Posted on Jihadi web sites, a declaration by the commander of al Qaeda Iraq, Omar al Baghdadi promised to pay 100,000$ for anyone who would assassinate Swedish Cartoonist Lars Vilks, who published an "offensive cartoon" of Prophet Mohammed in the Nerikes Allehanda. Al baghdadi would add another 50,000$ if the artist is "slaughtered," and 50,000$ for the killing of the publication's editor. The "Cartoon Jihad" is back in Europe after the Danish affair last year. But as we are analyzing the far consequences of this threat, and independently from the discussion of the cartoon and the sensitivities it may have hurt (which are real and important on the emotional levels), following are questions to be raised:
1. Why would al Qaeda Iraq and not another branch offer such a bounty? The Cartoonist is Swedish and the al Qaeda Iraq fights against the US in Iraq. Where is the link here? Many voices in the debate on the War on Terror have been saying that al Qaeda came to Iraq just because the US invaded the country. What about Sweden?
2. Why is al Qaeda-Iraq offering a bounty for the killing of an editor in Scandinavia? Why offering money for Jihad? Well, when a Jihadi group begins to offer financial rewards, it means that the ideological reward isn't enough.
3. Will such a call be heeded in Sweden? Does al Qaeda have cells -dormant or not- that far north? Reports tells us that the Salafists are propagating this ideology across Scandinavia. Very few realized that an assassination of a film maker in Amsterdam was imaginable before Theo Van Gogh was killed.
4. Will al Qaeda or other Jihadists attack Swedish companies or individuals worldwide? In fact orders were given but it depends on whom would consider themselves the "infantry" and actually take action. It will also depend on what the Swedish Government and Multinational Corporations would state in public or do in private. Sweden has had decades of neutrality regarding many challenges in international relations, and its foreign policy wasn't comparable at all to NATO countries in their struggle against Terror. However, this is the greatest litmus test yet to be addressed.
#1
It's called a distraction. When you've stepped on your richard the way AQ has in Anbar you pick on a taget everyone (in your peer group) loves to hate, e.g., Saddam launching Scuds (remember them?) at Israel during Sandbox I.
And I thought we read here a while ago that Omar Al Baddoggy was a fictional character made up by foreign AQ's to pretend an Iraqi was head of the lame stains.
#2
Don't over-analyze Jihadi web site bravado. Talk is cheap and Omar al Baghdadi is just talkin'. It's not like he has put the $100,000 in escrow in a Swedish bank account.
#3
I think the answer to question #1 is the meeting of the 22 Muslim diplomats with Swedish PM Reinfeldt. Taking place earlier this month, the sleek, well-fed diplomats took it upon themselves to speak indignantly on behalf of their 1.3 billion co-religionists.
With their manicured fingernails, their excellencies waved a signed letter which demanded that the Swedish government make changes to its constitution so that future insults to the name of Mohammed might be prevented, and that infidels might know their place in the Ummah. Reinfeldt made suitable noises and subtle bows and scrapes, and afterwards most likely called his masters friends at Ikea, Ericsson, Electrolux, Volvo, and Skania to let them know that everything was jake.
AQ was having none of that. For them, there's a matter of who really speaks for all Muslims; which organization is truly dedicated to the establishment of the universal Caliphate. And in Zawahiri's mind, those 22 diplomatic peacocks represented the corrupt, heretical tools of the Crusaders and Zionists. The ideal response for am Islamist warrior to a backroom deal between foreign emissaries and politicians was a roar for blood backed by a sack full of Benjamins.
#4
It is a shame nothing is likely to seriously provoke the Swedes before they have all been raped and converted. One could fantasize about a Crusade run by Ikea.
#5
I would not write of Swedes, yet. Not the politicos--they are beyond hope--but the ordinary Lars, Carl, Erik and Sven and their female counterparts. Time will come that despite the cooler environment their blood will start to boil. At that moment, they will sweep whatever stands in their way. Swedes were able to avoid wars for several centuries, but in this case, the enemy is already behind gates, inside, so they will have to fight if they want to survive as Swedes. The same applies to other western Euro nations. Not worried about easterners, they were not fucked up by gramscian whoredom.
