Posted tagged ‘Jihad’

Turkish military shells PYD targets in Syria

February 13, 2016

Turkish military shells PYD targets in Syria

February 13, 2016, Saturday/ 18:01:08/ REUTERS | BEIRUT

Source: Turkish military shells PYD targets in Syria

Turkish military shells PYD targets in Syria

Turkey’s military has shelled Kurdish militia targets near the town of Azaz in northern Syria. (Photo: Today’s Zaman)

Turkey’s military has shelled Kurdish militia targets near the town of Azaz in northern Syria, a Turkish government source told Reuters on Saturday, without elaborating on the extent of the shelling or why it had been carried out.

“The Turkish Armed Forces fired shells at PYD positions in the Azaz area,” the source said, referring to the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), which Ankara regards as a terrorist organization.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that the shelling had targeted a Syrian air base and a village captured from insurgents in recent days by the YPG militia, which is backed by the PYD.

A Kurdish official confirmed the shelling of northern Aleppo’s Menagh air base, which he said had been captured by the Kurdish-allied Jaysh al-Thuwwar group rather than the YPG. Both are part of the Syria Democratic Forces alliance.

News of the shelling came after Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Saturday Turkey would not hesitate to act in Syria if it faced a threat from Syrian Kurdish forces.

His comments reflected Ankara’s growing frustration with United States backing for the PYD, which controls most of the Syrian side of the border with Turkey and which Ankara views as tied to militants fighting an insurgency in southeast Turkey.

‘IDF must be prepared for possible war with Hamas’

February 11, 2016

IDF must be prepared for possible war with Hamas’ Southern Command officers warn political echelon may ‘lose patience’ and demand immediate action against Hamas terror tunnels.

By Cynthia Blank

First Publish: 2/11/2016, 8:38 AM

Source: ‘IDF must be prepared for possible war with Hamas’ – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva

 

Senior officers in the IDF’s Southern Command have begun to express concerns that the security situation along Israel’s border with Gaza is nearing the same levels of strain as during Operation Protective Edge.

However, according to one officer, unlike the 2014 campaign, there is now a possibility of the Israeli army taking offensive action against Hamas’ terrorist tunnels – from across the border.

“The various units should prepare for the possibility that the political echelon will lose patience or that the threat of tunnels in the Gaza Strip will not allow for restraint, and they will try to initiate treatment of the tunnels in Palestinian territory,” the officer told Walla! News. 

He added that all military units should maintain a high level of readiness for the possibility of deployment, and that exercises be conducted for entering Gaza, including the scenario of rockets being launched at IDF bases.

Indeed, members of Security Cabinet have already suggested that Israel initiate action against the Hamas tunnels leading into Israel.

According to a Channel 2 report on Monday, Education Minister Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) recently made such a demand only to be rejected by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon.

The two later publicly said that “on this matter we must exercise judgment and responsibility” and equated such action to attacking Hezbollah missiles or Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The topic of Hamas’s terror tunnels has come back in the spotlight in recent weeks, after four tunnels collapsed in the last two weeks killing 11 Hamas terrorists.

According to some estimates Hamas has succeeded in again digging tunnels into Israeli sovereign territory, and Israeli officials have sought to play down fears from residents in southern Israel who say they have heard Hamas diggers underneath their homes.

The IDF however has not ruled out the possibility that Hamas tunnels may succeed in reaching Israeli territory; all forces on the ground are being trained on how to deal with such an infiltration.

Counter-terror expert warned US Senate: “13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS”

February 11, 2016

Counter-terror expert warned US Senate: “13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS” Counter-terror expert David Harris warned the US Senate about the dangers associated with Canada accepting so many Syrian refugees and the implications that it has for the United States.

Feb 11, 2016, 4:06PM

Rachel Avraham

Source: Counter-terror expert warned US Senate: “13% of Syrian refugees support ISIS” | JerusalemOnline.com

David Harris, a counter-terror expert who serves as the head of the international intelligence program INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc., recently addressed the US Senate in order to discuss the dangers associated with the fact that the Canadian government has decided to fast-trek the arrival of 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada and its implications for the United States: “Complications led the government to adjust intake goals to 10,000 before the end of 2015 and another 15,000 prior to 1 March, 2016. By last week, about 15,000 had entered Canada. Reports indicate that Canada might raise its target level and take in 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. Given the threat picture in Syria and the scale of the intake, security considerations require thoughtful attention.”

