Islamists planned attacks across Europe
Sat Jan 26, 2008
MADRID (Reuters) -
      Islamist extremists were planning attacks across Europe, especially against public transport, before their arrests in Barcelona last weekend, a Spanish paper reported on Saturday, citing a would-be attacker's testimony.
      The Al Qaeda-inspired cell planned to attack the Barcelona metro and other targets in Spain, Germany, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, said the bomber turned police informant.
      In testimony that led to the arrest of 14 South Asians last Saturday, the informant told police the group had a preference for attacks on public transport, especially metro systems, El Pais newspaper reported.
      "If we attack the metro, the emergency services can't get there," the informant said he was told by a fellow suicide bomber, El Pais reported.
      Two pairs with explosive-filled bags were to enter separate Barcelona subway stations and other members of the group were to detonate their bombs by remote control, said the witness.
      On Friday, Spain's government said the Barcelona cell was preparing to carry out the metro attack either last weekend or in the following 15 days.
      Two other pairs of suicide bombers had been assigned targets elsewhere in Spain, another was to attack Germany, three were given objectives in France and two more were to strike Portugal.
      The informant said the Barcelona cell had six suicide bombers and other members responsible for preparing explosives and planning attacks in other European states. Four of those arrested have since been released due to lack of evidence.
      Al Qaeda was to take responsibility for the Barcelona attacks through Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban commander the Pakistani government says was behind the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, El Pais said.
"Only the leadership of the organization knows what requests the emir (Baitullah) will make after the first attack, but if they are not carried out, there will be a second attack, a third in Spain. And next Germany, France, Portugal, United Kingdom," the head of the cell told the police informer, El Pais reported.
      The Barcelona bombings could have taken place less than two months before Spain's March 9 general election.
Islamic militants attacked Madrid commuter trains days before Spain's last general election in March 2004, killing 191 people and wounding 1,800. They said the attacks were made in revenge for Spain sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Stephen Coughlin and Three Views on Jihad

In "Stephen Coughlin's Thesis" at National Review's Phi Beta Cons (thanks to James), Carol Iannone outlines Coughlin's assessment of some nomenclature, and of the principal views on this issue:

     

I've been reading Stephen Coughlin's master's thesis, "'To Our Great Detriment': Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad," submitted to the National Defense Intelligence College, and I can see why it got him into trouble. He frankly declares that this administration has been wrong on the relation of Islam to jihadism and terrorism. While members of the administration sternly warn of the dire threats we face and how we must know our enemy, they themselves are lost in illusions about that enemy. The enemy is not Islamo-Fascism, but the jihadist elements of Islam itself. Coughlin points out that on the basis of very little, Bush, Rice, and other Administration people blithely declare Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few violent extremists for their own agenda, an agenda which they insist has nothing to do with Islam. They ignore all the evidence from Islamic sources that support violence in the name of spreading or defending the faith and bypass the professed and frequently stated aims of the jihadists.

Absolutely. That's what I've been arguing for years now.

Coughlin's thesis suggests that there are not two schools of thought on Islamic terror, those who think it is simply a criminal problem and those who think it is a war we will be fighting for a long time, but three.

      First, there is the view that largely comes from the liberal-left, that thinks there really is no Islamic threat, that it's really America and its actions that have called forth violence from Muslims, that if there is violence, it is from a tiny few and can be managed by the world community like an international criminal problem.
      Then there is the conservative-right view, that there is indeed a terrible threat, a virtual World War Four, and the threat is from Islamo-Fascism, not from Islam itself, but from the aberrations of radicals who are creating some distorted blending of Islamic beliefs with 20th century fascist concepts. This is only a recent development, according to this view, not centuries old, and therefore we can be very hopeful about stomping it out. About ten percent of the world's Muslims do believe in Islamo-Fascist jihad, and that is a serious number, but ninety percent of Muslims don't believe in it and want what we all want, material security and prosperity. In fact, the underlying causes of terrorism arise from the material deprivation and lack of freedom and opportunity in the Muslim world. There is thus no conflict between Islam and liberal democracy and modernity in general, and certainly no clash of civilizations. The Islamic world will not be able to resist the march of liberal democracy and the irresistible call of freedom. This view is largely that of President Bush.
       The third view says that there is indeed a problem with Islam itself, that even if only a minority of Muslims will ever take up jihad, most Muslims know that that is mandated by their religion and they do support it in belief and sometimes financially. The term Islamo-Fascism is really a euphemism for those who wish to deny or ignore the violence inherent in Islam. This view sees that jihad has been a feature of Islam from its beginnings and that martyrdom is honored and rewarded in Islam. This view also finds that Islam may well be in conflict with liberal democracy. Muslims are told that they are meant to Islamicize the countries they live in, through "peaceful" means if they can, and violent means when necessary, and we already see signs of this in Europe and America.

I have always held, of course, to the third view, and have argued for it here and in my books. This view is abundantly borne out by Islamic texts and teachings, as well as by statements from numerous contemporary Muslims, but it is nonetheless completely ruled out of consideration a priori by a mainstream media dominated by the first view and a conservative media establishment dominated by the second. However, the truth will out, one way or the other, and cannot be ignored and denied forever.

