WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Is Hagel Israel’s punishment?.

Israel Hayom | Effectively confronting Tehran.

Syria reportedly swaps over 2,000 civilian prisoners for 48 rebel-held Iranians | The Times of Israel.

Anti-regime forces say captives, taken in August, were Revolutionary Guard fighters who came to quash Assad’s opposition

Free Syrian Army soldiers guarding a group of Iranians abducted on August 4 (photo credit: AP video/Baraa Brigades)

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Syrian rebels freed 48 Iranians held captive since August, Iranian state TV reported Wednesday, part of what appeared to be the first major prisoner swap of the civil war.

The deal — reportedly coordinated by a Turkish Islamic aid group — will also involve the release of more than 2,000 held by Bashar Assad’s regime, Turkey’s state-run agency Anadolu Agency reported. Anadolu said a group of people held in the Syrian Interior Ministry building in Damascus had been released and were escorted onto buses. The group included women and children, it said, but gave no further details.

The exchange came just days after Assad vowed to press ahead with the fight against rebel fighters even as battles expand in the capital Damascus.

Iran, however, is one of Assad’s main backers and the hostages were a major bargaining chip for opposition factions trying to bring down his regime. Rebels accused the Iranian captives of links to Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard, but Iran has denied the claims and described the hostages as pilgrims visiting Shiite religious sites.

Turkey’s state-run agency Anadolu Agency said the aid group was coordinating the prisoner exchange for 2,130 prisoners. The aid group says four Turks are among prisoners to be freed.

Iran’s state-run Press TV also gave no other immediate details on the movements of the freed Iranians.

The Iranians were kidnapped outside the Syrian capital in August. The rebels had threatened to kill the captives unless the Syrian regime halted military operations against the opposition.

The reported deal would mark the first major prisoner swap since the uprising against Assad began in March 2011. More than 60,000 people have been killed, according to the UN.

In a speech Sunday, Assad struck a defiant tone, ignoring international demands to step down and saying he is ready to talk — but only with those “who have not betrayed Syria.” He also vowed to continue the battle “as long as there is one terrorist left,” a term the government uses for rebels.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Senator Chuck Hagel has been nominated to serve as U.S. Secretary of Defense. The announcement has received one enthusiastic response:

The Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran applauded the decision.

Why? Because Senator Hagel is a long-time advocate of “engaging” the Islamic Republic. Hagel wishes to perpetuate the failed policy of confronting America’s enemies by way of cordial talks. So while the new administration talks, Iran will further develop its nuclear weapons.

Consider Hagel’s track record. As a member of the United States Senate, Hagel opposed imposing economic sanctions on Iran and opposed designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Keep in mind that the Revolutionary Guards are the very ones responsible for arming the Iraqi insurgency and killing American soldiers.

Hagel even opposes supporting Israel if it attacks Iran’s nuclear program. Instead Hagel believes the U.S. should turn a blind eye to terrorist tenets, and magically “normalize” relations with the terrorists. Hagel explicitly endorsed such an approach, in his signed letter to President Obama.

Is Hagel fit to lead America’s national defense?

We can think of many people more qualified for the job. The U.S. needs a Secretary of Defense who understands that the U.S. is at war with radical regimes like Iran. If we do not stop terror states from developing nuclear weapons, they will point their weapons at us, and threaten U.S. freedom and security.

Hagel’s appointment will send the worst possible message to the world — that the United States is not committed to stopping a nuclear Iran, and in a larger sense, not resolved to stopping terror.

We must all do what we can to stop Hagel from becoming Secretary of Defense.

Please contact the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and let them know you oppose Hagel.

Courtesy of www.SecureAmericaNow.com

Attacks mount on Obama nominees Hagel, Brennan.

Even as President Barack Obama has gone ahead with his nominations of Chuck Hagel and John Brennan as the next Defence Secretary and CIA director, Republican attacks have mounted on both nominees, raising doubts on their Senate confirmation.

