It turns out that the U.S., whose Supreme Court last month ruled that non-American prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention, isn't the only country where judges are hampering the war on terror. Many people here are rubbing their eyes at the fact that Britain is letting out of jail some of al Qaeda's most dangerous members. In June, a British court released the notorious Islamist preacher Abu Qatada, who had spent the previous three years in jail pending deportation to Jordan to stand trial on terrorism charges. Now there are media reports that the U.K. government is considering releasing an even more dangerous terrorist this week, rather than deporting him to his native Algeria. The man known only as "U" (to protect his identity) was a close contact of Abu Qatada and allegedly was involved in planning terror operations in Los Angeles and Strasbourg, France.
Neither Abu Qatada nor "U" has been prosecuted in Britain, because U.K. authorities possess no evidence to charge these men with plotting terrorist acts. Abu Qatada could have faced charges for lesser offenses under Britain's terrorism law. But since these would have imposed only short prison sentences, the government considered it preferable to deport him to stand trial for more serious crimes in his home country. Yet in both cases, the English courts have ruled that deporting these men would breach their human rights. Given that they were only being held pending deportation, their subsequent release became inevitable. These cases are but the latest examples of the way in which the English judiciary appears to be bending over backward to thwart the fight against terrorism.
"U" is considered so dangerous that his lawyers and the security service are still arguing over the unprecedented restrictions proposed for his bail, including permanent house arrest. Abu Qatada is free on the conditions that he remains at home for 22 hours every day, doesn't use a cell phone, and doesn't visit a mosque. He now lives in a house in a London suburb, to the undoubted discomfiture of his neighbors. Dozens of police officers are required to ensure that he doesn't violate his bail conditions, at an estimated annual cost of £500,000 ($996,274). Then there are his wife and five children who have to be supported on welfare benefits, as they have been during the years of his incarceration, at a further cost of some £45,000 per year not to mention an extra £8,000 annually in disability benefits for Abu Qatada on account of his "bad back."
Britain's welfare "rights" culture only accentuates the surrealism of this situation. How is it that people as dangerous as these two men are to be maintained at vast expense by the British taxpayer rather than being deported? Puzzlement surely turns into astonishment when one learns the grounds on which the Appeal Court decided not to throw Abu Qatada out of the country. The judges were worried that, at his pending trial in Jordan, the court there might use evidence from another witness that had been obtained by torturing him. This concern persisted despite the Jordanians' assurances that they would not do so, since this was against their own law. Prohibiting torture is one thing. But extending such concerns to a witness in a case in which Britain was not even involved, thus preventing it from throwing out someone who endangered its own interests, is beyond perverse.
No sooner had Abu Qatada been released than yet another set of English judges in a terrorist case arrived at an even more bizarre conclusion. Led by England's top judge, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, the Appeal Court quashed the conviction of the "lyrical terrorist" Samina Malik. Ms. Malik had been found guilty of collecting "information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" after a jury heard that she possessed jihadi literature including "The Terrorists' Handbook" and "The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook," as well as operators' manuals for such firearms as an antitank weapon. She is known as the "lyrical terrorist" because she also wrote jihadi poetry.
The judges reversed her conviction, though, because they decided that information "useful" to a terrorist had to offer practical assistance. While the terrorist manuals in her possession plainly did just that, the judges decided that other jihadi literature did not, and so it was not unlawful to possess such literature. They then concluded that the jury may have been "confused" and wrongly convicted her for possessing the jihadi literature as opposed to convicting her for possessing the terrorism manuals that did constitute an offense.
The debacles over Abu Qatada and "U" have occurred because England's overwhelmingly liberal senior judges have interpreted the prohibition of torture under the European Convention on Human Rights to include deportation to any country where ill-treatment might be practiced. This has made it all but impossible to deport foreign terrorist suspects, since the Muslim countries they usually come from are hardly scrupulous in observing the rule of law. It was surely never the intention of the framers of the Convention to force a country to harbor individuals who posed a danger to the national interest. Yet that is what the English judiciary has brought about. These judgments are a clear signal to al Qaeda that Britain remains the safest and most hospitable place on Earth in which to ply their appalling trade. The Samina Malik case, meanwhile, showed once again that the judges seem unable to grasp the part played in Islamic terrorism of literature which incites hatred and violence toward the West.