One small caveat: "The term Islamo-Fascism is really a euphemism for those who wish to deny or ignore the violence inherent in Islam." While this statement is true of many who use the term "Islamo-Fascism," I don't think it is a necessary or universal component of that usage. Some who are fully aware of the violence and supremacism taught in the Qur'an and other core Islamic texts use the term to denote those Muslims who are actually waging jihad, in whatever manner, as opposed to those who are not. (Yes, that does leave out those who approve of the jihad while doing nothing, and those who are potential jihadists.) There is an illuminating FrontPage Symposium going on now about this term. I am participating in it, and I hope it will be published soon, although it seems to be moving at a glacial pace at this point.

In any case, it is also true in my experience that those who hold the second view and those who hold the third can work together in certain areas, and there is no reason to close off that cooperation -- especially since there are so few people resisting the jihad in any way. Of course, the idea that relieving "material deprivation and lack of freedom and opportunity in the Muslim world" will end the jihad is completely wrongheaded and doomed to failure, but those who hold these two views can and do still work together domestically against jihadist and stealth jihadist initiatives in the United States.

     

So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end.

Precisely.

      Until very recently, Mr. Stephen Coughlin worked as a contractor on the Joint Staff, J-2 (Intelligence) for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. The Joint Staff specifically requested him because of his knowledge of Islamic Doctrine as it applies to “Jihad” and the Strategic objectives of our enemy. He is, by many accounts, the leading expert on Islamic Doctrinal drivers of Jihad within the U.S. Government, and likely, in the United States. His thesis, “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,” was recently accepted by the National Defense Intelligence College, and deals specifically with Islamic Doctrine dealing with doctrinal drivers of jihad, and the failure of the United States leadership to learn and understand this doctrine. He has a background in Law and international business. Mr. Coughlin is also a Major in the U.S. Army Reserves, and was activated after 9/11 to serve as a Strategic Targeting Officer for the U.S. forces. He has taught, lectured, and briefed senior members of DoD, members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials, and many law enforcement and intelligence officers in the United States. He is a regular briefer at the Information/Operations course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the Joint Forces Staff College. He has briefed at the Navy War College and the Marine Corps War College, and recently briefed the General Officers of I MEF, United States Marine Corps.

       Via a campaign undertaken by Hesham Islam, the senior advisor for International Affairs to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, on Thursday, January 3, 2008 Mr. Coughlin was told by his employers that his contract would not be renewed due to the fact his message, and therefore he himself, had become too “politically hot.” In a meeting between Mr. Coughlin and a member of Mr. England’s staff, at which Hesham Islam unexpectedly attended, Mr. Islam asked Mr. Coughlin to “soften his message” regarding Islamic Doctrine. Mr. Coughlin refused. Islam was heard referring to Coughlin as a “Christian zealot with a poison pen.” Despite the fact that no one in his chain of command has disputed the veracity, accuracy, and balance for his thesis, lectures, or briefings, Coughlin’s employment is being terminated for speaking the truth to the Department of Defense.
Analysis: This event on its own reveals that a senior U.S. advisor is being removed from his direct and critical role in the current war in which we are engaged solely because his message was defined as “extreme” by an advisor who caters to Islamist organizations in the U.S., not because it was factually incorrect. This alone seems significantly problematic given the current war in which we are engaged. Additionally, some of the details suggest Mr. Coughlin’s civil rights, to include his First and Forth Amendment rights, as well as federal law, may have been violated, which suggests an inquiry is required. The effort to silence Mr. Coughlin came from a senior advisor to a senior U.S. official under official cover – a violation of law. Most disturbing is that Mr. Islam is associated with groups and organizations which have been designated as Muslim Brotherhood organizations within the United States. If this is in fact true, the implications are devastating.

      If it is determined that Mr. Islam (whose clearances to be handling such high level issues are unsubstantiated) was acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood or any other non-state sponsor or nation, it would indicate a direct effort to thwart the U.S. effort in fighting the war in which we are engaged by an outside entity. This is, therefore, a penetration of our government at the most senior levels. In this case we are obligated to undertake actions to determine, who is Mr. Islam, why was he hired, what are his true intentions, and are there others in our government at this level who have penetrated other U.S. government agencies.

Eyas wrote:So, who's stephen Coughlin?

He WAS an advisor at the Pentagon who was recently fired on the say so of a Muslim (pro-jihadi) Pentagon Official named Hesham Islam who was "offended" by Couglin's "Islamophobic" assessments.

Taylor wrote:Well if hillary/obama is in, firstly, Obama would sit down and have tea with bin laden, Hillary on the other hand well I don't know about her. Either way, I'm scared, Sick (with the flu) and I've got a bad attitude about my country now, and I'm only 13! If this election doesn't go right, I'm gonna think of things to do to reclaim the country.

paleocon wrote:

Taylor wrote:Well if hillary/obama is in, firstly, Obama would sit down and have tea with bin laden, Hillary on the other hand well I don't know about her. Either way, I'm scared, Sick (with the flu) and I've got a bad attitude about my country now, and I'm only 13! If this election doesn't go right, I'm gonna think of things to do to reclaim the country.

[size=9]Well, maybe we could arrange for Obama, Hillary and McCain to have tea with OBL before the election.  That might clear up the whole "9/11 misunderstanding" and get things back on the right track even before the next election.  
[size=9]
[size=9]I have been around a long time and most of that time the country has been run by liberals.  In fact only about 10 of the last 50 years have been run by conservatives (8 years of Reagan and the first 2 years of GHWB).  We have survived a lot of idiocy coming out of Washington, DC.  Not that we should be happy with that or not try and stop the idiocy.  But, this is a great nation and will be greater still one day.  Bad things can and will happen too but we mustn't see every bad thing as the apocalypse.  

Taylor wrote:So your saying I could survive obama/hillary?