LivingWatersForum.com

AFTER EGYPT, WHERE WILL AL-QAEDA STRIKE NEXT?

10 October 2004

The deadly tentacles of al-Qaeda now stretch across the world with horrific consequences. Is anyone making progress in the war against terror? Investigations Editor Neil Mackay reports

THURSDAY’s suicide bombs in Egypt’s tourist resorts were foretold almost a week earlier in a chilling propaganda video made by al-Qaeda’s second-in- command Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Intelligence experts have picked over the text of the Egyptian-born doctor’s carefully delivered diatribe. After exhorting all Muslims to defend Palestine as “a duty” against Israel and its backers America, Europe and Arab leaders like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, al-Zawahiri said: “This is the century of the Islamic resistance … Let’s learn a lesson from Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

“We shouldn’t wait for the American, English, French, Jewish, Hungarian, Polish and South Korean forces to invade Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen and Algeria and then start the resistance after the occupier has already invaded us. We should start now.

“The interests of America, Britain, Australia, France, Norway, Poland, South Korea and Japan are everywhere. All of them participated in the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya, they also facilitated a raison d’être for Israel. We should not wait anymore than we already have or else we will be devoured, one country at a time, as they have occupied us in the last two centuries. The Islamic world has entered the period of occupation ... Oh, young men of Islam, here is our message to you, if we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight.”

What is said on these al-Qaeda propaganda tapes is soon played out for real somewhere in the world. One of the target countries mentioned is inevitably hit. In his propaganda statement, al-Zawahiri specifically mentioned Egypt. Six days later, an organisation affiliated to al-Qaeda took the lives of at least 33 people – primarily Israelis – in Egyptian resorts.

A group calling itself the Islamic Tawhid Brigades claimed responsibility for the attacks in a statement, which read: “Four of your martyrdom-seeking brothers carried out this brave operation despite intensified security measures and killed dozens of parasites.” The group praised Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahiri and said the attack was “dedicated” to the militant Palestinian leader Ahmed Yassin who was assassinated by Israelis in March. It also condemned Egypt – whose government is despised by fundamentalists for its peace treaty with Israel – as a “regime that committed treason against its own people and religion”.

This latest al-Zawahiri tape contains the first glimmer of a new phase of al-Qaeda’s strategy and masterplan. Analysts say that al-Zawahiri’s comments mark the first time that al-Qaeda has effectively declared a policy of pre-emptive attack. The irony hasn’t been missed: the US government’s most controversial shift in strategy post-September 11 was the move towards a policy of pre-emptive strikes against its enemies overseas.

Dia’a Rashwan, an expert on Islamic militancy, said that al-Zawahiri was “calling for launching a pre-emptive attacks similar to US policy. He’s saying Muslims should attack before their countries are occupied. He is calling for action, instead of reaction”.

If the West thought that al-Qaeda could not get any more deadly, then al-Zawahiri is saying “you are wrong”; he has just upped the ante. He is telling Muslims in every country in the Middle East to rise up and kill Westerners and destroy Western interests even if they or their nations are not affected by the war on terror.

The creation of pan-Arab resistance and a truly global form of terror lies at the heart of al-Qaeda thinking. The organisation has at its ideological core the concept of the establishment of an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East, operating under strict Koranic thinking. How can that be achieved without total war against the West and what people like al-Zawahiri see as the puppet regimes in capitals such as Cairo?

In military terms, the war on terror is already a war on all fronts. In Paris on Friday, a bomb exploded at the Indonesian embassy. Although no organisation has claimed responsibility, the Indonesian President-elect Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono described it as a “terrorist act”. France has so far managed to foil a number of al-Qaeda linked terror attacks, but Indonesia has had to combat the fierce ideologues of the Jemaah Islamiah organisation which is al-Qaeda’s regional arm in the Pacific and the group behind the Bali nightclub bombings of 2002, which left more than 200 people dead.

Then there was the recent attack by a Sunni suicide bomber on a crowded mosque in the Pakistan town of Sialkot in which 31 members of the Shia community died. Al-Qaeda operatives are almost exclusively Sunni and have an intense antipathy for Shi’ites. Pakistan has grown a new breed of al-Qaeda leaders thanks to the efforts of Attaur Rehman – now facing execution in a Pakistan prison. He sent scores of young, educated men to training camps in the hills.

We need to look behind the headlines to see the true stretch of al-Qaeda’s tentacles. It seems that Islamic terrorists are literally everywhere. A CIA report says that a new tier of al-Qaeda leaders is using South Africa as one of its bases. Nearly 30 leaders are thought to be in and around Cape Town, Durban and the Eastern Cape.

Interpol’s John Newton says that al-Qaeda is running smuggling rings in Latin America to fund its terror operations. “There are strong indications that terrorists such as al-Qaeda do derive some incomes from smuggling, for example in the tri-border area between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina,” he said, adding that cigarette smuggling could be one of the main fundraising rackets. The positioning of al-Qaeda in south America is no surprise to seasoned terror-trackers. In the autumn of 2002, the Sunday Herald revealed that al-Qaeda communications had been intercepted coming from the Amazon basin.

The head of Russia’s FSB – the nation’s current equivalent of the KGB – Nikolai Patrushev says that some 10 al-Qaeda leaders are operating in the Caucasus. They are thought to have some 150 Arab followers in and around Chechnya. He added that the FSB had captured Abu Muskhab, a British resident who they say had come to Russia to train terrorists.

In Lebanon, some 35 men linked to al-Qaeda have been charged with plotting to attack foreign targets. Only nine are in custody, the rest are on the run. Over in America, one of al-Qaeda’s most senior operators , Adnan El Shukrijumah, was spotted posing as a student at McMaster University in Ontario. The college has a five-megawatt research reactor fuelled with uranium rods.

Shukrijumah, a Saudi who was close to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11, has also met with the “people-trafficking” gang Mara Salvatrucha in Mexico and Honduras in order to bring al-Qaeda members into America. Al-Qaeda communications intercepted by the CIA and Turkish intelligence, the MIT, show that the terror group wanted to hijack planes in Turkey after smuggling powdered TNT and a triggering mechanism based on sulphuric acid onboard. Neither substance is detectable by airport security.

But there are successes being made against al-Qaeda. Debriefings of militants in Pakistan have revealed the name of the terror group’s new operations chief to be Abu Faraj al-Liby – a man known to have sent coded message to sleeper cells in the UK as part of a conspiracy to target America before the November presidential elections. He is one of the few men who may know where bin Laden is.

Pakistan has also killed Amjad Farooqi, the country’s most wanted al-Qaeda leader, as well as some 100 other militants in recent fighting. And the UN passed a security council resolution on Friday expanding the fight against global terror.

Ironically, one of the best weapons against al-Qaeda terror affiliates may tragically have been gifted to the West by the death of Ken Bigley. Before the British hostage was murdered, an envoy of al-Zawahiri met with a representative of the British government to discuss Bigley’s fate.

From just one point of contact with a lowly envoy, UK intelligence can rapidly build up a picture of al-Zarqawi’s network – and that is the only hope of the West ever locating al-Zarqawi himself .