More than three decades after Tolkiens death, new universalismsnew all-encompassing ideologieshave gained prominence, vexing, once again, tradition and difference throughout the world ...
Underneath his neo-medievalism, Tolkien preached realism. He wrote, It will not do to leave a live dragon out of your plans if you live near one. That is, the dragon, red in tooth and crescent, is lurking. It cannot be ignored.
Nor can we ignore the painful reality of a genuine fifth column in the West. This summer, Gordon Browns government concluded that 1 in 11 British Muslimsalmost 150,000 people living in the United Kingdomproactively supports terrorism, with still more rated as passive supporters. And this spring, a Pew Center survey found that 13 percent of American Muslims, as well as 26 percent aged 18-29, were bold enough to tell a pollster that suicide bombing was sometimes justified. These Muslim infiltrators, of course, have potential access to weapons of mass destruction.
So what to do? Call the ACLU? The United Nations?
That wont work. Just as the Roman Empires dream of universal dominion once collapsed, leaving the peoples of Europe to create new institutions for their own survival, so, today, any thought that the United Nations could save us from ruin has evaporated. The Blue Helmets have fallen, and they cant get up.
At the same time, at a level just below the UN, the vision of an ever-expanding European Union, to include all the states touching the Mediterranean, has happily collapsed. Now it seems certain that even Turkey will never be admitted. Increasingly, people see that in a world of transnational terrorism, the key issue is not figuring out a common agricultural policy that unites Denmark and Cyprus, but rather a common survival policy for Europa, from the Pillars of Hercules to the Ural Mountains.
So we must look to older models for hope and survivalmodels more faithful, more fighting, more fertile....
Posted by: lotp ||
09/15/2007 10:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
A World order based on Tolkien---now I've seen everything.
The guy is a liberal idiot using Tolkien's work in the same way that liberals always have perverted other people's works to further their own ends.
The "Shire Strategy" he's advocating is for the West to Build Walls and Hunker Down. Someone truly familiar with the triology would realize that that was King Theoden's strategy at Helm's Deep: THAT didn't work out. What is ironic is that, although the Hobbits would have agreed that a "Hunker Down" policy would have been their preference, the destruction of the One Ring required that a few brave Hobbits NOT HUNKER DOWN IN THE SHIRE. The presence of Hobbits outside of the Shire was necessary, not only to save the Shire, but also the entire West. If one is inclined to press the analogy, then The Scouring of the Shire (left out in the movie) that actually delivered the Shire was instigated and led by those Hobbits that DIDN'T stay in the Shire, which seems to imply that those fighting Islam outside of America will return to deliver it.
The author deliberately conflates The One Ring with Universalism, Nuclear weapons, or anything else that would truly prove decisive against the enemy. What he does NOT advocate is direct confrontation with Islam, casting it as if it was one of Tolkein's Races of the West, rather than an entirely separate set of races led by Sauron, intent on destroying the Races of the West. The fatal flaw of keeping the ring to use against Sauron was that, in using it, they kept Sauron alive. They had to destroy the ring, not to make Sauron give up his mad dreams of world domination and adopt a "live-and-let-live" attitude, but to DESTROY SAURON himself. The shire survived, not by hunkering down, but through the West's determination to achieve total victory.
Part of the problem with the ring was that its appearance deceived the people around it: just because it looked like a ring, they thought it was JUST a ring. All the other rings served their wearers, why not this one? The problem was that so much of Sauron was in the ring that the ring became the master: that was the only way Sauron could make sure the ring could not be used against him. Even the Elrond Council was in the dark about how powerful the Ring was, thinking that its power would not affect a Hobbit, a race that did not receive the other rings.
