Does al Qaeda still have a hierarchy?

[Secret Squirrel]

Editor's Note: An audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden was posted on the Web Thursday. The voice on the tapes refers to the December 6 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. CNN senior producer Henry Schuster -- who spent part of July and August in Saudi Arabia investigating terrorism with CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson -- provides some insight on bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Since Osama bin Laden praised the terrorists who stormed the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last week during his audio message, does that mean he ordered the attack?

Not likely.

Al Qaeda's hierarchy may be a thing of the past.

Up until September 11, 2001, the flow chart used to be clear. Osama bin Laden ran al Qaeda. His deputy was Ayman al-Zawahiri. His military commander was Mohammed Atef.

All the elaborate plots, including the U.S. Embassy attacks in 1998 and on September 11, had to be approved by bin Laden.

Then came the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after September 11. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri were forced to go on the run. Mohammed Atef was killed by a missile attack.

There were some al Qaeda-sponsored attacks after September 11, carried out at the behest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was behind the September 11 attacks. These included an attack on a synagogue in Tunisia.

Then Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was nabbed in Pakistan in early 2003.

But even as the old al Qaeda was put on the run, a new al Qaeda was emerging. CNN's terrorism analyst Peter Bergen dubs it al Qaeda 2.0 and it is more of a movement than the pre-September 11 organization.

Now the attacks are coming from al Qaeda-affiliated groups or those who want to be:


The Madrid attacks on March 11, 2004, were done by al Qaeda sympathizers.


The series of attacks in Saudi Arabia, including the recent one in Jeddah, were done by a group that calls itself al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Its propaganda videos include heavy doses of old bin Laden speeches.


Even Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose relationship with bin Laden is not entirely clear, has just renamed his group al Qaeda in Mesopotamia So even if there is no real hierarchy or flow chart anymore, the attacks keep coming.

Which raises the question: Is Osama bin Laden in the position to order attacks or is he trying to make himself relevant by becoming the symbolic leader of this new terrorist movement?

link (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/16/alqaeda.hierarchy/index.html)

[ElHombre]

Which raises the question: Is Osama bin Laden in the position to order attacks or is he trying to make himself relevant by becoming the symbolic leader of this new terrorist movement?

OBL and AQ remind me of a McDonald's franchise. the guys at the top may give overall strategy and advice but the individual groups are pretty much on their own. the key is that they are quite capable on their own.

[LordHalbert]

WTF do they want - the destruction of the USA ?

[ballistic1356]

I was listening to the radio on the way to work. They mentioned that they feel the next attack on the US will happen next year and it will most likely be a maritime attack. On the latest Bin tape he mention he wanted to cause economic damage like 9-11.

As much as we have weaken them they are still strong enough to carry out attacks.

Then again how hard can it be to attack us?

All they have to do pull cole type attack on a oil tanker. That would really mess us up.

[Baboonass]

Which raises the question: Is Osama bin Laden in the position to order attacks or is he trying to make himself relevant by becoming the symbolic leader of this new terrorist movement?

OBL and AQ remind me of a McDonald's franchise. the guys at the top may give overall strategy and advice but the individual groups are pretty much on their own. the key is that they are quite capable on their own.


Kind of, but not really.

The stategy of terrorist groups like AQ are very weak, nature of the organization. Seperate cells are unlikely to take action without guidance from the upper hireachy, but it is probable. Though OBL may not have directly ordered specific attacks, there may have very well been a standing order for this type of attack whenever the cell had the means and oppertunity. This type of "pre-set" attack order is fairly common for some of the smaller terror actions. AQ leadership frowns on members initiating action on their own, (ie, Richard Reed) as it attracts unwanted attention and intell to ongoing operations and planning.

Though AQ is in dissary, it is very probable that members may eventually splinter into new cells if a dynamic leader emerges.

As far as what AQ wants and it's long term goals, it's not as clear. You can read the "Mancheser Manuals" for some guidance, but it still doesn't really tell the whole story.

