Eric Umansky

'Online University' for Jihad

The Jamestown Foundation has the latest on how the al-Qaida movement's propensity for what my colleague Bob Wright calls terro-vangelism:

An Online "University" for Jihad

In an interesting new development, the al-Qaeda network is making strides to present itself as a permanent cultural—as well as military—phenomenon. An October 7 posting on the al-Farouq jihadi forum (www.al-farouq.com) by Ahmad al-Wathiq bi-Llah, the "deputy general emir" of the Global Islamic Media Front, announced what it referred to as an "al-Qaeda University of Jihad Studies." The accompanying statement explained that "al-Qaeda is an organization, a state and a university, this is a fact which cannot be denied." Readers, it noted, might be amused by the headline, but the writer simply refers them to the experience of al-Qaeda's origins in Afghanistan: "it began with the Bureau of Services, the Bait al-Ansar and the al-Farouq Training Camp… until it reached the present stage."

The author then reflects on al-Qaeda's achievements made on the Internet, "Since the events of the USS Cole and Manhattan, hundreds of Muslims from all corners of the world have joined this global jihadist university, studying all the sciences, rules and methods of jihad." The method of enrollment may differ, as indeed the methods of instruction and application of training, "but it is a tangible reality for the enemies of the Nation and the Faith; a de-centralized university without geographical borders, present in every place."

The author also points to a phenomenon much under-appreciated by Western observers: that the "affiliation" to jihad and its aims is more than a matter of military training, but involves just as much intensive ideological and morale training. "Graduates" of the university, he explains, are specialists in "electronic jihad, media jihad, spiritual and financial jihad," passing through the "faculties" dedicated to both morale and explosive package technology and exploding cars and trucks." He warns that these graduates of al-Qaeda University are still learning, but "shall wreak slaughter upon the enemy in the coming days" and closes with a call for more students in the cause of striving for the Caliphate (www.al-farouq.com).

'Islamic Hacker Army'

I've always been among those who've thought  that the threat e-terrorism has been overblown.  A few years ago, when talk of cyberterrorism was all around, the Washington Monthly did a big skeptics' take, which I more or less agreed with:   

There is no such thing as cyberterrorism--no instance of anyone ever having been killed by a terrorist (or anyone else) using a computer. Nor is there compelling evidence that al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has resorted to computers for any sort of serious destructive activity. What's more, outside of a Tom Clancy novel, computer security specialists believe it is virtually impossible to use the Internet to inflict death on a large scale, and many scoff at the notion that terrorists would bother trying.

"I don't lie awake at night worrying about cyberattacks ruining my life," says Dorothy Denning, a computer science professor at Georgetown University and one of the country's foremost cybersecurity experts. "Not only does [cyberterrorism] not rank alongside chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, but it is not anywhere near as serious as other potential physical threats like car bombs or suicide bombers."

All true enough. But we might want to be careful about claiming  there's no evidence of jihadis trying trying to use the Internet to cause at least some level of mayhem.  This is  the latest from the, respected Jamestown Foundation:

A new section on the jihadist al-Farouq web forum [www.al-farouq.com/vb], created two weeks ago, contains postings that call for heightened electronic attacks against U.S. and allied government websites and provides information for mujahid hackers.

This forum represents a how-to manual for the disruption and/or destruction of enemy electronic resources, including e-mail, websites and computer hardware. Such attacks have been threatened by Osama bin Laden and Syrian-born Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad, dating back to mid-2002. It appears that forum members are taking up the call, sharing information and discussing strategies online. An initial survey of the forum includes detailed instructions and attached software, in addition to links to other websites containing similar utilities....

Additionally, a participant on the al-Farouq forum calling himself ‘achrafe' submitted a formal proposal to form an operations unit within the fledgling "Islamic Hacker Army" (Jaish al-Hacker al-Islami). In his report, he lists the advantages of working to organize the electronic jihad community, as in denial of service attacks, which are much more potent when carried out simultaneously. Furthermore, those with new technical knowledge could more easily share such information within a solid group. Such a structure, implemented online, would facilitate the transmission of information both up and down the chain of command.