According to Harris, FBI director James Corney highlighted screening difficulties if America would absorb 10,000 Syrians, warning that information gaps could lead to inadequate screening: “If the extensive US intelligence system would have trouble screening 10,000 Syrians in a year, how likely is it that Canada even with valuable US assistance could adequately screen two and a half times that number in four months?”

Harris emphasized that it is important to remember the risk associated with these refugees: “Apart from accounts of a suspected ISIS aim of penetrating international refugee streams, a Lebanese cabinet minister warned in September 2015 that at least two percent of the 1.1 million Syrians in Lebanon’s refugee camps were connected to ISIS extremism. Canada takes refugees from Lebanon’s UNHRC camps. More generally, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies polls determined that 13% of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey had positive views of ISIS. How many more might favor Al Qaeda, the Al Nusra Front, Hezbollah, Assad’s militias and other non-ISIS threats?”

He noted that it is critical to screen for these things when determining which Syrian refugees will be able to come to countries like Canada and the United States but he questioned how easily one can access the history of each Syrian refugee given that they come from a hostile and chaotic country: “We cannot reliably confer with the authorities of such jurisdictions, assuming that an authority exists about many prospective refugees.”

While Canada believes that the risk can be mitigated by barring single adult males, Harris warned that many people can lie about their age, adding that many children both male and female under the age of 18 are part of ISIS: “And what effect would an adult male embargo have on an adult-at-risk gay man and other males targeted by terrorists? Meanwhile, in favoring women with children and men with families, do we know who is actually married to whom and whose children are accompanying whom? Are some ISIS fighters families involved? Would they in turn sponsor relatives?”

Harris also is greatly concerned that there may be security risks for North America’s existing minority communities if there is a huge influx of Syrian refugees given the fact that in Syria, demonizing Jews is a national policy and threatening the lives of members of the LGBT community has reached a crisis point: “And what of importing the people from a region where anti-black racism is an especially serious matter?”

According to Harris, this situation in Canada can also adversely affect the US as Canadians require no visas to enter into the United States and terrorists have taken advantage of this in the past: “Failed milliunium bomber Ahmed Ressam and Ghazi Ibrahim Abu Mezar’s arrest in his Brooklyn bomb factory remind us of the cross border risks.” Harris noted that the Canadian government has assured that the process will be transparent and this should reassure the Canadian public as well as Canada’s allies but noted there is still a great risk involved in taking in so many Syrians: “There is little doubt that those in Canada tasked with the job of screening refugees are doing the best that they can given the constraints but the constraints are significant and we must be realistic about that fact.”

According to CBS News, Guidy Mamann, a Toronto immigration lawyer, also addressed the US Senate hearing and proclaimed: “There are people in our office waiting for years. Why is somebody being allowed to jump ahead of the line? This is not a rescue mission. This is a resettlement mission. The people we are helping have already 
escaped the conflict zone and have already reached safety in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. We are only relocating them and offering them permanent resettlement. We are making no attempt, whatsoever, to 
rescue people who are actually in Syria and who are in imminent danger. When compared to other large groups of refugees, one could easily argue that this group represents a relatively higher-risk demographic. Syria is widely considered to be a major hotbed of international terror. Large parts of Syria are controlled by ISIS which, sadly, enjoys some considerable local support. Virtually the entire country supports one of the three warring factions. All three groups have been associated with assorted atrocities and violations of human rights.” Given this, he argued that Canada should take more time to screen the Syrian refugees.

 Former PA Minster: We No Longer Abide by Oslo Accords

February 11, 2016

 Former PA Minster: We No Longer Abide by Oslo Accords

By: David Israel

Published: February 11th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Former PA Minster: We No Longer Abide by Oslo Accords

Dr.Mohammad Shtayyeh
Photo Credit: Wikipedia commons

Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh, who served as the Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Public Works And Housing and Minister of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development announced on Thursday that the PA is going to inform Israel during Thursday’s security coordination meeting with Israeli officials that it no longer abides by its Oslo agreements with Israel as long as Israel is not keeping them, Israel Radio reported.

“Israel is not a partner — it’s an enemy state that occupies our land,” he said. He revealed that the current Palestinian leadership’s strategy is to internationalize the conflict through various means.

In a conference in Beirut, Lebanon, Shtayyeh said it’s the end of negotiations with Israel under an American monopoly. He supported the “Awakening,” as he called it, by Arab youth on the ground these days, and said that it is at the heart of the PLO’s strategy of its struggle.

