terrorism anybody?

[qistina255]

Hi,
long time since my last post, sure miss u guys a lot.
Actually i need a little help from u guys, i dunno if u remember me but that doesnt make any different, does it?
ok, in my class, we're being handed some assignments to prepare about society, so me n my friend decided to choose terrorism as it might interest everybody.
and we decided to take some opinions from some community about terrorism. we're aimed at american, arabes, jews and afghans. so, i decided to takes jews and afghans.
'course we strongly realise that one voice isnt worth the majority, we probably be taking the average.
ok, so what is the right definitions according to you?

[genghis_tom]

Terrorism: (n) ideology in which extremists of certain societies seek to disrupt the daily life of the civilized world.

If you want my two cents worth, I think that terrorism's goal is to bring attention to those radical sects. There is no other point. Militarily, terrorism is primarily defensive, because when it gets offensive, the nation that experienced the terror exerts a concentrated effort to eliminate terrorists.

But if you are looking for Jews and Afghans, don't listen to me. I'm just one of the resident Christians. Bon chance with that report.

[qistina255]

I think that terrorism's goal is to bring attention to those radical sects.There is no other point.
.
thanks, but i think u'r definition is a little harsh. when u say that it's goal is bringing radical sect, what do u mean? weren those radical who're making terror?
Militarily, terrorism is primarily defensive, because when it gets offensive, the nation that experienced the terror exerts a concentrated effort to eliminate terrorists. .
defensive huh? terrosim isnt defensive, it's the country finghting against it, dont u think so?

[genghis_tom]

thanks, but i think u'r definition is a little harsh. when u say that it's goal is bringing radical sect, what do u mean? weren those radical who're making terror?
I'm saying that when say, The Vengeful Fist of Infidel Busters claims responsibility for an attack, people are drawn to what they believe in/are fighting for.
And yes, terrorists are the members of those radical sects who blow themselves up.

[genghis_tom]

defensive huh? terrosim isnt defensive, it's the country finghting against it, dont u think so?

Quite right, in the general sense. I was thinking of Iraq when I said that. The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan are executing defensive terrorism. Insurgency is defensive.
I suppose terrorism can't be explained in terms such as offensive or defensive.

[genghis_tom]

thanks, but i think u'r definition is a little harsh.
Terrorism itself is "a little harsh". I fail to think of a definition that reflects the soft, cuddly side of terrorism...

[qistina255]

I'm saying that when say, The Vengeful Fist of Infidel Busters claims responsibility for an attack, people are drawn to what they believe in/are fighting for.
And yes, terrorists are the members of those radical sects who blow themselves up.
ok then, but i have one more question,
we've discussed this question for about an hour with no agreement.
terrorists are human being, just like u n me, but then again what puts them in a state to terrorise people?

[qistina255]

Terrorism itself is "a little harsh". I fail to think of a definition that reflects the soft, cuddly side of terrorism...
no worries, i dont think anyone in a normal function of brain could've think like that, neither do i

[KettleWhistle]

ok, so what is the right definitions according to you?

Terrorism is a concept that's nearly impossible to define. I'd say that in a nutshell, it is attacks on civilians by paramillitary groups, with the intent of getting attention to their proclaimed cause.

[michal]

ok then, but i have one more question,
we've discussed this question for about an hour with no agreement.
terrorists are human being, just like u n me, but then again what puts them in a state to terrorise people?Brainwashing?

[Mercury]

Terrorism - acts of violence, whose primary purpose is to terrify the enemy, rather than destroying its the military capacity.

[qistina255]

Brainwashing?
me brainwashed or teorrorists? dont really catch that

[qistina255]

Terrorism is a concept that's nearly impossible to define. I'd say that in a nutshell, it is attacks on civilians by paramillitary groups, with the intent of getting attention to their proclaimed cause.
ok, i think yours quite clear. can u give me some exemple pls

[qistina255]

Terrorism - acts of violence, whose primary purpose is to terrify the enemy, rather than destroying its the military capacity.
i really need to understand this. when u say it's purpose is to terrfy the enemy, isnt it mean destroying its millitary capacity? 'the enemy' wouldnt it mean just one group of people likely to be the gvt? than the civil wouldnt be involved, would they?

[Roland]

Terrorism - a strategy to cause terror.
It is not restricted to "arabs against the rest of the world", but also works on a smaller scale like mobbing at your job, bullying in the schoolyard, employers blackmailing the personnel to accept cuttings or getting outsourced.
The more famous terrorism of groups like al-quaeda, IRA, ETA, sects, islamist lunatics, etc against random civilians does not only frighten everybody in our daily life, but undermines the structure and values of our democratic societies, when our freedom, tolerance and goodwill is suddenly under fire.
Look at all those patriot act and Guantanamo things, extensive precautions by civil, police and military authorities, video surveillance, tapping into phone calls, hefty inspections at airports and trigger happy police.
National autorities, originally meant to guarantee our liberal lifestyle, have to cut down the very same liberalty and became dragged down to the same terrorist level as those original terrorists. Gouvernements are already being accused of terrorism themselves, like torturing (il)legal prisoners - some laws are getting bent and stretched in the process, lawsuit proceedings getting delayed and deadlines between arrest and arraignment get prolongated.
What causes terrorists to terrorise us? From brainwashed suiciders, religious sick maniacs, pervert stalkers, petty fighting for dominance in schoolyards and getting your workmate's job to "counter-terrorising" gov'ts' secret servicees - take your pick.

[Roland]

i really need to understand this. when u say it's purpose is to terrfy the enemy, isnt it mean destroying its millitary capacity? 'the enemy' wouldnt it mean just one group of people likely to be the gvt? than the civil wouldnt be involved, would they?
The civil is _always_ involved.
Differentiate between terrorism and guerilla warfare.
Guerrillas would fight primarily against a military superior force, like a gouvernment's army - "the enemy". Civil victims would be collateral damage, guerillas might use terrorism to cover their traces, recruit/blackmail help from civilians, like in south-american or african countries.
The Al-Quaeda-style terrorism targets our western society, not our military.
Destroying a militray target (like USS Cole) is a prestigious show, it did not have the WTC-effect.
The palestinian terrorism is so dimwitted, I'm out of words to categorise that. If it was not so sad and cruel, it would be laughably ridiculous.

[KettleWhistle]

ok, i think yours quite clear. can u give me some exemple pls

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=7249

[Mercury]

i really need to understand this. when u say it's purpose is to terrfy the enemy, isnt it mean destroying its millitary capacity? 'the enemy' wouldnt it mean just one group of people likely to be the gvt? than the civil wouldnt be involved, would they?

The terrorism differs from regular or guerilla warfare in that terrorists usually realize that destroying enemy military capacity is beyond their reach (though of course they would love to do it). Thus instead of inflicting the maximum military damage (destroying military planes, tanks etc.) as regular armies aim to do, terrorist concentrate on killing people which gives them most publicity and inspires most terror.

In democratic countries the goverments are elected by people, so the terrorists view the whole population as the enemy. Killing civilians is in fact generally preferable (though less "prestigious") than killing soldiers or gvt officials, since it spreads the panick among the whole population. It's also much easier. Of course, in some cases the terrorists (like IRA, for example) may avoid targeting civilians less they provoke harsher response from the goverment or lose some of their external funding (in case of IRA, from the american irish community).

[qistina255]

ok, thanks for those answers.
it's just that u give me answers likely followed by questions. and i have to make it simple because it will be debated in my class. (i'm not making you doing my homework, it's one way to know what people think). and this debate will be in english. it would be better if others can drop their opinion too.

[MGB8]

Terrorism is the use of lethal violence targetting non-combatants.

Normally you add "for the purpose of advancing of political aim...", but, as Medio has argued, and I buy, there can be pure nihilistic terrorism... a guy who blows up a market just to blow up the market is probably a terrorist, even if he has no discernable goal.

So, blowing up a market or disco or restaurant or bus or subway is terrorism - it targets the riders, more than likely to be non-combatants, for lethal violence.

Attacking soldiers at a checkpoint is NOT terrorism. Its warfare, although terrorists can commit acts of war.

Hijacking a plane IS terrorism, in that the threat in hijacking the plane is, you guessed it, lethal violence against the (likey non-combatant) passengers.

The death of a passenger or bystander in a targetted killing/assassination of a terrorist or terrorist leader IS NOT terrorism, in that the bystander, even if he/she is a non-combatant, was not the target... they were, more or less, a human shield for a combatant (which includes the "brains" behind the operation.)

Also, checkpoints and curfews are not "terrorism" - or else we'd all be "terrorized" at airports and during riots. Even when the implicit threat in violating a curfew is the possibility of lethal violence, the threat is never - we will kill anyone who is out past 10... and, if you want to get back to the add on of a political aim... its never "and we will keep it until you accept political proposal A,B,C..." generally, such measures are responses to violence, I've never heard of it to be in response to politics. And violence is not politics.

The Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can arguable be said to be terrorism. So can the firebombing of Dresden, as well as many of the acts committed by the Axis, too. I believe that "total warfare" includes "terrorism", and thus there was terrorism on both sides in WWII.

Is terrorism EVER justified? I would say, on some occasions, but only when the cost of the terrorism is the saving of many many more lives (ie. Hiroshima/Nagasaki.)

[qistina255]

wow, u'r definition's good,
i never thought that terrorism also can be linked with wars.. especially the ww2nd. although it's logic. thanks a lot!

[qistina255]

Brainwashing?

thanks for qistina it's not normal why do u say that ?? qistina is very nice she doesn't ask anithing to be insulted like that !!
thanks it was just the girl which does the assignment with qistina !!!

[physics]

Terrorism is targeted killing of civilians. Arabs have mastered this skill.

When an official Army battles another official Army, that's called warfare, not terrorism. But most of the Arabs "fighters" are unofficial thugs who kill.

[Mediocrates]

When an official Army battles another official Army, that's called warfare, not terrorism.


When was the last time that happened? Korea?

[Mira]

The Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can arguable be said to be terrorism. So can the firebombing of Dresden, as well as many of the acts committed by the Axis, too. I believe that "total warfare" includes "terrorism", and thus there was terrorism on both sides in WWII.