What IS the equivalent of the ring today? Actually, I think there is no such thing, being a side-effect of trying to apply Tolkien's tale too broadly or literally: The Islamic equivalent of Sauron would be the Caliph, but there is no Caliph, so the analogy falls down there too. To my mind, the Ring is whatever the Enemy desperately requires to hang on and eventually win. Not destroying it, but trying to use it on your own behalf merely keeps the Enemy alive, if subdued. Using the Ring against Sauron may have appeared on paper as a Good strategy, but it was the enemy of the Best Strategy: destroying it, and Sauron, forever.
This is not to say that Tolkein's tale does not hold lessons for us. It does:
There ARE some things worth fighting for, and your homeland is one of them.
Active Offense is better than Passive Defense.
Fighting the enemy Over There is better than fighting the enemy Here.
I treated myself Wednesday evening. Instead of heading straight home to do the dishes, I went to hear my NPR colleague Dina Temple-Raston talk about her new book, The Jihad Next Door. It's the story of the Lackawanna Six, a group of young Muslim men from the Buffalo, N.Y., area who were arrested and described by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft as an al-Qaida sleeper cell. But it's not quite that simple, as Dina's book so ably illustrates.
As someone who wrote about terrorism and security for several years in my old job and frequently blogged about the original arrests and subsequent trial, I came to believe that there was a great deal of nuance in this and similar stories. Despite the often black-and-white portrayals from law enforcement officials (particularly in the first few years of this administration) and the media, there were many gray areas. Dina's book captures this complexity.
I was struck by two things Dina said during her talk. First, that the FBI has gotten much better at working with the Muslim community. For instance, when the bureau was about to announce the indictment of the Fort Dix Six, agents first phoned all the top imams in the country and explained the situation to them. Basically, they wanted to give the details to the community before they were manipulated in the media. Dina, who called the imams to check this out, said they really appreciated it and that it made a difference in their communities' reactions.
The second and rather chilling thing is that public officials are absolutely certain that there will be another attack in the U.S. And it probably will be either a car bomb or someone wearing a suicide vest. It may be homegrown or it may be imported, but it will happen, they say.
NOT so long ago, Pakistan rarely topped the European news agenda. Britain was an exception, of course, but continental Europeans devoted little time to the country, preferring to focus instead on the growing political and economic clout of China and the rise of India.
There were some exceptions. Many Europeans were enchanted by the music of Nusrat Fateh Ali and curious about how former premier Benazir Bhutto had made it all the way to the top as the female leader of a conservative Muslim country. They were also well aware of the dangers of the fraught relationship between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.
But apart from enthusiastic mountaineers and trekkers, few Europeans showed any interest in the country itself. Pakistani leaders rarely came to Brussels to see their European Union counterparts. When they did, the focus was often more on visiting Indian and Jewish diamond merchants in Antwerp than on official business. Not surprising, the busy Brussels-based press corps studiously ignored visiting Pakistani government delegations unless invited to sumptuous lunches at Michelin-rated luxury restaurants.
How times change. The Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States catapulted Pakistan to the top of the EU news agenda, prompting massive public and media interest in all aspects of the country.
This curiosity and unrelenting focus on Pakistan, however, remains a cause for consternation and dismay to many Pakistanis abroad. And not because of any lack of interest in what happens at home. Thanks to the Internet, frequent visits home and e-mail exchanges with friends and relatives, little that happens in the country escapes the notice of Pakistani expatriates.
Once in a while, however, we would like to hear some good news about the country and then share it with others. As it is, however, apart from a few rare positive comments about Pakistans economic strengths and the stalwart resilience of its people in the face of natural calamities like the 2005 earthquake, most Europeans are convinced that Pakistan today is synonymous with terrorism, dictatorship, religious extremism and repression.Articles across the continent constantly and consistently point out that, inter alia, Pakistan is a haven for international terrorists, including Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden (believed to be hiding in the mountains of Waziristan), is funding and arming a resurgent Taliban in its battle against Nato soldiers in Afghanistan and, despite Islamabads protests to the contrary, is behind terror attacks in Kashmir and parts of India.