End of Article
Source of Article

ZARQAWI GROUP CALLS MUSLIMS TO FOLLOW OSAMA BIN LADEN

October 17, 2004, 20:25

Source of Article

The group of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi declared its allegiance to Osama bin Laden on Sunday, saying it had resolved a dispute with al-Qaeda over strategy and vowing unity against "the enemies of Islam."

The authenticity of the statement, found Sunday on an Islamic Web site, could not be confirmed.

The statement said the Jordanian al-Zarqawi, leader of the Tawhid and Jihad group, had been in contact with bin Laden eight months ago and "viewpoints were exchanged" before the dialogue was interrupted.

"God has soon blessed us with a resumption in communication, and the dignified brothers in al-Qaeda understood the strategy of Tawhid and Jihad," the statement said.

It announced the "allegiance of Tawhid and Jihad's leadership and soldiers to the chief of all fighters, Osama bin Laden," declaring that it would follow his orders without question.

"You are the best leader for Islam's armies against all infidels and apostates," said the statement by the group.

The statement said the announcement was being made at the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan, "at a time where Muslims need more than ever to stick together in the face of the religion's enemies."

"It's good tidings for our Ummah (nation) ... to tease the infidels and scare the enemies of Islam."

Al-Zarqawi and a dozen of other activists were indicted Sunday in Jordan for plotting to attack U.S. and Jordanian interests.

In announcing its allegiance to al-Qaeda, Tawhid and Jihad called for Muslims to rally around bin Laden. "Come on, nation's youth, let's follow the chief of all fighters ... to cleanse the lands of Islam from any sinful infidel or apostate." (albawaba.com)

FALLUJA PEACE BID CALLED OFF

Monday 18 October 2004, 12:44 Makka Time, 9:44 GMT

Source of Article

A top Falluja negotiator who has been released from US custody says peace talks with the interim Iraqi government have been called off.

"The people of Falluja have suspended negotiations, despite the fact they had made progress, because of arrests like mine and American policies," Khalid Hamud al-Jumaili said.

Al-Jumaili was released at 2am (2300 GMT) on Monday after his arrest three days ago.

US marines detained him along with Falluja's police chief Sabir al-Janabi and two other police officers while they were taking their families out of the city for safety, on Friday.

Other reports said the chief negotiator had been picked up after he left a mosque following Friday prayers in a village about 15km south of Falluja.

Al-Jumaili said the four men were taken to a marine base outside Falluja and then transported by helicopter to another location - "a very far place".

"Whenever we asked them for the reason for our arrests, they said they were just following orders," al-Jumaili told Aljazeera.

Allawi's threat

Talks between al-Jumaili and the interim government aimed at securing a truce, and the return of Iraqi security forces to Falluja collapsed last week after interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi threatened to attack the city unless it handed over al-Qaida-linked Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers.

Scores of people have been killed and hundreds of homes damaged in the continuing US onslaught on Falluja under the pretext of weeding out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Battles between US forces and insurgents in Falluja lasted for nine hours on Sunday and were punctuated by air strikes.

"I think the residents of Falluja don't want this sort of peace. They want real peace, not a peace that stabs in the back and strikes and destroys homes and kills women," Jumaili said.

"Who asks for peace while bombs strike? Who agrees to peace when women are being killed?"

Time

Al-Jumaili is a member of the Mujahideen Shura (council) of tribal notables and insurgent leaders in Falluja, which has been in the hands of guerrillas since a US offensive in April failed to dislodge them. Police there do not answer to Baghdad.

The negotiator said he had met US civilian and political representatives, not Iraqi police or the US-established Iraqi National Guard.

"The US representatives said Falluja will receive their rightful reconstruction aid and compensation soon, but they need time," said al-Jumaili.

"We told them that they had enough time and it was time for them to hold talks and achieve peace."

End of Article

SHOULD THERE BE AN ASSAULT ON FALLUJA?

Saturday, 6 November, 2004, 11:19 GMT

Source of Article

American soldiers convoy towards the insurgent-held city of Falluja, as Falluja residents evacuate the Iraqi city, Friday 5 November 2004

A major US-led strike on the insurgent city of Falluja is expected despite UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warning against such action.

Mr Annan fears that an assault could alienate ordinary Iraqis and disrupt the planned elections.

US-led troops have closed all roads in and out of the rebel-held city, and await the go-ahead from Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Would the assault achieve peace in Iraq? Or do you agree with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan? What will stop the insurgents attacking? Send us your views using the postform.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

Diplomacy has not worked in the past nor is there a high probability it work in the future. Falluja needs to be taken convincingly and quickly. This could be the tipping point in our campaign
Mike, London, England

I have a fear that Falluja will be subject to assault by the US troops, and the rebels will melt away. We have seen this before in Afghanistan. I hope I am wrong, but there will surely be many lives lost in this sort of assault on a city.
Peter, Southampton, UK

Bring ceasefire to Falluja and continue the talks with the elders in Falluja

We don't have to liberate Falluja because it is a part of Iraq and people living there are Iraqis too. Bring ceasefire to Falluja and continue the talks with the elders in Falluja; give them money, medicines, food etc. As a last resort give them weapons to fight with the help of the Iraqi army against the bad people in Falluja.
Omer Bin Fateh, Pakistan

The assault is necessary if peace is to be achieved. Falluja is a base for terrorists, so if they lost it, it will be a big step upward to peace.
Aissa El Hakioui, Zagora, Morocco

The city of Falluja is controlled by terrorists, foreign fighters and Baathist rebels. This situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. If they will not disarm voluntarily, then they must be made to. Only then can there be peace in Iraq.
Tim, Gillingham, UK

Patience, love and understanding with diplomatic strategies have always won on war of ideologies
Mufassil Islam, London, UK

Force never won anything. Patience, love and understanding with diplomatic strategies have always won on war of ideologies. Soviet Union saw the victory over Communism through ideological struggle and strategies and history never forgive oppressors. Mongolians and Germans of this generation still bear the scars of their oppressive leaders. If we love our children, we must not forget our responsibilities.