Is terrorism EVER justified? I would say, on some occasions, but only when the cost of the terrorism is the saving of many many more lives (ie. Hiroshima/Nagasaki.)

Would sanctions ever qualify as terrorism if they primarily affect the health and welfare of the civilian population?

[Mediocrates]

Sherman's march through Georgia was called alternatively, total warfare and terrorism. Yet it hastened the end of the bloodiest war in US history which resulted in many fewer casualities than would be incurred otherwise. Moreover by attacking civilian infrastructure and not people or troops, fewer people outright were killed than would have happened in a real head on confrontation. And yet he remains the ultimate war criminal to the South. There is a emotional dimension to what you call terrorism which is made of a mixture of fear, hurt pride, outrage and shame. Often these soft values are a lot more important than whatever the casualities are or how they are comprised.

[Mediocrates]

The Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can arguable be said to be terrorism.

Why? Because of the psychological effects of using an given type of weapon? Then the effect would seem to be the fear instilled of possibly using it the next time. If you look at the actual records and decisions that went into targetting you'll discover that a complex series of events went into this and it wasn't as Gar Alperovitz asserts, a purely racial arbitrary thing. In other words the assertion that if for example the decision to hit Hiroshima was arbitrary because it wasn't a 'legitimate target' would be even more not less apparent if they chose instead to hit Tokyo.

On the other hand Curtiss LeMay did say once that 'if we lose we'll be called war criminals.' which may be true but it doesn't really tell you anything about terrorism.


So can the firebombing of Dresden,

2/5ths of Germany's rail traffic switched through Dresden. But then one could look at the Battle of Berlin. Maybe a million Germans perished. But they COULD have surrendered, yes? They chose to fight it out. Turned out to be a bad decision for them. Is that terrorism is that total war? I'm not so sure.

as well as many of the acts committed by the Axis, too. I believe that "total warfare" includes "terrorism", and thus there was terrorism on both sides in WWII.


No. Total war is what it is. It is the absolute directed effort to destroy every aspect of your enemies abilities to wage war through every means you have at your disposal. Period. It's not terrorism unless the German people were so deluded that they could never imagine anything like it happening to them.

[physics]

When was the last time that happened? Korea?

Good point. Well, maybe Vietnam could be categorized as two official armies battling eachother. But I guess over the last few decades, most of the fights involved terrorists.

[genghis_tom]

No. Total war is what it is. It is the absolute directed effort to destroy every aspect of your enemies abilities to wage war through every means you have at your disposal. Period.
Then your ultimate total war would be to wage war exclusively on women and children? It might take a generation or so, but your enemy's ability to wage war would disappear. Victory would be attained, but at what cost to humanity, history, diversity, and the consciences of the victor?
Is this not terrorism? I would be terrified...

[genghis_tom]

Whoah, Mediocrates! How long is this reply going to be? You've been working on it for a good five minutes now...

[Mediocrates]

Good point. Well, maybe Vietnam could be categorized as two official armies battling eachother. But I guess over the last few decades, most of the fights involved terrorists.

Most of the fights have involved something that the Geneva Conventions never conceived would be the main vehicle of conflicts. There have been exactly no declared wars since WW2. Everything since the Dawn of the cold war has been brush wars and low tech or asymetric civil wars waged on a global canvas. Some involved 'troops' like the Congo and Angola, Columbia, El Salvador, some have not. But all of them are different from what the world thought 'war' would look like after Korea. In any brush conflict the distinction between 'troops' and 'civilians' is blurry so civilians are guranteed to get caught in the middle. I don't think this is a prima facie case to call it all terrorism though. Perhaps terrorism is really a mode of attack one choses to pursue when a whole host of otherwise more rational methods could be employed but are not for some non obvious reason. The Tamil Tigers are champions of suicide bombing not because it's worked particularly well for them though. The Palestinians used suicide bombing because it plays to their national myth of desperate victimhood. Im Iraq suicide bombers are driven by something entirely different though, perhaps a belief that death is irrelevant. Similarly Hezbollah, which IS a uniformed army, pursues terrorism not because it works and not because of some media driven policy but because NOT succeeding is in their best strategic interests. They need to ratchet up the balance of fear in and of itself. Confronting Israel head on today after Lebanon would not be as successful for them since they can't claim they're pushing an invader out.

So I think terrorism is more about your strategic intent and not entirely about how you do it.

[genghis_tom]

What sort of strategic intent is doomed for failure? I am more inclined towards your desperation and ideology argument.

[Mediocrates]

Then your ultimate total war would be to wage war exclusively on women and children? It might take a generation or so, but your enemy's ability to wage war would disappear. Victory would be attained, but at what cost to humanity, history, diversity, and the consciences of the victor?
Is this not terrorism? I would be terrified...

Eisenhower's stated doctrine in WW2 was to destroy Germany's physical ability to wage war by any means. He understood that Germany would never surrender to a negotiated peace with terms. This is right out of his Biography by Ambrose. Similarly in Japan, the Empire simply didnot indicate that it would ever surrender to a neogtiated position. It was understood that it would be a fight to the death: total victory or total destruction. Those were the rules of engagement. Even though it was militarily clear by 1943 that neither Germany nor Japan could win they fought on. Perhaps its a nonrational act but obliterating them was the clearest option given these circumstances. Neither Japan nor Germany would be allowed to profit in any way the land or empire they gained from their expanionst wars. It would NEVER be permitted. Now both Germany and Japan had to understand that we understood that about them so why they chose to fight on is probably a question for sociologists.

That's more or less what total war is. War prosecuted through all means regardless because it's clear that your enemy will never give up nor should be permitted to succeed in even the smallest way. Does that mean that it necessarily involves civilians? Probably it does but not because they're women and children but because every logistical, manufacturing, warfighting, infrastructural aspect of your enemies ability to function must be destroyed.

[Mediocrates]

What sort of strategic intent is doomed for failure? I am more inclined towards your desparation and ideology argument.


There are suicide cultures for sure. Germany and Japan were determined to go down in flames. I think Serbia had an aspect of that too. Certainly Saddam's stance to make us believe he had WMD where he didn't looks like an I-dare-you-to-kill-me cult too. And no one, NO-ONE, should underestimate Persian pride to take us all down with them.

[Mediocrates]

It's not an accident that Gorbachev was a uniquely un-ideological Soviet leader who saw the practical benefits of abandoning the Soviet system before it killed them all. Some countries aren't so hidebound. These are the ones where wars are bound to be limited and negotiated. Look at all of Israels military opponents so far. Fights to the death, their own death is something they'll NEVER do. Wars with them will either result in totally obliterating Israel or their own negotiated surrender.

[physics]

The Palestinian terrorists are nothing more than cowards who are afraid to encounter well trained IDF troops. The Pals go after civilians mostly. Instead of fighting the "occupation" army, the pals fight civilians. Who knows what these idiots are thinking.

[genghis_tom]

Germany, Japan, Serbia, Persia: These are all countries. Saddam is an individual. I believe that there are suicidal individuals (due to said desperation or ideology, perhaps add the fear of leading your country to defeat), but I fail to believe entire countries are. There is a deep programming in all humans that says survival is THE priority. Heads of state can be suicidal. Countries are not. Civilians are not, unless of course they are so fervent in the belief of their leader (Japan), that they are in essence soldiers themselves.

[genghis_tom]

The Palestinian terrorists are nothing more than cowards who are afraid to encounter well trained IDF troops. The Pals go after civilians mostly. Instead of fighting the "occupation" army, the pals fight civilians. Who knows what these idiots are thinking.
They fight the "occupation", which includes civilians and your "occupation army".

[Mediocrates]

What they're thinking is that civilized people don't do this sort of thing. They're thinking that if you can disrupt their lives to the extent that they hate you so much that they'll level whole apartment buildings regardless of who's in them then terrorism has won. The whole notion of collateral damage in terrorism is upside down. It's supposed to be about nothing but collateral damage. On both sides. And I think it's a thin line really because sometimes the appropriate response to terrorism is to strike so much fear into the hearts of the general populace of your opponents that they abandon supporting terrorists. It's hard to do but it's certainly one avenue. The IAF could abandon gunship strikes on cars carrying terrorists and probably eliminate collateral damage by 90% while losing many more troops and having the same kind of success and experience as they did in Jenin - many IDF dead and few or an unknown quantity of terrorists killed plus a few other people. But why would they? Who would stand for that? And what politcal effects would they gain? If instead they held the probability of killing terrorists and the 12 people who happen to be standing near them over everyone's heads, how many people would jump up to help them? I wouldn't. Would you?

[genghis_tom]

These are the ones where wars are bound to be limited and negotiated. Look at all of Israels military opponents so far. Fights to the death, their own death is something they'll NEVER do. Wars with them will either result in totally obliterating Israel or their own negotiated surrender.
Egypt made peace with Israel. Israel was not obliterated, and never will be if their opponents never come out into the open.

[Mediocrates]

Germany, Japan, Serbia, Persia: These are all countries. Saddam is an individual. I believe that there are suicidal individuals (due to said desperation or ideology, perhaps add the fear of leading your country to defeat), but I fail to believe entire countries are. There is a deep programming in all humans that says survival is THE priority. Heads of state can be suicidal. Countries are not. Civilians are not, unless of course they are so fervent in the belief of their leader (Japan), that they are in essence soldiers themselves.


If an ideology can convince one of genocide it can convince one of suicide.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD106806


To me this is flat out crazy. To Khaddafy it makes sense.

[genghis_tom]

http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD106806


To me this is flat out crazy. To Khaddafy it makes sense.

'sigh' I miss civilization...

[minusthejihad]

Why? Because of the psychological effects of using an given type of weapon? Then the effect would seem to be the fear instilled of possibly using it the next time. If you look at the actual records and decisions that went into targetting you'll discover that a complex series of events went into this and it wasn't as Gar Alperovitz asserts, a purely racial arbitrary thing. In other words the assertion that if for example the decision to hit Hiroshima was arbitrary because it wasn't a 'legitimate target' would be even more not less apparent if they chose instead to hit Tokyo.

On the other hand Curtiss LeMay did say once that 'if we lose we'll be called war criminals.' which may be true but it doesn't really tell you anything about terrorism.

