New Gaza show for kids

Here's a new show for kids in Gaza. In this episode, a little kid murders Bush as revenge for the death of his parents. Note that this is from the official Hamas television station. Are they really fooling anyone when they say they want peace? It's things like this that show Hamas systematically brainwashing their children into becoming killing machines. In my opinion, there's no doubt they intend on dulling their children's sense of violence in order to further the conflict.

Memri1
by luvnews

US Attorney General Says Piracy Helps Fund Terrorist Attacks

http://www.dbtechno.com/internet/2008/03/31/us-attorney-general-says-piracy-helps-fund-terrorist-attacks/

US Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed that piracy, along with counterfeiting, helps fund terrorist organizations; he made this claim in an address at the Tech Museum of Innovation at Silicon Valley. According to Mukasey, “Criminal syndicates, and in some cases even terrorist groups, view IP crime as a lucrative business, and see it as a low-risk way to fund other activities.” I have never pirated anything before, and I was wondering how easy it is to do so. Also, I was wondering how the class feels about Mukasey's statement. Do most people pirate entertainment or other forms of information on the internet? If so, do you think Mukasey's statement will have any effect on piracy?

Arab summit failures have many asking, Why hold them?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/30/africa/ME-GEN-Arab-Summit.php
I found this article about the Arab Summit. In this article it discusses about this year how the Arab sumbits went. The article discussed how the United States Arab allies boycotted the sumit. On 10 of the 22 Arab countries ended up going to the conference. The conference each year is suppose to unite the Arab nations. However, since at least 2002 all of the Nations have not been there or members have had arguements, boycotts and walks outs. In this year conference there was a last minute walk out by the newly governed Iraq. This is because out of the countries there, they would not pass anything to condemn terrorism. It looks like this maybe the last Arab Sumbit unless somekind of deal to work. This deals with Terrorism in a couple different reason. The first reason is that since there was no condemning of terrorism, this shows to me that some Arab nations are infavor of terrorism, i.e: Iran, Syria and Lebanon. ANother way this effects terrror is that if Arab nations can not agree to stop it, then I feel that it gives terrorist free reign to do what they want and be able to hide in countries. Also, it may allow terrorist to have state sponsorship against the United States. I think if this summit does not continue, in the end it will cause more problems for tthe U.S.
Let me know what everyone else thinks
Thanks
Austin Conners

p.s-This post was suppose to go the week of the 24-30th of March it did not go through. Please grade it for that week, Thanks

Giving People Another Option...

While reading for last Friday's class from The Age of Sacred Terror, Benjamin and Simon stated something that I thought was quite interesting. On page 409, they say, "Traditional societies the world over are reeling from the impact of globalization, which arrives wearing the face of American popular culture. Poverty is endemic in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as well as in the Middle East and North Africa. Only al-Qaeda has counterattacked with a campaign of violence that aims for total victory through annihilation of the presumed source of these evils." It seems to me that Benjamin and Simon suggest that the world is not doing enough, or really anything, to fight the poverty that is so prevalent in the mentioned places. It only seems natural that people would support al-Qaeda because they are the only organization doing anything at all. Only al-Qaeda is giving them an answer for their miserable state, so of course they are going to join and support them. So, it seems to me that if the world, not just the US, increased their attention and aid to these places and gave the people a viable alternative option to al-Qaeda and other terrorists, perhaps support would dwindle for the terrorist organizations. But again, it is difficult to determine whether or not people in these poverty-stricken areas would even accept Western help. Anyway, just a thought... feel free to share your ideas.

Alpha Anti-terror group

While researching for paper 5, I came across some interesting information that I thought I'd share with you guys. It's about Russia's elite counter-terrorism group known as the Alpha Group.

Not much is known about their history, but one notable operation was in 1985 when 4 Russian diplomats were held hostage in Beirut. The KGB identified the terrorists and the Alpha group kidnapped their families. Since Russia does not negotiate with hostages, they just sent the terrorists some severed body parts from their family members with the warning that more would be sent if the diplomats were not released. Needless to say, the terrorists released their hostages, and no Russian diplomats has been kidnapped in the Middle East for the last 20 years.

I know that we could never do that today, but you have to hand it to the Soviets, they got the job done.

Read more about the Alpha group here

United States--Sponsor of Terror?

In Sunday's New York Times there is an article discussing Venezuela's sponsorship of terrorism. The Colombian government claims to have recovered files in Ecuador connecting the Venezuelan government with the FARC. This hardly comes as a surprise to anyone. Hugo Chavez's sympathy towards the FARC is notorious. However, the United States still has not placed Venezuela on its list of State Sponsers of Terrorism. Why is this? Are the motivations purely political....or economic....or both. The United States is a consumer of Venezuelan oil. Despite the rhetoric on both sides, the countries continue to do business. Who is the biggest hypocrite. Hugo Chavez, who at every turn, calls the United States an evil empire, yet continues to sell us oil. Or the United States government, who calls Hugo Chavez a despotic dictator and continues to purchase oil from him. Which, they now in turn, is used to sponsor terrorism aboard. Though some might disagree, it would appear that the United States "War on Terror" and those who sponsor it does not begin within. Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/americas/30colombia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Fatwa in a new light.

