| Submit your comments on this article | ||||||
| Afghanistan | ||||||
| German Friend of Mohammed Atta held by Americans | ||||||
| 2010-09-05 | ||||||
Without naming its sources, Der Spiegel said U.S. troops had identified Ahmad S. as a member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan who had worked on recruiting new members in Germany.
German police shut down the mosque last month, saying it had links with armed Islamist groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
| ||||||
| Posted by: |
| #11 From you, Mike R., that's a compliment I shall treasure. But most of the credit goes to those who post here, from whom I've learnt so much of what I know. Shia Hezbollah is a proxy army of Iran. It's military wing is what, five to ten thousand members? I've no idea about numbers, but don't let's forget that large portion of the Lebanese national army that is actually Hizb'allah,beyond the men they have under arms in Beirut and south of the whatchamacallum river. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-09-05 23:54 |
| #10 Ditto, NS. TGA, if you're reading this, can you let us know you're OK? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-09-05 20:28 |
| #9 trailing wife, Good informed analysis. Hamas is focused on Israel and has a military wing of about a thousand. Not much of a global threat. Shia Hezbollah is a proxy army of Iran. It's military wing is what, five to ten thousand members? It is directly supported by the Quds Force (“Jerusalem force”) an operations branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni global network of terrorist cells. People say that Sunni and Shia don't work well together but that is not true. The two groups are coordinating their assault on the west. I believe that the west's counter attack on Al-Qaeda has weakened it to the point where it is spending a considerable amount of its time and resources just trying to stay alive. The Taliban were created by Pakistan's ISI. Pakistan needs to be held to account. This is unfinished business. Iran is the great unmet threat. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-09-05 19:35 |
| #8 I miss TGA. But I'm glad we have EC. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-09-05 18:35 |
| #7 What does success mean in the context of Afghanistan? My starting place is to kill lots of jihadis, both cannon fodder and Number Threes, to build toward a tipping point where it's understood that going a-jihading is a pointless suicide. But then, I'm a neocon warmonger. ;-) According to your article, Mike (and the next one in the Strategy Page sequence, about Iraq), we've been killing about 8,000 jihadis/year for the last few years in Afghanistan, and a total of 33,000 Iraqi terrorists since 2003. I assume that we killed at least as many again foreign terrorists in Iraq, because people here have mentioned that between Al Qaeda recruiting and Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops and trainers, there were often more foreigners than locals behaving badly. So that could be 80,000 or more jihadis killed since President George W. Bush declared war on terrorism on 9/11/2001. I realize that's a very small percentage of the claimed 1 billion Muslims world-wide. On the other hand, it will have been a large percent of clusters of jihadi wannabes (mainly Saudi, Libyan, Syrian in Iraqaccording to this (p.18), and my best guess is Pashtun, some Punjabis, and Chechnyan and other Al Qaeda trash in Afghanistan), which is probably why jihadi theorists in Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), the Maghreb, and Saudi Arabia have been writing books and speaking out about why the jihad against the West is contrary to Islam. On the third hand, various Muslim leaders claim that 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity each year -- a number that may or may not resemble reality, but which means "lots and lots".... and possibly as many again just quietly give up their faith without formally converting to anything. It's no wonder that many of the Caliphatists, particularly in the West -- which of course includes Australia, regardless of geography -- have turned their efforts to the soft jihad of lawfare. To me, therefore -- and remember, I'm a little civilian housewife with no real knowledge of military or political matters beyond what I read, and no one has ever even been truly unkind to me -- success in Afghanistan would be when the Muslim radicals on both sides of the Durand Line (Deobandis and taqfiris of all sorts, plus Pakistan's ISI) give up for the moment on the idea of expanding the Caliphate, and go back to practicing banditry on one another, at least until the West is lulled back to sleep. In the meantime, of course, we'll have to turn our attention to the next hot spots: Yemen, the Maghreb, possibly Somalia. And we'll have to get involved in reducing the intercontinental drug trade which has become a major source of funding for all the various jihadi groups that are linked to Al Qaeda more or less loosely. That's my first cut thinking, anyway. Please feel free to tear it apart. As I said, I only know what I've read, not from personal knowledge or training or anything. Thank you! I'm not sure how much the State Department has done thus far. But from my perspective it's appeared that the answer is not much besides obstructing the military effort and associate with unnecessarily unsavoury individuals -- the Ground Zero Mosque imam being but the latest example. And Secretary Clinton is a very weak reed to lean on in this situation. Smart as the woman may be, the poor dear has neither the kind of mind nor the training to understand what she's dealing with -- both within her department and in the great wide world beyond America's borders. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-09-05 18:17 |
| #6 trailing wife, What does success mean in the context of Afghanistan? A minimal definition must include the defeat al Qaeda and the irreconcilable elements of the Taliban, and to keep them from seizing power again. As the Strategy Page analyst points out, the US military is doing its job. But is the US department of State doing its job? Al Qaeda is enfeebled but not knocked out of Pakistan. The door has to be shut in Pakistan. OK Hillary, what is the plan? |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-09-05 16:59 |
| #5 Here is a pointer to an article on the price of victory in Afghanistan. Interesting article, Mike R. If I read that correctly, we're running a fairly efficient war, at least in terms of American/Coalition deaths and killed bad guys... and we did the same in Iraq. Also, it sounds like the Strategy Page analyst thinks we may not be losing in Afghanistan. But I'm about as purely civilian as one can be, so it could be that I missed something important... |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-09-05 16:38 |
| #4 I'll concede the point. I had my red (emotional) thinking cap on when I made that quip. Here is a pointer to an article on the price of victory in Afghanistan. http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/afghan/articles/20100830.aspx |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-09-05 13:57 |
| #3 Actually it's more difficult than obtaining US citizenship, but also more difficult to lose it once you have it. we are of course very interested in having him back and will write another letter... in 5 years or so. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2010-09-05 11:11 |
| #2 Questions. #1 What does it take to get German citizenship if you migrate from Uzbekistan? Two boxtops and a self addressed envelop? #2 What are German rules for revoking citizenship? Does supporting international terrorist organizations qualify? #3 I hope that the German Foreign Ministry isn't trying very hard to contact this clown. "We left a message". |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2010-09-05 10:48 |
| #1 Ahmad S... a good old "German" name |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2010-09-05 09:38 |