News and Media

ISIS officially claimed credit late on November 2 for the October 31 attack in Manhattan, in which Sayfullo Saipov drove a rental truck down a busy bicycle path, killing eight people. CEP has translated from Arabic and analyzed ISIS’s announcement, which is unique in a number of ways.

ISIS’s designation of Sayfullo Saipov as a “solder of the Caliphate” is unique in that ISIS normally does not claim credit for attacks when operatives are captured alive (as is the case with Sayfullo Saipov).

This claim of responsibility is different in both how it was issued and the language used. In most international terrorist attacks, ISIS’s Amaq news agency issues the initial claim of responsibility (translated into multiple languages), and then its weekly newsletter al-Naba follows up with more details later. This time the claim was issued exclusively in al-Naba late on Thursday, November 2. Traditionally, Amaq and al-Naba claims for responsibility include language suggesting that a “source close to Amaq” or a “source close to the Islamic State” relayed attack details to the group’s media officials. However, the al-Naba story on the New York attack relies exclusively on outside media reporting of the attacks.

Thus far, ISIS has not given Saipov a kunya (a nickname given to an ISIS operative), something they did for Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock. In the Las Vegas attack, ISIS may have given Paddock a kunya to push back against media and public skepticism about ISIS’s claim of responsibility. Given media reports of Saipov’s letter of allegiance to ISIS, the group likely does not feel the same pressure to give Saipov a kunya or describe his background (as they did with Paddock’s conversion story).

The wording of the al-Naba claim suggests that ISIS is alleging that the attack was inspirational and not directed by operatives within ISIS’s external operations wing. This conclusion is based upon: (1) the absence of any Amaq footage of the attack or Saipov pledging bay’ah to Baghdadi before the attack; (2) the wording of al-Naba’s claim suggesting that the group learned of the attack from the media and not a “source close to Amaq Agency” or a “source close to the Islamic State;” and (3) the al-Naba claim is scarce on details about the plot and omits important details like the bag of knives that Saipov carried in his truck.

Translation of al-Naba Claim of Responsibility

Attack by One of the Soldiers of the Caliphate in Downtown Manhattan Results in the Killing and Wounding of More Than 20 Crusaders

One of the soldiers of the Islamic State in America on Tuesday attacked a number of the Crusaders on one of the city of New York’s streets, near the memorial commemorating the decimation (the raid of September 11^th), which resulted in the killing and injuring of more than 20 Crusaders, praise be to Allah.

Media reported that the mujahid brother rammed a number of Crusaders with a small truck in the Manhattan area, which resulted in the killing of 8 and the wounding of 12, praise be to Allah. Another media source revealed that among the 8 killed were 5 Argentinians and Belgians. 

The operation has stirred up–thanks to Allah–fear inside Crusader America, which led them to increase security measures and strengthen measures against immigrants inside America. This is among the most prominent of the attacks which targeted the Crusaders in America, which was most recently the attack that the mujahid brother Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki–May Allah Accept him–committed on a large gathering of the Crusaders in Las Vegas, which brought down hundreds killed and wounded–praise be to Allah. This attack came in the context of the soldiers of the Caliphate in America and Europe responding to calls to target nationals of the Crusader states participating in the coalition against the Islamic State. Praise be to Allah.

On August 30, 2017, the Counter Extremism Project found that YouTube had posted a “warning label” on an extremist lecture by notorious al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki:

Awlaki’s lectures have played an influential role in inspiring dozens of U.S. and European extremists to attempt or carry out acts of terrorism. Specifically, Awlaki’s “Battle of Hearts and Minds” lecture—has been used to rally supporters and lionize terrorists, whom Awlaki refers to admiringly as shaheed (martyrs). In December of 2013, the “Battle of the Hearts and Minds” was used by ISIS as part of its recruitment and promotional materials.

Considering the documented and proven role Awlaki-content plays in the successful recruitment and radicalization of terrorist actors, it is puzzling why YouTube has persisted in keeping Awlaki on its platform. Beginning in January 2016, the Counter Extremism Project (CEP) has tracked the presence of Awlaki content on YouTube, and analyzed how Awlaki content remains accessible, ubiquitous, and often promoted on the video sharing platform. In that time, CEP has made the following key findings:

1. Awlaki’s content remains consistently and readily available on YouTube, and searches for “Anwar al-Awlaki” continue to yield more than 70,000 results; and
2. YouTube’s algorithms continue to nudge users toward (a) Awlaki’s content generally, and (b) his most incendiary and egregious content in particular.

Today, CEP notes that YouTube’s policies surrounding Awlaki and other forms of extremist and terrorist material remain incomplete, inconsistent, and unclear. For example:

Why the warning label?

In March 2017, hundreds of advertisers fled Google’s video-sharing platform YouTube after finding that their ads were appearing next to extremist and terrorist content. Rather than simply remove this material, it appears that Google has opted to allow some videos to remain on YouTube affixed with a warning label—something that has never been applied previously to any other type of content in violation of YouTube’s Terms of Service (e.g. pornography, copyright violations, etc.).