The recent violent end to the Red Mosque siege in Islamabad and the seemingly unending attacks by militants on Pakistani army personnel not to mention tragic inter-factional violence have further heightened fears that Pakistan and Pakistanis are a danger to others and to themselves.
Last week was cringe-time again as Pakistan was spotlighted by the German press following reports that suspected terrorists accused of masterminding a foiled terrorist plot in Germany had a connection to terror training camps in Pakistan.
The German case, coming on top of recent successive terror alerts in Britain and the 2005 transport bombings in London carried out by young British-Pakistanis has convinced most Europeans that Pakistan not only produces its own brand of local terrorists wreaking havoc at home but also offers disaffected young European Muslims the training and encouragement they need to go forth and do evil in Europe.
For most of the past week, however, its not Pakistans terrorist connections but the strange political soap opera of Pakistani politics that has captured Europes attention. European public, media and government officials have been riveted by the dramatic but short-lived return to Pakistan of former premier Nawaz Sharif and his immediate deportation to Saudi Arabia.
While he may not have been viewed as a great democrat when in power, Mr Sharifs so far lacklustre profile in Europe has been boosted by what many view as his courageous attempt to do battle with General Pervez Musharraf. In contrast, Ms Benazir Bhutto, the one-time darling of the European intelligentsia, press and politicians, has seen her star dim as she ponders a return to Pakistan and a possible power-sharing alliance with the president.
It looks too much like a marriage of convenience, a member of the European Parliament told me, adding that he was not impressed by the PPP leaders readiness to do unsavoury deals with the military. Several European journalists have pointed out the difference between Ms Bhuttos courting of the US and Mr Sharifs independent decision to head home alone.
Clearly, President Musharrafs standing in Europe has been hit hardest by recent events. The episode with Mr Sharif has spotlighted the growing array of problems facing the general as he struggles to hold on to power in the face of falling popularity, a self-confident and independent judiciary and an assertive and independent press.
Never as enthusiastic as the US administration about doing business with an army man even one with a starring role in the war on terror EU officials and diplomats are watching the presidents recent actions including the ill-considered sacking of the Chief Justice with unconcealed alarm. This was demonstrated last week when the US called Mr Sharifs deportation an internal matter but the EU took a much firmer line. In an unusually firm statement, an EU spokeswoman urged Pakistan to respect its own Supreme Court ruling and allow Mr Sharif to stay in the country.
In our view, the Supreme Courts view is very clear and should be respected, said Christiane Hohmann, the European Commissions external affairs spokeswoman in Brussels. If there is any legal case against Sharif, he should have the chance to defend himself in a Pakistan court, she added. Such EU plain-talking may be exceptional but then as one EU diplomat pointed out, when it comes to Pakistan, these are exceptional times.
EU governments are worried President Musharraf may be tempted to impose martial law or emergency in the country, a move they warn would lead to the disastrous isolation of one of the worlds largest Muslim nations, triggering even more extremism and violence and further aggravating a tendency to interfere in the affairs of neighbouring states.
Instead of considering the introduction of martial law, the president should be focusing on holding free and fair elections and once that is done, should honourably retire from the political scene, said an EU parliamentarian. Of course thats not going to happen, he admitted, adding: As long as the Bush administration provides cover, Musharraf is not going to change tack because of what the EU says.
Others agree. The EU may be an important trading partner and a key donor providing over 330 million euros in assistance to Pakistan plus 100 million euros for the earthquake during the last 10 years but Europes clout in Pakistan remains modest.
That may change as the EU becomes a more powerful player in Asia and a future civilian Pakistani government decides its time to look beyond Washington and spend more time and energy on making true friends in Europe. For the moment, however, Islamabad should expect more tough-talking from an exasperated EU. And as politics at home heat up even more, Pakistani expatriates in Europe should brace themselves for months of uncomfortable and embarrassing moments.
The writer is Dawns correspondent based in Brussels.
Posted by: john frum ||
09/15/2007 12:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
a move they warn would lead to the disastrous isolation of one of the worlds largest Muslim nations, triggering even more extremism and violence
Not possible.
