Saturday, 22 November 2014

Afghanistan: A Case Against a Residual US Military Presence



The US government and Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) finally inked a bilateral security agreement (BSA) on 30 SEP 14 that will leave a residual US military force of 9,800 – 10,000 personnel in the country. Since the signing of the BSA the US government has been fueling the mainstream media with talk about how it may boost the chances for resuming peace talks with the Taliban by “demonstrating to the insurgents that they cannot hope to achieve a military victory.” We strongly disagree with this dangerously naive view of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, and submit to the American people that the presence of US military personnel in the country is irrelevant. Why? Because the central government will fall whether a residual force is there or not. The only thing a continue US military presence will do is delay the inevitable.


http://ift.tt/1rCaNPw


http://ift.tt/1uUfvbQ


ANA 1

ANA troops

Source: http://ift.tt/1AA66uW


So keeping this in mind, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody that we had the customary “friday afternoon information dump” with the Obama administration authorizing an expansion of the US military’s residual force in Afghanistan starting in 2015 – complete with the same restrictive rules of engagement (ROE) that have led to so many deaths over the past 6 yrs in the country.


http://ift.tt/1z5Zjow


Whereas the US government should’ve kept a residual force in Iraq, the opposite is true for Afghanistan. Here’s some of the primary reasons:


1. The Afghan people have no national identity. Where the average Iraqi (with the exception of the Kurds) identifies as being “Iraqi,” the Afghans’ loyalty falls in line with the following: Family, tribe, ethnic group, religion, nationality – all in this order. National identity is so far down on the totem pole that its barely a blip on their radar, and that’s one of the reasons why GIRoA can barely control Kabul. In other words, you’re more likely to find an Afghan who will identify as a being a member of the Zadran or Shirzai tribes than you will one who will identify himself as being “Afghan.” That’s a big problem to overcome in a country where unity is such a foreign concept. The UK and Soviets both tried – and failed in doing exactly what’s being attempted here. Should we really expect things to be different? Remember, even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the central government was having difficulty maintaining its grip away from the capital.


http://ift.tt/1AA66Lc


http://ift.tt/IVhvxk


http://ift.tt/1AA65qK


2. Insider attacks. The concept of insider attacks have become a fixture in the enemy’s TTPs in the country – and enlisted men aren’t the only targets. Senior US military officers have also been targeted, with the most recent incident being the attack that led to the death of US Army MG Harold Greene. We assess that the restrictive ROE and ludicrous policy of “cultural sensitivity training” so as not to “offend” our Afghan National Army (ANA) counterparts will not prevent future insider attacks. Furthermore, the only reason there has been a drop in these attacks this year is because of the US drawdown. The ANA are now taking the brunt of insider attacks, and we have several contacts who have served in the country – some of which are still there– who have informed us that many of these incidents go unreported so as not to paint a “negative picture.” We had problems with the IA being compromised by the former regime and IRGC-Qods Force proxies, but never experienced attacks on this scale. It’s also worth noting that in the final days of the Soviet occupation, the Soviet Army was experiencing several insider attacks by Afghan military officers who defected to the Mujahidin. In fact, they saw an increase towards the end of their mission embedding advisors as whole units defected to the Mujaheddin.


Read more





Saudi Arabia May Go Nuclear Because of Obama’s Iran Deal


President Obama wants an agreement with Iran to prevent a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, but it’s pushing Saudi Arabia toward its own nuke program.


Last month, America’s top Iran negotiator Wendy Sherman had some bad news for ambassadors from America’s Arab allies. In a meeting with envoys from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other Gulf states, Sherman said that any bargain with Iran would likely leave Tehran, the Gulf states long-time enemy, with the capacity to enrich uranium, according to U.S. officials briefed on the encounter.

Sherman regularly briefs these allies after diplomatic talks with Iran, but in recent weeks those conversations have been different. While most of America’s Middle East allies—with the exception of Israel—have publicly supported the current Iran negotiations, behind the scenes, envoys from the region have expressed grave concerns that Iran could be left with a break out capacity to make the fuel for a nuclear weapon at a time of their choosing.


And now, one of the countries in the region without a full-blown nuclear programs—Saudi Arabia—may be changing its mind. Riyadh has a long-standing interest in nuclear power. But Western and Israeli intelligence services are starting to see signs that this interest is growing more serious, and extends into nuclear enrichment. Until recently, the pursuit of nuclear enrichment—or the fuel cycle—was considered by arms control experts as a tell-tale sign of a clandestine weapons program. Nuclear fuel is sold to all members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it’s far more costly to build the infrastructure and produce it indigenously. Saudi Arabia appears to be getting more serious about going down that path.


If Saudi Arabia pursue nuclear enrichment even if there is an Iran deal, then the victory to curb atomic weapons that Obama has tried to achieve will be at least partially undone by his own diplomacy.


“They view the developments in Iran very negatively. They have money, they can buy talent, they can buy training,” said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector. “The Saudis are thinking through how do you create a deterrent through capability.”


Albright said in this particular case, an indigenous Saudi program is in the very early stages. In 2012, the Saudi government announced plans to build 16 commercial reactors by 2030 and signed a technology agreement with China. But Albright said he has heard concerns expressed by a European intelligence agency that Saudi Arabia in recent years has quietly been developing the engineering and scientific knowledge base to one day master the nuclear fuel cycle, or produce the fuel indigenously for the reactors it’s trying to build. He said Saudi Arabia was hiring the scientists and engineers needed to build the cascades of centrifuges needed to produce nuclear fuel. “We don’t worry about the Saudis learning to operate a reactor,” he said. “I worry that they will learn the skills needed to master the fuel cycle.”


Read more at The Daily Beast



Another GTMO Detainee/Former al Qaeda Member, Released



Detainee Transfer Announced


11/22/2014 05:04 AM CST


IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. NR-588-14

November 22, 2014


Detainee Transfer Announced


The Department of Defense announced today the transfer of Muhammed Murdi Issa Al-Zahrani from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the Government of Saudi Arabia.


On Oct. 3, a Periodic Review Board consisting of representatives from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State; the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence determined continued law of war detention of Al-Zahrani does not remain necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. As a result of that review, which examined a number of factors, including security issues, Al-Zahrani was recommended for transfer by consensus of the six departments and agencies comprising the Periodic Review Board.


“In the past two weeks, the Department of Defense has transferred seven detainees. These…




Friday, 21 November 2014

AQAP rejects Islamic State’s ‘caliphate,’ blasts group for sowing dissent among jihadists



Screen Shot 2014-11-21 at 9.36.48 AM-thumb-560x312-4579 By


Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), an official branch of al Qaeda, has released a video rejecting the Islamic State’s announced caliphate and chastising the group for sowing discord among jihadists.


The newly-released video stars Harith bin Ghazi al Nadhari, a senior AQAP sharia official, who responds directly to a Nov. 13 speech made by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State. The video is titled, “A Statement about What was Contained in the Speech of Sheikh Abu Bakr al Baghdadi ‘Even If the Disbelievers Despise Such’,” and was first translated by the SITE Intelligence Group.


In addition to rebuking Baghdadi and the Islamic State, Nadhari also renews AQAP’s bayat (oath of allegiance) to al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri, and affirms Zawahiri’s oath to Taliban chieftain Mullah Omar. Nadhari says “it is known” that al Qaeda “has had a pledge of allegiance to Mullah Omar…for nearly twenty years.”


Al Qaeda has previously countered Baghdadi’s claim to rule as “Caliph Ibrahim I” by implying that Omar is the rightful caliph and, unlike Baghdadi, has the broad support of recognized jihadist authorities.


Nadhari begins by saying that AQAP “did not want to talk about the current dispute and the fitna [sedition]” in Syria given that the jihadists are in a “sensitive stage in which the enemies of Islam” have “gathered together to fight” the entire Islamic ummah [worldwide community of Muslims].


“This war was and still is a Crusader war against all the honest mujahideen,” Nadhari says, according to SITE’s translation. “We took the position incumbent upon us to support our brothers with what we can, and we still hold to that position, as we believe in the necessity to support our mujahideen brothers, including all of their groups and entities, regardless of their inclinations.”


