Terrorism

Do Now 6/6/11 Religion Civilians Small groups to target bigger NOT governments

__Idealsim__ Reaching for the highest level morals/values always striving for the way you want your life to be.

Religion and Beliefs arent the same thing.

__Do Now 2:__ America goes against some of their beliefs such as the technology thing and this whole thing about nudity that ties into their faith.

We didnt go in for the right reasons, but since it worked out well, then it really doesnt matter.

summary: Terrorists are small groups of people, not governments.

Ricardo helped defeat a dictatort hen became president

USA

[]

Reaction to the September 11, 2001 events
It was with disbelief and shock that around the world, people saw the news footage of the events on September 11, 2001 of the planes-turned-missiles that saw the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and damage of the Pentagon. What is probably the worst terrorist attack on the United States, is totally inexcusable and to be condemned. Some [|3000] were killed. //[|Initial fears were that it was over 6000] » // A number of factors for this revised number, were said to include initial overestimates; more than one person reporting the same missing person; heroic rescue operations, etc. This lower number doesn’t in any way reduce the impact though.) The subsequent bombing of Afghanistan to attack Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban for harboring them has also led to some [|3,500 civilian deaths], according to an independent study released at the beginning of December 2001. The ghastly terrorist attacks led to a mixture of political, social and economic reaction around the world. As extremist Arab terrorists are believed to be the perpetrators, hatred and anti-Islam sentiment, without distinguishing the despotic militants from ordinary Muslims has increased, even though most of the Muslim communities around the world have condemned this act. While visible efforts were seen by politicians to try to separate terrorists from Muslims in general, it has not been easy. On the one hand, after years of [|economic and geopolitical history], there are some aspects of distrust, while on the other hand, extremists in the Muslim and Christian communities are adding to the antagonisms. For example, during the height of the shock and anger to the September 11 attacks, extremist tendencies in the West resulted in beatings and even killings of Muslims. Even non-Muslims that just happened to have long beards or in some way resembled Taliban/Al Qaeda members were targeted. Others saw this as “proof” that Islam is inherently violent or that it is the primary threat to the rest of the world, etc. On the Muslim side, there have also been equally extreme reactions, from support of these terrorist acts to even being convinced that this was some sort of Zionist conspiracy to blame Muslims! In both cases these seem to be a minority of people with such extreme views but of course the concern is always that it will increase over time. There was no question that there was going to be some sort of retaliation and response from the United States. One could not have expected them seriously to refrain from wanting to take revenge. Yet the fear was in what form this revenge would be and how it would be carried out, plus the impacts on ordinary Afghans who have suffered at the hands of the Taliban and outside forces and influences for years. In addition, some eight months after the attacks it was revealed in the mainstream press around the world that the [|CIA had warned George Bush] of the threats weeks before September 11. This caused an uproar in many places, including the United States Congress, where members are demanding more information to understand if all those deaths could have been prevented.

APARTS CHART



**Al-Jazeera**

[]

[|Jihad Watch]