Minister Zeev Elkin (Likud) said in response that the PA’s plan to inform Israel it no longer abides by the agreements between the two sides is yet another nail in the PA’s coffin. Elkin noted that the PA has been slowly vanishing from the map for all kinds of reasons. He emphasized that the PA’s existence completely depends on the Oslo Accords, and that security cooperation is a central part of those accords. Should it announce that it no longer keeps them, there will no longer be a basis for said existence and it would “evaporate,” as he put it.

In Elkin’s view, such a move would not cause Israel any damage in the world arena.

Turkey’s Haunted Border with Syria

February 11, 2016

Turkey’s Haunted Border with Syria

by Burak Bekdil

February 11, 2016 at 4:00 am

Source: Turkey’s Haunted Border with Syria

  • Erdogan and his prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, are now paying the price for their miscalculated Islamist aspirations to install a Muslim Brotherhood type of Sunni regime in Syria in place of the non-Sunni Assad regime. Assad, with Russia’s help, has become somewhat untouchable, and has never been so safe and secure since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011. By contrast, the Turks now face a multitude of threats on both sides of an apocalyptic border.
  • “With the Middle East ravaged by religious radicalism and sectarianism, the European Union and the United States can’t afford the Turkish government’s brutal military efforts against the Kurds or its undemocratic war on academics and journalists. Only a secular, democratic Turkey that can provide a regional bulwark against radical groups will bring stability to both the Middle East and Europe. As Mr. Erdogan seeks to eliminate all opposition and create a single-party regime, the European Union and the United States must cease their policy of appeasement and ineffectual disapproval and frankly inform him that this is a dead end.” — Behlul Ozkan, assistant professor at Istanbul’s Marmara University, writing in the New York Times.

Six years ago, Turkey’s official narrative over its leaders’ Kodak-moment exchanges of pleasantries with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Damascus promised the creation of a Muslim bloc resembling the European Union. Border controls would disappear, trade would flourish, armies would carry out joint exercises, and Turks and Syrians on both sides of the border would live happily ever after. Instead, six years later, blood is flowing on both sides of the 900 kilometer border.

Inside Turkey, clashes between security forces and members of the youth wing of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) have been taking place for weeks. Many towns and neighborhoods have turned into ghost-towns, as strict curfews are now in place. As a result, tens of thousands of Kurds have been forced to flee their homes, seeking refuge in safer parts of the country. While the Turkish army struggles to diffuse the latest Kurdish urban rebellion, hundreds of Kurdish militants and members of Turkey’s security forces have lost their lives.

Worse, the conflict has the potential to trigger further violence in Turkey’s non-eastern regions, where there is a vast Kurdish population spread across large cities.

Already in Istanbul, violence erupted on February 2, 2016, when unidentified gunmen opened fire on the campus of an Islamic association; they killed one man and wounded three others. In a second incident in a suburb of Istanbul, two people were killed and seven wounded after armed assailants fired on a tea-house.

Across the border in northern Syria, Turkey’s “Kurdish problem” is equally pressing. The PKK’s Syrian faction, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), has been successfully fighting on the front-lines alongside the Western alliance that is waging war on the Islamic State (IS), and making itself highly regarded by the alliance, thereby further angering Ankara.

Turkey, which views the PYD as a terrorist organization like the PKK, fears that the Syrian Kurds’ fight against IS could, in the near future, earn the PYD international legitimacy.

On February 1, Brett McGurk, the U.S. envoy to the coalition against IS, visited a part of Kurdish-controlled northern Syria. On his visit, McGurk posed in front of cameras with a PYD commander — all smiles — while receiving an honorary plaque. The ceremony lent further legitimacy to the PYD. McGurk’s actions greatly angered Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In a statement directed towards Washington, Erdogan asked: “How will we trust [you]? Am I your partner or are the terrorists in Kobane [the Kurdish town in northern Syria]?”

Ironically, Syrian Kurds are not only backed by the U.S., but also by Russia, which became another Turkish nightmare. On November 24, 2015, two Turkish F-16 jets shot down a Russian Su-24 military jet flying along Turkey’s border with Syria. Turkey justified its actions against Russia, citing a violation of Turkish airspace. Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged to punish Turkey by means “other than” a slew of severe commercial sanctions.