However, according to Nadhari, the Islamic State has made it impossible to remain silent.


Read more at Long War Journal





Responding to the Slaughter



635518979796654817-GTY-459169342-450x337 By Caroline Glick:


What we are seeing in Jerusalem today is not simply Palestinian terrorism. It is Islamic jihad. No one likes to admit it. The television reporters insist that this is the worst possible scenario because there is no way to placate it.


There is no way to reason with it.


So what else is new? The horrible truth is that all of the anti-Jewish slaughters perpetrated by our Arab neighbors have been motivated to greater or lesser degrees by Islamic Jew-hatred. The only difference between the past hundred years and now is that today our appeasement-oriented elite is finding it harder to pretend away the obvious fact that we cannot placate our enemies.


No “provocation” by Jews drove two Jerusalem Arabs to pick up meat cleavers and a rifle and slaughter rabbis in worship like sheep and then mutilate their bodies.


No “frustration” with a “lack of progress” in the “peace process,” can motivate people to run over Jewish babies or attempt to assassinate a Jewish civil rights activist.


The reason that these terrorists have decided to kill Jews is that they take offense at the fact that in Israel, Jews are free. They take offense because all their lives they have been taught that Jews should live at their mercy, or die by their sword.


They do so because they believe, as former Jordanian MP Ya’qub Qarash said on Palestinian television last week, that Christians and Muslims should work together to forbid the presence of Jews in “Palestine” and guarantee that “not a single Jew will remain in Jerusalem.”


Our neighbors are taught that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, signed the treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 as a ploy to buy time during which he would change the balance of power between his army and the Jews of Kuraish. And 10 years later, once his army gained the upper hand, he annihilated the Jews.


Throughout the 130-year history of modern Zionism, Islamic Jew-hatred has been restrained by two forces: the desire of many Arabs to live at peace with their Jewish neighbors; and the ability of Israeli authorities and before them, British authorities, to deter the local Arab Muslims from attacking.


The monopoly on Arab Muslim leadership has always belonged to the intolerant bigots. Support for coexistence has always been the choice of individuals.


Haj Amin el-Husseini’s first act as the founder of the Palestinian Arab identity was to translate The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and serialize them in the local press.


During the Arab jihad of 1936-1939, Husseini’s gangs of murderers killed more Arabs than the British did. He targeted those who sought peaceful coexistence with the Jews.


His successor Yasser Arafat followed his example.


During the 1988-1991 Palestinian uprising, the PLO killed more Palestinians than the IDF did. Like Husseini, Arafat targeted Palestinians who worked with Israel.


Since Israel imprudently embraced Arafat and the PLO in 1993 and permitted them to govern the Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and exert direct influence and coercive power over the Arabs of Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority’s governing institutions have used all the tools at their disposal to silence those who support peaceful coexistence with Israel, and indoctrinate the general public in Islamic and racial Jew-hatred.


Much has been made of the recent spike in incitement of violence by Palestinian leaders led by Arafat’s successor Mahmoud Abbas. But the flames Abbas and his comrades are throwing would not cause such conflagrations if they hadn’t already indoctrinated their audience to desire the destruction of the Jews.


You cannot solicit murder among those who haven’t been taught that committing murder is an act of heroism.


Today Israel must take swift, effective action to stop the slaughter. The damage that has been done to the psyches of the Arabs of Jerusalem and their brethren in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, cannot be repaired in a timeline relevant to the task of preventing the next massacre.


Read more at Frontpage





The Real Turkish Agenda…




Recent reporting has shown that the Erdogan government is still pushing for the PKK to accept the cease-fire they originally agreed to after having been targeted in Turkish military operations last month. The PKK has vehemently denied agreeing to turn their weapons and themselves over to the Turkish government, not that we’re surprised or anything.


PKK rules out government’s talk of disarmament

http://ift.tt/1Auzh2j


erdogan 33

Erdogan: Really a “generous” kind of guy

Source: Associated Press


One would think that the Turkish Army would’ve taken action in Kobani in light of the death and destruction the Islamic State (IS) has waged along the border. Instead they launched operations against Pehsmerga forces in the village of Daglica, located in the Turkish part of the tri-border region shared with Iraq and Iran. As we’ve predicted, the Turkish military waited until the joint-PKK/YPG Peshmerga forces were degraded to a certain point before launching operations – possibly part of a bid towards establishing that buffer zone they’ve been talking so much about. Other reporting coming out of Turkey last month described clashes taking places in the Tunceli-area of Turkey involving Turkish forces and the PKK. The Turkish government claims their operations are in response to the PKK attacking one of their outposts in the area, but we’re not so sure that’s the real reason for the operations.


Turkish jets bomb Kurdish PKK rebels near Iraq

http://ift.tt/1qZSgId


Is Turkey a Reliable Partner In The Fight Against ISIS?

http://ift.tt/1AuzdQ9


turkish air force

Turkish F4s (pictured above) and F16s participated in the OPs against the PKK

Source: BBC


The fact that Erdogan is more concerned with ousting the Assad regime should’ve been the first red-flag to the US government when it was framing it’s pseudo-strategy to combat IS, but it would appear this is a case of incompetent analysts working the problem-set or a senior leadership willfully ignoring the recommendations of said analysts. We suspect that it’s the latter in this case since we personally know several analysts who are working the problem-set. They’ve voiced to us their frustrations at being ignored by decision-makers who would prefer to be told “what they want to hear” instead of what they need to hear. Had they listened to their analysts, they would know that Turkey isn’t a dependable ally (and we use the term quite loosely here), and is operating on their own agenda that’s to our detriment. Even after the Erdogan government initially came out with their public statement denying they’re allowing the US military to use their air bases to launch airstrikes against IS, the US government continues to insist that it can get Turkey to get involved and target IS. Unfortunately, the US government’s drumbeat being fed to the mainstream media doesn’t mirror reality. In fact, the much-vaunted “Anti-IS Coalition” appears to be every bit the “Coalition of the Reluctantly Willing” that we’ve assessed it to be.


Read more


***




In an October 13, 2014 speech given at Marmara University, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan denounced what he claimed was the continued efforts by Western powers to divide the Middle East. He claimed that the hopes of the peoples of the region lie, once again, with Turkey as it was during the days of the Ottoman Empire.






Thursday, 20 November 2014

Pakistani Terror Cell “OpFerguson” Instructing Saint Louis Antagonists To Target Police Helicopters and Surveillance…



Today the FBI expanded the warnings for anticipated violence to multiple communities throughout the U.S. – The list of cities planning to join the coordinated RAGE efforts has also increased.


UK-ISLAMIST-550x349 Radical Islam is on the same side of the political continuum as totalitarianism and communism. Unfortunately, this also places them on the same side as radical leftist groups in the U.S. currently agitating in Saint Louis and surrounding communities; and seeking to use racial division to advance their own ideological causes.


As we have previously outlined the Anonymous Group “OpFerguson” is located in Pakistan and run by a man named Arslan Khan. Today Khan is instructing the Anarchists in Ferguson to target police surveillance, specifically police helicopters, with laser targeting devices (laser pointers).




Pat Condell: Choosing to be offended

Wednesday, 19 November 2014

Once CAIR Supporters, U.A.E. Declares Them Terrorists



United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum inspects a guard of honor during a 2007 visit to India. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan, File)

United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum inspects a guard of honor during a 2007 visit to India. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan, File)



CSP, by Kyle Shideler:


The United Arab Emirates has officially designated a list of over 80 organizations as terrorist groups. The list includes a large cross section of organizations connected to the Global Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Brotherhood organizations in the Middle East, Europe and North America, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).


While CAIR professed themselves “shocked” by the designation, the reality is that the group’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be legitimately disputed.


CAIR is listed as an organization of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America’s Palestine Committee, in a 1994 meeting agenda submitted as evidence during the Holy Land Foundation Trial. The stated purpose of the Palestine Committee is to support the terrorist group Hamas, with quote “media, money, men and all that,” according to a 1992 internal memo also submitted at the HLF trial.


