![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutAn interesting question is who decides which terrorist claims are real exactly. After the failed Times Square bomb, a Pakistani Taliban faction released a series of videos seeming to claim responsibility for the failed attack and promising further violence against the US. The authorities quickly downplayed the statements, and though that Pakistani-American suspect was arrested, officials have yet to find any proven links between him and the Taliban. So who gets to make that call?
These guys. The Worldwide Incidents Team at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) tracks terrorist attacks and attempted attacks around the world as well as terrorist claims of responsibility. Although it's generally assumed that terrorist groups have actually done the things they say they've done, it's not unheard of for groups to take credit for attacks they didn't commit.
For instance, in the aftermath of the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the mysterious Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades (known for talking a big game on the Internet) claimed responsibility in a letter to a London newspaper. The group (which also took credit for the 2003 US blackout, calling it "Operation Quick Lightning in the Land of the Tyrant of This Generation") was later determined to be just seeking attention. Palestinian militant groups are also notorious for issuing competing claims of responsibility for attacks on Israel.
So the NCTC evaluates claims based on what's known about the groups' competence, track record, operating methods etc, and assigns their statements 1-5 levels of credibility: likely, plausible, unknown, unlikely, and inferred. 'Inferred' refers to attacks in which there's no claim but a particular group's responsibility can be assumed based on the 'attack signature' (factors such as timing, location and methods used).
The NCTC generally only releases more credible claims to the public, but keeps all of them in a classified record (even the most dubious) in case new information comes to light that prompts a re-evaluation.
After all, today's bigmouths could be tomorrow's bad guys.
These guys. The Worldwide Incidents Team at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) tracks terrorist attacks and attempted attacks around the world as well as terrorist claims of responsibility. Although it's generally assumed that terrorist groups have actually done the things they say they've done, it's not unheard of for groups to take credit for attacks they didn't commit.
For instance, in the aftermath of the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the mysterious Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades (known for talking a big game on the Internet) claimed responsibility in a letter to a London newspaper. The group (which also took credit for the 2003 US blackout, calling it "Operation Quick Lightning in the Land of the Tyrant of This Generation") was later determined to be just seeking attention. Palestinian militant groups are also notorious for issuing competing claims of responsibility for attacks on Israel.
So the NCTC evaluates claims based on what's known about the groups' competence, track record, operating methods etc, and assigns their statements 1-5 levels of credibility: likely, plausible, unknown, unlikely, and inferred. 'Inferred' refers to attacks in which there's no claim but a particular group's responsibility can be assumed based on the 'attack signature' (factors such as timing, location and methods used).
The NCTC generally only releases more credible claims to the public, but keeps all of them in a classified record (even the most dubious) in case new information comes to light that prompts a re-evaluation.
After all, today's bigmouths could be tomorrow's bad guys.
