A Capture In Bangladesh And Remembering 1998
Bill Roggio has an excellent post on the arrest of Abdur Rahman in Bangladesh. This is a very significant capture for a variety of reasons, but especially since Bangladesh itself has turned into an al Qaeda hotspot. (The threat is so pronounced that India is in the midst of a massive construction project, which is intended to wall-off its border.)
Rahman, as Roggio correctly points out, was one of the key signatories on al Qaeda's February 1998 fatwa. The fatwa announced a coalition of several terrorist groups under the banner of the World Islamic Front Statement for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. It was this announcement that, in many ways, marked the beginning of a renewed and reinvigorated terrorist assault.
The stated justifications for the terror alliance are very interesting. The fatwa gives three principal justifications for attacking the West and all of them include important references to the situation in Iraq:
(1) The occupation of Muslim Holy Lands. Al Qaeda regularly references the "occupation" of the holy sites located on the Arabian peninsula (because of the presence of American troops). But, interestingly, the occupation of holy sites also includes those located in Iraq, which is considered one of the holiest Muslim lands. In addition, according to the fatwa, the "occupied" Arabian peninsula was being used to oppress the Iraqi people:
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
(2) The second principal justification offered is the "great devastation" inflicted on the Iraqi people. The fatwa reads:
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
(3) The third principal justification given was the West's support for the "petty state" of Israel. But here again the situation in Iraq loomed large:
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
Therefore, even in the fatwa's condemnation of Israel the "destruction" of Iraq is cited as the "best proof" of why the West's support for the "petty state" is evil.
Why is all of this important? The fatwa came a key juncture in the history of the terrorist threat. As I said above, it is this coalition of terrorist groups - plus additional ones - that forged the backbone of what we call "al Qaeda." In each of the three main justifications for the group's terrorist actions the leadership refers to the situation in Iraq. This is interesting, no?
This point has been made before on a number of occasions and critics quickly counter that there is no explicit endorsement of Saddam. But why would there be? The Iraqi regime itself constantly referred to the plight of the Iraqi people in its own propaganda. The regime didn't talk about the "plight of Saddam." Moreover, notice what is missing from the fatwa: any condemnation of Saddam. You would think that on this momentous occasion the leadership of al Qaeda, which cited the plight of the Iraqi people repeatedly, would have taken the time to throw in a line or two about the "evils" of Saddam, no? If the secular Saddam was really such an enemy of the Islamists, then why didn't they tie him to the "destruction" of Iraq?
The context within which the fatwa was issued is important as well. Twice in 1998 tensions between Iraq and the West came to a head. Once in February and again in December. It was widely believed that the Clinton administration would strike targets throughout the country in order to punish the regime for obstructing weapons inspections in February. As the threat mounted, Saddam sought the support of Islamists by holding one of his Popular Islamic Conferences in Baghdad. (Note: According to intelligence acquired by the CIA, Ayman al Zawahiri himself was at this conference in early February and received $300,000 in funding from Iraqi intelligence.) Military intervention was avoided only after a last minute inspections deal was struck between Kofi Annan and the Iraqi regime.
But, of course, the regime never did allow inspections. So, in December President Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, a massive assault on suspected WMD targets throughout Iraq. And what was al Qaeda's response? Another call to retaliate against the West (US/UK) for what was being done to Iraq.
There is much more to this story, of course. Throughout 1998 and early 1999 there was a flurry of reported contacts and meetings. And even the Clinton administration cited Iraqi support for al Qaeda's WMD efforts in Sudan in August, as part of justifying the destruction of the al-Shifa plant. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
Rahman, as Roggio correctly points out, was one of the key signatories on al Qaeda's February 1998 fatwa. The fatwa announced a coalition of several terrorist groups under the banner of the World Islamic Front Statement for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. It was this announcement that, in many ways, marked the beginning of a renewed and reinvigorated terrorist assault.
The stated justifications for the terror alliance are very interesting. The fatwa gives three principal justifications for attacking the West and all of them include important references to the situation in Iraq:
(1) The occupation of Muslim Holy Lands. Al Qaeda regularly references the "occupation" of the holy sites located on the Arabian peninsula (because of the presence of American troops). But, interestingly, the occupation of holy sites also includes those located in Iraq, which is considered one of the holiest Muslim lands. In addition, according to the fatwa, the "occupied" Arabian peninsula was being used to oppress the Iraqi people:
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
(2) The second principal justification offered is the "great devastation" inflicted on the Iraqi people. The fatwa reads:
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
(3) The third principal justification given was the West's support for the "petty state" of Israel. But here again the situation in Iraq loomed large:
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
Therefore, even in the fatwa's condemnation of Israel the "destruction" of Iraq is cited as the "best proof" of why the West's support for the "petty state" is evil.
Why is all of this important? The fatwa came a key juncture in the history of the terrorist threat. As I said above, it is this coalition of terrorist groups - plus additional ones - that forged the backbone of what we call "al Qaeda." In each of the three main justifications for the group's terrorist actions the leadership refers to the situation in Iraq. This is interesting, no?
This point has been made before on a number of occasions and critics quickly counter that there is no explicit endorsement of Saddam. But why would there be? The Iraqi regime itself constantly referred to the plight of the Iraqi people in its own propaganda. The regime didn't talk about the "plight of Saddam." Moreover, notice what is missing from the fatwa: any condemnation of Saddam. You would think that on this momentous occasion the leadership of al Qaeda, which cited the plight of the Iraqi people repeatedly, would have taken the time to throw in a line or two about the "evils" of Saddam, no? If the secular Saddam was really such an enemy of the Islamists, then why didn't they tie him to the "destruction" of Iraq?
The context within which the fatwa was issued is important as well. Twice in 1998 tensions between Iraq and the West came to a head. Once in February and again in December. It was widely believed that the Clinton administration would strike targets throughout the country in order to punish the regime for obstructing weapons inspections in February. As the threat mounted, Saddam sought the support of Islamists by holding one of his Popular Islamic Conferences in Baghdad. (Note: According to intelligence acquired by the CIA, Ayman al Zawahiri himself was at this conference in early February and received $300,000 in funding from Iraqi intelligence.) Military intervention was avoided only after a last minute inspections deal was struck between Kofi Annan and the Iraqi regime.
But, of course, the regime never did allow inspections. So, in December President Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, a massive assault on suspected WMD targets throughout Iraq. And what was al Qaeda's response? Another call to retaliate against the West (US/UK) for what was being done to Iraq.
There is much more to this story, of course. Throughout 1998 and early 1999 there was a flurry of reported contacts and meetings. And even the Clinton administration cited Iraqi support for al Qaeda's WMD efforts in Sudan in August, as part of justifying the destruction of the al-Shifa plant. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
posted by Thomas Joscelyn at 10:31 AM
<< Home