Expect nothing, live frugally on surprise.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Sir, Why are All Terrorists Muslims?

"Sir, why is it that all terrorists are Muslims?" Prajvi Bagga Malhotra, a Class 11 student of Modern School, asked me this question during a discussion about current events. This was a very timely, bold but sensible question and being a Muslim, I was accountable to address the curiosity in the minds of a class of 52 students. Prajvi isn't the only one to have alluded to the Western media coined statement that all terrorists are Muslims but all Muslims are not terrorists. With so many voices stating that the religion advocates violence, Islam is today under the scanner. Not all of them can be wrong - people judge by what they see and today these terrorists speak and act violently in the name of Islam. told Prajvi that the guiding themes of every religion are the same. Islam too has the same theme and ideology as other religions but a few people misled some of its followers in the name of god.

26/11 (Mumbai), Kafeel in Glasgow, Mumbai blasts by the Memons and others in India, the jehadis in Kashmir, 9/11, 7/7 (London), 13/12 (Delhi), 29/10 (Delhi) and the Al Qaeda at a global level - all these make my head go down in shame.

It's so embarrassing that each time a Muslim name is found attached with the inhuman and insane acts of terrorism.

Note that jehad is the most misunderstood and misconstrued concept by our non-Muslim brethren and even Muslims. The true concept of jehad in Islam is not to be against other communities, groups or religions but to be against one's own selfish nature, vices and shortcomings within Muslim society in order to fight evil, injustice, inequity, illiteracy and ignorance. First an individual fights jehad against himself to get cleansed. After that he continues the efforts with his wife, family, locality and the whole community. This is Jehad-e-Akbar, the right meaning of jehad.

Terrorism is a political process and religion or a religious community has nothing to do with it. Neither does any religion teach to kill innocents (that is what the terrorists do) nor are the terrorists the people chosen by that religious community to undertake such ghastly acts on their behalf.

Nevertheless, an average Muslim's fears are hate crimes, difficulty in finding jobs, admissions and residential accommodation, unwanted repercussions, distrust and other such things that always get exacerbated by such incidents. Muslims also fear a backlash like the 1984 Sikh riots against them. Terrorists should not be helped in creating a rift between communities.

The Mumbai attackers did try to create a cleavage between Hindus and Muslims. However, though a tragic incident, it did have a silver lining in that it cut across religious lines and saw people uniting in their horror and outrage.

But leaders of some parties have even begun to think that any criticism of Pakistan would not be relished by this country's Muslims.

I still remember that during the last general elections in India, to appease Muslims the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) boasted of the Lahore bus and improving relations with Pakistan as one of its major achievements. It's so sad that these people still treat Indian Muslims as Pakistan's stooges.

Though all Indians know that a few terrorists do not tarnish a whole community, the government for fear of losing votes will not take the matter up with the Pakistani government seriously and will just resort to rhetoric.It is quite clear now that Indian politicians of all shades were somehow living under an illusion that if they were to turn harsh against acts of terror, they would alienate the Muslims of this country.

When will they ever realize that by doing so they are clearly reflecting their perverted psyche of labeling all Indian Muslims as pro-Pakistanis, which is the worst abuse for any Indian Muslim.Going soft on terror will not make Muslims happy as the perpetrators of such acts do not segregate their targets by religion. If the politicians of this country think that by shying away from taking on terrorists directly and by going soft on terror they will get kudos from Muslims, they are sadly mistaken. The public in general has now had enough of those who exploit religious sentiment in order to gain electoral and political mileage. The recent poll results in Delhi are an indication of that.

The rider is: let us save Islam from "the Muslims", Hinduism from "the Hindus", Christianity from "the Christians", Judaism from "the Jews" and Sikhism from "the Sikhs" and other zealots as religion is a very personal matter and as humans, we are all same.

Read more...

Friday, December 12, 2008

Battle of the Mind

The terror in Mumbai is our national shame. There can be no doubt about it. How could a group of 10 brazen men hold an entire nation to ransom for almost four days, making Mumbai their killing fields? They stepped out of the sea and walked about the city with the sort of contempt that a marauding horde reserves for the weakling.Many questions come to mind. Why is it that none among the hundreds of people inside the two hotels challenged them? What if BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre) or the Bombay High is the target the next time? There is also the counter thought that haunts one over and over again. Can a group of 10 young Indians do something similar in Karachi or Lahore? Quite frankly I doubt it. I don't doubt the valor of our youth, but I am certain that India would be the first to disown them. It would be quick to condemn it as a crime against humanity. Perhaps it might even sabotage their plan before it has any chance of success. Still, if such a plan were to succeed, and if by some miracle they were to return home, they would be arrested immediately and incarcerated in jail under the anti-terror law. This is how a civilized society should react. Unfortunately, that is not how our neighbor to the West acts. For close to three decades now it has been bleeding India.

Evidence suggests that unlike our squabbling politicians, the terror masters are a determined lot. They remain focused as they prepare for the next even more horrendous strike. Their game plan clearly is to raise the bar of audacity with every strike, and to maximize terror. In the past few years, there were an average of two major terrorist strikes annually. This year there have been eight already, and the year is not yet over.

It is a historical fact that nations that get ravaged never rise to greatness. But a nation that has been brutalized repeatedly is at least expected to learn from its mistakes. Unfortunately, our response remains accidental.

After every fresh terror strike our intelligence agencies look bewildered, wondering how could it happen again? The security agencies take time to gird up and join the battle. And having joined it, some like the marine commandoes hold boastful press-conferences even as terrorists continue their mayhem.

We live in a tough neighborhood and that physical reality is getting grimmer by the day. Pakistan is staring into the abyss. Its economy is as perilous as its security situation. The intentions of those who govern Pakistan; the ISI and its Islamic puppets are clear. They want to drag India down into the same morass.

The terror strike in Mumbai was meant to clang shut the Gateway of democratic India. It was not a stray suicide attack; the strike was meant to maim the financial system with the special aim of killing foreigners. The objective was to hit at the decision makers of the financial world.

The terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. For the first time they have also brought India's response to international scrutiny. And the world may well begin to wonder if under sustained attack India might become an example of democracy that failed.

So far our response has been haphazard.

Inviting the ISI chief to assist in investigations can only be termed a blunder. It is like asking the main suspect in a murder case to join in the police investigations.

Similarly, while it may be procedurally correct to hand over the list of the fugitives to Pakistan demanding for the umpteenth time that they be handed over, it will be nothing short of a miracle if it were to actually hand over someone like Dawood. ISI is just too intricately linked with most of those on the list to risk placing them in Indian hands, where they and their misdeeds would be open to international inspection and intense media gaze.

All this does not give much hope for a nation that expects results now.

The public mood is surly, but the government has yet to form a clear strategy. It has yet to convince the population that it is thinking seriously along operationally executable lines.

Here, the record of NDA is no better than that of UPA. It postured impotently after the attack on parliament, wasting thousands of crores and exposing our military strategy when it lined up our troops for well over six months on the international border. Nor did NDA cover itself with glory in the Kandhar episode. And it was Clinton's goodwill that saved us during Kargil.

A basic point that we must honestly concede is that we have consistently lost the battle of minds to Pakistan. In the media of the global world, speed is of essence. Unfortunately, in our Brahminical anxiety to present the absolute and verifiable truth we lose out to the quick and straight faced lies by the other side.

From now on we would have to be much quicker off the mark. Second, we must be seen to be proactive rather than posturing angrily. Third, we must speak with one voice at every level. We must not have the sorry spectacle of a senior service chief embarrassing, and inadvertently exposing, the other branches of the government. And we must be conscious that we are essentially alone in this fight, other countries would safeguard their interest first. Moreover, we must not rush into an ill prepared venture because that could be disastrous.Still, we are not without options. We could for instance suspend trade, or hold in abeyance the bus or the train links. There is also the option of closing the diplomatic missions, which would hurt the Pakistanis much more because of the access in the society they enjoy here. But, whatever we decide, it is important for us to take at least one concrete step.Finally, we must recognise that we can not succeed in preventing terrorism by cluttering ourselves shut. A determined terrorist, backed by the state apparatus of Pakistan, will easily breach those walls. We can defeat this menace only when we are prepared to cut off its roots.

Read more...

Al-Qaeida & Pakistan

In times of stressful relations between nations, conspiracy theories abound. With manipulative terrorist organizations as the Al Qaeda having mastered the art of disinformation, the potential to widen the cleavage between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai terror strikes is excellent. Enter the Qaeda’s information manipulators and we have two nuclear powers on the brink of a war, which they had avoided in 2002.
Thus reports of hoax calls from India’s Foreign Minister to the President of Pakistan leading to alerting the Pakistan Air Force are widely bandied in the media. The denial of the Indian Foreign Minister is couched in a language which can provoke the Pakistani establishment which accused of being too soft on the Indian state has now taken to sniping at every word emanating from New Delhi. Thus even proof dug out by a London Daily of Mr. Kasav alias Iman the only surviving terrorist who struck Mumbai, belonging to a village in Pakistan sees no reaction from the other side. Iman’s parents are mysteriously unavailable when the reporter visits the village.Reports in the Indian media indicate that the armed forces are ready for a surgical strike on Pakistan and the armaments likely to be used are listed, with the Indian Air Force, the most reluctant of the three services to go to war, knowing fully its implications this time around seeming more than keen to strike. The economy of Pakistan is floundering with the State Bank of Pakistan indicating a further slide. India is no better with a bail out package failing to soothe the nerves of bankers and realty brokers alike. Both cannot afford to go to war, but may just will in case they fall into the trap of the Al Qaeda. And while India may survive, Pakistan would surely collapse given the multiple traps set for it by the wily terrorist group. And as the state folds up in Islamabad, the Al Qaeda can extend its writ across the country rather than just the western tribal corridor adjoining Afghanistan.

Thus the issue today is not just who planned the attack on Mumbai, but who will benefit from the emerging confrontation between India and Pakistan. Many influential writers across the world have reached the conclusion that it is the Al Qaeda and its supporters in Pakistan who are set to gain.

Ayaz Amir writing in the News International Pakistan on 05 December indicates that while it may not be clear so far if the Al Qaeda is involved or not in the Mumbai attacks, the methodology of attack and the consequences of the same which has resulted in totally disrupting the coalition between India and Pakistan which was growing against Al Qaeda’s brand of terror would have been welcomed by Osama bin Laden or his second-in-command, Ayman Al Zawahiri.