Muqtada Al-Sadr called for a truce between the government and his militia, six days after the government cracked down against his bases in Basra,Iraq. While he asked the government to release his supporters from prison and stop raiding their homes, he ordered his men to put down their arms and stop attacking the armed forces "because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces." In class we had discussed that a Fatwa, (a religious sanction obtained from a cleric legitimizing an attack) could count as one of the factors that made Islamic terrorism more dangerous, because people seek Fatwas from someone who shares a similar viewpoint, and some individuals (like Bin Laden) even issue Fatwas themselves, thus legitimizing their actions. However, this particular case points towards a positive usage of the Fatwa. Here it is issued to stop violence rather than escalate it. Though there have been reported instances of violence after the statement has been released, it will be interesting to see how this truce develops.

Some Counterterrorist Humor

After many years in school, I have realized that the best way for me to learn in class when someone can take a principle and turn it into a joke or make light of it somehow (i.e. being sarcastic, irreverent, satirical, etc.). For whatever reason, I can remember a principle with greater clarity and recall when it is presented in this manner. Therefore, as we are concluding our section on counterterrorist strategies and tactics, I thought I would add a hilariously satirical piece by the Daily Onion (aka the ONN) to our blog. The piece is entitled, "Organizers Fear Terrorist Attacks on Upcoming Al-Qaeda Convention," and it details the counterterrorist strategies and security measures that Al-Qaeda is going to use in order to deny, dissuade and even defend against terrorist attacks at their convention. This piece was not only downright hilarious in its mocking and satirical tone, but it also had a copious amount of real-life strategies and techniques that we have been talking about in class.

Pictured here: a delegate from Mosul triggers one of the many metal detectors brought in for the conference.

Dutch MP posts Islam film on web

Dutch MP posts Islam film on web
I found this article very interesting but the most interesting part was that of the comments at the bottom. We get a very biased point of view with American news and sometimes its interesting to see what other people have to save from different parts of the world see comments at the bottom. The article in of itself mentions how this house representative in Holland posted a right wing film associating terrorism with Islam. This reminds me of the discussion that came up in class today if we can separate Islam from terrorists then we have the help of millions of the followers of Islam to fight terrorism ? Do you think people will every be able to look at terrorism as people who have gone to far or will it always be linked to religion ?

Middle Eastern Optimism and the New Bargain

This past class we discussed the
options available to the United States in the long term, to prevent religious terrorism. It seemed that at least the vocal minority, or perhaps the majority felt that the new bargain that was put forth got shot down fairly quickly. It was this fatalist attitude that I wanted to engage.

I believe with time, we can make inroads into the middle east and bring about positive democratization and secularization. Of course the task is far from an easy one, but that should not inhibit us from pursuing a long-term course there. We should provide aid, education and trade opportunities with supportive governments, and we should allow more diplomats to engage different tribes, sects and non-governmental institutions that may be supportive of terrorists or may enable them in some way.

The more engagement, the better. I know some of you are probably rolling your eyes at this point and thinking, "But it's our engagement there that has brought with it so much hostility and backlash," however, if you think that, I will not say you are incorrect, but you are missing the whole picture. What type of engagement has frustrated the populaces of the middle east? Our military and covert operations. Open diplomacy, good business and transparent missions to support education and eradicate poverty will be able to change perceptions. It will be a long process. I will not deny that. Some have been brain-washed and will never change (at least in this life), but we must try. Any one else have an optimistic view?

Changes in Iraq

I recently came upon a posting by Michael Yon. In his posting he reports on a recent happening in Iraq that is interesting. Recently, about twenty "jihadists" descended on a Nineveh village. The terrorists killed some adults and two infants, the youngest of which was 15 days old. Yon states that until recently, such attacks would coerce the village into providing a safe-haven for the terrorists (Al-Qaeda). However, this time the villagers went into their homes, grabbed their rifles, and slaughtered 19 terrorists. I have been thinking about counter-terrorist strategies and what may have caused these villagers to decide that they were not going to take it anymore. Is Al-Qaeda increasingly being denied of their constituent public (even if they have been coerced in the past to become providers of shelter)? I wonder if the U.S. has had much of an influence on these villagers or if they are just sick of being murdered and dominated by these terrorists. Whatever the cause, I believe that if more people would take the same initiative as the people in this village, it would be a lot more difficult for terrorists to gain support and operate.

P.S. If are interested in what's happening in Iraq, and if you haven't heard of Michael Yon or what he is doing, check him out, some of you may like what you see.

Hooray for brownie points

As you may have noticed, I have replaced the header graphic at the top of the blog, although I know that many of you will miss the cheerful face of our good friend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Our new friend is no less interesting, and I have some questions about him.

You know the drill, right? The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.

1) What is the organization that this man leads?

2) What is the nickname that this man's fellow militants have given him?

3) What is the name he was born with?

4) What is the name of the president who signed a peace agreement with this terrorist, giving him de facto control of a territory the size of Switzerland?

5) What was the name of the semi-independent territory from which this man was expelled by government forces, leading him to form the organization which he now heads?

6) What is the amount of the bounty placed on this man's head by the United States Department of State?

Good luck!

19 LTTE Killed

Here is some more current information on the LTTE. while fighting in the north there were 19 members of the LTTE killed and some others wounded. Through a series of small attacks and small fights in the north there were several members of this terrorist organization killed, there were also a couple of SLA soldiers killed in the attacks. My question is, when there are more casualties to the terrorist group than there is to the target is the attack really worth it...any opinions. I can't imagine how it would be beneficial to the terrorist group to attack and lose so many 'fighters' without at least an equal number of deaths on the opposing side.