Instead of considering the introduction of martial law, the president should be focusing on holding free and fair elections
I do believe the Palestinians taught us about that path's folly.
#2
> triggering even more extremism and violence
Not possible.
But that the standard Pakistani tactic to extort aid or concessions...
The very first Pak PM Liqiat Ali Khan used it on India... negotiate quickly with him because after him would be the bearded Islamists.. and that was in 1948...
It was worked great.. India signed the Indus Water Treaty granting Pakistan a disproportionate share of water to encourage friendship (or so Nehru thought).
Decades later the Indian PM IK Gujral ordered Indian intelligence to cease offensive covert operations in Pakistan and allegedly handed over a list of Pakistani operatives working for India.
Pakistan promised to cease activities in the Punjab (they continue to sponsor Sikh terrorists to this day).
Not to mention the tens of billions of dollars in US aid and weaponry that Pakistan has received over decades...
Posted by: john frum ||
09/15/2007 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"As long as the Bush administration provides cover, Musharraf is not going to change tack because of what the EU says."
Let me fix that little piece of Bush-bashing:
"As long as the EU remains impotent, Musharraf is not going to change tack because of what the EU says."
Confused and distraught by our domestic situation, too many of us have allowed emotions to carry us off our feet in the wake of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharifs controversial deportation on September 10. Instead of confining comments to legal and political propriety of the deportation, some have made piquant and offensive remarks on Saudi permission for Mr. Nawaz Sharif to enter the Kingdom and the restrictions that have been placed on him. Incautious remarks often made in disregard of facts are liable to inflict lasting damage on Pakistans unique and valuable friendship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The moment therefore demands cool reflection, objective appraisal and avoidance of bitter words. All the anger any one feels is better poured out in words addressed to our leaders in and out of power who are pushing our state to brink of division and failure. We should scrupulously refrain from compounding damage by unmerited and offensive criticism of a brotherly state that has been a pillar of strength to Pakistan ever since our state became independent.
Hafiz Shirazi said seven centuries ago, Kind consideration towards friends is the key to salvation in both the worlds. William Shakespeare also eloquently verrified the same advice: Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried/grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel. Faithful friends are hard to find. Cultivating and developing friendships takes time and effort, but these can be undone instantly by bitter words.
One fundamental fact should guide thought: the decision to deport Mr. Nawaz Sharif was made by Islamabad. Comments on its legality or political propriety are entirely legitimate. The same can be said about the decision in 2000 leading to Mr. Nawaz Sharifs exile. It was the consequence of the initiative taken by him to approach the Kingdom for intercession to rescue him from incarceration and prosecution by the Government of General Pervez Musharraf. The Kingdom used its good offices only and solely to promote a compromise between the former Prime Minister and the new Chief Executive, which saved Pakistan from another lasting ignominy before our state can live down the folly of hanging another prime minister. The Kingdom sought to grind no axe of its own.
The Kingdom had earlier provided asylum to for President Idi Amin of Uganda. When Mr. Nawaz Sharif decided to go to Saudi Arabia in 2000, the Kingdom was generous to him and his family who were given a palace for their residence and luxurious facilities for comfort. When he applied for permission to go abroad for medical treatment, Riyadh believed and allowed him to leave. It did not make a public issue of the fact that he breached the promise by taking asylum in UK instead. Similarly the Kingdom eschewed comment on his decision to reenter politics. But when Mr. Nawaz Sharif decided to return to Pakistan, Islamabad invoked the Saudi guarantee of performance. With a culture that expects both parties to honour their word, the Kingdom reminded Mr. Nawaz Sharif of his pledge and then to enforce the conditions of asylum. International law requires a beneficiary of asylum to refrain from abuse of hospitality for activities that compromise its foreign relations.
Cradle of Islam and custodian of Harmain Sharifain the Kingdom has been dedicated to promotion of welfare of Muslim people worldwide and rendered generous and selfless help and assistance to Muslim states. Endowed by Almighty Allah with generous resources for its development and the progress of its people, it seldom seeks reciprocity or even gratitude by countries it generously helps.
