During an official visit to the Sudanese capital of Khartoum last week, the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt announced that it was pursuing so-called "integration" with the mass-murdering dictatorship ruling over Sudan. The authoritarian-minded rulers even claimed to be "one nation."
In the Arabic, did they say one nation or Ummah? The former is plan for unification, the latter mere religious piety. And how does the Egyptian half of this unification feel about Sudan shipping weapons north to those barbarians in Gaza?
The surprise announcement came after the Libyan regime -- installed by Western forces and foreign-funded Islamist fighters amid a brutal United Nations-approved war -- unveiled similar "integration" plans with the infamous Sudanese tyrant in late 2011.
Genocidal Sudanese "President" Omar Bashir, a military dictator whose autocracy has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. government for two decades, celebrated the increasingly friendly relationship between his regime and others in the region. Media outlets in Sudan reported that the war criminal ruling the nation announced that he was working with the Egyptian regime in "removing all the obstacles and clearing the borders to ease the movements of the citizens and commodities."
[YemenPost] As the Yemeni government is fighting off Islamic militants linked to al-Qaeda in Yemen, a Sunni Muslim terror group which seeks to overthrow the republican system in order to establish a Islamic Caliphate(system of government based solely on Shariah Law and the teachings of Prophet Mohammed. Conceptually the caliphate represents the political unity of the entire community of Muslim faithful (ummah) ruled by a single caliph); a number of state, tribal and religious Yemeni dignitaries have been increasingly calling for the Youth to fight alongside Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN) in Syria, under the banner of Jihad.
The poorest country of the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen has a long history with Jihad (holy war). Profoundly attached to its religious identity, Yemen is decisively one of the Peninsula most devout and traditional societies. It is this attachment to its Islamic roots and belief system which times and times over have pushed young men to leave their homeland and fight Islam's cause on foreign shores.
Back in the 1980s when the Soviet Union was occupying Afghanistan, thousands of Yemeni nationals answered the call of Jihad to fight alongside American-backed militias.
History will have it that many of those very mujahideen (Jihad fighters) would morph into terror militants under the black banner of al-Qaeda or like in Afghanistan, the Taliban.
Fears are now that Yemen fresh Mujahideen recruits will end up serving terror groups' purposes in the region rather than support the people of Syria in their fight against tyranny.
While Yemenis might have the best intentions at heart, feeling a duty toward their fellow-Muslims, officials at the Interior Ministry are concerned more young men will become radicalized.
Jabbhat al-Nusra
Founded on 23 January 2012 in reaction to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad violent military crackdown against pro-democracy activists, Jabhat al-Nusra was identified by the U.S intelligence services in December 2012 as a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaeda.
Described by western powers as "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force", Jabhat al-Nusra has grown stronger and more powerful as more recruits answered its leaders' calls for jihad. All across the Arab world, and maybe most predominantly in Yemen, where notions such as Jihad and religious brotherhood are taken very seriously indeed, men flocked to the callings of prominent clerics, such Sheikh Abdel Majeed al-Zindani.
Both an influential religious and tribal leader, Sheikh al-Zindani has long figured among America's most wanted terror list, as officials in Washington believe the man had close link with al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Rumored to be a supporter, mastermind and financial enabler, Washington was however never able to question the powerful and well-respected Sheikh; officials in Sana'a having warned his arrest would prompt widespread violence and outrage throughout, so much is his pull in Yemen.
According to reports published in local Yemeni newspapers, among which, al-Shareh and al-Jumhour, several religious leaders associated to al-Islah, Yemen Sunni radical faction, would have not only called for new recruits to join in the fight in Syria but they would have facilitated their travel to Syria, via Turkey.
It is important to note that while elements within al-Islah are in favor of Jihad in Syria, their stance does not reflect that of the party as a whole.
The Terrorists of tomorrow?
Speaking to al-Shorfa in April, Interior Ministry's spokesman, Brig. Gen. Mohammed al-Qaedi insisted "the government lacks specific figures regarding the number of recruits going to Syria."
He also emphasized "Yemenis must work together to lift the country out of its crisis because we have serious problems that require unity."