Judge Jorge Solis, the federal judge in the case, stated that the government had supplied “ample evidence” of CAIR’s links to the Palestine Committee and Hamas.


CAIR executive director Nihad Awad, and its founding Chairman Omar Ahmad were both present at a 1993 meeting of the Palestine Committee in Philadelphia, where FBI surveillance audio revealed a plan to create a new organization to conduct media activities on behalf of Hamas. That organization was CAIR. The FBI formally cut ties with CAIR over these connections, while other U.S. government agencies have refused to do the same. Regarding the UAE’s terror designation, The State Department says it is “engaging the UAE on the issue.”


The irony is that the UAE has itself supported Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, at least regarding their activities in the United States.


A Deed of Trust recorded in 2002 indicated that the Dubai-based Al Maktoum Foundation had provided nearly a million dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood-linked group. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Deputy Ruler of Dubai and UAE Minister of Finance and Industry, agreed to a proposal to build a property to serve as an endowment for CAIR.


In 2009, the U.S. took an increasingly pro-Islamist stance towards the revolutions of the Arab Spring thanks in part to the success of influence operations conducted by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups. The result was early Muslim Brotherhood victories in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen. In 2010 U.A.E security forces arrested local Brotherhood operatives for allegedly forming a “military wing,” and expelled Egyptian and Syrian MB members from the country. UAE security forces stated that the Muslim Brotherhood sought to overthrow the Emirates as part of a wider plot by the Brotherhood to seize control of oil-producing Gulf States.


With Brotherhood groups preparing to target their rule, the Emirates appear to realize they badly miscalculated in their support for groups like CAIR, as U.S. policy came unmoored from it’s traditional support for the Gulf states and more in favor of Islamist opposition groups. In 2012, Dubai’s chief of police warned that U.S. policy had turned towards supporting revolutions in the Middle East, and that Muslim Brotherhood had turned against the Gulf States.


While the U.A.E’s decision to list CAIR as a terror group may be ultimate self-serving that doesn’t change the reality that it’s supported by the facts.


It’s well past time the U.S. followed suit.





Gitmo ‘Poet’ Now Recruiting for Islamic State



Flag_of_the_Islamic_State.svg_ BY THOMAS JOSCELYN:


An ex-Guantanamo detainee based in northern Pakistan is leading an effort to recruit jihadists for the Islamic State, an al Qaeda offshoot that controls large portions of Iraq and Syria.


Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost, who was detained at Guantanamo for three years, has sworn allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. Dost’s oath of allegiance was issued on July 1, just two days after Baghdadi named himself “Caliph Ibrahim I” and declared that his Islamic State was now a “caliphate.”


Pakistani officials have accused Dost of recruiting jihadists for Baghdadi’s organization. He is thought to be behind a graffiti campaign, which aims to spread pro-Islamic State messages throughout northern Pakistan.


According to Dawn , a Pakistani newspaper, Dost has even been named the head of the Islamic State’s presence in the “Khorasan,” an area that covers much of Central and South Asia, including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.


U.S. officials have confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD that Dost is recruiting for the Islamic State. It is not clear how effective his efforts have been, given that Dost and his supporters are operating in areas that are strongholds for al Qaeda and the Taliban, both of which are opposed to Baghdadi’s “caliphate” project.


Thus far, the Islamic State has had only limited success in Pakistan and elsewhere in attracting established jihadists to its cause. However, Dost, who is in his 50s, is a veteran jihadist leader.


Dost was originally detained in Pakistan in late 2001. He was transferred to U.S. custody and detained at Guantanamo for three years. Dost was already a veteran jihadist with a thick dossier at the time.


But U.S. officials transferred Dost from Guantanamo to Afghanistan in April 2005. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), which oversees the detention camps, recommended that he be released or transferred due to his health problems. Dost “poses a low risk, due to his medical condition,” JTF-GTMOconcluded in a memo that was subsequently leaked. A combatant status review tribunal (CSRT) at Guantanamo also concluded at some point that Dost was no longer an enemy combatant.


In 2006, however, Dost was detained in Pakistan once again. He was subsequently part of a prisoner exchange between the Taliban and the Pakistani government in 2008. Dost and Taliban fighters in Pakistani custody were exchanged for Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan and dozens of Pakistani soldiers, all of whom were in the Taliban’s custody. The deal was reportedly brokered by Baitullah Mehsud, who led the al Qaeda-linked Pakistani Taliban until his death in 2009.


A statement by Dost explaining his reasons for swearing allegiance to Baghdadi was included in a jihadist propaganda video posted online in July. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a translation of the video.


Dost claims that he had a vision prophesizing the establishment of Baghdadi’s caliphate during his time in U.S. custody.


“While in Guantanamo in [2002],” Dost claims, “I saw a vision of a palace with a huge closed door, above which was a clock pointing to the time of 10 minutes before 12.” Dost says he “was told that was the home of the caliphate” and so he “assumed then that the caliphate would be established after 12 years.”


Coincidentally, the Islamic State declared its caliphate in 2014 – or 12 years after Dost’s supposed vision.


Dost argues that ever since the caliphate fell in 1924 the Islamic ummah [worldwide community of Muslims] “has experienced phases of disagreement, division, failure and disputes” and “become divided into fighting groups and different small states” that fail to represent Islam. All Muslim governments are now null and void, Dost says, as they have been replaced by the caliphate with Baghdadi, the “caliph of the Muslims, the emir of the believers,” as its leader.


Read more at The Weekly Standard





Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Muslim groups seek to co-opt Ferguson protests, says watchdog group



fergusonprotestspic1


By Steven Edwards:


Muslim groups have stepped up efforts to co-opt protests over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., with a drive to equate the teen’s death to the death of a radical Islamist shot during an FBI raid in 2009, a Washington-based security watchdog group is warning.


Using social media, conference calling and traditional outreach methods, leaders of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are portraying Brown and Detroit mosque leader Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah as African-American victims of police targeting, according to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy (CSP). In a conference call organized by CAIR-linked “Muslims for Ferguson, a CAIR official called Abdullah a “Shaheed,” or martyr, and said both he and Brown were victims of a national security apparatus that had “completely gone wild” and engaged in “demonizing and criminalizing Muslims.”


“The reality is that this country, in law enforcement, be it local, state or federal law enforcement, people with guns have always seen black men and black people as threats,” Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR’s Michigan Chapter, told the some 100 protest organizers on the call, made on the five-year anniversary of Abdullah’s death and which was monitored by CSP.


Walid claimed Brown was a Muslim, although when pressed, Walid denied he had made such a claim. Brown was buried in August after a memorial service at the Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis.


Linking Brown and Abdullah, who federal prosecutors say was a separatist intent on overthrowing the U.S. government, is part of a wider effort to co-opt minority group support for causes they promote, according to Kyle Shideler, director of CSP’s Threat Information Office. One such cause is to reduce police scrutiny of the American Muslim community in terror-related matters.


“They’re interested in building coalitions with other organizations in order to effect a legislative change to weaken anti-terrorism laws and weaken the ability of law enforcement to engage in counterterrorism,” said Shideler. “And they’re trying to bring other people into their efforts so it doesn’t look like it is just a Muslim effort.”


“By hosting the conference call,” Shideler wrote, the campaign is “fulfilling the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America to be positioned as the leadership of a broad coalition seeking to target law enforcement under the camouflage of civil rights.”


Read more at Fox News





CAIR Protests Designation as Terrorist Group



CAIR's Executive Director and Founder Nihad Awad (L) and National Legislative Director Corey Saylor announcing the release of their agitprop report on "Islamophobia," whose aim was to shut down discussion on Islamism.

CAIR’s Executive Director and Founder Nihad Awad (L) and National Legislative Director Corey Saylor announcing the release of their agitprop report on “Islamophobia,” whose aim was to shut down discussion on Islamism.



When the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist group for its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, they decided the backlash was worth it.


By Ryan Mauro:


The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslim American Society (CAIR) and Islamic Relief Worldwide, the parent organization of Islamic Relief USA, are protesting the United Arab Emirates after the Muslim-majority country banned them alongside 80 other groups including the Muslim Brotherhood.