LTTE

I have found the LTTE very interesting lately. Ever since coming across their website and seeing the sympathy that they try to gain from it. Here is an interesting link about how other people feel about the LTTE. Even some closely related to Tamil leaders feel that things would be better without the LTTE, this is an example of that and it also gives some interesting little details about the LTTE and the effect it has on Sri Lanka as a whole.

terrorism misidentified

In yet another example of the term "terrorism" being possibly misidentified, the government of Jordan has charged a man with terrorism for stabbing a German in Amman. You can find the article here.

I think the article is almost funny (minus the whole stabbing part), because it says that they initially did not consider the act terrorism, but after finding out that the Jordanian had a long beard and was apparently an Islamist, they changed their minds and charged him with terrorism.

It's interesting to note that motives of the attack were still unclear. They don't yet know if he is a member of a sub-state organization with a political aim, but apparently they believe he is an Islamist, and I guess that's enough to charge him with terrorism. It's possible (and likely) however that Jordan has a slightly different (read: skewed) definition of terrorism.

more of "a nasty business"

Waterboarding has come up a lot in class and I didn't really understand what it was, so I looked it up on wikipedia (where else, right?). Then I followed a link in a footnote to this site. It features a video of a reporter voluntarily being waterboarded and his discussion with a professional interrogator and two faculty members at Harvard. It reminded me of Bruce Hoffman's piece "A Nasty Business" where he talks with a counter-terrorism worker who has engaged in coercive methods of interrogation. The interrogator says that he doesn't feel good or bad about what he's done and that no one really knows what they'd do in a position like that until he or she is actually in the moment.

In this video clip, the interviewed interrogator--Mike Ritz--says he has to make decisions between saving people and punishing alleged terrorists. I found his point interesting about torture: when torture is used and innocent would-be-victims are saved as a result, people are left with two conflicting beliefs (that torture is illegal and bad, and that saving people is good) that they have to reconcile. This video furthers our discussion on Hoffman's piece about torture being horrible but sometimes having good effects. However, unsurprisingly, it doesn't resolve the issue.

Refusal Keeps Terrorism Convict in Prison

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102775.html?hpid=sec-nation
I read this article on Former university professor Sami al-Arian wants to finish serving his prison sentence for a terrorism-related crime next month so that he can be deported to the Palestinian territories. In this article I read that professor Sami al-Arian was arrested for collecting money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group that is based out of Pakistan. Professor Sami al-Arian,
"was at the center of one of the nation's highest profile terrorism cases, accused of conspiracy to commit racketeering and murder and to aid a terrorist group, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in 2003. Two years later, a jury acquitted him of eight counts and deadlocked on others, but Arian pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to "make or receive funds . . . for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad" and was sentenced to 57 months in prison, which included time already served."
Professor al-Arian just wants to finish his jail time, and be deported to Pakistan. He was supposly offered a plea bargain for his testimony, and he would not be subpoena. However, the courts may hold al-Arian in jail until he testifies against Charities that are supporting terrorist. I wonder what everyone thinks about this article? Is it right to remove all right from a terrorist to protect national security? I think it is. I would rather take away rights from one person to save thousands or maybe millions.
Let me know what you think. I hope you like the article.
Austin Conners

Protecting Your Sources How Far Does it Go ?

So this video shows an interview by a reporter for NYT . This guy has trained hundreds of terrorist by his accounts and carried out attacks himself. Why isn't this guy in jail ? The reporter says they had to conceal their location in order for him to agree to the interview. I suppose a reporter would argue you have to protect your sources but... where is the limit? If I have information about a terrorist who carries out terrorist action am I obligated to pass it onto the state dept ? Or break a big story instead .. Hmmm which sounds more towards the rights of the innocent that will suffer from the attack or the people this guy trained ?

Israeli Counter Terrorism

I just read an article concerning Israel and its counter terrorism policy in its airports.  (Article)  

The Israelis are using the denial technique to stop potential attacks by racially profiling those of Arab descent.  In the U.S. this is illegal to do, but some terrorist experts say that this specific practice is the reason there hasn't been an attack/hijacking on an Israeli plane for decades, even superseding reinforcing the luggage compartments with armor, reinforced cockpits, and armed marshals.  Now there is a debate in Israel in the Supreme Court about its legality.  

In the U.S. this policy wouldn't work for a couple reasons: 1) It's illegal and is not likely to pass scrutiny, 2) Focusing on a certain race (how can people always tell the race of a person?) will eventually overlook other people that are terrorists.  The U.S. policy is to randomly check passengers which so far, with the increased security measures, seems to be effective enough.  Thoughts?

~Greg

Waterboarding

I recently learned during an ROTC briefing that U.S. military servicemembers attending SERE-C school (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) are waterboarded as part of their stress-inoculation training.  I'm definitely not making a final judgement call in favor of the technique, or coercive interrogation in general.  However, I do think the fact that we somewhat-routinely waterboard our own soldiers, sailors, and airmen as part of training weakens that case that waterboarding is a form of torture, and legitimates it as an interrogation technique.

I'm interested in hearing what everyone else thinks.

SERE Training

JFK Special Warfare School webpage on SERE training.  Obviously it avoids any controversial subjects.

Article 1

Article 2

Both of these article are rather obviously trying to make a political statement, but they do highlight the relationship between SERE training and coercive interrogation.  I'm not claiming to agree with the conclusions, though.

