Times Square Taliban?

Jihadists are debating Saturday's "amateurish" attack: Is it smart to take credit for a failure?

BY BRIAN FISHMAN | MAY 3, 2010

Did Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) try to blow up Times Square? That's what a video released following the failed car bombing in Times Square on May 1 would have us believe. Another, recorded by the TTP's emir Hakimullah Mehsud (who was said to have been killed by a U.S. drone in January), promises a series of strikes against American cities. There's no hard evidence to date that the militant group, which is blamed for a host of deadly attacks against the Pakistani military and state and is under assault in its tribal stronghold, has extended its reach to New York (though the group was blamed for a 2008 plot against the Barcelona subway). Law enforcement officials did, however, arrest an American citizen of Pakistani descent late in the evening on May 3, 2010, at John F. Kennedy International Airport, and concede that the attack might be tied to groups in Pakistan.

But from a strategic communications standpoint, it may not matter who is responsible. Jihadi Web forums are abuzz with the news that Mehsud is alive and that the TTP aims to strike in the United States. Not all the chatter is positive, however. Dissenters complain that the Times Square attack failed to produce much fear among Americans and has even been called "amateurish." That consternation is a reminder that a terrorist's greatest weapon is fear, not car bombs, and offers interesting lessons for local and federal leaders planning to communicate in the wake of a terrorist attack.

The two films, one featuring audio from Qari Hussain, the TTP's premier trainer of suicide bombers, and the other audio from Hakimullah, are structured very similarly. They are both about one minute long, have generally poor audio quality, and present that audio over animated graphics, including many images and motifs that are common to both videos. Hussain claims credit for the Times Square attack, but the video does not have a jihadi media unit logo, which has raised some questions about its authenticity. Hakimullah's audio clip claims that the TTP's operational focus is now American cities and uses the logo of Umar Studios, the TTP's in-house media production unit. Both films were released first on YouTube and have English subtitles. The graphical similarities between the two audio productions suggests they were produced quickly and likely by the same people, though the poor audio quality may indicate that the voice recordings were made over the telephone.

The third film is more technically sophisticated. It features actual video of Hakimullah, who claims to have recorded it on April 4 and cites specific aspects of reports about his death, apparently to prove that the video was filmed after they were made. If Hakimullah's video was made in early April, it predates the audio files used in the other films. Mehsud claims his audio clip was made on April 19, and Hussain references the death of Islamic State of Iraq emir Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, which took place on April 19 as well. All this suggests that Hussain's film -- the first to be released -- was the last to be produced.

Mehsud is pictured seated with his legs obscured, raising the possibility that they were injured in the January drone strike that was believed to have killed him. His voice is strong, but his presentation shows some weaknesses. He repeatedly looks at someone to the camera's left, and the video has been cut and edited many times, which is notable because many videos of senior jihadi leaders are long, single shots. The explanation could be that Mehsud stumbled over words, but the bottom line is that editors in postproduction had a major impact on the product released to the world.

Hussain and Mehsud use similar arguments to justify attacks on the United States. They both condemn the U.S. war in Afghanistan and Iraq and specifically mention Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani neuroscientist convicted of attempted murder by a U.S. court and suspected of working on an unconventional weapons program for al Qaeda. The reference is not boilerplate in jihadi condemnations of the United States, but it has become more popular among both violent and non violent Islamist groups in Pakistan eager to position themselves as the defenders of Muslim women's honor.

Both Mehsud and Hussain mention jihad fronts outside Pakistan, but they differ in focus somewhat. The Hussain film mentions Iraq and al-Baghdadi by name, whereas Mehsud emphasizes Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Gaza -- geographic regions that recently have been more prominent in al Qaeda Central's propaganda than Iraq. Hussain's reference to al-Baghdadi is important because it emphasizes the message of unity between the TTP and al Qaeda. Hussain -- a Pashtun tribesman from South Waziristan -- has no connection to al-Baghdadi, except for an ideological bond forged by al Qaeda.