Civilisations are like heartbeats! One powerful nation has always been replaced by another. None of us should create reasons to have long-standing animosities amongst ethnically and culturally different peoples. A nation will never be able to unite the whole world in one culture or faith through pressure. Ottoman empire is gone but the hatred amongst various nations and their citizens against their oppressions still live on.
Mufassil Islam, London, UK

It is the duty of America to help the Iraqi government regain Falluja

This assault on Falluja should have taken place a while ago. You can't have the people of Falluja living in a lawless city governed by terrorists and criminals. The Coalition tried other means to peacefully get Falluja back, but they failed. A military solution is the only choice left. You can't blame the US for this assault, because they already tried peaceful negotiations. It is the duty of America to help the Iraqi government regain Falluja.
Joel, Trinidad

Today, an Iraqi is someone who either supports the liberators or just keeps quiet and hasn't been hit by a precision weapon strike. Everyone else is classified as insurgent, Shia militiaman, Sunni militiaman, rebel, etc. With these definitions in place, attacking the headquarters of Sunni triangle is justified. Don't forget to count the deaths of insurgents there!
Kaleem Khan, Delhi, India

There will not be peace in Iraq as long as we are there. Peace is not brought about at the end of a gun, or a bomb falling from a plane. Over a 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians would tell you that if they were still alive. At the end of the day I agree with Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Anonymous

I am sure the people of Falluja will be remembered as heroes by future generations of Iraqis

The people of Falluja don't want to live under foreign occupation. And regardless of what many in the West think it's not an honour to be occupied by the United States. This reminds me of the times that Briton and France occupied the region. They acted just as the USA is acting now and the people who resisted them or died trying to free their land are remembered as heroes by our generation. Just like I am sure the people of Falluja will be remembered as heroes by future generations of Iraqis.
Jamal, Damascus, Syria

It's time for the Iraqi people to take charge and step forward and assist the coalition. The sooner the better, outside agitators are neutralized, the sooner coalition work is done. Ordinary Iraqis have become the main target of these outsiders, that only kill, just to kill, and offer nothing towards Iraq and its future.
Ralph Kimball, USA

There should be an assault on Falluja. The insurgents have proven time and again that they are not capable of responding to anything other than lethal force. The US marines have shown remarkable restraint by not flattening the city months ago but enough is enough. Every chance at diplomacy has ended in lies, betrayal and insults from the insurgents who hide in Holy shrines like rats. I do not believe there is the least bit of honesty or honour in their hearts. If the UN does not approve of the US methods why don't they send troops to Iraq and show us how it is done? They have such a wonderful track record in Africa after all.
John, San Antonio, TX, USA

Yes, the Iraqi government exhausted and used different ways to avert this

Yes, the Iraqi government exhausted and used different ways to avert this, but failed because they are dealing with terrorists, by the standards of the Iraqi people themselves, not just the government. In addition to this, if these groups are responsible for killing of civilians everyday, and they are, then the corrective action is to eliminate them and help the Iraqi people, and the world, as these people have come to Iraq from different Arab countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and others to fight the US, British and other troops that helped liberate the country.
Jim, Alberta, Canada

I think they (the invaders) are trying to bite more than they can chew, they should just respect themselves and pull out of that country for the sake of peace.
Yinka Badmus, Lagos, Nigeria.

We have seen how Iraq was "liberated", now we hear about Falluja being "liberated". I fully agree with UN Secretary General. The assault in Falluja will only lead to death, destruction and finally breed more hatred and also terrorists.
Bolte, Sweden


What other option is there?
Brian, Kansas City, USA

What other option is there? Either the city is retaken, or the Iraqi government has a perpetual Baathist/al-Qaeda base in its own backyard. That doesn't sound like a recipe for a free, stable Iraq.
Brian, Kansas City, USA

It is interesting that this attack was held off until after the US elections. That being said, the decision will be made and again we will have to stand back helpless and watch. The blame for civilian deaths has already been blamed in advance on the insurgents by Iraqi officials; I heard one saying so just today on Public radio in the US. Therefore that must mean that they (the interim government, the US and UK) will be blameless in any action taken. The truth is that they are putting down uprising in just the same way as others, who they censure, with violence and death.
M Clark, UK/US

What did the invasion of Iraq achieved so far for the Iraqi people noting but death and misery. What did it achieved to world peace and war on terror? From last Tuesday presidential election you can tell what kind of a language the American like to use, I think the American are not capable of solving any thing in this world peacefully.
Vian, US

Kofi Annan is right on. I wonder why no-one listens to the UN Secretary General. Peace by means of war never works. Both sides have to sit down and negotiate their differences. All this assault is going to do is evaporate Falluja from the face of the earth. Resistance will mushroom from somewhere else. How many cities the US willing to evaporate?
Asif, Boston, USA

Don't you think that should be a decision for the Iraqi government and the commanders on the ground? We shouldn't be interfering politically with operations on the ground from the comfort of our sofas. While we soapbox we are making our troops targets for terrorists.
Kevin, Ayrshire, UK

Mr Annan's comments, that going ahead in Falluja would alienate ordinary Iraqis and disrupt the elections, begs the question: What happens if we don't end this insurgency? Mr Annan's thinking is not results-oriented. One wonders if he has any idea how to bring elections to the Iraqis given the intention of the anti-liberationists to prevent them.
Andrea, NY, USA

When did the Americans ever take any notice of anything the UN says? Bush has placed himself and his country outside of the UN by waging an illegal war in the first place; so Kofi Annan's words will fall on deaf (American) ears.
Paul A, London, England

There has been more than enough time for a peaceful negotiation
Tracy Boehrer, OKC, USA

It's a simple fact that a rogue city cannot be allowed to launch attacks on the Iraqi government/coalition forces. In order to enforce the rule of law, and move toward stability, the insurgents must be put down. There has been more than enough time for a peaceful negotiation, with the insurgents continually promoting violence.
Tracy Boehrer, OKC, USA

Imagine you are a kid of 14-years and you see your family being killed by a lost US bomb. How would you react? Wouldn't you dedicate your life to get revenge and kill Americans? I believe it has happened thousands of times since the invasion of Iraq. The US are creating terrorists. As I have read already on this site, trying to eradicate terrorism is like trying to eradicate crime. It certainly can't be done by violence and that's what Kofi Annan means.
Xavier, France

Allawi has demonstrated with his spectator comments that he really is appointed by Bush administration.
Istvan Hunanui, Chisinau, Moldova

Yes, the path to elections and a free Iraq society is through the elimination of terror. Having said that wouldn't it be ironic if the attack of Falluja occurred and there happened to be no foreign fighters, or terrorists? This would be just as embarrassing as the failure to find Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Chris McLeod, Houston, USA

Do the people of Falluja really need another assault? What are the demands of the supposedly recalcitrant elements in this city? In any media source Falluja has been described as restive and a host to terrorists. What happens when we cut through that myopic discourse and truly ask, "What do the people of Falluja want?" I think the answer would align with many people who post on this site.

Who doesn't want sovereignty, peace, freedom, food, shelter, etc? Where are these freedom haters? Is it that they hate us and our ways of life or that theirs have not been given proper address? After this long string of questions I am compelled to mention the fact that there will be inordinate amounts of death and human misery on both sides.
Arbash, TX, USA

Since when does an African gentleman know more about a country than an Iraqi gentleman who lives there? The Iraqi Prime Minister is the interim leader of that country - why would the UN interfere? I think Kofi Annan was out of line on this one and the Prime Minister should do what he thinks is best. If he gives the order to go in, the Coalition and Iraqi troops will execute the order and rightfully so. It is comments like these that keep upheaval going in Iraq. Instead of Mr Annan stirring the Iraq pot, he should be stirring the oil for food and sex scandal pots.
Sharon, Grove City, USA

End of Article

***

IRAQ DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY

Sunday, 7 November, 2004, 15:51 GMT

Source of Article

Violence in Iraq has escalated sharply in recent days

Iraq's government has declared a 60-day state of emergency in response to the escalation of violence by militants.

Official spokesman Thaer Naqib said the emergency would cover the whole of Iraq except Kurdish-run areas in the north.