Much to the discomfiture of the White House, some Democratic Senators have also indicated that they would make up their mind on voting for him after he comes out with a satisfactory explanation of his controversial past positions on Israel and Iran.

Leading Republicans have been on the attack mode ever since word came over the weekend that Obama would press ahead with Hagel’s nomination, which he formally announced on Monday along with that of Brennan.

The former Nebraska Senator, known to be a moderate Republican, has antagonised members across the political aisle. Republican commentators labelled Hagel as someone way out of the American mainstream by being soft on Iran and hard on Israel.

Obama himself stoutly defended his choice and called upon the Senate to confirm both nominees at the earliest. “My No.1 criteria in making these decisions was simple — who is going to do the best job in securing America,” Obama said as he announced the nomination of Hagel and Brennan.

While Obama described Hagel as “the leader that our troops deserve”, some more Republican Senators voiced their opposition against their former colleague.

“Given Chuck Hagel’s statements and actions on a nuclear Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, I think his confirmation would send exactly the wrong message to our allies and enemies alike,” said Senator David Vitter from Louisiana in a statement.

The Day After Iran’s Tomorrow.

Wednesday, 09 January 2013 09:25

A pre-emptive Iranian strike to ward off an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear project is a real threat, one that could send the region entirely off-kilter and one we must be ready for.
By Benny Morris   January 08, 2012 “Haaretz“

In recent years there has been much discussion in Israel, Iran and the world over of the possibility that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear installations. I myself estimated – in 2008 and at other opportunities – that it would happen “in the coming months.” There is still a reasonable possibility that Israel and/or the United States will carry out their threat and attack the nuclear facilities this coming spring or summer, if the sanctions can’t halt the Iranian nuclear program.

But there is another, opposite possibility, which few have mentioned. If Iran feels Israel or the United States are about to attack it soon, it could use missiles to attack Israel’s military airfields and perhaps additional strategic installations as well, in a pre-emptive strike.

Those who reject such a possibility claim that the Iranians will refrain from doing so because it will only provide Israel or the United States with a justification for reacting and striking at their nuclear installations, and then who can come to them with complaints?

But from the Iranian point of view, the considerations in favor of a pre-emptive strike may overcome their desire to be seen as a victim. It’s true that an attack would contradict Iran’s tradition of not initiating wars against its neighbors (not including small operations, which are carried out by messengers, like Hezbollah), but Iran’s rulers may think that the threat is too great, and that an initiated attack is preferable to maintaining the tradition. A pre-emptive Iranian attack – with Shahab missiles and perhaps aircraft as well – is likely to interfere with Israel’s attack capability (although not that of America), and the Iranians will undoubtedly claim that they have a justified excuse because their intention was only to prevent a certain attack against them. There is no question that this explanation will find many buyers in Russia, China, Turkey, Europe and the Arab world.

In my opinion, if they do decide to attack, it won’t be restricted only to launching Shahab missiles at airfields. In addition to an international terror campaign, thousands of Hezbollah’s rockets are liable to be launched at northern and central Israel – either as part of the Iranian attack, or in retribution for an Israeli/American attack against Iran, which would come in the wake of the Iranian attack. Despite the rift between Iran and Hamas, there is a possibility that in such a situation clashes will develop all along the Gaza Strip border, for example at the initiative of the various Jihadi organizations there, which operate in tandem with Iran.

There is no question that attacks from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip will interfere with the ability of the Israel Air Force to attack Iranian nuclear installations. In addition to the direct damage done to the air force’s assets by these attacks, they will also force the air force to divert some of its capabilities against Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

The consequences of a pre-emptive Iranian attack, accompanied by clashes on our borders, are likely to be even broader in scope, and to become more widespread within days or weeks. The Sunni world surrounding us – Egypt, and perhaps also Syria and Jordan to the extent that an Islamist government is established in them – will set aside its accounts with Shi’ite Islam and also join the war in one way or another. Perhaps Saudi Arabia and other countries, concerned about the possible development of an Iranian nuclear program, will push – contrary to the wishes of their rulers – to align themselves with their Sunni brothers. After all, as profound as the disputes are between the two factions of Islam, there is one issue that will unite them: hostility toward Israel and the need to wipe the Jewish state of heretics off the map.