The undercurrent to all this is the belief among many members of the British establishment that the threat of Islamic terrorism has been overstated. This notion flies in the face of a statement last November by the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, that there were 2,000 known Islamic terrorists in Britain. There is much emotional talk about defending Britain's ancient rights and liberties, whose erosion in the ostensible cause of fighting terror would, it is said, hand victory to al Qaeda. But this view does not chime with British public opinion which if anything wants the government to take more draconian measures against terrorism. That's why Prime Minister Gordon Brown decided to extend the current 28-day limit for detaining terrorist suspects before charge to 42 days, a measure which the House of Commons recently passed.
So does this mean that the establishment mood on counterterrorism is toughening up? Not a bit. Mr. Brown forced through the 42-days law only with the last-minute help of the handful of Northern Irish Ulster Unionist MPs. Not only his own Labour backbenchers but the Conservative Party and most of the political and intellectual class are solidly against the measure, which is likely to be thrown out when it reaches the upper house of Parliament this month.
It is surely no accident that this failure to grasp the true dimensions of the Islamic terrorist threat is so pronounced among the British elite. For these are the people whose education and careers embody the key attribute of Britain's liberal society the belief that the world is governed by rational agents acting in their rational self-interest. The British ruling class just doesn't get religious fanaticism. That is why its judges and politicians are finding it so difficult to fight Islamic terror. Not just Britain but the whole world is less safe as a result.
#1
China has fundamental political and cultural structural problems which makes its future variable. Everyone is talking about it as an super Asians economic tiger [along the lines of Japan and S.Korea]. It's just as likely to peak and then slide like Mexico with a small prosperous ethnic Han caste owning, operating, and exploiting the place for their own power and privileges, that in the end saps the vitality and energies of its people. Unfortunately for the caste and the region, they don't have a border with the US to unload their unwanted and discontented.
#3
WAFF.com > US Think Tank believes US needs to be involved in Asia becuz, AS CHINA CONTINS TO MODERNIZE, IT IS PERCEIVED AS INEVITABLY BECOMING DESIROUS OF NATIONAL/STATE EXPANSION AND WILL LIKELY DO SO PRIMARILY + FIRSTLY AGZ RUSSIA, + TO LESSER EXTENT JAPAN + ASIAN REGIONS.
IOW, RUSSIA is facing:
(1) NUCLEAR ISLAMISM includ NUCLEAR TERRORISM in NEAR-TERM; and
(2) EXPANSION-CENTRIC NUCLEAR + STRONG CHINA IN LONG TERM.
By Mustafa Malik
As NATO troops face stepped up guerrilla attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan's new ambassador to Washington, Husain Haqqani, is trying hard to explain to Americans why his government has tried to make peace with the Pakistani Taliban. That peace deal, despite the army's confrontation with a senior Pakistani Taliban leader in the past few days, appears to have bolstered the flow of Pakistani fighters into Afghanistan.
Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khalid says most of the 56 militants killed in a recent military operation there were Pakistanis.
Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khalid says most of the 56 militants killed in a recent military operation there were Pakistanis.
The Pakistani Army had pushed for the Taliban deal and, more ominously, its paramilitary troops are reported to be training Taliban guerrillas. Some Pakistani officials say the recent American air strikes that killed 11 of their soldiers were a US warning to their army.
So why is the army helping the Taliban? I asked Haqqani at a dinner reception in Arlington, Virginia. The ambassador said he prefers "not to answer this question." After a pause, he added: "The army operates in Pakistan's social environment." I was surprised by the envoy's effort to explain, rather than deny, his military's involvement in Taliban activities.
Pakistan's "social environment" is indeed overwhelmingly supportive of the guerrilla movement to expel NATO troops from Afghanistan. The discredited Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf led the "war on terror" against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to gain American support for his military rule. But the current democratically elected government, sensitive to public opinion, considers it suicidal to do so. Government officials also point out that Musharraf's military crackdowns against the Taliban have increased, instead of decreased, the guerrilla group's popularity and militancy.
During a fall trip through Pakistan, I was told by politicians, scholars and ordinary people that they didn't differentiate between NATO and Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Pakistani youths, supported by the CIA and American arms, fought to roll back the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
In Islamabad, Senator M. Enver Baig of the ruling Pakistan People's Party reminded me that the US government and media called the anti-Soviet guerrillas "mujahideen" or freedom fighters. He said the Taliban were resisting "American hegemony," but that they "don't hate Americans."