Immediately after the November 24th incident, in a clear signal to Turkey, Moscow began to reinforce its military deployments in Syria and on the eastern Mediterranean. These included installations of S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense batteries, lying in wait for the first Turkish plane to fly over Syrian skies, in order to shoot it down in front of the cameras. Russia’s scare tactics worked. The Turks halted their airstrikes against IS strongholds in Syria.

On January 29, 2016, another Russian jet, this time a Su-34, violated Turkish airspace and was not shot down. The Turks, already uneasy over tensions with Russia, did not pull the trigger. Most observers agree that the second violation and Turkey’s failure to shoot, despite earlier pledges that “all foreign aircraft violating Turkish airspace would be shot down,” was a major humiliation on the part of Ankara.

Left: A Russian Su-24 bomber explodes as it is hit by a missile fired from a Turkish F-16 fighter, on Nov. 24, 2015. Right: A Russian Su-34 fighter jet. On Jan. 29, 2016, a Russian Su-34 violated Turkish airspace and was not shot down, despite earlier pledges that “all foreign aircraft violating Turkish airspace would be shot down.”

Much to Turkey’s discomfort, the Russians are playing a tough game in Syria. Most recently, the Russian military deployed at least four advanced Sukhoi Su-35S Flanker-E aircraft to Syria; the move — shortly after the January violation of Turkish airspace by the Su-34 — further augmented its air superiority and boldly challenging Ankara.

“Starting from last week, super-maneuverable Su-35S fighter jets started performing combat missions at Khmeimim airbase,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov told the TASS news agency on February 1. But a more humiliating move by Moscow was to come: Russian forces in Syria bombed “moderate” anti-Assad Islamist groups, as well as Turkmen (ethnic Turks) in northwestern Syria.

Russian airstrikes have reinforced Assad’s forces that now encircle Aleppo, a strategic city in the north. More than 70,000 Syrians, mostly Turkmen, fled from their villages to the Turkish border to seek refuge inside Turkey, and potentially add to the country’s refugee problem. Turkey is home to more than 2.5 million Syrians who have fled the civil war. It is estimated that at least one million more would flee to Turkey if Aleppo fell to Assad’s forces.

Erdogan and his prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, are now paying the price for their miscalculated Islamist aspirations to install a Muslim Brotherhood type of Sunni regime in Syria in place of the non-Sunni Assad regime. Assad, with Russia’s help, has become somewhat untouchable and has never been so safe and secure since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011. By contrast, the Turks now face a multitude of threats on both sides of an apocalyptic border.

As Behlul Ozkan, an assistant professor at Istanbul’s Marmara University, warned in a recent article in the New York Times:

“With the Middle East ravaged by religious radicalism and sectarianism, the European Union and the United States can’t afford the Turkish government’s brutal military efforts against the Kurds or its undemocratic war on academics and journalists. Only a secular, democratic Turkey that can provide a regional bulwark against radical groups will bring stability to both the Middle East and Europe. As Mr. Erdogan seeks to eliminate all opposition and create a single-party regime, the European Union and the United States must cease their policy of appeasement and ineffectual disapproval and frankly inform him that this is a dead end.”

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

AQAP publishes insider’s account of 9/11 plot

February 10, 2016

AQAP publishes insider’s account of 9/11 plot, Long War Journal, February 10, 2016

Sept 11

While waging war against the “apostate” rulers was not likely to engender widespread support, no “two people” would “disagree” with the necessity of fighting “the Jews and Christians.”

***********************

Sometime before his death in a US drone strike in June 2015, Nasir al Wuhayshi recorded an insider’s account of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. As the aide-de-camp to Osama bin Laden prior to the hijackings, Wuhayshi was well-placed to know such details. And al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which Wuhayshi led until his demise, has now published a version of his “untold story.”

A transcript of Wuhayshi’s discussion of the 9/11 plot was included in two editions of AQAP’s Al Masra newsletter. The first part was posted online on Jan. 31 and the second on Feb. 9. The summary below is based on the first half of Wuhayshi’s account.

Wuhayshi began by explaining al Qaeda’s rationale for attacking America. Prior to 9/11, the jihadists’ cause was not supported by the Muslim people, because the mujahideen’s “goals” were not widely understood. The jihadists were divided into many groups and fought “tit-for-tat” conflicts “with the tyrants.” (The “tyrants” were the dictators who ruled over many Muslim-majority countries.)

