Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


All quiet on the al-Qaeda front

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 January 2008
Even supporters of the militant Islamist group are in the dark over its plans as deputy leader fails to answer questions
IN AN extraordinary exercise, al-Qaeda's deputy leader submitted himself to questions from followers of the Islamic militant group – as yet though, Ayman al-Zawahri hasn't given answers.

Al-Sahab, al-Qaeda's media arm, announced in Decembe
r that he would answer questions posted on Islamic militant websites and would respond "as soon as possible".

More than 900 entries were posted on the main Islamist website until the cut-off date of 16 January. After that, the questions disappeared from the site, but no answers have appeared.

One thing is clear from the questions: al-Qaeda supporters are as much in the dark about the terrorist network's operations and intentions as western analysts and intelligence agencies.

Like many in the West, the questioners appear uncertain whether al-Qaeda's central leadership directly controls the multiple small groups that work in its name, or whether those groups operate on their own.

The vast majority of questioners, identified only by computer usernames, support al-Qaeda or the jihadi cause, often expressing praise for "our beloved sheik" and "the lion of jihad, Sheik Osama (bin Laden]". However, many appear frustrated that al-Qaeda is not doing more.

"Seeking the Path" asks: "When will we see the men of al-Qaeda waging holy war in Palestine? Because, frankly, our situation has become very bad. As for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, are there efforts to revive jihadi action there after the blows that hurt us?"

"Osama the Lion" asks: "Why doesn't al-Qaeda open a front in Egypt, where there are wide opportunities and fertile ground for drawing in mujahedeen?"

"Knight of Islam" asks: "We are awaiting a strike against American soil. Why has that not been done? Why are the Jews in the world not struck?"

Zawahri has repeatedly spoken in videos of opening new fronts against all those lands, but little has occurred. Saudi Arabia has waged a fierce crackdown that has killed or captured many in al-Qaeda's branch there.

In 2005, Zawahri announced the formation of a branch in his homeland, Egypt, but nothing has been heard of it, although the country has suffered terrorist attacks.

Zawahri always depicts al-Qaeda as moving steadily toward victory, which none of the questioners directly challenges. But they seem in need of reassurance about al-Qaeda's plans.

"I think (al-Qaeda's leaders] were aware (that] … everyone was no longer buying into the propaganda about how great they are," said Jeremy Binnie of Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre. "This was put forward as a propaganda exercise and to make it look like they are responding to these concerns."

A few claim to be active fighters in militant groups. "Phenixshadow" says he is a member of the al-Qaeda branch in North Africa that has been blamed for attacks in Algeria. "What do you expect from us?" he asks. "Should we follow the instruction of the mother organisation to target the 'far enemy' – the Zionist-Crusader (the US] – or do we focus our efforts on the apostate regime (Algeria]? Or do you advise a middle path of striking both enemies?"

Another hot topic is Iran. Several ask why al-Qaeda does not attack the mainly Shiite nation. They express concern over rumours of an understanding between al-Qaeda and Iran.

Many others simply ask for advice on how and where to join jihad. One 23-year-old living with his mother says: "I want to travel to join jihad and I sought my mother's permission, but she would not give it to me. Can I go without her permission?"

CAN WE REALLY BELIEVE IT?

IT IS impossible to confirm independently whether any of the questioners are really active fighters, or that the interview offer really came from Ayman al-Zawahri, although it was posted with the logo of Al-Sahab, which issues his videotapes.

But most questions focus on the same issues western terrorism experts have long debated, including how much direct support and command Zahwari and Osama bin Laden give to militants in Arab countries and Europe.

Some query al-Qaeda's long-term strategy. One asks: "Do you have a body that studies events and reviews them to correct mistakes and assess them?"

Others ask about the health of bin Laden.



The full article contains 733 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 January 2008 11:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 22/01/2008 11:43:40
"What do you expect from us?" he asks. "Should we follow the instruction of the mother organisation to target the 'far enemy' – the Zionist-Crusader (the US] – or do we focus our efforts on the apostate regime (Algeria]? Or do you advise a middle path of striking both enemies?"

Allah says you should relax more. Watch a movie. Take up fishing.
2

Lock,

22/01/2008 14:25:52
'All quiet on the al-Qaeda front'

Electricity prices are obviously beginning to bite. They are obviously cutting back on the caves with the film studios in them and concentrating on the caves that have the kidney dialysis machines.
3

Silence of the Yams,

22/01/2008 17:00:13
The Qu'ran is a jumbled load of violent and contradictory mumbo jumbo, so no surprise its fascist interpretors are also confused.
4

An Beal Bacht,

22/01/2008 20:00:45
During the holidays I was depressed, so I called a help line. I got a call centre in Pakistan. When I told them I was suicidal they got all excited and asked if I knew how to drive a truck!
5

57Nomad,

california 22/01/2008 20:05:13
#5 An Beal Bacht,

Nice one!
6

ddmc,

22/01/2008 20:29:51
#4 have you read it ?
7

Cyril,

New Zealand 22/01/2008 23:47:43
The very people the USA armed to fight against the Russian occupation are now fighting the Americans. What was wrong with letting the Russians into Afghanistan. The Russians were driven out and now it is the turn of the USA.
8

Lynne,

USA 23/01/2008 01:41:19
#5...that's a good one!!
9

57Nomad,

california 23/01/2008 05:16:41
#8 cyril

Cyril said:

"The very people the USA armed to fight against the Russian occupation are now fighting the Americans. What was wrong with letting the Russians into Afghanistan. The Russians were driven out and now it is the turn of the USA."