The Taliban are made up mostly of Pashtun, who make up 42 percent of Afghanistan's population and nearly 20 percent of Pakistan's. Numerically, Pakistan has twice as many Pashtun as in Afghanistan. Many Pashtun in both Pakistan and Afghanistan resent the boundary, drawn by the British colonial power, that divides them between the two countries.
The Pashtun are known for their infinite hospitality and legendary spirit of independence. Unlike Al-Qaeda, the Taliban didn't have an anti-American agenda. Their belief that they had a "duty" to protect their guest Osama bin Laden made them face the catastrophe of the 2001 US invasion. In Bajaur tribal agency, I was told that if George W. Bush had become a Pashtun guest, they would have protected him, too, with their lives.
Similarly, throughout history the Pashtun have shown indomitable valor in beating back invaders, some of them superpowers of their day such as the Greeks, British and Soviets. Today most Pakistanis and Afghans believe in their bones that the Pashtun will drive back the NATO forces from Afghanistan as well, and Pakistanis overwhelmingly support their campaign.
Apart from Pakistan's pro-Taliban social environment, strategic calculations weigh heavily with the Pakistani Army, which dominates the management of Islamabad's Afghan (as well as Kashmiri and nuclear-arms) policy. Army officers resent Afghan President Hamid Karzai's warm ties to India, Pakistan's arch-adversary. And they believe that because NATO will one day be pulling up its stakes from Afghanistan, they need to make sure Kabul doesn't come under the influence of a hostile power, especially India. The Pakistani Army is cultivating the Taliban because it sees them dominating political life in post-NATO Afghanistan. They ruled Afghanistan during 1996-2001, when Pakistan's relations with it were the closest ever.
The Pakistani Army values relations with the United States, but it thinks it can't ignore Pakistan's strategic interests in Afghanistan. The army has, however, lessened somewhat it support for the Taliban in an effort to placate the Bush administration, hoping, perhaps desperately, that the Americans will eventually realize that they will need some day to bid Afghanistan farewell, but that Pakistan cannot do so.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/01/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
I am sorry. Since AlQada bombed NYNY and A1Qada is supported fully by the Taliban and the Taliban are arm in arm with the ISI and the ISI is part of the the Army of Pakiwakiland - Then all that can be concluded is Army and therefore Pakiwakiland actively supported the bombing of NYNY and are therefore ENEMIES that should be destroyed.
End of story.
#2
The Pakis have gone severely wobbly. Playing both sides worked for Perv because he was the best we were likely to get, so we overlooked some of the things he allowed, as long as he could control the military and the nukes. Although now sporting olympic grade wood from acquiring the power they've craved so long, the new "democratically elected" government is worried about being in the hot seat, and will geek pretty much on demand to the nutcases. Not good. Secure the nukes NOW.
#3
Since AlQada bombed NYNY and A1Qada is supported fully by the Taliban and the Taliban are arm in arm with the ISI and the ISI is part of the the Army of Pakiwakiland - Then all that can be concluded is Army and therefore Pakiwakiland actively supported the bombing of NYNY and are therefore ENEMIES that should be destroyed.
Damnit Walt, did you use up all the subtle I sent last month?
PESHAWAR: The so-called grand operation to "protect" Peshawar from the marauding troops of the Lashkar-e-Islami of militant leader Haji Mangal Bagh and others entered its third day today. The government has already claimed victory to the extent of ridding the Khyber Agency of the so -called criminal extremists who ostensibly have been sent scurrying to the farther valley of Tirah.
Security czar Rehman Malik and Prime Minister Gilani are patting themselves on the back for having restored the government's writ. TV audiences are being treated to a steady feed of images of paramilitary convoys whizzing around and security forces blowing up one 'militant hideout' after another.
The government is also crowing about the fact that its measures are so popular with the local tribal population and its power so awesome for the obviously chickened-out militants that not a single bullet has been fired at the security forces. A lot is being made out of the banning of Lashkar-e-Islami (led by Mangal Bagh), Ansar-Ul-Islam (led by Qazi Mehboobul Haq who is Mangal's sworn enemy) and Haji Namdar-led Tanzeem Amar Bil Maroof Wa Nahi Anil Munqar. And if Islamabad's version is to be believed then it is only a matter of time before the rest of the tribal region starts toeing their line as well.
