These two charts show dramatic decreases in the confidence that Muslims have in Bin Laden and suicide bombing. There are huge drops from 2008-2009 when Obama took over, but there were also significant decreases all during most of the Bush years.

One pessismistic interpretation however is that confidence in Bin Laden is decreasing, not because confidence in terrorism as a response to globalization/westernization/whatever, but that confidence in Bin Laden the person is decreasing even though confidence in the cause of terrorism may be steady or increasing. As I recently read, and this shows how out of touch I am with current events, Bin Laden is not really considered by the government to be the leader of Al Qaeda anymore. According to the state department, that honor goes to Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the former #2 man of the group. So, it might be that the decline in confidence in Bin Laden really just represents his falling out of favor compared to Al-Zawahiri, and shows nothing about people’s judgment about Al Qaeda’s goals.

As for the suicide bombings, I don’t have a ready-at-hand pessimistic interpretation. Although, just because the general populace becomes more critical of suicide bombings does not necessarily mean there will be less of them. All that matters is that the small minority of those who do believe in suicide bombings continue to exist and to execute attacks.

EFE:

El “número dos” de Al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri, ha llamado de nuevo a la guerra santa en Pakistán y ha calificado a su Ejército de agente de las tropas extranjeras, en un vídeo difundido hoy en una página web islamista.

En la grabación, cuya autenticidad no pudo ser verificada, Al Zawahiri señaló que “las zonas fronterizas afgano-pakistaníes son escenario de una expedición cruzada (de las tropas extranjeras), lideradas y supervisadas por el Ejército de Pakistán, que participa como nuevo agente de los cruzados”.

Para Al Zawahiri, la actual ofensiva del Ejercito pakistaní en el valle septentrional de Swat, tiene el objetivo de establecer un puente con las fuerzas de la OTAN y el Ejército afgano “para poner a los ‘muyahidines’ (guerreros santos) entre la espada y la pared”.

“Los agentes de los cruzados en el Ejército pakistaní llaman a la expedición ‘camino de la salvación”, pero será el camino de su aniquilación”, amenazó Al Zawahiri, que aparece en el vídeo con una túnica y turbante blancos, delante de una estantería con libros.

Transcript of the last video from Al-Zarqawi via The Counterterrorism Blog:

The NEFA Foundation has obtained a new video recording produced by Al-Qaida’s As-Sahab Media Foundation featuring Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri and titled, “The Path of Doom.” During his sermon, Dr. al-Zawahiri sharply condemned the Pakistani military campaign to restore control over restive regions in the northwest near the Afghan border — particularly in Waziristan and Swat. According to al-Zawahiri, “the war in the tribal areas and Swat is an inseparable part of the Crusaders’ assault on the Muslims the length and breadth of the Islamic world.” As a result, “the Pakistan Army is acting as a fundamental element of the Crusade against Islam and Muslims, and has become a tool in the hands of the global Crusade.” Dr. al-Zawahiri suggested that there is only one means available “to get out of this predicament which Pakistan has gotten itself into: it is through Jihad, and there is no way other than Jihad.”

The transcript can be downloaded here (PDF).

Before:
AQ’s Al-Zawahiri urges support to “Pakistan Jihad”.

El lugarteniente de Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, ha vuelto a aparecer en un vídeo difundido para llamar a la guerra santa en Pakistán a cuyo Ejército ha calificado de agente de las tropas extranjeras.

Una semana después de la confirmación de la muerte del líder de los talibán paquistaníes, Beitulá Mehsud, Al Qaeda ha difundido un vídeo de 22 minutos de duración en el que Al Zawahiri ha exhortado a la población a luchar contra las tropas extranjeras. “Los agentes de los cruzados en el Ejército paquistaní llaman a la expedición ‘camino de la salvación’, pero será el camino de su aniquilación”, amenazó el líder terrorista.

