Who is Anders Behring Breivik, Norway's terrorist?

Anders Behring Breivik, Norway's terrorist who killed at least 76 people on Friday, July 22, was an active member of the website Document.no. Here is a brief writeup they have about his political beliefs:

He writes mostly about what Americans call the cultural war; focused on immigration, demography, identity, and politics in the broader sense.

His main enemy is not muslims, but multiculturalists and what he calls cultural marxists. This is a term that some on the political right uses. It is vague and can be used about almost anything. ...

Actually there is nothing in Behring Breivik’s writings that indicates that he was violent.

His thoughts about multicultural society are run of the mill on the political right, with some personal eccentric ideas, i.e. the use of the word conservatism. He calls himself and the movement he identifies with national conservatism. He writes positively about Israel and the Jews’ right to defend themselves. He argues against ethnocentrism and says the answer to racism cannot be another form of racism. ...

Behring Breivik uses some terms that indicates a more dubious side: he thinks the cultural marxists are deceitful. They hide their real agenda. Behind a veneer of human rights and humanism they are surreptiously working for the realization of a political utopia of their own design. This utopia means the death of European culture and belief, and finally the subjugation of Europeans. He was convinced the cultural marxists are in cahoots with the islamists.

This is your typical right-wing terrorist in the mold of Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

Should the mosque be built near the World Trade Center site? Yes.

CNN's Fareed Zakaria makes the case:

Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden. ...

The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.

The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.

Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them.

Tahir ul-Qadri: Terrorists are kafirs (unbelievers)

Islamic scholar Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri has issued a 600 page fatwa declaring that terrorists are unbelievers:

A fatwa, or religious ruling, issued this week is roiling theological waters after it took aim at those notorious for targeting others: terrorists.

The anti-terrorism fatwa by renowned Muslim scholar Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri pulled no punches, declaring that terrorism was "haraam," or forbidden by the Quran, and that suicide bombers would be rewarded not by 72 virgins in heaven, as many terrorist recruiters promise, but with a suite in hell.

Qadri, the founder of the Minhaj-ul-Quran International, an Islamic movement with centers in 90 countries, told a news conference in London, England, on Tuesday that his decree categorically condemns terrorism and suicide bombings in the name of Islam.

"Until now, scholars who were condemning terrorism were conditional and qualified what they said," Qadri said in a phone interview, noting that his 600-page ruling left no room for interpretation. "I didn't leave a single, minor aspect that, in the mind of radicals or extremists, can take them to the direction of martyrdom."

The 59-year-old Pakistani scholar called his fatwa an "absolute" condemnation, going as far as to label the terrorists themselves "kafirs," a term in the Quran meaning "unbeliever." ...

"This is not an academic or an intellectual argument alone. This is a theological argument, based in the Qur'an and Sunnah [practice of the Prophet]," Ahmed said. "What it provides are easily available argumentation and proof for the millions of preachers across Pakistan, who can, in turn, incorporate this into their weekly sermons."

Information directly from the source can be found here.

Danish cartoonist attacked with axe

From The Wall Street Journal:

A Somali man was charged with two counts of attempted murder on Saturday for an attack on a Danish artist whose 2005 cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad ignited riots and outrage in Muslim countries, authorities said.

The 28-year-old Somali man with ties to al Qaeda broke into Kurt Westergaard's home in Aarhus, Denmark, on Friday night armed with an ax and a knife, said Jakob Scharf, head of Denmark's PET intelligence agency. ...

The Danish cartoonist remains a potential target for extremists nearly five years after he drew a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad along with 11 others that were printed in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.

The drawings triggered riots and protests in the Muslim world, and Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries were torched a few months later in 2006 by angry protesters who felt the cartoons had profoundly insulted Islam. Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Free speech should be defended, even when it is offensive to some. Non-Muslims should not be bound to an Islamic prohibition against visual depictions of the Prophet Mohammad.

If Muslims don't like the stereotype of being suicide-bombers, then they should collectively and vocally object to such tactics (as many Muslims in the U.S. do). If a cartoonist depicts an ethnic, racial, or religious group as being violent and that group reacts with violence, then they are simply reinforcing the stereotype.

Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King achieved their goals by making their opponents appear violent. Muslims are desperately lacking their Gandhi.

60 Minutes examines airline safety

For more on Bruce Schneier's criticism of TSA, click here.

You can also listen to a 10-minute podcast interview with former FBI agent Mike German, discussing counterterrorism, here.

5 physics lessons for politicians

Foreign Policy lists five physics lessons for politicians and policymakers:

• Terrorism — Making a nuclear bomb is excruciatingly difficult. ... Many people may worry most about the drama of nuclear terrorism, but as 9/11 showed, it’s far easier for terrorists to inflict massive damage with commercially available explosives such as jet fuel or gasoline.
• Energy — The biggest source of clean, cheap energy is energy not used. And conservation doesn’t have to be uncomfortable. Tell people they can turn up their thermostats to any temperature they like, but encourage them to make sure there is some good (and it can be cheap) insulation in the walls of their homes.
• Nuclear Energy — Politicians believe the problem with nuclear waste is technical in nature. The scientists and engineers believe the problem is political. ... Nuclear waste storage really is a solved problem.
• Space — Manned space flight might be a great adventure, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that the presence of humans helps advance science. The greatest scientific achievements of the space program have been the unmanned missions to the planets and the use of remotely controlled instruments to measure the cosmos. All of our greatest space science has come from robots.
• Global Warming — Yes, it is true that the United States is responsible for one fourth of past global warming. However, U.S. emissions are growing relatively slowly today. So why are we so worried? It’s the rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions of the developing world. China has already surpassed the United States in annual emissions. ... Soon it will far outpace the United States as a contributor to global warming. The rest of the developing world is following. ... If we want to stop global warming, then our focus must be on the developing world. Wealthy countries could start by financing clean coal in China.

India terrorist attack lessons learned

Security expert Bruce Schneier lists four lessons learned from the Mumbai terrorist attacks:

• Low-tech is very effective. Movie-plot threats — terrorists with crop dusters, terrorists with biological agents, terrorists targeting our water supplies — might be what people worry about, but a bunch of trained ... men with guns and grenades is all they needed.
• At the same time, the attacks were surprisingly ineffective. I can't find exact numbers, but it seems there were about 18 terrorists. The latest toll is 195 dead, 235 wounded. That's 11 dead, 13 wounded, per terrorist. As horrible as the reality is, that's much less than you might have thought if you imagined the movie in your head. Reality is different from the movies.
• Even so, terrorism is rare. If a bunch of men with guns and grenades is all they really need, then why isn't this sort of terrorism more common? Why not in the U.S., where it's easy to get hold of weapons? It's because terrorism is very, very rare.
• Specific countermeasures don't help against these attacks. None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports, fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public transportation, anything. Even metal detectors and threat warnings didn't do any good.

Government uses scare tactics in recent terrorist attack warning

Security expert Bruce Schneier is critical of the recent warning that terrorists might target the New York City subway system:

An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press says the FBI has received a "plausible but unsubstantiated" report that al-Qaida terrorists in late September may have discussed attacking the subway system. ...

"We have no specific details to confirm that this plot has developed beyond aspirational planning, but we are issuing this warning out of concern that such an attack could possibly be conducted during the forthcoming holiday season," according to the warning dated Tuesday.

Got that: "plausible but unsubstantiated," "may have discussed attacking the subway system," "specific details to confirm that this plot has developed beyond aspirational planning," "attack could possibly be conducted," "it's plausible, but there's no evidence yet that it's in the process of being carried out."

I have no specific details, but I want to warn everybody today that fiery rain might fall from the sky. Terrorists may have discussed this sort of tactic, possibly at one of their tequila-fueled aspirational planning sessions. While there is no evidence yet that the plan in the process of being carried out, I want to be extra-cautious this holiday season. Ho ho ho.

What I find deeply troubling is that the government issued this warning about this "plausible but unsubstantiated" threat, while at the same time they were oblivious of the upcoming terrorist attack that occurred the very next day in India. It reminds me of just prior to September 11, 2001, when the government warned of possible terrorist attacks somewhere in Asia, but completely missed the actual attack that would occur days later in the U.S.