=Al-Jazeera under fire for links to terrorism= //**An Al-Jazeera broadcast shows a man calling for attacks on the US.**// -- //REUTERS// John R. Bradley, managing editor of //Arab News//, writes in //Straits Times// about the notorious Qatari news network Al-Jazeera's recent troubles: "Even for a news organisation which frequently makes world headlines, the past two months have been a roller-coaster ride for Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based, Arabic-language satellite station famous for airing exclusive video and audio messages from Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. "Its best-known Arab reporter, Tayssir Allouni, was arrested in Spain in September for his alleged membership of a Syrian-dominated Al-Qaeda group suspected of close links to the cell responsible for the Sept 11 attacks. He has since been charged. "The US-backed Iraqi National Congress, meanwhile, slapped a two-week ban on Al-Jazeera's Baghdad reporters in the same month, following accusations that they had encouraged 'anti-coalition attacks' within Iraq by airing calls for suicide attacks by what the station invariably calls 'resistance groups'. "Then, in October, US forces detained two Al-Jazeera employees covering a suicide bombing at a police station in Baghdad suspected of having had prior knowledge of the attack. They had arrived at the scene and started to film before the bomb went off. "Last week, Al-Jazeera was in the headlines again, this time for dumping its star Western journalist, Yvonne Ridley, as the senior editor of the recently launched English-language website, english.aljazeera.net. . . . "Ridley, for decades a Fleet Street hack, shot to fame in 2001, shortly before the US bombing campaign against Afghanistan, when she sneaked into the country disguised as an Afghan woman riding a donkey. The Taleban jailed her for 10 days. "In a book, Ridley claimed the CIA leaked false documents to the Taleban saying she was a spy for Mossad, the Israeli secret service. "The CIA had hoped, she argued, that her captors would be persuaded to execute her, and thus give the pro-war lobby in the West a powerful boost on the eve of the planned bombing campaign. "Ridley became not the martyr to radical Islam she claims the West had planned for, but a convert to Islam - and then, as a journalist with Al-Jazeera, a thorn in the West's side in the build-up and aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq, most notably with a series of powerful articles attacking the war's assumed justification. "Yvonne Ridley was sacked last week, a sign that Al-Jazeera is generally toning down its anti-US rhetoric. . . . an article had appeared in a respected Kuwaiti newspaper which quoted an American Gulf-based diplomat as saying Congress had secretly proposed to US President George W. Bush that he should 'put all possible pressure' on the Qatari government to close Al-Jazeera. "The article, published in the Arabic-language daily Al-Siyasa, sent shockwaves through Al-Jazeera, according to insiders, despite the fact that its journalists were not able to verify its accuracy. . . . "If Al-Jazeera failed to relook its news content, the committee was said to have concluded, the US would in turn have to reconsider its relations with Qatar - from where the US-led war on Iraq had been supervised. "Al-Siyasa said committee members had accused Al-Jazeera of being against both US foreign and domestic political interests and its armed forces, particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan; of having become a platform for Al-Qaeda and the ousted Iraqi regime; and of promoting other 'fundamentalist and terrorist' Islamist groups. "There is no doubt that, under all this pressure, Al-Jazeera is toning down its anti-US rhetoric. There is evidently little room for the likes of Ridley, eager to promote anti-US and pro-Arab agendas." (Thanks to nicolei.) Posted by [|Robert] on December 1, 2003 11:19 AM Print this entry | [|FaceBook] | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Indonesia

[]

 =What Indonesia Can Teach the World About Counterterrorism= By [|Hannah Beech / Semarang] Monday, June 07, 2010

[|ENLARGE PHOTO+] On the move Detachment 88 cadets undergo a drill to rescue hostages at the academy in Semarang on Indonesia's main island of Java Photograph for TIME by Kemal Jufri
 * [|Print]
 * Email
 * Reprints
 * Facebook
 * Twitter
 * ====MORE====
 * =====Add to my:=====
 * del.icio.us
 * Technorati
 * reddit
 * Google Bookmarks
 * Mixx
 * StumbleUpon
 * =====Blog this on:=====
 * [|TypePad]
 * LiveJournal
 * Blogger
 * MySpace