While the mujahideen had some successes, according to Wuhayshi, they were “besieged” by the tyrants until they found some breathing room in Afghanistan. The “sheikhs” studied this situation in meetings held in Kabul and Kandahar, because they wanted to understand why the jihadists were not victorious. And bin Laden concluded they should fight “the more manifest infidel enemy rather than the crueler infidel enemy,” according to a translation obtained by The Long War Journal. Wuhayshi explained that the former was the “Crusader-Zionist movement” and the latter were the “apostates” ruling over Muslims.

While waging war against the “apostate” rulers was not likely to engender widespread support, no “two people” would “disagree” with the necessity of fighting “the Jews and Christians.” If you fight the “apostate governments in your land,” Wuhayshi elaborated, then everyone – the Muslim people, Islamic movements, and even jihadists – would be against you because they all have their own “priorities.” Divisions within the jihadists’ ranks only exacerbated the crisis, as even the mujahideen in their home countries could refuse to fight.

Wuhayshi then cited Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi, a prominent pro-al Qaeda ideologue, who warned that the “capability” to wage “combat” in Muslim-majority countries did “not yet exist.” So, for instance, if al Qaeda launched a “jihad against the House of Saud,” then “many jihadist movements” would oppose this decision. Al Qaeda’s fellow travelers would protest that they were “incapable” of defeating the Saudi government. And these jihadists would complain they did not want to “wage the battle prematurely,” or become entangled “in a difficult situation.”

For these reasons and more, according to Wuhayshi, bin Laden decided to “battle the more manifest enemy,” because “the people” would agree that the US “is an enemy” and this approach would not sow “discord and suspicion among the people.” Bin Laden believed that the “Islamic movement” would stand with al Qaeda “against the infidels.”

Wuhayshi’s explanation of bin Laden’s reasoning confirms that attacking the US was not al Qaeda’s end goal. It was a tactic, or a step, that bin Laden believed could unite the jihadists behind a common purpose and garner more popular support from “the people.”

Not all jihadists agreed with bin Laden’s strategy. In February 1998, bin Laden launched a “Global Islamic Front for Waging Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders.” Wuhayshi claimed that a “majority of the groups agreed to” the initiative, but some, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), opposed it. (However, some senior LIFG members were folded into al Qaeda.)

Gamaa Islamiya (IG), an Egyptian group, initially agreed to join the venture, but ultimately rejected it. As did other groups in the Arab Magreb, according to Wuhayshi. (Some senior IG leaders remained close to al Qaeda and eventually joined the organization.)

Although Wuhayshi claimed that a “majority” of jihadist organizations agreed with bin Laden’s proposal, only three ideologues joined bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri in signing the front’s infamous first fatwa.

In August 1998, just months after the “Global Islamic Front” was established, al Qaeda struck the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. According to Wuhayshi, bin Laden held a series of meetings around this time, as he sought to convince as many people as possible that attacking America was the right course. Some jihadists objected, believing it would ensnare them in a trap. But bin Laden pressed forward, telling those who didn’t agree that they wanted to fight “lackeys” without confronting “the father of the lackeys.” Al Qaeda’s path “will lead to a welcome conclusion,” Wuhayshi quoted bin Laden as saying.

The “initiative against the Crusaders continued” after the US Embassy bombings, Wuhayshi said, and the number of people who supported it increased “dramatically.” During this period, the “Global Islamic Front” launched operations against the “Crusaders” on the ground and at sea, but the idea to strike “from the air with planes” had not yet been conceived.

The origins of the 9/11 plot

Wuhayshi traced the genesis of the 9/11 plot to both Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who would come to be known as the “mastermind” of the operation.

But he also credited Abdullah Azzam for popularizing the concept of martyrdom in the first place. Azzam was killed in 1989, but is still revered as the godfather of modern jihadism. After the mujahideen had defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan, they considered “hitting the Americans,” Wuhayshi claimed. Azzam “spoke harshly about the Western military camp.” Azzam also “introduced” the jihadists to a “new tactic.” Wuhayshi recommended that people listen to Azzam’s “final speech,” in which he reportedly said: “God gave me life in order to transform you into bombs.”

Years later, on Oct. 31, 1999, bin Laden watched as the co-pilot of EgyptAir Flight 990 crashed the jet into the Atlantic Ocean, killing more than 200 people on board. Bin Laden, according to Wuhayshi, wondered why the co-pilot didn’t fly the plane into buildings. After this, Wuhayshi claimed, the basic idea for 9/11 had been planted in bin Laden’s mind.