An Israeli and/or American counterattack in Iran (and in Lebanon and perhaps in Gaza too) will prompt Muslims to demand that their governments intervene. An incursion by the Egyptian army into Sinai in order “to save brothers in Gaza”; Syrian fire on the Golan, in order to “save brothers in Lebanon”; and perhaps even fire from Transjordan and the West Bank, as well as an intifada of Arabs within Israel, as seen in October 200, are not imaginary scenarios. They are definitely liable to become part of the full-on breakdown that a pre-emptive Iranian strike could bring about in the region.

The rulers in Iran, predicting how things might unfold and being afraid of an Israeli/American strike, could be tempted to launch a pre-emptive strike to protect their nuclear project from attack. Missile defense systems such as the Iron Dome, the Arrow and the Patriot, which we can assume are protecting Israel’s vital installations, should be placed in readiness during the coming spring and summer, poised and on alert to block a sudden Iranian move. It is not improbable.

“The Relationship with the US is a Cornerstone of our National Security”.

Amir Rapaport

8/1/2013

Will there be a war in 2013? We presented the question to Brig. Gen. (Res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, one of Israel’s most appreciated veteran intelligence officers. Will Israel or the US attack in Iran?
“I strongly believe that the capabilities of the system, of which Israel is a part, are sufficient to prevent the threats from materializing, even without an attack. In order for it to happen, it may be necessary to make it clear to the other side that the aggressive option is available, should the need arise. As long as they think that this is not the case, they press on. It is necessary to give credibility to the military option.

“In my opinion, in the primary trial currently on the agenda, the West cannot afford to lose. A situation where the West has accepted a nuclear Iran is unthinkable. North Korea, for example, wanted nuclear capability so as to ensure that they would have food. Iran wants this capability in order to influence the West.

“What the world is doing today is significant, and there is still room for improvement as far as the sanctions are concerned. Technically, Iran is still incapable of overcoming its difficulties, although there are parties that help it. As far as the Iranian issue is concerned, the West really cares about making sure that the world order Iran is challenging does not change, even if Western states currently suffer from economic instability.”

The interview with Kuperwasser was held before Operation Pillar of Defense and on the eve of 2013 , which the Israeli defense system has defined as a “decisive year” – mainly with regards to Iran. According to estimates, it is during 2013 that Iran will achieve its most significant breakthrough on the way towards its first nuclear bomb, or face an attack. Naturally, there is also the option that Iran will suspend its nuclear program, at least declaratively, under the pressure of the heavy sanctions imposed on it.
Kuperwasser currently serves as Director General of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem. In the past, Kuperwasser had served, among other things, as the head of the Research, Analysis & Production Division of the IDF Directorate of Intelligence.

As a veteran intelligence officer, do you recall such an intensive period in terms of the changes that are taking place?

“I do not recall any non-intensive periods. In that sense, Israel has extensive experience in making decisions under pressure. Our decision makers have experienced such situations over many years. Admittedly, however, this period pushes the dial almost to the end of the scale.”

How do you regard the dramatic processes taking place in the Middle East – are we now in the middle, at the end or only at the beginning of a major change?
“We are in the middle of the process. The problem is not foreseeing its end, but to know which forces are active in an attempt to influence. Each force pulls reality in a different direction, and they may establish between them alliances of one kind or another, some of which have a chance of creating some kind of continuity and influence reality. We are also a part of such a set of alliances, which also attempts to influence reality. So, telling the future is not just a question of a linear line.”

Deputy Prime Minister Ya’alon usually divides the Middle East into “Good” and “Evil” sides. The “Evil” axis includes Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and the Palestinian extremist factions. Is this axis strengthening or weakening?
“In the past, this axis which was previously poised opposite an adverse axis – was pragmatic. Today, the system is in such a mess that the situation cannot be simplified.”

