Bin Laden’s call to attack Pakistan

In the last few weeks surrounding the anniversary of 9/11, al-Qaeda has released several video and audio tapes. This is a substantial increase in propaganda from the leadership of the terror group directed at the western public. Since the invasion of Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda leadership has been limited to making these tapes while many amateurs that are inspired by the same philosophy have been carrying out the actual attacks. This decentralization has marginalized the “old guard” leadership while empowering aspiring jihadists. It appears that bin Laden is worried about losing relevancy in the global jihad and is trying to reassert himself by releasing these video tapes. I should note that many terrorist leaders are mid to upper class, have some higher education, and are very self centered. My personal belief is that the longer a terrorist leader is able to survive the more likely they are to manifest messianic delusions. Using this model it becomes understandable that bin Laden feels the need to remind the jihadist masses that he still matters.

Another reason that bin Laden may feel the need to release these tapes, and more specifically target Pakistan, is the setbacks al-Qaeda has suffered in Algeria and Lebanon. In a video tape released September 11, 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri approved the merger of the Algerian group Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) into the al-Qaeda global network. The group has since been renamed al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and claimed responsibility for the February 2007 attacks on Algerian police stations. Since the merger decension in the ranks of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has risen and may lead to fracturing of the group. In Lebanon, al-Qaeda attempted to establish a presence to launch attacks against Israel. This group, known as Fatah al-Islam was defeated and ultimately dismantled by the Lebanese army back in June, thus ending what would have been an effective presence in the area. With these two operations going nowhere al-Qaeda has been forced to look for a victory a little closer to the cave and Pakistan is a prime target.

Pakistan is one of the most radical Islamic countries on the face of the earth, and oh by the way, they have nukes. Currently the regime of Pervez Musharraf has managed to stave off some of the attempts by Islamists to either assassinate him or target secular politicians, but this cannot last indefinitely. For instance, most Pakistani children go to madrassah schools rather than public or other secular schools and are thus subjects of radical Islamic indoctrination. That being said the future of Pakistan does not look good. Thus far, the only thing bin Laden’s call to jihad in Pakistan has netted is a few protests, but with the past attempts on Musharraf’s life it is only a matter of time before one is successful. The seizure of Pakistan by radical Islamists would make a great trade for Afghanistan because the U.S. and a few other countries have sold advanced weaponry to the Pakistani military. The amount of radicals coupled with the advanced conventional and nuclear weapons makes Pakistan a highly valued target for bin Laden. This alone should force those of us in the west to heed this latest message.

Lots of Terror News Today

Syria and Iran have been working together to assassinate anti-Syrian politicians in the Lebanese cabinet in an attempt to subvert an upcoming election. Read about it here and here.



Credit to Foxnews.com for the photos

Syrian soldiers and Iranian chemical engineers killed in Syria while trying to attach a chemical warhead to a scud C missile. Read about it here.

And finally the closing arguments in the Holy Land Foundation case. Read about it here.

Hopefully I will be able to post some analysis on these topics in the near future.

Terrorism, Psychology, and Profiling

It has been noted, ad nauseum I might add, that there is no profile for a terrorist. This remark is either born out of ignorance of what a profile is or it is used as a means of facilitating a political argument. Either way this belief hinders the instruction of terrorist psychology to political decision makers and to a lesser extent the population at large. This remark, when used as political argument, can be readily dismissed because it centers on the narcissistic belief that the U.S. is the direct cause of terrorist activity and blatantly ignores the psychological factors that are often involved in the individual decision to engage in violence. Although blowback from U.S. operations can be a catalyst for terrorism recruitment it is rarely the driving force that spawns terrorist groups. The rationale behind this argument is an attempt to absolve an individual from criminality and instead base their argument on the perceived failings of society.

The reason a profile for terrorists does not exist is because profiles are based upon individual personalities as opposed to a single profile that all terrorists must fall into. Essentially it is the equivalent of pounding a square peg into a round hole; it just doesn’t work. Psychological profiling is not used as a general category that numerous individuals will fit into, but rather based upon evidence left behind by a single individual in an attempt to construct a description of their personality. When a profile is done on a serial killer or serial rapist it is done primarily on actions witnessed by the victim or other bystanders and physical evidence left at the scene. Profiles that are done on terrorists, cult leaders, and even world leaders are done using public speeches, writings, or interviews of people close to the individual being profiled. Once enough information is gathered a profile is compiled and while not perfect it can adequately describe an individual’s personality. It should be noted that an individual’s personality does not change, but only becomes more refined over the course of a lifetime.