And now the truth: It's all hogwash. It's a drama being staged to placate a nervous public, please the cooperative militias by giving them sufficient advance warning, and confuse the Americans who of late have been displaying the audacity to ask for verifiable deliverables against all the money they have been pumping in for the last eight years. A desperate appeasement attempt for the visiting Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Boucher, if you may.
But we'll come to the causes later. First the happenings on the ground. The government can go blue in the face claiming otherwise but the fact is that the government's real writ does not extend beyond the last settled area police picket at the Peshawar-Bara sub-division border. And in some cases where it may appear to be present in any diluted form a little farther down the road, there too it is only a negotiated concession from the local militias and not the consequence of any so-called restored the government writ.
While enough evidence exists on the ground to back this impression it would not be irrelevant to narrate a pertinent incident which occurred only this afternoon while I along with A Geo TV crew were returning from visiting the site of the partially bombed out fortified Madrassah structure of Haji Namdar group in the area of Bur Qumber Khel which lies about 20kms from Peshawar. (By the way the credit is being given to a missile fired by a US drone and the claim also appears credible as it is the only real hit where seven militants actually got killed, this being the highest casualty in the entire operation). Anyway, in our attempt to take a shorter route back we took the Tirah-Jamrud road back but were stopped midway at a checkpoint manned by a small contingent of the Mehsud Scouts. While we were pleading to be allowed to go through, I managed to have a long chat with one of the officers (whom I shall not name for the obvious reasons) regarding the hollowness of government claims of having forced the militants out of the area as I informed him that I had just spent hours in an area which was teeming with armed members of the Haji Namdar group while dozens of twin-cab vehicles loaded with armed militants were calmly patrolling the entire area as if nothing extraordinary had happened there. And you know what? The officer actually let it slip that even if his own commandant had to go into the area "his security is provided by Namdar's men". So much for one banned outfit and the ongoing operation.
However, there seems to be a general consensus that the Namdar group is not viewed in the same negative vein as Mangal Bagh's and may have been banned only to give the impression of the administration playing even-handed and not singling out the much larger Lashkar-e-Islami of Mangal Bagh.
And if there are still any doubts on this front then let me share another incident which took place on our way in. We had barely entered Namdar territory when suddenly a Toyota twin-cab came after us at bullet speed, the headlights flashing in a signal for us to stop while a blue police light (incidentally mounted on all vehicles of Namdar and other groups operating in the area) for the added official touch I presume. The moment we stopped, six men jumped off the vehicle and surrounded us, their guns aimed at our heads. Their leader, hardly 19 or 20 years of age, demanded an explanation for our presence in "their territory". About 15 minutes and few reasons later we were allowed to move on after strong hand shakes, warm smiles, and the message to tell the world that they are only fighting against the Americans and for Afghan Muslims and not against Pakistan. As if we were going to argue with that logic. By the way, this incident took place barely three kilometers after entering the tribal area from Peshawar. Wasn't it close enough to qualify as falling in the jurisdiction of re-imposed state writ, one wonders?
Now to Mangal Bagh's people. While Mangal himelf had left for Tirah, where incidentally he is engaged in a bitter sectarian feud, his followers were not found lacking in numbers or visibility. The truth is that within minutes of the security forces moving out after blowing out the abandoned and vacated structures, the Lashkar-e-Islami militants could be seem calmly raising their black flags over the damaged structures and casually inspecting the damaged goods. The interesting part is that not a single militant of any group ever seems in a hurry to get away from the scene, or the area, and at least on three occasions I personally saw militant loaded vehicles drive by Levis and others with no reaction from the paramilitary forces. One amazing operation cleanup isn't it?
Posted by: john frum ||
07/01/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Lashkar-e-Islami
It would be erroneous to believe that the situation in Jammu & Kashmir, so severely disturbed this past week by separatists on the rampage and their political patrons of various shades, will become 'normal' now that Governor NN Vohra has 'returned' the land which had been leased to the Sri Amarnath Shrine Board. The PDP, which was looking for an excuse to break free of restraints that come with being in power, has walked out on its partner, the Congress. The All-Party Hurriyat Conference, which needed an issue to revert to true form, has achieved its objective. And, those elements of Kashmiri society who abhor the idea of any Hindu presence in the Valley and for whom the annual yatra to the Amarnath Shrine is akin to desecration of their "culture" are celebrating their victory over the 'secular' state.