You are dealing with a radical version of Islam and people of extreme faith. It's very complicated and very dangerous.

[ElHombre]

WTF do they want - the destruction of the USA ?

broadly speaking, their main objective is to remove 'foreign', i.e. western, influences out of the islamic world.

pithy phrases such as, 'they hate our freedom', are misleading. they want us out and they see such things as the palestinian problem and the treatment of iraqis as prime examples of what the western world intends.

[Baboonass]

WTF do they want - the destruction of the USA ?

broadly speaking, their main objective is to remove 'foreign', i.e. western, influences out of the islamic world.

pithy phrases such as, 'they hate our freedom', are misleading. they want us out and they see such things as the palestinian problem and the treatment of iraqis as prime examples of what the western world intends.

Pretty close, but you are leaving out some important points.

The removal of western influence is for the world at large, not just the Islamic world, and Islam should be the only true religion. Granted, starting out in their own back yard is an easy recruitment tool. Our internation trade agreements and forward military bases in the ME region has helped fuel this anger, but these agrements were made with the ruling government. It would be akin to an ME company setting up shop in the U.S. and some WP christian group claiming "invasion". Our allience with Isreal has only fueled more hatred to the U.S. from these factions.

It is very dificult for a western mind to wrap itself around Islamo-terrorist mindset without first understanding, (not just knowing) the enemy in which we face.

The rest of your post was a pretty good asertation although a bit simplistic, ( probably condensed to keep the post from dragging on like this one).

[One?]

WTF do they want - the destruction of the USA ?

If you watched CNN last night you would know what OBL wants, specialy after his latest video. He made it very clear, but the US fails to listen.

Stop supporting arab dictators
find a solution to palestine
withdraw US forces from arab nations

[ElHombre]

The rest of your post was a pretty good asertation although a bit simplistic, ( probably condensed to keep the post from dragging on like this one).

thank you. i do try to keep my posts short from time to time. :lol:

[usa320]

broadly speaking, their main objective is to remove 'foreign', i.e. western, influences out of the islamic world.



Thats just an excuse to kill Americans. Our military has pulled out of Saudi arabia all but a handful of people. yet he still bitches about the infidels being on saudi land..

[ElHombre]

all but a handful of people.

religous fanatics tend to view things in extremes, do they not? 1 infidel on holy soil is 5 too many in their way of thinking. look at anti-abortion fanatics here in the US. 'ban it in all cases. not a single exception.'

[Apogee]

The stategy of terrorist groups like AQ are very weak, nature of the organization. Seperate cells are unlikely to take action without guidance from the upper hireachy, but it is probable. Though OBL may not have directly ordered specific attacks, there may have very well been a standing order for this type of attack whenever the cell had the means and oppertunity. This type of "pre-set" attack order is fairly common for some of the smaller terror actions. AQ leadership frowns on members initiating action on their own, (ie, Richard Reed) as it attracts unwanted attention and intell to ongoing operations and planning.

Though AQ is in dissary, it is very probable that members may eventually splinter into new cells if a dynamic leader emerges.

As far as what AQ wants and it's long term goals, it's not as clear. You can read the "Mancheser Manuals" for some guidance, but it still doesn't really tell the whole story.

You are dealing with a radical version of Islam and people of extreme faith. It's very complicated and very dangerous.

I fundementally disagree with you. I think what you say may have been true to some extent prior to 9/11. But since our invasion of Afgahnistan, we've seen a shift. Some that I know are calling the new organization AQ 2.0. Basically what that implies is that a fundemental shift in terrorism has occured. Of course we're still trying to fight the last generation of terrorism. But what the new version seems to look like is cells springing up that use the AQ rhetoric and philosophy, but may have never had any contact with the old organziation. Therefore individual attacks can't be frowned upon, because no heirarchy exists.