The Al Qaeda has been under pressure in the Western parts of Pakistan along the Afghan frontier and the rift between India and Pakistan would imply that the Pakistan Army whose “heart was never in this fight in which it found itself engaged only because of overwhelming American pressure” as per Amir would shift its focus to the Eastern frontier. The situation that is arising from the strike thus suits the Al Qaeda for if the Pakistan Army shifts the 5 divisions deployed in the FATA, it would provide freedom to the militants to operate with impunity and also disrupt the war in Afghanistan. Amir recalls that the Al Qaeda is known to make such strategic plays, for instance the Madrid train bombings split the US coalition in Iraq with Spain withdrawing from the same. Amir also finds the duo of Zardari and Gillian relatively inexperienced in responding to such situations and calls for institutionalized mechanisms to deal with the same.

Fred Burton and Ben West, writing in Stratfor.com report, “From the New York Landmarks Plot to the Mumbai Attack”, compare the Mumbai plot with a failed plot which targeted Manhattan in July 1993 planned by the Al Qaeda at a time when it was a relatively unknown organization. The Landmarks plot targeted prominent hotels in Manhattan with eight terrorists charging the Island with automatic rifles, grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) attempting to kill maximum people. Waldorf-Astoria, St. Regis and U.N. Plaza hotels, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and a midtown Manhattan waterfront heliport were some of the targets considered by the terrorists.Ria Novosti, the Russian state agency on 27 November a day after the attack brought out a report quoting an official, "The Russian secret services have information that certain groups that have carried out attacks in Mumbai have contacts with Al-Qaeda. This includes the Lashkar-i-Tayyiba terrorist group. Fighters from this group undergo special training in Al-Qaeda camps, located on the border between Pakistan and India," the official was quoted as saying. With all this evidence and state agencies should hopefully have much more than what is in open source it is time Indian leadership works towards saving Pakistan from the Al Qaeda rather than worrying about hoax calls and information innuendos.

Read more...

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Terrorism Part 7, Prosecuting terrorism: the global challenge

Introduction: terrorism as a global problem
The events over the past two and a half years have shown that the global menace of terrorism has not subsided and that the greatest criminal threat affecting many of our lives is that presented by Radical Fundamentalist groups or networks (such as Al-Qaeda and like-minded groups) and other terrorist groups, such as ETA. In recent past, all continents and regions of the world, Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, and Europe have suffered from devastating attacks. It is no exaggeration to say that terrorism is a truly GLOBAL problem.The attacks that occurred last weekend in Saudi Arabia are yet another reminder of the global capability that al-Qaeda has developed and of the fact that we are faced with a globalized network of like minded groups who have a common enemy. The fact that these groups are capable of furthering the jihad with limited or no direct input from Al Qaeda, is a factor that significantly aggravates the terrorist threat. Everyone will agree that in order to curb the threat and protect the lives of citizens around the world, governments and law enforcement worldwide will have to work together not only to arrest known terrorists, but also to prevent future terrorist attacks. Today, I want to talk to you about mechanisms of international anti-terrorism cooperation. I will start by outlining how the international community (governments and national police forces) have responded to the terrorist threats in the recent past, and subsequently offer you some ideas of what is needed in the future if we are to be successful in our collective efforts.

Reactions to the terrorist threats on political level after September 11 and March 11). The September 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004 attacks have propelled terrorism to the top of the international political agenda. Terrorism has been the central topic of discussion at numerous international and regional top level meetings, such as the G-8, the European Union or the United Nations or the Arab Council of Interior Ministers, to name but a few. Such high-level discussion is of course positive, as it shows determination and willingness among national and international decision makers to address the problem. But, on the other hand, it is a reactive approach to terrorism. I am certain that are familiar, to some extent with these discussions and the decisions that have been made during these meetings. However, in order to set the scene for my remarks today, I would like to briefly outline governments' responses to terrorism. They essentially concern the following areas.
Legislative measures (national response): Many governments have voted new laws against terrorism. The US Patriot Act, voted as a result of the September 11 attacks, is probably the best known example. The Act includes a far-reaching reorganization of the US Law Enforcement apparatus, through the creation of the Homeland Security Department.
Harmonization of national legislation (international response). Most of the political efforts at supra state level have been directed at attempts to harmonize national legislations. This is particularly true in Europe (EU level), where the Council of the European Union has taken a variety of measures aimed at strengthening the level of cooperation: these measures include the creation of a European arrest warrant, the adoption of a model agreement for setting up Joint Investigative Teams among EU countries, and a decision on the execution in the EU of orders freezing property suspected to belong to terrorists or terrorist groups. The underlying assumption of these measures is that harmonizing national legislation is the best way for states to fight terrorism beyond their borders, as terrorists will be denied the means to exploit legal loopholes (elimination of the 'weakest links') and countries will have the means to collectively act to disrupt terrorist groups (seize their property, arrest and extradite members, and prosecute them successfully in the country that offers the best guarantee for a conviction). In addition, in March 2004, the EU appointed a Counter Terrorism Coordinator, who has been given the challenging task to coordinate member countries efforts to implement these measures.
Balance between individual liberty and collective security. A third kind of political reaction that was voiced by many government and state leaders has been to reassure the public that increased security does not and should not imply an infringement of personal and civil liberties. This concern is legitimate and underlines the fundamental difficulty facing any society that is currently confronted with terrorism: how can the international community defend itself against such a ruthless enemy, without overreacting and implementing too stringent measures? I underline the importance of this point, because any initiative on the part of police, governments or judicial authorities will have to strike this delicate balance.

The next question we have to ask ourselves is 'are we being successful in our fight against terrorist? Are the measures that have been adopted adequate in protecting our societies against terrorism?
Only the future will provide a definite answer to this question, but I would like to make a number of observations on both the terrorist threat and the current state of international cooperation that, hopefully, can contribute to our understanding of the issue.
Facts and observations on international terrorism:
First remark: Between September 11, 2001 and March 11, 2004, almost every continent has been confronted by terrorist attacks.
Global overview of major terrorist attacks that have been blamed on al-Qaeda or related groups. This slide provides an overview of where al-Qaeda has perpetrated lethal terrorist attacks in the last ten years. The first attack listed is the February 1993 attacks on the WTC in New York City, United States, in which six persons lost their lives and the last entry cites the shootings and hostage taking just last weekend in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. As this image clearly shows, al-Qaeda has effectively been able to strike on every continent. Second Remark: Terrorists (as well as other criminals) have shown the ability to adapt to law enforcement efforts to apprehend them. They have the means to travel freely throughout the world, under false identities. In order to do so, they have a simple yet powerful tool at their disposal: stolen and fraudulent travel documents. Later on in this presentation I will come back to this point and provide you with specific examples of instances in which this happened.

Facts and observations on international cooperation.
There are, in my opinion, two major limitations to international law enforcement cooperation, which undermine its effectiveness. The first limitation is geographical in nature. Most successful international legal initiatives are regionally based and/or involve a limited number of countries on a bilateral or multilateral basis. The European Union, for example, managed to reach agreement over a European arrest warrant, which so far has been implemented by 17 of the 25 EU countries. This constitutes a significant step forward in terms of cooperation, as it considerably streamlines and speeds up extradition within the EU. However, such far-reaching agreements are only possible among countries which have similar or harmonized criminal law systems. The European arrest warrant is a result of many years of work and discussion among EU countries and was only possible because there are institutional mechanism in place that allow the EU, as a body, to make decisions that are binding for its member countries. However, everyone would agree that it is impossible to extrapolate such agreements at global level; reaching agreement on a Global arrest warrant is not a realistic goal. Which country is prepared today to vote a law that would recognize the legal value of an arrest warrant issued by ANY other country in the world and would automatically lead to the extradition of the individual in question?
This does not mean that regionally-based initiatives, involving only a limited number of countries, are not important, but they remain insufficient towards addressing a global phenomenon such as al-Qaeda. The 11 March bombings in Madrid, Spain, have unfortunately shown again that today's terrorist threats can only partly be addressed by reinforcing cooperation in Europe alone. Similarly, the investigation into the September 11 attacks demonstrated that, while the target of the attack was located on American soil, preparation had been carried out in different countries located in different regions of the world (Asia and Europe).
The second limitation is functional in nature. Most International Conventions and agreements focus on judicial cooperation rather than on law enforcement cooperation. The topic of this conference is prosecuting terrorism. However, successful prosecution of terrorist suspects implies the existence of a sound mechanism that regulates the exchange of operational police information. For example, issuing an international arrest warrant for a person has little practical implication, if there exists no international database that police can check securely and in real time for wanted persons. Moreover, exchange of police information does not only help with investigations of terrorist attacks, but is also crucial to prevent future terrorist attacks. If police can share data on cross-border movements of persons who are suspected merely as members of terrorist groups, the chances are that police would be able to intervene before a lethal attack occurs, thereby preventing significant loss of life.

Towards constructive and realistic global cooperation mechanisms…
These few observations lead me to the core question on which my remarks are centered, i.e. are there ways to overcome the existing obstacles in international cooperation in the area of terrorism? Political efforts that focus on the harmonization of legislation at a global level will continue to pose significant challenges, because of political, diplomatic and legal divergences. While this has proven successful on the regional level, it is an unreachable goal at global level, as political and legal obstacles are too difficult to overcome. This does not mean that the idea of global cooperation should be set aside altogether. In fact, INTERPOL's day-to-day experience shows that police cooperation and sharing of law enforcement information is possible even when other cooperation is not, and even in cases in which there are no diplomatic relationships between the countries concerned. INTERPOL's continuing challenge is to be a truly global organization, involving police forces from ALL of its 181 Member Countries. In light of the current threat posed by terrorism, we cannot afford to exclude any country from our information channels, as it provides terrorists too readily with safe havens.