We have lost a few important allies in the last few years, like Turkey, Egypt…
“We have not lost them. Our relationship with Egypt is different from what it had been before, that much is true, but we have not lost it. The system of interests that influences Egypt still carries a very considerable weight with regard to the Egyptian decision-making process. This system leads Egypt to a place which is not so far removed from where it had been before, even if the ruling party has changed dramatically. An Egyptian commitment to the agreement still exists, and in the past, it was a very cold peace anyway. We have not lost Turkey either. They decided to go elsewhere – it is their prerogative, and the decision was made even before the changes in the Middle East.”

Do all of these developments look bad for Israel as we approach 2013, or do they include something good as well?
“No, these developments include challenges and increasingly growing elements, they require strategic development in order to cope with them, and also contain a number of opportunities, not many – but that depends on us. We need to come up with a solution that considers all of the aspects of reality a direct threat, an evolving threat, the risk potential – and consider how the system may be led in a direction that is more appropriate for us, while creating a comprehensive approach “The present reality is complex. On one hand, we face a growing challenge associated with the determination of the radical axis to advance toward attaining capabilities that constitute a change of policy, first and foremost – the Iranian effort to gain nuclear weaponry. It concerns not only Israel, but the entire West. They do it to accomplish political objectives. It is the most important challenge, and a highly important trial for all, mainly for the West and for Israel, but it is part of something bigger that should be dealt with.

“On the other hand, as a result of the regional upheaval, Iran has sustained losses. Its primary asset – Syria – has sustained a significant blow, and Hezbollah may well follow Syria.

“The events in Syria have distanced elements that were once under Iranian influence and now may be reconsidering. The closer they get to a nuclear capability, the more significant the severity of the threats the Iranians would have to face, hence this alliance between us and the elements that do not want a strengthening nuclear Iran – and I refer to the moderate Arab countries and the West. The European Union, for example, has made a decision to impose sanctions on Iran. Europe regards the need to stop Iran’s nuclear program as an important undertaking. Iran is a challenge, but while this challenge is being dealt with, all sorts of other potentials are discovered. Take Turkey, for example. Today they have tensions with Iran. It seemed once as if a honeymoon was developing between them, but eventually it did not materialize.

“The upheaval itself creates tensions inside the Arab system, as they ask the question – where are we heading? Extremist Islam, which has occupied government positions, does not enjoy the same ease the autocratic regimes enjoyed in dealing with their environment. They rose as the manifestation of resistance to autocracy. Now they cannot conduct themselves as Mubarak, who imprisoned his opponents.”

How significant are the Salafi Islamic elements in the Sinai and the Gaza Strip?
“They are very significant as they are firing at us.”

Hamas does not stop this fire?
“It is hard for Hamas to control them, due to military and political reasons.”

You were the intelligence officer of IDF Central Command at the height of the Second Intifada, more than a decade ago. Do you think the Palestinians no longer regard street terrorism as a legitimate course of their struggle?
“The Palestinians believe that Judaism is a religion and not a nation, that the followers of this religion may have been active but have no sovereign rights in this region, so eventually they will disappear from here. That is why they refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state. Israel is a state of its citizens – just like the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas says that they will make peace with the Israeli people (though there is no such thing, as far as they are concerned). The significance of this is that in the context of that peace, Israel will eventually evolve into a state with an Arab majority. This is why the Palestinians have kept waiting, for 65 years, for something that will never happen.

“The second message is that Jews are villainous people, Nazis, war criminals, something awful, so even if we were to say that is such a thing as the Jewish people – they do not deserve a state and certainly not here. Moreover, because of such people, there is justification for the third credo – that against such a terrible group of people, any kind of struggle is clearly legitimate. Therefore they glorify the terrorists who were captured and were killed. They pay prisoners and families of the fallen who sacrificed themselves for the Palestinian cause. On the other hand, they are not completely illogical – if something does not work, they will not use it. They realized that at the moment, terrorist attacks are not worthwhile.”