In reality, the EgyptAir crash came after the outline of the 9/11 plot had been already sketched. For instance, the 9/11 Commission found that KSM “presented a proposal for an operation that would involve training pilots who would crash planes into buildings in the United States” as early as 1996. “This proposal eventually would become the 9/11 operation.” In March or April 1999, according to the Commission’s final report, bin Laden “summoned KSM to Kandahar…to tell him that al Qaeda would support his proposal,” which was referred to as the “planes operation.”

Indeed, Wuhayshi recounted how KSM and his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, plotted to attack multiple airliners in the mid-1990s. In the so-called Bojinka plot, KSM and Yousef even conceived a plan to blow up as many as one dozen airliners. Wuhayshi recalled how Yousef placed a bomb on board one jet as part of a test run. Their plot failed and Yousef was later captured in Pakistan. Yousef has been incarcerated for two decades after being convicted by an American court for his role in Bojinka and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wuhayshi prayed for his release.

Wuhayshi told a story that, if true, means KSM had dreamed of attacking the US since his youth. When he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, KSM wrote a play in which a character “ponders how to down an American aircraft.” Wuhayshi claimed to have searched for this play online, but he and another “brother” failed to find it.

Still, Wuhayshi insisted that KSM wrote the play, showing he was already thinking of ways to strike America as a young man.

This is the death of civilization.

February 10, 2016

Resident of Calais speaks. This is the death of civilization.

Published on Feb 9, 2016

Heart breaking description of how a government can destroy a city and a people. If ever there was an example of why a free people need a 1st and 2nd amendment style protection, this is it. Please watch it all.

The original comes from here http://ripostelaique.com/le-temoignag… one of the most important websites in Europe.

ISIS: The Latest Phase of the Jihad

February 9, 2016

ISIS: The Latest Phase of the Jihad How Western acquiescence to al-Qaeda’s “grievance” narrative paved the way for the Islamic State.

February 9, 2016 Raymond Ibrahim

Source: ISIS: The Latest Phase of the Jihad | Frontpage Mag

Originally published by Hoover Institution’s Strategika.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

The best way to understand the Islamic State (ISIS) is to see it as the next phase of al-Qaeda. All Sunni Islamic jihadi groups—Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda, even Hamas—share the same motivations based on a literal and orthodox reading of Islamic history and doctrine: resurrecting a caliphate (which existed in various forms from 632 to 1924) that implements and spreads the totality of sharia, or Islamic law.

Accordingly, ISIS’s notorious atrocities—beheading, crucifixion, sexual enslavement, and destruction of non-Sunni places of worship—are being committed by other jihadi groups (e.g., Boko Haram and al-Shabaab, both of which pledged allegiance to ISIS) and even by some Muslim governments (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and individual Muslims around the world.

Conversely, although al-Qaeda (AQ) adheres to the same sharia that ISIS implements, it has long waged a propaganda war against the West. AQ portrays all terrorist attacks on the West, including 9/11, as mere payback for the West’s unjust polices against Muslims, including support for Israel and Arab dictators.[1]

To maintain this “grievance” narrative, AQ knows that the innately supremacist and violent aspects of sharia—for example ISIS’ destruction of churches and subjugation of “infidel” Christian minorities—need to be curtailed or hidden from the Western world.  Otherwise AQ’s efforts of portraying jihadis as “freedom fighters” resisting an oppressive West risk being undermined.[2]

Regardless, AQ’s strategy of turning Western opinion appears to have borne fruit in one pivotal area: canceling longtime Western support for secular Arab dictators. In the context of the “Arab Spring,” the Obama administration turned its back on America’s Egyptian ally of 30 years, Hosni Mubarak; helped ISIS-affiliated jihadis overthrow Libya’s Gaddafi (even though he was complying with Washington); and continues supporting ISIS-affiliated “moderates”[3] to overthrow Syria’s Assad. Idealists in both government and media forgot a primary reason the U.S. had formerly supported secular Arab dictators: they single-mindedly opposed the jihadis.