Did you see "The Fog of War" about Robert S. McNamara by any chance? What did you think about his explanation of deciding to drop the bombs?

[Mediocrates]

I never saw that. I went back to the source material here:


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Section II. Defining Targets

[physics]

Egypt made peace with Israel

True. But Egypt is also notorious for anti-semitic/Israeli incitement. They stir up plenty of hate against Israel despite of making "peace."

For Arabs, Peace simply means cease of fighting. It doesn't end the hate. But hey, I'd love for the Pals to stop fighting. They can hate from a distance, as long as they don't hurt any Israelis.

[qistina255]

Terrorism is targeted killing of civilians. Arabs have mastered this skill.

When an official Army battles another official Army, that's called warfare, not terrorism. But most of the Arabs "fighters" are unofficial thugs who kill.
it seems to me that from your point of view, civilians are never involved?
are you optimist? civilians always ot killed in 'warfare' so could we conclude that terrorism=warfare=USA=Britain=Russia=Chechnya=Isra el=Palestina etc?

[physics]

Your'e heading in the wrong direction.

There is a difference between warfare and terrorism. It's wrong to use both terms interchangably.

Of course civilians get killed in warfare. But most of the battles are between soldiers. Terrorism targets civilians only. Israel doesn't go on a civilian-killing spree. The Palestinians do.

People like you who blur the differences do no good for humanity. Create a universal definition for terrorism, and simply test any country.

[MGB8]

The key word is TARGET. This is related to the criminal notion of "mens rea" - state of mind - meaning, for all intents and purposes, intent.

Terrorism is an attack which INTENDS to kill non-combatants.

Warfare is an attack which INTENDS to kill combatants. Now, non-combatants are often killed in these acts of war - but there we get to the issue of how reasonable was the attack in light of the circumstances - was it in willfull disregard of the lives of non-combatants, or was it reasonable given the cost/benefit.

[Tatiana]

eWire is using their internet payment to sell t-shirts from terrorist grouls as the PFLP and FARC!

You can check this here: http://www.fightersandlovers.com

Fighters and Lovers is a terrorist organization in Denmark that sells t-shirts to support these terrorist groups. I think they must be banned around the World!

[minusthejihad]

Thanks Tatiana! I agree completely. There have been some posts about this in IsraelForum as well.. Welcome!

[Tatiana]

It's good to see the World is helping

Hello

We do not support terrorist groups and we have blocked those particular accounts.


Best Regards,
ewire support.

ewire
Søren Frichs Vej 3
DK-8000 Aarhus C
www.ewire.dk

[Turkishdude]

For Arabs, Peace simply means cease of fighting. It doesn't end the hate. But hey, I'd love for the Pals to stop fighting. They can hate from a distance, as long as they don't hurt any Israelis.How tragic, hoping to being hated from a distance.

[Ossian]

How tragic, hoping to being hated from a distance.

As much as i hate stereotyping Turkish Dude i have a hunch that as a Turkish person you hate Jews on principle (or lack of them...). If this is'nt true then i apologise but every turkish person i've met is a raving anti semite. They are quite scary...

[minusthejihad]

As much as i hate stereotyping Turkish Dude i have a hunch that as a Turkish person you hate Jews on principle (or lack of them...). If this is'nt true then i apologise but every turkish person i've met is a raving anti semite. They are quite scary...

Actually the Turkish girl I met in San Diego was quite fond of this Jew. She was a hottie. Westernized though, no potato sack. Virgin back then though. Highly doubt it now. Too bad she lost it with some dumb white boy surfer who probably didn't care about her anyway.

[Cellis]

As much as i hate stereotyping Turkish Dude i have a hunch that as a Turkish person you hate Jews on principle (or lack of them...). If this is'nt true then i apologise but every turkish person i've met is a raving anti semite. They are quite scary...
Please apologise; you are completely wrong.

well well dude, some Jews hate Turks... Let's say "Jews are anti-Turks, they are quite scary"... Is it right?

my goodness, why children allowed to type in political communities? :p

[minusthejihad]

Serdar is right, on the whole, Turks hate Jews a lot less then their fellow Muslims. And of course, not all Turks are anti-semites, just a lot of them. I would assume the rest are a cool bunch.

[Turkishdude]

As much as i hate stereotyping Turkish Dude i have a hunch that as a Turkish person you hate Jews on principle (or lack of them...). If this is'nt true then i apologise but every turkish person i've met is a raving anti semite. They are quite scary...What, am I missing something? I certainly do not hate Jews. :rolleyes:

It must be my poor English, what did you not understand???

[minusthejihad]

And don't worry Serdar, Ossian is just as ignorant of the Turkish people as she is about the implications of the word "Neocon". It's no biggie!

[Cellis]

Anti-Semitism in Turkey is just a Jerk stuff... It's really.
you know, neo-nazi, whitepower guys, completely Jerk stuff. Same as in Turkey. I can say that European Union countries much more anti-semite. Guess what? While Turkey jailed Jihad(ic) Terroristes, most of EU countries and especially Germany kept Jihadic Terroristes and gave safe.
the strange thing Muslim(!!!) Turkey was always fighting against Radical Islam and the christian(!!!) Germany was giving safe...

If you are interested, just make a search with "Metin Kaplan" and see related English articles

[Cellis]

item edited by serdar

[Turkishdude]

Please apologise; you are completely wrong.

well well dude, some Jews hate Turks... Let's say "Jews are anti-Turks, they are quite scary"... Is it right?

my goodness, why children allowed to type in political communities? :pThere is some truth in it, though. A lot of Muslims (be it Turks, Iranians or Arabs etc.) have been brainwashed to believe that Jews are behind all their problems and shortcomings. They believe in all kinds of insane conspiracy theories about Jews, Mossad bla bla bla.. :rolleyes:

Many Muslims also believe in all that "promised lands" garbage - they think that Israel actually intends to invade our countries.

LMAO

[Cellis]

There is some truth in it, though. A lot of Muslims (be it Turks, Iranians or Arabs etc.) have been brainwashed to believe that Jews are behind all their problems and shortcomings. They believe in all kind of insane conspiracy theories about Jews, Mossad bla bla bla.. :rolleyes:

Many Muslims also believe in all that "promised lands" - they think that Israel actually intends to invade our countries.
i don't give a flying "BOK" about who hates who... the truth is almost everybody brain washed in the world, includes this forum.

To live in USA or UK doesn't makes them smart, especially to "minusthejihad". he just types with limited info and poor history education.

only thing this guys do better; speak and type better English. And while they are typing, makes fart, relax and watch iraq's oil plants with google map from miles away; in a warm house, nice chick or wife, children in safe at home, nice TV programs.

sure, they've never seen a god damn war, fight, whatever... Israeli Jews are 100000000 times better than diaspora's Jews

[Ossian]

And don't worry Serdar, Ossian is just as ignorant of the Turkish people as she is about the implications of the word "Neocon". It's no biggie!


LOL! not that again! I said i apologised if he was'nt but i'm telling you all now the only direct contact i have had with anti semites have ALL come from Turkish people, culminating in one recent ghastly experience.

IT Might Be IForum Bitterness Seeping in Maybe....

But... i find it odd that a lot of turks being anti semitic and living in a country that had extremely close links with Nazi Germany and has seen spontaneous outbursts of synagogues being firebombed recently does not make Turks suspect from some posters perspectives but being British or coming from any other decent European country is somehow suspect. Harumph!

[minusthejihad]

i don't give a flying "BOK" about who hates who... the truth is almost everybody brain washed in the world, includes this forum.

To live in USA or UK doesn't makes them smart, especially to "minusthejihad". he just types with limited info and poor history education.

only thing this guys do better; speak and type better English. And while they are typing, makes fart, relax and watch iraq's oil plants with google map from miles away; in a warm house, nice chick or wife, children in safe at home, nice TV programs.

sure, they've never seen a god damn war, fight, whatever... Israeli Jews are 100000000 times better than diaspora's Jews

That's quite a lot of talk from some sissy boy in Finland! You want some of me? Come and get it here in the best country on Earth, the USA. Right! We won't let you in anyway. So now you know how we keep it the best country on earth.

"he just types with limited info and poor history education."

You want to call me out? Go for it. Prove what you imply! I'd love to see where you have seen "my limited info and poor history education."?

[minusthejihad]

LOL! not that again! I said i apologised if he was'nt but i'm telling you all now the only direct contact i have had with anti semites have ALL come from Turkish people, culminating in one recent ghastly experience.

IT Might Be IForum Bitterness Seeping in Maybe....

But... i find it odd that a lot of turks being anti semitic and living in a country that had extremely close links with Nazi Germany and has seen spontaneous outbursts of synagogues being firebombed recently does not make Turks suspect from some posters perspectives but being British or coming from any other decent European country is somehow suspect. Harumph!

Please. You live in what's known as "The First World". I expect more from you than someone living in the Muslim World. At least you should expect more of yourself. I'm sure if you don't want to go to work in the morning, you can't just tell your boss that the "Evil Yid Menace" ruined your eggs this morning and that you have to go firebomb an embassy for it.

[Cellis]

to the Ossian
doooaaaarrrgggg.....

Children still believes that 11/septembersssss.... paranoiassss.... Suddenly Synagouges bombed but there was no any DEAD JEWS(!!!).Bombers knew that Jews were using backdoor(!!!). Suspects are already MOSSAD. Syrian bomber was an old MOSSAD AGENT... God damn OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS AN OLD CIA AGENT...

wohooooo come to party guys... now keep using HAMAS for blood.

[minusthejihad]

Wtf?

[Cellis]

That's quite a lot of talk from some sissy boy in Finland! You want some of me? Come and get it here in the best country on Earth, the USA. Right! We won't let you in anyway. So now you know how we keep it the best country on earth.

"he just types with limited info and poor history education."

You want to call me out? Go for it. Prove what you imply! I'd love to see where you have seen "my limited info and poor history education."?
hey dude? BEST COUNTRY??? let's party... did i hear right? Best country? for real? wohooo... You won't let me in? Aight :D

A COUNTRY WITHOUT HISTORY, THE FAKE HISTORY WRITTEN BY BLOOD...