The response on jihadi forums to the Times Square attack and these films has been generally positive. Jihadi posters accept Hussain's claim of responsibility for the Times Square attack, though Western officials have not confirmed an operational link. Posters are likewise gleeful that Mehsud is alive. But there is worry among some jihadi supporters that the failed Times Square attack makes jihadists look weak. They hope the bombing scares Americans, but are dismayed that it has already been called "amateurish" in the media. Jihadists want to see fear, and they are not getting enough of it in this case.

The bomb in Times Square has been defused, but its political impact and importance have not yet been decided. The communications battle around an attack is just as significant as the incident itself -- and in this case the TTP and its supporters want to claim victory despite the bomb's failure and even its still-ambiguous origin. But their message is vulnerable precisely because the attack was such a dud. Terrorists use violence to seize political initiative by frightening their enemies, but it only works when the victims of an attack allow themselves to be frightened. One response to the attempted bombing in Times Square should be a renewed call for vigilance by citizens and first responders, but regardless of who ultimately proves responsible, it is also an opportunity for the United States to challenge the jihadists' claims of strength and power, one of many areas where they are vulnerable.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: TERRORISM, NORTH AMERICA
 

Brian Fishman is a counterterrorism research fellow at the New America Foundation and a research fellow with the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

SIR_MIXXALOT

7:50 AM ET

May 4, 2010

Why do they hate us?

Brian you say "One response to the attempted bombing in Times Square should be a renewed call for vigilance by citizens and first responders, but regardless of who ultimately proves responsible, it is also an opportunity for the United States to challenge the jihadists' claims of strength and power..."

Another response would be to see what our own role -- by which I mean mainly our govt's role -- in generating such terrorism is, don't you think?

In fact, the CIA person in charge of hunting down Osama bin Laden has just done this exercise (see below) -- it would be good if F.P. would, for once, examine the roots of terrorism. Why not get Scheuer to a F.P. post?

Let us see what the CIA person in charge of hunting Osama has to say, shall we:

"The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so...."

http://thehill.com/special-reports-archive/699-homeland-security-january-2010/75531-when-troops-and-cia-officers-die-for-a-fantasy

When troops and CIA officers die for a fantasy
By Michael Scheuer - 01/12/10 06:25 PM ET

The men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence services are the most important part of America’s defense capital. When they enter the service of their choice they are well aware of the implicit contract between the nation and themselves. In return for their career, America has the right to call on them to go into harm’s way, very often at the risk of their lives. I have never known a Marine, a soldier or a CIA officer who did not accept this reality, and I have never known one who balked when called on to deploy. That said, each I have known — and I suppose all — hope that if defending America costs his or her life, the cause for which it is spent is clear and worthwhile. It is precisely on this point that the U.S. government’s executive and legislative branches are lethally failing these men and women.

The events of the past three weeks throw into sharp relief that we are sending our young men and women overseas to fight an enemy that does not exist. Among the first thoughts expressed by President Obama after the near-miss al Qaeda attack on Christmas — and then echoed by his lieutenants, various members of both parties in Congress, and numerous pundits — was that the young Nigerian bomber hated our way of life. And since seven CIA officers in Afghanistan were killed by al Qaeda on Dec. 30, the same thought has been expressed by the same people.

This central thought has been accompanied by additional assertions, among which are the attackers were nihilistic Muslim fanatics and the attackers’ motivation has nothing to do with Islam. The sum and substance of the U.S. bipartisan political elite’s response to recent events has been — as it has been since 1996 when Osama bin Laden declared war on America — that the Islamist terrorists hate us for who we are and how we live, not for what we do.

