Freed Gitmo Detainee Rejoins Al-Qaeda, Attacks US

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course, each situation presents its own set of circumstances. It seems pretty clear that the Leeds cell received significant assistance from within Pakistan.

Certainly, but international crime is not in and of itself anything new.

Its also a sure bet that the 7 July investigation did not restrict itself traditional law enforcement services.

That's why I said "police and intelligence services", not "Constable Plod down the local nick".

I'm not saying that the police and intelligence services of the first world shouldn't be chasing terrorists as part of their jobs, but I do want to see evidence that there is an organisation meaningfully equivalent to pre-9/11 Al Qaeda that demands special, war-like powers and methods in order to suppress it.

 

[DC]

Not to mention comprehensive networks for funneling funds and manpower into their cause - a trademark of these sorts of terrorist groups

where can i find evidence for that?
What network are they using?

 

[gtc]

Of course the attempts to combat Islamic militancy aren't going to make sense to you until you understand the actual nature of Islamic militancy.

I'm not saying that the police and intelligence services of the first world shouldn't be chasing terrorists as part of their jobs, but I do want to see evidence that there is an organisation meaningfully equivalent to pre-9/11 Al Qaeda that demands special, war-like powers and methods in order to suppress it.

You've changed the subject again.

Regular old-fashioned police work seems to be keeping it under control, for a value of "under control" consistent with terrorism being far less of a threat to the average citizen's wellbeing than traffic accidents or doughnuts.

People are more concerned with death from terrorism than they are with death from doughnuts or traffic accidents. It is human nature. Besides, we spend a lot of money on health and traffic safety.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You've changed the subject again.

No. Maybe you are confused about what the subject is? Go back and reread the thread.

People are more concerned with death from terrorism than they are with death from doughnuts or traffic accidents. It is human nature.

People spend a lot of money on homeopathic medicine too. It doesn't mean it's not stupid.

Besides, we spend a lot of money on health and traffic safety.

Indeed, and we spend a lot of money on police and intelligence services.

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of this sub-thread? Since you seem to have forgotten, it's the question of whether or not Al Qaeda still exists in any meaningful sense. If not, the excuse that the war on Al Qaeda is still ongoing holds no water.

 

[gtc]

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of this sub-thread? Since you seem to have forgotten, it's the question of whether or not Al Qaeda still exists in any meaningful sense. If not, the excuse that the war on Al Qaeda is still ongoing holds no water.

You are clearly mistaken. This sub-thread is about combating Islamic militancy the topic changed because you refused to consider the evidence provided about the nature of Al Qaeda and Islamic militancy.

 

[gumboot]

You'll have no trouble providing evidence for these claims then?

Sure. If you're happy with it, I will look at a couple of example groups.


Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb

This organisation was formerly known as Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat but probably known more commonly as GSPC. They are a radical islamic group with the stated aim of overthrowing the Algerian government and establishing an Islamic state.

The GSPC is a splinter group of the GIA, formed in 1998. In September 2006 Ayman al-Zawahri announced a "blessed union" between Al Qaeda and the GSPC and in January 2007 the group formally changed its name to Al Qaeda.

Here is a PDF by the Centre For Policing Terrorism which summarises the scope of GSPC. They have an extensive network in the Sahara and Europe, and their primary source of funding is criminal activity. As well as members being trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, Libya has discovered GSPC training camps and it is believed they operate camps throughout the Sahara. This month it was reported that about 40 fighters at a GSPC training camp had contracted bubonic plague, although other sources claim it was a result of a chemical weapons accident.


Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn
(Al Qaeda in Iraq)
This organisation was formerly known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and was created by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi following the Soviet-Afghanistan War. Although it initially had the goal of overthrowing the Jordanian kingdom, the group became an international one as the network expanded. The group has always had close ties to Al Qaeda (they ran an Al Qaeda training camp near Herat in Afghanistan) and in October 2004 they officially swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden.

This PDF by the Congressional Research Service provides an insight into the operation of this organisation. Of particular note is the section on foreign fighters which addresses the organisation's networks for channelling foreign fighters into Iraq.

Again, none of this should be surprising. These Radical Islamic groups have a long history of establishing comprehensive funding networks, and of bringing in fighters from across the Arab world to be trained, and to fight. They did it in the Soviet-Afghanistan War, they did it in Chechnya and Bosnia, and there's no reason to assume they're not doing it now, particularly given the evidence they are.

Regular old-fashioned police work seems to be keeping it under control, for a value of "under control" consistent with terrorism being far less of a threat to the average citizen's wellbeing than traffic accidents or doughnuts.