RUN COWBOY RUN :D

[Cellis]

Wtf?
a very big one

[minusthejihad]

There's no better PR for the Muslim World than you my friend. Please, tell us more of your theories! And as if the Turks don't have enough blood on their hands. LOL!

[minusthejihad]

A COUNTRY WITHOUT HISTORY,

In only 200 years, this country was built from the ground up to become the leading nation of nations, a global superpower. Meanwhile, you are still trading dates and prunes for medicine. Go figure.

[Cellis]

There's no better PR for the Muslim World than you my friend. Please, tell us more of your theories! And as if the Turks don't have enough blood on their hands. LOL!
LoL LoL LoL ---> i see you learn politics in chats, chat channels with lol lol lol... Olalaaa...
Ask your grandfather how Ottomans saved his a$$..

[Turkishdude]

to the Ossian
doooaaaarrrgggg.....

Children still believes that 11/septembersssss.... paranoiassss.... Suddenly Synagouges bombed but there was no any DEAD JEWS(!!!).Bombers knew that Jews were using backdoor(!!!). Suspects are already MOSSAD. Syrian bomber was an old MOSSAD AGENT... God damn OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS AN OLD CIA AGENT...

wohooooo come to party guys... now keep using HAMAS for blood.Wow, you are one of those ignorant fools I was talking about. You're not one of those grey wolve idiots I hope? ;)

[Cellis]

In only 200 years, this country was built from the ground up to become the leading nation of nations, a global superpower. Meanwhile, you are still trading dates and prunes for medicine. Go figure. SuperPower with GREENCARD lottary, 55.000 people from all around the world per year. YES dude!!!

[Cellis]

Wow, you are one of those ignorant fools I was talking about.
stfu!

[minusthejihad]

Wow, you are one of those ignorant fools I was talking about. You're not one of those grey wolve idiots I hope? ;)

I'm sorry that people like Serdar give Turks a bad name, especially considering Turkey's Westward leaning path and relationship with Israel.

[Turkishdude]

stfu!OK Serdar, I shouldn't have called you names, I'm sorry.

I just want to say that I totally disagree with every word you say.

"I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Voltaire

[Mediocrates]

Turkey is one of only two places in the world where I've been drawn down on by a solider with a loaded machine gun. Not sure if the safety was on.

[minusthejihad]

Turkey is one of only two places in the world where I've been drawn down on by a solider with a loaded machine gun. Not sure if the safety was on.

Where was the other place? :)

[Cellis]

Turkey is one of only two places in the world where I've been drawn down on by a solider with a loaded machine gun. Not sure if the safety was on.
i thank to that soldier whatever he did to you. And the USA is one of only two places in the world wherei've been searched even inside of my underwear by border police in the airport. i tell ya, other one is UK.
i bet you never ever been in Turkey

[Cellis]

Where was the other place? :)
now, you... please talk more about your superpower with the greencard lottery and 55.000 immigrants to USA every year.
or maybe you should to be afraid of Hillary... Dubya can't hang in the DISCO (white house) longer, you know...
come on dude, if it's superpower find the OSAMA.. OSAMA is as jerk as you are. tell me how DUBYA gives safe to his buddy OSAMA. CIA has power to find a small ant in asia.

[Turkishdude]

hey dude? BEST COUNTRY??? let's party... did i hear right? Best country? for real? wohooo... You won't let me in? Aight :D

A COUNTRY WITHOUT HISTORY, THE FAKE HISTORY WRITTEN BY BLOOD...

RUN COWBOY RUN :DWho cares about history? Iran has a rich history, but is a backward, poor sh#thole compared to the US.

[Cellis]

Who cares about history? Iran has a rich history, but is a backward, poor sh#thole compared to the US. it's not a pissing contest about histories. if you want one its ok. Great Ottoman ended by whole European countries + ANZACS. But Turks are still ruling anatolia. What about america? while we were fighting against 9 different countries, Americans were fighting against their own blacks and natives. of course they had a comfortible life in there, miles away

[Turkishdude]

it's not a pissing contest about histories. if you want one its ok. Great Ottoman ended by whole European countries + ANZACS. But Turks are still ruling anatolia. What about america? while we were fighting against 9 different countries, Americans were fighting against their own blacks and natives. of course they had a comfortible life in there, miles awayWhat I meant to say was that having a rich history doesn't guarantee future success.

[Cellis]

Don't read this if you are under the 18. Because you can feel really sad...

US military actions throughout history were hoaxes and lies, JFk assassination by americans themselves, Pearl Harbor, Vietnam war, CIA drug traf, 911 attack fabricated by US which served as a cornerstone in the 21st century for US invasions, though they are fake, fake Osama Bin laden tapes, after all they (CIA) could not fake his video since Osama's probable death that CIA released only audio tape, but even that tape is fake (see LooseChange 911 by Alex Jones, Truth and lies of 911, the Great Conspiracy in movies section). It is all crusade against truth, against people who follow religion Islam. It is not surprising that tensions grew over Iran nukes, again double standards by US and its allies European countries which have nukes themselves, if it is an international regulation for nuclear non proliferation, then it must be applied to each and every country in the world but not the way that I have the right and you don't. This world and its events are presented opposite from what they really are by mass media controlled (cencored), they show black as white and white as black. However unless every country disarms nukes, Iran and any other country is righteous of having such a weapon. But God and who follow God's path are winners! The statistics show that provided the same course of world population growth most european nations will dissappear by the end of this century because of the ratio between birth rate of muslims and european nations. Western society is declining and morally degrading but muslim nations are growing in every aspect, birth rate, social aspects and etc.
That's why you must to terminate all over Muslim countries before it's too late. But i'm afraid Bush is a looser. He lost time. Hillary will probably get the government.

Now feel free to feel sad; my Americanized friends...

[Mediocrates]

i thank to that soldier whatever he did to you. And the USA is one of only two places in the world wherei've been searched even inside of my underwear by border police in the airport. i tell ya, other one is UK.
i bet you never ever been in Turkey


Many years ago taking the Ferry in Istanbul. During a time there was some terrorism going on and people were very nervous. I raqn over to him asking directions in my broken German and he freaked out and drew down on me,

And the other place was.......right here in the USA.

[Cellis]

Many years ago taking the Ferry in Istanbul. During a time there was some terrorism going on and people were very nervous. I raqn over to him asking directions in my broken German and he freaked out and drew down on me,

And the other place was.......right here in the USA.
but anyway, i don't blame whole Americans or the nation; USA

[Turkishdude]

Actually the Turkish girl I met in San Diego was quite fond of this Jew. She was a hottie. Westernized though, no potato sack. Virgin back then though. Highly doubt it now. Too bad she lost it with some dumb white boy surfer who probably didn't care about her anyway.How come a Jew talks like this about another Jew? dumb white boy surfer = this Jew?

[minusthejihad]

How come a Jew talks like this about another Jew? dumb white boy surfer = this Jew?

No, I was the Jew. Whoever she probably lost her virginity to was a dumb southern California surfer boy meat-head. That was just her type. Personally I told her to wait until she was in love. She was a live-in nanny and only 18, very malleable (mentally of course) and far away from home. I met her on the beach, she was looking for a surfer, not a charmer. I'm both.

[Cellis]

check out the discussion after all. :D you Americanized ones are really interesting. I wonder are there Israeli's applying to green card lottary for residence&work permit in USA?

[Cellis]

How come a Jew talks like this about another Jew? dumb white boy surfer = this Jew?
Hey, probably you wanna hear about my fantazies with Jewish virgin too. :D

[Ossian]

Hey, probably you wanna hear about my fantazies with Jewish virgin too. :D

Did'nt you realise how angry a lot of Turkish blokes get when someone "looks or talks about their 'wimeeen' ?! Some Turks stabbed some English guys to death a few years back who dared to give some moustachioed minger the once over in a bar. I say 'dared', i think i meant deigned...

[Cellis]

Did'nt you realise how angry a lot of Turkish blokes get when someone "looks or talks about their 'wimeeen' ?! Some Turks stabbed some English guys to death a few years back who dared to give some moustachioed minger the once over in a bar. I say 'dared', i think i meant deigned...hey come on. same $hit happens to Turks in Europe, USA but am i blaming all? please try to understand what i mean. I personally am not against whole nation. I don't burn American flag, i don't burn British or danish flags. Because there are innocent civilians after all political bulls.... If i'm anti-something, it means i'm anti policy of that country.

Well, i'm also anti-AKP (the current islamic party in the Turkish government). Does it means i'm against to my own nation?

When it comes to visit USA, border cops are acting stupit, when you get out of the Airport, people acts very nice. It means i don't care bastards.

When it comes to walk in ny, accidently entered to wrong street; neo-nazis wanted to beat me. Because i've Mexican-Look and style. Brunette and so similar to them. Thank god nothing happened but i don't blame all americans. but you do.

Please realise and act as an adult. Please. If you want to tell something, just say it straight; like: "Yes i hate you Turks! You are greatest bastards". Please do it.

But still, i don't hate you my British friend!

Help us to solve problems like protests in Istanbul. We really don't want to see same scene (like in Iran). We don't wanna let them burn embassies; we don't wanna be in same case with Irani, Syrian or others. We Turks want to be different and have a big fight in anatolia for more democracy, more human rights and a great fight against Islamo Fascism + Jihad + Radical Islam. Help us to win these all bullsh...

And i don't personally want Turkey to enter in EU. We have lot of caricaturistes, jailed or judged by islamic government. Help us to make freedom and speech free in Anatolia.

If you help and support us, we are friends together. If you just sit back and blame, something goes wrong.

I do support Europe and America against Neo-Nazis, but do you support my personal fight against Radical Islam in Turkey? or do you just blame?

It's easy to blame. I can blame you because of Combat-18 White Power guys. But i don't.

And there are about 3 neo-nazi Stormfront members in IsraelForum currently watching at us. I know them but Forum managament don't care about this.

[Ossian]

I don't hate all turks. I don't 'hate' any group of people. But i'm not perfect, i guess you found my 'achilles heel' (well heels if you consider Albanians but thats another story....). Turkey as a country has lots to be proud of and lots to be ashamed of, same as any other country, like Britain i guess.