The pressing challenge consists of articulating clear principles governing global information sharing, which provide the international community with realistic and achievable goals when thinking about frameworks for global information exchange and law enforcement cooperation. Before we take the easy step of proposing the creation of new institutions, let us ask whether existing institutions are doing all they can to prevent and fight terrorism. In my view, the following 9 basic principles would underpin an effective global information sharing mechanism, provided that the majority of the world's nations would adhere to them:

First principle: 'Countries have an obligation to their citizens of preventing dangerous criminals from entering their country.' This essentially implies a global acceptance of a principle that states have obligations and responsibilities towards their citizens in ensuring their security and will take necessary steps to fulfill these obligations. Although this principle appears to be evident, a thorough application of this rule by Member Countries would have important consequences. It would imply that Member Countries would commit to systemically check international databases on wanted persons, stolen travel documents, stolen motor vehicles (i.e. INTERPOL databases) at border entry points, in order to ensure that dangerous terrorists of other criminals are intercepted before being able to commit an attack. This is not happening now in a systematic fashion.
'Countries have a responsibility to forewarn other countries about individuals that present a potential threat'. This is in fact a logical extension of the first principle. Countries should not only be mindful about protection of their own citizens, but should also warn other countries about potential threats they might face. If we agree that the best way to provide homeland security for any one country is to prevent dangerous transnational criminals or terrorists from entering one's borders in the first place, then working together to enhance the likelihood of their detection, detention and apprehension before they enter any one country boundaries should be one of our primary objectives. The practical implication is that countries have to ensure that they communicate all potentially relevant information to other countries and update international police databases in a systematic and comprehensive fashion. This is not happening now in a systematic fashion.
Example: On 26 May 2004, a little over a week ago, the US Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) issued a 'Be on the Lookout' (BOLO) alert for seven known al Qaeda operatives, warning that these seven individuals 'pose a real and present danger to U.S. interests at home and abroad'. This was followed by a press conference, where US Attorney General Ashcroft presented photographs of the seven suspects and asked for assistance of the public in locating these individuals. As soon as this announcement was issued, the INTERPOL Command and Coordination Center checked our databases, and we found out that only 5 of the 7 individuals were known in our records. During the conference it was pointed out that, prior to 11 September 2001, and prior to the personal intervention of Attorney General John Ashcroft following his visit to INTERPOL's General Secretariat in Lyon, France would not have been told about 7 out of 7 of the suspected terrorists; the FBI legat network alone would have been used. In this case the FBI already provided INTERPOL with information on 5 of these suspected, and the FBI had in fact worked closely with the US National INTERPOL Bureau prior to the public announcement on the 26th of May to get the other two added to INTERPOL's databases, but it took more time than anticipated to get this information from Washington to Lyon for the purposes of creating worldwide INTERPOL Notices. It is important to note that prior to 2001, it used to take INTERPOL's network months to get information circulated worldwide about people internationally wanted through its Red Notices; now it takes days in standard cases and hours in terrorist or urgent cases. Great progress has been made, but continued vigilance is required to ensure that no suspected terrorists' names fall through the cracks.
For example, in the 26 May 2004 public announcement concerning the 7 suspected terrorists, with regard to two of the seven suspected terrorists who might be in the course of planning a terrorist attack in the United States or in any country where the United States has an embassy or businesses, a check of the INTERPOL databases by any of our Member Countries would have resulted in a negative response immediately following the announcement. Between the time of the public announcement and their names being entered into INTERPOL's database, these suspected terrorists could have sought refuge anywhere in the world outside the US. In my opinion, countries should carefully reconsider what to do when they know that identified individuals pose a clear threat; an essential precaution to take would be to ensure that INTERPOL has the relevant information in its databases before or at the same time that a public announcement is made by national law enforcement authorities.
'Due diligence by states in verifying and acting upon police information': I previously mentioned that the political impossibility of creating a global arrest warrant. However, this does not preclude countries from sharing, on worldwide basis, information about wanted persons. Countries must ensure that data about persons, wanted for terrorism or other serious crime and considered dangerous, are stored immediately in international databases. This includes their photographs and fingerprints, data about motor vehicles they use, and particularly information about travel and identity documents they might use. This is the cornerstone of international policing. This is not happening now in systematic fashion.
In order to assist in this matter, INTERPOL has a powerful tool, which is at the disposal of police in any of our 181 Member Countries. INTERPOL can, on request of any Member Country, issue what we call a Red Notice or a worldwide diffusion. This essentially advises police worldwide that a certain person is wanted. It contains identifying information on the fugitive such as physical description, photograph and fingerprints if available, etc, and judicial information about the crime for which his arrest is being sought. Where time is of the essence, INTERPOL also permits its member countries to issue what are called 'Diffusions' which are much like emails containing all relevant information except photographs and fingerprints. A Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant. While arrest warrants are issued by judicial bodies and are legally binding on the jurisdiction where they are issued, an INTERPOL Red Notice is one country's way of notifying the world through the INTERPOL network that a fugitive is being sought internationally. If any country locates that fugitive, the country that requested the Red Notice will seek the fugitive's extradition. The legal basis for INTERPOL's issuing a Red Notice is thus a valid arrest warrant by the judicial authorities in the requesting country and a commitment by the requesting country to seek the fugitive's extradition in the event of arrest or detention by another country.
However, it is an effective tool that is used intensively by law enforcement world wide. To give you an idea of the scope of these notices, allow me to give you a few numbers: in 2003, INTERPOL issued 1,397 Red Notices and more than 8000 diffusions. Last year, more than 1,900 individuals were arrested throughout the world based on INTERPOL's Notices and Diffusions. My point is that Member Countries should never disregard the information contained in INTERPOL notices, even, if for whatever reason, the notice itself does not provide a legal basis in that country for the arrest of the individual. 'Due diligence' means that all countries should at least 'stop' a person for whom an INTERPOL Red Notice has been issued for a serious crime that could pose a danger to the life and well being of the community in which this person might find himself. That person should be stopped, questioned and examined until such time as the police are certain that he poses no danger to the community. I have very good reasons to make such a bold statement. Countries too often make wrong assumptions on information provided by other countries. An Example: relationships between Libya and the United States can hardly be described as good. Yet, long before the September 11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden was already under Red Notice in the database. However, the requesting country was not the United States, nor a European country. In fact, the first country that requested a Red Notice for Osama Bin Laden was Libya, in 1998. I think this shows convincingly that law enforcement information should be judged solely on its relevance to police, and not on the basis of political convictions. Countries are not providing the police and immigration with the tools necessary to exercise due diligence when stopping a person for who an INTERPOL Red Notice has been issued. olice should have the means to communicate globally and securely. (without excluding any country for political, diplomatic or other reasons) Obviously, if we expect an international set of principles that commits countries to systematically share police information, countries should ensure that their respective police forces have the means to do so. The technical ability to communicate among police worldwide is therefore a condition precedent to international police and judicial cooperation.
To provide the international law enforcement community with such a system. INTERPOL has designed and implemented a state-of-the-art global communications system that we call I-24/7. 'I' for INTERPOL and '24' for 24 hours a day and '7' for 7 days a week. It allows police forces to transmit in a fast and secure manner, photographs, fingerprints, DNA profiles and other important information about individuals and crimes within a matter of seconds to our Member Countries. The roll-out of such a system in 181 Member Countries is a significant challenge, but so far we have been able to connect 105 Member Countries to the I-24/7 system. But, as I stand here, 76 of INTERPOL's 181 members countries do not have access to a secure global police communication system. Countries have an obligation to proactively report internationally any travel documents (passports, Identity cards) that are stolen blank and stolen from the bearer. The obligation to inform extends beyond wanted persons alone. It is equally important that countries share information about passports that were stolen blank or stolen from the bearer, because these are essential tools for terrorists. Passports are a question of international trust, where countries assume that the information on passports has been verified and validated by the issuing country. Therefore, any risk of violating that process should lead to immediate information sharing. Global sharing of data in passports, national identity cards, and visas is not occurring at the level it should.
Currently, 41 countries are entering data in INTERPOL's Stolen Travel documents database, which now contains in excess of 1.5 million travel documents. The most recent country added to our list is Uruguay. We have made significant progress with this initiative since September 2002, when we started with 2 countries having entered 3,000 documents. However, we must recognize that this represents only a fraction of the INTERPOL global membership of 181 countries. The European Community will soon pass a decision making it mandatory for all EU countries to share stolen travel document information with INTERPOL. It is urgent that more countries participate in this effort, because failing to share such critical information equates to allowing terrorists to carefully plan and carry out their acts. Let me illustrate this with an example. On 12 March 2003, Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindic was assassinated in Belgrade. Shortly after the assassination, an individual named Milorad Ulemek was charged as the principal suspect. The investigation indicated that Ulemek had probably traveled widely throughout Europe to plan the assassination. Police recovered a stolen passport that he had used. The passport was one of 100 blank Croatian passports stolen from that country's consulate in Mostar, Bosnia, in 1999. Ulemek used one of these stolen passports to the passport to travel extensively through Switzerland, Austria, the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Singapore and Croatia. His passport was stamped 26 times. If police or immigration officers at these borders had been able to check the passport on this individual in a global database, they would have received immediately a response signaling that this individual was traveling on a passport that had been stolen. I strongly believe that if we, as a global community, had focused more on the use of stolen travel documents by terrorists, we might have been able to prevent this assassination. Every country should have a police office, staffed 24 hours a day 7 days a week that can immediately query international databases, respond to urgent information requests from police officers in the field and act on information, received from other countries, in real time. Critical information that can prevent attacks and save lives must be passed on in real time. It is not the case that the majority of countries around the world staff international offices 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Countries must ensure that their police forces are properly trained in the use of communications technology and international databases and awareness about what can be done on the international level in terms of information exchange needs to be dramatically raised. For example, all police forces should know that fingerprints sent digitally at a resolution of 300 dots per inch as opposed to 500 dots per inch will prevent accurate fingerprint identifications. Countries should ensure that membership of a terrorist group constitutes a criminal offence in itself. Countries should be able to issue arrest warrants and notify internationally suspected members of terrorist groups without having to provide proof that the person has actually committed terrorist attacks. This measure will help to significantly lower the threshold for international information sharing on terrorism and increases our chances to foil terrorist plots through an early arrest. Taking into account the manner in which al-Qaeda and its related network operate and recruit members, it is extremely important to be able to 'flag' individuals as suspected members of terrorist groups. Not all countries consider membership in a terrorist organization or conspiracy to be a minimal offense.

Example: Abdulla Khayata is a Syrian national for whom the Spanish INTERPOL National Central Bureau in Madrid issued a Red Notice. As Secretary General, I have taken an interim policy decision on the interpretation of the Article 3 of our Constitution, which stipulates that 'It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character'.
My interim decision makes being charged with membership of a terrorist Organization a crime for which INTERPOL will hunt terrorists internationally using our Red Notices. The first country to request such a Red Notice was Spain, in November of last year .This person is suspected of being a leading member of Al Qaeda's Spanish cell. He was also in contact with other Al Qaeda members that played an important role in the planning of the 11 September attacks.
A brief overview of the chronology of events pertaining to Khayata shows how effective international police cooperation can be. Spain issued a request for red notice late October 2003.