The mere fact that you think the problem is terrorist attacks is a prime example of just how out of touch with reality the west is, when it comes to the nature of this threat. Terrorist attacks are only one small part of their tactics. When the British government are publicly endorsing and praising Radical Islamic mosques that are promoting extremism, and when the British Government is openly supporting groups that are secretly funneling fighters into Afghanistan, I'm sorry but the situation is most certainly not "under control". It's even less under control when the country providing most of the funds for this spread of radical ideology is considered a strong western ally.

And let's not forget, the role of terrorism is not to try and kill people. It's to force change. And evidence of those changes is available wherever you might look for it. Can you claim Spanish police have Islamic Terrorism "under control" if a terrorist bombing can dictate Spanish foreign policy?

 

[gumboot]

I'm not saying that the police and intelligence services of the first world shouldn't be chasing terrorists as part of their jobs, but I do want to see evidence that there is an organisation meaningfully equivalent to pre-9/11 Al Qaeda that demands special, war-like powers and methods in order to suppress it.

Just to be clear, I am not actually an overly strong supporter of using military action to combat these various networks. I have consistently argued that terrorism is a strawman, and the real threat is the ideology being spread. One of the major contributors to the problem is Mosques funded by Saudi Arabia throughout the world that promote themselves as liberal and forward-thinking, but behind closed doors promote Wahhabism - the sick violent ideology that started off all this mess a couple of centuries ago. Obviously military action cannot solve that sort of problem.

I think the threat is a serious one, I think it is a unique one, and I think it most certainly demands special powers and methods to be defeated. I would not quantify those powers and methods as "war-like" however. Certainly, in specific cases military action is probably wise - I think the action in Afghanistan is probably sensible, for example - however by and large I think some other approach entirely is needed, and frankly I have no idea what that approach might be.

Firstly, I think we really need to establish the true scope of this threat. We really have absolutely no idea just how widespread Radical Islam is, in part because they're so damn good at hiding it. Some sort of mass intelligence effort is needed to really determine that. Journalism efforts like "Undercover Mosque" by Channel 4's "Dispatches" series at least make it clear the problem is greater than most of us realise.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sure. If you're happy with it, I will look at a couple of example groups.


Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb

This organisation was formerly known as Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat but probably known more commonly as GSPC. They are a radical islamic group with the stated aim of overthrowing the Algerian government and establishing an Islamic state.

The GSPC is a splinter group of the GIA, formed in 1998. In September 2006 Ayman al-Zawahri announced a "blessed union" between Al Qaeda and the GSPC and in January 2007 the group formally changed its name to Al Qaeda.

Here is a PDF by the Centre For Policing Terrorism which summarises the scope of GSPC. They have an extensive network in the Sahara and Europe, and their primary source of funding is criminal activity. As well as members being trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, Libya has discovered GSPC training camps and it is believed they operate camps throughout the Sahara. This month it was reported that about 40 fighters at a GSPC training camp had contracted bubonic plague, although other sources claim it was a result of a chemical weapons accident.

While page 13 boldly claims "numerous ties" between them and Al Qaeda, it doesn't support that claim with anything substantial more recent than 2001. This group looks like a local problem to me. There's no evidence there that it's genuinely part of an international organisation akin to the pre-9/11 AQ.

Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn
(Al Qaeda in Iraq)
This organisation was formerly known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and was created by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi following the Soviet-Afghanistan War. Although it initially had the goal of overthrowing the Jordanian kingdom, the group became an international one as the network expanded. The group has always had close ties to Al Qaeda (they ran an Al Qaeda training camp near Herat in Afghanistan) and in October 2004 they officially swore allegiance to Osama Bin Laden.

This PDF by the Congressional Research Service provides an insight into the operation of this organisation. Of particular note is the section on foreign fighters which addresses the organisation's networks for channelling foreign fighters into Iraq.

The sole evidence of a link is that some members of the Iraqi "Al Qaeda" have upped stakes and moved to Pakistan. That's pretty damn thin.

Again, none of this should be surprising. These Radical Islamic groups have a long history of establishing comprehensive funding networks, and of bringing in fighters from across the Arab world to be trained, and to fight. They did it in the Soviet-Afghanistan War, they did it in Chechnya and Bosnia, and there's no reason to assume they're not doing it now, particularly given the evidence they are.

If this junk counts as proof that the pre-9/11 Al Qaeda still exists in a meaningful sense then we really are in an eternal war of convenience.