[Turkishdude]

@Serdar

Since you claim to advocate freedom of speech, what's your opinion on the events following Orhan Pamuk's statements about the Armenian Genocide?

Are you ashamed of those Turks who attacked Orhan Pamuk for expressing his opinion? (I hope you're not going to say things like Turks are very tolerant bla bla bla.. )

[Cellis]

@Serdar

Since you claim to advocate freedom of speech, what's your opinion on the events following Orhan Pamuk's statements about the Armenian Genocide?

Are you ashamed of those Turks who attacked Orhan Pamuk for expressing his opinion? (I hope you're not going to say things like Turks are very tolerant bla bla bla.. )
Let his speech. already nobody cares, and Turkish folk gives point (Kudos) to him. The folk can judge, not government.
Michael Moore published lot of books and movies against US gov. and he's still free! Only the American folk judges him. Pamuk is as poor as Michael Moore...

[minusthejihad]

"Albanians are the scourge of Europe" - at least that's what my Greek friends call them! Not in my name! Not in my name! LOL!

[Turkishdude]

Let his speech. already nobody cares, and Turkish folk gives point (Kudos) to him. The folk can judge, not government.
Michael Moore published lot of books and movies against US gov. and he's still free! Only the American folk judges him. Pamuk is as poor as Michael Moore...Thank you, so there are things we agree on after all. :)

[Ossian]

"Albanians are the scourge of Europe" - at least that's what my Greek friends call them! Not in my name! Not in my name! LOL!


>shudders.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3359

[Annaliese]

Well, yeah!

Mohammed Atta had a Master's degree, going for his doctorate. His 2 sisters were already Ph.D.'s.

Ziad Jarrah was very upper middle class as well.

The poverty PC claptrap is just that: BS.

[Turkishdude]

Well, yeah!

Mohammed Atta had a Master's degree, going for his doctorate. His 2 sisters were already Ph.D.'s.

Ziad Jarrah was very upper middle class as well.

The poverty PC claptrap is just that: BS.So true.. there are so many poor countries in the world, but we don't see "poor" Africans, Latin Americans or Asians blowing themselves up and killing innocent people in the name of Buddha or something.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3359&print=1

“Fixing the Israel-Palestinian Problem Will Make Terrorism Go Away”
Hardly. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important, but it is by no means the only issue inspiring the ideology of global jihad. There are several pivotal conflicts around the world that animate militant Islamist ideology, from the Caucasus and the Balkans to the Southern Philippines and the intractable Kashmir conflict. Militant Islamists also see a connection between their local issues and global politics. To them, Muslims are victims in every conflict and the West is responsible for Muslim suffering and powerlessness.

That is to say nothing of the fact that the significance of each regional conflict varies from one jihadi group to the next. For Algerian jihadists, their war, provoked by the refusal of the pro-Western Algerian military to accept the results of elections won by Islamists in 1991, is as significant as Palestinian resistance to Israel. Pakistani and Kashmiri jihadists spew the greatest amount of venom in their publications against “Hindu India,” not Jewish Israel. Russia also sits high on a jihadist’s hit list, when the jihadist in question is Chechen.

Radical Islamists want nothing less than the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Hungary, Sicily, Spain, and even parts of France. Yes, a resolution of the Palestinian issue would remove a key irritant in Western relations with the Muslim world. But these ambitions are unlikely to be satisfied by an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

“Poverty, Unemployment, and Lack of Education Make Terrorists”
Prove it. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education are serious problems in some of the world’s most populous Muslim countries. There is, however, no evidence of a correlation between these social and economic ills and terrorism. Terrorists are not always poor and prosperity does not end terrorism. In fact, in the world’s 50 poorest countries, there is little terrorism. It is too soon to dismiss socio-economic conditions completely, but studies have generally found that terrorists tend not to be from societies’ most deprived groups. Instead, terrorists are generally well educated and unlikely to be poor. In India, for example, terrorism has occurred in one of the country’s most prosperous regions, Punjab, and its most egalitarian, Kashmir (where the poverty rate is less than 4 percent, compared with a national average of 26 percent). The sub-continent’s poorest regions, such as North Bihar, have not produced any terrorist activity. In Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as in North Africa, terrorists do not originate in the poorest and most neglected areas, but in some of the wealthiest regions and neighborhoods.

Terrorist groups, like other employers, impose standards of quality in their recruitment efforts. Research shows that terrorists tend to be of “higher quality”—more educated or accomplished in other jobs and pursuits. These individuals are more likely to turn to terrorism when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. When the economy is good, “high-quality” persons generally have access to lucrative jobs relative to their “low-quality” counterparts, and the cost of leaving a good job in order to participate in a terrorist movement is relatively high. That helps explain why engineers and other technical persons with a history of underemployment get involved in terrorism. They are both available and desired by terrorist organizations, particularly during periods of economic stagnation and downturn.

“Young, Unmarried Muslim Males Are the Most Likely to Become Terrorists”
No. It is de rigueur to suggest that young, unmarried, Muslim males are the most likely population to become terrorists or to support terrorism. But from the perspective of the global supply of terrorists, this claim is false. Consider the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. They are the world’s single largest group of suicide bombers. Their cadres are not Muslim, but Hindu by religion and nearly 40 percent are female.

Even on the issue of support for terrorism, there is reason to be skeptical about the popular convention that young males are leading the pack. In a recent survey of 6,000 Muslims in 14 countries published in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, females were more likely to support terrorism than were males. What’s more, married and unmarried persons are equally likely to support terrorism. Age matters less than one may think at first blush. In the same survey, some 47 percent of 62-year-olds surveyed were inclined to support terrorism. That percentage was only 10 points higher for 18-year-olds.

Other factors, such as perception of a threat to Islam and opinions about the role of religion in government, have a significantly greater impact on support for terrorism than age or gender. The bottom line? Ideology and beliefs matter more than social or economic status, age or gender. Focusing outreach and counterterrorism efforts on young, unmarried Muslim males will only overlook enormous sections of Muslim populations who support terrorists.

“Madrasas Are Terrorist Factories”
That’s an exaggeration. Do madrasas (ultra-conservative religious schools) produce students who are less tolerant towards other religions, opposed to the rights of women, and more likely to support militant means for resolving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims? Definitely. But this is not tantamount to training for terrorism. None of the 9/11 hijackers attended a madrasa. And there is no evidence that any of the terrorists involved in major international terror attacks during the last four years ever enrolled as regular students in a madrasa, though they may have passed through madrasas on the way to terrorist training camps.
Given their total lack of Western education, madrasa students are not particularly useful to any modern day employer, including terrorist groups. They cannot blend into a Western nation or mount sophisticated operations requiring technical expertise. They lack linguistic ability and competence in even basic forms of technology because such skills are not generally taught at madrasas. Some madrasa students do not even have basic mathematical skills, necessary for mounting even moderately sophisticated terrorist operations.

The media and policy community’s obsession with madrasas began with the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan. Their rise and fall may have drawn international attention to the culture and curriculum of madrasas, but such schools are nothing new. Madrasas have existed throughout the Muslim world since the 12th century. Their core curriculum in South Asia, to take one example, has not changed since the 19th century. Nor are they widely popular. In Pakistan, for instance, less than 1 percent of all students enrolled in schools attend madrasas. Some suggest the number could be as low as 0.7 percent of all school going children.

Officials in the Arab world exaggerate the significance of madrasas possibly to deflect attention from the real problem: public school curriculums that inspire young men to jihad and focus on Muslim victimhood. Studies of public school curricula in Saudi Arabia, for example, confirm that incitement of hatred against the West, Jews, and non-Muslims is hardly limited to madrasas.

“People Support Terrorism Because They Are Poor and Lack Opportunity”
Doubtful. Little work thus far has been done on the effect of socio-economic factors upon the demand for terrorism—the support that it enjoys among the people on whose behalf terrorists claim to operate. In other words, no one knows why some people support terrorism and others do not.

The survey of 14 Muslim countries found that respondents who reported having inadequate money for food were the least likely to support terrorism. By contrast, the study found that individuals with cell phones or computers (who are presumably more affluent) are more likely to support terrorism than those who do not own these items.

It is possible, of course, that addressing socio-economic concerns such as poverty and education in Muslim countries would decrease the support that terrorists enjoy there. It is also possible that support for terrorism might hinge more upon differences in economic status across time than upon the level of poverty at any given moment. Either way, it is too early to draw conclusions. Development agencies and advocates should collect more data on the support for terrorism among the poor.

“Perceived Threats to Islam Create Support for Terrorism”
Absolutely. There is tremendous hesitance to admit that Muslim populations, on whose behalf terrorists claim to operate, have grievances or concerns that need to be addressed as a means to minimizing public support for terrorism. For some, this is the moral equivalent of negotiating with terrorism. This is unfortunate, because these grievances matter.
In some countries, including Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, and more than 70 percent of the population believes that Islam is under threat. Support for terrorism feeds on the belief that large segments of the Muslim world are victims of ongoing injustice. Some experts argue, with justification, that the perception of threats to Islam is deliberately cultivated by Islamist political groups and authoritarian Muslim governments to generate support for their agenda. But support for terrorism is unlikely to decline without addressing that perception, whether the perception is the product of propaganda or the result of legitimate political grievance.

[Mediocrates]

“Disenchanted, Angry Muslims in Europe and North America Are Potential Terrorist Recruits”
Increasingly. Muslims living in North America and Europe are attractive to international terrorist organizations because they already possess language skills, Western passports, and are at ease working and interacting in these countries. And terrorism is attractive to some within these diasporas.

The reasons for this phenomenon are numerous and varied. Many North American and European Muslims found Islam while spending time in prison. The “prislam” (prison Islam) phenomenon disquiets analysts on both sides of the Atlantic. Although there are just 2 million Muslims living in Britain—2.5 percent of the total population—more than 8 percent of Britain’s prisoners are Muslim. Prisons have proven to be a recruiting and training ground for a variety of criminal activities, including organized crime and terrorism. Moreover, radical Islamist teachers have long had access to Britain’s incarcerated Muslims.