INTERPOL issued the Red Notice on 28 November, 2003.
The INTERPOL General Secretariat was informed by IP Amman (Jordan) in February, 2004, that the person had been arrested a month before in Jordan. This was the first arrest based on a Red Notice issued for Membership in a terrorist group. After contacts between IPSG, IP Amman, and the NCB in Madrid, the person was extradited to Spain. The IPSG was informed by NCB Madrid on 9 February, 2004. When a terrorist attack occurs, countries should invite International Incident Response Teams to the location in which the incident occurred and allow these teams to assist with the investigations. As you will have noticed, I have focused very much on preventing terrorist attacks in outlining the principles above. But a sound approach to terrorism requires also an ability to respond in the aftermath of a terrorist attack to prevent future terrorist attacks by the same persons or groups. It would be naïve to think that despite all of our efforts, we can prevent all acts of terrorism from happening. Al-Qaeda and related networks and groups are highly mobile and often the preparation of their attacks takes place in different countries. In many cases, the perpetrators have been trained in camps in remote locations of the world. Hence, a comprehensive investigation into a terrorist attack will involve several countries. International Incident Response Teams can provide a real added value to such investigations and provide useful information that will lead to the dismantling of terrorist support networks, provided that police have the means to liaise with their foreign counterparts. INTERPOL has acquired experience in this area by sending INTERPOL Incident Response Teams to the location of the last 13 major terrorist incidents worldwide. After the March 11 attacks, the Spanish police invited INTERPOL to send officers to assist with facilitating the exchange of information outside of Spain. We issued an international security alert concerning the modus operandi for the Madrid terrorist bombings. The role of these IRT is important: it allows the investigating officers in the concerned country to concentrate on investigating the terrorist bombings nationally while INTERPOL facilitates database checks and ensures that all international leads are fully explored. An international protocol needs to be established for when IRTs are triggered and how they should function.
Conclusion
The 9 principles that I have just outlined are simple and straightforward: In my view, all of the world's nations should attempt to reach a consensus on a number of 'minimal requirements for international police cooperation' and work towards their practical implementation, rather than focusing only on the harmonization of penal law or the creation of new institutions. Committing to these principles will help the international community a long way towards making the world safer for its citizens and businesses. These principles form a core basis and outline essential responsibilities for states and non state actors on the international level.

Read more...

Terrorism PART 6, Great Indian Terrorism Crisis

The disembodied voice was chilling in its rage. A gunman, holed up in the Oberoi Trident hotel in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), where some 40 people had been taken hostage, told an Indian news channel that the attacks were revenge for the persecution of Muslims in India. "We love this as our country, but when our mothers and sisters were being killed, where was everybody?" he asked via telephone. No answer came. But then he probably wasn't expecting one.
Police look on as smoke rises from Mumbai's iconic Taj Mahal Hotel in the historic south of the city after terrorists stormed the building on Nov. 26. (For more pics of Mumbai Firing click Here)

The roots of Muslim rage run deep in India, nourished by a long-held sense of injustice over what many Indian Muslims believe is institutionalized discrimination against the country's largest minority group. The disparities between Muslims, who make up 13.4% of the population, and India's Hindus, who hover at around 80%, are striking. There are exceptions, of course, but generally speaking, Muslim Indians have shorter life spans, worse health, lower literacy levels and lower-paying jobs. Add to that toxic brew the lingering resentment over 2002's anti-Muslim riots in the state of Gujarat. The riots, instigated by Hindu nationalists, killed some 2,000 people, most of them Muslims. To this day, few of the perpetrators have been convicted. (See pictures of the terrorist shootings in Mumbai. The huge gap between Muslims and Hindus will continue to haunt India's — and neighboring Pakistan's — progress toward peace and prosperity. But before intercommunal relations can improve, there are even bigger problems that must first be worked out: the schism in subcontinental Islam and the religion's place and role in modern India and Pakistan. It is a crisis 150 years in the making.

The Beginning of the Problem
On the afternoon of March 29, 1857, Mangal Pandey, a handsome, mustachioed soldier in the East India Company's native regiment, attacked his British lieutenant. His hanging a week later sparked a subcontinental revolt known to Indians as the first war of independence and to the British as the Sepoy Mutiny. Retribution was swift, and though Pandey was a Hindu, it was the subcontinent's Muslims, whose Mughal King nominally held power in Delhi, who bore the brunt of British rage. The remnants of the Mughal Empire were dismantled, and 500 years of Muslim supremacy on the subcontinent came to a halt.
Muslim society in India collapsed. The British imposed English as the official language. The impact was cataclysmic. Muslims went from near 100% literacy to 20% within a half-century. The country's educated Muslim élite was effectively blocked from administrative jobs in the government. Between 1858 and 1878, only 57 out of 3,100 graduates of Calcutta University — then the center of South Asian education — were Muslims. While discrimination by both Hindus and the British played a role, it was as if the whole of Muslim society had retreated to lick its collective wounds.
Out of this period of introspection, two rival movements emerged to foster an Islamic ascendancy. Revivalist groups blamed the collapse of their empire on a society that had strayed too far from the teachings of the Koran. They promoted a return to a purer form of Islam, modeled on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Others embraced the modern ways of their new rulers, seeking Muslim advancement through the pursuit of Western sciences, culture and law. From these movements two great Islamic institutions were born: Darul Uloom Deoband in northern India, rivaled only by Al Azhar University in Cairo for its teaching of Islam, and Aligarh Muslim University, a secular institution that promoted Muslim culture, philosophy and languages but left religion to the mosque. These two schools embody the fundamental split that continues to divide Islam in the subcontinent today. "You could say that Deoband and Aligarh are husband and wife, born from the same historical events," says Adil Siddiqui, information coordinator for Deoband. "But they live at daggers drawn."

The campus at Deoband is only a three-hour drive from New Delhi through the modern megasuburb of Noida. Strip malls and monster shopping complexes have consumed many of the mango groves that once framed the road to Deoband, but the contemporary world stops at the gate. The courtyards are packed with bearded young men wearing long, collared shirts and white caps. The air thrums with the voices of hundreds of students reciting the Koran from open-door classrooms.
Founded in 1866, the Deoband school quickly set itself apart from other traditional madrasahs, which were usually based in the home of the village mosque's prayer leader. Deoband's founders, a group of Muslim scholars from New Delhi, instituted a regimented system of classrooms, coursework, texts and exams. Instruction is in Urdu, Persian and Arabic, and the curriculum closely follows the teachings of the 18th century Indian Islamic scholar Mullah Nizamuddin Sehalvi. Graduates go on to study at Cairo's Al Azhar or the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia, or they found their own Deobandi institutions.
Today, more than 9,000 Deobandi madrasahs are scattered throughout India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, most infamously the Dara-ul-Uloom Haqaniya Akora Khattak, near Peshawar, Pakistan, where Mullah Mohammed Omar and several other leaders of Afghanistan's Taliban first tasted a life lived in accordance with Shari'a. Siddiqui visibly stiffens when those names are brought up. They have become synonymous with Islamic radicalism, and Siddiqui is careful to dissociate his institution from those who carry on its traditions, without actually condemning their actions. "Our books are being taught there," he says. "They have the same system and rules. But if someone is following the path of terrorism, it is because of local compulsions and local politics."
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who founded the Anglo-Mohammedan Oriental College at Aligarh in 1877, studied under the same teachers as the founders of Deoband. But he believed that the downfall of India's Muslims was due to their unwillingness to embrace modern ways. He decoupled religion from education and in his school sought to emulate the culture and training of India's new colonial masters. Islamic culture was part of the curriculum, but so were the latest advances in sciences, medicine and Western philosophy. The medium was English, the better to prepare students for civil-service jobs. He called his school the Oxford of the East. In architecture alone, the campus lives up to that name. A euphoric blend of clock towers, crenellated battlements, Mughal arches, domes and the staid red brick of Victorian institutions that only India's enthusiastic embrace of all things European could produce, the central campus of Aligarh today is haven to a diverse crowd of male and female, Hindu and Muslim students. Its law and medicine schools are among the top-ranked in India, but so are its arts faculty and Quranic Studies Centre. "With all this diversity, language, culture, secularism was the only way to go forward as a nation," says Aligarh's vice chancellor, P.K. Abdul Azis. "It was the new religion."

This fracture in religious doctrine — whether Islam should embrace the modern or revert to its fundamental origins — between two schools less than a day's donkey ride apart when they were founded, was barely remarked upon at the time. But over the course of the next 100 years, that tiny crack would split Islam into two warring ideologies with repercussions that reverberate around the world to this day. Before the split became a crisis, however, the founders of the Deoband and Aligarh universities shared the common goal of an independent India. Pedagogical leanings were overlooked as students and staff of both institutions joined with Hindus across the subcontinent to remove the yoke of colonial rule in the early decades of the 20th century.