Al-Qaeda and the Internet

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15net.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205784903-nGAiqDYmnZTfuEdmebRl/Q

The New York Times recently reported about Al-Qaeda's growing use of the internet to attract support from potential terrorists in the West, particularly young Muslims living in Europe and the United States. The author of the article discussed how Al-Qaeda has had a lot of success in gaining sympathizers in the West through various propagandist endeavors disseminated through the internet. As mentioned in class, the author highlights Al-Qaeda's use of hip-hop videos with anti-West messages to attract support. The organization has found this tool effective. It seems odd to me that Al-Qaeda would approve of hip-hop, a Western trend with sometimes questionable messages, as the mode by which their ideas are spread to young adults. Is this a double standard that the Al-Qaeda organization has, or is the use of hip-hop to gain support perpetuated by individuals not truly part of the group but rather distant supporters of Al-Qaeda? I would be interested in knowing what you all think.

Development as an Anti Terrorism tool

Last week in class we talked about the role of development in countering terrorism. Specifically we listed Global, Strategic and Tactical development. For some reason, I find development in any of these forms as lacking the potential to curb terrorism. While poverty may be a factor that promotes terrorism, it cannot be considered a cause of terrorism, because there are a lot of countries around the world which are poor but do not display any signs of terrorism.
Because most terrorists have multiple sponsors, I do not think that the aid that supports one or two of their constituencies may be an incentive for them to denounce terrorism altogether.
I further find it ironic that a terrorist group such as the Al-Queda, which is fighting the effects of globalization under a religious banner, and do not want any kind of foreign influence on their lands will accept foreign aid from the countries it is fighting.
Whether we choose to improve the GDP of particular countries, or develop certain cities regions etc, it is the terrorists we have to appease and not just their constituent public. After all, most terrorist organizations do not necessarily represent main stream demands.

al Qaeda

So I have been working on gathering information for paper #5 and I have been finding a lot of interesting little websites that have some information about Al Qaeda. A lot of it is stuff you may already know, but a lot of it was new to me so I thought I would share it here you go...
First
Second
I hope those were helpful and interesting for at least a couple of you. They are just small little sites with some basic information, but I thought it was good to know.

Debating Cost-effective Counter-terror

After reading the article posted by Chris on Sunday, I wanted to hear what others had to say specifically about the perceived lack of cost-efficient counter-terrorism.

I found the following sentence interesting: "Spending ever-more money making targets 'harder' is actually a poor choice."

It's easy to see where the authors are coming from--every time we fortify one target, we leave plenty others without defense. And there just isn't enough money to fortify everything. However, if the authors are advancing the notion that all fortification is futile, I would strongly disagree. As Schneier (or Heymann) mentioned, certain targets such as air travel merit special attention. After all, on 9/11 the control by terrorists of four airplanes killed thousands of Americans, greatly damaged the economy, and succeeded in creating mass fear and uncertainty.

It is undeniable that, "Increased counter-terrorism measures simply transfer terrorists’ attention elsewhere." But this does not always make costly counter-terror programs a failure. On the contrary, I find it reassuring that terrorists are having to turn away from their first-choice targets to secondary preferences. I think it is also fair to assume that terrorists will attack the best targets first, the next-best targets second, and so forth. As long as terrorists are having greater difficulty carrying out attacks against their preferred targets (which are most likely to kill civilians, damage property, hurt the economy and create fear), then I'd say the counter-terror measures which focus on fortifying potential targets are fulfilling their purpose.

I believe that the drastic inefficiency that appears to exist in our current counter-terror agenda is largely due to the hidden costs of fear. Part of the reason Americans are willing to submit to annoying security measures is because they feel threatened by the possibility of a terrorist attack and are willing to sacrifice for the feeling of security. I think that the question is: How much is America willing to pay to feel secure? The answer: a lot.

What do you think? Are counter-terror strategies worth the cost they impose? What role does fear play in the price of counter-terror? Is it warranted? How can counter-terror strategies be more cost-effective?

Furore over Muslim terrorism claims

http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=727578
I read this article on how an academic professor made claims agains Muslims in South Africa. Prof Hussein Solomon, director of the University of Pretoria’s Centre for International Political Studies said, "South Africa was becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorists." This comment has outraged Muslims in South Africa. There are death threats on his life and his family's. The Media Review Network (MRN), a Muslim media watchdog, this week demanded an apology from the academic. In this article it discusses how people in South AFrica think that there is no evidence for this remark. However, Professor Solomon states several causes and will not back down. This article deals with terrorism because for one it is calling a state a sponser of terrorist (state sponsered). Also by Professor Solomon's remarks this could work out for the terrorist, because it looks like the people are backing them up by going against PRofessor Solomon. I was wondering if anyone knew what other problems this could cause in the region now, that it has created tension, let me know what you guys think,
Thanks
Austin Conners

Counter-Terrorism Measures

I found this great article in the Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper. You can find the article here.

This article highlights a very interesting study done by the Copenhagen Consensus which studies the cost-benefit ratio of different counter-terrorism methods employed by Western gov'ts. The results show that has gov't increase security in one area or threat, terrorist organizations are adapting and attacking other targets.

The study shows that increasing the counter-terrorism budget just 25% worldwide would cost the US at least $75 billion over the next 5 years. If we overestimate the result of this and assume a 25% drop in terrorist attacks, this would only save the international economy $22 billion. The costs would be three times the expected benefits. This is only a 30 cent return for every dollar spent on counter-terrorism efforts. The article estimates that in this best case scenario, only 105 lives would be saved each year. Compare that with the 30,000 deaths on US highways annually, and it almost doesn't seem worth it.