Security analysts are now raising the alarm bells, warning that today's new mujahideen would turn into the terrorists of tomorrow. Saeed al-Jamli from the Center for Studies and Research said he personally believed that using religion to fulfill a political purpose was positively dangerous and harmful to society, as returnees will find difficult to reintegrate their communities.
"Regardless of the positions taken by individuals and countries", he said, recruiting people to fight in the name of religion means many enthusiastic youth will declare jihad as they interpret it".
This will make Syria a training ground for fighters and a source for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which poses an even greater threat than fighters trained in Afghanistan."
Analysts are all pointing to the same historical reference, Afghanistan 1990s war against Russia, when tens of thousands of foreign fighters, many Yemeni nationals, were allowed to leave their country to enroll as mujahideen. Backed and financed by Saudi Arabia and the United States of America, as both allies sought to fight off the soviet threat in the region, America's funded holy war, ended up creating modern times' biggest threat, al-Qaeda.
The very terror group which in 2011 invaded large swathes of land in Yemen southern province of Abyan, declared Islamic caliphates in Jaar and Zinjibar and relentlessly targeted government interests throughout the country as to destabilize the central government and achieve victory against the republican system.
Yemen still remembers how one of its national, Ossama bin Laden was seduced by radical Islamists and how his involvement in Afghanistan led to his leading of al-Qaeda and ultimately his death in Pakistan on May 2, 2011.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
04/13/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Iraq
Spook 86 at In From the Cold writes at Closer to the Brink about what might happen and what the calculations are in various capitals. This analyses emphasizes the danger present in allowing decisions to drift, as Champ is currently doing in the White House. Seoul and Tokyo might decide they have to become more independent in their response, and therein lies danger.
Robert Farley (who blogs at Information Dissemination and other places) writes at TheDiplomat that if war comes, it won't be accidental: wars happen because policymakers, making good or bad decisions, want them. He reviews the potential scenarios of action on both sides and concludes that "a full war seems exceedingly unlikely, as none of the combatants stand to benefit."
Both articles are recommended. My own take right now is this: war will come if Pudgy puts himself into a position in which war is the least unattractive of the options available to him. He's a weak, vain, cruel man, I think, and such men, particularly in a Stalinist regime, can't afford to lose face, not ever. Ordinarily in the past we let the North Koreans 'climb down' after an escalation. I'm not sure that will happen this time. I don't think war is likely, but I also don't see it as unthinkable.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/13/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OTOH WORLD MILITARY FORUM > CCTV: "WHAT IFF" THE US SUDDENLY ABANDONED JAPAN DUE TO THE BELIEF THAT JAPAN'S NATIONALIZATION OF THE CHINA-CLAIMED SENKAKUS/DIAOYUS ISLANDS LED TO THE PRESENT NORTH KOREAN MILITARY CRISIS?
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > US NATIONAL SECURITY BRIEF:
OBAMA SCALING BACK SHOW OF FORCE ON [North]KOREA.
Once again, my bad vibes vee China-vs-Japan-vs-Debt/Sequester-ridden-US remains NOT abated.
IFF THE US "ABANDONS" JAPAN + SOKOR, ETC. BECAUSE IT CAN NO LONGER TO DEFEND ITS ALLIES IT CAN ABANDON GUAM + CNMI, ETC. FOR SAME OR SIMILAR REASON(S).
[CELINE "TITANIC" DION, BATTLESHIP USS OKLAHOMA, + HUGO CHAVEZ'S LAND, ISLAND-SINKING "TECTONIC/
EARTHQUAKE BOMBS" here].
and
* NBC NEWS > [Failed = Un-intercepted] MISSLE LAUNCH(launches?) IS NORTH KOREA'S "EXIT STRATEGY" [from Crisis], ANALYSTS SAY.
Espec iff the US-Allies fail to intercept as the DPRK's missles fly harmlessly over Japan, ALLOWING "PUDGY" TO SEEMINGLY PROCLAIM A DE FACTO, MIGHTY NOKOR "VICTOIRE" [victory] OVER THE WILY DASTARDLY US-ALLIES + FINALLY STOP THE BELLICOSITY???
versus
* BHARAT RAKSHAK > [Carnegie Endowment] DRAGON IN THE BATHTUB: CHINESE SUBMARINES AND [versus] THE SOUTH CHINA SEA [+ "First Island Chain" bottlenecks].