He said the move came in response to mass killings and destruction of the country's infrastructure carried out by "criminals and terrorists".

He said the violence was part of a plot to derail the interim Iraq government's progress towards January's elections.

In the latest violence, Iraqi insurgents stormed a police station in the western province of al-Anbar, disarmed 21 officers and shot them dead.

Fighting at the Haditha police station, 200km (120 miles) west of Baghdad, lasted about 90 minutes, sources say, as the building was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

In other violence on Sunday

Another six policemen were shot dead in a similar attack in the neighbouring town of Haqlaniya.

Two British soldiers from the Black Watch battle group stationed at Camp Dogwood, 20 miles (32km) from Baghdad, were seriously injured in a suicide attack.

Three Iraqi officials from Diyala province were killed on their way to the funeral of a colleague.

One US soldier was killed and four others wounded in a car bomb attack in western Baghdad, the US military said.

Another car bomb went off in Baghdad outside the house of Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. The minister was not at home at the time, but one of his guards was killed.

On Saturday, more than 30 people were killed in another rebel stronghold, Samarra, which US forces only recently declared they had regained control of.

Curfew

It is not clear at this stage what the state of emergency will mean in practice.

Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is due to give full details on Monday.

STATE OF EMERGENCY

Prime Minister has power* to:

Impose a curfew for a short, defined period in areas facing serious security threats

Restrict the freedom of movement, assembly and use of weapons by Iraqis or foreigners suspected of crimes

Cordon off and search an area if its inhabitants are suspected of possessing weapons

Freeze the assets of those accused of insurgency
*Under the National Safety Law passed in July

However, the BBC's Alastair Leithead in Baghdad says it could include a curfew and extra powers for the police and military.

The insurgents' offensive is seen as a response to a planned assault by US troops on their stronghold of Falluja.

American and Iraqi forces are continuing preparations for the attack, amid reports that more than 100 insurgents have volunteered to drive suicide car bombs into the advancing troops.

There has been artillery fire on positions inside the city, with American aircraft heard almost continuously overhead.

As well as the risk of suicide attacks, US commanders said they expected resistance to an offensive to include car bombs and even crude chemical weapons.

Mr Allawi still hopes to avoid a US-led attack on Falluja, but feels he cannot wait much longer, his spokesman said on Sunday.

"He still hopes that it may be possible to avoid a major military confrontation in Falluja and is now - together with his ministerial colleagues - engaged in a last-ditch effort to see if a peaceful solution can be found," Thaer Naqib was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

The BBC's Paul Wood, embedded with the US Marines, says they believe that Falluja will be their biggest engagement since Hue, the Vietnamese city they captured in 1968, losing 142 men and killing thousands of the enemy.

It is reported from inside Falluja that insurgents, tribal chiefs and Sunni Muslim clerics have invited the media to enter the city under their protection to witness any assault, which they described as a crusade against Islam.

End of Article

OSAMA HAS RELIGIOUS APPROVAL TO NUKE AMERICANS - REPORT

The Drudge Report
11-12-04

Source of Article

Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist. The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Nov. 14 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Scheuer was until recently known as the "anonymous" author of two books critical of the West's response to bin Laden and al Qaeda, the most recent of which is titled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. No one in the West knows more about the Qaeda leader than Scheuer, who has tracked him since the mid-1980s. The CIA allowed him to write the books provided he remain anonymous, but now is allowing him to reveal himself for the first time on Sunday's broadcast; he formally leaves the Agency today (12).

Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn't have used it for a lack of proper religious authority - authority he has now. "[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik...a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," says Scheuer. "[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans," Scheuer tells Kroft.

Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by some Muslims for the 9/11 attack because he killed so many people without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam. But now bin Laden has addressed the American people and given fair warning. "They're intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region....If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it's chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon," says Scheuer.

As the head of the CIA unit charged with tracking bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, Scheuer says he never had enough people to do the job right. He blames former CIA Director George Tenet. "One of the questions that should have been asked of Mr. Tenet was why were there always enough people for the public relations office, for the academic outreach office, for the diversity and multi-cultural office? All those things are admirable and necessary but none of them are protecting the American people from a foreign threat," says Scheuer.

And the threat posed by bin Laden is also underestimated, says Scheuer. "I think our leaders over the last decade have done the American people a disservice...continuing to characterize Osama bin Laden as a thug, as a gangster," he says. "Until we respect him, sir, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary, yes. He's a very, very talented man and a very worthy opponent," he tells Kroft.

Until today (12), Scheuer was a senior official in the CIA's counter terrorism unit and a special advisor to the head of the agency's bin Laden unit.

End of Article

FULL TRANSCRIPT OF BIN LADEN'S SPEECH TO AMERICANS

Monday 01 November 2004, 16:01 Makka Time, 13:01 GMT

Source of Article

Osama Bin Ladin directed his message at the American people

Following is the full English transcript of Usama bin Ladin's speech in a videotape sent to Aljazeera. In the interests of authenticity, the content of the transcript, which appeared as subtitles at the foot of the screen, has been left unedited.

Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.

The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at the White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?

If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.

As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief among them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.

Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr to the region.

At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.

It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah.

And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him: "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction - assuming they exist - is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."

But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.

So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying "like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth".

So I say to you, over 15,000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10,000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.

Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money.

And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorise the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.

Finally, it behoves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.

Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say: "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision."

It is as if they were telling you, the people of America: "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes."

And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry. "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."

As has been said: "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."

And know that: "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.

In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.

Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.

And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All peace be upon he who follows the Guidance.

End of Article

GENERAL: OSAMA, INSURGENCY TRYING TO COMMUNICATE

U.S. doubts attempts by bin Laden, al-Zarqawi have succeeded

Saturday, November 20, 2004 Posted: 9:50 AM EST (1450 GMT)

Source of Article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and the network's ally in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are trying to communicate with each other even as they continue to elude U.S. forces, a senior U.S. general said on Friday.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Lance Smith also said U.S. Central Command may ask the Pentagon to raise U.S. troop levels in Iraq by roughly 3,000 to 5,000, mainly by delaying the scheduled departure of some soldiers, to improve security before January elections.

Smith, the No. 2 officer in the command responsible for military operations in the Middle East and Asia, also said it was premature to declare that the offensive in Falluja has broken the back of Iraq's insurgency, as the top U.S. Marine general in Iraq said on Thursday.

Smith told reporters at the Pentagon that "we know for a fact that there are attempted communications" between bin Laden, thought to be hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border, and Zarqawi, believed to have escaped the U.S. offensive in his previous suspected base of operations in Falluja. Smith did not provide evidence for these attempted communications.

Speaking after meetings at CIA headquarters, Smith said it was doubtful whether these attempted communications -- likely couriers carrying computer disks -- had succeeded, considering "the huge distances involved in those lines of communication."

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi, blamed for some of the most notorious beheadings, kidnappings and bombings in Iraq, recently declared his allegiance to bin Laden and al Qaeda, which carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Smith said it was unclear whether the attempted communications involved al Qaeda giving Zarqawi instructions, but added it was unlikely al Qaeda was in operational control of the Iraqi insurgency, which U.S. officials have said is controlled primarily by Iraqis.