Pakistan, founded in the name of Islam, has been fortunate to enjoy a unique friendship with Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom has extended strong support to Pakistan on international disputes. Over a million Pakistani workers receive preferential opportunities for gainful employment in the Kingdom. Whenever in trouble, Pakistan has knocked at Saudi doors and never returned disappointed. After almost all other countries cut off aid to Pakistan in 1998, the Kingdom bailed out Pakistan by supply of petroleum worth two and a half billion dollars over five years. The debt was later converted into grant.
As citizens we have a right to criticize our rulers for ruling to advance their own interests instead of those of the people. Corruption, maladministration and poor governance have too often caused us irreversible damage. Half of our country was lost in 1971. We should not compound our misfortunes by improvident actions in field of foreign policy. Friendship of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a precious and indispensable asset. We should not allow it to be damaged.
Posted by: john frum ||
09/15/2007 12:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nice work, Abdul! I'm sure the whole Royal family will autograph the silken knee pads you'll receive!
#2
And the other thing is, the other definition of 'apartheid' is, one side dominates the other.
Rubbish! "Apartheid" (meaning separate-ness in Afrikaans, cognate to English apart and -hood).
If you'd like a visual of true separation, take a look at the personalities in positions of "democratic" governance throughout Africa today. Few white men to be found there I'll assure you. In some, none at all!
#3
Funny how this old bastard never mentions why the wall was built. Why Israel finds that it has to physically separate itself from Palestine.
He complains about how Israeli's and Palestinians
are 'separated' but doesn't mention that they have to be separated in order to protect innocent Israeli's from the Palestinian murderers.
I still remember the story a couple of years ago about the Jewish pregnant mother of 4 daughters all of who were murdered in cold blood by Carter's friends. Simply because they were Jewish. And the Palestinian people celebrated the murders.
He talks about peace talks - but it has been Ham-Ass who has broken each and every attempt at peace agreement while Israel has bent over backwards to be accommodating.
#5
President Clinton, who officiated over the failed 2000 Camp David Summit between Israel and the Palestinians, has been highly critical of Carter's perspective. Clinton blames the Palestinian leadership for rejecting Israel's "generous offer." It's interesting that Israel's chief negotiator, former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, told me in 2006, "If I were a Palestinian, I would have rejected Camp David as well."
WTF is Shomo Ben-Ami talking about? I thought the palestinians were offered about 97% of the land they were looking for or something like that, and that the remaining 3% or so was for security reasons. Sounds good to me. Anybody know what's up here?
#7
Just guessing here, Gorb, but I would say they want the 97% plus the 3%, plus all the Joooos gone from everywhere all at once, but only after the Jooos build the city in the clouds to their precise specifications, all the while being whipped by the righteous moose-limbs.
Oh, and a pony.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/15/2007 8:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Dog bites man, sun rises in east, Jimmy Peanut sides with genocidal anti-Semites.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/15/2007 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I have got thank GOD that Reagan tossed this guy ffrom office. He is a friggin LOON.
#12
Aunty Sea, was Jimmy Carter *really* the President once? He seems like a total...well, one of those words my teacher said I should stop saying or else.
#13
Yes, li'l Stevie, that man was President once, and I even think your Great-Uncle and Great-Auntie voted for him. You'll notice that most of us elders make the sign against the evil eye and spit whenever we hear his name.
#14
a quote taken from Rodger Schlong's site:
"Sometimes when I look at my children I say to myself, 'Lillian, you should have stayed a virgin.'" - Lillian Carter, Jummah's mother.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/15/2007 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Dhimmi Carter spewed nonsense. In other news, a red-tailed hawk snatched up a mouse.