I don't think that there is a turnsies imperative in this situation. The difference is this. Every Afghan worthy of the name was fighting against the Russians. We supported the Northern Alliance who are Afghanis. This is a major difference. The only troublemakers now are the talibs but they are now anything but an all Afghani force. Their many openings are being filled with foreign jihadis. They have no support among the Afghan population. They are viewed as the invaders and the Afghan people are resisting them. You can tell this is true because they are hiding out in Pakistan instead of mingling with a sympathetic population.

During WWII we supported the Russians and supplied them with much of the wherewithal they used to fight the Germans. After the war we stationed 300,000 American troops in Europe for 50 years to keep the Russians on their side of the curtain. Did that make it a bad move to support them against the Nazis? Of course not. You think you are making a telling point but you're not.
10

American,

23/01/2008 21:35:37
#5-abb-lol.
11

American,

23/01/2008 21:39:14
#7-ddmc-No one has to read the quran to know its full of violence. All you have to do is read stories like the previous one about the young man who's going to be put to death because he "insulted" islam. Or, look again at the islamic protesters signs calling for beheadings of those who arent islamic. The signs are all around you pal. Just open your eyes (and your mind) and you'll see it.
12

PhantomWolf,

NZ 23/01/2008 22:31:01
Re: #8/#10

"The very people the USA armed to fight against the Russian occupation are now fighting the Americans. What was wrong with letting the Russians into Afghanistan. The Russians were driven out and now it is the turn of the USA."

This really shows a lack of understanding of history, so much so it is completely wrong. First off the US never armed the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. Bin Laden's group during the Afghanistan war gained it funding via Islamic charities and Saudi sponsors, while at that point in time the Taliban didn't exist. The US for the most part supplied money and weapons to Pakistan who then determined who to pass them onto, mostly to a commander by the name of Hekmatyar who was to become Afghanistan's President after the fall of the Communist Government. Groups inside the State Department did supply money and some weapons directly to Commander Massoud (who would become Afghanistan's PM after the Communist fall, and then leader of the Northern Alliance after the Taliban take over) but this was very little compared to the amount the CIA was giving to Pakistan.

Suggesting that the US should have just let the Soviets into Afghanistan because they were kicked out is very ignorant. The only reason that the Soviets had to pull out of Afghanistan was because of the support of the US, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia for those standing against the Soviet Union. Had that support not be forthcoming the small rebel units that were fighting the Soviet invasion would have been crushed and Pakistan would have been trapped between a socialist India and a communist Afghanistan. On top of that the Soviet borders would have been extended down to Iran. This would have changed the face of the Cold War. With the ability to strike into Iran, the Soviets would have had the ability to have cut oil supplies to the entire western world, and Pakistan could have easily ceased to exist as a nation with a Soviet supported India pressing from one side and the USSR from the other
13

PhantomWolf,

NZ 23/01/2008 22:32:27
Cont.

Afghanistan was a war fought to halt the spread of Communism down through Central Asia into the Middle East.

The Taliban didn't come onto the scene until well after the Soviet withdrawal, and if it had not been for the constant war being fought between Massoud and Hekmatyar they might not have come to prominence at all. With the constant fighting between those two commanders despite many attempts at negotiating a peace by various groups (The US, UN, Britain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and even Bin Laden), the Pakistanis threw in their support in behind the Taliban and helped them to come to dominance. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda aided this after they moved their base to Kandahar after the US had them booted out of Sudan in 1995. At that point the US had ceased all fund to Afghanistan for six years. (This was with the expectation of a buy back scheme where they were buying back Stinger Missiles, however the Taliban never received any payments as they refused to sell back any of their captured missiles, claiming they planned to use them on Iran once they had taken all of Afghanistan.)
14

PhantomWolf,

NZ 23/01/2008 22:32:49
cont.

The US never supported the Taliban (much to the Pakistanis annoyance) and refused to recognise them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Nor were they willing to support the Northern Alliance in any way that might have an overall outcome on the war. from 1999 onwards The CIA did however supply equipment and money to Massoud for operations that were to track and attempt to capture Bin Laden is it was possible. This was a legal minefield though and their funding was extremely limited.

The Taliban itself started out from the many Madras's formed, often by the Saudis, along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. They learned a strict form of Wahhabi Islam which they mixed with their own Afghan culture. This what they have attempted to spread across Afghanistan. To start with they gained a lot of support from Afghanis, many thought that their goal was the return of the Afghani King. Over time however it became oblivious this was not going to happen and the Afghan people started to turn against them, often resulting in the assassinations of those that spoke out and/or their families. This includes the current Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose father was killed for speaking out after being a long time supporter of the Taliban. By the time that 9/11 occurred and the US decided to help the Northern Alliance rid Afghanistan of the Taliban for their continued harbouring of Bin Laden, most of the Afghani people wanted the Taliban gone.

Today the majority of the Taliban are supported by Jihadis from outside of Afghanistan, still being trained in the camps along the Pakistan Afghanistan borders. These are hard to deal with because the terrain is foreboding and the people have no laws but their own, rarely recognising any outside governance. They are loyal to the Taliban and Bin Laden supporting their goals. This situation wasn't created by the US, but rather by those that went to Peshawar during the 1970's-1990's and brought with them the tenants that would be
15

PhantomWolf,

NZ 23/01/2008 22:33:53
cont.

This situation wasn't created by the US, but rather by those that went to Peshawar during the 1970's-1990's and brought with them the tenants that would become the Taliban lore. It was the work of the Saudi Imams and the Pakistani ISS support for the radical Islamic Brotherhood that created the situation there, a problem that continues to fester there and likely will for some time to come.

Good reading on the subject of the US and CIA involvement in Afghanistan can be found in Books such as Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" or "Charlie Wilson's War" by George Crile (now a major motion picture being released over the next few months.) For more information on Al Qaeda and its roots, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower" is an excellent book.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.