The United Arab Emirates banned the Muslim Brotherhood, as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have done, but went several steps further by listing Brotherhood entities in Europe and the U.S. In taking this step, the UAE made a conscious decision to expose these groups as Brotherhood affiliates.


In response, the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), a Muslim group opposed to Islamism, said the ban is counterproductive. The organization argues:


“Ideally, the UAE’s move would cause individuals associated with these groups and broader American society at large to see these organizations for what they really are: purveyors of Islamist apologetics and the malignancy of supremacism. Unfortunately, however, this list will do no such thing. Rather, it places CAIR in exactly the position they most enjoy: that of the victim.”


The AIFD says bans do not undermine the Islamist ideology, especially because governments like those in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar “just want a single tribe to control the Islamist government rather than a populist movement.”


These are valid points worth considering, however, the Muslim Brotherhood qualifies as a terrorist organization. Hamas, the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, is officially branded a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.


In America, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood set up a section called the Palestine Committee with the specific objective of financing Hamas. This was accomplished by the Holy Land Foundation, an entity of the Palestine Committee, until it was shut down. CAIR is another entity of the Palestine Committee according to the U.S. Justice Department.


These Brotherhood-linked groups are now responding to the press attention by asking the UAE for explanations. One group, the Muslim American Society (MAS), said it would try to get help from the U.S. government.


Another group banned by the UAE is the Muslim American Society(MAS). This organization was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America,” according to federal prosecutors in a 2008 court filing. The Clarion Project has documented MAS’ history of extremism, including its Brotherhood links and its leadership’s affection for Hamas.


Read more at Clarion Project


****






Lawfare Project director Brooke Goldstein discusses the UAE’s designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim American Society (MAS) as terror organizations on Fox News’ The Kelly File.





Monday, 17 November 2014

Analysis: Islamic State snuff videos help to attract more followers



In a video released on Nov. 16 that showed the execution of Syrian soldiers and the severed head of an American, the Islamic State highlighted the oaths of allegiance that jihadists from several countries swore to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi last week.

In a video released on Nov. 16 that showed the execution of Syrian soldiers and the severed head of an American, the Islamic State highlighted the oaths of allegiance that jihadists from several countries swore to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi last week.



The Islamic State’s international network is real. It remains to be seen just how strong it really is. With more videos released like today’s, young jihadists will continue to flock to Baghdadi’s cause. While a smattering of established jihadists around the globe have backed Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s base of support is found in new recruits. That is, Baghdadi’s followers are predominately hotheads, young men and women who are emboldened by horrific beheadings.


By


Editor’s note: A version of this article was originally published at The Daily Beast.


Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s Islamic State, the al Qaeda offshoot that controls large portions of Iraq and Syria, has claimed to have beheaded yet another Western hostage, along with more than a dozen captured Syrian soldiers. In a newly-released video, a henchman for the group stands over what appears to be the severed head of Peter Kassig, a former US Army Ranger turned aid worker who was kidnapped in Syria in late 2013.


From the Islamic State’s perspective, such videos serve multiple purposes. They are meant to intimidate the organization’s enemies in the West and elsewhere, show defiance in the face of opposition, and to convince other jihadists that Baghdadi’s state is the strong horse. Al Qaeda, the Islamic State’s rival, long ago determined that graphic beheading videos do more harm than good for the jihadists’ cause, as they turn off more prospective supporters than they earn. But the Islamic State has clearly come to the opposite conclusion, cornering the market on savagery.


There is no doubt that the Islamic State’s ranks have swelled over the past year. Young recruits, in particular, have been attracted to the organization’s brazen violence. But Baghdadi has had much less success in attracting the allegiance of established jihadist organizations, many of which remain openly loyal to al Qaeda.


At first blush, Baghdadi had a big day on Nov. 10. Jihadists from Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen all swore allegiance to Baghdadi in what was intended to be a show of global support for the self-appointed caliph. The Islamic State has been attempting to win the support of jihadists at the expense of al Qaeda, so the messages were widely heralded by Baghdadi’s boosters. Indeed, the group highlighted the oaths of allegiance in today’s beheading video.


Baghdadi accepted the various loyalty oaths three days later in an audio message released on Nov. 13. The Islamic State leader’s speech served multiple purposes. It demonstrated that he was alive, contradicting thinly-sourced claims that he had been killed in airstrikes earlier in the month. And it gave Baghdadi the opportunity to praise his new minions, blessing them as his official representatives.


Baghdadi offered “glad tidings” as he trumpeted “the expansion of the Islamic State to new lands, to the lands of al Haramain [meaning Saudi Arabia] and Yemen, and to Egypt, Libya and Algeria.” Baghdadi accepted “the bayat (oath of allegiance) from those who gave us bayat in those lands” and pronounced “the nullification” of all other jihadist “groups therein.” He also announced the creation of “new wilayah [provinces] for the Islamic State” in all five countries, adding that the group would appoint “wali [provincial leaders] for them.” All jihadists in these areas, and indeed all Muslims, must now obey the Islamic State’s official representatives, according to Baghdadi and his supporters.


Of course, the Islamic State doesn’t really have provinces stretching from North Africa through the heart of Arabia. But how strong is Baghdadi’s network in all five countries? The short answer is: We don’t really know.


In three of the five countries–Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen–the jihadists who swore loyalty oaths to Baghdadi were anonymous. And they don’t represent any well-established terrorist organizations either.


For instance, the Islamic State has failed, thus far, to garner the allegiance of Ansar al Sharia Libya, which is notorious for its role in the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi and remains one of the most powerful jihadist organizations in eastern Libya. None of Ansar al Sharia’s allies in the Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council, the Islamist coalition fighting General Khalifa Haftar’s forces for control of territory, pledged allegiance to Baghdadi. The Islamic State has supporters in Libya, particularly among the jihadist youth. But other groups are still, by all outward appearances, more entrenched.


Similarly, the messages from Saudi Arabia and Yemen were attributed generically to the “mujahideen” in both countries. Baghdadi and his supporters have attempted, and failed, to woo al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) on multiple occasions.


AQAP, which is headquartered in Yemen, is the strongest jihadist group in the heart of Arabia. Some have assumed that the only person keeping AQAP loyal to al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri is Nasir al Wuhayshi, a protégé of Osama bin Laden who serves as both AQAP’s leader and as al Qaeda’s global general manager. There is no basis for this assumption. There are al Qaeda loyalists throughout AQAP’s chain-of-command.


Read more at Long War Journal





Jabhat al-Nusra Spokesman Rejects IS Alliance Rumors



syria-jabhat-al-nusra-natosource-28-3-2013 IPT, by John Rossomando:


A Jabhat al-Nusra spokesman tells the blog Syria Direct that rumors of an alliance between his al-Qaida affiliate and the Islamic State are false.


Western media sources published reports last week that both jihadist factions reached an agreement at a Nov. 2 meeting to stop fighting each other and destroy the U.S.-aligned Syrian Revolutionaries Front.


The spokesman from Jabhat al-Nusra’s media office in northwestern Syria’s Idlib province, identified as Abu Azzam al-Ansari, confirmed that the group sent representatives to meet with those from the Islamic State.


But the Islamic State’s representatives rejected their offer of reconciliation, al-Ansari said.


He showed suspicion of the Islamic State in the interview, saying it has been “penetrated by American [spies]” to give the West an excuse for bombing everyone who “subscribes to the Salafi-jihadi strain of thought.”


Al-Ansari also dismissed the Obama administration’s use of the term “Khorasan Group” to describe a cell of al-Qaida fighters, saying that it really is his own group, Jabhat al-Nusra. The term was used to “mislead” people to hide the fact they were actually fighting al-Qaida in Syria.


Mentioning the recent fighting between Jabhat al-Nusra and the Western-backed Syrian Revolutionaries Front that led to the rout of the latter, al-Ansari said his group opposed the “implementation of any foreign agendas” in Syria.


“We’re Muslims, and Allah – blessed be Allah exalted – ordered us to rule with Islam, and we won’t be satisfied to anything else,” al-Ansari said.