This contention is a fantasy. It is fair to say that all the U.S. Marines, soldiers and CIA officers who have died in Afghanistan since 9/11 and in Iraq since Saddam’s removal have died fighting an enemy that does not exist. In numbers now approaching 6,000, these men and women have bravely fought and died in combat against an enemy whose main motivation U.S. political leaders have consistently denied. No U.S. soldier, Marine, or CIA officer has been killed by an Islamist fighter who took the field because America has women in the workplace, beer is available in ample supply, and there are early presidential primaries in Iowa every fourth year. Indeed, Islamists motivated by such issues would not rise to the level of a lethal nuisance; they certainly could not stymie the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The young Nigerian in Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. The three individuals’ words echo the components of U.S. foreign policy named by bin Laden in 1996 as the causes of war — which also include U.S. support for Arab tyrants and exploitation of Muslim energy resources — and which polls show 80 percent of the world’s Muslims identify as attacks on their faith.

While it is hard for Americans to hear, we are at war with a steadily growing number of young men and women in the Muslim world because of what the U.S. government has done in that arena since 1945. The current slate of U.S. foreign policies toward the Islamic world generates the basic and most compelling and uniting motivation for our Islamist enemies.

Should some of these policies be changed? I surely think so, but that is a discussion for another time and broad public debate, perhaps during the 2010 midterm elections. For now, the discussion must focus on our enemies’ motivation and the knowing failure of U.S. leaders in both parties to be honest with our fighting forces. If we fail to understand that motivation, America cannot shape a war-fighting strategy to either defend those policies or defeat the tenacious, talented, religiously motivated, and growing foe our soldiers, Marines, and CIA officers are now losing to in the field. Those men and women — and their parents, spouses and children — deserve to know they are risking their lives to defeat a skilled and enduring enemy, one who is motivated by the impact of U.S. policies, and one that genuinely threatens America. They are not fighting the cartoon-like foe described by their political leaders for the past 15 years.

Scheuer is a former senior CIA officer and adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

7:57 AM ET

May 4, 2010

Silly me! Mike Scheuer

Silly me!

Mike Scheuer already commented on his blog about the Times Sq. bombing:

http://non-intervention.com/280/america-again-defeated-in-new-york-a-portent-of-the-future/

America again defeated in New York … a portent of the future
By mike | Published: May 2, 2010

Almost before the car bomb in Times Square was defused, the city’s mayor, its police commissioner, and sundry politicians were heaping praise on the New York Police Department (NYPD) for “stopping” the attack. This spin will quickly take hold and become accepted as truth. It is not.

Saturday night’s events in Times Square are another defeat for the United States. While all our thanks must go to the NYPD officers who defused the car bomb, the idea that the police stopped the attack is a lie. The credit for that goes to a T-shirt salesman who reported smoke coming from the car bomb and to the would-be attackers amateur bomb-making. The hard truth is the NYPD was completely and utterly defeated. The Department did not know the attack was coming and would not have stopped it if not for the smoke and the T-shirt seller.

This will sound like a harsh attack on the NYPD, but it is not intended as such. The NYPD and all U.S. police departments — large and small – have been set up to fail and take the fall. If we learn in coming days that the attack was planned by Islamist militants, we also will learn these men were motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world is meant to undermine or destroy Islam. That is, the thankfully failed attack was caused by factors entirely beyond the control or influence of the NYPD; all it can do — all any U.S. police department can do — is prepare for more of the same. And that preparation for the future should be aimed as much at post-attack clean-up as for pre-attack interdiction. There are simply too many would-be attackers out there for the police to track and stop.

Sadly, the negative impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world is creating Islamist enemies for America at home and abroad far faster than they can be identified, let alone destroyed. Before this day is through, you can bet on two things: (1) the politicians will be on TV telling Americans that if the car bomb is the work of Islamists, it demonstrates they hate our freedoms and liberties; and (2) Washington will receive expressions of sympathy and offers of forensic help from Israel. Both will be aimed at inoculating Americans from anyone who suggests the truth: that the would-be attackers — if Islamists — are motivated by the U.S. government’s relentless interventionism in the Muslim world, not by the lifestyle and political philosophy of Americans. In short, the politicians will try to make sure Americans stay ignorant of intervention’s cost, and unaware that intervention is bringing war to their cities and streets.