Al Zawahiri instó a “la nación islámica de Pakistán” a que se dé cuenta de que “EEUU está lanzando una cruzada sin precedentes contra la nación musulmana para controlar Pakistán y dividirlo en miniestados bajo la influencia de los cruzados”. Según el número dos de Al Qaeda, las Fuerzas Armadas paquistaníes planean lanzar un ataque a tres bandas en la zona para capturar las principales ciudades de la región de Waziristán.

Al Qaeda no ha desaparecido
La organización terrorista que lidera Osama Bin Laden está pertrechada en la frontera entre Afganistán y Pakistán desde 2002, concretamente en las demarcaciones de Waziristán del Norte y Waziristán del Sur, al amparo de los talibán paquistaníes.

Al Qaeda dispone de unas instalaciones desde las que lleva a cabo el adoctrinamiento y la capacitación terrorista en una zona que le sirve de refugio desde que abandonaran su resguardo en Afganistán a finales de 2001, donde se encontraban desde 1996.

Al Zawahiri instó a “la nación islámica de Pakistán” a que se dé cuenta de que “EEUU está lanzando una cruzada sin precedentes contra la nación musulmana para controlar Pakistán y dividirlo en miniestados bajo la influencia de los cruzados”

El grupo terrorista, lejos de haberse convertido en una ideología o en un movimiento de inspiración a grupúsculos terroristas, promueve y perpetra atentados, incluso con medios no convencionales, en las sociedades occidentales. Asimismo, Al Qaeda promueve y facilita campañas terroristas en países con una población de mayoría musulmana así como en regiones africanas y asiáticas.

Al tiempo, Al Qaeda se ha reconvertido en los últimos ocho años y ahora también emanan de ella extensiones territoriales dependientes del centro radicado en Pakistán y organizaciones afines e incluso células independientes inspiradas por la propaganda emitida por el grupo terrorista a través de Internet.

He accused Obama of “supporting a Palestinian State that would do the bidding of the Israelis”. He added:

“Israel is a crime that needs to be wiped out,” said al-Zawahiri, who likened the policies of the current U.S. president to those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. “The promises of the two states and ending the settlements were made by Bush, so what’s new? This is the continuation of the same Zionist crusader crime against Muslims since the end of World War II.”

Read the Islamic genocide Plan. No changes really.

AQ has also given Obama Conditions for Truce: “The minimum the mujahideen would accept (includes) … the exit of infidel troops from all of the land of Islam and an end to stealing Muslims’ wealth under the threat of military power.” Wow, how generous…

By the way, that part about stealing Muslim wealth “under the threat of military power”, can’t be really considered as what they do under the name of “Islamic jizya“?

Tags Technorati: Al-Qaeda, Judeophobia, Palestine, Israel, al-Zawahiri, George W. Bush, Obama, US, Middle East, terrorism, Islamic terrorism

FOR THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE POST: HERE

Quando quell’aitante signore dalla pelle nera, con qualche striatura di grigio tra i capelli, è salito sul palco all’Università de Il Cairo ho avvertito una sensazione forte, quel genere di appassionata intuizione che ti coglie quando comprendi di essere di fronte alla Storia.

-”Sono venuto a Il Cairo perché tra gli Stati Uniti e i musulmani del mondo ci sia un nuovo inizio”-.

Con un discorso di oltre quarantacinque minuti, e non con un colpo di spugna, Barack Obama ha girato pagina, ha chiuso una porta e ne ha spalancata un’altra.

Le sue parole non hanno ancora sconfitto l’odio serpeggiante nei confronti dell’America, non hanno resuscitato i morti, convertito i kamikaze, dissinnescato le bombe.

Ma, per coloro che lo hanno ascoltato, è bastato che salisse sul palco e pronunciasse quelle frasi perché l’epoca più buia dello “scontro di Civiltà”, gli anni recenti del conflitto e della tensione, sembrassero  bruscamente superati, vinti, quasi appartenessero ad un’altra era.

Retorica vuota, aria fritta, vacue parole: le critiche di pragmatici, rassegnati e disillusi sono state tante.

Eppure, chi all’improvviso suona vuota, arcaica e obsoleta, è la dottrina di Al Qaeda. 