Ibn Warraq speaks at Yale



Ibn_Warraq_070-300x210 Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Nov. 16, 2014:


(Editor’s note: The renowned scholar of Islam recently spoke at Yale. Here is an outline of the talk he gave. — RS)


First, I should like to thank The William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale for inviting me. I should also like to thank my friends and colleagues whose ideas have profoundly influenced what I am going to say today: Sebastian Gorka, Katherine Gorka, Robert Reilly, and Hugh Fitzgerald.


James Burnham’s book Suicide of the West is full of insights on US Foreign Policy, which I find relevant to this day. In fact one has only to substitute “Islam” for “communism” in many of his observations to realise their continuing pertinence. I shall limit myself to one of his observations from Chapter XII, Dialectic of Liberalism:


“The communists divide the world into “the zone of peace” and “the zone of war”. The zone of peace means the region that is already subject to communist rule; and the label signifies that within their region the communists will not permit any political tendency, violent or non-violent, whether purely internal or assisted from without, to challenge their rule. The “zone of war” is the region where communist rule is not yet, but in due course will be established; and within the zone of war the communists promote, assist and where possible lead political tendencies, violent or non-violent, democratic or revolutionary, that operate against non-communist rule. Clear enough, these definitions. You smash the Hungarian Freedom Fighters, and support Fidel Castro; you know where you are going.” Pp.227-228. The above could easily have been a dictionary definition of the Islamic doctrine of Jihad, and its notions of “Dar al-Islam” –the Zone of Peace, and Dar-al Harb –Zone of War”


Now onto my main points:


Our foreign policy should be guided by understanding and admitting the following realities:



  1. We are engaged in a war of ideas, with our principal enemy: an ideology.



An ideology that will not collapse out of economic incompetence.




  1. The ideology of the terrorists is religiously based and derived from Islam and its founding texts, the Koran, hadith, and the sunna, and the history of the early caliphate.

  2. One, but not the only, way we know this is because they tell us so. First , if you want to understand the enemy “Read what they say”. They constantly justify their acts with accurate and apt citations from the Koran and Hadith. They also refer to, among others, Sayyid Qutb’s work Milestones, Abdullah Azzam’s Defense of the Muslim Lands, S. K. Malik’s The Quranic Concept of Power, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri’s Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner. Some of the latter have doctorates from recognized Islamic universities, and to hear John Kerry trying to tell them their ideas have nothing to do with Islam is comical.

  3. Islamic terrorism is not caused by “poverty, lack of education, sexual deprivation, psychological problems, or lack of economic opportunity..”, Western Imperialism, or Western decadence, or the Arab-Israeli conflict.

  4. There are two kinds of Jihad: terrorism, and slow penetration of Western institutions subverting Western laws and customs from within.

  5. Ignorance, naivety, arrogance, political correctness , sheer laziness, sentimentality, and Saudi, Qatari and Iranian money have led to Islamist successes in penetrating Western institutions, from the Voice of America, The Pentagon, CIA, FBI, DHS, PBS, to the universities and colleges where Islamic propaganda is shamelessly and openly disseminated.

  6. While groups such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, and others are non-state actors, they are funded by states such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. These three countries, for example, also provide the necessary Islamic support, framework, and propaganda that spews forth anti-Western and and anti-American hatred. They should be warned or face the consequences.

  7. It is also important to point out that it is not something we have done that is impelling the Islamists. Constantly apologising, Mr President, is pointless; they will not like or respect you the more.

  8. We must learn the lessons of the cold war, for there are striking similarities between the Islamist ideology and that of Soviet Russia [Cf B.Russell, Jules Monnerot, Maxime Rodinson]

  9. Speak out in support of the Christians who are being persecuted, and being killed almost every day in Islamic countries. Profound importance of this act of solidarity not realised by many in West.

  10. In order to succeed we need urgently to recover our civilizational self-confidence.

  11. One way we can fight jihadist ideology is to undermine their certainties, and one can accomplish this with Koranic Criticism. In the West, Spinoza hastened the Enlightenment by his Biblical Criticism.


There is an obvious need to understand the Islamic ideology to understand the mindset of the Islamic terrorists. Terrorism is not caused by poverty, and so on. It is their ideology that motivates them and is the source of its moral legitimacy. Without it, terrorism cannot exist.Terrorists are produced by a totalitarian ideology justifying terrorism.


While America has had some impressive tactical successes, and has managed to kill Osama bin Laden (May 2011) and Anwar al-Awlaki (in Sept.2011) it still fails to understand their goals, their ideology. The reasons for this failure are many:


First, there is a reluctance to address the religious inspiration of the acts of terrorism,to admit that their ideology is derived from Islam and its founding texts, the Koran, the Hadith, the Sunna and the early history of the Caliphate. Instead, the present administration exhorts us to use euphemisms such as “violent extremist”. “WhereasThe 9/11 Commission Report, published under the presidency of George W. Bush in July 2004 as a bipartisan product, had used the word Islam 322 times, Muslim 145 times, jihad 126 times, and jihadist 32 times,The National Intelligence Strategy of the United States, issued by the Obama administration in August 2009, used the term Islam 0 times, Muslim 0 times, jihad 0 times.” Now Obama’s policy applies to internal government documents as well, which can only have disastrous consequences for our understanding of political groups and events in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and South and South East Asia. “How can one possibly analyze the power and appeal of this ideology, the way that ideas set its strategy and tactics, why it is such a huge menace if any reference to the Islamic religion and its texts or doctrines isn’t permitted?”


Perhaps it was only in 1946, when George Kennan’s wrote his classified ‘Long Telegram’ that America began to understand the nature of the Soviet Union, why it acted the way it did, how the Kremlin thought, and why the USSR was a grave threat to America. In other words it took three decades to understand the mind of the enemy.


To complicate matters further, today there are two enemies: first, non-European, religiously informed non-state terrorist groups, like ISIS. Second, and equally dangerous, states that, in fact, fund and support them. There is evidence that, as the The Atlantic reported in June, 2014, “Two of the most successful factions fighting Assad’s forces are Islamist extremist groups: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). And their success is in part due to the support they have received from two Persian Gulf countries: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”


Our ability to fight al Qaeda and similar transnational terrorist actors will depend upon our capacity to communicate to our own citizens and to the world what it is we are fighting for and what it is that the ideology of Jihad threatens in terms of the values we hold so dear.


To quote Sun Tsu, in war it is not enough to know the enemy in order to win. One must first know oneself. However, with the end of the Cold War America and the West understandably lost clarity with regard to what it was about its way of life that was precious and worth fighting for.


James Burnham explains with exemplary clarity the reasons for this loss of self-confidence, and what he wrote is still, mutatis mutandis, relevant:


“Judging a group of human beings- a race, nation, class or party- that he considers to possess less than their due of well-being and liberty, the liberal is hard put to it to condemn that group morally for acts that he would not hesitate to condemn in his fellows.


“When the Western liberal’s feeling of guilt and his associated feeling of moral vulnerability before the sorrows and demands of the wretched become obsessive, he often develops a generalized hatred of Western civilization and of his own country as a part of the West. We can frequently sense this hatred in …[journals like] The Nation.”


In order to succeed we need urgently recover our civilizational self-confidence.


Ronald Reagan was able to succeed because he was supremely confident of the moral and spiritual superiority of his cause. He was thus able to state with certainty and without hesitation that the SovietEmpire was evil. He was not afraid to confront reality. He was able to defend our values because he believed in them totally. He told an audience at Moscow State University, “Go into any schoolroom [in America], and there you will see children being taught the Declaration of Independence, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights-among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-that no government can justly deny….”


John Lenczowski describes what Reagan advocated unapologetically, “Altogether, the various ideas of freedom, democracy, human rights, moral order, and the dignity of the human person were promoted not only by the President’s rhetoric and personal moral witness but by the Administration as a whole in numerous forms: in Voice of America editorials, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty broadcasts, in articles in United States Information Agency-published magazines targeted at Soviet-bloc populations, on the USIA-run billboard on the sidewalk outside the U.S. embassy in Moscow, in American diplomats’ addresses at various international fora, in the distribution of books to Soviet bloc audiences and U.S.libraries abroad, in films distributed abroad, and so on.”