The Islamist enemy we face would permit virtually none of the things we prize — elections, liberties or freedoms (as defined in the West), gender equality, etc. — in a country it governed. But very few Muslims are willing to kill themselves to stop us from enjoying those things. There are many, however, willing to die to end U.S. intervention in the Islamic world. For the last decade, for example, the U.S. and UK governments have not stopped a single Islamist attack in which the attackers were motivated by the West’s neo-pagan lifestyle. The documents and testimony acquired by authorities after an attack occurs or is prevented invariably point to motivation fueled by three things: (1) the U.S.-UK military presence in the Muslim world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan; (2) the half-century of U.S.-UK support of or protection for Arab police states in such places as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria; and (3) unqualified U.S., UK, and Western support for Israel. One might note, parenthetically, that these three motivators are among the causes listed by Osama bin Laden for the war he declared on America in August 1996, nearly 14 years ago.

Americans will not hear this explanation for our Islamist foes’ motivation on TV this Sunday or any Sunday; indeed, they will hear it described as an isolationist, anti-Semitic, and anti-U.S. view. That description will be a media-supported political tool intended to prevent Americans from asking questions politicians are rightfully terrified of answering. As a result, the NYPD and the country’s other police departments will keep working themselves to death trying to protect Americans, and all the while U.S. political leaders in both parties will press ahead with the interventionist policies that will insure all police departments fail. At day’s end, Washington’s interventionism is creating numbers of Islamist militants bent on waging jihad that will in time overwhelm the police departments’ manpower and capabilities.

 

JACOB BLUES

8:57 AM ET

May 4, 2010

Excuses and rational 101 by Sir Mixxalot

More 'blame the Jews' crap, and more 'blame the US' crap.
.
The sad reality is that we get the ongoing 'Orientalist dogma' about "Western intervention" and "Jewish, no I'm sorry, Zionist" manipulation or occupation, or whatever.
.
Truth of the matter is, terrorists are violent people who use the idea of Jihad, as an entitlement policy to kill. One day its Israel, another its the US, another its Theo van Gogh, another day its Mohammed cartoons.
.
The only underlying ideal that links this all together is some warped viewpoint that offers the Jihadist / Terrorist, a 12-step plan to legitimize killing. Don't like what your; grandmother, mother, wife, sister, cousin, daughter, did? Honor killing! Don't like what's on the TV or radio? Culture war! Don't like the fact that Jews have an independent state? Jihad! Don't like the fact that the US keeps an eye on things around the world; which includes protecting Muslims in Bosnia, Stopping Saddam Hussein from obliterating Quwait, sending aid to Tsunami devestated Indonesia, providing billions of dollars in aid to Egypt, all hail Osama & Co.!
.
The old "IF ONLY" argument falls flat on its face every time it gets brought up. IF ONLY the US did this, or did that, or supported this group vs. that group. IF ONLY we understood more, listened more, kissed some more ass, kow-towed properly, then hey, they wouldn't try to kill us today.
.
Belive that and I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

9:24 AM ET

May 4, 2010

Stop conflating Jews with Likudnik war criminal doucheb*gs, OK?

Duh.

It is not "blame the jews" at all.

It is "blame the US support of ISRAELI right-wing Likud zionist religious fanatics who commit war crimes with US weapons and $" OK?

We send $13m to Israel each day. Why?

Our arms aid to Israel is in contravention of our own Arms Export Control Act, since the IDF has committed war crimes with our $ and materiel.

BTW, I am a Jew.

This is what the US government’s Defense Science Board has to say on the situation:

see section 2.3:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/commun.pdf

I quote:

“American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that
“freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.”