Two Faiths, Two Nations
But nationalistic trends were pulling at the fragile alliance, and India began to splinter along ethnic and religious lines. Following World War I, a populist Muslim poet-philosopher by the name of Muhammad Iqbal framed the Islamic zeitgeist when he questioned the position of minority Muslims in a future, independent India. The solution, Iqbal proposed, was an independent state for Muslim-majority provinces in northwestern India, a separate country where Muslims would rule themselves. The idea of Pakistan was born.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the Savile Row–suited lawyer who midwifed Pakistan into existence on Aug. 14, 1947, was notoriously ambiguous about how he envisioned the country once it became an independent state. Both he and Iqbal, who were friends until the poet's death in 1938, had repeatedly stated their dream for a "modern, moderate and very enlightened Pakistan," says Sharifuddin Pirzada, Jinnah's personal secretary. Jinnah's own wish was that the Pakistani people, as members of a new, modern and democratic nation, would decide the country's direction. But rarely in Pakistan's history have its people lived Jinnah's vision of a modern Muslim democracy. Only three times in its 62-year history has Pakistan seen a peaceful, democratic transition of power. With four disparate provinces, more than a dozen languages and dialects, and powerful neighbors, the country's leaders — be they Presidents, Prime Ministers or army chiefs — have been forced to knit the nation together with the only thing Pakistanis have in common: religion.
Following the 1971 civil war, when East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, broke away, the populist Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto embarked on a Muslim-identity program to prevent the country from fracturing further. General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq continued the Islamization campaign when he overthrew Bhutto in 1977, hoping to garner favor with the religious parties, the only constituency available to a military dictator. He instituted Shari'a courts, made blasphemy illegal and established laws that punished fornicators with lashes and held that rape victims could be convicted of adultery. When the Soviet Union invaded neighboring Afghanistan in December 1979, Pakistan was already poised for its own Islamic revolution. Almost overnight, thousands of refugees poured over the border into Pakistan. Camps mushroomed, and so did madrasahs. Ostensibly created to educate the refugees, they provided the ideal recruiting ground for a new breed of soldier: mujahedin, or holy warriors, trained to vanquish the infidel invaders in America's proxy war with the Soviet Union. Thousands of Pakistanis joined fellow Muslims from across the world to fight the Soviets. As far away as Karachi, high school kids started wearing "jihadi jackets," the pocketed vests popular with the mujahedin. Says Hamid Gul, then head of the Pakistan intelligence agency charged with arming and training the mujahedin: "In the 1980s, the world watched the people of Afghanistan stand up to tyranny, oppression and slavery. The spirit of jihad was rekindled, and it gave a new vision to the youth of Pakistan." But jihad, as it is described in the Koran, does not end merely with political gain. It ends in a perfect Islamic state. The West's, and Pakistan's, cynical resurrection of something so profoundly powerful and complex unleashed a force that gave root to al-Qaeda's rage, the Taliban's dream of an Islamic utopia in Afghanistan, and in the dozens of radical Islamic groups rapidly replicating themselves in India and around the world today. "The promise of jihad was never fulfilled," says Gul. "Is it any wonder the fighting continues to this day?" Religion may have been used to unite Pakistan, but it is also tearing it apart.
India Today
In India, Islam is, in contrast, the other — purged by the British, denigrated by the Hindu right, mistrusted by the majority, marginalized by society. There are nearly as many Muslims in India as in all of Pakistan, but in a nation of more than a billion, they are still a minority, with all the burdens that minorities anywhere carry. Government surveys show that Muslims live shorter, poorer and unhealthier lives than Hindus and are often excluded from the better jobs. To be sure, there are Muslim success stories in the booming economy. Azim Premji, the founder of the outsourcing giant Wipro, is one of the richest individuals in India. But for many Muslims, the inequality of the boom has reinforced their exclusion.
Kashmir, a Muslim-dominated state whose fate had been left undecided in the chaos that led up to partition, remains a suppurating wound in India's Muslim psyche. As the cause of three wars between India and Pakistan — one of which nearly went nuclear in 1999 — Kashmir has become a symbol of profound injustice to Indian Muslims, who believe that their government cares little for Kashmir's claim of independence — which is based upon a 1948 U.N. resolution promising a plebiscite to determine the Kashmiri people's future. That frustration has spilled into the rest of India in the form of several devastating terrorist attacks that have made Indian Muslims both perpetrators and victims.
A mounting sense of persecution, fueled by the government's seeming reluctance to address the brutal anti-Muslim riots that killed more than 2,000 in the state of Gujarat in 2002, has aided the cause of homegrown militant groups. They include the banned Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), which was accused of detonating nine bombs in Mumbai during the course of 2003, killing close to 80. The 2006 terrorist attacks on the Mumbai commuter-rail system that killed 183 people were also blamed on SIMI as well as the pro-Kashmir Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). Those incidents exposed the all-too-common Hindu belief that Muslims aren't really Indian. "LeT, SIMI — it doesn't matter who was behind these attacks. They are all children of [Pervez] Musharraf," sneered Manish Shah, a Mumbai resident who lost his best friend in the explosions, referring to the then President of Pakistan. In India, unlike Pakistan, Islam does not unify but divide.
Still, many South Asian Muslims insist Islam is the one and only force that can bring the subcontinent together and return it to pre-eminence as a single whole. "We [Muslims] were the legal rulers of India, and in 1857 the British took that away from us," says Tarik Jan, a gentle-mannered scholar at Islamabad's Institute of Policy Studies. "In 1947 they should have given that back to the Muslims." Jan is no militant, but he pines for the golden era of the Mughal period in the 1700s and has a fervent desire to see India, Pakistan and Bangladesh reunited under Islamic rule. That sense of injustice is at the root of Muslim identity today. It has permeated every aspect of society and forms the basis of rising Islamic radicalism on the subcontinent. "People are hungry for justice," says Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and author of the new book Descent into Chaos. "It is perceived to be the fundamental promise of the Koran." These twin phenomena — the longing many Muslims feel to see their religion restored as the subcontinent's core, and the marks of both piety and extremism Islam bears — reflect the lack of strong political and civic institutions in the region for people to have faith in. If the subcontinent's governments can't provide those institutions, then terrorists like the Trident's mysterious caller will continue asking questions. And providing their own answers.

Read more...

Terrorism PART 4 Countering Terror

MODELS FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM
Based on the history of terrorism, the changing face of terrorism, and the principles of terrorism that have been developed in this paper, three general models emerge that can successfully diminish the success of terrorism.
MODEL A: TOTALITARIANISM
History has shown that in a truly totalitarian regime terrorism has a negligible success rate. Due to the comprehensive control afforded by totalitarianism, and the brutal nature in which uprisings are suppressed, four of the five principles are immediately interdicted. Intelligence is not available, since almost all actions are controlled and monitored. Propaganda cannot occur openly, so its effect is minimal. Technology is not available to the masses in an unrestricted manner, and international support matters little since it will never be advertised to the general populace. The one principle that may be satisfied is grass roots support, but due to overwhelming fear, few citizens will act on this. Saddam Hussein's regime is an excellent model of totalitarianism. All media and communications are controlled by the government. As a result, propaganda does not take place. Technology is not available to the masses, and intelligence gathering is extremely limited in scope. Although some groups, such as the Kurds and Shi'ites, have managed to mount rebellions, they were quickly suppressed with overwhelming force. The general population lives in fear for their lives, and is unwilling to stage a rebellion. Pockets of resistance still exist, such as the Kurds in northern Iraq, but their survival is completely reliant on allied control of the no-fly zone. Once this protection is removed, their presence will be short lived. The only way for such groups to succeed would be through international support, supplying them with technology, arms and intelligence. If equipped with these things, they may achieve limited propaganda and be able to mobilize their grass roots followers. Without such interdiction, however, success is not possible under the current conditions. Fortunately, for many countries in the world, totalitarianism is not a viable or humanitarian option.
MODEL B: ISOLATIONISM
Countries that are able to remain completely isolated technically, politically and economically will be quite successful in combating terrorism. Bangladesh, for example, has no technical infrastructure so it would be a poor target for cyber warfare. Its limited media prevents terrorists from gaining a true voice to the people. Lack of economic value diminishes international interest. Due to its political isolation, it is able to carry out its own policies and actions without concern for political fallout. For many countries in the world, however, isolationism is not a viable option, either, because they are too internationally intertwined technically, politically and economically.
MODEL C: PLURALISTIC EXPANSIONISM
History has shown that democratic nations, like totalitarian regimes, are seldom toppled by revolution. Unfortunately, due to the free nature of pluralistic societies, they are much more susceptible to terrorist attacks. Freedom of the press allows for intense propaganda and grass roots campaigning, along with the weighing in of international opinion. The proliferation of technical equipment and manuals allows for the creation of advanced weapons. Freedom of movement allows for unrestricted intelligence gathering. The goal of democratic nations must be to limit terrorist attacks, while at the same time maintaining individual liberties. History testifies to the fact that authoritarian regimes are most vulnerable to revolutions. The goal of any terrorist group, within a democratic society, is to strike it until it begins to withdraw individual freedoms. Once this occurs, the population at large becomes enraged, and the terrorists are able to gather grass roots support and progress down the path of a revolutionary campaign.
Perhaps the best way to combat terrorism, and still maintain some semblance of humanity, is through the proliferation of democracy and economic well-being. By utilizing the Trojan Horse approach, and spreading the economic, political and technical prowess of the West, non-Western nations will become more reliant and involved with Western nations and terrorism will find less of a foundation. Almost no noteworthy threats to the US currently come from the Western world. Even technically and economically advanced nations such as Japan and China offer little in the way of terrorist threats. The majority of terrorist organizations are rooted in economically deprived countries, or countries with an authoritarian regime. In order to adequately combat such groups, two key areas must be pursued:
1) Economic stability
A large majority of the revolutions that have taken place, although bearing a political message, have focused on class struggle. This is the central theme of Marxism, and has even played a role in the Arab-Israeli conflict (rich Jews vs poor Arabs) and the Irish conflict (rich Brits vs. poor Irish men). Nationalism is key in numerous campaigns, but it is questionable how much of an issue nationalism would be if all the parties involved were economically equal. The lines of nationalism become more distinct when they're unofficially drawn based on economic vitality. The same would apply for religion, etc. A central requirement for adequately combating terrorism is to assist third world nations with the development of their economic infrastructure. This does not mean opening these countries to Western capitalism. Doing so would only increase anti-Western sentiments, because the local populace would quickly see rich Americans taking over their country, with little benefit to the natives. Economic enhancement means offering the guidance and training to allow these countries to foster their own economies. This will help to sway grass roots support in favor of the West, limit the effect of propaganda, and withdraw support for intelligence activities.
2) Technical stability It has been noted that the US and its Western counterparts are most vulnerable to electronic attacks. This is because non- Western nations lack similar infrastructures. By assisting fellow nations to develop similar infrastructures, we are not only facilitating their economic viability, but we are integrating them with our own infrastructure. Once that is accomplished, foreign terrorist attacks may become less attractive, because an attack on US system is also an attack on their native system. Technical proliferation provides a level playing field for all parties, thereby removing the exclusive vulnerability of the US. With global technical infrastructures, the vulnerabilities are shared. Critics would be quick to point out that such a move would offer enhanced technology to the terrorists themselves. However, this is an incorrect assumption, since the technology is already freely available to terrorists. A hacker in Libya has access to the same tools as a German hacker. What differs is the infrastructure supporting them. The German hacker is much more open to attack, even though they both may have the same tools. The Libyan hacker can disrupt the daily life of the German--the opposite does not hold true. Truly democratic societies have little to fear in relation to revolution, as long as they continue to protect individual liberties and avoid authoritarianism. In an effort to ensure stability and minimize the threat of terrorism, energy should be expended in helping other, less-developed nations to improve their economic and technical infrastructures. Terrorism is a phenomenon that can never be expunged. It is a part of history that will be ever-present. Yet, through the study of history, and attempting to limit the progression from terrorism to revolution, nations can at least limit their vulnerability to attack. An important foundation in counter- terrorism is understanding of the Principles of Terrorism, and how to adequately stunt the growth of each one. Three successful models exist for doing so, with Pluralistic Expansionism being the most promising and humanitarian.