To quote Asian columnist Banyan in the Economist,“For all its flaws and mis-steps, [America] represents not just economic and military might, but an ideal to aspire to, in a way that China does not. And when American leaders appear to give less weight to that ideal, they not only diminish America’s attractions, they also lend more credence to the idea of its relative economic and military decline.”


The rest of the world recognizes the virtues of the West. As Arthur Schlesinger remarked, “when Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square, they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the Statue of Liberty.”


Ibn Warraq is the author of Why I Am Not A Muslim , Defending the West , and many other books. His latest is Christmas in the Koran .





Sunday, 16 November 2014

Senior Kurdish Leader Says ISIS Has An ‘Army’ Of 200K — 7X, to 8X U.S. Intelligence Estimates



Senior Kurdish Leader Claims ISIS Has An “Army’ Of 200K — 7X, to 8X U.S. Intelligence Estimates


http://ift.tt/PQ0Sqk


Patrick Cockburn, writing in the London newspaper, The Independent, (Nov. 16, 2014), writes that Fuad Hussein, the Chief of Staff to Kurdish President Massoud Barzani, told The Independent today (Sunday) that the Islamic State has recruited an ‘army’ of hundreds of thousands, far stronger than previous estimates by U.S. Intelligence. Barzani claimed that “the ability of ISIS to attack on many widely separated fronts in Iraq and Syria…at the same time — shows that the number of militant fighters is at least 200K.” “I’m talking about hundreds of thousands of fighters, because they are able to mobilize Arab young men in the territory they have taken.”


Mr. Barzani bases his ‘estimates’ on the fact that “ISIS rules a third of Iraq and, a third of Syria — with a population between 10M…




Secret details spilled on ISIS’s funding



ISIS using mobile apps to stay in touch with financiers

There was a time when terrorists preferred moving their money through the traditional Islamic debt transfer system of hawala, through the conventional wire services like Western Union and MoneyGram, or through a combination of both. But fears of detection led ISIS to send personal couriers and fundraisers to Europe, while staying in touch with them through text messaging and WhatsApp, as an ongoing trial against a Syrian-Lebanese man in Germany illustrates (h/t El Grillo)…


Antiquity smuggling isn’t random looters, it’s an organized ISIS racket

ISIS has made over $35 million from selling historical artifacts, and now controls 4,500 archaeological sites (h/t Rushette). They justify their bulldozing and looting on the basis of khums, the traditional Islamic tax on discovered wealth (h/t Sal)…




Islamic State releases new execution video, purportedly kills American



Screen Shot 2014-11-16 at 11.11.35 AM-thumb-560x317-4534 By


The Islamic State, an al Qaeda offshoot that controls large portions of Iraq and Syria, has released a new video showing the mass beheadings of Syrian soldiers. The video also includes a scene purportedly showing the severed head of Peter Kassig, who was kidnapped in late 2013. Kassig is a former US Army Ranger and was serving as an aid worker in Syria at the time of his disappearance.


As in past videos, the Islamic State’s executioner, a man dubbed “Jihadi John” in the press because he speaks with an English accent, is featured. He taunts the West, saying that the Islamic State cannot wait to face American ground troops.


Unlike previous videos, however, the gruesome beheading of Kassig is not the centerpiece of the production. He has already been killed by the time the video cuts to his corpse.


The Islamic State’s media department begins by offering a selective history of the Islamic State and its predecessors, beginning with the creation of Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s organization in Iraq. Zarqawi, who was killed in June 2006, swore allegiance to al Qaeda emir Osama bin Laden in 2004, officially merging the two organizations. The current Islamic State evolved out of Zarqawi’s group.


After scenes of fighting in Iraq and Syria, the video shows the mass beheadings of Syrian officers and pilots.


A group of Islamic State fighters dressed in camouflage are shown leading the Syrians to their slaughter. They are led by the head executioner, “Jihadi John,” who presumably killed Kassig. One by one they select knives from a bin. (The image at the beginning of this piece shows “Jihadi John” selecting his knife.)


“Jihadi John,” the head executioner then speaks, addressing President Obama directly as the “dog of Rome.”


“Today, we are slaughtering the soldiers of Bashar, tomorrow we’ll be slaughtering your soldiers,” the executioner says. He claims that the Islamic State will end this “final crusade” and then begin slaughtering people on “your streets.”


The scene of the mass execution of the Syrians is shot in a sadistic fashion, so as to highlight the drama of the moment, with close ups of the soldiers’ faces and the Islamic State’s henchmen fondling their knives before they begin cutting their victims’ necks.


Although the terrorists committing these war crimes are not specifically identified, they clearly come from various ethnicities and nationalities around the globe.


Last week, jihadists from Algeria, the Sinai in Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Yemen all swore allegiance to Baghdadi in audio messages that were clearly coordinated by the Islamic State. The new video highlights these oaths, playing excerpts from the audio messages as the production moves from location to location on a map intended to represent the Islamic State’s claimed territorial expansion.


The video also replays audio of a speech by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi that was released on Nov. 13. Baghdadi accepted the oaths of allegiance in that speech, saying the Islamic State had expanded “to new lands, to the lands of al-Haramayn [Saudi Arabia] and Yemen to Egypt, Libya and Algeria.”


With less than two minutes left in the sixteen-minute video, “Jihadi John” returns, standing over the head of a man he claims is Kassig. He says that Kassig fought against Muslims during the war in Iraq. He taunts Kassig by saying the dead man “doesn’t have much to say,” as his “previous cellmates have already spoken on his behalf.”


Again addressing Obama, the terrorist says “you claim to have withdrawn from Iraq four years ago. We said to you then that you are liars, that you had not withdrawn. And that if you had withdrawn you would return after some time.”


“You returned,” he says to Obama, “here you are, you have not withdrawn.” America has hid behind its proxies, “Jihadi John” claims, but its forces “will return in greater numbers than before.”


Citing Zarqawi, the Islamic State’s executioner says the “spark has been lit in Iraq” and they are “eagerly awaiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive.”


Read more at Long War Journal





Friday, 14 November 2014

AP: Islamic State and Al Qaeda Reach Accord



isis-global-conquest-map1-450x251 Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton:


The Associated Press is reporting that the Islamic State and Al Qaeda have reached an accord after a summit meeting in northern Syria.


This is a very bad development, but not unexpected. Abu Sayyef in the Philippines,Boko Haram in West Africa, Al Shabaab in East Africa, and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula all already pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Just this week, Egypt’s most dangerous Jihadist group, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, also joined the Islamic State. In addition, 5 prominent Taliban leaders also pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.


We are now seeing the dream of the Caliphate being realized by Jihadis worldwide. Far from having them “on the run,” they are making strides and unifying, fighting in more places with more fighters than at any time in the past several hundred years.


Half-hearted measures, micromanagement by unqualified politicians and a Vietnam-style strategy of gradual escalation are sure to fail and, unlike the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, today’s Jihadist enemies are already in our midst and plotting to attack us here.


Meanwhile, our irresponsible, feckless leaders focus on fringe pet issues of the Left rather than real national security issues, sitting by as the Islamic State spreads its violent Jihad from the Philippines to Libya and Nigeria.


Our children will pay the price for such horrible, misguided policies, which amount to perhaps the biggest strategic blunder in American history.


***


CJR – There is some debate over whether top leadership of IS and al Qaeda have formally agreed to join forces:


tweets





Jabhat al-Nusra Squeezes Out U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels



JABHAT-AL-NUSRA IPT, by John Rossomando:


Gains by al-Qaida linked Jabhat al-Nusra in northwestern Syria threatens to leave the U.S. with few options on the ground in that region.


Jabhat al-Nusra recently attacked and overran Harakat al-Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) led by Jamal Maarouf, two key American aligned militias that the Obama administration saw as key parts of its strategy against the Islamic State (IS).


Maarouf fled to Turkey and no longer has any brigades in the area around Idlib, located in northwestern Syria near the Turkish border. He previously proclaimed his solidarity with Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State in a January Twitter post.


“The front of the Syrian revolutionizes, The Islamic Front, and Jabhat al-Nusra, Muhajreen and Ansar, we are all in the fighting front together against the regime. What happened now is a fitna (strife), God damn who ignited it,” Maarouf wrote.