====

Our messing around overseas (witness our clear involvement with the terrorist murder of 5 Iranian revolutionary guards recently) causes blowback terrorism. It does not matter whether or not AQ has any safe havens or not or whether Hezbollah is rearming— regular people — heck, even US army officers, it appears — can become radicalized by the sheer extent of our injustice abroad.

Note I am not justifying what they did. Their means are WRONG. But their cause is, at least partly, just.

We need to stop our addiction to oil and leave the middle east.

Force — even when wielded by the seemingly strong against the nominally weak — continues to be an exceedingly uncertain instrument. The United States’ penchant for projecting power has created as many problems as it has solved. Genuinely decisive outcomes remain rare, costs often far exceed expectations, and unintended and unwelcome consequences are legion.

The pursuit of US military dominance is an illusion, the principal effect of which is to distort strategic judgment by persuading policymakers that they have at hand the means to make short work of history’s complexities. The real need is to wean the United States from its infatuation with military power and come to a more modest appreciation of what force can and cannot do.

We have to come to the painful conclusion that we have created much of the terrorism and anti-Americanism that we are subject to via our terrible foreign policies. It will be difficult to protect us from our (well-earned) blowback without fixing our own foreign policy.

Here is the link to the MIT official who calculates >1000000 dead muslim civilians as a result of our war of choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

 

DEBEERLIGHT

11:42 AM ET

May 4, 2010

yikes

Not only has there now been a steady stream of homegrown terrorist incidents, but Mehsud is shown to be alive - scary stuff. It's not that important from any strategic standpoint since it doesn't matter whether he's alive or not (they'll still attack us), but it's certainly psychologically troubling. The U.S. military throws all it has at this guy, kills innocent people in the process, and yet he rises again from seeming death. I'm sure he'll be even more motivated now to strike at his enemies. Unfortunately like the article states, those that wish ill-harm on American just got a boost as well.

It's time to get serious with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - two paid riders when it comes to terrorism.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

1:19 PM ET

May 4, 2010

and stop supporting israel

and stop supporting israel

 

OPSUDRANIA

4:56 PM ET

May 4, 2010

Dr. O. P. Sudrania

The US has to realise and come to terms with its hegemony in the Afro-Asian bed. They are now entangled badly in the quagmire of Af/Pak and US is worried to get out from Afghanistan as soon as possible. The Obama Inc hope to start vacating in summer next year. But I doubt that they will.

The Times Square failed attempt shows the propensity of these Islamist jihadis. The TTP, who has claimed the responsibility for the attack may not be a surprise
because this is a recent off-shoot of the Taliban gaining its foot hold in Pakistan mainland in Punjab province - a fertile hot bed for growing, nurturing, training, transporting, funding from recruiting to execution, arming, supplying all intelligence information, and creating a wide spread network of Islamic ideological strong force globally.

Apparently, they may not appear interlinked to a naive but deep down they are all one in their mission of 'Islamic Jihad' for creating fear psychosis through destruction and mass murders in a hope of a "Unified Global Islamic State". Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, entire Pakistani ISI and Military duo is (officially) involved in the covert jihadi operations with these terrorists.

Take an example of Saeed Sheikh who was involved in the Indian Airlines Flight 814 hijack in December 1999 and was openly supported by ISI, Pakistan. This fellow was later involved in funding the terrorists of 9/11 in USA.

Another rogue, Maulana Masood Azhar freed after that hijack from the Indian prison, was openly roaming around the Pakistan streets under the patronage of ISI and Pak Military. Read his compliments: "He tells a crowd of 10,000 in Pakistan, I have come here because this is my duty to tell you that Muslims should not rest in Peace until we have destroyed America and India".(Hussain 1/5/2000). He then formed another terrorist group called "Jaish-e-Mohammad".

So this amateurish lookish incidence should not, and I am sure, will not be under- played. For the sake of security and investigations, the authorities may be keeping a low profile for buying time.
Dr. O. P. Sudrania