Dopo Obama e la fulminea accelerazione da lui impressa alla Storia, non si può ascoltare la litania di un caporale di Osama Bin Laden senza stupirsi di quanto sia insipida e arretrata. Sembra provenire da un’epoca preistorica, dagli abissi della cecità umana, e sopratutto emana un puzzo di vecchio, marcio, irrimediabilmente scaduto e sorpassato.

Obama è arrivato con la potenza di un asteroide, è apparso nel nostro mondo come un Messia, come Gesù Cristo, come il primo tra i Profeti. E’ stato cantato come un Eroe mitologico, è diventato un’icona, innalzato al cielo come simbolo, esposto come una bandiera, esibito come un talismano.

E’ sufficiente varcare la porta di una qualunque libreria e contare le Biografie, ufficiali o meno, a lui dedicate per rendersene conto. La potenza della sua allegoria, dei suoi slogan, della sua immagine ci circonda e ci travolge, con tutta la potenza della retorica pop e del marketing dell’America.

La sua pelle nera, il suo sorriso giovane e carismatico, sono stati investiti del compito supremo di riallacciare i nodi spezzati del passato. Di purificare la coscienza della Nazione che, mentre si erigeva a Terra Promessa della Libertà, sanciva la più brutale schiavitù nera al rango di modello statale. Di portare a termine quel cammino di espiazione che da Abraham Lincoln, passando per Rosa Parks, a Martin Luther King, forma la spina dorsale dell’anima d’America.

Troppo per un uomo solo.

Eppure, nel caso di Obama si è propensi a credere alla favola dell’Uomo singolo e del suo ruolo eccezionale.

La sua presenza, la sua azione, il suo carisma e, certo, anche il colore della sua pelle hanno reso possibile il realizzarsi di qualcosa che sembrava impossibile.

Sembrava pura eresia, infatti, che dopo l’undici settembre, dopo la guerra Afghanistan e in Iraq, dopo le bombe di Madrid, Sharm El Sheik, Londra e Mumbai, il Presidente della più potente Nazione occidentale varcasse le porte di una Università islamica tra gli applausi e lì, con gli occhi di tutti i musulmani del mondo puntati addosso, tendesse loro la mano.

Obama è una rockstar, ne ha il fascino e l’incanto, ma è pur sempre un essere umano. Come tale, indossa il vestito che gli hanno cucito addosso, molto più grande di quello che è in realtà.

Ma questo essere umano, con sulle sue spalle l’intero pianeta, e i sogni, le speranze, le seghe mentali di tutti coloro che ci vivono, ha intrapreso un passo che andava al di là di ogni umana immaginazione.

Merita rispetto, ammirazione, un sorriso e magari anche un applauso.

Cari neo-con e cari terroristi,

Nel caso abbiate altro veleno da vomitare, ed altre bombe da scoppiare, non sarà la nostra aria fritta, o come vogliate chiamarla, a fermarvi.

Sappiate però che il mondo corre, noi siamo già lontani, siamo veloci. Vogliamo scrivere altre pagine, e voi siete rimasti indietro.

 Osama Bin Laden, the 25th son of Mohammed Bin Laden, a Saudi billionaire of Yemeni origins, carries a USD 25 Million price tag on his head. Among his alleged claim to fame are being Number One on the FBI Top 10 Most Wanted list, wanted for the bombing of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (1998), creating a gaping hole in the skyline of New York City (what is commonly referred to as 9/11), and finding a way to speak from the grave.

Around the end of 2001, OBL was thought to be dead by several governments around the world, including that of George W. Bush. His video released in December 2001 prompted the following comments from CNN Terrorism analyst Peter Bergen:

“This is a man who was clearly not well. I mean, as you see from these pictures here, he’s really, by December he’s looking pretty terrible. But by December, of course, that tape that was aired then, he’s barely moving the left side of his body. So he’s clearly got diabetes. He has low blood pressure. He’s got a wound in his foot. He’s apparently got dialysis … for kidney problems.

I mean, this is a man who has a number of health problems, apart from the fact that anybody running around the Afghan mountains is not going to be in great shape.”