"I'm saying that there is a relationship between al Qaeda senior leadership and Zarqawi. How to characterize that, we don't know yet," Smith said.

"But I cannot tell you right now that al Qaeda has said, 'This is what we want you to do in Iraq.' ... We don't see al Qaeda senior leadership as being a director of tactical level operations."

Smith added, "So I wouldn't characterize it as giving guidance, other than broad philosophy."

Lt. Gen. John Sattler, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Falluja, said on Thursday the offensive begun on November 8 in the former rebel stronghold had "broken the back of the insurgency," disrupting its operations nationwide.

"I think it's too early for me to say, given the broad perspective of Iraq, that the backbone of the insurgency is broken," Smith said.

"We believe the impact of Falluja is to have taken away a very significant safe haven, to have taken away their ability to command and control from a central location."

Smith added that while he believed Zarqawi escaped the city, he was "not absolutely convinced" other senior insurgents were so lucky, including Sheikh Abdullah al-Janabi and Omar Hadid.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last month the Pentagon might elevate U.S. troop levels in Iraq ahead of the elections by delaying the departure of some troops and hastening the arrival of others.

Smith said Central Command may request "an additional brigade's worth of forces" -- roughly 3,000 to 5,000. This would be accomplished mainly by delaying by a couple of months the scheduled departure of Army soldiers, perhaps even beyond the one-year duty in Iraq they had been promised by the Pentagon, he said.

There are 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.

End of Article

CIA: AL-QAEDA CAPABLE OF MAKING 'DIRTY BOMB'

US spy agency’s report warns Al-Qaeda is ready to attempt unconventional attacks against US, its allies.

By Maxim Kniazkov - WASHINGTON

Source For Article

The Al-Qaeda terror network is fully capable of building a radioactive "dirty bomb" targeting the United States and other Western nations and "has crude procedures" for producing chemical weapons, the CIA warned.

In an annual report to Congress on proliferation threats, the US Central Intelligence Agency also repeated Tuesday its insistence that Iran was pursuing "a clandestine nuclear weapons program."

But it remained silent about charges made earlier this month by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who accused Iran of seeking to adapt its missiles to carry nuclear warheads.

Instead, the agency used its strongest terms to alert lawmakers to the threat of terrorist organizations using chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials to harm the United States and its allies, saying the danger of such an attack "remained high."

"One of our highest concerns is Al-Qaeda's stated readiness to attempt unconventional attacks against us," the report pointed out.

The CIA said analysis of an Al-Qaeda document recovered in Afghanistan in the summer of 2002 "indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX."

The network that masterminded the September 11, 2001 attack, intelligence officials said, could also attempt to build a cyanide-based chemical weapon capable of producing a lethal concentration of poisonous gases in an enclosed area.

In addition, Al-Qaeda is keenly interested in radiological dispersal devices, or "dirty bombs." Construction of such a device "is well within its capabilities as radiological materials are relatively easy to acquire from industrial or medical sources," the spy agency warned.

Documents recovered by US forces in Afghanistan show that Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and his associates were engaged in what intelligence officials described as "rudimentary nuclear research."

But the CIA cautioned that the true extent of Al-Qaeda's nuclear program "is unclear," suggesting it could be more advanced than originally thought.

Outside experts, such as Pakistani nuclear engineer Bashir al-Din Mahmood, may have provided assistance to the group in advancing its nuclear program.

Bashir reportedly met with bin Laden and discussed nuclear weapons with him, the CIA said.

US intelligence officials have repeatedly assured they are trying to stay on top of the weapons proliferation threat.

But they also have complained the task is becoming increasingly complex and frustrating as the information age makes technical information increasingly available.

"Nuclear fuel-cycle and weapons-related technologies have spread to the point that, from a technical view, additional states may be able to produce sufficient fissile material and to develop the capability to weaponize it," the CIA said.

It warned that many developing countries advanced toward "at least latent chemical warfare capability" when they expanded their chemical industries into pesticide production.

The agency reiterated its concern that Iran was trying to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle that it intended to use for weapons production at covert facilities unknown to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

But the unclassified version of its report said nothing about alleged clandestine work by Tehran to adopt its existing ballistic missile for a nuclear payload.

The document vaguely mentioned Iran's publicly acknowledged efforts to develop "follow-on versions" of the Shahab-3, its medium-range ballistic missile. However, it stopped short of saying how the missile was being modified.

On North Korea, the CIA said it was continuing to monitor Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program, but this time, offered no assessment of how many warheads the hermit nation might actually possess.

End of Article

GIRL'S KILLING ROILS ISRAELI ARMY

Palestinian's death sets off flurry of recriminations, probes

By Molly Moore

Source of Article

Updated: 9:56 p.m. ET Nov. 27, 2004

JERUSALEM - On the morning of Oct. 5, Iman Hams, a slight girl of 13 wearing a school uniform and toting a backpack crammed with books, wandered past an Israeli military outpost on the Gaza Strip's southern border with Egypt.

The Israeli captain on duty alerted his troops to reports of a suspicious figure about 100 yards from the outpost. Soldiers fired into the air, according to radio transmissions, military court documents and witnesses.

"It's a little girl," a soldier watching from a nearby Israeli observation post cautioned over the military radio. "She's running defensively eastward. . . . A girl of about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

Four minutes later, Israeli troops opened fire on the girl with machine guns and rifles, the radio transmissions indicated. The captain walked to the spot where the girl "was lying down" and fired two bullets from his M-16 assault rifle into her head, according to an indictment against the officer. He started to walk away, but pivoted, set his rifle on automatic and emptied his magazine into the girl's prone body, the indictment alleged.

"This is Commander," the captain said into the radio when he was finished. "Whoever dares to move in the area, even if it's a 3-year-old -- you have to kill him. Over."

Graphic accounts

The girl's body was peppered with at least 20 bullets, including seven in her head, said Ali Mousa, a physician who is director of the Rafah hospital where her corpse was examined.

An investigation was undertaken, and the military's top commanders -- including the chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon -- said repeatedly that the captain had acted properly under the circumstances. But Israeli newspapers published graphic accounts by soldiers who said they witnessed the incident, and Israel's Channel 2 television aired recordings of the radio transmissions.

As a result, the company commander -- identified by the army only as Capt. R -- was indicted this past week on charges of misuse of a firearm, ordering subordinates to lie about the shooting and violation of military regulations. In addition, the military moved to reexamine the investigation, which Yaalon conceded had been "a grave failure" and which the indictment alleged was the subject of an attempted coverup.

The shooting of the schoolgirl added to a growing number of incidents that have spurred Israeli soldiers to speak out about abuses of Palestinians, despite pressure from superiors in the field and statements by senior military officials playing down such cases. Last week, after troops provided photographic evidence to an Israeli newspaper, the military opened an investigation into allegations that soldiers desecrated the bodies of Palestinians killed during army operations.

In a vitriolic meeting of the Israeli parliament's law committee this month, legislator Zahava Galon of the dovish Yahad party said, "The army sends across a message of disregard for human life" with such behavior.