Are you saying that nothing has changed despite the close security coordination with the Palestinian Authority in recent years?
“Nothing; security coordination is an undeniable Palestinian interest. If there is no coordination and terrorist attacks are launched from Palestinian-controlled territories, they will accomplish nothing. It is our interest, too, but they do it because they want it.”

Did Hezbollah and Iran stand behind the attempted and successful attacks against Israeli objectives around the world in the last year?
“Yes, they were behind the attacks in such places as Azerbaijan, Thailand, Cyprus, India and elsewhere. We succeeded in preventing many attacks. In some cases they failed because of operational problems, but once, in Bulgaria, they had a very significant success – which was extremely bad for us. We must not be confused. We are engaged in an ongoing campaign. Terror is not a threat to our existence, but the campaign is not over.”

 

Is our relationship with the US still good?
“Our relationship with the US is a cornerstone of our national security. There are moral and cultural gaps between us, but Israel has contributed a lot to the US national security, and the US has contributed to the security of Israel. We have a very close relationship, based, among other things, on a profound similarity of values and a similar way of looking at commitment to justice and global values.

“The US also regards us as we regard it, as a moral twin. There is also the aspect of strategy and mutual interests. Both sides can mutually benefit from this relationship. We helped them a great deal in technology, military knowledge, social and cultural issues.

“We also have regional allies, though only a few will publicly admit it. More than a regional few elements understand the uniqueness of Israel, which is a part of the Western world – with all the moral values, creativity and more – yet also a part of the Middle East. More than a few people look at us and understand that they made a serious mistake, and that ways should be found to connect with Israel. It will take time before these things become evident. We are a people with tremendous patience.”

**

The interview was held before Operation Pillar of Defense and was published in the 11th issue of IsraelDefense Magazine

Egyptian Magazine: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration :: The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

by John Rossomando  •  Jan 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm

An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy.

The Dec. 22 story published in Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine (read an IPT translation here) suggests the six turned the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The story is largely unsourced, but its publication is considered significant in raising the issue to Egyptian readers.

The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

Alikhan is a founder of the World Islamic Organization, which the magazine identifies as a Brotherhood “subsidiary.” It suggests that Alikhan was responsible for the “file of Islamic states” in the White House and that he provides the direct link between the Obama administration and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011.

Elibiary, who has endorsed the ideas of radical Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb, may have leaked secret materials contained in Department of Homeland Security databases, according to the magazine. He, however, denies having any connection with the Brotherhood.

Elibiary also played a role in defining the Obama administration’s counterterrorism strategy, and the magazine asserts that Elibiary wrote the speech Obama gave when he told former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave power but offers no source or evidence for the claim.

According to Rose El-Youssef, Rashad Hussain maintained close ties with people and groups that it says comprise the Muslim Brotherhood network in America. This includes his participation in the June 2002 annual conference of the American Muslim Council, formerly headed by convicted terrorist financier Abdurahman Alamoudi.

He also participated in the organizing committee of the Critical Islamic Reflection along with important figures of the American Muslim Brotherhood such as Jamal Barzinji, Hisham al-Talib and Yaqub Mirza.

Regarding al-Marayati, who has been among the most influential Muslim American leaders in recent years, the magazine draws connections between MPAC in the international Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure.

Magid heads ISNA, which was founded by Brotherhood members, was appointed by Obama in 2011 as an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security. The magazine says that has also given speeches and conferences on American Middle East policy at the State Department and offered advice to the FBI.

Rose El-Youssef says Patel maintains a close relationship with Hani Ramadan, the grandson of Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, and is a member of the Muslim Students Association, which it identifies as “a large Brotherhood organization.”

The day after Iran’s tomorrow – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

A pre-emptive Iranian strike to ward off an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear project is a real threat, one that could send the region entirely off-kilter and one we must be ready for.

Pedestrians pass a window display of foreign exchange rates at a currency exchange in Tehran, Iran, on Thursday, Jan. 12, 2012. Photo by Bloomberg

By Reuters | Jan.08,2013 | 2:45 PM | 4

In recent years there has been much discussion in Israel, Iran and the world over of the possibility that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear installations. I myself estimated – in 2008 and at other opportunities – that it would happen “in the coming months.” There is still a reasonable possibility that Israel and/or the United States will carry out their threat and attack the nuclear facilities this coming spring or summer, if the sanctions can’t halt the Iranian nuclear program.