Diasporas have long been a source of ethnonationalist extremism and activities. Something about the state of diasporas motivates people to understand their identities in new and sometimes disturbing ways. Examples of that abound: Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, India’s Mohandas Gandhi, and Pakistan’s Mohammad Ali Jinnah all began to reformulate national identities when they were abroad.
The freedom of speech and association allowed in Europe and North America enables radical Islamists to publish and organize without government intervention, a right they are denied in most Muslim countries. Western countries are going to have to try harder to understand why it is that some populations do not integrate into society and why it is that some engage in violence. Increasingly, people who are born and raised in one country, seek militant training in another, and carry out terrorist attacks in a third country on behalf of people they have likely never met.

[karan]

Kandahar hijacking, 9/11 ‘linked’
LINK (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060327/main2.htm)

New Delhi, March 26
Fresh evidence has surfaced suggesting that the December 24, 1999, hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC 814 was a progenitor of unprecedented terrorist attack on the American mainland (9/11). Two terrorist incidents — one in India and the other in the USA — are closely interconnected as without the hijacking of IC 814 in 1999, 9/11 possibly could not have taken place.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, one of the three terrorists who were taken to Kandahar for release by the then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh, was one of the key planners and perpetrators of the most daring terrorist attempt on the US soil, said a former military intelligence analyst John Newman during his testimony before the 9/11 inquiry commission.

Newman went on to say that “Saeed Sheikh was probably a triple agent” who operated for Pakistani, American and British intelligence while being an Al-Qaida’s top functionary. After his release in 1999, Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national of Pakistani origin, was appointed member of the Majlis Al-Shura by Osama Bin Laden, said the testimony, which did not find mention in the final report on 9/11.

Despite startling revelations about Islamabad’s involvement in the 9/11 by Newman, the military government of General Pervez Musharraf succeeded in getting vital information removed from the final report.

Bin Laden referred to Sheikh as his son. No attempt was made to arrest when he returned to Pakistan from Kandahar where he was set free in exchange of Indian hostages in IC 814 episode.

The ISI gave him a house and protection from the police. He lived openly and frequented swanky parties attended by senior government officials, observed Newman adding that the US government sources told Newsweek that he was a “protected asset” of the ISI.

Sheikh, who carried many names, including Mustafa Ahmed, Mustafa Shmed al-Hasawi, Mustafa Mahmoud Saeed Ahmed, Mustafa Mohammed Ahmed, is a hijacking, kidnapping and financial expert. He was tasked with killing Daniel Pearl and is understood to have funded 9/11 by wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.

Sheikh, the man about whom the Commission of Inquiry report utters no word, overhauled Al-Qaida’s logistics, communications and financial networks and was given responsibilities in international liaisons such as relations with the Hezbollah or the Sudanese National Islamic Front.

To facilitate financial and communications needs, he designed a new secure, encrypted, web-based communications system for Al-Qaida. There was talk that he would someday succeed Bin Laden. Over and above all these responsibilities, Sheikh had another extremely sensitive job for Al-Qaida.

He was the group’s principal liaison with the ISI. He worked closely with various current and former officers of Pakistani intelligence, including Lieut-General Mohammed Aziz Khan, who along with President Pervez Musharraf himself, was the most powerful commander in Pakistan.

A product of the London School of Economics, he went on to play a vital role in 9/11 by financing the hijackers. For his trouble, he received the same impersonal budget as the two other key coordinators, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin Al-Shibh.

As the 9/11 attacks neared, ISI chief General Ahmed became more deeply mired in the plot, apparently to secure new sources of funds for the airline tickets needed for the reconnaissance flights on the date of the attack.

In early August, Sheikh’s former prison mates kidnapped a wealthy shoe tycoon in India and held him for 15 days. Chief gangster Ansari ran the operation from Dubai in the Arab Emirates. Sheikh was carrying out his 9/11 paymaster duties. The kidnappers freed their hostage for $ 830,000 and gave $ 100,000 to Sheikh.

In an email discovered afterwards, Ansari said: “I’ve paid $ 100,000 to Sheikh,” said Newman in his testimony.

On the orders of the ISI chief, Sheikh wired the money to hijack leader Mohammad Atta. Flush with money, Atta Hamzi and Hanzour flew first class on the type of aircraft they would use on September 11, 2001.

All this does not find mention in the commission report because both the USA and the British governments were keen to enlist Pakistan as a key ally in their attack on Afghanistan.

Recent revelations in the Pakistani media have confirmed that Islamabad had paid tens of thousand dollars to lobbyists in the USA to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 report.

In 1993, he got hooked up with Pakistani terrorist in Bosnia to take up “jehad” and got training in terror camps in Afghanistan. In 1994, he tried to get a terrorist leader freed from an Indian jail by luring an American and three Britons to locations where they were kidnapped but the plot failed and he ended up in jail instead. The hostages were rescued.

The ISI paid for his lawyer, but he was never tried during his 5 years of incarceration. Despite his kidnapping of British citizens, he was allowed to immediately travel to London. There were no indictments either in India, the UK or the USA.

On January 2, 2000, the British Foreign Office spokesman would only say that this was so because he was a British citizen and had not been convicted of any offences overseas.


Islamist cell 'tried to con young men into attacks on the UK'
LINK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2106395,00.html)

ISLAMIST terrorists wanted to trick young Muslims into attacking Britain, by training them to fight in Afghanistan for al-Qaeda and then telling them that the country was inaccessible, the Old Bailey was told yesterday.

The British extremists allegedly intended to set up a private terrorist training camp in Pakistan, teaching hijacking and use of explosives and firearms. One also discussed poisoning water supplies with ricin. Another said that Britain needed to be targeted in the same way as America had been in the September 11 attacks.

The claims were made by Mohammed Babar, an American terrorist turned supergrass who is giving evidence against the men that he claims were his former accomplices. The seven defendants, all from southeast England, are charged with conspiring to bomb a British target, such as a shopping centre, nightclub or train. Six allegedly attended training camps in Pakistan.

Babar said that he discussed setting up a camp with Waheed Mahmood, 34, of Crawley, who insisted that those who attended had to be prepared to fight jihad (holy war) in Afghanistan. He attempted to recruit through British contacts.

But the key prosecution witness added: “From conversations I had with them [the group] I don’t think they had any intention of sending people into Afghanistan. They would tell [those at camps] later that it was difficult to go and would then give the only other option: working for them on operations in the UK and Pakistan.”

While living in Pakistan, Babar offered to set up a camp for the group. He was also involved in storing bomb ingredients; at one stage he held detonators, ammonium nitrate, aluminium powder, other explosives paraphernalia and ricin in his flat in Lahore. The castor beans, from which ricin is made, were allegedly brought from Islamabad by Omar Khyam, 24, also from Crawley.

Babar said: “He said it was a poison [and talked] about poisoning water supplies or people. He went into detail how to make it.”

He said that the detonators were sourced by Salahuddin Amin, 31, of Luton, with the help of a man who worked for Abdul Hadi, No 3 in command for al-Qaeda. Mr Amin argued with Mr Khyam because he allegedly asked Mr Amin to transport the detonators to Europe or Britain.

The court was told that the men had ordered “survival” equipment for the training camp from outdoor shops in Britain, and had special clothing made. These included shalwar kameez with zippered pockets for ammunition. A British relative of one defendant posted hiking boots, sleeping bags and solar panels to the men while they were in Pakistan.

They posed as Western tourists to travel within Pakistan and collect thousands of pounds from contacts, to fund the camp. Mr Mahmood’s brother-in-law allegedly gave about £4,000 and another contact provided £3,500, which was sent to him from Britain.

When asked for the source of the rest of the money, Babar said that each of the defendants who travelled to Pakistan months earlier had brought between £5,000 and £7,000 and entrusted this to Mr Khyam.

During discussions, some of the defendants allegedly said that they disliked al-Muhajiroun, the radical group that the Government wanted to ban, because it was “all talk”.

Some of the defendants also had leadership squabbles with other British Muslims in Pakistan when offering to provide training in exchange for Mr Khyam and Mr Mahmood becoming the “emirs” of another group. This offer was rejected.

Mr Amin, Mr Mahmood, Mr Khyam, his brother Shujah Mahmood, 18, and Jawad Akbar, 22, all from Crawley, West Sussex; Anthony Garcia, 24, from Ilford, East London; and Nabeel Hussain, 20, from Horley, Surrey; all deny conspiring to cause an explosion likely to endanger life between October 2003 and March 2004.

Mr Khyam, Mr Garcia and Mr Hussain also deny possessing 600kg of fertiliser for the purposes of terrorism. Mr Khyam and Shujah Mahmood deny possessing aluminium powder, also for the purposes of terrorism. The trial continues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[karan]

'Plotters aimed to bomb Tube'
LINK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2108768,00.html)

Defendant tried to recruit a London Underground worker for a ‘martyrdom operation’
A MUSLIM Tube worker was asked to become a suicide bomber by an Islamic extremist on trial for plotting to attack a British target, the Old Bailey was told yesterday.

The London Underground worker, known only as Imran, allegedly attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan with four of seven men who are charged with conspiracy.

The court was also told that a key al-Qaeda operative called Q, who gave the men their orders, was living in Luton. Q reported to Abdul Hadi, No 3 in command of the terrorist organisation.

One defendant, Waheed Mahmood, allegedly sent supplies for al-Qaeda from Britain to Pakistan, including a GPS navigation system, solar panels, invisible ink and cash.

Another, Omar Khyam, was said to have masterminded a “martyrdom operation” with a belt bomb and wanted to know if Imran would be willing to carry it out. But Imran refused because he thought the plot would come to nothing.

And the older brother of a third defendant, Anthony Garcia, was allegedly planning a separate terrorist attack on a target in Britain.

The claims were made by Mohammed Babar, an American terrorist turned informant, who is giving evidence against his former accomplices.

He said that the group discussed how to smuggle bomb parts into Britain and carried out test explosions at a terrorist training camp in Malakand, a mountainous region in northern Pakistan. The first was unsuccessful but the second created a U-shaped hole.

A video was made of their training camp activities with the intention of adding verses from the Koran, and turning it into recruitment propaganda.

The men planned to smuggle explosives to Europe inside shampoo bottles, cans of shaving foam or packages of dried fruit — shipped, couriered or taken in person — while detonators would be concealed in a tape recorder.

