....Damra's radical history dates to the Cold War, when the United States spent billions of dollars training and arming the Muslim mujahedeen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. In 1988, when he was imam of Al Farooq mosque in Brooklyn, he wrote to the New York Commissioner of Deeds announcing plans for a humanitarian nonprofit organization called MAK that would help the Muslim fighters. It was later incorporated under the name Afghan Services Bureau and ultimately changed its name to Alkifah Refugee Center.
On the forms, Damra listed himself as secretary and an Egyptian, Mustafa Shalabi, as president. They set up the Alkifah Refugee Center office next to Damra's mosque in the Little Arabia section of Brooklyn.
By all accounts, it was a great success, both at recruiting Muslim fighters and raising money for the mujahedeen. The most powerful and radical Muslim leaders from the Middle East passed through- including bin Laden's mentor, Abdullah Azzam, who launched the jihad movement through Alkifah centers worldwide.
....Azzam wanted the mujahedeen to challenge Israel. But his wealthy Saudi pupil, bin Laden, wanted the fighters to topple existing Muslim governments he disagreed with.
Just 10 months after Damra defended Azzam's honor at JFK Airport, Azzam was assassinated and bin Laden took firm control of the movement.
The following year, 1990, a blind Egyptian sheik named Omar Abdel Rahman fled Egypt following a failed assassination attempt he ordered of that country's president. Rahman, a bin Laden ally, moved to New York, took charge of the Alkifah center and began preaching at local mosques, including Damra's.
What Damra thought of the changing leadership of the jihadist movement has never been clear.
....According to court paperwork filed this month by the federal prosecutor's office, a Cleveland- based FBI special agent named Joe Haluscsak interviewed Damra in February 1993 at the request of the FBI's New York office.
Haluscsak wanted Damra to tell him about the Alkifah center, and about allegations of counterfeiting at the Brooklyn mosque while Damra was there. He also wanted to know more about Nosair, the man accused of killing Rabbi Kahane, and one of his accomplices, Abouhalima. And he wanted to know what the blind sheik was doing in New York.
According to prosecutors, Damra told Haluscsak part of the story. He explained how Shalabi worked out of a room in the Brooklyn mosque, raising money for Abdullah Azzam's jihad effort.
Article comments
1 - Dawn
Israeli resolve is an admirable thing. They are not afraid to fight terrorists in their own backyard, streetcorner or local shops.
But they know who their enemy is and they don't confuse it with someone else, like say Iraq.
Now before you write me off as some Iraq war apologist, consider this: Had we only stayed the course and applied the Israeli defense policy of defending our borders and hunting down the terrorist networks and those colluding with them, we would have save thousands of lives in Iraq that have been needlessly lost for what? A war against a single man who has YET to be proven to have WMD OR ties to Al Quaida.
Wouldn't all that money and manpower been better spent tracking down Osama and his friends?
Maybe the long term strategy by going to war with Iraq will eventually be brought to fruition - and if so, count me as a humble person who will acquiesce to the wisdom of Bush, but from my perspective, we have spent so much (in lives and money) for something that may only fall apart in the near future.
You can NOT compare the Israeli war on terror to any other war on terror, most especially our own. Israel is protecting itself within its immediate borders - we are starting fights with a country under the premise that it may pay off EVENTUALLY.
Kind of like Vietnam, and we all know how well that went.
2 - Eric Olsen
Dawn, is this really you? Some of the phrases don't sound right.
3 - Hal Pawluk
Dawn got to the real lesson when she said that we would have done much better had we "applied the Israeli defense policy of defending our borders and hunting down the terrorist networks and those colluding with them."
4 - Hal Pawluk
Checking the IP address seems to indicate it is Dawn.
5 - Eric Olsen
I still don't think it sounds like her, we'll see.
But no argument with the need for "defending our borders and hunting down the terrorist networks and those colluding with them," but we also need to remain on the offense, and Iraq had to be dealt with sooner or later. Bush chose sooner.
6 - Dawn
Yes, it's me - I am not sure what phrases don't sound like me, but I can attest the the fact that I am unwilling to be convinced that going to Iraq, when we did, was the best move against terrorism that the U.S. could make.
I strongly agree that Iraq needed to be addressed, as does North Korea, Iran, Northern Africa and many other rogue nations across the globe. WITHOUT a doubt. But not too long ago, we considered Pakistan a rogue nation, yet here they are helping us more or less fight the war on terror. Why? Because we ASKED them, maybe we didn't ask them nicely, but we did ask them, and there is something to be said for using a little finesse.
Bush has the finesse of an elephant in a ballet tutu.