The arrests came as fast as drops of monsoon rain. On Feb. 22, more than 100 Indonesian special police raided a terrorist training camp deep in the jungles of Sumatra island. Within days they captured 14 suspected Islamic militants from a shadowy group called al-Qaeda in Aceh that was believed to have been planning an imminent attack. Then, on March 9, the police converged on an Internet café near the Indonesian capital Jakarta and engaged in a firefight that killed Dulmatin, an Afghan-trained explosives expert with a U.S.-designated $10 million bounty on his head. Among other attacks, Dulmatin was thought to have masterminded the blasts that struck two nightclubs on the vacation island of Bali in 2002, leaving 202 people dead, mostly foreigners. By April 12, the police dragnet had nabbed 10 more extremists, including a suspect in the 2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta. Another fanatic, who allegedly decapitated three Christian schoolgirls back in 2005, died in another shoot-out. All told, 48 suspected terrorists were caught within a seven-week period and another eight killed. In May, a further 16 suspects were arrested and five killed as police foiled a plot to assassinate Indonesia's President and visiting foreign dignitaries. Detachment 88 had done it again. Indonesia is waging one of the world's most determined campaigns against terrorism — and much of the credit goes to the country's American-trained police unit Detachment 88. The horror and audacity of the Bali bombings proved to be an epiphany for Indonesians, alerting them to the homegrown extremists in their midst and helping forge a national consensus against terrorism. The following year, Detachment 88 was set up with the backing of the U.S. and Australian governments; today, it numbers 400 personnel drawn from the elite of the Indonesian police's special-operations forces — and it has built up an extensive intelligence network to nab terrorists. Undercover operations in which agents pose as itinerant noodle vendors or new members of a Muslim prayer group enable Detachment 88 to track extremists and convince some to inform on others. Once top militants are located, explosives specialists, snipers, forensics teams and surveillance experts take position. "I've trained guys all over the world, and this unit is one of the best I've ever seen," says one former trainer of the Indonesian counterterrorism squad. (See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.) But Detachment 88 is more than a shooting machine. In the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, cracking down on terrorism isn't just about cracking heads. Through deradicalization programs, Detachment 88 agents take on the role of spiritual counselors, working to convince militants of the error of their ways. Some convicted terrorists now cooperate with the police in community outreach programs. "You want to know why Indonesia has done well fighting terrorism?" says psychologist Sarlito Wirawan Sarwono, who instructs Detachment 88 officers in interrogation tactics. "We have no Guantánamo prisons. Our police understand the terrorists' psyches. Other countries can learn from what we do." A nation of 17,000 islands spread across more than 5,000 km, Indonesia might seem too sprawling, messy and diverse to efficiently combat terrorism. While its 210 million Muslim faithful are overwhelmingly moderate, a small band of radicals is calling for Indonesia to abandon its secular underpinnings for an Islamic state. Chief among them are members of Jemaah Islamiah (JI), the militant group blamed for the 2002 Bali bombings, among other attacks. JI and other splinter factions were formed by Indonesians with battlefront experience in Afghanistan and the insurgent-wracked southern Philippines. Most Indonesians display little of the reflexive anti-American sentiment common in a country like Pakistan — witness the suspected role of the Taliban in the failed Times Square car-bomb plot. But the Indonesian mercenaries returned home believing that the West, and the U.S. in particular, was the root of all evil. The fact that Indonesia is neither at war with its neighbors nor harboring a persecuted Muslim minority makes little difference to these hard-liners. "They preach that Indonesians have forgotten the core of Islam," says Noor Huda Ismail, founder of the Institute of International Peace Building in Jakarta, which aims to deradicalize former terrorism inmates. "Their message is simple: the only way for Indonesians to prove themselves as good Muslims is through jihad against the infidel Americans and their allies." (Read "Why Indonesia's War on Terror Is Far From Over.") During interrogation sessions, Detachment 88 officers, the majority of whom are Muslim, allow prisoners to worship, often joining them in prayer. Little tricks, like greeting inmates in Arabic instead of Indonesian, help convince terrorists that the police are not infidels, as they have been brainwashed to believe by radical clerics. On occasion, Muslims with impeccable religious credentials are brought in by Detachment 88 to discuss Koranic theology with inmates. "Many of the terrorists have been taught just a few verses from the Koran that focus on jihad without knowing the context of these passages," says Muchlis Hanafi, an Indonesian with a Ph.D. in Islamic studies from Cairo's renowned Al-Azhar University who last year counseled former JI commanders. The careful handling has paid off. Of the 400-plus terrorism suspects in custody, the Indonesian police estimate that around half have either cooperated with police or renounced violence. Sometimes even the simplest incentives work. Those who cooperate with Detachment 88 officers have had their children's tuition, their wives' employment and even their prison weddings paid for by the government.
 * Converting Militants**In 1998, Indonesians overthrew a dictator who had ruled for 32 years and ushered in a democratic government. It is precisely the nation's status as the world's third-largest democracy that has fueled Detachment 88's success. Wary of the military, which enabled strongman Suharto for so many years, Indonesia's parliament gave the police responsibility for the nation's antiterrorism effort. Instead of imposing an internal security act or other draconian laws that carried the whiff of dictatorship, Indonesia's newly democratic leaders decided to prosecute terrorists publicly through the normal court system. That meant no indefinite detentions that could nurture further radicalization. And to placate an increasingly vocal Islamic political movement, the government took the most controversial stance of all: to consider terrorists not as intractable criminals but ideologically confused souls. "It is Detachment 88's policy that suspected terrorists be treated as good men gone astray," says Sidney Jones, an expert on Indonesian terror with the International Crisis Group, a global conflict watchdog. "When they are fully in police custody, suspects are treated with kid gloves in order to get information on the terror network."