The result has been a new and emboldened phase of the jihad, a.k.a., ISIS. Born and entrenched in precisely those nations that U.S. leadership brought “freedom and democracy” to—Iraq, Syria, and Libya—ISIS (or al-Qaeda 2.0) is now indifferent to Western opinion. By widely broadcasting its savage triumphalism in the name of Islam, ISIS forfeits the “grievance card” but plays the “strength” card, thus inspiring millions of Muslims. According to the Pew Research Center, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.[4]

Yet even ISIS works in stages. When criticized by Muslims for killing fellow Muslims and not attacking Israel—the supreme enemy—ISIS responded by saying it was following the pattern of the historic caliphate founded in 632.[5] Then, Caliph Abu Bakr beheaded and crucified tens of thousands of Muslims for apostatizing. Only after the rebel tribes were brought back into the fold of Islam were they set loose to conquer European/Christian territories during history’s early Muslim conquests (634–750). Indeed, it is believed that ISIS’ caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi took this name to signify his focus, that is, terrorizing all “hypocrites” and “apostates” until they unify under the caliphate’s banner.

It still remains to be seen whether ISIS’ strategy—inspiring Muslims but losing Western opinion—will succeed. According to polls, “Islamophobia” is on the rise in the West, especially after the rise of ISIS, prompting several politicians to speak more candidly about the catalysts for terrorist violence.

The Obama administration’s weak responses feed into AQ’s narrative that Islamic terrorism at least in part reflects Islamic grievance; and it refuses to connect the actions of any jihadi organization—whether ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, et al—to Islamic teaching.

Time will tell whether the next administration will remain willfully ignorant of the nature of its jihadi enemy—which is fatal in war according to Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “know your enemy”—or whether reality will trump political correctness.

Notes:

[1] See “An Analysis of Al-Qa’ida’s Worldview: Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation?” Also, The Al Qaeda Reader, which separates the organization’s communiqués into two groups: “Propaganda” messages to the West portraying jihadi terrorists as mere freedom fighters, and “Theology” messages to fellow Muslims, preaching the same Islam of ISIS.

[2] See “Al-Qaeda: Defender of Christians?” for a more elaborate explanation of this theme.

[3] For the Syrian Free Army’s role: “Largest Massacre of Christians in Syria Ignored.”

An Exasperated John Kerry Throws In Towel On Syria: “What Do You Want Me To Do, Go To War With The Russians?!”

February 8, 2016

An Exasperated John Kerry Throws In Towel On Syria: “What Do You Want Me To Do, Go To War With The Russians?!”

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/07/2016 23:48 -0500

Source: An Exasperated John Kerry Throws In Towel On Syria: “What Do You Want Me To Do, Go To War With The Russians?!” | Zero Hedge

“Russian and Syrian forces intensified their campaign on rebel-held areas around Aleppo that are still home to around 350,000 people and aid workers have said the city – Syria’s largest before the war – could soon fall.”

Can you spot what’s wrong with that quote, from a Reuters piece out today? Here’s the problem: “could soon fall” implies that Aleppo is on the verge of succumbing to enemy forces. It’s not. It’s already in enemy hands and has been for quite some time. What Reuters should have said is this: “…could soon be liberated.”

While we’ll be the first to admit that Bashar al-Assad isn’t exactly the most benevolent leader in the history of statecraft, you can bet most Syrians wish this war had never started and if you were to ask those stranded in Aleppo what their quality of life is like now, versus what it was like in 2009, we’re fairly certain you’ll discover that residents aren’t particularly enamored with life under the mishmash of rebels that now control the city.

In any event, Russia and Iran have encircled Aleppo and once it “falls” (to quote Reuters) that’s pretty much it for the opposition. Or at least for the “moderate” opposition. And the Saudis and Turks know it.

So does John Kerry, who is desperate to restart stalled peace negotiations in Geneva. The problem for the US and its regional allies is simple: if Russia and Iran wipe out the opposition on the battlefield, there’s no need for peace talks. The Assad government will have been restored and that will be that. ISIS will still be operating in the east, but that’s a problem Moscow and Tehran will solve in short order once the country’s major urban centers are secured.

As we noted on Saturday, Riyadh and Ankara are extremely concerned that the five-year-old effort to oust Assad is about to collapse and indeed, the ground troop trial balloons have already been floated both in Saudi Arabia and in Turkey. For their part, the Russians and the Iranians have indicated their willingness to discuss a ceasefire but according to John Kerry himself, the opposition is now unwilling to come to the table.

Don’t blame me – go and blame your opposition,’” an exasperated Kerry told aid workers on the sidelines of the Syria donor conference in London this week.

America’s top diplomat also said that the country should expect another three months of bombing that would “decimate” the opposition, according to Middle East Eye who also says that Kerry left the aid workers with “the distinct impression” that the US is abandoning efforts to support rebel fighters.

