Who Decides If Terrorist Claims of Responsibility Are Real?

The U.S. government.

BY JOSHUA KEATING | MAY 4, 2010

Soon after Saturday's attempted bombing in New York's Times Square, a Pakistani Taliban faction released a series of videos seeming to claim responsibility for the failed attack and promising further violence against the United States. U.S. authorities quickly downplayed the statements, and though a Pakistani-American suspect has been arrested, officials have yet to find any proven links between him and the Taliban. So who gets to make that call?

These guys.The Worldwide Incidents Team at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) tracks terrorist attacks and attempted attacks around the world as well as terrorist claims of responsibility. Although it is generally assumed that terrorist groups have actually done the things they say they have done, it's not unheard of for groups to take credit for attacks they didn't commit.

For instance, in the aftermath of the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the mysterious Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades -- known for talking a big game on the Internet -- claimed responsibility in a letter to a London newspaper. The group -- which also took credit for the 2003 U.S. blackout, calling it "Operation Quick Lightning in the Land of the Tyrant of This Generation" -- was later determined to be just seeking attention. Palestinian militant groups are also notorious for issuing competing claims of responsibility for attacks on Israel.

The NCTC evaluates claims based on what is known about the groups' competence, track record, and operating methods and assigns their statements one of five levels of credibility: likely, plausible, unknown, unlikely, and inferred. "Inferred" refers to attacks in which there is no claim but a particular group's responsibility can be assumed based on the "attack signature" -- factors such as timing, location, and methods used.

The NCTC generally only releases more credible claims to the public, but keeps all of them in a classified record -- even the most dubious -- in case new information comes to light that prompts a re-evaluation.

After all, today's bigmouths could be tomorrow's bad guys.

Thanks to the National Counterterrorism Center.

 

BANARAS KHAN/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: TERRORISM
 

Joshua Keating is associate editor at Foreign Policy.

IAN

10:52 AM ET

May 5, 2010

The U.S. Government...

decides on who "actually" attacked/attempted to attack said place? No wonder just about every attack is blamed on al Queda in whatever country they want people to worry about at the time. Keeping the nebulous badguys on front page.

 

FUNDUK AL JAZAMEEN

4:52 PM ET

May 9, 2010

Limited definition of terrorism

Having looked through some of the terrorist incidents in two of the 'hotspots' I'm familiar with, I noticed how conveniently narrow the definition of 'terrorism' is.

I'm reminded of Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's quotation:

'If a young Jewish boy in this country goes and joins the Israeli army, and ends up killing many Palestinians in operations and can come back, that is wholly legitimate. But for a young Muslim boy in this country, who might think: I want to defend my Palestinian brothers and sisters and gets involved, he is branded as a terrorist. And I think it is this that has infected the attitude about how we deal with these problems.'

 

HLUMZA

12:46 PM ET

May 5, 2010

al Queda

Al Queda must be a very busy organisation, and so is Taliban. Those guys are everywhere planning to attack this or that place, where there are Americans. Interesting thought.

It is well known that many Muslims and people of Arab origin do not like America and its people, but it is extreme and ignorant to desperately link every attack anywhere else in the world with them. Those organisations are not the only "terrorist" organisations we have in this world, and not everything bad or violent has the blessing of them.

By the way, it is because of the continued and sustained attack, both on the people and the culture of the Arabs and Muslims that we see them reacting in this fashion. This does not mean violence is a solution to such media attacks. The misuse of Jihad as an excuse to kill innocent civilians (including women and children) mercilessly should come to an end.

 

LGREENB

9:13 AM ET

May 6, 2010

So is most of the information

So is most of the information falsified linking these terrorist groups to these actions?

 

BORN TO RUN

10:29 AM ET

May 6, 2010

Your knowledge of how AQ

Your knowledge of how AQ operates and has changed since 9/11 is lacking. AQ central exists and is presumed to be in Pakistan. Beyond that, it has become a brand or a franchise, influencing lone wolf attacks (see: Ft. Hood), groups with no affiliation other than ideology (see: Jund Ansar Allah and others in Gaza), and previously non-affiliated groups like GSPC in North Africa that have adopted the AQ moniker in order to attain legitimacy (AQIM). That, plus the fact that AQ central is hiding out in a region consisting of the Afghan Taliban, TTP, Haqqani Network, etc. means that there are a lot of links between all of these organizations/cells/"layers." I don't see where anyone said anything about a "clash of civilizations," so I don't really understand why you are inferring that AQ's ties to attacks have anything to do with Americans/The West vs. Arab Muslims.

Also your point about a continued and sustained attack against Arab and Muslim culture is pretty off-- if it was true than salafi-jihadi organizations would represent the beliefs of a majority of Muslims. We all know that is not the case, even if these groups do claim to speak for the Muslim umma.

 

OPSUDRANIA

1:40 PM ET

May 7, 2010

Who decides terrorists acts...

Well the taste of pudding lies in eating. Wait for another bombing. What is the problem?

 

KRAHIGVAKHIN

10:56 AM ET

May 9, 2010

Ah, a conspiracy theorist's

Ah, a conspiracy theorist's paradise, this article is.

Of course the US government determines the validity of a terrorist claim. Who else is going to do it, the Red Cross?

Set aside the obvious... I'm not the least bit suspicious of the US governments prioritization or "exposure" of which terrorist claims are worthy of mention and which ones aren't. Generally our intelligence community is working not only for job security but also for their reputation. No intelligence community wants a successful terrorist attack to be pulled off. Just look how the global community treated the Russian FSB in light of the '10 metro bombings, and furthermore the Russian administration.

 

ADRIAN888

1:15 AM ET

June 4, 2010

Good question?

That's a good questions to be asked, as mentioned in "Who Decides If Terrorist Claims of Responsibility Are Real?" world best news headlines.