Denial of service attacks... that's not very impressive. But it's worth knowing that whatever the the likely limitations, jihadis at least are still hacking away, or least thinking about it.

Behind the Scoops

A few years ago, during the run-up to the war in Iraq, I was quoted in a British paper lamenting the spoon-fed scoops we were seeing in the papers.

"It's a very cynical game," I was quoted as saying. "The reporters know these stories are nonsense and they know they are being used. But it's an exclusive. It's an exclusive built on air, but CNN says 'according to the New York Times', so the paper's happy, and it stays out there for a whole news cycle. So what if it's popcorn?"

I've always been ambivalent about that quote.  It gets the gist right but strikes me as overheated and imprecise. But ever once in a while a story pops up that makes me feel like the quote was (nearly*) right on the money.

Today's NYT dropped one such story on  Page One. And I went after it in Today's Papers. (Nearly two-thirds of my column does with that story.)

* I say nearly because, contrary to what I apparently said, I don't think reporters  "know these stories are nonsense." They just don't know that the stories are true--there's a difference.   

UPDATE: JustOneMinute also raises some serious red flags with the NYT's story.

An Interesting Catch from Zawahiri Video

The Jamestown Foundation notices what the video didn't include: Any real claim of responsibility for the London attacks.  The JF calls folks that the "strongest pointer yet" that AQ Central wasn't involved in any concrete  way.

If you have the time, the JF also has a scary post about how jihadist web sites have detailed how-to-guides for building  the kinds of  bombs that hit the Underground.

 

Primer on al-Qaida (or al-Qaidaism)

The Christian Science Monitor has just published a good one. It goes into more detail than your average overview but still lands on read this in under three-minutes-or-less side. It's particularly good explaining how Salafism fits into the picture. (And if you don't know what the Salafi movement is, well, perfect, read the summary.)

Behind the Attacks

Last night I tweaked the Wash Post for Page One'ing speculation that Osama himself was behind the recent attacks. Just FYI, yesterday's  NYT had the  opposite (and non-speculative take):
"MANY BOMBS BUT LINKS ARE UNCLEAR." Describing attacks from Bali to Casablanca to Madrid and London, the Times say:

to date, none have been traced to Osama bin Laden, the fugitive leader of Al Qaeda, or to other pivotal leaders of what American officials now call Al Qaeda central, to distinguish from its offshoots, admirers and those who its successes have simply inspired.

That's not sexy reporting--so it doesn't land on Page One. But it does have the benefit of being honest.

P.S. Now I'm really leaving... and will be back Tuesday.

But before I go...

I will say this Page One Wash Post piece  struck me as questionable:

LONDON, July 23 -- The back-to-back nature of the deadly attacks in Egypt and London, as well as similarities in the methods used, suggests that the al Qaeda leadership may have given the orders for both operations and is a clear sign that Osama bin Laden and his deputies remain in control of the network, according to interviews with counterterrorism analysts and government officials in Europe and the Middle East.

It's not that the thesis is wrong. Maybe  Osama is sending out detailed to-dos lists. I don't know--and neither the Post. The thesis is entirely based on speculation. How exactly is  "it clear" that Bin Laden is still in control? Consider this passage,  far down into the story:

Counterterrorism investigators and analysts said it was highly unlikely that the people who organized the July 7 London bombings were directly involved in the Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. But they predicted that both plots would eventually be traced directly to al Qaeda.

The honest headline would have been: "EXPERTS GUESS  AL QAEDA LEADERS ARE IN CONTROL AND ORDERED  LONDON, EGYPT BOMBINGS."

The Post does eventually made  a good observation, it's just a slightly more limited picture.  Investigators have found links between the attacks in Casablanca, the ones in Madrid, and a set of attacks in Saudi Arabia. Maybe London and Egypt will join that list. In any case, the first three connections do suggest that there seem to still be a cadre of global jihadists rather than the local franchisees model of AQ that has been in vogue.  That's worth knowing. 