Read more...

Terrorism PART 3 Afghanistan

Afghanistan - The Origin Of Terrorism?
From a friend in Great Britain....here what he has to say
TRANSCRIPT BEGINS -I'm not going to talk on elections in the UK, you know, for good reasons, but it's a really magnificent thing to have people vote. The pictures that you saw of Afghan women voting and showing their thumbs in pride, is my definition of power. I wish I could be one of the voters, the way they were. I did vote but I knew who I was voting for from the very beginning! So let's all hope that Afghanistan will continue to have opportunities like that for the future. The topic for me today is Global Terrorism and Afghanistan. It is something that is today on the minds of all of us - especially those living in London. These were horrific incidents some thirteen days ago for which I, once again, offer my condolences to the British people and the families of the victims. As I said in my immediate reaction to that incident, Afghanistan knows better, perhaps, than any other nation, the pain of those families, of the communities that suffered that terrorist atrocity for we have suffered ourselves for too long from it. Only, the difference was that Afghanistan for the years that it suffered did not have the London Times or Lyse Doucet of the BBC to report on it in the way that it happens when it happens in the West. We, for so many many years, had exactly the same suffering in our families, in our children, in our men and women who were only trying to earn our daily bread.What troubles me, what troubles a lot of other people, some of them speak about this, some of them don't, is that terrorism becomes terrorism when it reaches the rich part of the world. That it is not called terrorism when it is affecting the poor part of the world. I was in this house, in Chatham House, I believe it was the year 2000, and before that I was with my colleagues in the Foreign Office many times here in London. And later I read in Christina Lamb's book that somebody from the Foreign Office would tell her that when Karzai would come, they would say 'Aagh, that man is here again! Send someone to talk to him.' At that time too, the topic was terrorism and we knew that in the world that we have today, in the globalised world, in the village world, there is no part of it that we can ignore. There is no part of it that we can say 'Well, it's away from us. It has a distance from us.' There are no distances any more in today's world. So what happens in Afghanistan or elsewhere or what happens in London, or in New York, is actually affecting all of us, wherever we are. Be it in a poor, poor poor village in Afghanistan, or in the rich suburbs of New York. But how did all of this begin?The story of Afghanistan is very much related to the subsequent growth of terrorism, of elements or organisations that today we call Al-Qaeda. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan brought to it a massive resistance from the Afghan people. The Soviets came to impose an ideology on the Afghan people that was alien to us. Alien because it was against our religion, we were Muslims, very devout people in our beliefs in Islam. The Soviets came to impose Communism on us and to take away our religion from us. They also came to take our country. They came with their tanks and their soldiers and they occupied our country. So we had to fight them to regain our identity. That means home, values, culture, religion, all parts of it. On the other side, on the side of our resistance, while the Afghan people were resisting the Soviet occupation, the rest of the world came to help us. From America, to Europe, to some countries in the Muslim world, to our immediate neighbours. There were two forces at work against our people. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and those that were helping the Afghan resistance. The Soviets, as I mentioned earlier were trying to impose Communism on us and the resistance were trying to impose a different system on the Afghan people through the support that they were giving. And that imposition of radicalised religious tendencies. So the extreme you got in terms of religious tendencies, the better help you received. Those that remained loyal to Afghanistan and its values and religion were called irrelevant to the resistance. The patriotic Afghans were called those that might eventually deal with the Soviets for the withdrawal and for the safety of Afghanistan. So the more extreme one got, the better it was suited to all that helped the resistance. From America, to Europe, to the countries in our neighbourhood and to some countries in the Muslim world. The consequence of that was after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving an incapacitated society, incapacitated by Soviet aggression, and incapacitated by the massive intervention by those that were helping in the resistance.Consequently, there was a radicalised element in the Afghan resistance left in the region - particularly in Pakistan. People had come from all over the world with extreme radical ideologies and those elements, their extremism, supported to the fullest with billions of dollars in that fight. The West ignored Afghanistan. The extremists had the freest hand to do whatever they wanted and Afghanistan descended into chaos and in-fighting.The Taliban came and our people hoped that they would save them from the anarchy of gang fights and criminality. They went along with it but the Taliban brought with them extremes of which we did not know at that time.Together with them came Al-Qaeda terrorists and within five to six months of the arrival of the Taliban we began to see the true nature of it. That this was turning into a movement against Afghanistan, dividing the country, killing people and riding on the extreme hatred of radicalised religious sentiments. Now, beginning with the resistance, and lasting, perhaps, until 2001 and perhaps even today, the promotion and strengthening of terrorism was done at the hands of Governments internationally. The strength that they have today is because they were used. Terrorism and extremism was used by many Governments as instruments of policy. Some used it against the former Soviet Union, others used it within that region for strategic benefits, and so on. Others did it in order to promote a sectarian interest in the Islamic world and others used it for other political purposes within some countries and beyond the borders of those countries.We, the Afghan people kept telling the world, all of us - Dr Abdullah Abdullah [current foreign minister] was there among us - we knew the nature of things in Afghanistan. We kept telling the world of the evil that was evolving there, and of the dangers that they were presenting to the world. I remember, one day, when I was a refugee in Queta, Pakistan) somebody came to me, a cousin of mine. He said 'I saw something shocking today.' This cousin of mine was working in the De-Mining Agency of Afghanistan. He said 'I saw some young man, come and sit with me and ask for a favour. And while we are talking, this man tells me that he'd like to have a skirt full of bombs to throw it at New York. And I was shocked.'And I said 'How old was this man?' He said 'About 17, 18'. And he said 'This man was a village boy.' In Afghanistan very few village boys, before September 11, could have heard of New York. So somebody was talking to him about New York, somebody was preaching him hatred. And somebody was familiarising him with bombs. Put the bomb, New York and the hate preaching together, you get what we have today in London. You got what you had in Afghanistan. You get what you had in New York.What is bad, what is not acceptable, what failed us all is the universal consciousness on terrorism was not the same. When they were killing the Afghan people, when they were burning our schools, when they were uprooting vine trees from the vineyards, when they were burning mosques, when they were killing people, it was a poor country not able to sell much to the world, not able to buy much from the world. Therefore it didn't matter how many lives were lost and by what means.Had the world paid attention to Afghanistan at that time, from 1993 until 2001, perhaps today we would have had the Twin Towers standing. Perhaps today we would not have had the Madrid bombs. Perhaps today we would not have had the bombs in London. Or elsewhere in the world: Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, other parts of the world. Therefore, terrorism is not my problem or your problem or his or her problem or Islam's problem. Or Christianity's problem. Or Judaism or any other faith's problem.This is a problem of humanity. These are not people who belong to a religion. They are people without a religion. They are people without a faith. They are people who are a cult based on hatred. They are not Muslims. For if they were Muslims, why were they killing Muslims before they went to New York on September 11? And why were they killing the poorest of the Muslims in Afghanistan? Afghanistan was devastated by the Soviet occupation and the subsequent interventions in it. Yet Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the likes of him were training their guns on the Afghan people. And the Afghan people then - and today - were among the poorest in the world. And Afghanistan was the poorest in the Muslim world. They were training those poor Muslims in order to reach you. And that is exactly what they did.For us, for the Afghan people, we knew all along the desire that we had. The desire to live like other societies under the rule of law with the prosperity that we could afford. But our incapacitation deprived us of the ability to work against them. In numerous meetings with people from the country, with the clergy, with the tribal chiefs, we would encourage them to rise against the Taliban and the rule of tyranny. They would say 'Gentlemen, we don't have the power. They have backing from the neighbourhood of Afghanistan, they have backing from beyond the neighbourhood of Afghanistan. We can only liberate ourselves if the rest of the world is there - if America comes to help us.'And I would get mad in myself. Inside of me would burn in anger at those tribal elders for telling me that we couldn't do it ourselves. Later, when America came, when Europe joined the coalition, when they came to free Afghanistan, I saw that the tribal elders had been right. They knew the force that was against us and they knew the weaknesses that we had as a nation and they knew the capability of powers like America and Europe.The defeat of the Taliban, the defeat of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was not because the world came there alone. It was also because there was an immense desire in the nation to be free, to send children to school, to have a clinic, to have a life, to live normally as others. Therefore, Afghanistan's desire combined with the help from the international community freed us in a month and a half's time.And since then, the story is known to you. The massive participation of women in elections. The election itself. A most enlightened constitution. And today as we speak, the Afghan people are preparing for elections. For Parliamentary elections. Wherever in the country there is attack of terrorism in the midst of the population, the registration for voters is higher. In Kandahar, for example, where we have in the past two or three months, the highest number of terrorist attacks, the registration is highest in the country. More people go to resist them. In Paktika on the border with Pakistan, there are incidents of terrorism, where terrorists killed a clergy and his wife at night with knives. Women have registered to vote more than men. So the desire of societies to do well is universal. After all, they are all human beings and they want to have a good life. What is needed is for us to join hands to help those societies.Now the end to terrorism, the finishing, the eradication, I should call, of terrorism, will only come when we all join hands sincerely to fight them. It will never end if one of us uses terrorism as an instrument of policy, for a certain purpose, in a certain place, thinking that it will remain confined to that purpose and that place. Or if the religion is used as an instrument of policy against other people. That was the origin of terrorism. That's how it emerged.Now there are other reasons as well. I'm talking about Afghanistan by the way. I'm not talking of the Middle East. I'm not talking of the situation elsewhere. I'm talking of our situation, of how terrorism emerged in my part of the world. Islam, ladies and gentlemen, as I see nowadays in Europe, in America, this talk of Islamic terrorists, I get very, what shall I say, I get disappointed when I hear that. It points to a fundamental lack of information. It points to a basic lack of understanding of how the same people that are killing innocent passengers, travellers, men, women that are working in London, are also killing innocent people in Afghanistan. There's no difference between them. They have the same slogan. They have the same source. They have the same method. They blow up a bomb on a bus in London, or in the underground. In Afghanistan, they take the same bomb to a mosque. They go to the places of congregation, where innocents are. They blow up mosques. Here they kill a worker. In Afghanistan, they go and kill a clergy. Burn a tent where children want to study. Burn schools. Therefore, it is not related to Islam. For if somebody is a Muslim, for if somebody is really a Muslim, he or she would not commit murder. Murdering an innocent person in Islam is equated to the killing of humanity. It's that severe, that strong a crime. A basic knowledge of Islam will tell you that. And then, how can one be a Muslim if he goes and kills children in a tent who are there to learn the basics of ABC and to educate themselves? So my plea is to the Western societies, Islam is not what these people are. Terrorists are actually working against Islam. They are the enemy of all. They are my enemy and I am a Muslim. They have been killing my people for so many years and they were the most devout of the Muslim world. And yet the poorest of the Muslim world. They killed people in New York so they are indiscriminate killers. They are merchants of death, I would say.It is also not a clash of civilisations. This is another very misleading slogan that I see in newspaper. How can there be a clash of civilisations if, from the United States, to Japan, to Europe, to China, to India, to the Muslim world, they are all helping in Afghanistan? How can it be a clash if the Afghan people have received them wholeheartedly? How can it be a clash of civilisations if a highway from Kabul to Herat is built by three different civilisations? The Americans, the Japanese and the Saudis. One part of the highway is built by America, the other by Japan, the other by Saudi Arabia. Christian, Muslim and Buddhist. How can it be a clash of civilisations if the thousands of troops in Afghanistan have come from all the different religions of the world? How can it be a clash of civilisations when an Afghan clergy comes to me and says 'Mr President, please don't let the coalition forces leave before it is time for them to leave?' How can it be a clash of civilisation when a very devout, conservative clergy comes and asks me and says 'Mr President, don't allow the coalition to leave before our national army is made?' Or when he advises the coalition on how to conduct themselves within Afghanistan? That is dialogue. Advising is dialogue, it's not a clash. So I would rather than preaching or predicting or propagating the clash of civilisations, I have seen in my country and you have to come and see it, the co-operation of civilisations. And by stark examples, by unbelievably stark examples.I'm now going to tell a personal story that happened, one evening, in the month of Ramadan in 2001 when the war against terrorism was had begun.American planes had chased the Taliban and bombed somebody's house where the Taliban occupied. When the Taliban entered that man's house, he, his children, his wife and grandchildren were made to sit in the trolley of atractor. The bomb comes and hits the trolley killing seven of his children and grandchildren, leaving two. A month afterwards, the main town of the province is taken by the people who are in the mountains. The civilians chased out the Taliban and took the town from them. I arrived three days later and US assistance, the medical and the human assistance arrived two days afterwards. So we are sitting and having dinner and the man whose children were killed a month before in that bombing has brought me dinner and is with me having dinner. News comes that Americans are visiting us, two or three of their officials. And I am reluctant, I don't know what to do. This man is there and the American planes have killed his children. I say, 'Well, bring them in.' In they come and I introduce the gentlemen to each other and then I say 'So and so has lost seven of his children in your bombing.' And the man who has lost his children says 'Tell the American that I lost seven of my children, yes. That I have three left, children and grandchildren. But I would not mind if I loose three more them, of my remaining grandchildren provided you liberate Afghanistan from terrorism and from the Taliban.'That is co-operation of civilisations for a common cause. For the cause of the Afghan man, for the cause of the man that was killed or the woman that was killed in New York. Therefore, we say our experiences are of the co-operation between civilisations. We should go beyond those who preach hatred to the greater part of humanity that is seeking co-operation, and that is actually co-operating. Therefore, terrorists, whoever they are, are neither speaking for Islam, nor for Christianity nor for any other religion. They speak for themselves, for their hatred, for their brutality.I'm going to skip all these other things, NATO, you know. I'm not going to talk about that or relations or other things. So I will end, but I will summarise the whole thing by saying that terrorism is a creation of misjudgements, of misuse. It is not related to common people. It is related to Government policies, to Governments, not people. And it will not stop unless Governments stop using extremism as instruments of policy. That's the end word.