Meanwhile, the Congress has egg on its face, although it is reluctant to admit as much, instead choosing to blame former Governor SK Sinha! But such calumny cannot hide the truth. Let there be no mistake: What we have witnessed in Jammu & Kashmir is a pathetic and shameful capitulation, though not for the first time, by the Indian state before Muslim fanatics. For, contrary to what the PDP, the Hurriyat and assorted separatists have been alleging, there never was any alienation of land nor was there any proposal to erect permanent structures on the leased land.
By forcing the Government to beat a retreat, those who had taken to the streets have sent out a clear, though chilling message: In 'secular' India, Hindu pilgrims have no right to basic facilities and amenities. This is in sharp contrast to the huge expense incurred by the Union Government and the State Governments to provide every possible facility both at home and in Saudi Arabia to Haj pilgrims. The 'Haj Houses' and 'Haj Terminals' -- permanent brick-and-mortar structures as compared to the pre-fabricated structures that were planned for yatris travelling to Amarnath -- are two examples of how tax payers are made to foot the bill of pilgrimage to Mecca by Muslims. What if people were to find them unacceptable and a "threat to the environment"? Would the Government then demolish them? Must Islamic fanatics in Kashmir Valley be mollycoddled in so crass a manner?
There is no percentage in trying to rationalise either the protests or the Government's jelly-kneed response to pretend that last week's violence was no more than a proverbial storm in the tea cup. Nor shall any purpose be served by blaming those on the fringe of Kashmiri Muslim society, and claiming that 'Kashmiriyat' is all-embracing and does not discriminate between Muslims and Hindus. That's so much balderdash, and we all know it.
The cleansing of Kashmir Valley, which began with jihadis forcing Kashmiri Pandits to flee their ancestral land, is an incomplete project -- the successful resistance to facilities for Hindu pilgrims highlights this point in the most lurid fashion. One way of dealing with Sunday's denouement is to treat the Islamic fanatics with contempt and the Congress with pity. The other way is to stand up and be counted: In secular and democratic India, of which Jammu & Kashmir is an inseparable part, pandering to the dark and menacing forces of Muslim separatism is unacceptable.
Posted by: john frum ||
07/01/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Makes sense
* NUCLEAR AL QAEDA
* NUCLEAR TALIBAN?
* OTHER NUCLEAR ISLAMIST MILITANT-TERROR GROUPS
* NUCLEAR IRAN
* IRAN BLOC
* NUCLEAR NON-IRANIAN, NON-IRAN BLOC ISLAMIST STATES IN AFRICA, ME, + ASIA.
* NUCLEAR PRO-ISLAMIST NON-ISLAMIST GROUPS
* OTHER NUCLEAR NON-ALIGNED TERROR GROUPS.
* ETC.
Which is why even the US succeeds in capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden before EOY 2008 - Jan 2009, it still the others to contend with and EXCLUSIVE OF OSAMA'S SUCCESSORS.
Again, in the face of superior US-Allied Miltechs, PAN-ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION +STRATWEAPONIZATION > the Islamists need to protect IRAN + other AMAP by increasing the linear/geographic distance and barriers bwtn the former and IRAN, etc, AMAP ASAP AFAP STARTING FROM THE WATER'S EDGE.
Think IRWIN ROMMEL in the opening scene of THE LONGEST DAY > "Out there is a Monster, a Monster and a massive straining Coiled Spring of Allied Men, Ships, Planes, Guns and Bombs just waiting to be unleashed against us ... ON THAT DAY I INTEND TO DEFEAT THEM AT THE BEACHES. FOR EVERYONE, FOR US AS WELL AS OUR ENEMIES, THAT DAY WILL BE THE LONGEST DAY".
There is a preference in Jerusalem for a date straight after the Americas November 4 presidential election - except that military experts warn that weather and lunar conditions at that time of the year are unfavorable.
If Israel does opt for an attack, August and September would be better, they say - or else hold off until March-April 2009.
Israels political volatility is another major factor in the uncertainty surrounding an attack. Towards the end of September, the ruling Kadima party is committed to a leadership primary. The partys choice of prime minister and the factors that determine how he (or she) reaches a decision on attacking Iran can only be guessed at.