ARTIC = denotes how Chinese MilPol strategists fear Beijing's growing Navy, etc. will be hamstrung = contained widin the many barriers of the mostly anti-China "First Island Chain" in East Asia, stretching from Japan all the way southward towards the Indonesian Archipelago.
ISLAMIST-JIHADISTS THREAT [Nuclear?]? FROM ME + CENTASIA, AFPAK; versus the US ANTI-CHINA CONTAINMENT THREAT in the Pacific. Its onlya question of whether OWG Caliphate-happy Radical ISlam will attack China first in jihad before attacking the US, or vice versa.
Again, either China concedes, or the US = POTUS Obama + Admin concedes. CHINA = IRAN = the time is now before a GOP-DEM POTUS successor strong in foreign policy takes over come Jan. 2017.
THE US-ALLIES SHOULD EXPECT THE SAME OR WORSE CRISES THAN THE PRESENT AS LONG AS THE DPRK CAN NO LONGER WAIT FOR REUNIFICATION WID SOUTH KOREA, + AS LONG AS ["Mahanist"]CHINA REFUSES TO DELAY, AMEND, OR GIVE UP ITS AMBITION TO TAKE OVER FROM THE US AS WORLD #1.
#3
US and China aim for de-nuclearization of Korean peninsula? Not a bad idea ... but should have been tried while things were less volatile. ASITISNOW - does anyone remotely believe that Kim Jong-Un will allow inspectors over every square inch of his territory? And how else do people ensure a goal like de-nuclearization?
#4
The ChiComs smell SKor and Japanese awakening to nukes for their protection as the confidence of the US umbrella and sheild wanes under Champ's expert foreign policy. Speeches, fund raiders and the love of fawning adoration that are the total skill of this clown do not grow confidence in allies who see a shell of former greatness stumbling worldwide.
#5
there is no doubt that the enemies of the USA, especially those on the outer borders of the (former) empire, are exploiting weakness. Also no doubt that S. Korea and Japan probably have secret programs already for their own nuclearization. So while the USA discusses an attempt at de-nuclearization, others in the region are headed in the opposite direction.
Both the N. Koreans and Iranians have undertaken nuclear programs at great cost - in terms of sanctions, isolation, and destruction of their own economies. Do we seriously believe they will back off now? It seems extremely unlikely. They will see the "de-nuclearization strategy as a trick by the USA.
There might have been a time on the Korean peninsula when the de-nuclearization idea could have worked. When tensions were much lower. Even then ... it would have been a gamble because the N. Koreans can field a large army. If you take nukes out of the picture, war becomes a very possible option again.
The world is caught in an impass. No way to back out of the nuclear positions taken by the opposing sides.
#2
Is it wrong to think the country would be better off without many of these places?
Posted by: Titus Ulans4144 ||
04/13/2013 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Very simplistic analysis. Simply going by population? Come on, No.18 Detroit. It's already imploding. Talk about a waste of resources.
Is it a oneie or twoies rather than MAD? MAD means having to take out the sea based retaliatory capability. There is only one technically capable of attacking some of that. Anyone else is SOL. One or a handful will have have to be very selective for very obvious reasons. Rational targets will be restricted to political, key command and control centers, and key infrastructure/resource points. Pure terror targets have to be culturally high profile which would include NY, LA, DC, not flyover country. Then there are NIMBY targets not near major metro areas.
What could you deliver and by what means. What is the size of your system. If it's small enough to smuggle inland, it's not going to take out whole metro areas. Ports are better targets for infiltration delivery.
If you're delivering by missile, what is the accuracy of your system. Think terrain. A mile or so off could put the round on the opposite side of a mountain obstruction. Nagasaki's terrain mitigated the full effect that was witnessed in Hiroshima.
#4
I don't give a f*ck, as long as they hit D.C. and surrounding areas with a several megatons. We'll rebuild.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
04/13/2013 20:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
All right. Everybody sing along, please.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
04/13/2013 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
ROFLMAO!
Thanks for that video, Eric.
I'd forgotten about that song, though the words and the tune came back once he started.