Read more...

Terrorism PART 2 Islam , Jehad & Qur'an

ISLAMIC TERRORISM
Islamic terrorism (also known as Jihadist terrorism,.but not to be confused with Islamist terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam. According to statistics gathered in 2006 by the National Counterterrorism Center of the United States, "Islamic extremism" was responsible for approximately a quarter of all terrorism fatalities worldwide,and a majority of the fatalities for which responsibility could be conclusively determined. Terrorist acts have included airline hijacking, beheading, kidnapping, assassination, roadside bombing, suicide bombing and occasionally, rape. Perhaps the most resonant, well known, and well documented incident of terrorism was the hijacking of four passenger jets and the destruction of the World Trade Center on the day of September 11 2001, in the United States of America. Other prominent attacks have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Israel, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Britain, Spain, France, Russia and China. These terrorist groups often describe their actions as Islamic jihad (struggle). Self-proclaimed sentences of punishment or death issued publicly as threats often come in the form of fatwas (Islamic legal judgments). Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims, but threats against Muslims are often issued as takfir (a declaration that a person, group or institution that describes itself as Muslim has in fact left Islam and thus is a traitor). This is an implicit death threat as the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death under Sharia law. The controversies surrounding the subject include whether the terrorist act is self-defense or aggression, national self-determination or Islamic supremacy;whether Islam can ever condone the targeting of noncombatants; whether some attacks described as Islamic terrorism are merely terrorist acts committed by Muslims or motivated by nationalism; whether the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the root of Islamic terrorism, or simply one cause; how much support there is in the Muslim world for Islamic terrorism and whether support for terror is a temporary phenomenum, a "bubble", now fading away.
An increasingly popular tactic used by terrorists is suicide bombing.This tactic is used against civilians, soldiers, and government officials of the regimes the terrorists oppose. The use of suicide bombers is seen by many Muslims as contradictory to Islam's teachings; however, groups who support its use often refer to such attacks as "martyrdom operations" and the suicide-bombers who commit them as "martyrs" (Arabic: shuhada, plural of "shahid"). The bombers, and their sympathizers often believe that suicide bombers, as martyrs to the cause of jihad against the enemy, will receive the rewards of paradise for their actions. One source has found interest in new and so far unutilized bombing technique on internet forums used by the Islamic terror group al-Qaeda - the use of "remote-piloted aircraft" and "robot designs," and "training dogs to recognize American troops’ uniforms," as a replacement for techniques such as suicide bombing or a detonating planted bombs with a radio-control.
Hijackings
The hijacking of passenger vehicles such as cars, buses, and planes has also become a hallmark of Islamist terrorism, particularly as a result of the simultaneous hijacking of the four passenger jets utilized in the September 11th terrorist attacks as well as the hijacking of a Belgian airlines jet during the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre. Kidnappings and executions Along with bombings and hijackings, Islamist terrorists have made extensive use of highly-publicised kidnappings and executions, often circulating videos of the acts for use as propaganda. Notable foreign victims include Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Kim Sun-il, Kenneth Bigley, Shosei Koda, Fabrizio Quattrocchi, Margaret Hassan. One Iraqi victim was Seif Adnan Kanaan. The most frequent form of execution by these groups has been decapitations, often committed while shouting the Islamic chant, "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for God is greatest). While some targets are military, or seen as supporting the anti-Islamist forces, victims are also as varied as the Red Cross, the Iraqi education ministry, and diplomats.