This same type of trend has appeared (via the internet) in other groups as well.

[ElHombre]

the franchise has taken root, so to speak. the world would be looking at more AQ-style attacks but not necessarily AQ itself.

if this model holds up then removing OBL from the board wouldn't have a great as effect as thought. others would take his place. these replacements may (or may not) be as talented and skilled as OBL, but there would be more of them.

christ on a crutch...

[username]

Which raises the question: Is Osama bin Laden in the position to order attacks or is he trying to make himself relevant by becoming the symbolic leader of this new terrorist movement?

OBL and AQ remind me of a McDonald's franchise. the guys at the top may give overall strategy and advice but the individual groups are pretty much on their own. the key is that they are quite capable on their own.

ElHombre you have summed it up pretty well

[username]

The stategy of terrorist groups like AQ are very weak, nature of the organization. Seperate cells are unlikely to take action without guidance from the upper hireachy, but it is probable. Though OBL may not have directly ordered specific attacks, there may have very well been a standing order for this type of attack whenever the cell had the means and oppertunity. This type of "pre-set" attack order is fairly common for some of the smaller terror actions. AQ leadership frowns on members initiating action on their own, (ie, Richard Reed) as it attracts unwanted attention and intell to ongoing operations and planning.

Though AQ is in dissary, it is very probable that members may eventually splinter into new cells if a dynamic leader emerges.

As far as what AQ wants and it's long term goals, it's not as clear. You can read the "Mancheser Manuals" for some guidance, but it still doesn't really tell the whole story.

You are dealing with a radical version of Islam and people of extreme faith. It's very complicated and very dangerous.

I fundementally disagree with you. I think what you say may have been true to some extent prior to 9/11. But since our invasion of Afgahnistan, we've seen a shift. Some that I know are calling the new organization AQ 2.0. Basically what that implies is that a fundemental shift in terrorism has occured. Of course we're still trying to fight the last generation of terrorism. But what the new version seems to look like is cells springing up that use the AQ rhetoric and philosophy, but may have never had any contact with the old organziation. Therefore individual attacks can't be frowned upon, because no heirarchy exists.

This same type of trend has appeared (via the internet) in other groups as well.

USMA_SCUBA i think your on the right track, it's working like a meme. The question is do these groups that pop up using the quidelines set up by AQ years ago count as AQ. Originally there were other groups with loose affiliation(you like red soda, i like red soda lets go get red soda). The west bundled up these groups and just stuck the AQ stamp on them. Im not sure if these new groups could be placed under the same banner.

[Baboonass]

I fundementally disagree with you. I think what you say may have been true to some extent prior to 9/11. But since our invasion of Afgahnistan, we've seen a shift. Some that I know are calling the new organization AQ 2.0. Basically what that implies is that a fundemental shift in terrorism has occured. Of course we're still trying to fight the last generation of terrorism. But what the new version seems to look like is cells springing up that use the AQ rhetoric and philosophy, but may have never had any contact with the old organziation. Therefore individual attacks can't be frowned upon, because no heirarchy exists.

This same type of trend has appeared (via the internet) in other groups as well.

Well, you can disagree all you want, but your're still not grasping what I'm talking about.

AQ has been paralyized, both tacticaly and finacialy, but these are temperary setbacks. Hirearchy still exsits, communications are still being sent,(via more primative means). All you have to do is listen to OBL's last speech and how it related to Zarkawi's self interest in Iraq. I'm not sure how much I can go into about this, so I'll stop right here.

What you are refering to (AQ 2.0) is not nessesaraly the OBL AQ, so in that case you would be correct, but you are straying from the subject. There are literaly hundreds of different Islamo-terrorist organisations, and variations even within these ranks. If you are talking about terrorist organizations as a whole, then this subject can take all day.

You first need to understand how the hireachy of Islamo-terrorist organizations are formed. You can't paralell western thinking into this, it won't work.