A wounded, almost dying OBL in 2001 revived miraculously and was in the best of health in 2004 (must be that great hospital in Tora Bora or a real life Benjamin Button). Following this, over the years, several people have voiced their belief that OBL was no longer amongst us. Hamid Karzai, Benazir Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf, FBI, and Isaraeli Intelligence all have publicly stated that OBL is dead.

Based on the intelligence and the statements of the above mentioned, it can only be that OBL was conveniently replaced by an actor. Since then he (and his boy Ayman Al-Zawahiri) have a knack of appearing with a new production conveniently coinciding with major events on the US Political calendar. Just last week, a group of friends were discussing how OBL, Mullah Omar, and Zawahiri were missing in action. And this week to coincide with Obama’s maiden trip to the Middle East and Richard Holbrooke’s visit to Pakistan, we see OBL speak up from the dead. How convenient.

What lends credence to the beliefs of many, of OBL now inhabiting a Tora Bora on the other side of the mortality divide, is that the last video of OBL was seen in October 2004 (OBL’s messages) and all subsequent messages from OBL have been audio tapes or videos with a voice over. Thus, it is theorized that the man we now believe to be OBL is in fact an actor. More on this can be found here.

But whether this OBL is the real man, or whether he is a better and more improved version (OBL 2.0 or Osama Bin Elvis as Angelo M. Codevilla refers to him), the question that one should ask is this. Why is it that a man whose head carries a tag of more than USD 25 million has not been found yet? Surely someone out there would be so tempted by that figure. And why can’t the US (or any other country’s intelligence agencies) find OBL? In an era where you can see someone on the street of New York using Google Earth from Antartica, is it really that hard to find this guy? Or is it just that everyone’s looking in the wrong place? Instead of the mountains of Afghanistan (or even Pakistan as some speculation goes), maybe the US Intelligensia should be looking for OBL 2.0 in a desert 83 miles from Las Vegas.

Some Suggested Links

 Is Obama Really Osama?
Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?
Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? – Documentary
OBL 2.0 – A Terrorist Resurrected
OBL Dead – President Zardari

 Lawrence Wilkerson, www.thewashingtonnote.com, March 17, 2009

There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware. For that matter, few within the government who were not directly involved are aware either.

The first of these is the utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.

This was a factor of having too few troops in the combat zone, of the troops and civilians who were there having too few people trained and skilled in such vetting, and of the incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to “just get the bastards to the interrogators”.

It did not help that poor U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, a weak understanding of cultural tendencies, and an utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence prevailed as well (no blame in the latter realm should accrue to combat soldiers as this it not their bailiwick anyway).

The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces.

The third basically unknown dimension is how hard Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage labored to ameliorate the GITMO situation from almost day one.

For example, Ambassador Pierre Prosper, the U.S. envoy for war crimes issues, was under a barrage of questions and directions almost daily from Powell or Armitage to repatriate every detainee who could be repatriated.

This was quite a few of them, including Uighurs from China and, incredulously, citizens of the United Kingdom (“incredulously” because few doubted the capacity of the UK to detain and manage terrorists). Standing resolutely in Ambassador Prosper’s path was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who would have none of it. Rumsfeld was staunchly backed by the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney. Moreover, the fact that among the detainees was a 13 year-old boy and a man over 90, did not seem to faze either man, initially at least.

The fourth unknown is the ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance (this general philosophy, in an even cruder form, prevailed in Iraq as well, helping to produce the nightmare at Abu Ghraib). All that was necessary was to extract everything possible from him and others like him, assemble it all in a computer program, and then look for cross-connections and serendipitous incidentals–in short, to have sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified.

Thus, as many people as possible had to be kept in detention for as long as possible to allow this philosophy of intelligence gathering to work. The detainees’ innocence was inconsequential. After all, they were ignorant peasants for the most part and mostly Muslim to boot.

Another unknown, a part of the fabric of the foregoing four, was the sheer incompetence involved in cataloging and maintaining the pertinent factors surrounding the detainees that might be relevant in any eventual legal proceedings, whether in an established court system or even in a kangaroo court that pretended to at least a few of the essentials, such as evidence.

Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on “sources and methods” and “intelligence secrets” became the Bush administration’s modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.

But their ultimate cover was that the struggle in which they were involved was war and in war those detained could be kept for the duration. And this war, by their own pronouncements, had no end. For political purposes, they knew it certainly had no end within their allotted four to eight years. Moreover, its not having an end, properly exploited, would help ensure their eight rather than four years in office.

In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way–from classified information or otherwise–that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.

This is perhaps the most astounding truth of all, carefully masked by men such as Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney in their loud rhetoric–continuing even now in the case of Cheney–about future attacks thwarted, resurgent terrorists, the indisputable need for torture and harsh interrogation and for secret prisons and places such as GITMO.

Lastly, there is the now prevalent supposition, recently reinforced by the new team in the White House, that closing down our prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay would take some time and development of a highly complex plan. Because of the unfortunate political realities now involved–Cheney’s recent strident and almost unparalleled remarks about the dangers of pampering terrorists, and the vulnerability of the Democrats in general on any national security issue–this may have some truth to it.

But in terms of the physical and safe shutdown of the prison facilities it is nonsense. As early as 2004 and certainly in 2005, administration leaders such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, and John Bellinger, Legal Advisor to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and, later, to that same individual as Secretary of State, and others were calling for the facilities to be shut down. No one will ever convince me that as astute a man as Gordon England would have made such a call if he did not have a plan for answering it. And if there is not such a plan, is not its absence simply another reason to condemn this most incompetent of administrations? After all, President Bush himself said he would like to close GITMO.

Recently, in an attempt to mask some of these failings and to exacerbate and make even more difficult the challenge to the new Obama administration, former Vice President Cheney gave an interview from his home in McLean, Virginia. The interview was almost mystifying in its twisted logic and terrifying in its fear-mongering.

As to twisted logic: “Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo (sic) during the Bush administration…have gone back into the business of being terrorists.” So, the fact that the Bush administration was so incompetent that it released 61 terrorists, is a valid criticism of the Obama administration? Or was this supposed to be an indication of what percentage of the still-detained men would likely turn to terrorism if released in future? Or was this a revelation that men kept in detention such as those at GITMO–even innocent men–would become terrorists if released because of the harsh treatment meted out to them at GITMO? Seven years in jail as an innocent man might do that for me. Hard to tell.

As for the fear-mongering: “When we get people who are more interested in reading the rights to an Al Qaeda (sic) terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said. Who in the Obama administration has insisted on reading any al-Qa’ida terrorist his rights? More to the point, who in that administration is not interested in protecting the United States–a clear implication of Cheney’s remarks.

But far worse is the unmistakable stoking of the 20 million listeners of Rush Limbaugh, half of whom we could label, judiciously, as half-baked nuts. Such remarks as those of the former vice president’s are like waving a red flag in front of an incensed bull. And Cheney of course knows that.

Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that “Protecting the country’s security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people such as he.

When–and if–the truths about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay will be revealed in the way they should be, or Congress will step up and shoulder some of the blame, or the new Obama administration will have the courage to follow through substantially on its campaign promises with respect to GITMO, torture and the like, remains indeed to be seen.

On that revelation and those actions rests much of the credibility of our nation’s return to sobriety and our truest values. In fact, on such positive developments may ultimately rest our entire future as a free people. For there shall inevitably be future terrorist attacks. Al-Qa’ida has been hurt, badly, largely by our military actions in Afghanistan and our careful and devastating moves to stymie its financial support networks.

But al-Qa’ida will be back. Iraq, GITMO, Abu Ghraib, heavily-biased U.S. support for Israel, and a host of other strategic errors have insured al-Qa’ida’s resilience, staying power and motivation. How we deal with the future attacks of this organization and its cohorts could well seal our fate, for good or bad. Osama bin Laden and his brain trust, Aman al-Zawahiri, are counting on us to produce the bad. With people such as Cheney assisting them, they are far more likely to succeed.