy.

"Never again" eventually becomes "never mind." Our national outrage at Jihadists and their ideology has transformed into national policies that merely seek to discourage "extremism," and many of our government leaders don't care that no one can define what "extremism" is.

If these are the circumstances 10 years after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, will we be having the same discussion on September 11, 2011 as well?

Will State Department Punt (Again) on Islamic Saudi Academy’s Radical Textbooks?

I've covered the use of extremist textbooks at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County in northern Virginia since May, when the county supervisors voted to continue to allow ISA to lease county property even though it uses textbooks which included virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Christian language and teachings. The county punted the issue back to the State Department, which has refused to act on recommendations in 2007 by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to close ISA unless the school materially changed the textbooks to remove the hateful language. Neither did the State Department act when USCIRF issued a new report reiterating that ISA's textbooks "extremely troubling passages that do not conform to international human rights norms." In late June, the county supervisors refused to revoke the ISA's lease of county property and punted the issue again back to the State Department, even though it could have done so without penalty. Congressman Frank Wolf, who represents the ares in the House, became involved and wrote letters to Secretary Rice in June and in July, urging her to determine what is being taught at the school and what to do about it.

Having not received a satisfactory response to either letter, Rep. Wolf wrote again last week, this time with more ammo to try to force the State Department into decisive action. He commissioned a special independent study of the legal status of the ISA by the Congressional Research Service (an issue which Patrick Poole examined on his website and I did here). That study concluded that the ISA qualifies as a "foreign mission" under U.S. law, since it is "substantially owned or effectively controlled by...a foreign government," namely the Saudis. Accordingly, the State Department can order ISA off the county property if the Secretary determines "that such divestiture is 'necessary to protectthe interests of the United States.'" Rep. Wolf again called for Secretary Rice "to convene a meeting of relevant State Department and USCIRF representatives... to conclusively determine what precisely is being taught at ISA."

As I wrote on June 12, the ISA and its 1999 valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, represent a case study in the process by which American-raised Muslims morph into Islamic jihadists ("homegrown radicalization."). EDIT: Patrick Poole pointed out this post, "Behind the Veil at the Islamic Saudi Academy," with accounts from former ISA faculty that "An atmosphere of deception was at the heart of everything that they did (at ISA)" and thst students "had been taught to hate Jews and that Christians were awful." Yet the State Department and Fairfax County supervisors duck, hide, and punt the issue back and forth, failing to act in the best interests of county citizens and the U.S. This is my seventh post on this issue since May, and I am no more optimistic that they will act than I was in May.

The FBI-CAIR Relationship Could End Very Soon

The quick departure of a Muslim adviser to the Obama campaign after disclosure of his ties to one or more of the many unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation criminal case is not just a campaign decision. It's a precedent for management guidance next year for components of the Justice Department. It doesn't have to be complicated, just something like "No component of the Department of Justice will enter into any contract, grant, or agreement with any person or entity which is an unindicted co-coinspirator in a federal criminal case brought by the Department of Justice." And that should be extended by the Office of Management and Budget to cover all Executive Branch agencies. Such a policy need not have anything to do with CAIR's grounding in the international Islamist Muslim Brotherhood network or the questionable associations and criminal convictions of several CAIR officials. (I think those associations should come into play, but we've already asserted that on this website.)

After all, the naming of an unindicted co-conspirator is no small matter; it's actively discouraged by the Justice Department. The U.S. Attorneys Manual at DOJ advises federal prosecutors to avoid naming them. "The practice of naming individuals as unindicted co-conspirators in an indictment charging a criminal conspiracy has been severely criticized in United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). Ordinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted co-conspirator in an indictment in order to fulfill any legitimate prosecutorial interest or duty. For purposes of indictment itself, it is sufficient, for example, to allege that the defendant conspired with "another person or persons known." The identity of the person can be supplied, upon request, in a bill of particulars. See USAM 9-27.760. With respect to the trial, the person's identity and status as a co-conspirator can be established, for evidentiary purposes, through the introduction of proof sufficient to invoke the co-conspirator hearsay exception without subjecting the person to the burden of a formal accusation by a grand jury. In the absence of some significant justification, federal prosecutors generally should not identify unindicted co-conspirators in conspiracy indictments." A prosecutor can't just throw a list out there; the presiding judge must conclude that the individual's statements or acts were in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the Attorney's Manual discourages the actual naming of any party not actually charged in an indictment, noting, "Courts have applied this reasoning to preclude the public identification of unindicted third-party wrongdoers in plea hearings, sentencing memoranda, and other government pleadings." Legal policy experts, including the American Bar Association, have recommended outlawing the designation entirely or at least banning the release of any names.

In light of the seriousness of the designation, it is an inherent conflict of interest for any DOJ component to have a business relationship with an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal case, until the trial or a plea bargain produces some resolution which is favorable to the designee. It's especially preposterous for the FBI to have entered into a training agreement with CAIR while its agents were providing the information to the U.S. Attorney which resulted in its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case. The White House and the Attorney General can suspend that agreement anytime, without cost to the taxpayer, until the case is retried and completed. Now that a federal judge in Dallas has denied HLF's motion to delay the case beyond the planned September 8 starting date, we will soon have a disposition of the list of unindicted co-conspirators. And if the trial doesn't clear them, there won't be any excuses for the continued FBI-CAIR relationship.