Terrorism Unveiled

Doctrinal Debutant

The Norweigan's published an English-language brief (PDF) on Abu Musab al-Suri.  His manifestos are something we should pay detailed attention to if we want to understand AQ strategy/doctrine.  It's aged as far as intel goes, but as always, we need to be looking to the larger picture.

(via Dan Darling)

Faulty logic

I received an email that's sad as far as the murder/suicide it notes, but almost incomprehensible as far as the logic of its author.  It is referenced in full below:

Would you please write about this honor killing the heart of Christian America.  I believe your readers deserve to get a peek at just some of the horrors being committed against young children by their families. If you only had the courage to look at your own damn country and the culture of violence that goes on in your own backyard...
Its truly sad how far we have to look for exotic forms of violent otherness to make ourselves feel as though the sexual and physical violence that takes place on such a massive scale in America is so much more civilized than such violence in the land of the dark man & woman.

Doctor throws 2 kids, self off balcony - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060528/ap_on_re_us/children_killed

First, I've said before that my background knowledge is not in murder/suicides within the United States, Christian theology/practice within the US or overseas, or domestic violence here as well.  As stated before, there are people knowledgeable in that field and I'm sure some of them have blogs.  I generally stick to what I study or what I've seen and sometimes I'll point stuff out that's of interest to me, after all, it is my site.  Does the author of this email read economic bloggers in Africa and berate them for not covering the economic devastation a new local government policy has had on a village in China?

Second, the article mentions nothing about religion, so I don't exactly understand how the author of this email gets from point A to point B about religion. 

Third, the article mentions nothing about this being an honor killing, where the father killed his children because one damaged the family reputation by having sexual relations.  How the author goes from point C to D with this shows his awesome logic skills (PS--I'd love to see what score this author would make on the LSAT).

Fourth, quite obviously there are horrors that occur in my own "damn country" and just because they're in my country, in no way, means that I think these individual incidents can be no less horrible per act than ones that occur elsewhere.  Someone throwing their child off a balcony is just as sick and sad to me as someone murdering their sister.  It's the acceptance of these actions and the legal implications that justice provides (and the lack thereof) that bothers me.

Fifth, the author misses an entire frame of writing in the article that's blatantly obvious--the article is exposing how jarring this incident is because it's so incongruous with what people thought of the family or what people think of when they hear a parent murdering their own child.   A teacher at a school who knew the children, for example:

"I'm still staggering," he said. "I can't comprehend it. I've been teaching 34 years and had nothing like this."

The whole point of why this incident is so bad is because it's so unacceptable according to American norms and LAWS.  Murder-suicides seem to capture attention so much because there can be no legal justice for the murderer.  In Jordan, those who commit murder because they're angry that their female family member may have had some sort of sexual relation (which can include something as petty as kissing), turn themselves in because it is acceptable to do so.  It is seen by too many that the murderer, himself, is the victim, because he had no recourse but to "avenge" family honor.  Honor killers generally do not have to face stiff penalties or stay in prison long because the legal system still cannot deal with these acts.  Do I think all Jordanians feel this way?  Absolutely not.  But for a small number, old cultural traditions die hard.

Thank goodness for courageous reporters like Rana Husseini of the Jordan Times who report honor killing incidents.  If not for people like her, honor killings might not even be news.  In the US, it's necessary that murders become news, because our society accepts that this sort of intentional murder is both morally wrong and illegal.  Who is more courageous, Ms. Husseini who reports aspects of society that many would like to cover up or Reuters, who reports killings in the US that most people want exposed?

Update:

A Google News search of Edward van Dyk provides 700+ articles about this specific incident in Miami.  Try Googling the name of those who commit honor crimes in Jordan----oh wait, even the Jordan Times uses self-censorship and will not publish that information.

Their Own Worst Enemies

I've argued before that sometimes women in Jordan can be their own biggest adversaries when it comes to oppression.  I recall hearing quite a few women telling me of how their mother-in-laws would yell at their sons to be more "harsh" with the wives.  Now a study details some of this in the Jordan Times.

The study revealed that young females are more accepting of domestic violence than their male counterparts, with 40 per cent of men agreeing that beating one’s wife was justified under certain circumstances, compared to 53 per cent of women.

The article contines:

Given that “domestic violence is still commonly accepted,” the panel suggested discouraging violence against women as a social norm and promoting messages that discourage violence against women.

Haditha, Soldiering and Terrorism

A good overview by Dr. Dauber:

There is one bright line that matters above all others in distinguishing soldiers, warriors, from simple killers and thugs -- not to mention terrorists. What makes soldiers legitimate is that they observe the ancient warrior code, simply put they only fight (and kill) those capable of fighting back. This is what is at the essence of every treaty, code, convention, law, that guides civilized states and their armies in the conduct of warfare: real soldiers do not intentionally attack those who cannot fight back, neither the civilian nor the soldier who is no longer capable of fighting.