#17
Still the undisputed "worst president" we've ever had. (With apologies to those suffering from BHS)
Posted by: Total War ||
09/15/2007 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I actually did my first tour in the Air Force when this numbnutz was Pres. (Yes, Lil Stevie, he was our president!) and my favorite memory of his tenure happened one night during the 6 PM news at FEN-Misawa in the dark days when the FEN staff did a live newscast. We had a screen behind the newscasters, onto which the director would project various slides, usually relevent to the newscast. And we would also have spot breaks, with the video provided by the same slide projection set-up and the audio provided by a tape cart. Only on this particular night, the director forgot to change the news slide for the spot slide.
Doesn't seem like anything that would put an entire news crew (and possibly the audience!) into hysterical stitches, almost to the point where we couldn't carry on the newscast, does it?
Well, the last news slide - which the director hadn't changed - was of Good Old Jimmeh, grinning ear to ear (god, those teeth looked like tombstones!) while the audio accompanying was for a dental care spot!
We were falling all over ourselves on the news set and in the control room. We expected to get into trouble for it, but probably everyone else was laughing too hard!
Fatah al-Islam tried - and failed - to affiliate itself with al-Qaeda. That is the information from Beirut as interrogations continue with the arrested members of the terrorist organization that held the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in north Lebanon hostage for over 100 days. Fatah al-Islam might be finished in Nahr al-Bared, but by no means has it been eradicated elsewhere in Lebanon.
Apparently, Fatah al-Islam requested theological assistance from al-Qaeda, as a stepping stone to financial and military support. In turn, al-Qaeda sent its "sharia expert" Abdullah al-Binshi (a Saudi) to Lebanon to meet with members of Fatah al-Islam. It is unclear if this was before or after hostilities broke out with the Lebanese Army in May. Binshi studied the structure of the Lebanon-based organization, its leadership and objectives, concluding that "Lebanon is not a land of jihad". Binshi was later arrested while trying to leave Lebanon via Beirut International Airport.
Before that, he had quarreled with Abu Mudeen (his "sharia expert" counterpart in Fatah al-Islam) over financing the Lebanon-based group. Abu Mudeen insisted that smuggling and robbery were legitimate if they provided a steady income flow for Fatah al-Islam. The al-Qaeda expert said that they were not. A Saudi national in Fatah al-Islam warned his compatriot in al-Qaeda that he should leave Lebanon before senior members of Fatah al-Islam killed him, since they were not satisfied by his evaluation of their conduct, or the validity of their struggle in Nahr al-Bared.
Continued on Page 49
This article starring:
ABDULLAH AL BINSHI
al-Qaeda
ABU ABDUL RAHMAN AL AFGHANI
al-Qaeda
ABU AIYUB AL MASRI
al-Qaeda in Iraq
ABU HURAIRA
Fatah al-Islam
ABU JAAFARI AL TAIYAR
al-Qaeda
ABU MOHAMAD AL LUBNANI
al-Qaeda in Iraq
ABU MUDIN
Fatah al-Islam
ADNAN MOHAMAD
al-Qaeda
AHMED AL RIFAI
al-Qaeda
AHMED ARAJ
al-Qaeda
AHMED MERII
Fatah al-Islam
ASEM HAMUD
al-Qaeda in Iraq
BASAM HAMUD
al-Qaeda
BASAM KINJ
al-Qaeda
BILAL AL SAIYED
al-Qaeda
BILAL DIKMAK
al-Qaeda
FAHD MUGHAMAS AL MUGHAMED
al-Qaeda
HUSAM AL SABAGH
al-Qaeda
NABIL RAHIM
al-Qaeda
Nahr al-Bared
SALEH AL QIBLAWI
al-Qaeda in Iraq
SHEIKH OSAMA QASAS
al-Qaeda
SHIHAB QADUR
Fatah al-Islam
TAREK AL MIR
al-Qaeda
UTHMAN AL TAKRITI
al-Qaeda
ZIAD AL JARRAH
al-Qaeda
Fatah al-Islam
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Fatah al-Islam
#1
Al-Qaeda never formed to create an integrated terror network; it exists to induce Muslims to both emulate its practises and to create terrorist heros for Muslims to admire.
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.