The mere fact that you think the problem is terrorist attacks is a prime example of just how out of touch with reality the west is, when it comes to the nature of this threat. Terrorist attacks are only one small part of their tactics. When the British government are publicly endorsing and praising Radical Islamic mosques that are promoting extremism, and when the British Government is openly supporting groups that are secretly funneling fighters into Afghanistan, I'm sorry but the situation is most certainly not "under control". It's even less under control when the country providing most of the funds for this spread of radical ideology is considered a strong western ally.

And let's not forget, the role of terrorism is not to try and kill people. It's to force change. And evidence of those changes is available wherever you might look for it. Can you claim Spanish police have Islamic Terrorism "under control" if a terrorist bombing can dictate Spanish foreign policy?

The mere fact that you think the existence of Islamic radicalism means that the pre-9/11 AQ still exists as a meaningful entity is a prime example of how effectively the previous US administration encouraged woolly thinking to justify its policies.

A handful of local guerilla groups claiming the AQ name in order to sound scary does not make them an international organisation we should be worried about, let alone justify keeping people detained "because the war with AQ is still ongoing".

The AQ that carried out the 9/11 attacks, based on the best evidence you've found, is dead. The name and the ideology lives on in pockets of isolated loonies who are well under control.

The idea that a bombing "dictated Spanish foreign policy" is nonsense, by the way. The Spanish people were already sick of supporting Bush's foreign policy even before those pigeons came home to roost, and the pro-Bush Spanish government attempting to lie about who carried out the attacks further increased the general distaste for assisting the USA.

 

[Texas]

Why are you so fixated on Al-Qaeda when there are dozens of other Islamic Terrorist organisations out there? Al-Qaeda never had an army but 19 of its members killed the largest number of civilians in US history by a foreign enemy. Hell we are now trying to figure out where so many Somali immigrants have suddenly disappeared from the US with some showing up as suicide bombers in Somalia with the rest completely unaccounted for. If you know your Al-Qaeda history then you know that Somalia was where Bin-Laden first set up his organisation after being kicked out of Saudi Arabia.

 

[gumboot]

While page 13 boldly claims "numerous ties" between them and Al Qaeda, it doesn't support that claim with anything substantial more recent than 2001. This group looks like a local problem to me. There's no evidence there that it's genuinely part of an international organisation akin to the pre-9/11 AQ.

You must have missed the parts in the reporting dealing with their international networks in the Sahara and Europe. Also bear in mind this report was written prior to their official union with Al Qaeda.

I do find you talk of "pre-9/11 AQ" quite odd. I presume you're aware that pre-9/11 Al Qaeda was actually a rather small and localised organisation, right? The GSPC alone is probably bigger than Al Qaeda has ever been.

The sole evidence of a link is that some members of the Iraqi "Al Qaeda" have upped stakes and moved to Pakistan. That's pretty damn thin.

We're talking about the fact that these are substantial organisations with large manpower and logistics networks. Pay attention. Of course your claim of "sole evidence" is utter nonsense. I take it you missed the bit about them running an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan?

If this junk counts as proof that the pre-9/11 Al Qaeda still exists in a meaningful sense then we really are in an eternal war of convenience.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I think the current set of organisations is substantially more dangerous than Al Qaeda ever was before 9/11.

The mere fact that you think the existence of Islamic radicalism means that the pre-9/11 AQ still exists as a meaningful entity is a prime example of how effectively the previous US administration encouraged woolly thinking to justify its policies.

Let me know when you've finished punching that strawman.

A handful of local guerilla groups claiming the AQ name in order to sound scary does not make them an international organisation we should be worried about, let alone justify keeping people detained "because the war with AQ is still ongoing".

More strawmen! Have fun with them. Your representation of these groups is hysterically wrong, but hey, never mind. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about.

The AQ that carried out the 9/11 attacks, based on the best evidence you've found, is dead. The name and the ideology lives on in pockets of isolated loonies who are well under control.

And yet Al Qaeda's ideology (which isn't actually Al Qaeda's ideology, but hey) appears to be stronger than ever, and growing.

The idea that a bombing "dictated Spanish foreign policy" is nonsense, by the way. The Spanish people were already sick of supporting Bush's foreign policy even before those pigeons came home to roost, and the pro-Bush Spanish government attempting to lie about who carried out the attacks further increased the general distaste for assisting the USA.

This is incorrect. All polls taken in the few weeks leading up to the Spanish general election put the current government well in the lead, many with them once again getting an absolute majority.

 

[gumboot]

Hell we are now trying to figure out where so many Somali immigrants have suddenly disappeared from the US with some showing up as suicide bombers in Somalia with the rest completely unaccounted for. If you know your Al-Qaeda history then you know that Somalia was where Bin-Laden first set up his organisation after being kicked out of Saudi Arabia.