Contradicting claims

Five days after the October incident, Yaalon told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's cabinet that the girl likely had been used as a lure to draw soldiers from the outpost and into the range of Palestinian sniper fire. Yaalon told the cabinet that his investigation showed that the soldiers fired into the air, but when the girl continued walking and tossed her backpack aside, they shot at her, fearful that she might have a bomb.

Under questioning from a cabinet member, Yaalon denied press reports that the commander and other soldiers left the outpost to make sure the girl was dead. At the next cabinet meeting a week later, he went further, saying he believed the captain's account that he was responding to "gunfire aimed at him by firing a burst into the ground" and said the captain offered "a reasonable explanation considering the conditions of the location and the events."

But soldiers who witnessed the incident and told their stories to the Israeli news media eventually forced Yaalon to reverse his claims. Last week, Yaalon conceded that the army's investigation had been a failure, and he said he was "determined to deal with every incident of this type in order to root out every failure of values from the Israel Defense Forces."

"There is no logical reason for what he did," a soldier, who declined to be identified, told the daily newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth a few days after the incident. "Not for shooting the two bullets at her, and certainly not the burst afterward. This is the most sickening thing I have ever seen during my army service. It was desecration of a body. That is not what we are taught to do in the army. . . . The 13-year-old girl was already dead. Why did he fire that burst into her?"

Shmuel Shenfeld, one of the indicted officer's attorneys, said the captain opened fire because of "suspicion of a penetration by a terrorist" near the outpost. He added, "I believe he will be acquitted because he acted the way one has to act in order to neutralize a threat on his soldiers."

Shenfeld denied that the captain pumped bullets into the dead girl, saying he was firing in response to shooting from the direction of the nearby refugee camp.

The indictment issued against the captain alleged that he called several of his subordinate officers and soldiers into his office a week after the incident and "tried to convince" them that they "noticed shooting near the body of the deceased only," rather than shooting at the body. The indictment also accused the captain of asking his men to testify that he hit the body with the burst of fire "by mistake" as he was withdrawing from the area.

Shenfeld said that some soldiers in the unit were trying to frame his client.

Dangerous combat zone

The shooting occurred on the edge of the Rafah refugee camp in the far southwestern corner of the Gaza Strip near the Egyptian border -- the most dangerous combat zone in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The youngster, Iman Hams, dressed in the striped pinafore worn by girls who attend the U.N.-run schools in Gaza's refugee camps, was on her way to class just before 7 a.m. on a Tuesday morning, her 25-year-old brother, Ihab Hams, said in an interview. Her school is located on the edge of the refugee camp, a few hundred yards from the Rafiakh Jewish settlement to the north and an even shorter distance from an Israeli military border post to the west.

When the school called her family to report that she did not show up for classes and that a girl had been shot nearby, Ihab Hams said he raced to the scene to investigate.

"She was going to school like every day, and the soldiers started to shoot," Hams said he was told by a teacher at the school who witnessed the incident. "She was injured in her leg and became hysterical. She started to run. A teacher tried to stop her, but she didn't listen because she was so scared.

"Then they shot her," he said.

When he returned home, his father asked if Iman, one of nine children, was the girl being reported dead on the radio.

" 'No, she's okay,' " Ihab said his father replied. "I stood at the door and I felt so sad. My father asked me again. Then I told him, 'Iman has passed away.' "

End of Article

TERROR EXPERT: AL QAIDA WMD ATTACK ON U.S.A. LIKELY SOON

By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

Article Source

An al-Qaida attack on the US with non-conventional weapons is virtually "inevitable," and the organization is likely "tying up the knots" for such an attack, Yosef Bodansky, former director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

"All of the warnings we have today indicate that a major strike – something more horrible than anything we've seen before – is all but inevitable," he said.

Bodansky, here for the second annual Jerusalem Summit, an international gathering of conservative thinkers, added that "the primary option" for the next al-Qaida attack on US soil would be one that would use weapons of mass destruction.

"I do not have a crystal ball, but this is what all the available evidence tells us, we will have a bang," Bodansky said.

He said that al-Qaida has not carried out a second major attack on the US until now for internal psychological and ideological reasons, but after the reelection of President George W. Bush, it has gotten "the green light" to do so from leading Islamic religious luminaries, as well as from "the elites of the Arab world."

According to Bodansky's reading of Osama bin Laden's mind-set, after the elaborate attacks of 9/11 there was no need for the "bin Ladens of the world" to carry out a second major attack in the US, both because the target audience of the attacks – the Arab and Islamic world – had gotten the message that America could be penetrated, and because a second attack would necessarily have to be more grandiose.

Following the attacks and the US-led war on terror, a debate started within the operational arm of the organization over the potential use of weapons of mass destruction, Bodansky said.

If, in pre-9/11 days, the theme used by bin Laden was that perpetual confrontation and jihad against the US was the only way to protect Islam, the argument now used is the ability to punish American society, Bodansky said.

"Just as the West was challenging the quintessence of Islam by means of the globalization era, there was a parallel need by Islamic extremists to strike at – and hurt – the core of American society, THIS TIME WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION," Bodansky said.

A subsequent theological debate emerged within the organization, and its supporters in the Arab world, he said, over whether the mass killing of innocents is permissible.

While bin Laden and his associates argued that by virtue of their participation in US democracy, US citizens were enabling their rulers to fight, other Islamic luminaries contended that this does not permit such massive attacks, Bodansky said. The reelection of Bush in November, he said, was viewed by bin Laden and his cohorts as a decisive answer to this deliberation, with Americans now "choosing" to be the enemies of Islam. In bin Laden's mind-set, he said, the stage was set for a non-conventional attack.

Bodansky said that while there may still be some vestiges of debate and doubt within Islamic circles, he believes that planing for such an attack is finished. "They got the kosher stamp from the Islamic world to use nuclear weapons," he said.

Moreover, Bodansky said that America is losing the war against terrorism, noting the number of recruits bin Laden is able to count on, as his call to arms gains widespread support throughout the Muslim world.

In the pre-9/11 world, Bodansky said, jihadists could count on 250,000 individuals trained and willing to die, and 2.5 million–5 million people willing to help them in one way or another. He cited intelligence estimates from this summer that suggest that as many as 500,000-750,000 people are willing and trained to die, 10 million are willing to actively support them, short of killing, while another 50 million are willing to support such a movement financially.

End of Article

REPORT: MUSHARRAF SAYS BIN LADEN TRAIL HAS GONE COLD

Source of Article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The search for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has gone cold and there is no indication of his whereabouts, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told the Washington Post in an interview published on Sunday.

Musharraf said Pakistani forces were still aggressively pursuing bin Laden but that recent security operations and interrogation had determined only that he was still alive.

"He is alive, but more than that, where he is, no, it'll be just a guess and it won't have much basis," Musharraf was quoted as saying in the interview.

Pressed about whether bin Laden's trail had gone cold, Musharraf told the Post: "Yes, if you mean we don't know, from that point of view, we don't know where he is."