[Baboonass]

the franchise has taken root, so to speak. the world would be looking at more AQ-style attacks but not necessarily AQ itself.

if this model holds up then removing OBL from the board wouldn't have a great as effect as thought. others would take his place. these replacements may (or may not) be as talented and skilled as OBL, but there would be more of them.

christ on a crutch...

This is more to the point of what I'm talking about.

Though I disagree that the next generation of AQ (or whatever name it'll fall under) leadership will be nearly as succesfull. Our continued GWOT will not alow a large terror organization to rise to such power again.

But like any boxer will tell you, it isn't the haymaker that wins the fight, it's the constant jabs. These small terror groups will be just as if not more deadly than their larger constituants.

I think we are all talking about the same thing, just a little different in the semantics.

[Apogee]

AQ has been paralyized, both tacticaly and finacialy, but these are temperary setbacks. Hirearchy still exsits, communications are still being sent,(via more primative means). All you have to do is listen to OBL's last speech and how it related to Zarkawi's self interest in Iraq. I'm not sure how much I can go into about this, so I'll stop right here."

What you are refering to (AQ 2.0) is not nessesaraly the OBL AQ, so in that case you would be correct, but you are straying from the subject. There are literaly hundreds of different Islamo-terrorist organisations, and variations even within these ranks. If you are talking about terrorist organizations as a whole, then this subject can take all day.

You first need to understand how the hireachy of Islamo-terrorist organizations are formed. You can't paralell western thinking into this, it won't work.

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that you are correct. I was refering to groups that have an AQ philosphy but not contact with the traditional AQ hierarchy. So its not really the OBL AQ on one hand, because they don't interact with that group. But on the other hand it is, since they use that philosphy.

Many Islmist groups are not hierarchical at all, they are what we call network based. That type of structure allows them to survive attacks from CT governments. Jessica Stern wrote a really interesting book about this.

You are right, mirror imaging can be very dangerous when looking at Islamists. With AQ groups, the most important part to understanding them is their Salafist background. Again books like Understanding Terror Networks do an awesome job explaining this background.

[Baboonass]

I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that you are correct. I was refering to groups that have an AQ philosphy but not contact with the traditional AQ hierarchy. So its not really the OBL AQ on one hand, because they don't interact with that group. But on the other hand it is, since they use that philosphy.



You are right, mirror imaging can be very dangerous

Ahh, wer'e talking around in circles about the same thing. Islamo-terror groups (AQ, Isalmic Jihad, etc) all base their operations around the same phiosphy but calling yourself AQ when not really associated with AQ isn't the same thing. Anyway, AQ hireachy still exsists, (the OG), and it is still under the same managment (more or less), Splinter groups are not under the same leadership per say.

Interesting reference to the "mirror image".

[Raistlin]

Stop supporting arab dictators
find a solution to palestine
withdraw US forces from arab nations
I'm just wondering. When did US do such things just before 9/11?

[username]

Stop supporting arab dictators
find a solution to palestine
withdraw US forces from arab nations
I'm just wondering. When did US do such things just before 9/11?

They support the dictators of Saudi Arabia(royal family) who have conducted horrific human rights violations and many other arab dicators throughout history. They installed the shar's dictatorship in iran. They helped the baath party installed Saddam Hussein and supported his brutal rule. They had US troops in Saudi Arabia which was look down upon because of the holy sities there. Thats just the tip of the ice berg.

[Raistlin]

They support the dictators of Saudi Arabia(royal family) who have conducted horrific human rights violations and many other arab dicators throughout history.
Al-Qaeda itself supports Taliban.


They installed the shar's dictatorship in iran.
And Al-Qaeda has a problem with a theocracy there?


They helped the baath party installed Saddam Hussein and supported his brutal rule.
Yeah, so Al-Qaeda was glad to have US throw that brutal regime over...


They had US troops in Saudi Arabia which was look down upon because of the holy sities there.
Didn't get the holy sites part.