I was talking to an American producer on a TV commercial recently about this very thing. He'd done some work with the LAPD Counter-terrorism unit and apparently it was a major problem. Instead of integrating into US society, Somali immigrants are isolating themselves from US society and using the internet to retain stronger ties with home. Instead of becoming more liberal and "American", they're radicalising American-born Somalis and drawing them into the conflict, so that even American Somalis are turning up as suicide bombers in Somalia.

This seems to be quite a worrying trend around the world - It was my comments on New Zealand's own problems with integrating Somali immigrants that led to him talking about the LA problem in the first place.

This is, of course, the exact process which produced the London bombings - integrated British-born Muslims being radicalised by immigrants.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why are you so fixated on Al-Qaeda when there are dozens of other Islamic Terrorist organisations out there? Al-Qaeda never had an army but 19 of its members killed the largest number of civilians in US history by a foreign enemy. Hell we are now trying to figure out where so many Somali immigrants have suddenly disappeared from the US with some showing up as suicide bombers in Somalia with the rest completely unaccounted for. If you know your Al-Qaeda history then you know that Somalia was where Bin-Laden first set up his organisation after being kicked out of Saudi Arabia.

I think you haven't been paying attention.

A justification given earlier in this thread for keeping prisoners taken in the not-quite-war against Al Qaeda in detention indefinitely was that the war (er, "use of force") against the organisation that carried out the 9/11 attacks is still going on.

If that organisation is dead in all but name, that excuse for keeping those people locked up evaporates.

That's what this subthread is about: whether you can meaningfully claim that the "war" against the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks is still going on. It looks like in practise what's actually going on is a lot of equivocation between that AQ in particular and Islamic radicals in general.

 

[Texas]

I think you haven't been paying attention.

A justification given earlier in this thread for keeping prisoners taken in the not-quite-war against Al Qaeda in detention indefinitely was that the war (er, "use of force") against the organisation that carried out the 9/11 attacks is still going on.

If that organisation is dead in all but name, that excuse for keeping those people locked up evaporates.

That's what this subthread is about: whether you can meaningfully claim that the "war" against the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks is still going on. It looks like in practise what's actually going on is a lot of equivocation between that AQ in particular and Islamic radicals in general.

So if Bin-Laden decides to rename his organisation to the "Radical Islamics" the war is over? Al-Qaeda as an organisation still exists, we really have no idea of how big it is either now or before 911. He and his top lieutenants are still on the loose and they are still recruiting. You asked what networks he was using? It is the one we are posting on. There are literally hundreds of Jihad sites on the web and they come and go at will.Your strawman that we are just at war with "the ones that carried out the 911 attacks" is not worth arguing since that is not what the AUP states. It is against terrorist organisations with an international reach and there are many out there beside Al-Qaeda that meet that criteria.

 

[Cylinder]

If that organisation is dead in all but name, that excuse for keeping those people locked up evaporates.

We've been flagellating this equine corpse for some time now, but I suppose someone should point out that the AUMF isn't against al Qaeda per se.

...the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

What you call an excuse evaporates at the end of active hostilities or at that point the Congress decides to rescind authorization under the terms of the War Powers Act. Are you claiming that active hostilities between the US and "those nations, organizations, or persons [the President determined] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons have ceased?

 

[gtc]

The Spanish people were already sick of supporting Bush's foreign policy even before those pigeons came home to roost

Sick.

 

[Texas]

Sick.

Truer word never spoken

 

[Texas]

We've been flagellating this equine corpse for some time now, but I suppose someone should point out that the AUMF isn't against al Qaeda per se.

Well I tried but posted that it was the "AUP" which is the result of one beer too many.

 

[shecky]

I was talking to an American producer on a TV commercial recently about this very thing. He'd done some work with the LAPD Counter-terrorism unit and apparently it was a major problem. Instead of integrating into US society, Somali immigrants are isolating themselves from US society and using the internet to retain stronger ties with home. Instead of becoming more liberal and "American", they're radicalising American-born Somalis and drawing them into the conflict, so that even American Somalis are turning up as suicide bombers in Somalia.

Got a source for this other than the American producer?

 

[Texas]

Got a source for this other than the American producer?

Do you think it is a lie?


http://www.newsweek.com/id/181408?from=rss

 

[shecky]

According to Gumboot, it's a "major problem" for the LAPD. Unfortunately, the LAPD has some serious credibility problems. And this recruitment of terrorists has been quite overblown looking back over the last several years. The threat is there, but it isn't much of a threat to our existence. You and I are more likely to be hit by lightning than die by terrorism.