#1
2008-2012 POTUS Period > Militants-Terrs aside, IRAN will prefer to keep a PCorrect low-profile which means that it will prefer ISRAEL ANDOR THE USA STRIKE FIRST. STILL WOULD BE CONSISTENT WID THE RADICAL MULLAH'S WILLINGNESS TO INDUCE MUTUAL DESTRUCTION IFF NEED BE, includ but not limited to WAGING "DEFENSIVE" ANTI-US/WESTERN ASYMMETRIC NUCLEAR WARFARE ON IRANIAN SOIL.
2008-2012 = FICKLE TIME = "MUNICH TIME" FOR ALL PARTIES-CAMPS. US control and domination of OWG-NWO is NOT assured despite strong entrenchment efforts, + OWG-NWO per se is NOT firmly established yet [budding]; while Radical Islam is down but NOT yet absolutely or completely defeated vv USA.
*1960's OLIVER STONE AEROSMITH + TEXAS-SIZED ASTEROIDS > "JFK" > "ARMY COLONEL" DONALD SUTHERLAND to "JIM GARRISON" KOSTNER > "A LOT OF PISSED OFF PEOPLE [at JFK], Mr. GARRISON".
WOT > WAR FOR GLOBALISM + OWG + ANTI-AMERICANISM +..., etc. WHICH NO ONE WINS OR LOSES???
IRONICALLY, NO VICTORY OR DEFEAT IN WOT = "PEACE"? > That sound you hear is alot of Global Warming + Enviro, etc. GLOBAL agendas becoming IMMEDIATELY INVALIDATED + flying out the window!
NO one should feel safe without submitting to Islam, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The Islam ist movement must aim to turn the world into a series of "wildernesses" where only those under jihadi rule enjoy security.
These are some of the ideas developed by al Qaeda's chief theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji, in his new book "Governance in the Wilderness" (Edarat al-Wahsh).
Middle East analysts think that the book may indicate a major change of strategy by the disparate groups that use al Qaeda as a brand name.
The Saudi police seized copies of the book last week as they arrested 700 alleged terrorists in overnight raids.
Naji's book, written in pseudo-literary Arabic, is meant as a manifesto for jihad. He divides the jihadi movement into five circles - ranging from Sunni Salafi (traditionalist) Muslims (who, though not personally violent, are prepared to give moral and material support to militants) to Islamist groups with national rather than pan-Islamist agendas (such as the Palestinian Hamas and the Filipino Moro Liberation Front).
All five circles are at an impasse, says Naji. Some accept the status quo while hoping to reform it. Others have tried to set up governments in a world dominated by "infidel" powers, and have been forced to abandon Islamic values. Still others failed because they didn't realize that the only way to win is through total war in which no one feels safe.
NAJI claims that the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Islamic Caliphate in 1924 marked the start of "the most dangerous phase in history." Those events put all Arab countries, the heartland of Islam, under domination by the "infidel"- who later continued to rule via native proxies.
In Naji's eyes, it is impossible to create a proper Islamic state in a single country in a world dominated by "Crusaders." He cites as example the Taliban - which, although a proper Islamic regime, didn't survive "infidel" attacks and opposition by Afghan elements.
Instead, he says, the Islamic movement must be global - fighting everywhere, all the time, and on all fronts.
SINCE 9/11, Islamist terror movements have been de bating grand strategy. Osama bin Laden had theorized that the "infidel," led by the United States, would crumble after a series of spectacular attacks, just as the Meccan "infidel" government did when the Prophet Muhammad launched deadly raids against its trade routes. Yet the 9/11 attacks didn't lead to an "infidel" retreat. On the contrary, the "Great Satan" hit back hard.
That persuaded some al Qaeda leaders that a new strategy of smaller, slower but steadier attacks was needed. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, has advocated such a strategy since 2003, arguing that the jihad should first target Muslim countries where it has a chance of toppling the incumbent regimes.
Now Naji takes that analysis a step further - suggesting that low-intensity war be extended to anywhere in the world with a significant Muslim presence.
Islamists in the "wilderness" must create parallel societies alongside existing ones, Naji says - but not set up formal governments, which would be subject to economic pressure or military attack.
These parallel societies could resemble "liberated zones" set up by Marxist guerrillas in parts of Latin America in the last century. But they could also exist within cities, under the very noses of the authorities - operating as secret societies with their own rules, values and enforcement.
But they could also take shape in Western countries with large Muslim minorities: The jihadis are to begin by giving areas where Muslims live a distinctly Islamic appearance, by imposing special styles of dress for women and beards for men. Then they start imposing the shariah. In the final phase, they create a parallel system of taxation and law enforcement, effectively taking the areas out of government control.