Al-Nusra also killed a commander belonging to the Free Syrian Army’s Dawn of Freedom Brigades in the fighting.


Jabhat al-Nusra confiscated heavy gear and weapons that the West had provided to its allies.


The Islamist group decided to attack the U.S.-backed rebel groups after the Obama administration bombed its fighters and those belonging to IS. This decision also opened the way to an agreement between Al-Nusra and IS to cooperate in destroying Maarouf’s faction.


President Obama said in September that a “moderate” force would be created and that their first targets were jihadists.


The U.S.-led coalition, along with “U.S. spies,” aim to eliminate all Islamic factions that “do not comply with Western policy,” Al-Nusra leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani said in the Al-Monitor story.


“We have made the decision to cancel the SRF,” Golani said.


This opens the way for the al-Qaida linked group to carve out an Islamic emirate in the area around Idlib.


It hopes that such an emirate would increase its credibility among global jihadists and compete with the Islamic State to attract new fighters. Jabhat al-Nusra already has created its own courts in towns surrounding Idlib, an area isolated from direct contact with Assad’s forces and from those with the Islamic State.


The U.S.-aligned rebels blamed the Obama administration for their failures. Although President Obama promised to arm the “moderate” Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State and the Assad regime, supplies trickled in, slowed in part by bureaucracy.


“We decide on the mission that we want to do. Then we apply to the operations room for the weapons. If they agree with our military plan, some weapons arrive,” a commander calling himself Abu Ahmed told the Daily Telegraph. “If we receive TOW anti-tank missiles, we have to film every time we use one to prove we haven’t sold it on.”


Abu Ahmed also complained that other FSA units didn’t come to help, fearing Al-Nusra would attack them too.


The U.S.-backed rebels have also witnessed a stream of defections to Al-Nusra and IS.





Thursday, 13 November 2014

Islamic State leader claims ‘caliphate’ has expanded in new audio message



Alleged ISIL leader appears in video footage Long War Journal, By


The Islamic State, an al Qaeda offshoot that currently controls large portions of Iraq and Syria, has released a new audio message from its leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. The Islamic State’s emir is defiant in the recording, saying his group will continue its fight against all of its enemies.


Baghdadi was rumored to have been killed in airstrikes that took place sometime on Nov. 7 and Nov. 8. Some Iraqi officials claimed Baghdadi had been mortally wounded. But no firm evidence emerged to back up those claims. And Baghdadi references events that took place since those airstrikes, thereby demonstrating that he is alive.


On Nov. 10, jihadists in Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen swore allegiance to Baghdadi and the Islamic State’s caliphate. In the newly-released audio recording, Baghdadi accepts their oaths of allegiance and praises the jihadists who made them.


Baghdadi gives glad tidings and announces “the expansion of the Islamic State to new lands, to the lands of al Haramain [meaning Saudi Arabia] and [to] Yemen, and to Egypt, Libya and Algeria.”


Baghdadi accepts “the bayat (oath of allegiance) from those who gave us bayat in those lands,” pronounces “the nullification of the groups therein,” and announces the creation of “new wilayah [provinces] for the Islamic State, and the appointment of wali [provincial leaders] for them.”


The Islamic State’s emir calls on “every” Muslim to “join the closest wilayah to him, and to hear and obey the wali appointed by us for it.”


Baghdadi’s statement is deliberately provocative as he is saying that all other jihadist groups, especially those that have not pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, are nullified. The Islamic State’s ideologues have argued that, with the reestablishment of an Islamic caliphate, all other jihadist groups owe their allegiance to Baghdadi as the caliphate expands into their lands.


The Islamic State made this argument in late June, when its leaders announced that the group was now a caliphate. “The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas,” the Islamic State’s founding statement reads.


The swearing of bayat from jihadists in several countries on Nov. 10 was, therefore, intended to legitimize the Islamic State’s right to rule over the jihadists’ affairs within those nations. Long established jihadist groups operating in those countries, including al Qaeda’s official branches, obviously do not agree, as they have not sworn allegiance to Baghdadi.


Indeed, in three of the five cases (Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen), the announcements of allegiance to Baghdadi came from unidentified jihadists who do not represent any well-known jihadist groups. In Algeria, the announcement came from a group of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) veterans who have broken away from their parent organization and are now known as Jund al Khilafa. The Algerian-based jihadists had already sworn allegiance to Baghdadi earlier this year.


The announcement from Egypt was made by an anonymous jihadist representing a faction of Ansar Bayt al Maqdis (ABM), or Ansar Jerusalem, in the Sinai.


Baghdadi praises the jihadists in the Sinai specifically, offering them his congratulations because they “have carried out the obligation of jihad” and “terrified the Jews.”


It appears that ABM is already marketing itself as the Islamic State’s “wilayah,” or province, in the Sinai, as that is how the group refers to itself on its official Twitter feed. ABM’s Twitter page has been taken down repeatedly over the past several months. The latest iteration was posted online in the past few days.


The Islamic State leader rails against the “Crusaders” and the “Jews,” whom he blames for conspiring to launch the airstrikes against the jihadists.


Baghdadi also references President Obama’s decision to send 1,500 additional military advisors to Iraq, claiming that this demonstrates the coalition has been unable to stall the Islamic State’s advances with airstrikes alone. The Obama administration announced the president’s decision to deploy additional forces on Nov. 7, shortly before Baghdadi was supposedly hit in an airstrike.


Baghdadi concludes by calling on the soldiers of the Islamic State to cause “volcanoes” of jihad to “erupt” everywhere.





A Turkish Quest to “Liberate” Jerusalem



Gatestone Institute, by Burak Bekdil, Nov.13, 2014:



Both Turkey’s President Erdogan and its Prime Minister Davutoglu have declared countess times that Gaza and Jerusalem (in addition to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia, and the Maghreb) are Turkey’s “domestic affairs.”


In truth, there is no mention of any city’s name in the Qur’an.



Turks have a different understanding of what constitutes an occupation and a conquest of a city. The Turkish rule is very simple: The capture of a foreign city by force is an occupation if that city is Turkish (or Muslim) and the capture of a city by force is conquest if the city belongs to a foreign nation (or non-Muslims).


For instance, Turks still think the capture of Istanbul in 1453 was not occupation; it was conquest.


In a 2012 speech, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (then Prime Minister) said: “Just like Mecca, Cairo and Istanbul are cities of the Qur’an.” In truth, there is no mention of any city’s name in the Qur’an. Never mind.


“Conquest,” Turkey’s top Muslim cleric, Professor Mehmet Gormez, declared in 2012, “is not to occupy lands or destroy cities and castles. Conquest is the conquest of hearts!” That is why, the top Turkish cleric said, “In our history there has never been occupation.” Instead, Professor Gormez said, “in our history, there has always been conquest.” He further explained that one pillar of conquest is to “open up minds to Islam, and hearts to the Qur’an.”


It is in this religious justification that most Turkish Islamists think they have an Allah-given right to take infidel lands by the force of sword — ironically, not much different from what the tougher Islamists have been doing in large parts of Syria and Iraq. Ask any commander in the Islamic State and he would tell you what the jihadists are doing there is “opening up minds to Islam, and hearts to the Qur’an.”


Both President Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu have declared countless times that Gaza and Jerusalem (in addition to Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia and the Maghreb) are Turkey’s “domestic affairs.”


This author wrote in this journal on Oct. 30:



In reality, with or without the normalization of diplomatic relations between Ankara and Jerusalem, the Turks have never hidden their broader goals in the Arab-Israeli dispute: that Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state; and that Israel should be pushed back to its pre-1967 borders. Until then, it will be ‘halal’ [permitted in Islam] for Erdogan to blame Israel for global warming, the Ebola virus, starvation in Africa and every other misfortune the world faces.



As if to confirm this whimsical view, Deputy Prime Minister Yalcin Akdogan has blamed Israel for democratic failings in the Arab world. “Israel works with [undemocratic] regimes and keeps its ship afloat.” So, it is because of Israel that Arab nations have never established democratic culture — before or after 1948; or before or after the Arab Spring revolts. But fortunately, Palestinians have a new “protector.”