This “warning label” policy essentially creates an entirely new class of content, i.e. “inflammatory” or “inappropriate or offensive content to some audiences.” When so much other content uploaded to YouTube is blocked or removed with regularity, it is unclear why YouTube is essentially creating a ‘carve-out’ for extremist content to remain online. It is also unclear how (or why for that matter) YouTube differentiates between terrorist content to be removed, and content that merely warrants a warning label. All extremist and terrorist content should be removed from You Tube in accordance with its Terms of Service.

YouTube’s policies again being applied inconsistently

YouTube’s so-called warning labels are being applied inconsistently to extremist and terrorist content. For example including Awlaki’s lectures. Some versions of Awlaki’s “Battle of the Hearts and Minds” lecture have been taken down, while others are prefaced with the warning label, and others still are live on the site without a warning label. Meanwhile, dozens of copies of Awlaki’s other lectures remain live on the site. How can the public have confidence in YouTube polices to disrupt extremist content if it cannot even apply its highly-touted new efforts consistently across the same content?  

What about Awlaki?

YouTube notes that it “strictly prohibits content intended to recruit for terrorist organizations, incite violence, celebrate terrorist attacks or otherwise promote acts of terrorism. We also do not permit foreign terrorist organizations to use YouTube.” Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S.-sanctioned terrorist who served as the public face of al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Awlaki has inspired dozens of U.S. and European terrorists, including Orlando gunman Omar Mateen, San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook, and Boston bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Awlaki’s was a self-declared leader of AQAP and his “Battle of the Hearts and Minds” lecture was used by ISIS in its 2013 recruitment material. Given the foregoing, any reasonable individual would determine that Awlaki-related content clearly qualifies as clear terrorist material. How can YouTube credibly assert otherwise in keeping Awlaki content live on its platform?

CEP appreciates YouTube’s implicit acknowledgement that Awlaki content is at least “inappropriate” enough to warrant a warning label. CEP has highlighted the issue of Awlaki on YouTube since 2015. In certain cases, YouTube finally took action to disable comments, sharing, video view count, autoplay, and several other features that serve to promote and further Awlaki’s messaging.

Unfortunately the limited action falls short and appears designed more to appease advertisers than protect the general public, who suffers the consequences of terrorist attacks rooted in Awlaki’s deadly rhetoric. Indeed, Awlaki played a unique role in rallying his supporters to terrorize the public. Awlaki was cited as a potential influence in dozens of U.S. and European terrorism cases, and his lectures—including “Battle of the Hearts and Minds”—have been used as recruitment fodder for internationally-sanctioned terrorist organizations al-Qaeda and ISIS alike.

Despite this reality, YouTube persists in allowing Awlaki to remain on its platform, opting for a piecemeal and reactive approach to pressure and criticism. This response—now including the bizarre addition of a warning label on some versions of Awlaki’s lectures—demonstrates YouTube’s alarming and persistent disregard for public safety, all the more baffling considering that YouTube is a company that entirely depends upon—and profits from—the public as both consumers and content providers. This seemingly random and post hoc approach to Awlaki content begs serious questions regarding YouTube’s standard business practices, let alone its business ethics.

Far more remains to be done to ensure that content promoting terrorism—explicitly prohibited by YouTube’s Terms of Service and overtly represented by Anwar al-Awlaki’s material—does not remain readily accessible on YouTube’s platform. YouTube must be transparent about its definition and policies regarding extremist and terrorist videos on its platform, including content pertaining to deceased al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube must then apply its policies in a manner that is proactive, responsible, consistent, and transparent to the public.

The U.N. Security Council recently renewed the mandate of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the international peacekeeping force that has been present in Lebanon since 1978. Under pressure from the United States, the Security Council charged U.N. Secretary General António Guterres with finding ways to “increase UNIFIL’s visible presence, including through patrols and inspections.” But this may fall short in helping UNIFIL carry out its mission.

UNIFIL’s original mandate was to ensure Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory and the assertion of Lebanese authority throughout the country. After Hezbollah’s 2006 war with Israel, the U.N. expanded UNIFIL’s mandate to assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in “taking steps” to ensure that southern Lebanon remains free of unauthorized weaponry and “armed personnel.”  

Nonetheless, thanks to its patron Iran, Hezbollah has grown into a regional military player. Middle East security officials have documented how Hezbollah has more than tripled the number and lethality of its rockets and other weaponry since the 2006 war. Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian civil war for the past five years alongside the Syrian army has directly shifted the balance of power in that conflict. We most recently witnessed this with Hezbollah’s arrangement—in coordination with the Syrian government—for ISIS fighters to be bused from near the Lebanese border to areas under the terror group’s control in Syria’s east.