Close Gitmo and end military commissions

From CloseGitmo.com

Terrorist behavior

How terrorists prepare and where they strike, by Prof. Brent Smith of the University of Arkansas:

Research has shown that traditional criminals are spontaneous, but terrorists seem to go to great lengths preparing for their attacks — and may commit other crimes while doing so. How long does this planning take? And do different types of terrorist groups vary in preparation time? ...

According to our analysis, almost half (44 percent) of all terrorists examined lived within 30 miles of their targets. ... When the types of terrorist groups are examined separately, however, the findings are much different.

International terrorists lived relatively near their targets, whereas right-wing terrorists lived in rural areas but selected targets reflecting the “pollutants of urban life” in nearby cities. Terrorists most commonly prepared for their attacks with surveillance and intelligence gathering, robberies and thefts to raise funding for the group, weapons violations, and bomb manufacturing. ...

Although the terrorists studied committed most of their preparatory offenses near their homes, they conducted robberies, burglaries and thefts much farther away — an average of 429 miles from home. This suggests that most environmental and international terrorists live near the selected target and conduct surveillance and other general preparation near their homes and the eventual location of the attack. Major crimes to procure funding for the group — like thefts, robberies and burglaries — however, are intentionally committed many miles away to avoid drawing attention to the group’s location and target choice. ...

We found that preparations generally began less than six months before the attack and ended with a flurry of actions a day or so before. This pattern varied by group type. Single-issue and right-wing terrorists engaged in substantially less preparatory crime over a shorter period... The planning cycle of international terrorists tended to be longer. ...

International terrorists, on the other hand, engaged in nearly three times as many preparatory acts per incident as their environmental counterparts. This may be due to the larger number of people usually involved in international incidents, the size and scope of the planned incident or simply a longer planning cycle. Comparing the 10 international terrorist incidents that occurred on American soil, we found that the average planning cycle for international terrorists was 92 days, as opposed to 14 days for environmental terrorists. Averages can be misleading, however, because of significant outliers...

For law enforcement agencies, the implications of these patterns are significant. Committing an act of terrorism will usually involve local preparations. Although much of this conduct will not necessarily be criminal, early intelligence may give law enforcement the opportunity to stop the terrorists before an incident occurs. Knowledge of the threat — for example, understanding how long environmental or international terrorists prepare for their attacks — will affect the manner in which local officials respond. Identifying preparatory actions by environmental extremists may signal that an attack is imminent, whereas similar behavior by an international group might suggest that an attack is still several months away.

Understanding that most terrorists “act locally” can be important to know as investigative agencies seek to prevent terrorism and arrest perpetrators. These local patterns may be used by agencies to more efficiently patrol known, high-risk target areas and gather intelligence on suspected actions within a specific distance from potential targets.

How the FARC hostages were rescued: a classic man-in-the-middle attack

From Schneier on Security:

Last week's dramatic rescue of 15 hostages held by the guerrilla organization FARC was the result of months of intricate deception on the part of the Colombian government. At the center was a classic man-in-the-middle attack.

In a man-in-the-middle attack, the attacker inserts himself between two communicating parties. Both believe they're talking to each other, and the attacker can delete or modify the communications at will.

The Wall Street Journal reported how this gambit played out in Colombia:

"The plan had a chance of working because, for months, in an operation one army officer likened to a 'broken telephone,' military intelligence had been able to convince Ms. Betancourt's captor, Gerardo Aguilar, a guerrilla known as 'Cesar,' that he was communicating with his top bosses in the guerrillas' seven-man secretariat. Army intelligence convinced top guerrilla leaders that they were talking to Cesar. In reality, both were talking to army intelligence."

This ploy worked because Cesar and his guerrilla bosses didn't know one another well. They didn't recognize one anothers' voices, and didn't have a friendship or shared history that could have tipped them off about the ruse. Man-in-the-middle is defeated by context, and the FARC guerrillas didn't have any.

Bruce Schneier goes on to explain the implications for internet security. However, I'd like to mention the implications for the war on Al-Qaeda. More so than the FARC, Al-Qaeda is a disperse, loosely-linked organization where members don't know each other. That makes it the perfect target for a man-in-the-middle attack. If the CIA isn't already using it, they could really learn something from the FARC hostage rescue.