The study proposes a solution however. If governments around the world cooperated to cut of the finances of terrorist organizations and networks, then expensive, large-scale attacks could be eliminate. This would be hard to do because some countries prefer to work autonomously, but the authors estimate that this would cost only $128 million annually (read the article to find out how they got this number). Preventing one large scale terrorist attack could save over $1 billion dollars. The returns could be several times the initial investment.

In short, the US and other Western countries need to rethink how they are investing counter-terrorism fund and seek get better returns and benefits for their money, in the form of lives saved.

Secret Captures by CIA

This article is about the secret capture of Muhammad Rahim a guy who helped Usama hide out at one point and a bunch of other nasty terrorist activity. The intresting part of the article is that the CIA had secretley detained and interrogated him back in April 2007 only now after almost a year of intergation does he get turned over to the military and guantanmo bay. So my question : We capture people for the intellegince but why not say we captured them ? Doesnt this give fuel to the counter-stratgies we have been talking about ? Why not tell everyone ?

Colombia and Scheier

In class today we talked about the irony in the Scheier piece. Scheier said the targets we try to protect from terrorism are physical, economic, and social, and yet we unwisely spend money and give up civil liberties in our attempts to combat terrorism. So we're actually in some sense attacking two of the three targets which we're trying to protect.

This week's Economist had an article about Colombia's bombing of a FARC camp just across the border in Ecuador ("On the warpath"). Scheier's point can be seen in the current situation in South America, too. Colombia--like the US--wants to protect itself physically, economically, and socially. Yet it is spending a lot in its drive to eliminate the FARC and has violated civil liberties. Surely the bomb which killed Mr. Reyes was expensive, as was the Super Tucano plane. I'm not sure what the Colombian-US deal was, but President Uribe's forces were using US intelligence (whether or not they had to pay for it, or were just given it, I'm not sure). As for civil liberties, even if those of the Colombian people were not violated, surely the territorial integrity of Ecuador was when Colombian forces bombed a FARC camp about a mile inside the country (and did not get permission from President Correa of Ecuador).

So, rights and money are still ironically being used in the fight to protect them. However, the situation in Colombia may be a bit different from that in the US. It seems that Colombia may be able to permanently cripple the FARC and is on the path to doing so, whereas the US, according to Scheier, is not getting as much security as it should be for the price it is paying.

Terrorism and WMD's

We have discussed in class the probability of terrorists obtaining and using WMDs to achieve their goals. Recently, a man posted two specific ways to cultivate anthrax on a pro Al-Qaeda public forum. According to the article, the cultivation of anthrax is not extremely difficult, and anthrax is extremely inexpensive to produce... "Production costs are low; one kilogram of anthrax bacteria costs about $50 even though a lethal dose can be as little as one millionth of a gram." The man who posted on the forum included detailed microscopic photos of the bacteria in different phases of the production. It is alarming to think that such information is readily accessible in public forums. Although making anthrax as a weapon is dangerous and somewhat complicated, it is not impossible. As the article states, the equipment and know-how to produce anthrax are not available to "most jihadis." At the end of the anthrax production post, the man concludes by saying "wait for my next detailed posting on how to build a Cessna 128 aircraft" (used for chemical dispersion in agriculture). Even though it may be difficult and improbable for terrorists to produce and use WMDs, I believe that sooner or later, WMDs, probably biological weapons, will be used in the future by terrorists. I don't think that it is just because of this post of instructions, I'm sure Al-Qaeda knew most if not all of the information in that post, but it is becoming more accessible to anyone who desires it. There are further commentaries to be read at these websites.

Peaceful Jihad

The President of Indonesia (largest Muslim population in a country), calls for an "Islamic Renaissance." Link

"Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for greater democracy and efforts to improve the plight of Muslims and spread Islamic values..."

"History tells us that Muslims in the past contributed immensely to the march of civilization through groundbreaking achievements in the sciences, as well as in arts." But Yudhoyono added that Islam was now "on the defensive."

If you look at the history of Islam you see the balancing between making Islam first in sciences and technology and this is another example of it. But there is two ways that Islamists try to make this possible: Violent or peaceful expansion. The President's view of it seems to be the best and most effective as violent expansion turns many people away.

~ Greg

Speaking of financial analysts...

...we have another contest! I have replaced the header graphic at the top of the blog, and I have a few questions to ask about the international terrorist pictured here.

Here are the contest rules: The first student with a correct answer to any of these questions gets a brownie point. Students answering more than one question are disqualified from the contest. All answers must come in comments appended to this post.

Questions:

1. Where does this man currently reside?

2. In what country was he (probably) born?

3. What coercive interrogation method has the CIA admitted using to get information from this man?

4. Where is the famous university alumni page on which he should appear?

5. What is the name of one person he has beheaded?

6. What relative of his is also a famous international terrorist?

Good luck!

Financial Analyst

In TUFP and in class we talked about financial controls in combating terrorism. Someone mentioned that his dad was a financial analyst. It sounded interesting to me so I went looking through some job descriptions on the FBI website. In the professional staff section they have a specific number for financial analysts 1160. Then I went to USAJOBS.com to find out more about this position. The FBI isn’t the only agency looking for financial analysts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Park Service, Federal Deposit and the Army all had openings. The duties describe this position as dealing with white collar crime investigating large corporations domestic and international. The analyst has to look over individual transactions, bank statements, and insurance claims. In light of the recent discoveries about Mayor Spitzer and how he got caught (suspicious money transfers) I thought this was relevant. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1) I believe that is how we have caught and froze accounts belonging to terrorist networks like al-Qaeda operating out of charities. Does anybody know why on P.93 in TUFP it says we have not frozen any funds from Syria?