The "wilderness" will provide the cover for bases for jihad operations. Jihad would be everywhere, rather than in just one or two countries that the "infidel" could hit with superior firepower.
IN a notable departure from past al Qaeda strategy, Naji recommends "countless small operations" that render daily life unbearable, rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11: The "infidel," leaving his home every morning, should be unsure whether he'll return in the evening.
Naji recommends kidnappings, the holding of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make normal life impossible for the "infidel" and Muslim collaborators.
Once parallel societies are established throughout the world, they would exert pressure on non-Muslims to submit. Naji believes that, subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims (especially in the West) would submit: "The West has no stomach for a long fight."
The only Western power still capable of resisting is the United States, he believes. But that, too, will change once President Bush is gone.
NAJI makes it clear that the United States is the chief, if not the exclusive target, of jihad at this time. He mentions Israel only once, as "America's little female idol." His only reference to Palestine is in a historical context.
Naji asks jihadis to target oilfields, sea and airports, tourist facilities and especially banking and financial services. He envisages "a very long war," at the end of which the whole world is brought under the banner of Islam.
He identifies several Muslim countries as promising for establishing "the governance of the wilderness": Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco. The implication is that "wilderness" units already exist in nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Somalia and Algeria.
Naji's theory is built on the concept of terror as the main organizing principle of the mini-states he hopes to set up everywhere in preparation for the coming Caliphate. He claims that the Prophet himself practiced the tactic by making his enemies in Medina, where he ran his version of the "wilderness," pay "the maximum price" for any deviance, and through constant raids on trade caravans belonging to his enemies in Mecca.
IN a simple language, Naji of fers a synthesis of the themes that appeal to different jihadi groups. With anti-imperialist sentiments, missionary dreams, ethnic and class grievances and puritanical obsessions, he mixes a deadly cocktail.
Naji's message is stark: Western civilization is doomed. Its last bastion, America, lacks the will for a long war. The "infidel" loves life and treats it as an endless feast. Jihadis have to ruin that feast and persuade the "infidel" to abandon this world in exchange for greater rewards in the next.
#2
A plan b that relies on the West to cower and fear for our selves while Islamic communities "in the west" become more an more aggressive in kidnappings and murders is fantasy. Yeah I can see how they might imagine this would work with the bend-over attitudes they've confronted so far but I think mass deportations is far more likely.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/01/2008 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Isn't what this guy theorizes already put into practice? No-go zones in France and elsewhere, "asian" rioting in the UK, groomoing and gangrapes of european girls and woman by the local Youths (be they somalis, kurds, turks, arabs, black africans,...), carBBQ, anti-white racism, from everyday little things like spitting in front of infidels in the street or making them go down from the sidewalk (those are very common), passing your hand through their hair when they're blond,... to actual random violence motivated by, well, the Rage.
This is low key, but what this guy longs for already is a reality of some sort. Embrace diversity.
#7
Embrace mass immigration of muslims into western lands, and that entails.
For crying it out loud, even lily-white scandinavian countries have their muslims, seething and demanding and living off society at large and degrading the cultural, security, even mezntal environment of non-muslims around them!
#10
HMMMMM > reminds me of "SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY" versus "INTERNATIONAL" ala TROTSKY + STALIN.
Again, 2008-2012 POTUS Period > IRAN will likely prefer to keep a low-profile while it nuclearizes - ditto for Pakis and other Islamist-influenced/intimidated Muslim States and Govts. THE IMPETUS THEN IS ON ISLAMIST MILITANTS, etal. TO KEEP THE US-ALLIES INCLUD ISRAEL AT MILITARILY AT BAY/CONTAINED, + HOPE A POTUS OBAMA MAKES GOOD ON HIS WELL-REPORTED AGENDA TO UNILATERALLY REDUX THE US PRESENCE IN IRAG-ME + END THE WOT, AT LEAST IN IRAQ, as opposed to "WARMONGER/LOVER" "KILLER" MCCAIN???
IMO this work is broadly laying out a "AFTER THE ISLAMIST BOMB" framework for new future Jihad-Terror [read, POST-WOT SOCIALIST AMERIKA].