But there is another, opposite possibility, which few have mentioned. If Iran feels Israel or the United States are about to attack it soon, it could use missiles to attack Israel’s military airfields and perhaps additional strategic installations as well, in a pre-emptive strike.

Those who reject such a possibility claim that the Iranians will refrain from doing so because it will only provide Israel or the United States with a justification for reacting and striking at their nuclear installations, and then who can come to them with complaints?

But from the Iranian point of view, the considerations in favor of a pre-emptive strike may overcome their desire to be seen as a victim. It’s true that an attack would contradict Iran’s tradition of not initiating wars against its neighbors (not including small operations, which are carried out by messengers, like Hezbollah), but Iran’s rulers may think that the threat is too great, and that an initiated attack is preferable to maintaining the tradition. A pre-emptive Iranian attack – with Shahab missiles and perhaps aircraft as well – is likely to interfere with Israel’s attack capability (although not that of America), and the Iranians will undoubtedly claim that they have a justified excuse because their intention was only to prevent a certain attack against them. There is no question that this explanation will find many buyers in Russia, China, Turkey, Europe and the Arab world.

In my opinion, if they do decide to attack, it won’t be restricted only to launching Shahab missiles at airfields. In addition to an international terror campaign, thousands of Hezbollah’s rockets are liable to be launched at northern and central Israel – either as part of the Iranian attack, or in retribution for an Israeli/American attack against Iran, which would come in the wake of the Iranian attack. Despite the rift between Iran and Hamas, there is a possibility that in such a situation clashes will develop all along the Gaza Strip border, for example at the initiative of the various Jihadi organizations there, which operate in tandem with Iran.

There is no question that attacks from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip will interfere with the ability of the Israel Air Force to attack Iranian nuclear installations. In addition to the direct damage done to the air force’s assets by these attacks, they will also force the air force to divert some of its capabilities against Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

The consequences of a pre-emptive Iranian attack, accompanied by clashes on our borders, are likely to be even broader in scope, and to become more widespread within days or weeks. The Sunni world surrounding us – Egypt, and perhaps also Syria and Jordan to the extent that an Islamist government is established in them – will set aside its accounts with Shi’ite Islam and also join the war in one way or another. Perhaps Saudi Arabia and other countries, concerned about the possible development of an Iranian nuclear program, will push – contrary to the wishes of their rulers – to align themselves with their Sunni brothers. After all, as profound as the disputes are between the two factions of Islam, there is one issue that will unite them: hostility toward Israel and the need to wipe the Jewish state of heretics off the map.

An Israeli and/or American counterattack in Iran (and in Lebanon and perhaps in Gaza too) will prompt Muslims to demand that their governments intervene. An incursion by the Egyptian army into Sinai in order “to save brothers in Gaza”; Syrian fire on the Golan, in order to “save brothers in Lebanon”; and perhaps even fire from Transjordan and the West Bank, as well as an intifada of Arabs within Israel, as seen in October 200, are not imaginary scenarios. They are definitely liable to become part of the full-on breakdown that a pre-emptive Iranian strike could bring about in the region.

The rulers in Iran, predicting how things might unfold and being afraid of an Israeli/American strike, could be tempted to launch a pre-emptive strike to protect their nuclear project from attack. Missile defense systems such as the Iron Dome, the Arrow and the Patriot, which we can assume are protecting Israel’s vital installations, should be placed in readiness during the coming spring and summer, poised and on alert to block a sudden Iranian move. It is not improbable.

Mursi to urge Obama to free blind sheikh in first U.S. state visit.

Tuesday, 08 January 2013

Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, a preacher imprisoned in the United States in the 1990s for plotting attacks in New York, is the spiritual leader of Gama’a al-Islamiya. (Courtesy: AP)

  inShare1