UNIFIL has consistently lacked the authority to directly confront Hezbollah. And the Lebanese army has proven unwilling or unable—or both—to disarm the terror group. During a press tour of Hezbollah’s positions in southern Lebanon earlier this year, for example, Hezbollah fighters openly showed reporters rocket-propelled grenades and other artillery. When an Italian UNIFIL officer reportedly tried to clear the group from a restricted area near an Israeli listening post, a Lebanese army officer instead escorted the UNIFIL officer away.

Contrary to the facts on the ground, UNIFIL has repeatedly claimed that it has not witnessed any Hezbollah weapons entering southern Lebanon. In 2008, Colonel Marc Ollier of the French UNIFIL contingent said that he didn’t “believe Hezbollah's weapons figure in Resolution 1701.” According to a U.N. spokeswoman earlier this year, “UNIFIL has not observed any unauthorized armed persons … or found any basis to report a violation of the (cease-fire) resolution.” UNIFIL issued a similar statement in 2015.

Ahead of the Security Council’s debate, Lebanon called on the U.N. to renew UNIFIL’s mandate but without any changes. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley sharply criticized UNIFIL for allowing Hezbollah to rebuild its arsenal in southern Lebanon. Haley further accused UNIFIL’s commander of being “blind to what Hezbollah is doing.”

Both Lebanon and the United States were reportedly satisfied with the outcome of the U.N. debate, but it is now up to Guterres to determine how much authority UNIFIL will have to confront Hezbollah and prevent it from growing even stronger. Unless UNIFIL’s teeth are sharpened, Hezbollah will continue its military expansion in Lebanon and Syria. And that will be bad for everyone—except Iran.

You may be a notorious terrorist financier, but you can still use Instagram to raise money. At least that’s the case for U.N.-sanctioned Hajjaj bin Fahd al Ajmi, one of several Gulf-based donors to have funneled millions to al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. Despite being sanctioned, Ajmi is still able to use Instagram to fundraise and win ad sponsorship deals, publishing more than 1,000 posts to more than 1.7 million Instagram followers. This status quo is unacceptable: Instagram needs to shut Ajmi down.

Ajmi has been sanctioned by the United Nations, United States, United Kingdom, and European Union for financing al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the Nusra Front (also known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham). The Kuwaiti-based sheikh is particularly adept at using social media as a fundraising platform. In 2012, he launched a fundraising campaign on Twitter to finance unspecified jihadist groups in Syria, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars and reportedly providing groups with weapons and other material support. The following year, Ajmi used Twitter and YouTube to solicit funds for an August 2013 militant offensive in Latakia, Syria, in which jihadist groups including the Nusra Front and ISIS massacred several hundred civilians. Human Rights Watch named Ajmi as one of the offensive’s “most prominent donors.” Nonetheless, Ajmi has used Instagram in recent years to actively solicit donations for terrorist-affiliated charities and has even received money through sponsored posts.

Through his Instagram posts, Ajmi has urged donations to terrorist-linked charities, such as Mercy International (depicted below), an organization accused of facilitating al-Qaeda’s 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya, and the Islamic International Charitable Organization, an organization with reported ties to Hamas. As in the example below, his posts frequently exploit the plight of victims in the Syrian civil war, highlighting the suffering of children to elicit sympathy and—most importantly—financial support.

On his Instagram account, Ajmi also posts advertisements for goods and services such as restaurants, real estate investments, and cars. Ajmi has publicly admitted to receiving sponsorship payments from these ads, which has helped him overcome the financial challenges of being widely sanctioned, according to the Wall Street Journal.

On first glance, it may seem like an oversight that Instagram has allowed an internationally-sanctioned terrorist financier to use its platform to fundraise for himself and for terrorist-affiliated charities. However, as a for-profit company (parent company: Facebook), Instagram has a financial incentive for   keeping Ajmi—with his 1.7 million followers—on its platform.                  

This should not be allowed to continue. On Instagram, Ajmi does not make any attempt to conceal his identity––or his status. In Arabic, his profile states his name in full (Hajjaj bin Fahd al Ajmi). In reference to a new terrorist designation by several Gulf countries, his description for several weeks read, “Not a terrorist. A new clip concerning the terrorist designation in the joint announcement” and directs the reader to a YouTube video entitled “Hajjaj al-Ajmi is not a terrorist.”

Ajmi's Instagram account description, screenshot from July 2017.

It is unconscionable that Facebook, Instagram’s parent company, allows a U.N.-designated terrorist like Ajmi to remain active, let alone use the platform to solicit donations for terrorist-linked charities and as a business opportunity for himself. Instagram’s Community Guidelines asserts that it is not a platform used to “support or praise terrorism.” Its parent company, Facebook, similarly claims that “social media should not be a place where terrorists have a voice. We want to be clear how seriously we take this.” And yet, it remains the case that Instagram is allowing an internationally-sanctioned al-Qaeda terrorist financier to run rampant on its platform, raising money for himself and other terrorist-linked actors.

It’s time for Facebook prove its “seriousness” and crack down on terrorist financing carried out in plain view on its platforms. It’s time to shut down Ajmi.