I'd also forgotten how much fun it is to see Lehrer perform. His facial expressions are hilarious! He was a tresure.
:-D
Posted by: Barbara ||
04/13/2013 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Barbara, I once watched the end of a game of "Nuclear War" ("Have you change for 25 million people?") when somebody managed to hit the stockpile with a 100 megaton bomb. Everybody cheered, and marched arouind the table giving their finest rendition of "We Will All Go..."
By the way, for those of you wishing for DC to be nuked, please note that I live in the area. Barbara lives in the area. Fred works in the area!
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
04/13/2013 21:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
...So let's just keep it in our imagination or computer/console.
#9
Ah yes - the game of Nuclear War! What fun. Used to play it in college. One time a girl asked us to stop because her boyfriend ( who was not playing) was getting upset because we were having so much fun.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
04/13/2013 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
See page 70.
Iraq is the latest iteration of an old story. If the third Baron de Rothschild articulated a theme buy when there is blood on the streets then Iraq is the latest variation on that theme. Heeding Rothschilds advice was immensely rewarding in earlier frontier markets, such as post-WWII Italy and South Korea; in time, the same might be said of Iraqi equities.
Few would think of Iraq as being a place worth investing in today given the continued outbreaks of violence,political uncertainty, the legacy of war damage and the persistence of fundamental ethnic divisions within the country. For almost a decade, perceptions of Iraq have been shaped by stories that tell only of the countrys horrors and ignore what we believe is so crucial to understanding the potential of Iraqi equities to undergo a historic re-rating.
Iraqi GDP was $88 billion in 2007; the 2012 GDP was $179 billion a doubling in five years. Iraqs oil exports are at an all-time high and the 13% GDP growth this year makes it one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Inflation is under control and the country sits on $47 billion of international reserves, an amount equivalent to 12 months import cover and one that provides the central bank with a great deal of power to defend the dinar should the need arise.
The story could not be better. Yet Iraqi equities are given no credit for this objective economic improvement.
#1
I believe that a man could make a lot of money going to Iraq and investing in hard products, housing, infrastructure, utilities, The country has the potential with its Tigris/Euphrates River confluence, to be an net exporter of agricultural products.
They have a good education system, lots of oil, and a good work ethic. What's not to like about Iraq other than the Shia Sunni silliness that gets in the way of any progress in the Islamic world.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/13/2013 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
An Iraqi journalist commemorates the tenth anniversary of American troops toppling an Arab despot.
Now it's time for Americans to stop feeling guilty about Iraq. The United States went to war in good will and wanted to spread democracy. But the Iraqis were not, and are still not, ready for democratic government. The fact that the whole Middle East has devolved into a Sunni-Shia war tells us that the chaos in Iraq that followed the U.S. invasion was only a small reflection of the problems in a region that was on fire long before 2003. We should also recognize that the United States still has a large role in influencing events in its interests, and shaping them according to its ideals.
#2
Unlike Korea, we've pretty much cleared out a problem that anchored military forces in the immediate region for nearly a generation. Korea still festers. Iraq is pretty much an Iraqi problem. Korea has become the problem for far too many to ignore anymore, yet even more dangerous because idiots with good intentions allowed the situation to develop to potential horrors that no one really wants to contemplate.
#3
Korea is the textbook illustration of what happens when you leave a job half-done. See also Gulf War, 1991.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/13/2013 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I am continuously puzzled by why the world community will rend and tear their robes over a US drone strike but will allow a horror beyond horrors occur in NORK or Darfur, or Rwanda.
The situation in NORK is a classic example of putting playing the party line ahead of doing the right thing.
We should have gone into NORK years ago, when I say We I mean China, Russia, US, WE should have put boots on the ground in Rwanda, and that psychopath Bashear in the Sudan should be in chains in the Nederlands...a long time ago.
How can anyone take the US or any western power, talking "humanitarian efforts", seriously when we have known for years about these obscenities to go on and on.
Of course, Mugabe is another story.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/13/2013 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Of course, Mugabe is another story.
Posted by Bill Clinton
And there you have it. Mugabe was and is a Western creation that no one talks about. Bashear and the rest little different.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