Mr Khyam, 24, from Crawley, West Sussex, also allegedly tricked one Muslim into carrying aluminium powder on to a flight from Pakistan to Britain to see if Customs would detect the substance.

He attended the camp with his younger brother, Shujah Mahmood, 18, Mr Garcia, 24, from Ilford, East London, and other British Muslims who are not on trial. Salahuddin Amin, 31, from Luton, did not attend because he had undergone previous training.

The men were said to have dressed and acted like tourists en route so that they would not attract attention. They moved into a hotel, travelled in a minibus emblazoned with its logo, wore Western clothes and stopped praying in public, on the orders of Abdul Hadi.

The defendants also took numerous photographs of each other while hiking and visiting local landmarks, as proof of their “tourist activities” if stopped by the authorities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prosecutors rest case in Lodi terror trial, show images of camp
LINK (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14208830.htm)

SACRAMENTO - Defense attorneys for a Lodi man charged with attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2003 and his father were set to begin presenting their evidence Wednesday.

Prosecutors rested their case Tuesday against 23-year-old Hamid Hayat, calling a government witness who showed jurors satellite images of a suspected terror camp.

Eric Benn, an analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency, on Tuesday discussed images that show what he said appear to be a militant training camp similar to one described to FBI agents by Hayat.

Benn said the mountainous location and description of the camp near Balakot in northeast Pakistan are consistent with statements made by Hayat during an interrogation by FBI agents last June, shortly after he returned to the U.S. following two years in Pakistan. Images taken in 2001 show tents and a variety of buildings.

"The kind of information I got out of the (Hayat interview) transcript ... is consistent with the physical things I observed," Benn testified in U.S. District Court. "This would be a militant camp. It strengthens my confidence in that."

The government's case against the Hayat's is built partially on separate confessions they gave to FBI agents.

Hayat is charged with three counts of lying to the FBI and separate charges of providing material support to terrorists for attending the al-Qaida camp. His father, 48-year-old Umer Hayat, is on trial at the same time before a separate jury. He is charged with lying to federal investigators about his son's attendance at the camp.

The Hayats' defense attorneys have said their confessions to FBI officials were made only after hours of interrogation and while they were worn down by leading questions. They also have pointed out that both men provided inconsistent testimony.

Benn's testimony and the satellite images are potentially important because prosecutors have no hard evidence that Hamid Hayat actually attended a terror training camp in Pakistan, an angle defense attorneys have said they will explore when they begin their portion of the case.

Jurors were shown the satellite images after previously hearing from experts about Pakistan's cultural and political environment. The combined testimony showed that terrorist-training camps and anti-American fervor were prevalent in Pakistan at the time Hamid Hayat was visiting.

Prosecutors allege that Hamid Hayat attended one such camp and returned to the U.S. in May 2005 to await orders to commit attacks against grocery stores, banks and hospitals. No such attacks were carried out, and the Hayats have pleaded not guilty.

Hamid Hayat, for example, variously told FBI agents that the camp he attended was in Afghanistan, the Kashmir region, near Tora Bora or at least three other locations far from Balakot, his attorney, Wazhma Mojaddidi, said Tuesday during cross-examination.

Hayat also discussed receiving pistol training, but Benn said the satellite images did not show obvious locations for a firing range.

Benn said Hamid Hayat's conflicting statements did not alter his opinion that the satellite images could show the camp he attended.

"There was a lot of language I had to reconcile," Benn said. "Late in the interview, (Hayat's statements) stopped having any consistency. It sounded like it was just bouncing around."

Mojaddidi says her client never actually attended a camp.

Also Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Garland Burrell Jr. denied a defense motion to dismiss the charges against the Hayats. Defense attorneys argued that prosecutors had failed to present sufficient evidence to support the charges.

[ronincapuchin]

hey,

this is my first post ever, so forgive me if I don't say much. Anyways, the way I see it is Terrorism is when you go to war against civilian targets. That's the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a terrorist, and that's why I have no repsect for 'Hamas & Co'. 'Freedom Fighters' attack soldiers, military targets, even if they have to do so in a Guerilla style.

Thats my two cents, I thank you.

[karan]

it is Terrorism is when you go to war against civilian targets. That's the difference between a 'freedom fighter' and a terrorist, and that's why I have no repsect for 'Hamas & Co'. 'Freedom Fighters' attack soldiers, military targets, even if they have to do so in a Guerilla style.

I have read somewhere that during discussions with his Indian counterpart an American diplomat told the same thing that terrorists are those who target civilians and freedom fighters are those who target the military.

The Indian diplomat asked. Can you call the attack on the twin towers as a terrorist attack and the attack on the pentagon as an act by freedom fighters?

[karan]

The truth is that the terrorists are those who try to create chaos, confusion, destruction, create anarchy and those who try to bring down an elected democratic government. Or those who act against the people for their own political agenda, ideology or benifit.

[Leon]

he should have responded with "and what exactly were they trying to liberate?"

[karan]

Reports say one person dead in explosion in downtown Toronto Sunday
link (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3c12f28a-18ae-4272-8895-3aed3281c4c0&k=65606)

TORONTO (CP) - A man died Sunday after an explosion in the washroom of a Tim Hortons doughnut shop in downtown Toronto, police said. They did not immediately confirm reports, by radio station AM-640, that a man had entered the washroom shortly before the blast with explosives strapped to his body.

Police said no one else was involved and there were no other injuries. They couldn't say whether the dead man was a customer or an employee.

The blast happened at the shop east of Yonge Street and north of Bloor, one of the busiest intersections in the city, at around 1 p.m. local time. Traffic was tied up in the area and Yonge Street was closed in both directions.

Fire department spokesman Daryl Fuglerud said the man had burns to his body.

[karan]

"and what exactly were they trying to liberate?"

The U.S from the clutches of the Infidel.

The Europe from the clutches of the European non-believers.

To unite the whole muslims and make an Islamic Ummah based on the Sharia law.
:D

[Leon]

If thats the answer, then he certainly couldn't argue with the diplomat's rhetorical question

[karan]

Terrorists can be differenciated into many types. Like those based on ideology, for profit, state sponsored one etc.

When we look at Osama and friends (al-q... etc). There main objective is to make Islamic Sharia or Islamic law on all lands where Muslims live. They see the world with the eyes of Islam Vs Rest of the world. They believe that it is their duty to fulfill Allah's wish come true when the world will be full of Muslims.

It is a civilisational stuggle for them. By creating chaos and destruction they want to attract Muslim youth towards them. To make the nations vary of them. And to aquire the support and sympathy of the people who believe in their manner. And the fight goes on.

[karan]

If thats the answer, then he certainly couldn't argue with the diplomat's rhetorical question

This was during the referring to the state of Jammu&Kashmir. Most of the U.S diplomats had a viewpoint that the Indian Army is suppressing the Minorities there. Only after 9/11 they started to learn more about terrorism and what is happening in India. There are good people like the earlier U.S Ambassador to India Mr. Blackwell, who saw what is India and what is happening in the State of Jammu&Kashmir. Daily in newspapers he used to see deadth and destruction happening and the underdevelopment due to terrorism in J&K. He openly has said about this.

[karan]

Data Leaks Persist From Afghan Base
Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-disks13apr13,0,4739686,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

A computer drive sold at a bazaar for $40 may hold the names of spies for the United States who inform on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
By Paul Watson
Times Staff Writer

April 13, 2006

BAGRAM, Afghanistan — A computer drive sold openly Wednesday at a bazaar outside the U.S. air base here holds what appears to be a trove of potentially sensitive American intelligence data, including the names, photographs and telephone numbers of Afghan spies informing on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The flash memory drive, which a teenager sold for $40, holds scores of military documents marked "secret," describing intelligence-gathering methods and information — including escape routes into Pakistan and the location of a suspected safe house there, and the payment of $50 bounties for each Taliban or Al Qaeda fighter apprehended based on the source's intelligence.

The documents appear to be authentic, but the accuracy of the information they contain could not be independently verified.

On its face, the information seems to jeopardize the safety of intelligence sources working secretly for U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, which would constitute a serious breach of security. For that reason, The Times has withheld personal information and details that could compromise military operations.

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan said an investigation was underway into what shopkeepers at the bazaar describe as ongoing theft and resale of U.S. computer equipment from the Bagram air base. The facility is the center of intelligence-gathering activities and includes a detention center for suspected members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups flown in from around the world.

"Members of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command are conducting an investigation into potential criminal activity," a statement said.

The top U.S. commander here, Army Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, has ordered a review of policies and procedures for keeping track of computer hardware and software.

"Coalition officials regularly survey bazaars across Afghanistan for the presence of contraband materials, but thus far have not uncovered sensitive or classified items," the statement added.

The credibility and reliability of some intelligence sources identified in the documents is marked as unknown.

Other operatives, however, appear to be of high importance, including one whose information, the document says, led to the apprehension of seven Al Qaeda suspects in the United States.

One document describes a source as having "people working for him" in 11 Afghan cities. "The potential for success with this contact is unlimited," the report says.

Even the names of people identified as the sources' wives and children are listed — details that could put them at risk of retaliation by insurgents who have boasted about executing dozens of people suspected of spying for U.S. forces.

The drive includes descriptions of Taliban commanders' meetings in neighboring Pakistan and maps of militants' infiltration and escape routes along its border with Afghanistan.

In another folder, there is a diagram of a mosque and madrasa, or Islamic school, where an informant said fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar had stayed in Pakistan.

Another document describes in detail how a member of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the Taliban's former mentors, tried to recruit an Afghan spying for the U.S. by promising him $500 a month.

Some of the documents can't be opened without a password, but most are neither locked nor encrypted.

Numerous files indicate the flash drive may have belonged to a member of the Army's 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), based at Ft. Bragg, N.C. The unit is operating in southern Afghanistan, where a U.S.-led coalition is battling a growing insurgency.

Some of the computer files are dated as recently as this month, while others date to 2004. The clerk who sold the computer drive said an Afghan worker smuggled it out of the Bagram base Tuesday, a day after The Times first reported that military secrets were available at several stalls at the bazaar.

The 1-gigabyte flash drive sold at the bazaar Wednesday is almost full and contains personal snapshots, Special Forces training manuals, records of "direct action" training missions in South America, along with numerous computer slide presentations and documents marked "secret."