Hammas and Iran

We have mentioned in class that Hezbollah is sponsored by the Iranian government. A couple of the authors we have read have described different layers of their involvement including military training and monetary contributions. A recent article in the Jerusalem Post found here describes a similar connection between Hammas, Iran and Syria. Recently in a meeting of the Shin Bet, Israeli intelligence agency, an official described this link. Later that week an unnamed Hammas leader described in greater detail the relationship.

He stated that members of Hammas were filtering into Syria, where passport restrictions are less extreme, and meeting up with Hezbollah operatives to recieve weapons training from the members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Members who are rated high in the exercises are then filtered from Syria to Iran for even greater training and then sent back to Palestine. The Hammas leaders claims that at least 650 individuals have been trained in this manner, and that the organization now has 15,000 fighters.

This link between Hammas and Iran may be more of a recent development, but it indicates a dangerous direction for Israel's future, if it's enemies are combining together and sharing assets in this manner.

Random Terrorism Links

I know there was some concern over just what the government can view as far as our searching the internet, well here's some insight as far as that. Here's also some new technology used to prevent terrorist attacks in airports through new methods of X-Ray technology. Finally, here's talk about a manual on torture. This is from howstuffworks.com which will explain plenty of other ideas that might be of interest relative to terrorism as well.

We've been studying different causes of terrorism this semester, so I found it very interesting to read the results of a study done that states that Australia anti-terrorism tactics might actually cause terrorism.

The study states that all too often the Australian police are so aggressive in their tactics that they can actually cause Muslims to radicalize and turn to terrorism.

One research said that the current "the more aggressive the better" line of reasoning is actually doing more harm then good, and a community-based approach would be much more effective.

Check out the article here

China vows to strike first in combating terrorism

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/09/content_7751602.htm
This article I read was dealing with China and their policy on terrorism. It discusses how lately China has been attacking first before anything happens. Wang Lequan, chief of the Xinjiang regional committee of the Communist Party of China said, ""We are prepared to strike them whenever they are found planning their activities." An example is that China have done to prevent terrorism is, Police smashed a terrorist gang in January in Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang, killing two and arresting 15 others, one year after they destroyed a terrorist training camp in the Pamir plateau, killing 18 terrorists and capturing 17. I wonder if this new counterterrorism actions could help China's and United States relations. However, I do question the real intent for China's actions. With the Olympic Games coming to China soon, I think that this new break down on terrorism, may not be for the purpose of cracking down on terrorist, but for economic purposes. Let me know what you guys think about this new China view on terrorist.
Thanks
Austin Conners

PKK

This article is about the recent increase in the Turkish offensive against the PKK. Basically, Turkey has invaded northern Iraq, but the Iraqi government is okay with it, as long as it only lasts a couple of weeks and they don't go deeper than 20 miles into the country. Turkey wants to eradicate the PKK from the northern Iraqi mountains once and for all. This seemed like a joke to me at first, but after reading the article, I feel the Turks will probably be more successful than I originally thought. Apparently, most Iraqi Kurds have stopped supplying the PKK with weapons and information. With the public tide turning against the PKK in Iraq and with Turkish soldiers supplied with western military equipment and intelligence, the Turks are on good ground relative to the PKK. This reminds me of the recent turning of the tide against the FARC in Colombia. It seems that these people want stability and are turning against terrorists who get in the way. Iraqi Kurds are more autonomous than perhaps ever before, and they don't want to lose their new position. Although some could argue they are informally losing the independence they have by allowing Turkey to violate Iraqi sovereignty, I think Kurdish cooperation is actually wise. They gain international status because the Turkish government is working with them--instead of in spite of them--and they can get rid of a terrorist organization which has--to many people--attached a negative connotation to their ethnicity.

Jet vs. Nuclear Reactor

We talked about this in class today, and it reminded me of a video I saw on the internet once. Enjoy.

East Jerusalem Terrorist

In class we have had alot of discussion concerning the media's influence in terrorist groups activities. Particularly we discussed how media can influence how the general public views the attack. The focus of a news article can increase the incentive of terrorists to use violence to get in the media. These media biases can help generate support in the population. Today there was an attack by a single gunman in Jerusalem. I am including two links; one to a story in the Jerusalem Post, and the other from Al Jezeera English. Comparing the two different stories shows different biases in the two organizations.

The first link, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull , is tot he Jerusalem Post. This article focusses on the victims of the shooting. It talks of people crying, "Help Us, Help Us!" Further it describes students hiding under desks, a forceful police response that neutralized the terrorist. It also describes a small terrorist group in East Jerusalem, the Galilee Freedom Battalions - the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza. The focus of this report tries to downplay the capabilities of another attack and upplay the government response. The overall tone is condemning.

The second link, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D9C103A-8E02-45EF-A335-46DB5BAAF766.htm , contains a a very different perspective on the attack. Although the article starts by talking about the victims, a majority of the article seems to focus on the terrorist, his group and their motivations, as well as possible allies, or at least groups that agree with the tactics. This article even includes a section where they discuss the views of a faction of the population who blame Olmert for the attack, because of recent Israeli action in East Jerusalem. This article has a more understanding feel, and seems as though it would be a great propaganda tool for the group.