Read more: []

1 The Policy Brief: Instructions PART I: Overview The policy brief is a document that **// outlines the rationale for choosing a particular policy  //** alternative or course of action in a current policy debate . It is commonly produced in   response to a request directly from a decision-maker or within an organization that intends to  advocate for the position detailed in the brief. Depending on the role of the writer or organization producing the document, the brief may only provide a targeted discussion of the current alternatives without arguing for a particular one (i.e. those who adopt the role of ‘objective’ researcher). On the other end of the scale, i.e. advocates, the brief may focus directly on providing an argument for the adoption of a particular alternative. Nevertheless for any case, as any policy debate is a market place of competing ideas, **// the purpose of the policy brief is to convince the target audience of the  //** urgency of the current problem and the need to adopt the preferred alternative or course of action outlined and therefore, serve as an impetus for action .   As with all good marketing tools, **// the key to success is targeting the particular audience for  //** your message . The most common audience for a policy brief is the decision-maker but it is also not unusual to use the document to support broader advocacy initiatives targeting a wide but knowledgeable audience (e.g. decision makers, journalists, diplomats, administrators, researchers). REMEMBER THAT TAYLORING YOUR BRIEF FOR YOUR DESIGNATED AUDIENCE IS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO PRODUCE A MEANINGFUL DOCUMENT (AND THEREFORE GET A  GOOD GRADE). In constructing a policy brief that can effectively serve its intended purpose, it is common for a brief to be: •   – all aspects of the policy brief (from the message to the layout) need to strategically focused on achieving the intended goal of convincing the target audience. For example, the argument provided must build on what they do know about the problem, provide insight about what they don’t know about the problem and be presented in language that reflects their values, i.e. using ideas, evidence and language that will convince them. •   –The common audience for a policy brief is not interested in the research/analysis procedures conducted to produce the evidence, but are very interested to know the writer’s perspective on the problem and potential solutions based on the new evidence. •   – The policy brief is a communication tool produced by policy analysts and therefore all potential audiences not only expect a rational argument but will only be convinced by argumentation supported by evidence that the problem exists and the consequences of adopting particular alternatives. •   – to provide an adequately comprehensive but targeted argument within a limited space, the focus of the brief needs to be limited to a particular problem or area of a problem. •   – The type of audiences targeted commonly do not have the time or inclination to read an in-depth 20 page argument on a policy problem. Therefore, it is common that policy briefs do not exceed 6 – 8 pages in length. (PLEASE KEEP IN MIND A LENGTH OF 6-8 SINGLE SPACED PAGES OR 10-12 DOUBLE-SPACED PAGES). •   – This not only refers to using clear and simple language (i.e. not the jargon    and concepts of an academic discipline) but also to providing a well-explained and easy to  follow argument targeting a wide but knowledgeable audience. 2 •    – the writer of the policy brief should facilitate the ease of use of the document by    the target audience and therefore, should subdivide the text using clear descriptive titles to  guide the reader. •   – the policy brief should catch the eye of the potential audience in order to create a favorable impression (e.g. professional, innovative etc) In this way many brief writers many of the features of the promotional leaflet (use of color, use of logos, photographs, slogans, illustrative quotes etc). •   – the policy brief is an action-oriented tool targeting policy practitioners. As such the brief must provide arguments based on what is actually happening in practice with a particular policy and propose recommendation that seem realistic to the target audience The policy brief is usually said to be the most common and effective written communication tool in a policy campaign. However, in balancing all of the criteria above, many analysts also find the brief the most difficult policy tool to write. Common Structural Elements of a Policy Brief As discussed above, policy briefs directly reflect the different roles that the policy analyst commonly plays, i.e. from researcher to advocate. The type of brief that we are focusing on is one from the more action-oriented, advocacy end of the continuum. Although there is much variation even at this end of the scale, the most common elements of the policy brief are as follows: •   Title of the paper •   Executive summary •   Context and importance of the problem •   Critique of policy option(s) •   Policy recommendations •   Appendices •   Sources consulted or recommended More specifically, Title of the paper The title aims to catch the attention of the reader and compel him/her to read on and so needs to be descriptive, punchy and relevant .   Executive summary The executive summary aims to convince the reader further that the brief is worth in-depth investigation. It is especially important for an audience that is short of time to clearly see the relevance and importance of the brief in reading the summary. As such, a 1 to 2 paragraph executive summary commonly includes: - A   addressed; - A statement on   ; - Your .   