There is also a detailed "Site Security Survey" describing the layout of the Special Forces unit's "Low Visibility Operating Base" in southwestern Afghanistan. Another document outlines procedures for defending the base if it comes under attack, and there are several photographs of the walls and areas inside the perimeter.

The drive holds detailed information on a handful of Afghan informants identified by name and the number of contacts with U.S. handlers. In some cases, photographs of the sources are attached.

A report on a spy involved with a code-named operation says the Afghan has been used in "cross border operations." But it cautions that an American officer "has come to the conclusion that Contact may or may not be as security conscious as thought to be or expected."

The report describes a potential "low-level source" who reportedly has "brought in active and inactive Taliban and Al Qaeda associates/operators who have expressed a desire to repatriate/end conflict peacefully."

The man is identified as a former ISI agent in the 1980s, during the U.S.-backed mujahedin war against Soviet troops in Afghanistan. He also provided a document on Al Qaeda's cell structure to the CIA, the report adds.

The document also names the man's wife and children and lists his cellphone number.

It describes the informant as very punctual, with a good sense of humor. Politically, it adds, he is "much like a Republican in the United States."

The computer files also provide a rare look at how the U.S. military contracts and pays its Afghan spies, and the commitments they make in signed contracts, written in English.

In a two-page "Record of Oral Commitment," marked "secret" and dated Jan. 28, 2005, a source agreed to work for the U.S. Army by providing information on Al Qaeda, the Taliban and an allied militia, the Hizb-i-Islami, led by fugitive warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

"The source will be paid $15 USD for each mission he completes that has verified information," the agreement stipulates. "This sum will not exceed a total of $300 USD in a 1-month period," the report says. The sum rises to $500 a month for information "deemed of very high importance."

And there are serious consequences for any breaches of the commitment, such as failing to disclose information on the terrorist organizations or missing either of two meetings scheduled for each month.

The penalty for "using his new skills to participate in activities that are deemed" anti-U.S. or against the Afghan government is "termination with prejudice," according to the document.

Another document describes how an Afghan informant for the U.S. military said he was contacted by an official from Pakistan's Embassy, who asked the Afghan to spy for the ISI.

A high-level ISI official then offered the Afghan $500 a month and other incentives, the document says.

The report adds that the ISI official "said that he's looking for an U.S. Embassy employee to aid in the bombing of the embassy that [he] is planning." The ISI official promised he would pay the Afghan $100,000 after the destruction of the embassy in Kabul.

The report concludes: "Everything that [Pakistani] told the Source could be made up or inflated as to look good and exciting to the Source; a possible ploy to get the Source to 'sign up' for the ISI…. However, my 'gut' tells me otherwise, and this guy really is trying to recruit my source for the other side."

*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special correspondent Wesal Zaman in Kabul contributed to this report.

[karan]

Drives Outline Military Tactics
Computer devices sold at an Afghan bazaar appear to hold data showing how insurgents use Pakistan as a base for cross-border strikes.

By Paul Watson
Times Staff Writer

link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-disks14apr14,1,240698,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world)

BAGRAM, Afghanistan — Maps, charts and intelligence reports on computer drives smuggled out of a U.S. base and sold at a bazaar here appear to detail how Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders have been using southwestern Pakistan as a key planning and training base for attacks in Afghanistan.

The documents, marked "secret," appear to be raw intelligence reports based on conversations with Afghan informants and official briefings given to high-level U.S. military officers. Together, they outline how the U.S. military came to focus its search for members of Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

In one report contained in a flash memory drive, a U.S. handler also indicates that the United States discussed with two Afghan spies the possibility of capturing or killing Taliban commanders in Pakistani territory.

Pakistan has long denied harboring Taliban leaders or training bases and has engaged in several well-publicized battles with insurgents in its tribal territories bordering Afghanistan.

But the documents contained on memory drives sold at a bazaar in front of the main gate of the Bagram air base suggest that although Pakistani forces are working to root out foreign Al Qaeda fighters from the northwestern tribal regions, the Taliban has been using Quetta, the provincial capital of Baluchistan in the southwest, as its rear guard for training and coordinating attacks, some by foreign Arab fighters, in Afghanistan.

The theft of the drives became the subject of a full-scale criminal investigation Wednesday, two days after the Los Angeles Times revealed the black-market operation.

The contents of the flash drives appear to be authentic documents, but the accuracy of the information could not be independently verified.

Military officials, however, acknowledged Thursday that the sale of the stolen drives posed a security risk.

"Obviously you have uncovered something that is not good for U.S. forces here in Afghanistan," said Col. Tom Collins, speaking from the public affairs office at the Bagram base. "We're obviously concerned that certain sources or assets have been compromised."

In Washington, Lawrence Di Rita, a top aide to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, said it was "too early to say" whether any commander in Afghanistan would be held responsible for failing to secure the drives.

The drives appear to contain the identities of Afghan sources spying for U.S. Special Forces that operate out of the Bagram base, which is the center of U.S. efforts to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents and includes a secretive detention and interrogation center for terrorism suspects flown in from around the world.

The memory drives also apparently include the identities of U.S. military personnel working in Afghanistan, assessments of targets, descriptions of American bases and their defenses, and maneuvers by the U.S. to remove or marginalize Afghan government officials it considers a problem.

Pakistani officials rejected the reputed intelligence Thursday. Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, spokesman for Pakistan's armed forces, said the military promptly checks out information on insurgent activities that it receives from the U.S.-led coalition and that the intelligence sometimes proves incorrect.

"To make a sweeping statement like this, that people are taken to Pakistan to training camps and then brought back [to Afghanistan], is absolutely absurd, and I reject this information," Sultan said from Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials have long been concerned about liaisons between Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agents and the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The counter-terrorism officials have compiled intelligence alleging that ISI officials were looking the other way, or possibly aiding, as Al Qaeda and Taliban members plotted militant activity in the tribal territories of Pakistan.

The concerns were disclosed publicly in a report to Congress last year by its independent research arm, the Congressional Research Service, which questioned whether Pakistan "is fully committed to fighting the war against terrorism."

"Among the most serious sources of concern is the well-documented past involvement of some members of the Army's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) organization with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and the possibility that some officers retain sympathies with both groups," the report said.

On the drives from the bazaar, reports from Afghan informants, marked "secret," outline efforts by U.S. Special Forces in the fall of 2005 to locate and target Taliban insurgents inside Pakistani territory. The focus fell on top Taliban leaders who informants said had been residing in Quetta and facilitating kidnapping and bombing missions around the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

An October 2005 cable to U.S. commanders at Bagram, also marked "secret," said an intelligence source had reported that Taliban leaders met in a council of elders, or shura, in Quetta, on Sept. 25, just days before Afghanistan's parliamentary elections. In the meeting, the leaders apparently decided not to launch attacks on election day but to target government buildings and elected officials afterward, according to the documents on the drives.

"Al Qaeda will finance these activities through Mullah Matin, the Taliban finance liaison to Al Qaeda for southern Afghanistan," said an intelligence summary dated last year and marked "secret." "Al Qaeda is financing because they want the Taliban to keep fighting."

A U.S. Army Special Forces officer in southern Afghanistan met in November with an Afghan source and an operative from Quetta to discuss how U.S. troops might go after Taliban leaders in Pakistan, according to the document on a drive sold at the bazaar Wednesday.

The source told U.S. Special Forces that the Quetta operative could lead them to Taliban "high value targets," or "TB HVTs" in the military shorthand, according to the document.

The Quetta operative "is willing to take American personnel to the current safesites of TB HVTs in Pakistan particularly Quetta and conduct on the ground reconnaissance/surveillance on their behalf with the endstate being the capture/kill of selected TB leaders," the report said.

The Afghan source warned the Special Forces officer "that it would be extremely difficult to capture a HVT and move them to Afghanistan even if they were dead," the report said.

The American then asked the source whether his contact in Quetta "could arrange specific direct-action operations in Pakistan on behalf of U.S. Forces," the document added.

The Afghan source also reported last year that Arabs, mainly Yemenis and Syrians, were going through Quetta on the way to carry out suicide bombings in Afghanistan.

"The aspiring suicide bombers are initially trained by insurgency elements in Iraq and then moved through Iran to Quetta where they are staged prior to transportation into Afghanistan," according to a report on the drive.

"A portion of the suicide bombers trained during the same cycle remain in Iraq to conduct attacks on behalf of the Sunni extremist entities," it added.

In what appears to be a recent computer slide presentation marked "secret," maps identify eight "major infiltration routes" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing from Pakistan into eastern and southern Afghanistan.

Documents based on conversations with informants outline how fresh Afghan recruits carrying English-language identity cards would be waved through border checkpoints into Pakistan, where they would train before returning to southern Afghanistan for suicide missions.

In Pakistan, the recruits were blindfolded "and loaded into trucks by armed guards who transported them into the mountains," the report continued.

They received eight days of instruction, including the use of soap to mold about 10 pounds of "nails, bolts, or whatever metal scrap is available" onto the top of a round container filled with explosives to make the blast more lethal, the report says.

The U.S. struck at targets in Pakistan in the fall and early this year. A Jan. 13 attack, targeting Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, killed about 18 villagers in the Bajaur region, a tribal area northwest of Peshawar. Officials later said Zawahiri had not been at the location.

A week earlier, local residents reported that U.S. forces crossed from Afghanistan's Khowst province into a village in Pakistan's North Waziristan that later was hit by fire from U.S. helicopters, killing eight people. The Pakistani military denied the incursion, but accused the U.S. of firing over the border into the village. American officials denied any knowledge of the attack.

A mysterious explosion in another North Waziristan village killed a top Al Qaeda bomb-making operative Dec. 1 in what Pakistani officials ruled an accident. A local newspaper reported, however, that missiles fired from a drone aircraft hit the house where the bomb-maker and up to five others were killed.

The region has since been the site of intense fighting between insurgents and Pakistani military forces. That fighting continued Thursday, when an airstrike killed several suspected militants near the Afghan border. The attack was sparked by intelligence that Al Qaeda operatives were hiding out in the area, Pakistani officials said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer Peter Spiegel contributed to this report from Washington.