From Prime Minister Davutoglu’s public speech on November 7:



Al-Aqsa [mosque in Jerusalem] will one day be liberated. The Israelis should know that the oppressed Syrians have a protector. The oppressed Palestinians too have a protector. That protector is Turkey. Just as Bursa [the Turkish city where he spoke] ended its occupation, the honorable Palestinians, honorable Muslims will end the [Israeli] occupation. Just as Osman Gazi [a sepulchre in Bursa] was liberated, al-Aqsa too will be liberated. Al-Quds [Jerusalem] is both our first prayer direction and has been entrusted with us by history. It has been entrusted with us by Hazrat Omar. The last freedom seen in Jerusalem was under our [Ottoman] rule. Al-Quds is our cause. It is the occupying, oppressive Israeli government that has turned the Middle East into a quagmire.



Echoing that view, President Erdogan said that protecting Islamic sites in the Holy Land is a sacred mission (for his government), and bluntly warned that any attack against the al-Aqsa mosque is no different than an attack on the Kaaba in the holy city of Mecca.








Spot the difference: In the eyes of Turkey’s political and religious leadership, Istanbul and its Hagia Sophia (once a Greek Orthodox Basilica) were legitimately “conquered” by the Muslim Ottomans, while Jerusalem and its al-Aqsa mosque (built atop the ruins of the Jewish Temples) are illegally “occupied” by Israel. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

No doubt, after Gaza, al-Aqsa (and Jerusalem) has become a powerful Turkish obsession, and a treasure-trove of votes, especially in view of Turkey’s parliamentary elections next June. And do not expect the Turkish leadership only to corrupt facts. Plain fabrication is a more favored method. All the same, someone, sometimes, would unwillingly reveal the truth often when trying to corrupt other facts.


Since Davutoglu claimed that “Jerusalem has been entrusted with the Turks by Hazrat Omar,” it may be useful to refresh memories. Hazrat Omar is Omar bin Al-Khattab (579-644), one of the most powerful and influential Muslim caliphs in history. Within the context of “conquest vs. occupation,” he was referenced by the top cleric, Professor Gormez in a 2012 speech:



After Hazrat Omar conquered al-Quds [Jerusalem], he was invited to pray at a church [as there were no mosques yet in Jerusalem]. But he politely refused because he was worried that the [conquering] Muslims could turn the church into a mosque after he prayed there.



Since medieval historical facts cannot have changed over the past two years, the top Turkishulama [religious scholar], referencing a most powerful Muslim caliph, is best witness that when the Muslims had first arrived in Jerusalem there was not a single mosque in the city. Why? Because Jerusalem was not a Muslim city. Why, then, do Turkish Islamists claim that it is Muslim? Because it once had been “conquered.” Would the same Turks surrender Istanbul to the occupying forces that took the city after World War I because its capture in 1920 made it a non-Turkish city? No, that was not conquest, that was occupation!


Had Messrs Erdogan and Davutoglu been schoolchildren, such reasoning might have been called bullying and cheating.



Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.






Wednesday, 12 November 2014

Time opinion piece: Jihadi superhighway is busy; refugee groups could be Trojan Horse




Rep. Michael McCaul: Cruise ships may even be bringing terrorists into Turkey.



Time magazine published an informative article by Rep. Michael McCaul chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security yesterday.


Turkish border with Syria a huge problem (emphasis is mine):


Extremists are exploiting EU security gaps to exit Syria and Iraq and return to the West undetected, leading to a “terrorist diaspora”


Foreign fighters headed to the Middle East are not deterred by U.S. bombing in Syria and Iraq. According to recent reports, 1,000 fighters from countries across the globe are pouring into the conflict zone each month to fight with ISIS and other fanatics, adding to the 16,000 already estimated to have gone there.


The bad news is that Westerners are among their ranks, including Americans and Europeans, who are only a plane flight away from our shores. More troubling is that security gaps in Europe—and Turkey…




Tuesday, 11 November 2014

CAIR, 20 Years of Terror



cair-450x187 Frontpage, by


On the night of Saturday, November 8, the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of CAIR held its 20th Anniversary Banquet at the Santa Clara Convention Center. It was fitting that two out of three of the event’s featured speakers have been associated with terrorism, as 20 years ago CAIR was founded as a main component of a Palestinian terrorist enterprise inside the United States.


CAIR or the Council on American-Islamic Relations has been in existence for 20 years — since June 1994 — when it opened up its national headquarters in Washington, D.C. The group was established as being a part of the American Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization run by then-global Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook, who was based in the U.S. at the time and who now operates out of Egypt as a spokesman for Hamas.


The other members of the umbrella included a Hamas financing wing, Holy Land Foundation (HLF); a Hamas propaganda wing, Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP); and a Hamas command center, United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), which was then led by Ahmed Yousef, who later left the U.S. for Gaza to become Senior Political Adviser to Hamas leader Ismail Haniya.


The founding and current National Executive Director of CAIR is Nihad Awad. Just prior to co-founding CAIR, Awad held the position of Public Relations Director for the IAP. As the propaganda wing of Hamas, the IAP had been involved in distributing Hamas terrorist videos and publishing vehemently anti-Jewish and anti-Israel materials, including the Hamas charter in different languages.


Only months before the creation of CAIR, Awad announced his support for Hamas.


Under Awad’s leadership, CAIR has had a number of representatives cited for terrorist-related activity. CAIR officials have been convicted and imprisoned for terror-related crimes and/or deported from the United States. As well, during Awad’s tenure, CAIR has been cited itself. In 2007 and 2008, amidst two federal trials, the U.S. government named the group a co-conspirator in the raising of millions of dollars for Hamas. The individuals who had been indicted for the trials (CAIR was named an “unindicted co-conspirator”) were found guilty of all charges.


This past Saturday night, Awad was not at his home base in D.C. Instead, he was speaking at a banquet for CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA) chapter. San Francisco was the home of CAIR’s first regional U.S. chapter, established not long after CAIR National was established, hence the California group celebrating its 20th Anniversary.


A second featured speaker at the Saturday banquet was Siraj Wahhaj, the imam of the At-Taqwa Mosque, located in the Bed-Stuy section of Brooklyn, New York. Wahhaj frequently speaks at CAIR sponsored events. Indeed, Wahhaj previously sat on CAIR’s National Board of Advisors.


Wahhaj has been associated with terrorism far beyond his involvement with CAIR.


In 1995, much like CAIR’s trials, Wahhaj was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” for the federal trial prosecuting those involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj had been linked to the bombmaker of the attack, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, and during the trial he was a character witness for the spiritual leader of the attack — the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman — whom Wahhaj has openly praised.


Wahhaj has recently taken up the cause of speaking at functions for and doing fundraising for rabid anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.


Also speaking at the banquet was Nihad Awad’s San Francisco counterpart, Executive Director of CAIR-SFBA Zahra Billoo. Billoo has made a number of extremist statements in the past. She has written that “one amazing reason to get married” is to “raise fighters” (children) to attack the nation of Israel. She wrote that to celebrate Columbus Day is “the same as having Jews celebrate Hitler and the Holocaust.” She refers to U.S. troops as “scum.”


Billoo proudly announced on her blog that her younger brother, Ahmed, was quoted in an article in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal — an article that discusses in length about how her brother supports suicide bombings. Billoo wrote that she, herself, had thoughts of committing suicide, after she viewed a pro-Israel advertisement on a San Francisco train.


On her Twitter account, Billoo boasted that her CAIR event was sold out, and the pictures taken at it do show a full house. This is a frightening indication that many Muslims in America appear to support and approve of CAIR’s agenda. Certainly given the amount of information available about the speakers at the event, one would be hard pressed to believe that the attendees weren’t at least somewhat aware of CAIR’s terror-related background.


While CAIR has attempted to present itself as a Muslim civil rights organization, the individuals involved with CAIR reveal that the group is cynically exploiting this designation.


The title of CAIR’s weekend event was ‘Rooted in Faith,’ but one has to question what type of faith would have radical luminaries who are associated with terrorism representing it.


Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.