Dr Fadl dumps on Osama bin Laden

One of al-Qaeda's founding leaders, Dr Fadl, has begun an ideological revolt against Osama bin Laden, blaming him for "every drop" of blood spilt in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, who goes by the nom de guerre Dr Fadl, helped bin Laden create al-Qaeda and then led an Islamist insurgency in Egypt in the 1990s.

But in a book written from inside an Egyptian prison, he has launched a frontal attack on al-Qaeda's ideology and the personal failings of bin Laden and particularly his Egyptian deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Twenty years ago, Dr Fadl became al-Qaeda's intellectual figurehead with a crucial book setting out the rationale for global jihad against the West.

Today, however, he believes the murder of innocent people is both contrary to Islam and a strategic error. "Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers," writes Dr Fadl.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive, he writes. "Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?" asks Dr Fadl. "That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11."

Dr Fadl is well respected in the Muslim areas of the world and especially the middle east.

Fouad Allam, who spent 26 years in the State Security Directorate, Egypt's equivalent of MI5, said that Dr Fadl's assault on al-Qaeda's core leaders had been "very effective, both in prison and outside".

He added: "Within these secret organisations, leadership is very important. So when someone attacks the leadership from inside, especially personal attacks and character assassinations, this is very bad for them."

Terrorist movements across the world have a history of alienating their popular support by waging campaigns of indiscriminate murder. This process of disintegration often begins with a senior leader publicly denouncing his old colleagues. Dr Fadl's missives may show that al-Qaeda has entered this vital stage.

Cracks is the organization? Maybe, but there are other organizations with the goals of blaming the evil west for all their problems.
link

WOW. I remember seeing a documentary about him a few years ago. I wonder if he will have any effect on the fanatics...

But with the book being written from inside the prison, will it be discounted as being written under duress or actually written by the government?

Could the possible discounting be used by al-Sharif as a justification for his release? Could this be his goal in writing the book?

This is very good news. Drive a wedge right through the middle. I like it.

The Marquis de Sade wrote 120 Days of Sodom while in prison.

Just sayin'.

richlevy;537498 wrote:

But with the book being written from inside the prison, will it be discounted as being written under duress or actually written by the government?

Zawahiri has tried that.

Zawahiri has alleged that his former comrade was tortured into recanting. But the al-Qaeda leader still felt the need to compose a detailed, 200-page rebuttal of his antagonist.

The fact that Zawahiri went to this trouble could prove the credibility of Dr Fadl and the fact that his criticisms have stung their target. The central question is whether this attack on al-Qaeda's ideology will sway a wider audience in the Muslim world.

I'd say 200 pages, rather than sloughing it off, is a sign of concern that at least some people will believe it. Good.

While this is certainly interesting and good, I personally think the infighting between Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi’s followers and the more violent factions of the Jihadist community is of more importance.

Fadl, for all his Al-Qaeda creds, has always been seen as something of a soft touch, and this has been noted throughout the 90s by those who kept an eye on such things. Not to mention there is...personal history, between him and Zawahiri which essentially makes this little more than a continuation of pre-existing squabbles. Most people are going to go "well, this is just him and Zawahiri, going at it again", roll their eyes and ignore the whole thing.

This seemed as good a place as any to put this . . .

GORDON Brown blasted Pakistan yesterday for not nabbing Osama Bin Laden.
The PM voiced anger that al-Qaeda's leader is still free EIGHT years after the 9/11 attacks.
And he warned the failure to capture the terror mastermind was putting British lives at risk.
Mr Brown delivered his message in a phone call this weekend to Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari.
The PM said Pakistan must throw its full weight behind the war on Islamic fanatics.
Mr Brown's broadside came hours after he had set out a timetable for British troops to pull out of one or two districts in Helmand Province by the end of next year.

He claimed another five provinces could be handed back to Afghan security forces in 2010.
But he voiced deep frustration at Pakistan's failure to capture Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman Zawahiri.
Speaking at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad he said: "We want, after eight years, to see more progress in taking out these top two people in al-Qaeda who have done so much damage and are clearly behind many of the operations in Great Britain."
Mr Brown will repeat his message when he meets Pakistan premier Yousaf Raza Gilani at Number 10 on Thursday.

There have long been concerns about shadowy links between Pakistan's secret service and al-Qaeda.
Mr Brown said Pakistan had finally "started to take on the Taliban and al-Qaeda" in the lawless border areas beside Afghanistan.
But he said: "We have got to ask ourselves why eight years after September 11 nobody has been able to spot or detain or get close to Osama Bin Laden."
He added: "Pakistan has to show itself that it can take on al-Qaeda."
OSAMA Bin Laden's freedom inspires terrorists in 60 countries including radicals like the London suicide bombers, warns a US report.

I'm glad at least someone is ready to put this out publicly. I just wish it could have been the U.S. President. Fer fucks sake.

Link

[COLOR="White"]ETA - no tw, you cannot refer to your diatribes about this from years ago. [/COLOR]

It has.

President Obama has offered Pakistan an expanded strategic partnership, including additional military and economic cooperation, while warning with unusual bluntness that its use of insurgent groups to pursue policy goals "cannot continue."
The offer, including an effort to help reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, was contained in a two-page letter delivered to President Asif Ali Zardari this month by Obama's national security adviser, Gen. James Jones. It was accompanied by Jones' assurances that the United States would increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan, and planned no early withdrawal.

Obama's speech tomorrow night at West Point, N.Y., will address primarily the Afghanistan aspects of the strategy. But despite the public and political attention focused on the number of new troops, Pakistan has been the hot core of the months-long strategy review. The long-term consequences of failure there, the review concluded, far outweigh those in Afghanistan.

"We can't succeed without Pakistan," a senior administration official involved in the White House review said.

This official and others, all of whom requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the closely held details of the new strategy, emphasized that without "changing the nature of U.S.-Pakistan relations in a new direction, you're not going to win in Afghanistan," as one put it. "And if you don't win in Afghanistan, then Pakistan will automatically be imperiled, and that will make Afghanistan look like child's play."

Proffered U.S. carrots, outlined during Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's October visit to Islamabad, center on a far more comprehensive and long-term bilateral relationship.

It would feature enhanced development and trade assistance; improved intelligence collaboration and a more secure and upgraded military equipment pipeline; more public praise and less public criticism of Pakistan; and an initiative to build greater regional cooperation among Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan.

Obama called for closer collaboration against all extremist groups, and his letter named five: al-Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and the Pakistani Taliban organization known as Tehrik-e-Taliban. Using vague diplomatic language, he said that ambiguity in Pakistan's relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored.

Jones was more precise in conversations with top Pakistani government and military leaders, U.S. and foreign officials said, stating that certain things have to happen in Pakistan to ensure Afghanistan's security.

If Pakistan cannot deliver, he warned, the United States may be impelled to use any means at its disposal to rout insurgents based along Pakistan's western and southern borders with Afghanistan.

Present U.S. policy includes the use of missiles fired from unmanned drones on insurgent locations limited to roughly 50 miles inside the western border; training in two military camps for the Pakistani Frontier Corps; and intelligence exchanges.

While praising Pakistani military offensives against groups that pose a domestic threat, Jones made clear the administration expects more.

The rollout of the new strategy is being coordinated with principal U.S. allies, including Britain.

Expansion of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship will require overcoming significant public and political mistrust in both countries. The strategy is also complicated by a number of factors, including Zardari's political weakness.