Violence Leaves Young Iraqis Doubting Clerics

I found this article to be absolutely fascinating. The youth of Iraq are seeing the consequences of Islamic extremism and they are becoming disillusioned with the ideology and religion as a whole. I think this general feeling can be seen in a statement by a moderate Sunni cleric when he says, "In the beginning, they [the youth] gave their eyes and minds to the clerics; they trusted them,”It’s painful to admit, but it’s changed. People have lost too much. They say to the clerics and the parties: You cost us this.” Because religious terrorism tends to kill more people than other types, the general public feels the effects of the terrorism much more heavily. And as shown in this quote, the youth of Iraq are tired of the attacks and killings and they are beginning to blame the religious ideology that provides the legitimacy for the terrorist organizations. This article suggests that in Iraq, the religious terrorist organizations are losing the support of their constituencies, especially in the younger generation-- the very people who are supposed to be the future supporters and members of the organization. So, as this article states, the terrorist organizations are changing their approach. Instead of offering an ideology, they're offering money to gain more recruits. Perhaps this suggests that in Iraq, efforts should be more focused on economic relief and fighting poverty, as well as promoting more moderate strains of Islam. Anyway, just interesting to think about. Let me know what you think...

Terrorist Group FARC and WMD's

The timing of this article in the New York Times today coincides perfectly with our class discussion on terrorist groups' efforts to obtain WMD's. The article describes how the Colombian government obtained information from a laptop captured in the raids in Ecuador that killed FARC leader Raúl Reyes. The group was in negotiation to purchase radioactive materials in order to build a "dirty bomb." The purchase would be financed by money obtained from drug smuggling. Colombia also alleges that money given by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to the group would have contributed to the purchase of the material.

Perhaps these developments shed some light on the class discussion we had regarding the feasibility of terrorist groups acquiring WMD's. Whether FARC is able or would have been able to acquire the necessary materials to build a dirty bomb remain to be seen, but the fact that they have gotten close to doing so lends credibility to Bett's argument and perhaps disproves Dolnik's rational that crazy groups like FARC can't get a hold of WMD's.

It seems like in light of these new developments, we should renew our class discussion on the possibility of terrorist use of WMD's. It seems to me that the risk is still small, but large enough that governments around the world should not let their guard down and should increase their preparations to protect their civilians in the event that some group like FARC does acquire WMD's.

Farc and Venezula

I found an interesting article here : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=524314&in_page_id=1811

The article discusses the current situation in South America. Specifically, the Colombian government recently killed a leader of the Farc who was hiding just across the border in Ecuador, without Ecuador's permission. This has angered Hugo Chavez and Venezuela; possibly because they fear similar action in Venezuela. From what I can gather, Chavez is a huge supporter of the organization and there seem to be fairly clear ties between the Farc and his country. Recently he has attempted to change the world view of his relationship with the the Farc to the of mediator instead of collaborator. He claims that the recent release of Farc hostages is a direct result of his requests from the organization. In response to the death of the Farc leader Chavez has moved a large portion of his military to the Colombian border threatening war.
This is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of state sponsored terrorism that I can recall. To my knowledge Iran has never deployed its own military in response to an attack against Hezbollah, though it has threaten to become involved when Israel chases the terrorists across the Lebanese border. This article claims that America supports the Colombian efforts. In the wake of shattering relations with Venezuela, the US-Colombian relationship has evidently strengthened. Currently the US has a small force in Colombia working to hinder the drug trade.

Chavez & Correa amass troops on the Colombian border

In response to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's military assault on a FARC camp in Ecuador, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa amassed troops on the Colombian border. Chavez and Correa are incensed because they say Uribe violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Chavez announced that if Uribe tried to take similar actions on the Venezuelan border, then Venezuela would go to war.

The Colombians claim they were attacked from across the Ecuadorian border by FARC rebels and acted in self-defense. Furthermore, Colombian Police Commander Gen. Oscar Naranjo says that Colombian forces found electronic documents in FARC's camp that tie President Correa to Raul Reyes, the FARC's former leader. If Naranjo is telling the truth, then this is likely a case of a state's (i.e., Ecuador's) active support for terrorism as a foreign policy tool.

By using a terrorist group as the unofficial arm of the state, a government can launch attacks against an adversarial state while maintaining its own irreproachability. For example, this is a tactic being used by Iran in the current Iraqi conflict. By clandestinely sponsoring a terrorist organization that has common objectives with the state, a government may attack an enemy state indirectly.

The victimized state then would have a few options: it could choose to attack the sponsoring state directly, in which case it would need conclusive evidence of the connection between the terrorists and their sponsor state--the absence of which would cause the victim-state to appear to be the aggressor (like in the current situation in which Colombia will be perceived as the aggressor unless it can prove that Ecuador knowingly allowed FARC to attack Colombians from its border).

A second option for the victim-state could be to attack the terrorist organization, but if the terrorists are hiding across the state's border, then it would have to justify violating the other (sponsoring) state's sovereignty by providing some type of evidence that it was, indeed, acting in self-dense (e.g. Colombia's "self-defense" argument).

Finally, the victim-state could choose to do nothing except wait for the terrorists to strike again; however, this approach would make the victim-state appear weak not only in the eyes of the terrorists and those of the sponsoring state but also in the eyes of the victim-state's own citizens.