In other words, Washington has come to terms with the fact that there’s only one way out of this now. It’s either go to war with Russia and Iran or admit that this particular effort to bring about regime change in the Mid-East simply isn’t salvageable.

“He said that basically, it was the opposition that didn’t want to negotiate and didn’t want a ceasefire, and they walked away,” a second aid worker told MEE.

“‘What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?’” the aid worker said Kerry told her.

MEE also says the US has completely abandoned the idea that Assad should step down. Now, apparently, Washington just wants Assad to stop using barrel bombs so the US can “sell the story to the public.” “A third source who claims to have served as a liaison between the Syrian and American governments over the past six months said Kerry had passed the message on to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in October that the US did not want him to be removed,” MEE says. “The source claimed that Kerry said if Assad stopped the barrel bombs, Kerry could ‘sell the story’ to the public, the source said.”

Of course Kerry won’t be able to “sell” that story to the Saudis and the Turks, or to Qatar all of whom are now weighing their oppositions as the US throws in the towel. “Kerry’s mixed messages after the collapse of the Geneva process have put more pressure on Turkey and Saudi Arabia,” MEE concludes. “Both feel extreme unease at the potential collapse of the opposition US-recognised Free Syrian Army.”

And so, as we said earlier this week, it’s do or die time for Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha. Either this proxy war morphs into a real world war in the next two weeks, or Aleppo “falls” to Assad marking a truly humiliating defeat for US foreign policy and, more importantly, for the Saudis’ goal of establishing Sunni hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula.

The only other option is for John Kerry to face the Russians in battle. As is evident from the sources quoted above, Washington clearly does not have the nerve for that.

WATCH: ‘Do we have to hijack your planes again?’ Fatah official asks

February 8, 2016

Do we have to hijack your planes again?’ Fatah official asks Former negotiator Nabil Shaath slams Western indifference to Mideast suffering, says US ‘has never been an honest broker’ in peace talks

By Times of Israel staff February 8, 2016, 4:43 am

Source: WATCH: ‘Do we have to hijack your planes again?’ Fatah official asks | The Times of Israel

Former Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath in a February 1 interview with the Palestinian Authority's Awdha TV. (Screen capture/YouTube/MEMRI)

Former Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath in a February 1 interview with the Palestinian Authority’s Awdha TV. (Screen capture/YouTube/MEMRI)

ormer Palestinian peace negotiator Nabil Shaath said in an interview earlier this month that he often asks Westerners whether Arabs have to “hijack your planes and destroy your airports again” to make the world take notice of the Palestinian cause.

In a February 1 interview with the Palestinian Authority’s Awdha TV, translated by MEMRI, Shaath slammed American efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

 Asked about a French proposal for an international peace conference, Shaath replied, “Well, anything is better than American control of the negotiations. Anything. The US has never been a reliable honest broker. Never. It is the strategic ally of Israel. Period. Therefore any discussion of a different formula is a positive thing.”

But, he added, “an international conference is not what is needed. What is needed is a smaller framework. Today, at the African Union summit, President [Mahmoud] Abbas reiterated that we want something similar to the 5+1 framework” of six world powers who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran.

“Like it or not, the US will be part of it. But we want France, Germany, Britain, the EU, Russia, China, Brazil, India. From the Arab countries we want Egypt at least. We want a small international framework.”

Shaath then turned to what he described as Western apathy toward suffering in the Middle East.

“If the Syrian problem had not been exported to Europe through the refugees on the one hand and terrorism on the other, the Europeans would not have cared even if the entire Syrian people had died,” he charged.

“But when all of a sudden there were four million Syrian refugees in Europe, 1.2 million of them in Germany alone, and when this was accompanied by Islamic State operations in France and elsewhere, all these countries began to fear that IS might have infiltrated through the refugees. And this started a debate about racial transformation in Europe with the entrance of non-white, non-European, non-Anglo-Saxon races, like the Syrian refugees, the Africans and others. This is what made the Syrian problem the most pressing from their perspective.”

He added: “I always say to these people, after I tell them about Syria and IS: ‘Do we have to hijack your planes and destroy your airports again to make you care about our cause? Are you waiting for us to cut off your oil supply? You always wait for things to reach boiling point and explode, causing you harm, before you intervene to end the crimes and violations.’”

Shaath served as the PA’s first foreign minister, and has served as a top peace negotiator and an influential member of the Fatah Central Committee.