He did his part to start the war on terror, he made a major snafu - perhaps being kind we can even call it a "mis-estimate" - but to say that going to Iraq has helped reduce the number of terrorists around the globe - well all I have to do is read the headlines to know that is a complete fabrication of the truth.
7 - Eric Olsen
The bottom line in Iraq was removing Saddam, this has been accomplished. We need to do all we reasonably can to support the establishment of a secular democracy there but at least part 1 has been accomplished. And again, there have been many other - some unrecognizeable for now - benefits that have come from this action, Libya being one. If Iraq had to be dealt with sooner or later, sooner is better.
And as far as terror in the world: individual acts are going to happen, the key is to destroy the infrastructure and remove the sources of suppport, while trying to prevent individual attacks on an ongoing basis as best you can, and stay on the attack against the terrorists, just as Israel has done to Hamas, except we are dealing with al Qaeda, which is really a loose network of like-thinking assplugs spread all over the world, and the even broader pool of Islamist fanatics. This is not an easy or quick job, and in the big picture progress has been made, of which Iraq is a part.
8 - Eric Olsen
Oh, and we weren't just removing a person in Iraq, we were removing a regime.
9 - JR
Ironically, Israel had just buried 16 people...
I'm sorry, but that tells me all I need to know about Israel's "success" in fighting terror.
Yet the fact that it took Hamas almost half a year--and dozens of failed attempts--to make good on its threat to inflict immediate and massive punishment proves just how successful Israel's war against terrorism has been.
Yes. It proves that they've done absolutely nothing to deter terrorists from trying.
Hamas's ranks have become so depleted that the organization is now recruiting teenagers...
When haven't they recruited teenagers? This "news" tells us what, exactly? Seems like we should be more concerned that they've been so successful at recruiting teenagers.
Meanwhile, life inside Israel has returned to near normalcy.
Which seems to imply that they have normalized terror...
Everyone knows a terrorist attack can happen at any time.
Q.E.D.
At every phase of Israel's counteroffensive, skeptics have worried that attempts to suppress terrorism would only encourage more of it...They warned that, by reoccupying Palestinian cities and targeting terrorist leaders, Israel would only deepen Palestinian rage and despair.
Okay, I haven't been to Palestine, so I don't know. Is there any evidence to suggest Israel hasn't done exactly that?
This is the first lesson Sharon could teach democratic leaders facing a war against terrorism: Insure domestic consensus and the support of vital allies.
Sharon has domestic consensus?
Where does this article come from, an alternate universe? The "Road Map" is all but dead; what's there to be so optimistic about? And doesn't anybody get a little nervous about declaring "Mission Accomplished" just because tourism and the economy are up from a few years ago? I mean, how do the figures compare to 2000? Or 1980? Or 1960?
Israel has seen several periods of relative calm since it's founding, yet the terrorism always flared up again. Isn't the root cause of the most recent violence the same as that of all the previous episodes? Which means that Israel has never addressed the problem. Apparently they've just been swatting flies for 50 years.
I'm not about to take any advice from Israel. In fact, U.S. support for their policies is a major part of the reasons we were attacked.
10 - Dawn
And the assplugs are like cockroaches.
With each move we make, which distracts us from our true objective (detroying Al Qaida) for example the war in Iraq - they lay eggs behind our backs and in our midst.
More insurgents continue to flood Iraq daily - isn't it entirely possible that our objective has backfired and instead of exterminating them, we are in essence helping to breed them?
11 - Hal Pawluk
Removing the Saddam regime was the bottom line only for Israel, the neoconservatives and those that the neocons had managed to convince that it was a good thing with their decade-long campaign.
It was not the bottom line for most Americans.
The increase in worldwide terrorism cannot be dismissed with a simple "Shit happens."
The invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the war on terrorism. It increased the number of terrorists in the world, spreading terrorist further and faster than ever. And it increased the number of acts of terrorism worldwide.
Since 9/11 the number of terrorist attacks worldwide has increased every year. Since 9/11, there have been 3,000 deaths from terrorism. The attacks and deaths are accelerating - 58% of the 3,000 were this year, and the year is not over yet.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the fight against Muslim extremists, and has in fact increased their numbers and their attacks.
Bush is a reckless Commander-In-Chief who has proven himself incompetent to direct the war against terrorists, a danger rather than a protector.
12 - Tim Hall
You're all completely missing the point. The way between Israel and the Palestinians is a quite different war with different causes compared with America's war against Al-Queda.
The Israel/Palestine war is first and foremost a war over territory; both sides want to control as much of the Holy Land as they can manage. The ideological side is secondary, although Islamist psychotics have got in on the act.
The war between The West and Al-Queda is primarily a war of ideas; each side want their values and ideas to become prevalent across the middle east.
Tactics appropriate for one are not necessarily the same as for the other.