To cross that line is to do something that can never be undone, it is to forever forfeit your status as legitimate warrior, it is to enter another state of being entirely, to become instead killer, and war criminal.

Also:

I'm not even talking about any charges of intentional attacks on civilians here, I'm talking about unintentional deaths. These claims are seized upon by both the anti-war left and enemy propagandists whenever they come up. Indeed, we know for a fact that the Taliban was claiming that casualties from US air strikes were civilians when they weren't, and exaggerating the number of deaths as well, because the poor bastards forced to write those press releases at gunpoint have told us so. (That's from an AP article by Deb Riechman, civilian casualties may be "Hundreds Not Thousands," and I can't find it on the web.)

Those claims are so important to those two groups because even if you argue successfully that a war (or military operation) is just, you still need to defend it as just in execution, and one of the primary criteria for judging that is "proportionality." Everyone understands that civilians will die in warfare -- although what seems to get lost is the fact that, while tragic, the numbers have come down in a way that would have seemed impossible several decades away -- the question is whether you are doing everything humanly possible to keep those numbers down and whether the casualties that do occur are proportionate to the military benefit that's gained from the action that caused their death. So pushing hard on claims of civilian casualties (and when it comes to the propagandists, hyping and exaggerating the numbers) is a way of either drawing attention to the fact that a war has become unjust, or attempting to label it as such.

We are held to a tremendously unforgiving standard on civilian casualties, a standard no other country is held to, and probably a standard that cannot be met, so that any time any number of civilians are killed it is treated as an international scandal, as if it should be an expectation of our military that we should be able to go to war without ever killing any civilians at any time in any place, which is basically demanding perfection, a standard impossible to meet in any human endeavour.

bin Ladin's Moussaoui Claim

It's a little late to be commenting on this, but I just want to throw a few thoughts out there.

Bin Ladin recently claimed that Moussaoui had nothing to do with 9/11.

From all I've read Moussaoui was never really the 20th hijacker, but he was someone associated with the group. The best analogy I have is the guy who gets picked last when making teams on a school playground.  He was viewed as a loose cannon, a guy who could really mess the plot up.  So he was coddled, but not given any real responsibility.  Anyone remember Elaine's boyfriend "high-five guy" on Seinfeld?

As for bin Ladin's claims, I believe his main goal is to subvert the US legal system.  It's in terrorism manuals how to act if facing US courts.  It would be a success for AQ if these claims changed Moussaoui's legal situation.  Even if the latest OBL claims have nothing to do with Moussaoui getting any sort of appeal (and I believe it's been ruled that he is not allowed one), it will be a success if many Americans were to rally to Moussaoui's cause and cause a big stink.  I don't think that'll happen. 

Nice try, OBL.  He's just trying to garner more attention, because as far as attacks, he's not getting any.

DoDIIS

If you're a reader who we've not met and at the DoDIIS conference, send me an email.  We're setup here until tomorrow.

Embedding with the troops

Bill Roggio is headed to Afghanistan soon, then to Iraq.  Be sure to follow his reporting at the Counterterrorism Blog.

Reconstitution of the Taliban

Dan Darling passes along this news story concerning the Talibanization of Waziristan, Pakistan.  This links well with my post below.  As he and I both would argue, this is an indicator that bin Ladin and Zawahiri do not function as mere symbolical heads of a completely decentralized organization.

Message from Bin Ladin

In the Pakistan Daily Times today, an article details a puported message that Osama bin Ladin has distributed to the people in Waziristan.  The pamphlets containing the message were distributed in Miranshah and Mir Ali.

This could be a ploy by any militant groups, though it shouldn't be immediately discounted as unauthentic.  The message reads:

“Pakistani Muslims, may Allah reward you and bless you for what you did for your brothers affected in the October 8 earthquake. It is incumbent upon you to come forward and help the great sons of tribal Pakhtuns whose houses have been demolished by the Pakistani army to please the US government. “I pray to Allah Almighty to accept the martyrdom of those who laid down their lives in jihad and give health to the injured and bless their families. “I also pray to Allah to punish Bush, Pervez Musharraf and their forces and give them the punishment that they deserve besides giving an opportunity to one of the lions of Islam to kill Bush’s slave in Pakistan.”

The news article says apart from the message it had verses from the Qur'an, and this particularly interesting detail: the message carried the name of the Mujahideen Amaraat Islamia Afghanistan.  It would be important to to research their connection to bin Ladin, name changes of the group, location and activities.

Moussaoui Sentencing Debates

Be sure to check out the Counterterrorism Blog for a range of opinions on his sentence.