#11
The only way to deal with Islam is total war. This is all they know. First they are mad at Dutch cartoons, now adds with puppies. I'm sick and tired of people trying to be polite to these radicals. Their rights are no more important than mine, matter of fact, their ideals are less important than mine. The left just does not realize we are fighting for the future of the human race. Either we desrtoy them or it's Burka's for all our ladies and death to us.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/01/2008 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
. . . The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/01/2008 06:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The religious parallels go very deep. Examples include the "final goal" of environmentalism being "The State of Nature", synonymous with socialist theory, and identical to "The New Jerusalem" in its intermediate form and "The Garden of Eden" in its final form.
The Asceticism of environmentalism goes beyond the self-denial, moral inhibition and sexual repression well known to medieval religion, it even extends into "The Mortification of the Flesh"
And, of course, environmentalists are very focused on "End Times" and the final battle between "Good and Evil" (which gets funny because they are moral relativists as a rule, so define good as ideological purity, and evil as everything else.)
And the hypocrisy is too thick to cut with a knife, like the wealthy priest who tells the poor how they are more righteous than the rich, so should give their wealth to his church.
In this case, the wealthy countries should feel guilty about the poor countries, yet give their wealth to the environmentalists.
I cant resist this, since its from Harry Reid, the Senator from the Great State of Nevada:
The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don't see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it's global warming. It's ruining our country, its ruining our world. Weve got to stop using fossil fuel.
This made me realize that we really must change our ways, since were obviously not going to get any more power from coal or oil, because were sick and ruined. Not completely ruined; the process of ruining is ongoing, but ruined we will be. And so we should stop using fossil fuels. Not reduce, but STOP. Thus spake our leaders.
Theres only one sensible response: we have to shut down Las Vegas. Yes, I know, they get their power from hydro, but juice is fungible; the power that goes to light up Vegas could be used to take oil-fired plants off the grid. Closing down Vegas would reduce Nevadas carbon footprint in other ways: a quarter of all tourists come from California, and Id wager they drive. (Or drive to wager.) Thirty-six million visit Vegas each year at least three million people a month arrive and depart from the airport on pollution-spewing fossil-fuel consuming planes.
There is no practical reason for Vegas to exist. Surely this is a luxury we can do without; surely Nevada can find other sources of revenue to fund the government. If Las Vegas does not voluntarily cease operations, I call upon the Senate to either ban flights entirely, or impose a luxury surcharge equal to 110% of the ticket price, because Las Vegas and the waste it represents is ruining the world.
The world cant wait for Vegas to crumble on its own.
To be fair, Sen. Reid is in favor of renewable sources of energy, and even had a conference on the matter. In Vegas. His arguments? Devlishly subtle.
Once again, just to be clear: when it comes to producing energy, I am opposed to nothing except doing nothing. Do something with everything.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/01/2008 06:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This sounds like a great political bumper sticker:
"Stop driving your car! You're making Harry Reid SICK!"
#5
Lest we fergit, FOX + CNN > AL GORE intro speech for BARACK OBAMA > IIRC, "THIS 2008 ELEX WILL NOT ONLY DECIDE THE FATE OF AMERICA, BUT ALSO THE FATE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD" [destinies?], or words to that effect.
#6
As for shutting down LAS VEGAS > HMMMMMM, wid many Netters opining that the antagonisms bwtn Dubya + Moud going into 2008 closely resembles JFK + CASTRO vv CUBAN MISSLE CRISIS, DARE "SHUTTING DOWN LAS VEGAS" {Reno?] BE THE NEW "BAY OF PIGS"/OPERATION MONGOOSE - WHOM GETS TO BE "RFK" PROSECUTING THE MAFIOSI THAT ALLEGEDLY HELPED GET JFK ELECTED???
IMO its very possible the US Mafia may had been willing to overlook or even forgive JFK [+ RFK?]for RFK's prosecutions iff they had gotten Cuba back.
OTOH SCENARIO > WOT + many Commie + Leftist Groups reportedly colluding wid Radical Islamist Groups > IS IT POSSIBLE WAS JFK [+ RFK] ACTUALLY KILLED FOR TRYING TO ATTACK CUBA, NOT FOR RFK'S PROSECUTIONS OF MAFIOSI NOR FOR THE FAILURE OF THE BAY OF PIGS???? WHat would've been gained or lost, and by whom!?
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.
NO one should feel safe without submitting to Islam, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The Islam ist movement must aim to turn the world into a series of "wildernesses" where only those under jihadi rule enjoy security. 
