Monday, April 24, 2006

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)


Osama's latest tape

Initial reports suggest that Osama bin Laden's latest tape doesn't seem to have had much of an impact. In the tape, Bin Laden talked about how the West was destroying Palestine and Sudan. According to this Washington Post by Craig Whitlock, terrorism experts seemed unconvinced:

Counterterrorism analysts said bin Laden was trying to portray himself as a champion of oppressed Muslims around the world, even though al-Qaeda has avoided involvement in many of the conflicts that he has decried. For example, bin Laden has largely ignored events in Sudan since he and his network were expelled from the country a decade ago. Similarly, al-Qaeda has no record of activity in the Palestinian territories.

"Bin Laden is a master craftsman at recognizing issues and knowing how to exploit these issues for his own purposes," said M.J. Gohel, a London-based analyst and chief executive of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a security policy group. "He's trying to enlarge the global conflict and is trying to incite and anger the Muslim world against the West."

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism specialist and director of the Washington office of the Rand Corp., a California-based research group, said al-Qaeda is confronting the same challenge that all terrorism networks face: how to remain relevant as a radical movement over time.

"It's entirely cynical," he said of bin Laden's rallying cry on behalf of Darfur and Hamas. "He's got to say something about someplace. They've got to keep talking or else they're going to be irrelevant, especially when they're not directly involved in the fighting."

"These are contentious contemporary issues that he can glom onto and milk for his own ends," Hoffman added. "It's more rhetorical than factual. Bin Laden is no friend of the Sudanese. They told him to leave in 1996 and took his money. And Hamas has basically told al-Qaeda to mind its own business."

Counterterrorism officials and analysts said al-Qaeda's leaders have also become more outspoken in recent months because they fear losing their influence in the fragmented world of Islamic fundamentalism. Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian physician, have been effectively sidelined since the Sept. 11 attacks while other radical groups and figures, such as Hamas and Jordanian fighter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, have stolen the limelight, the analysts said.

Indeed, the BBC reports that bin Laden's message "has been disowned by the Sudanese government and Hamas." Marc Lynch notes that, "[This is] a fairly typical example of the refusal of many entrenched Islamist movements to accept al-Qaeda's claims to lead the Islamist umma."

So this would seem to fit with Al Qaeda's slow descent into Tampa Bay Devil Rays metaphor territory (though, to be fair, at least the D-Rays are now under new management). The real test, however, will be to see whether anyone heeds bin Laden's call for attacks on Western citizens.

Question to readers: if there is no spectacular terrorist attack in the next year -- on a par, say, with either the London or Madrid bombings -- is it safe to say that the threat from Al Qaeda should be seriously downgraded?

UPDATE: Alas, the Egyptian bombing is tragic, but does not exactly fit the parameters of what I was asking.

posted by Dan on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM




Comments:

It may in fact be safe to say that while al-Quaeda has managed to carry out a few spectacular and horrible attacks, it was never the omnipotent, all-encompassing force that the Bush administration made it out to be, and probably could have been effectively destroyed if we had focused on eliminating their leadership rather than diverting immense resources by invading Iraq.

The threat shouldn't be downgraded. It should be rightgraded.

posted by: TGM on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



If it isn't an "all encompassing threat"...lets keep invading muslim nations until it is!!! Their is a lot of money to be made in the MIC.

posted by: centrist on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WESTERN WORLD!

AND THEY ARE STARTING IN IRAQ!

posted by: NeoDude on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



Question to readers: if there is no spectacular terrorist attack in the next year -- on a par, say, with either the London or Madrid bombings -- is it safe to say that the threat from Al Qaeda should be seriously downgraded?