The purpose of profiling an individual differs from case to case. When profiling a serial killer the investigator is trying to establish, among other things, motive and victim type. When profiling a terrorist leader the purpose is similar in that a motive must be determined, but also what the leader means to their group. Of course other reasons exist for profiling a terrorist, but these two are of primary concern because the profiler must try to establish what will happen should certain events take place. For an example of this the profile that was done on Adolph Hitler is a great place to start. You can view it here. The end purpose for any profile is to establish an insight into an individual’s personality so that steps can be taken to deal with the individual. A profile may not be the only key to understanding terrorism and countering, but it is only meant to be a single tool in the larger fight. Although profiles are constructed on an individual basis some elements do overlap from person to person because all people have some needs in common. With that said I will leave with an excerpt from an essay published in 1990 by Gottfredson & Hirschi that discusses low self-control in criminality. I will leave it up to the reader to apply it terrorism.

“Criminal acts provide easy or simple gratification of desires. They provide money without work, sex without courtship, revenge without court delays. People lacking self-control also tend to lack diligence, tenacity, or persistence in a course of action.... People lacking self-control ... tend to be adventuresome, active, and physical.... People with low self-control ... tend to have unstable marriages, friendships, and job profiles[; and are] self-centered, indifferent, or insensitive to the suffering and needs of others, [although not] routinely unkind or antisocial. On the contrary, they may discover the immediate and easy rewards of charm and generosity.... In sum, people who lack self-control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and non-verbal, and they will tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts.”

Definition of "Terrorism"

One of the most overlooked obstacles that the U.S. faces in the war on terror is the actual definition of the word terrorism. At last count the United Nations estimated that the governments of the world use 160 different definitions of "terrorism." Additionally not every country has laws against acts of terror. The U.S. alone uses multiple definitions because Congress has not effectively created legislation that addresses this shortcoming. Currently, each bureaucracy defines terrorism as it relates to their respective mission. For the purposes of this blog I will use the definition used by the Department of Defense, which states: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." This definition, while short of perfect, does adequately describe what terrorism is, not necessarily who falls into the category of terrorists or for that matter specific acts of terrorism. This is an important distinction because not all terrorists succeed in their attacks and yet must still be held to account.
Another aspect that must be considered is how to categorize terrorism. Is terrorism a crime or is it an act of war? Unfortunately the lines are not always as clear as we would like them to be. For instance the 9/11 hijackers broke numerous laws, not only those that are terrorism related, in order to carry out their heinous attacks. If we were to propose a hypothetical situation in which the 9/11 plot was prevented we could then ask whether the terrorists would be prosecuted as criminals in a civilian court and is it possible that the U.S. could still invade Afghanistan in retaliation for the attempt? The answer to both questions citing pre-9/11 policy and anti-terrorism laws is yes. The reasoning behind this is that the 9/11 hijackers were acting as defacto agents of the Taliban regime. Al-Qaeda was more than just a terrorist group operating in Afghanistan because they had an active brigade serving in the Taliban military thus justifying a military response regardless of the success of the attacks. This situation is similar to attempted murder and first degree murder; the success of the crime does not negate the seriousness of the attempt.
In the past, situations have arisen where terrorism falls solely in the category of criminality. In the 1970's and 1980's the Baader-Meinhof group struck numerous U.S. military targets in Germany. In 1972 the group succeeded in killing an Army Colonel and wounding 11 others. This attack would not fall in the act of war category, but rather represents a criminal act. This is because the groups link to the Soviet Union could not be proven as it is widely believed the group was self financed through bank robberies. Because the group acted without direct state sponsorship the group could only be tried in a civilian court (which is what happened though it took time to apprehend the active members).
In essence each act of terrorism must be evaluated independently. For this reason it is important that the definition of terrorism should be somewhat general such as the definition used by the DOD. As far as policy makers are concerned the definition is important as it relates to international cooperation among law enforcement and military when describing a group or movement as being terrorists; while the courts on the other hand can rely on specific acts of terror to prosecute suspects under national or international law.

Something is very wrong in Brussels

A feud in Brussels between a pro Hezbollah group and an anti sharia law group could have larger implications for Europe and possibly for the U.S. In mid August a group known as Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) petitioned the Brussels government through the mayor for permission to hold a protest against the lack of immigration control across the continent. The petition was denied because the mayor of Brussels, Mayor Thieleman, stated that the SIOE is a criminal organization and the protest would slander the Islamic religion. In response to the SIOE petition a group known as the Arab-European League (AEL), which is overtly pro Hezbollah, has petitioned the government to hold a protest in response to the SIOE petition. In 2002, the AEL held a protest in Antwerp where they burned the effigy of a Hassidic Jew and proudly propagated pro Hezbollah and pro Hamas slogans. The city of Antwerp happens to hold the largest population of Jews in the country. Furthermore, the AEL held a cartoon drawing contest with holocaust denial as the topic; an assertion that is illegal in Belgium. Unfortunately no arrests were made. As it stands right now the AEL will be allowed to hold their protest on September 9. For more on this subject: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2389