Musharraf met on Saturday with President Bush, who praised his ally's efforts in the war on terrorism and the search for bin Laden, whose al Qaeda militant network carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

One of the most sensitive issues between the two countries is the unsuccessful three-year hunt along the Afghan-Pakistan border for the al Qaeda leader.

"The president has been a determined leader to bring to justice not only people like Osama bin Laden, but to bring to justice those who would inflict harm and pain on his own people," Bush said after their meeting in the Oval Office.

Musharraf told the Post the U.S.-led coalition did not have enough troops in Afghanistan, which had left "voids." He said the United States and its allies needed to speed the training and expansion of the new Afghan army.

He also denied reports Pakistani troops were withdrawing from the south Waziristan border region, which is considered a possible hiding place for bin Laden.

End of Article

HOSTAGES HELD AT U.S. CONSULATE IN JIDDAH

December 6, 2004

By FAIZA SALEH AMBAH

Source of Article

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - An apparent car bomb exploded outside the heavily guarded U.S. consulate in Jiddah on Monday, injuring several people, and Saudi Arabian security forces said four attackers seized an unknown number of hostages inside the building amid a gunbattle.

American officials said no U.S. casualties were reported after the car exploded just in front of the consulate, located in the city's heart near the Red Sea coastline in the latest strike against Western targets in the kingdom.

A Saudi health official said on condition of anonymity that several people injured in the blast were taken to a hospital in Jiddah, but none were Americans.

Saudi officials had no immediate comment on the blast and nobody claimed responsibility. But Saudi officials have blamed al-Qaida operatives for the string of attacks that have hit the kingdom in the past two years.

Saudi security forces said they believed there were hostages being held inside the U.S. consulate but numbers were unknown. Four attackers remained in the compound where a gunbattle continued more than an hour after the initial blast, according to other Saudi security forces, speaking on condition of anonymity.

U.S. Embassy officials could not be reached for confirmation of that report.

End of Article

Osama bin Laden’s Mandate for Nuclear Terror

Al Qaeda Leader Received Religious Justification to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction

Source of Article
By JINSA Editorial Assistant Kelly Uphoff
December 10, 2004

An Islamic religious ruling that had been kept from the public for a year-and-a-half granted Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders permission to use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons against the United States and its allies. The existence of the ruling, or fatwa, was revealed by Michael Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed the agency’s Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999 during the course of a November 14 broadcast of the CBS news show Sixty Minutes.

The fatwa was issued by a prominent Saudi cleric on May 21, 2003, and is an ominous sign that bin Laden and al Qaeda no longer accept moral or religious values obstructing the use of weapons of mass destruction.

After the September 11 attacks, bin Laden was criticized by many Muslim clerics for attacking the United States without adequate warning. Scheuer, the author, as “Anonymous,” of the recent book Imperial Hubris: How the West is Losing the War on Terror, said bin Laden may now believe he is immune to similar criticism if a similar attack were launched against the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction.

Michael Scheuer CBS PhotoFatwas have been used several times in recent years as justification for anti-Western fervor and terrorist acts including several issued in the late 1990s in defense of Palestinian suicide bombers. These rulings actually served to support the English term ‘homicide bomber’ as the fatwas declared that such an attack was not, in fact, suicide but a “holy” act. Osama bin Laden himself issued a notorious 1998 fatwa on “Urging Jihad Against Americans.” According to Mohammad Faghfoory, a professor of Islam at The George Washington University, Osama bin Laden does not have the mainstream religious authority to issue legitimate fatwas despite his popular appeal. As bin Laden himself is not a religious authority, he has depended on Muslim clerics supportive of his terrorist methods. By providing this legitimacy, these fatwas play an important strategic role for bin Laden and his movement.

Sheik Nasir bin Hamid al Fahd, the cleric who granted the decree concerning WMD, is part of an ultra-conservative trio of Saudi religious leaders that has been relentlessly criticized by the Saudi government for inciting terrorist fervor and supporting terrorist organizations. According to a London-based, Saudi-owned newspaper, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, al Fahd, and his two colleagues, Ali al-Khudayr and Ahmad al-Khaladi, are part of what is known as the “Salafi Jihadi” trend. This movement is part of the recent emergence of a self-proclaimed “utterly pure Islamic model” that began to appear in the late 1990s, at the same time the Taliban regime emerged in Afghanistan. The Salafi School was formed in order to reply “to any criticism of the Taliban’s measures that did not enjoy the approval of prominent scholars of the Islamic world.” The movement simply served to justify any actions condemned by mainstream Islam. To them, the Taliban regime was the most legitimate representative of Islam and anyone who joins the cause of fighting international terrorism, i.e. dismantling Al Qaeda and the Taliban, is an “infidel”.

Al-Arabiya TV station aired a statement 7/29/03 from an Iraqi group calling themselves the Salafi (Fundamentalist) Jihadi Group. The group warned that its members would fight against America. In addition to the fatwa discussed recently by Scheuer, the “Three Takfir Sheikhs”, as they are known in the Arab press, meaning that they accuse others of being infidels, have published several other inflammatory edicts. According to Peter Valenti of the World Press Review, in his January 15, 2004 article, “Renovating the House of Saud”, their numerous decrees have “sanctioned arm resistance against the government”. In a tripartite fatwa released to coincide with a Saudi government hunt for 19 suspected terrorists, the Takfir Sheikhs claimed that “it is categorically forbidden to let down these mujahidin [freedom fighters] - the 19 wanted persons- to stand against them, defame, help those working against them, or report them.” According to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, al Fahd is also extremely radical in his other writings. In “The Truth About Civilization”, al Fahd claimed that “there was no reason to be proud of all the achievements made by Muslim scientists in chemistry, medicine, and mathematics, because they were deviants and heretics.”

The Saudi government stepped up security and anti-terrorism operations across Saudi Arabia after September 11. All three sheiks were arrested in Mecca in June 2003 after their fatwas were connected to several acts of terrorism and anti-government activity in the country.

Sheikh al Fahd is the specific cleric who granted Osama bin Laden and other terrorists carte blanche permission to use weapons of mass destruction. The 25-page document, translated into English as “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction against Infidels” (Risalah fi hukm istikhdam aslihat al-damar al-shamel didh al-kuffar), published on May 21, 2003, resolves several specific moral dilemmas involving the use of WMDs including “the permissibility of attacking the polytheists by night, even if their children are injured” and “that these weapons will kill some Muslims”. Al Fahd meticulously solved these dilemmas, and many others, with his own interpretations of the Qu’ran, the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Mohammed and his companions and the rulings of past Islamic scholars, in order to eliminate any doubt towards the moral justification, and even the moral necessity, of utilizing weapons of mass destruction in the fight against the United States.

Osama bin Laden. First, al Fahd denied that international law, which strongly condemns the use of WMD, should be taken into consideration. Islamic law, in al Fahd’s view and other Islamic extremists, overrides any man-made laws. To the question of whether a nuclear attack would defy the Islamic tenet “that the basic rule in killing is to do it in a good manner”, al Fahd argued that this rule has exceptions in that “one kills in a good manner only when one can”. Following the radical cleric’s logic, it is permissible in certain circumstances to kill women, children, and fellow Muslims in pursuit of waging jihad.