If I understand correctly, the London and Madrid bombings were carried about by "self-starters", not by Al Qaeda. (See Benjamin and Simon, The Next Attack.) It's not the Al Qaeda organization that's the danger--it's the plausibility of AQ's claim that the West is at war with Islam, fuelled by Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the motivation is there, it's not expensive or difficult to carry out an attack.

posted by: Russil Wvong on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



Any comments on the release of this tape followed by the coordinated attack on the Dahab resort?

posted by: tequila on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



The worst part about bin Laden's latest bluster is it is enough to scare the skittish United Nations from intervening in Darfur to protect the Darfurian Muslim population from continuing to be slaughtered by the purpoted Islamic Sudanese government and its proxies.

posted by: trout on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



Of course nobody can be bothered to suggest that maybe the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have something to do with this. I mean, the allied forces have killed literally tens of thousands of Mr Bin Laden's associates, destroyed almost all of their training camps and denied them a stable host country.

Nothing to see there, folks. Just move along.

posted by: Laura on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



Yeah, what about Dahab? Al Qaeda related? Inspired? I.e. al Qaeda really a spent force? If not, and its still less than a year since the Al Qaeda inspired London attacks, then what the heck have the billions in Iraq and Afghanstan been spent for? Not to mention the US lives and lives of civilians.

posted by: Mitchell Young on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



That's so harsh on the Devil Rays in so many ways . . . .

posted by: DB on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



Al Qaeda is the ultimate brand name. They spend nothing to set up their franchises -- in fact their arch-enemy the Saudi government funds the bricks-n-mortar of the Mosques were Muslim yutes are radicalized. But nobody bombs in the name of the Saudi dynasty, or Wahabi clerics. They all want that Al Qaeda cache. So Ben Laden has now the ultimate terror network -- self financing, responding to his periodic missives from his mountain lair. Al Qaeda has become a brand.

But sure, the fact that Afghanistan has been denied, mostly, to Al Qaeda has to hurt. Iraq, of course, has about zero to do with Bin Laden.

posted by: Mitchell Young on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



It seems that no Westerners were hurt in Dahab, which makes the whole event rather uninteresting. America is winning, Al Quaida is vanishing.

posted by: jaimito on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



It seems that no Westerners were hurt in Dahab, which makes the whole event rather uninteresting. America is winning, Al Quaida is vanishing.

posted by: jaimito on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



Bin Laden's big statements to the umma don't recognise the multi-faceted nature of the "West vs Islam" argument. There are at least two major streams here. One is international, which the US has undertaken on foreign soil for reasons that many of its citizens understand (although they're growing war-weary). The other is the domestic West v Islam struggle, which is mostly relegated to continental Europe and is largely due to intolerance shrouded under the guise of euro-centric cultural identity. The UK falls in both camps, so it's got a tough dilemma on its hands.

The realisation by parties on all sides that there is real complexity to the issues and there are actually different arguements to be had for each issue seems to be making AQs job more difficult to rally the constituency, especially as more time goes by and as bin Laden stakes claim to issues that are not his (Sudan, Palestine, etc).

The tapes from bin Laden are not unlike a series bad Saturday Night Live skits that were once a hit, but just can't keep the audience's interest anymore. Even if there is another major attack, his message will not be a new one - the same droning polemics that we've seen for years. We all know his issues. However, I'm less convinced the attack would be on America than it would be on Europe, where Muslims see a very real apartheid from mainstream European society. Proximity and intolerance are real problems in Europe and AQ well understands how to polarise neighbour against neighbour on European soil.

posted by: TN on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



I saw the video and boy, did I have a good laugh! That scarecrow goat herder in the dirty skirt is ... funny. A laugh is the best remedy - against binladens and other bugs.

posted by: jaimito on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



no westerners injured.

Actually several Westerners, including an United Statesian, were injured and a German boy was killed.

posted by: Mitchell Young on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



I saw the video and boy, did I have a good laugh! That scarecrow goat herder in the dirty skirt is ... funny. A laugh is the best remedy - against binladens and other bugs.

You must've been watching something else because his latest tape was audio only.

Bin Laden hasn't made a video since his oh so convenient (for Bush) pre-election 2004 rant.

After that vid, a lot of people said Osama just didn't look like his old self. I wonder whether he's taken all that criticism about his funny appearance to heart?

posted by: Night Owl on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]



Jaimito, thanks for remind us that dead wogs don't matter. I almost forgot.

posted by: tequila on 04.24.06 at 12:54 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?