Cracking al Qaeda's Code (Informative!)

U.S.News & World Report ^ | May 17, 2004 | Jay Tolson

[quidnunc]

Last December, Brynjar Lia, an analyst at the private Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, came across a 42-page document in Arabic on the Global Islamic Media Web site, one of many Islamist sites that he routinely surveys for his research on terrorism. Entitled "Jihadi Iraq: Hopes and Dangers" and produced by someone claiming to be part of the Mujahideen Services Center, the document outlined a strategy for breaking up the U.S.-led coalition by directing "painful strikes" at America's allies, particularly Spain.

Although impressed by its sophisticated analysis of Spain's domestic politics, Lia concluded that the paper's focus on jihadist activities inside Iraq, where foreign fighters were already attacking coalition partners, would come as little news to the larger intelligence community. "I mentioned it to my wife," Lia recalls, "but only to her."

After the Madrid bombings on March 11, however, Lia recalled other salient aspects of "Jihadi Iraq" that he had earlier skimmed over. He and a colleague, Thomas Hegghammer, returned to the document and this time came to a startling conclusion. In both style and substance, the article seemed to bear the markings of an authoritative statement of al Qaeda strategy. Announcing their findings to the Norwegian media, Lia and Hegghammer also posted an overview of their analysis on their institute's Web site on March 19. Since then, the Norwegians have been fielding queries from various intelligence agencies (they won't say which) while scholars and counterterrorism experts have weighed in on the article's significance.

-snip-

[Sacajaweau]

bump

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - read later

[pbear8]

read later

[DTA]

AQ bump

[G.Mason]

Did I miss it, or was there no mention that the United States of America would not react like the Spaniards, but more likely there would be stirred a fever pitch for blood, in this great land, that hasn't been seen since (dare I say it?) Pearl Harbour.

[FreedomFarmer]

Hummm. Someone is posting al Qaeda strategy papers on the internet, with just enough buzz words, and vague enough to seem plausible, to a private analyst in a non-targeted nation.

I wonder if DITHF has a new job.

[DTA]

That Mr. Lia is funny guy.

Please see this:

"...The author also advises Sunni jihadists in Iraq to put aside their historic differences with the Shiites and "if possible draw them into combat with the Americans." According to Lia, in September 2003, when the document was purportedly written, such counsel represented a pragmatic shift in al Qaeda policy, which previously reflected Wahhabi-style Islam's contempt for Shiites as takfir, or apostates. But to make such an authoritative decision--and one that appears to have been heeded--suggests that the author had credible standing.

AQ successfully managed to use both Sunni and Shia for terrorist activities BEFORE SEPTEMBER 2003.

A 'terrorism expert' must know that. If he allegedly does not, more likely he spreads pepper to distract bloodhounds.

If I were POT, I would keep Mr. Lia under 24/7 surveilance.

[Freebird Forever]

bttt

[Redbob]

"...more likely there would be stirred a fever pitch for blood, in this great land, that hasn't been seen since (dare I say it?) Pearl Harbour."

Or at least since Nagasaki!

[G.Mason]

"Or at least since Nagasaki!"

That was a good one!
The bomb too.

What's that up in the sky? It's a bird ...it's a plane ... yep, it's a plane!

[LTCJ]

"The biggest problem for those fighting radical Islam," Haqqani says, "is that the ideology that feeds al Qaeda has never been focused upon."

Well, Mr. Haqqani, that may well be the biggest understatement of the last decade.

[Coop]

Flag

[Dog]

Thanks for the ping!

[Little Ray]

Biggest problem is that we won't have a target for our rage.
Who are we going to attack: Saudi Arabia? The are probably the real enemy, but the President is friends with the Royal Family and the State Department likes them (and the Saudis hire 'em when they retire...).
Pres. Bush needs to reconsider his friendship (but probably has too many principles to do so) and the State Department needs to be cleaned (also won't happen).
Most likely we'd just flounder.

[G.Mason]

"Biggest problem is that we won't have a target for our rage. Who are we going to attack: Saudi Arabia? The are probably the real enemy, but the President is friends with the Royal Family and the State Department likes them (and the Saudis hire 'em when they retire...).
Pres. Bush needs to reconsider his friendship (but probably has too many principles to do so) and the State Department needs to be cleaned (also won't happen).
Most likely we'd just flounder."

I, for one , don't buy that gibberish about the Bushes and the Saudis being "friends". Like it's friendship over the interests of the United States.

As for targets? How about any country harbouring terrorists?

[chuknospam]

read later

[Little Ray]

So we're gonna nuke Cairo 'cause Mohamed Atta was from Egypt? Somehow, I don't think so. No government is going to openly support our enemies, and no Islamic Republic or Islamafascist government is going to pass up the opportunity to covertly support them. But we can't just open a can of whoop-@$$ on them because they "might" have funded or otherwise supported the terrorists.

I think Pres. Bush really is friends with members for the Saudi Royal Family, just like he is friends with Fox. This affects his judgment: Pres. Bush demand loyalty, and shows it in return.

[G.Mason]

Thanks for the laugh.