Context and importance of the problem The purpose of this element of the brief is to convince the target audience that a current and urgent problem exists which requires them to take action. The context and importance of the problem is both the introductory and first building block of the brief. As such, it usually includes the following: - A clear in focus. - A short **// overview of the root causes of the problem  //** - A clear statement of the that clearly establishes the current 3 importance and policy relevance of the issue. It is worth noting that the length of the problem description may vary considerably from brief to brief depending on the stage on the policy process in focus, e.g. there may be a need to have a much more extensive problem description for policy at the evaluation stage than for one at the option choosing stage. Critique of policy option(s) The aim of this element is to detail shortcomings of the current approach or options being implemented and therefore, illustrate both the need for change and focus of where change needs to occur. In doing so, the critique of policy options usually includes the following: - A short in focus - An argument illustrating .   It is important for the sake of credibility to recognize all opinions in the debate of the issue. Policy recommendations The aim of the policy recommendations element is to provide a detailed and convincing proposal of how the failings of the current policy approach need to change. As such this is achieved by including; - A breakdown of the that need to be implemented - Sometimes also includes re-emphasizing the importance of action. Appendices Although the brief is a short and targeted document, authors sometimes decide that their argument needs further support and so include an appendix. **// Appendices should be included only when  //** absolutely necessary .   Sources consulted or recommended Many writers of the policy brief decide not to include any sourcing of their evidence, as their focus is not on an academic audience (A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS MANDATORY FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT) THOUGH). However, if you decide to include a short bibliography then place it at the end. Many writers prefer to lead their readers to further reading and so, include a recommended readings section.  Not surprisingly, many of the recommended readings are other related policy documents produced by  their organizations!  Sources:  This description of the policy brief was developed by Eoin Young and Lisa Quinn as LGI training materials and  based on the analysis of samples and from a number of guidelines such as:  David Dickson. Guidelines for SciDev.Net Opinion articles. Available on the World Wide Web.  URL:http://www.scidev.net/ms/entebbe/index.cfm?pageid=134 [29 Feb. 2004].  Hong Kong University. Guidelines for Writing a Policy Brief. Available on the World Wide Web.  URL: http://www.hku.hk/psychodp/P2/PSYC0036B/Tut1note.doc [29 Feb. 2004].  Richards. The policy options brief. Available on the World Wide Web. URL: http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/Fas/Jacobson/629/webnotes/policy_brief.htm [29 Feb. 2004]. Prof. Tsai. Guidelines for Writing a Policy Brief. Available on the World Wide Web. URL: http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~ktsai/policybrief.html [29 Feb. 2004]. PART II: In Practice The following instructions will provide you with a succession of steps on how to write a compelling policy brief, which follows the general overview of its features that you’ve just read above. Please read these instructions carefully before you even start the process of writing your policy brief. 6 Steps for a compelling policy brief 4 Here is a list of useful steps you should consider when you approach the task of writing your policy brief. 1.   : examine the issue you will be dealing with. Answer these questions: is the issue general or   specific? How general/specific? 2.   : take your primary audience into serious consideration. Your brief should be tailored to the needs of your audience. It makes a fundamental difference for how you must frame your analysis and your recommendation. Is your audience an individual (i.e. Prime Minister) or an organization (i.e. the Government as a whole)? Also, your audience tells you how much context is needed in the brief (i.e.: if you are briefing a European Finance Minister, you don't need to explain him/her what the Euro is and its history). 3.   : identify the relevant actors for the issue you are dealing with. This is an essential step, since you will have to analyze their interests in order to make sensible and viable policy recommendations. Identifying the relevant actors is also essential to produce a good assessment of the context (see above) and of the interests that are plug into the issue (see below). 4.   : once you have identified the relevant actors, it is necessary to analyze their interests. What are the actors' interests? Which of the relevant actors have similar interests to your audience? Which ones have different interests? How different? This step is important both for the context part of your brief and for the critique of policy options/policy recommendations (see above and below). Without a clear identification of the actors involved in the issue and their interests, your brief will result vague, and therefore not useful. 5.   : your policy recommendations should reflect the above analysis. Remember that, according to the issue and the audience, your recommendation(s) might not suggest the best policy, but instead the most viable one. This should not limit your recommendation to just compromise policies. If you want to recommend radical change, you can; remember though that such radical action has to be implemented in some ways. 6.   : the last step is to suggest your audience the way to 'sell' the policy to its public (the    public could be other members of the organizations, voters, other parties, etc.). This last step helps your audience build support/consensus to implement the policy you recommended.
 * // Focused  //**
 * // Professional, not academic  //**
 * // Evidence-based  //**
 * // Limited  //**
 * // Succinct  //**
 * // Understandable  //**
 * // Accessible  //**
 * // Promotional  //**
 * // Practical and feasible  //**
 * // description of the problem  //**
 * // why the current approach/policy option needs to be changed  //**
 * // recommendations for action  //**
 * // statement of the problem or issue  //**
 * // policy implications of the problem  //**
 * // overview of the policy option(s)  //**
 * // why and how the current or proposed approach is failing  //**
 * // specific practical steps or measures  //**
 * // a closing paragraph  //**
 * Issue **
 * Audience **
 * Actors **
 * Interests **
 * Recommendations **
 * How-To **