Thus, if one state is confident that it could attack another state indirectly via a clandestinely-sponsored terrorist organization, and if the sponsoring-state is confident that any connections between it and the terrorists would either not be revealed or be nebulous, at best; then the sponsoring-state may, in fact, allow such an attack to take place--knowing that the victimized state would likely be incapable of gathering enough hard evidence to sufficiently justify a proportional retaliatory strike against the sponsor-state.

This may be what is occurring in South America right now with Ecuador (and maybe Venezuela) as the sponsoring state(s), FARC as the proxy, and Colombia as the victim. Then again, this whole line of reasoning could be complete rubbish. What do you think?

Iran-Iraq relations???

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5666601/Iran-leader-accuses-US-of-terrorism
I read this article on Radio Netherlands Worldwide about the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Iraq. In the article it said that it was the first time that a Irani president has visited Iraq since Saddam Hussein launched an eight-year war with Iran that by 1988 had claimed a million victims. During his visit President Mahmoud called the United States a terroriest. He said that the U.S. brought terrorism to the Middle East in 2003 when they invaded Iraq. However, since the U.S. has removed Saddam from power it allows Iran to have contact with Iraq now. This makes me wonder about a few things. One is that since Iran and Iraq have there majority of thre population being Shiite, I wonder if this will increase the friendlyness of the two countries. I think that this could cause a problem for the U.S. since Iran is calling them terrorist. I also wonder how this new relationship would effect the rest of the middle east. I am also wondering what the U.S. thinks about this and if there going to try and do anything to stop it. Well Tell me what you think.
Thanks
Austin Conners

U.S. behind Pakistan terrorism

I found this interesting article thats recounts something that was said by a Pakistani politician recently. This person believes that the United States, Afghanistan, and India are responsible for terrorism inside Pakistan

According to Caretaker interior minister, Lieutenant General (Retd) Hamid Nawaz Khan, the United States is attempting to annihilate Muslims worldwide, the Afghan government is apparently just another extension of the US military, and India is just out to get them.

He admits that he has no proof of this, but that his people had a feeling about it. He explained that ever since the Taliban offensive in Afghanistan has gone down, the number of terrorist incidents in Pakistan has gone up. I don't really see that connection, but even if it is there, I don't see how the United States, Afghanistan, and India can be blamed for that. His explanation is that the kind of attacks that are occurring in Pakistan (mostly suicide bombings) need funding from larger countries, and countries which are unfriendly towards Pakistan are more likely to fund terrorism within the country.

I knew we weren't best of friends with Pakistan, but it's interesting how this particular politician is convinced that we must be sponsoring terrorism to destroy them.

Peace Talks Halted

In a recent round of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has halted negotiations in light of retaliatory Israeli bombings which have already taken dozens of Palestinian lives. Casualties of the violence numbered 70 on Sunday alone. Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel though I wonder if the average Palestinian feels as strongly about the issue as the Hamas leadership.

While the majority of those slain have been Palestinians, Israeli civilians like those in the border city of Sderot are also suffering from the violence. Thirteen Israelis have been killed so far by the recent rocket fire from Palestinian militants. The BBC reports, "People think twice about walking the streets, shopping for food and clothes, and letting their children play outdoors. Businesses have few customers, house prices have dropped dramatically, and more than 3,000 of the town's 24,000 residents have upped and left." If the goal of the terrorists is to coerce Israelis by inspiring paralyzing fear, it seems like they've done a good job, at least in some parts of Israel.

I found this quote by Ahmed Abdullah particularly interesting. He said of Hamas, "they need to be given a chance, they need to breathe--if you give Hamas a political opportunity then it will only moderate the movement." Many in Gaza view the bombings from Israel as punishment for supporting Hamas.

Although democratically elected by the Palestinians to represent them, could this be an example where democracy is something that the United States should not support, or is Abdullah correct in thinking that increased political power for Hamas will lessen the need it feels to resort to violence?

BBC News: Cat and Mouse, Abbas Breaks Contact

Kosovars and Kurds

I was reading an Economist article about Kosovo's declaration of independence, and I wondered why Kosovars seem to be so different from other ethnic minorities who have sought, or are seeking, independence. All things considered, Kosovo's transition has gone pretty smoothly. I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks in connection with Kosovar independence. But then look at the Kurds; obviously their quest for an independent state has been violent. Why the difference? Both involve minority groups of Muslims seeking independent states for their people. Was it just because Kosovo was a UN protectorate before its declaration--so ethnic Albanians were basically already running Kosovo? I shy away from giving too much credit to international presence, because the skirmishers in northern Iraq are undoubtedly aware of the US and British presences in the state. Does the terrorism with the Kurds and lack thereof with the Kosovars have anything to do with international opinion? It's been pretty clear for a while that many powerful states would back Kosovo's independence, but there's less support--as far as I'm aware--for an independent Kurdistan. This change in the international system not only presents the question of terrorism differences with Kurds and Kosovars, but also presents a question about future terrorism ties. With previously existing Muslim states supporting this new Muslim state in Europe, will terrorism ties and activity in Kosovo increase?

Does killing the leader kill the group ?

Top Farc leader killed
In the hunt to stop terrorists groups many times we hunt persons of interest or the leaders of these groups. In this case the leader was killed as a result of anti-terrorism efforts. My question is what difference does this make ? For example, if we caught Osama would al queda stop attacking ? One thing the article brings up is

"The killing of such a leading figure within Farc's secretariat, whose members are renowned for dying of natural causes, means the group's aura of invincibility has evaporated, our correspondent adds. "

So does the decapitation method they use work just as well against them ?