Jihadists in Iraq getting selective about foreign recruits

That's according to a post on a jihadi web site that the  terrorist watchdogs at the Jamestown Foundation noticed. Here's an excerpt from the post:

‘Advice to Brothers Seeking Jihad in Iraq'

 

"First of all the brothers should know that the situation of the mujahideen in Iraq is entirely stable, and that they are not suffering at all from any shortfall in mujahideen. After more than two years the mujahideen have passed the preparatory phase and consequently they no longer need more numbers, rather they are in need of clearly defined specializations that will be of use to them … and does not constitute a burden upon them.

So what is required at present is above all material support, and high military and jihadist expertise. Very young [volunteers] who have no significant material resources are an additional burden on the mujahideen and present good fodder for the Tyrants, either as victims or as prisoners.

 

So enough wannabes want into Iraq that jihadist groups feel the need to dissuade them? I'm assuming the post is authentic and not all spin (i.e. like the annoying  bar I was at last week that was half empty but kept people waiting outside to create the impression it was hot).

If it is genuine, then count me among those who find it  scary. Untrained youngin' can be a burden--anybody who's worked with interns knows that.  But in the case of Iraq,  they do have utility: They can be suicide bombers. There are  obviously plenty of open positions for them--there were about 200 suicide attacks in the first six months of this year.  Bombers don't need  expertise or much training. And yet, a jihadist group is saying, essentially, "we have enough cannon fodder" thanks.

Maybe Iraqi nationals are now signing up in significant numbers. Or maybe the jihadists are getting  picky beause the  foreign inflow is actually outpacing the high demand for bombers.  Whatever the case, the "Class of '05" seems to have plenty of applicants.

A "mastery of the method of doing explosions"

The NYT is reporting this:

LONDON, July 11 - British investigators believe that the 10-pound bombs used in the coordinated terrorist attacks here contained "military quality" high-grade explosives, British and European counterterrorism officials said Monday [...]

On Monday, a senior European-based counterterrorism official with access to intelligence reports said the new information on the material indicated that the bombs were "technically advanced." The official added: "There seems to be a mastery of the method of doing explosions. This was not rudimentary. It required great organization and was well put together."

Where did they get their expertise? Maybe--as some investigators speculate in the Wall Street Journal--the men who did this are connected to the Madrid bombings. But of course there's another possibility: The Class of '05  might just have done its first post-graduate work.

Sobering

Read TNR's Spencer Ackerman on the "Class '05 Problem":

In between the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, an Islamic extremist in a place like Europe had little opportunity to gain terrorist expertise to match his aspirations. He could scour the Internet for numerous jihadist how-to guides, which, to be sure, provide a great wealth of dangerous practical knowledge. *

Iraq is closing the loop between terrorist desire and terrorist ability. [A] Parisian or Milanese jihadist wannabe can now learn online which mosque in Syria to visit in order to meet the right middleman to smuggle him into Iraq, where Anbar province-based terrorist cells are eager for new recruits. Once in Iraq, he can learn all about remote-detonated improvised explosive devices and urban combat--extremely valuable skills for him to take back home, where he can pass them along to his associates. In May, classified CIA and State Department analyses warned about the serious threat that such terrorist "bleed out" from Iraq poses to U.S. national security.

Already, according to Knight Ridder, tactics used by insurgents in Iraq are showing up in places like Afghanistan, where there has been a recent upsurge in Al Qaeda and Taliban attacks. It may only be a matter of time before they show up in Europe--and, eventually, here in the United States. Last year in Madrid and, most likely, yesterday in London, we saw what destruction jihadists without Iraq experience can inflict; those with Anbar province on their resumes can almost certainly do worse. Barring a dramatic reversal of our fortunes in Iraq, the class of '05 may soon be ready to seek some horrific post-graduation employment.

###
* There was always Chechnya and to a lesser degree, Bosnia. But I think the overall point is still holds: Iraq has become  both a recruiting tool and a training one. And one day, we may be faced with the consequences.