These arguments aside, the basis of al Fahd’s case for weapons of mass destruction seem to be a perversion of the biblical tenet “eye for an eye”. According to al Fahd, an attack against the United States “is permissible merely on the basis of the rule of treating as one has been treated. No other arguments need be mentioned.” He has not described which actions would warrsant such a response, mentioning only “recent events” in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Al Fahd justified the mass casualties and destruction that would be expected to result from an attack of this nature. He wrote in the fatwa that “some brothers” have provided an estimate of the number of Muslims killed by American weapons to total almost ten million; therefore, an attack against America that would take an equal amount of lives is permissible. In his own words, “if a bomb that killed ten million of them and burned as much of their land as they have burned Muslims’ land were dropped on them, it would be permissible, with no need to mention any other argument. We might need other arguments if we wanted to annihilate more than this number of them.”

Al Fahd was criticized by Dr. Ayid al Qarni, a respected cleric and preacher, when both appeared on Saudi national television on November 22, 2003, according to a BBC news report the next day. In response to his colleagues criticism, and because of his self-proclaimed “shock” after the May 12, 2003 terrorist bombing in the Saudi capital of Riyadh that ripped through a large apartment complex, killing 23 people, including nine Americans, al Fahd contradicted many of the statements he made in his earlier fatwas, including the one concerning WMDs.

Al Fahd told television viewers that he “demanded that this interview be conducted to acquit myself of such actions and so that people will know that we do not approve of such acts, which are prohibited.” When asked by al Qarni whether he regretted issuing any of his previous fatwas, al Fahd stated that “yes, there are many fatwas...which contained unbridled enthusiasm, generalizations and mistakes.” However, many Saudis question the sincerity of his statements, as al Fahd was still in prison when he first began to retract his previous fatwas. It is largely acknowledged that the intelligence community believes that Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorist leaders have a strong desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction for attacks against the United States and others. Traditionally, terrorist groups have been more focused on garnering attention for their “cause” and less on mass killings.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during a visit to the site of one of the suicide car bomb attacks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 13, 2003. Robert Jordan, U.S. Ambassador to Saudia Arabia, is standing to the right of Secretary Powell. AP Photo/APTN/pool. A 1999 GAO report noted that the CIA “estimates that terrorist interest in WMD is growing, as is the number of potential perpetrators.” Furthermore, it was revealed in a 1998 grand jury investigation relating to the African embassy bombings that bin Laden “was seeking nuclear weapons and materials, as well as chemical agents.” Some question whether al Qaeda has the ability to acquire such resources and technology, while many are confident that they both can, and have.

A Congressional Research Service report released in 1999, “the key obstacle to building such a weapon is the availability of a sufficient quantity of fissile material - either plutonium or highly enriched uranium.” It has been widely reported that highly enriched uranium (HEU) is the material of choice when building a nuclear weapon because it is easier to handle and safer than plutonium. There are hundreds of tons of HEU around the world including large stockpiles in Russia. The amount needed for a basic device is about 100 pounds, enough to fit into eight soda cans.

Osama bin Laden’s pursuit of HEU from Africa, Europe, and Russia was revealed in the February 2001 testimony of former al Qaeda member Jamal Ahmad Al-Fadl in the trial United States v. Osama bin Laden et al., for the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa.

The specter of “loose nukes”, nuclear weapons materials and technology that have been leaked from the former Soviet Union, potentially ending up in terrorist hands. Scheuer himself, during a November 2004 press event, claimed that al Qaeda decided that procuring the plutonium and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon had proven to be too difficult, “so they’re after a kind of off-the shelf device, if they could find one.” The former Soviet Union would be the most likely place to find such a device. It is an extremely foreboding development that the moral and religious backing to use these weapons serves to overcome yet one more obstacle that stands in the way of a devastating attack.

Although it appears al Fahd may, at least publicly, be backing away from his support of such acts, it is unknown whether bin Laden will also reconsider their moral legitimacy, or if al Fahd’s retraction will have any effect on reducing terrorist acts. Scheuer is skeptical that is it would help to reduce attacks, as the vast majority of people in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world tend to believe that the cleric was forced by the Saudi government to make the statement.

The Arab public sees al Fahd’s retraction, Scheuer explained, to be part of the “typical Saudi shell-game”. There is also the sense that these fatwas are a symptom, rather than a cause, of terrorist sentiment. As Muhammad al Mahfuz, a prominent writer on Islamic affairs, stated in a November 24, 2003 article in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, the sheikh’s “step is not enough. The reason for (the fatwa) remains.”

ZARQAWI IS THE FIRST "PRINCE" IN IRAQ, BUT THE EMPEROR IS BIN LADEN

(Dr. Walid Phares, Terrorism Analyst, MSNBC)

December 28, 2004| 4:31 p.m. ET

Source of Article

MSNBC Cable's Walid Phares
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To understand Usama Bin Laden's latest audiotape aired by al Jazeera, one must understand the ideological background of al Qaida and its perception of the war against the U.S. and its allies. The tape will make sense from an al Qaida's perspective as follows:

1. The master of the Jihadi networks worldwide, UBL, is asserting al Zarqawi's leadership in Iraq, so that all Jihadi forces around the world and the region would assist the latter in his war against the Coalition and the Iraqi interim Government

2. At the same time, Bin Laden is asserting himself as a supreme leader of the network, by showing that he is the one who appoints "emirs." That is an important power, that only Emperors (or Caliphes) of the Islamic State can do. Zarqawi is appointed as a "Prince -Emir" in Iraq, bypassing the other local Islamist leaders. (More background will be made available on this matter soon)

3. The strategic target in Iraq, by al Qaida's plans is to obstruct the electoral process of January 2005. The direct enemy of Jihadism is Democracy, and the disruption of these elections is the most important objective to attain. Not only Bin Laden threaten the Allawi Government but sends a straight message to the other Sunni Islamists, orderign them not to take part. This indicates the existence of a debate among the Islamists themselves about the elections. (More background to be made available later)

4. The audio tape indicates that the type of operations conducted by Zarqawi are accpetable (beheadings, bombings and others) in response to a number of clerics who are opposing the "operations " against civilians, including Shiites. But at thye same time, Usama's message shows a trend to "concentrate" Zarqawi's operations on a particular type of targets

5. From a variety of points made, and style in Arabic, one can foresee that the message aims at calling on Zarqawi and al other Jihadists to focus on the best ways to crush the elections. (Backgrounds to be sent later)

6. The issue of the "messenger" — al Jazeera — is still raising issues in the Arab world, especially in Iraq. Sources are advancing many points about the reasons the tapes are constantly sent to al Jazeera, and why would the network be able to widen the "analysis" of Bin Laden, and make it accessible to millions of viewers via a number of "experts" on the Islamists movements, as was the case with this latest tape. The commentators seemed to rationalize the message to the masses, while the entire audio was repeated for many times. Al Jazeera's says it is a "newsworthy item." Analysts responds that the repetition of the whole audio, followed by sympathetic "panels" is a reproduction of thye actual audiotape.