Motivation, ideology and theology
Motivation
To what extent Islamic terrorists are motivated by religious belief is disputed.
Robert Pape, has argued that at least terrorists utilizing suicide-homicide attacks -- a particularly effective form of terrorist attack -- are driven not by Islamism but by "a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland." However a critic of Pape's theory, Martin Kramer, argues that it does not account for the lack of suicide bombings in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in Israel for nearly 30 years after the occupation began, for the targeting of native, non-combatant Shia by jihadi bombers in Iraq, the prominence of British-born Pakistanis in bombings in London, or of North Africans, and especially Moroccans, in the second wave of al-Qaeda attackers.
In particular, scholar Scott Atran, points out that the massive increase in suicide bombing has meant most suicide bombings have occurred after Pape's study ended in 2003. "Roughly 600," suicide attacks occurred in just two years, 2004 and 2005, more "than in Pape's entire sample," - and the overwhelming majority of these bombers have been motivated by the ideology of Islamist martyrdom.
Some supporters of Palestinian political violence have claimed that citizens of Israel are legitimate military targets because Jewish adolescents are required by law to serve in the country's military. Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer's view is that Islamic terror attacks against America are motivated by the perception that U.S. foreign policy is a threat to Islam. He has further condensed his argument down to the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are." By this, Scheuer acknowledges that American culture and religion are offensive to many Muslims, but claims these factors have very little role as motivators of Islamic terrorism. Rather, he cites the following U.S. foreign policy actions as fueling Islamic terror:
The presence of U.S. troops on Muslim holy ground in Saudi Arabia U.S. support for "apostate" police states in Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, and
The U.S. invasions and subsequent occupations of the Muslim nations of Afghanistan and Iraq
U.S. support for the creation of the Christian state of East Timor from territory previously held by Muslim Indonesia.
U.S. approval or support of:
India against Muslim forces in the disputed region of Kashmir
The Philippines against separatist Muslims in Mindanao
Russia against Muslim Chechens in the Second Chechen War
China against Muslim Uyghur separatists in western China
Israel against Muslim Arabs in the Palestinian territories
Bergesen and Lizardo wrote "Crenshaw argues that 'terrorism should be seen as a strategic reaction to American power,' an idea associated with Johnson's (2000) 'blowback' thesis. In this view, the presence of empires - both at the end of the last century and today - and the analogous unipolar military position of the United States today (Brooks and Wohlforth 2002) provoke resistance in the form of terrorism. Johnson (2000) notes that the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires - which controlled multiple ethnic, religious, and national peoples - led to a backlash, or blowback, by Serb, Macedonian, and Bosnian terrorist organisations (the Black Hand, Young Bosnia, Narodnaya Volya). By analogy the powerful global position of the United States, particularly in its role of propping up repressive undemocratic regimes, constitutes something of a similar condition with Arab-Islamic terrorism as a result. The causal mechanism here is that the projection of military power plants seeds of later terrorist reactions, as 'retaliation for previous American imperial actions'
Profile Lawrence Wright and Olivier Roy have mentioned the characteristic of "displacement" of members of the most famous Islamic terrorist group, Al-Qaeda.What the recruits tended to have in common - besides their urbanity, their cosmopolitan backgrounds, their education, their facility with languages, and their computer skills - was displacement. Most who joined the jihad did so in a country other than the one in which they were reared. They were Algerians living in expatriate enclaves in France, Moroccans in Spain, or Yemenis in Saudi Arabia. Despite their accomplishments, they had little standing in the host societies where they lived. ...."
Another author, forensic psychiatrist and former foreign service officer Marc Sageman, made an "intensive study of biographical data on 172 participants in the jihad," in his book "Understanding Terror Networks". He concluded "social networks", the "tight bonds of family and friendship" rather than behavioral disorders "poverty, trauma, madness, [or] ignorance" inspired alienated young Muslims to join the jihad" and kill. What may be an indication that this profile is changing comes from a 2007 study of 110 suicide bombers in Afghanistan, by an Afghan pathologist Dr. Yusef Yadgari. Yadgari found that "80%" of the attackers studied had some kind of physical or mental disability. The bombers were also "not celebrated like their counterparts in other Arab nations. Afghan bombers are not featured on posters or in videos as martyrs."
Ideology Tenets of Qutbism have been summarized by Dale C. Eikmeier as being:
A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to "pure Islam" as originally practiced during the time of the Prophet. The path to "pure Islam" is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Quran and Hadith, along with implementation of the Prophet’s commands. Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretations of Islamic scholars. That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry. Transnational Islamist ideology, specifically of the militant Islamists, assert that Western polities and society are actively anti-Islamic, or as it is sometimes described, waging a "war on Islam". Islamists often identify what they see as a historical struggle between Christianity and Islam, dating back as far as the Crusades, among other historical conflicts between practitioners of the two respective religions. Osama bin Laden, for example, almost invariably describes his enemy as aggressive and his call for action against them as defensive. Defensive jihad differs from offensive jihad in being "fard al-ayn," or a personal obligation of all Muslim, rather than "fard al-kifaya", a communal obligation, which if some Muslims perform it is not required from others. Hence, framing a fight as defensive has the advantage both of appearing to be a victim rather than aggressor, and of giving your struggle the very highest religious priority for all good Muslims. Many of the violent terrorist groups use the name of Jihad to fight against Christians and Jews. An example is Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda, which is also known as 'International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders'. Most militant Islamists oppose Israel's policies, and often its existence.
The historic rivalry between Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent has also often been the primary motive behind some of the most deadly terrorist attacks in India. According to a US State Department report, India topped the list of countries worst affected by Islamic terrorism.
In addition, Islamist Jihadis, scholars, and leaders opposed Western society for what they see as immoral secularism. Islamists have claimed that such unrestricted free speech has led to the proliferation of pornography, immorality, secularism, homosexuality, feminism, and many other ideas that Islamists often oppose. Although bin Laden almost always emphasized the alleged oppression of Muslims by America and Jews when talking about them in his messages, in his "Letter to America" he answered the question, "What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?," We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest ... You separate religion from your policies, ... You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions ... You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants ... You are a nation that permits acts of immorality ... You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. ... You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women. ...
Given their perceived piety, The Times noted the irony when a major investigation by their reporters uncovered a link between Islamic Jihadis and child pornography; a discovery that, according to the London paper, "is expected to improve understanding of the mindsets of both types of criminals and has been hailed as a potentially vital intelligence tool to undermine future terrorist plots."
Accusations of apostasy Justification for terrorism against other Muslims by militant Islamists, in particular against Muslim regimes they consider non-Islamic, is often based on the contention that the targets are apostates.[88] Osama Bin Laden, for example, maintains that any Muslim who helps "infidels over Muslims" is no longer a Muslim, ... the believer ... should boycott the goods of America and her allies, and he should be very wary that he does not support falsehood, for helping the infidels over Muslims -- even with a single word is clear unbelief, as the religious scholars have decreed. and that Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (deposed in 2001) "is the only Islamic country" in the world. Islamic law traditionally designates death as the penalty for apostasy (converting) from Islam. Opinions within the Muslim community vary as to the grounds on which an individual may be declared to have apostatized. The most common view among Muslim scholars is that a declaration of takfir (designation of a Muslim as an apostate) can only be made by an established religious authority. Mainstream Muslim scholars usually oppose recourse to takfir, except in rare instances. Takfir was used as justification for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Interpretations of the Qur'an
The role played by the Qur'an, Islam's sacred text, in opposing or in encouraging attacks on civilians is hotly disputed. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born American citizen awaiting trial for nine counts of attempted murder, cited a number of verses from the Qur'an in justifying his attempt to kill civilians, including:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. [Qur'an 2:216]
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; [Qur'an 5:33]
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. [Qur'an 9:5]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [Qur'an 9:29-30]
Marmaduke Pickthall, a Western convert to Islam and Islamic scholar commented on verse 2:216, references verse 2:251, and interpreted these particular verses to mean that fighting is not optional when done in defense of the oppressed and the weak.
Pickthall goes on to say that "Nowhere does the Qur’an approve a spirit of revenge" and situates verse 2:194 in the context of a defensive war. Ibn Kathir stated that the Quran clearly commands believers to prefer forgiveness over retaliation wherever possible.
Michael Sells and Jane I. Smith (a Professor of Islamic Studies) write that barring some extremists like Al-Qaeda, most Muslims do not interpret Qura’nic verses as promoting warfare; and that the phenomenon of radical interpretation of scripture by extremist groups is not unique to Islam."According to Sells, "[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels."

Criticism of Islamic terrorist ideology Although "Islamic" Terrorism is commonly associated with the Salafis or "Wahhabis", the scholars of the group have constantly attributed this association to ignorance, misunderstanding and sometimes insincere research and deliberate misleading by rival groups.. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Arlington, Shaikh Abdul-Azeez Aal ash-Shaikh (the Grand Mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia President of the Committee of Major Scholars and centre for Knowledge based research and verdicts) made an official statement that "the Islamic Sharee'ah (legislation) does not sanction" such actions.A Salafi or "Wahhabi" "Committee of Major Scholars" in Saudi Arabia has declared that "Islamic" terrorism, such as the May 2003 bombing in Riyadh, are in violation of Sharia law and aiding the enemies of Islam.
Criticism of Islamic terrorism on Islamic grounds has also been made by anti-terrorist Muslims such as Abdal-Hakim Murad:
Certainly, neither bin Laden nor his principal associate, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are graduates of Islamic universities. And so their proclamations ignore 14 centuries of Muslim scholarship, and instead take the form of lists of anti-American grievances and of Koranic quotations referring to early Muslim wars against Arab idolaters. These are followed by the conclusion that all Americans, civilian and military, are to be wiped off the face of the Earth. All this amounts to an odd and extreme violation of the normal methods of Islamic scholarship. Had the authors of such fatwas followed the norms of their religion, they would have had to acknowledge that no school of mainstream Islam allows the targeting of civilians. An insurrectionist who kills non-combatants is guilty of baghy, "armed aggression," a capital offense in Islamic law. One counter-terrorism scholar, Dale C. Eikmeier, points out the "questionable religious credentials" of many Islamist theorists, or "Qutbists," which can be a "means to discredit them and their message":
With the exception of Abul Ala Maududi and Abdullah Azzam, none of Qutbism’s main theoreticians trained at Islam’s recognized centers of learning. Although a devout Muslim, Hassan al Banna was a teacher and community activist. Sayyid Qutb was a literary critic. Muhammad Abd al-Salam Faraj was an electrician. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician. Osama bin Laden trained to be a businessman. Yemeni Judge Hamoud Al-Hitar has also attacked the Islamic intellectual basis of terrorism using hujjat or proof "in theological dialogues that challenge and then correct the wayward beliefs" of terrorists or would-be terrorists. Iranian Ayatollah Ozma Seyyed Yousef Sanei issued a fatwa (ruling) that suicide attacks against civilians are legitimate only in the context of war. The ruling did not say whether other types of attacks against civilians are justified outside of the context of war, nor whether Jihad is included in Sanei's definition of war. Muslim attitudes toward terrorism
Muslim popular opinion on the subject of attacks on civilians by Islamist groups varies. While most Muslims living in the West denounce the September 11th attacks on the US, Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets are widely supported in the Muslim world and regarded as defensive Jihad by a legitimate resistance movement rather than terrorism.
A Sunday Times survey taken in UK shortly after the 9/11 attack "revealed that 40% of British Muslims believe Usama bin Laden was right to attack the United States. About the same proportion think that British Muslims have a right to fight alongside the Taliban. A radio station serving London's Pakistani community conducted a poll which 98% of London Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain, while 48% said they would fight for bin Laden."
A 2005 Pew Research study that involved 17,000 people in 17 countries showed support for terrorism was declining in the Muslim world along with a growing belief that Islamic extremism represents a threat to those countries. A Daily Telegraph survey showed that 6% of British Muslims fully supported the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground.
A 2004 Pew survey revealed that Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). In Turkey as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable.
The Free Muslims Coalition rallied against terror, stating that they wanted to send "a message to radical Muslims and supporters of terrorism that we reject them and that we will defeat them."
Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Muslim and the general manager of Arab news channel, Al-Arabiya has said: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." Statistics compiled by the United States government's Counterterrorism Center present a more complicated picture: of known and specified terrorist incidents from the beginning of 2004 through the first quarter of 2005, slightly more than half of the fatalities were attributed to Islamic extremists but a majority of over-all incidents were considered of either "unknown/unspecified" or a secular political nature. The vast majority of the "unknown/unspecified" terrorism fatalities did however happen in Islamic regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or in regions where Islam is otherwise involved in conflicts such as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, southern Thailand and Kashmir.The methodology employed by the Center is sometimes disputed and the center has been accused of responding to political pressure from the Bush administration to show a decline in terrorism
In 2006, Palestine voters gave the group Hamas - which is designated as a terrorist organization in Israel, United States, Canada, and the European Union - a majority of the seats in its parliament. though there is question as to whether whether the election results represent support for the organization's militia tactics, support for the organization's social programs, or dissatisfaction with the previous government which was widely seen as corrupt and incompetent.
Fred Halliday, a British academic specialist on the Middle East, argues that most Muslims consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's laws.
Daniel Chirot said "Not many people in the world, either in Islamic countries, or Christian ones, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or anything else, really want to live a life of extreme puritanism, endless hate, and suicidal wars. Extremist leaders can take power, and for a time, be backed by much of their population hoping to redress past grievances and trying to find a new utopia. But as with the most extreme Christian warriors during the European wars of religion, or with the Nazis, or the most committed communist revolutionaries, it eventually turned out that few of their people were willing to go all the way in their struggles if that meant permanent violence, suffering, and death. So it will be with Islamic extremism."

Read more...

  © Free Blogger Templates Blogger Theme by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP