Scotland Yard described it as a plot to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale. John Reid concurred: The terror threat to the public was unprecedented, the biggest that Britain had ever faced.
As it transpired, there was nothing melodramatic about these descriptions. It was to be a terror spectacular beyond our worst nightmares, involving blowing up a dozen aeroplanes in mid-air over the Atlantic Ocean, with the wilful massacre of more than 1,000 innocent men, women and children.
Last Tuesday, after a 90-minute meeting with John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, to discuss the challenges of extremism and foreign policy, I emerged and was immediately asked by the media whether I agreed that what British Muslims needed were Islamic holidays and sharia (Islamic law). I thought I had walked into some parallel universe.
Sadly this was not a joke. These issues had apparently formed part of the discussion the day before between Prescott, Ruth Kelly, the communities minister, and a selection of Muslim leaders. I realised then that it wasnt me and the media who were living in a parallel universe although certain Muslim leaders might well be.
Maybe some of these leaders believed that cabinet ministers were being alarmist, that the terror threat posed by British extremists was exaggerated. Maybe they thought that the entire plot and threat were the mother of all smokescreens, a bid to divert our attention from the killing fields of Lebanon. Or maybe it was another symptom of that epidemic that is afflicting far too many Muslims: denial. Out of touch with reality, frightened to propose any real solutions for fear of selling out, but always keen to exact a concession a sad but too often true caricature of some so-called Muslim leaders.
ouch
Other members of the Muslim community I am sure would have cringed as I did when listening to Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary-general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, who explained his demand for sharia and more holidays: If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens. He has done much good work over the years but this is clearly not one of his better moments.
Who speaks for Muslims? The government has a near impossible task but Im sure even it realises that we need to look beyond some of the usual suspects and, crucially, to find mechanisms directly to engage with young people, where many of our challenges lie. To me the plot seemed all too real: I flew back from the United States that very week; my sister, her husband and their two kids live in New York so we all regularly shuttle to and fro. If the alleged plot had been realised we could all have been statistics.
As I have repeatedly said, in this world of indiscriminate terrorist bombings, where Muslims are just as likely to be the victims of terrorism as other British and US citizens, we Muslims have an equal stake in fighting extremism. Hundreds of Muslims died on 9/11 and 7/7. But more importantly, given that these acts are carried out in the name of our religion Islam we have a greater responsibility not merely to condemn but to confront the extremists. In addition to being the targets of terrorism, Muslims will inevitably be the targets of any backlash.
Given this context, most Muslims will perhaps feel disappointed at some of the comments of those leaders who went in to bat on their behalf. Of course self- indulgent bad timing is not the sole preserve of Muslim leaders: David Camerons gross misjudgment of the national mood in his criticisms of how the government had failed to keep us safe and secure were just as crass. Camerons stance, in undermining the unity required from our leaders on such occasions of national unease,played into the extremists hands.
So too, unfortunately, did the comments of some of the Muslim leaders who demanded sharia for British Muslims rather than the existing legal system. The call for special public holidays for Muslims was unnecessary, impracticable and divisive. Most employers already allow their staff to take such days out of their annual leave. And what about special holidays for Sikhs, Hindus, Jews? If we amended our laws to accommodate all such requests, then all the kings horses and all the kings men wouldnt be able to put our workplaces and communities back together again.
When it comes to sharia, Muhammad ibn Adam, the respected Islamic scholar, says: It is necessary by sharia to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as the law doesnt demand something that is against Islam. It is narrated in the Koran that the prophet Muhammad (may his boils eventually heal) (peace be upon him) said: It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi).
In Britain there are no laws that force Muslims to do something against sharia and Muslims enjoy the freedom to worship and follow their religion, as do all other faiths. Compare Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, a sharia regime where women are forbidden to drive; or Turkey, a secular country where women are forbidden to wear the hijab; or Tunisia, where civil servants are forbidden to wear a beard.
I believe that as a Muslim there is no better place to live than Britain. That doesnt mean that all in the garden is rosy; often Islamophobia is palpable. But my message is: whether you are white, Asian, black, Muslim, Christian or Jew, if you dont like where youre living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority.
When Lord Ahmed, the Muslim Labour peer, heard my comments I said essentially that if Muslims wanted sharia they should go and live somewhere where they have it he accused me of doing the BNPs work. He is entitled to his opinion. However, a little honesty, like mine, in this whole debate might just restore trust in politicians and ease the populations anxieties.
Since I made my remarks my office has been overwhelmed with support. I also know that some Muslims feel uncomfortable, not necessarily because they disagree but because they feel targeted. But what I want to say to my fellow British Muslims is that in this country we enjoy freedoms, rights and privileges of which Muslims elsewhere can only dream. We should appreciate that fact and have the confidence to fulfil the obligations and responsibilities as part of our contract with our country and as dictated by sharia law.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2006 11:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I believe that as a Muslim there is no better place to live than Britain. That doesnt mean that all in the garden is rosy; often Islamophobia is palpable. But my message is: whether you are white, Asian, black, Muslim, Christian or Jew, if you dont like where youre living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority.
...
But what I want to say to my fellow British Muslims is that in this country we enjoy freedoms, rights and privileges of which Muslims elsewhere can only dream.
Glad you like it, now make friggin' sure you get the message across to your constituents that;
1. They'd better bloody shop terrorists and people that talk up terrorism.
2. This is never going to be an Islamic country
3. Leave if either condition #1 or #2 causes you problems and
4. Thank your lucky stars you're not in SA, Turkey or any other piously Islamic state
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/20/2006 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
Given this context, most Muslims will perhaps feel disappointed at some of the comments of those leaders who went in to bat on their behalf. Of course self- indulgent bad timing is not the sole preserve of Muslim leaders: David Camerons* gross misjudgment of the national mood in his criticisms of how the government had failed to keep us safe and secure were just as crass. Camerons stance, in undermining the unity required from our leaders on such occasions of national unease,played into the extremists hands.
[*David Cameron, leader of the Conservative party, had criticised government plans to freeze spending in the Home Office, which is responsible for security. Doesn't sound like an extremist to me btw,...
certainly mainstream and not to compare with the likes of Lord Asshat Ahmed, the Muslim Labour peer or the proponet of the Master Race Muhammad ibn Adam, the respected Islamic scholar, who says: It is necessary by sharia to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as the law doesnt demand something that is against Islam. It is narrated in the Koran that the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi).]
Shahid Malik, the Labour MP: I believe that as a Muslim there is no better place to live than Britain. That doesnt mean that all in the garden is rosy; often Islamophobia is palpable. But my message is: whether you are white, Asian, black, Muslim, Christian or Jew, if you dont like where youre living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority.
..or become the majority thru unrestricted immigration and or unrestricted breeding.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/20/2006 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Who speaks for Muslims?
So far, just the terrorists. All other voices are being drowned out by the Thundering Silence.
As I have repeatedly said, in this world of indiscriminate terrorist bombings, where Muslims are just as likely to be the victims of terrorism as other British and US citizens, we Muslims have an equal stake in fighting extremism.
Ummm ... no. Islam carries the bulk of the burden of fighting terrorism, which it has yet to do, so far. Those in doubt, please refer to Flight 613. Islam's unwillingness refusal to shoulder its predominant share of fighting terrorism will result in only one thing, the Muslim Holocaust.
Hundreds of Muslims died on 9/11 and 7/7. But more importantly, given that these acts are carried out in the name of our religion Islam we have a greater responsibility not merely to condemn but to confront the extremists.
Ahhh ... clue purchasing time, at last.
In addition to being the targets of terrorism, Muslims will inevitably be the targets of any backlash.
And that has yet to even begin.
It is necessary by sharia to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as the law doesnt demand something that is against Islam.
As in ... financial institutions giving away piggy banks, calendars with pigs on them, people sneezing sideways in front of a mosque, drawing cartoons of Mohammed, hiccoughing while holding the Koran, having people kiss in movies, men and women attending soccer matches together, men and women swimming in the same pool, men and women dancing on the same floor, men and women praying in the same church, men and women having fun at a party together ... ad nauseam
One way to measure how the world has changed in these last five years is to consider the extraordinary address to his nation by General Musharraf on Sept. 19, 2001. Pakistan was one of just three countries in the world (along with "our friends the Saudis" and the United Arab Emirates) to recognize the Taliban -- and, given that the Pakistanis had helped create and maintain them, they were pretty easy to recognize. President Bush, you'll recall, had declared that you're either with us or you're with the terrorists -- which posed a particular problem for Musharraf: He was with us but everyone else in his country was with the terrorists, including his armed forces, his intelligence services, the media, and a gazillion and one crazy imams.
Nonetheless, with American action against Afghanistan on the horizon, he went on TV that night and told the Pakistani people that this was the gravest threat to the country's existence in over 30 years. He added that he was doing everything to ensure his brothers in the Taliban didn't "suffer," and that he'd asked Washington to provide some evidence that this bin Laden chap had anything to do with the attacks but that so far they'd declined to show him any. Then he cited the Charter of Medina (which the Prophet Muhammad signed after an earlier spot of bother) as an attempt to justify providing assistance to the infidel, and said he'd had no choice but to offer the Americans use of Pakistan's airspace, intelligence networks and other logistical support.
He paused for applause, and after the world's all-time record volume of crickets chirping, said thank you and goodnight.
That must have been quite the phone call he'd got from Washington a day or two earlier. And all within a week of Sept. 11. You may remember during the 2000 campaign an enterprising journalist sprung on Gov. Bush a sudden pop quiz of world leaders. Bush, invited to name the leader of Pakistan, was unable to. But so what? In the third week of September 2001, the correct answer to "Who's General Musharraf?" was "Whoever I want him to be." And, if Musharraf didn't want to play ball, he'd wind up as the answer to "Who was leader of Pakistan until last week?"
Do you get the feeling Washington's not making phone calls like that anymore?
If you go back to September 2001, it's amazing how much the administration made happen in just a short space of time: For example, within days it had secured agreement with the Russians on using military bases in former Soviet Central Asia for intervention in Afghanistan. That, too, must have been quite a phone call. Moscow surely knew that any successful Afghan expedition would only cast their own failures there in an even worse light -- especially if the Americans did it out of the Russians' old bases. And yet it happened.
Five years on, the United States seems to be back in the quagmire of perpetual interminable U.N.-brokered EU-led multilateral dithering, on Iran and much else. The administration that turned Musharraf in nothing flat now offers carrots to Ahmadinejad. After the Taliban fell, the region's autocrats and dictators wondered: Who's next? Now they figure it's a pretty safe bet that nobody is.
What's the difference between September 2001 and now? It's not that anyone "liked" America or that, as the Democrats like to suggest, the country had the world's "sympathy.'' Pakistani generals and the Kremlin don't cave to your demands because they "sympathize.'' They go along because you've succeeded in impressing upon them that they've no choice. Musharraf and Co. weren't scared by America's power but by the fact that America, in the rubble of 9/11, had belatedly found the will to use that power. It is notionally at least as powerful today, but in terms of will we're back to Sept. 10: Nobody thinks America is prepared to use its power. And so Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and wannabe "strong horses" like Baby Assad cock their snooks with impunity.
I happened to be in the Australian Parliament for Question Time last week. The matter of Iraq came up, and the foreign minister, Alexander Downer, thwacked the subject across the floor and over the opposition benches in a magnificent bravura display of political confidence culminating with the gleefully low jibe that "the Leader of the Opposition's constant companion is the white flag.'' The Iraq war is unpopular in Australia, as it is in America and in Britain. But the Aussie government is happy for the opposition to bring up the subject as often as they want because Downer and his prime minister understand very clearly that wanting to "cut and run" is even more unpopular. So in the broader narrative it's a political plus for them: Unlike Bush and Blair, they've succeeded in making the issue not whether the nation should have gone to war but whether the nation should lose the war.
That's not just good politics, but it's actually the heart of the question. Of course, if Bush sneered that John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi's constant companion is the white flag, they'd huff about how dare he question their patriotism. But, if you can't question their patriotism when they want to lose a war, when can you? At one level, the issue is the same as it was on Sept. 11: American will and national purpose. But the reality is that it's worse than that -- for (as Israel is also learning) to begin something and be unable to stick with it to the finish is far more damaging to your reputation than if you'd never begun it in the first place. Nitwit Democrats think anything that can be passed off as a failure in Iraq will somehow diminish only Bush and the neocons. In reality -- a concept with which Democrats seem only dimly acquainted -- it would diminish the nation, and all but certainly end the American moment. In late September 2001 the administration succeeded in teaching a critical lesson to tough hombres like Musharraf and Putin: In a scary world, America can be scarier. But it's all a long time ago now.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2006 12:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is it just me, or does anyone else sense that something huge and decisive is about to happen?
Its not the Aug. 22 thing, because I sensed it before those rumors arose.
For those who haven't heard it, cut and paste (until Mod approval) this link to the President's National Cathedral Speech. I always read something cryptic in the wording.
link format corrected here and in other comments. to insert a link in a comment, select some text you want to show as the clickable link, then click on the 'link' button and insert the URL.
#2
I think Ben Stein misses the motivations. I think the Russians and the Pakistani thought the US would fail in Afghanistan. By providing assistance they would come out on our good side if we won, but have a lot of manuevering room if we ended up in a 9 year fiasco as the Red Army did.
#3
Sorta like, the ceasefire in Lebanon was pushed on Israel because they are the sideshow (not to waste more resources, they may be needed for bigger things), the main event is about to begin?
Mr. GW Pokerface, show us your hand.
Posted by: john ||
08/20/2006 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
this is Mark Steyn. Ben Stein has the other opinion article....
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2006 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Something like the calm before the storm Snease?
Yes, I have it too, and I have a feeling that 'Shock and Awe' won't begin to describe it.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/20/2006 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
There's shock and awe and then there's shock and awe.
I have a solution to all those dogs in the pounds across the US.
#7
"Is it just me, or does anyone else sense that something huge and decisive is about to happen?"
Dunno. But I sense something damn well better happen, or we're screwed.
I see two possibilities here:
1) We've gone to one helluva lot of trouble to project an image of weakness, confusion and indecision, in order to lure the Islamonutz into doing something so vile and stupid that Bush & Co. will have a clear political mandate for stomping their asses; or
2) We really have descended into weakness, confusion and indecision.
God, I sure hope it's #1...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/20/2006 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Yesterday someone said we don't have a fleet near Iran. I hope that's true, because it suggests to me that we are about to pound the hell out of them and don't want them to have targets for retaliation in the early hours. Submarines, cruise missiles, and stealth bombers work for me. Nukes too.
#10
According to the Navy's public web page, we have no carriers in the Gulf or the Red Sea or the Mediterranean. We do, however, have the Iwo Jima expeditionary strike group in the Med along with a command ship. Location of subs is never mentioned.
#13
Hamas weakened...check
Hizbullah weakened...check
Israeli public dissatisfied...check
Public attentive to terrorism...check
Fleet protected...check
Iran not stopping enrichment...check
August 22nd pending...check
NK needs an instructive example... check
Ready to launch.
You don't hit Iran from carriers in the Med. You hit them from carriers in the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf (where CBGs (carrier battle groups) are never (rarely) deployed due to the tight circumstances), the Arabian Sea, and possibly the "Pacific" (the Pacific is a big place and the boundaries are not quite solidly defined so a CBG in the "Pacific" could just as easily be in the Indian for all the USN is going to say). Tehran is beyond non-aerial-refueled strike range of most land-based fighters from Israel so is almost certainly beyond the range of any non-aerial-refueled naval strike aircraft deployed from even a US CBG in the Med.
Diego Garcia is in the Indian. Guam is in the Pacific. Both have airfields and aircraft fully capable of ranging to Tehran and back.
#24
On the first day of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the US deployed an SR-71 from Beale AFB, California, to fly reconnaissance over the battlefield in Israel/Egypt/Jordan/Syria. The aircraft recovered at RAF Mildenhall, and flew additional missions from there until at least a week after the war was over. B-52 war missions were scheduled to take off out of our midwest airfields and bomb Russia, then recover back in the US. There is NOWHERE too far away for us to touch, and it doesn't take aircraft carriers to reach. Crested Cap, an exercise that ran for several years between the US and Europe required an entire military tac fighter wing to deploy NON-STOP from the US (Holloman, for me) to Europe (Spangdahlem), and be ready to fly offensive missions within 8 hours of landing. One experiment called for US paratroopers to go aboard aircraft at Pope AFB, NC and from Fort Bragg, and drop in Italy. I'm talking about things that happened in the 1960's, 1970's, and early 1980's. We have an even greater "reach" today. Not having carriers in the Persian Gulf or off the southern coast of Iran means nothing. The US military reach is global, and by that, I mean anywhere, any time, at the President's call. No one should find comfort in NOT having US assets near their borders.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/20/2006 20:57 Comments ||
Top||
#25
The US military reach is global, and by that, I mean anywhere, any time, at the President's call. No one should find comfort in NOT having US assets near their borders.
Word, Old Patriot. And to he|| with this "shock and awe" crap. I want bouncing rubble with lots of room-temperature mullahs plus dead or maimed and dust-covered Iranian physicists crawling out from under it. Round two equals same for Iranian military. Round three means same for their oil pipelines.
Peter Burnet, who blogs at brothersjudd.com, reacting to a hand-wringing op-ed in a British newspaper.
How easy it is to forget what the world looked like exactly five years ago in August, 2001. A huge and contiguous swath of the globe from Lebanon through Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan was openly hostile to the West, crushing any kind of liberal dissent, spewing uncontrolled menacing rhetoric, boasting of terrifying weapons and fostering lethal, uncontrolled terrorist militias funded by limitless Saudi money. The UN and the entire Western transnational community wallowed with equanimity in a celebration of mau-mauing barbarity at Durban and spent long hours in workshops trying to fashion universal human rights out of the vilest anti-Semitic rhetoric this side of Julius Streicher. And then on September 11th, we all learned just where unchallenged and unchecked hate can lead and how morally obtuse the root cause crowd were.
When President Bush promised a long war, most of us were still feeling the fears and emotional searings from 9/11.We told ourselves we were up to the challenge. For about a year, the left was mute and the self-abnegating moral relativism that had led us blindly to such danger was relegated to the fevered margins. But then the worst possible thing happened to undermine our resolve-early, dramatic success. Both Afghanistan and Iraq fell quickly, Syria retreated from Lebanon, the Saudis became hostile to terrorism, Pakistan was forced into a pro-Western, cooperative stance and domestic security thwarted any more of the terrorist attacks we all knew were unavoidable. Rather than rationing, war bond drives and the re-tooling of factories, the war years have been marked by an historic real estate boom, unprecedented personal consumption (and debt) and national angst over the saga of Brad and Jen. Few are left who really believe any of us but soldiers are at war in any but a remote, abstract sense.
Bit by bit the fellow-travellers in the media and academia emerged from their hiding places and used these very successes to argue that the whole thing was unnecessary and unprincipled. For many, the defence of the world against madness has morphed into just another foreign adventure with no discernable connection to our future beyond the size of the national debt. We do not know whether Mr. Campbell has any clear notion of what he thinks might have happened had President Bush and Prime Minister Blair not drawn lines in the sand, but it seems pretty clear he has no fear of being asked.
Mr. Campbell believes the enemy is fundamentalist thinking, which presumably he would define as the belief that any principle is worth fighting for. Of course, he fails to see his own frightening extremism. His is the voice of the fanatical mediator who is so determined to understand and validate opposing viewpoints, however vile, that he makes a point of proudly having no ideals of his own. The avoidance of conflict is not just his highest principle, its his only one, and as he knows of no others worth defending without compromise, he is open to allowing himself to be convinced barbarity is just an alternative life style and civilization is conquering oppression. Such fools have guided the West intellectually for close to a hundred years now and several times we have had to wrench control of the zeitgeist from them to confront menacing catastrophes looming right before our eyes. As they seem to be such resilient parasites, some days it is hard not to regret weve been so good at it up until now.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/20/2006 13:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Mighty Israel, the redeemer of faith in what free men and women can do with arid desert if they are motivated, redeemer of faith that maybe there is a place for the Jews as a sovereign people and technological superpower, has been fought to a standstill by Hezbollah.
Can it possibly be that Hezbollah is better motivated, better led, better dug in and better armed than the Israeli army, which is supposed to be the best army, pound for pound, in the world? Can it be that Israel, which used to beat whole armies of countries like Egypt and Syria, has been humbled by a few thousand very well-motivated and well-armed men firing from between apartment buildings?
Or could it be that whats different this time is the trumpet and, specifically, its uncertain sound? Israel geared up for a huge offensive, then called it off, then huffed and puffed, then called it off again, then said, Watch out, this time were really going to blow your house down, and then called it off again.
#2
What a heap of shite. This bloke is obviously not with the programme. This is a Long War Mr Stein. There are going to be setbacks, there are going to be more attacks, and yes some of them are going to be 'mega-attacks'. A lot of innocent people are going to die.
But let's look at the other side of the coin, just today we hear of a group of people who leave a plane because they don't like their fellow passengers - a crack in the edifice of PC? I hope so. We also hear from lotp that applicants to West Point are starting to come from more 'elite' backgrounds and have a low attrition rate - these people know what War we're in. The poison dwarf Ahmadinejahd is about to get the mother of all smack-downs, the Soddys are bricking it, the pencil-neck geek Assad is in total denial and the Israelis are very likely to bring in a hard-line government (they're not going to take it any more Mr Stein) which will annihilate Hezbollah when they step out of turn.
Sheesh! - do some bloody research man! Read some blogs and stop going to those no-nothing echo-chamber NYT cocktail parties!
Twit.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/20/2006 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Whahahaha Tony, don't sugar coat the scones mate.
#5
Maybe Alexander Solzhenitsyn put his finger on the problem back in 1978?
A snippet: When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases.
H/T to Bill Roggio. From General Caldwell's August 16th briefing -- they're learnin' lots from those captured! Good summation of the situation in Iraq.
Note to Mods -- if this has been posted, sorry, I kinda searched, but didn't find it.
As you all know, we are systematically dismantling the al-Qaida network. Methodical operations have continued in a very deliberate and conscious fashion as we disrupt and disorganize that network. Recent detainees have given us the unique insight into the plans and operations of al-Qaida in Iraq and what they are doing to achieve their goals here. In discussing these efforts, detainees have provided invaluable insight into Iraq's means to its end and have also identified multiple vulnerabilities and exploitable weaknesses that the al-Qaida in Iraq leaders perceive within and from without their organization.
But to put this in context, we probably need to first remember what is the current security situation here. The core conflict in Iraq has transitioned to a struggle mostly between Sunni and Shi'a extremists seeking to control key areas of Baghdad, create or protect sectarian enclaves, divert economic resources and impose their political and religious agendas.
The sectarian violence in and around Baghdad defines the framework of the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Within Baghdad, death squads and terrorists are locked into a mutually reinforcing cycle of sectarian strife, with Sunni and Shi'a extremists portraying themselves as the defenders of their respective sectarian groups.
In regards to al-Qaida in Iraq, their leadership has outlined the end state towards which their propaganda efforts are currently working. Specifically, as given to us by those who have been detained over the last two months, they seek to portray al-Qaida in Iraq as a legitimate political organization to be viewed as the alternative to the legitimate, duly-elected government of Iraq.
Their primary goal in discrediting the government of Iraq is the expulsion of the U.S. from Iraq in order to remove support for the government of Iraq and impose themselves, al-Qaida in Iraq, as the power.
Detainees have also begun to divulge how al-Qaida in Iraq is attempting to achieve these goals. Al-Qaida in Iraq brings in other foreign fighters and terrorists for the sole purpose of killing innocent Iraqis and preventing the piece and stability that Iraqis deserve. They do not care about this nation. Al-Qaida in Iraq encourages Sunni and Shi'a in-fighting and believes a widespread sectarian divide will force the United States into neutrality and ultimately departure.
Al-Qaida in Iraq, through the media and other grassroots propaganda, will promote a theme that portrays the Sunnis as under attack by coalition forces, and the government of Iraq as being corrupt. They aim to rally Sunni support by conveying al-Qaeda in Iraq as a Sunni protectorate. They then attempt to promote themselves as the defender of the oppressed instead of a terrorist organization.
Al-Qaida in Iraq is making a concerted effort to gain legitimacy by marketing itself to the Iraqi people as a credible, helpful organization that appeals to Iraqis in desperate social and economicsituations while projecting a civic-minded image. They have produced propaganda that blames coalition forces and the Iraqi government for problems such as unemployment, security, government corruption, gas prices and the lack of power, in hopes that this will empower them to take on the role as their protectorate.
Al-Qaida in Iraq wants to present itself as a legitimate organization. They're striving to increase its operational power by building a political base with a military wing, not unlike that of other extremist organizations that have turned to politics in order to grow roots.
Al-Qaida in Iraq realizes killing of innocent Iraqi civilians has damaged their public support and is working to reverse that perception. By no means does it mean they intend to stop creating sectarian violence, but rather change the perception.
Al-Qaida in Iraq is also exploring its own version of tribal engagement. They are giving thought to engendering support from whole tribes, rather than individual Iraqi citizens. Al-Qaida in Iraq hopes to win the support of key tribal leaders and then allow them to carry the message to the rest of their tribe.
Multiple detainees conveyed frustration over their inability to also control a larger portion of the media market. These same detainees discussed al-Qaida in Iraq's desire to use broadcast television. They lamented the fact that it is becoming more and more dangerous and more difficult for them to disseminate their propaganda. One detainee stated that the safest and most preferred method of disseminating religious propaganda is handing out cassette tapes and CDs on Fridays after prayers.
In regard to recruitment, al-Qaida in Iraq offers money, cell phones and vehicles to prospective recruits. These items appear somewhat attractive to young men. However, placement and access into the inner circles is won through personal associations, demonstrated loyalty and vetted experience. Key personalities are known associates of trusted members. Abu Uzman (sp) stated that his recruiting plan for the Umar (sic) Brigade relied on his associates talking with people they knew, who then talked to others and so on.
One detainee stated there are three vulnerabilities al-Qaida in Iraq looks for in their potential recruits: one, individuals who have been detained by coalition forces in the past; two, children or a relative of individuals who have been detained or killed by coalition forces; and three, individuals that display religious values similar to those of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Within jihadist circles, an individual could only swear allegiance to al-Qaida in Iraq through sponsorship. Sponsorship is key to joining the ranks of al-Qaida, and a sponsor must be a trusted member of that organization.
Many anti-coalition organizations operating in Iraq are inherently al-Qaida in Iraq-based on their common IDs -- ideals, beliefs and goals. This binds several groups which operate underdifferent names but are essentially al-Qaida in Iraq. The Mujahideen Shura Council is an example of how al-Qaida in Iraq is attempting to mask itself by aligning with other groups, especially Iraqi groups. Their aim is to give an Iraqi identity to in al-Qaida in Iraq ideologies. Al-Qaida in Iraq anticipates this will be the path towards acceptance of its political structure and ideology by Iraqis.
However, Iraqi security forces, with coalition forces in support, continue to degrade the al-Qaida in Iraq network by removing key to mid-level leadership and aggressively targeting the internal foreign fighter facilitator networks.
As al-Qaida in Iraq attempts to recover from this degradation, they continue to be a primary instigator of sectarian violence in Iraq. A significant portion of detained terrorists are providing clear, actionable intelligence for Iraqi and coalition forces to continue the methodical, deliberate efforts to eliminate terrorism here in Iraq. Iraqi and coalition forces will continue to work closely with each other and with the Iraqi citizens to establish peace and security throughout Iraq.
#1
One detainee stated there are three vulnerabilities al-Qaida in Iraq looks for in their potential recruits: one, individuals who have been detained by coalition forces in the past;
Meaning they are exploiting the "catch and release" program. No surprises here.
They are staying so quiet on this. You have to kinda keep you ears open at the end of reports from the area. Nothing in print, that I can find.
Just reported on Fox News... some guy from Australia is there, talking to some folks. Also reported, this the longest any "foreigners" have been kept in captive by these bad guys. The other night, I heard, Fox has been told, the guys are okay. Let's hope this is just not another "we are the victims" lies by these bad guys. Fox also admitted tonight, no one has come forward, taking credit for the kidnapping.
The war in Lebanon is only part of a grand plan 'to wipe Israel off the map.' Therefore, it's not the time for a commission of inquiry but rather the time to take immediate measures in the hope that we'll be better prepared the next time around
Those who think that the ceasefire in Lebanon ended the war are living in a fool's paradise. The war in Lebanon was just one campaign in an overall war being waged against us by fundamentalist Islam and Arab radicalism. The war's goal is to wipe Israel off the map in the Middle East, or at least to push us back to the 1967 borders.
This war also has a clear two-stage strategic plan put together in Teheran: The current stage can be called the guerilla and attrition stage during which the Palestinians and Hizbullah will create casualties on the Israeli home front by firing rockets and dispatching suicide bombers.
The idea is to humiliate the IDF with severe blows, forcing it to respond and subsequently losing the support of the international community. At the same time, Israeli civilian resistance will begin to crumble, the IDF bereft of its confidence, will have its combat capabilities eroded by the Sisyphean pursuit of terror cells and rocket launching pads.
The next stage
The next stage Israel's defeat will witness the active participation of Syria, Iran and perhaps some other warring factors. Ballistic missiles will be directed at Israel under Iran's nuclear patronage. Iran may even decide to use nuclear arms against Israel. As a result, Israel will have no choice but to accede to a political settlement of surrender or disappear.
Those seeking evidence of this strategic plan will find much of it, not only in military intelligence material, but also in the context of speeches made by leaders of the radical front delivered in Damascus, Teheran and Gaza this week. The danger is clear and imminent, and Israel should have put it high on its list of national priorities a long time ago and be prepared to eliminate it completely.
#2
Everything said in the article has been said here. A total missile threat against Israel will force surrender without war. By that time, emigration and economic collapse would have crippled the country.
Israel can only exist if Iran's Ayatollah's are out of power. If it had a free hand against Hizbollah, then the Shiite-Sunni (Hamas) contest might conclude. Ayatollah power has to be destroyed by the end of September. And it can be done without touching Teheran or causing enormous loss of life.
#3
Their greatest mistake is contentment with the status quo. If someone fights you, you cannot, you must not, accept that they will walk away from the fight having lost nothing. They *must* pay, and in some way that matters to them, not you.
That is why they must penalize Arab aggression with land takings. It can be done in a humane and honest manner, but it must be done. And done for each and every act of violence that they do.
That leaves the Paleos only two choices: non-violence, or eventually to be forced out.
The same principal applies to the Shiites in Lebanon. Since they are unmanaged by the government, they must be managed by someone else, and Hezbollah is not an alternative.
So the IAF enters southern Lebanon, they push the Shiites out. NOT just Hezbollah, but all of the Shiites. For good. Lebaneze Christians and Sunni may live there, but the Shiites must go north, or go to Syria, FOR GOOD.
Islamo-fascist terror could trigger a brutal Western response By Ralph Peters
In the wake of Israel's strategic setback in Lebanon, where's the Middle East headed? (Hint: The road sign doesn't read "Age of Aquarius").
Powerful emotions intoxicate all sides. In the Middle East, only the Israelis have intellectual and moral integrity. Arabs and Persians rely on a culture of blame. The media obscure as much as they illumine.
So what should truly concern us? Bad news first.
Within the forces of terror, the balance of power has shifted. Sunni fanatics, such as al Qaeda's supporters, have suffered severe losses in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world. Still capable of doing serious damage, they're nonetheless being eclipsed in importance by state-backed Shia terrorists, with Hezbollah in the lead and Iran providing arms, money, training and strategic depth.
* A postmodern terrorist army - Hezbollah's - just achieved the first terrorist defeat of a powerful state on a conventional battlefield. The strategic echoes will embolden extremists throughout the Middle East and beyond.
* Iran, a state that openly sponsors terrorism, is well on the way to possessing nuclear weapons. And the world community pretends it doesn't really matter. Worse, military action to destroy Tehran's dispersed and bunkered nuclear program would require a massive, sustained effort - and still might fail. Iran's been playing poker while the West plays Old Maids.
* Iraq could fail - if the Iraqis fail themselves. It's still too early to pack up and leave, but if the people of Iraq will not seize the opportunity we gave them to build the region's first Arab-majority rule-of-law democracy, it won't be an American defeat, but another self-inflicted Arab disaster. Iraq is the Arab world's last chance - and the odds are now 50-50 they'll throw it away.
* Lebanon, the region's other "almost" democracy, is in shambles, thanks to Hezbollah's ruthlessness and Israel's misjudgments. By failing to take Lebanon's complex group psychologies into account, Israel's air campaign converted Hezbollah opponents into Hezbollah supporters.
* Syria escaped the recent fighting with just a few tactical nicks. Now Bashar Assad appears stunningly unaware of his odious regime's vulnerability. And over-confident dictatorships do very stupid things.
* The region's Sunni- Arab autocracies - on which we have relied, to our great shame - are terrified and unstable. Egypt, the Gulf city-states and even Saudi Arabia expected Israel to make short work of the Shia-Hezbollah problem. Instead, Hezbollah won - and the subjects of those sheiks and kings and eternal presidents have been cheering.
* Crucial oil producers on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf grow more vulnerable each day. Iran intends to exert hegemony over the region through nuclear threats and the exploitation of Shia discontents. The world's worst real-estate investment is luxury property in Dubai.
There's more, of course, from the Islamist takeover in Somalia, at the region's southern edge, to the Dorian Gray decomposition of the Pakistani state at its eastern extreme. So what on earth might give us cause for hope?
* Israel's recent defeat, for one thing. Yes, you read that right. The truth is that Israel got a relatively cheap, if embarrassing, wake-up call. And Israel's a part of Western civilization, not of the Middle East's decaying cultures. That means that Israel doesn't just wallow in blame - like Americans, Israelis figure out what went wrong and then fix it. After the post-war soul-searching and investigations are finished, failed leaders will be replaced and Israel will re-emerge with a renewed sense of mission, a stronger government and a powerfully reformed military - the next time the IDF goes to war, watch the way it devastates its enemies.
* The "unity of Muslims" confronting the West is history (it was always a bogus, ramshackle affair). Sunni-Arab leaders increasingly grasp that the real threat isn't from the United States or Israel, but from the explosion of Shia ambitions, prowess, wealth and desire for vengeance. The future of the Middle East could go a number of ways, but we may find ourselves as bemused spectators, while our sworn enemies and phony friends kill each other. Afterward, we'll pick up the pieces.
* Iraq still could muddle through - but even if it doesn't, our stock in the region is headed up, not down. The paradox is that a future civil war between Iraq's Sunnis and Shias makes our military protection more essential than ever to the effete Gulf emirates and the cowardly Saudis. Avoid linear analysis and reflexive predictions of doom for American interests: The Middle East will always do more harm to its natives than it does to foreign powers. Human beings may hate a distant enemy in theory, but they generally prefer to kill their neighbors.
* Terrorist groups with global aspirations continue to pursue grand, counterproductive gestures rather than effective actions. Plots to blow up a series of airliners, lesser strikes on subways or trains in the West and even the eventual "big one" they'll pull off won't convince the West to surrender. Despite intermittent left-wing lunacy, our debates and disagreements are about how best to solve the problem - not how to capitulate. Bit by bit, the Western mood is turning from disbelief regarding the "terrorist threat" to hard-knuckled realism about extremist Islam. 9/11 taught the terrorists little of use and many wrong lessons. It may be hard for some of us to discern what's really happening, but the Islamists are resurrecting a militant, ruthless West.
The florid American master of horror fiction, H. P. Lovecraft, warned his characters, "Do not raise up what ye cannot put down." Islamist terrorists are reviving the West's thirst for blood. And this time it won't be slaked in Flanders.
Things are going to get uglier east of Suez. And we're going to win.
#2
Ralph Peters illustrates the folly of declaring defeat by remote control. Relying on CNN, he knows nothing about the extent of destruction of Hizbollah infrastructure in south Lebanon. Israel achieved every objective, except destroying all the missile launchers. And how realistic was that, given the ease in hiding these?
A couple of weeks ago, Condi Rice talked about a US-Sunni Arab challenge to Shiite power. It was odd, because the US is close to Iraqi Shiites. Bush would be well aware that last week, Iran launched joint attacks with Turkey on Kurd frontier cities.
Unless the US destroys Shiite power, it will retain only Israel as a Middle East ally. Why would Bush proclaim "pre-emption" as central to US military doctrine, while allowing a Homeland threat to develop? White House conduct is incomprehensible unless one infers that the "hour of our chosing" that GWB noted in his National Cathedral Speech in 2001, is near. September could either be one of the best months in US history; or worst. The choice is that of the President.
Donk speak! Blaming Bush is Donk Speak! If you are a westerner, the term "mideast ally" is an oxymoron, something akin to French pal or Russian integrity.
#4
Peters must be two people, because he can be brilliant, and then again...an idiot.
A postmodern terrorist army - Hezbollah's - just achieved the first terrorist defeat of a powerful state on a conventional battlefield.
the only victory Hezb can claim is survival and some political gains. Look at the infrastructure of So. Lebanon and tell me that's victory. Asshat
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/20/2006 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Frank... I could be wrong, but what I believe Peters is saying is Israel's "misjudgement" and the IDF withdrawl was the "defeat." They were clear winners on the battlefield. If the bully goes down, you must keep him down. Failing to do so only angers and emboldens him.
#6
My take on what he is saying is that because the west is trying to give muzzies every chance in the world to become civilized and everytime they throw it back in our face that the west is beginning to get tired of it and their excuses.
#8
Hisb'allah's, like the Tet offensive, was a physical mauling but a political victory. Unfortunately it is the type of victory that matters to the chattering classes.
#9
Right on the money djohn66. The Islamic world is myopic, preferring to see everything in terms of victimhood, blame culture and some perceived injustice (however long ago). Even when Muslims are brought up in the West, there seems to be something in Islam that still brings this out - witness the pathetic, veiled threat from our Muslim MPs and 'community leaders' about further attacks if Britain doesn't address 'root causes' and change its foreign policy. If it's the case that even when Muslims are brought up in the West, they revert to the crap we hear from the Middle East, then Islam itself is in serious trouble.
Everything that's been done by the West since 9/11 has given the Islamic world more time to sort themselves out. That they haven't done so (or even attempted to really) speaks volumes.
Ralph Peters says some weird things at times, but for my money he's right on the ball this time. Time is running out, and not enough people in the Islamic world realise it enough to do something about it (or in the case of the poison dwarf Ahmadinejad, they're actively talking up Armageddon).
It's T-2, and I'm getting a bit edgy, but I'm reminded of GWB's words "it will end at a time and place of our choosing". Hope he's as good a poker player as people think he is...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/20/2006 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I can't resist posting this latest "they hate us; they hate us," shriek. I have been to Maine, and I don't remember hearing this kind of whine
#11
"The Islamic world is myopic, preferring to see everything in terms of victimhood, blame culture and some perceived injustice (however long ago). Even when Muslims are brought up in the West, there seems to be something in Islam that still brings this out"
It is called the university system. As long as higher education remains in the hands of the enemies of the Enlightenment, rationalism and the West it is hardly surprising the people our academic elites sanctify as victims should accept their chosen role. That said, their own supremicist ideology and the prospects of booty and rapine probably help convince them of their chances.
"A bomb for every madrassa" as a friend of mine puts it.
#12
J.P. Devine is not part of the solution, he's part of the problem.
And lo! There came a time when a band of stout men were walking up a hill towards the sound of the guns and there came a moaning from a figure beside the road. The Master of the small band, being a Samaritan, did stop his troop and bent down beside the man moaning beside the road.
"Oh, woe, oh, woe, oh, woe unto me for the world endeth and there is nought that I nor any other can do except accept...oh, woe, oh, woe, oh, woe...," came the words from the moaning figure again and again.
The Master stood, pulling his hand away from the man's shoulder who he has just been checking for as to give what comfort he may.
Turning away, the Master motioned his men into motion then took a moment, stepped back, and spoke to the man lying beside the road.
"Cry on, oh, ye of little heart and fainter courage. Cry on. Better yet, cry on, and continue to lie thee down beside this well-travelled road. Myself and my lads here will render what aid we can, but we have business yonder up the hill a ways - business that you and your ilk might find unpalatable, for, unlike you, we are not willing to lie down and cry for our misfortune. Misfortune we may have, and misfortune we may meet. Aye, misfortune even unto death. Heed, what I sayeth here."
"While you shall do nought but lie here and cry, we shall go there and likely die. In truth, we would not have you with us for your spirit would serve only to spear our hearts and drain us dry."
"But knoweth this, oh ye weak and faint of heart, stout men of courage shall stand for thee and thine. Should we be not strong enough, and should the enemy come nie, remember us, for they shall not, and surely thou shalt die."
"And know ye this, that should we fail, and though thou surely die, we stood for thee, though we knew ye did not, but lie beside the road and cry. For we could do no less being what we are, men of hardened heart. Though we stopped to help, we could but weep, for what we came across. For thou shalt cry while the bullets fly, and the devils flay you live."
"I shall leave you now, oh ye poor, poor man, for my boys and I have life. And while we have life, so ye shall have life, though it costs us all our lives. But lie here still and cry if thou wilt, for it does but make me cry. For my own I fight and for thine I fight, but for thee I only cry."
#14
Islam is a red light, not yellow and not green. I can in no way defend it. Ergo, I must pull it by the roots. For it is very bad seed indeed. It is a weed in the garden. This gutter religion is responsible for most of the misery and depravity on this planet. It is a vile representation of what you can NOT LIVE WITH. They crossed every line. They called the war. They were given plenty of notice. They heed not. Patience still. The horsemen awake.
And lo! There came a time when a band of stout men were walking up a hill towards the sound of the guns and there
came a moaning from a figure beside the road. The Master of the small band, being a Samaritan, did stop his troop
and bent down beside the man moaning beside the road.
"Oh, woe, oh, woe, oh, woe unto me for the world endeth and there is nought that I nor any other can do except
accept...oh, woe, oh, woe, oh, woe...," came the words from the moaning figure again and again.
The Master stood, pulling his hand away from the man's shoulder who he has just been checking for as to give what
comfort he may.
Turning away, the Master motioned his men into motion then took a moment, stepped back, and spoke to the man lying
beside the road.
"Cry on, oh, ye of little heart,
and fainter courage cry on,
Better yet, cry on and lyeth thee down beside this well-travelled road.
Myself and my lads,
will render ye here,
what little aid that we can,
but business we have,
up this hill there aways,
of a kind you just can't,
weigh the measure.
You must see that,
unlike yourself,
we're simply just not like you,
and we just cannot lay us down,
and simply forget who we are,
like those who're like you,
who are simply the fools,
who forget who it is,
that they are,
and who prattle like fools,
and scamper like tools,
and proclaim themselves
misfortunate all.
For misfortune we have,
and some we may meet,
but we are not willing to stop,
and simply lie down,
and wait for the hounds,
should death be our waypoint to keep.
"While you shall do nought,
but lie here and cry,
we shall go there and likely die,
In truth we would not have you with us for naught,
for your spirit would serve only to drain,
to spear our hearts through,
and get us all slain,
and then 't'wold all be for nought."
"But knoweth ye this,
oh ye weak and faint heart,
stout men of courage shall stand,
for thee and for thine,
and should we be not,
stout, strong 'nough through the command,
should the killers come nie,
send prayers for us all upon high,
for they surely shall not,
and though all we wrought,
surely at least thou shalt die."
"And know ye this truth,
-----
that should we fail ,
and though thou surely will die,
we stood for thee true,
though we knew ye did not,
but lie 'side the road and still cry.
For we could do no less,
the men that we are,
though of hardened of heart and of hew,
Though we stopped,
tried to help,
we could not but weep,
for ye whom we what came across.
For thou shalt still cry,
while the wild bullets fly,
and the devils flay you alive."
"I shall leave you 'lone now,
oh ye poor lowly sly,
while my boys and I have still have life.
And while we still live,
so ye shall still live,
though it costs us all of our might.
But lie here, be still
and cry if thou will,
for it does but make me heave sigh.
For my own I fight on,
and for thine I fight on,
but for thee I only but cry."
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.
Scotland Yard described it as a plot to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale. John Reid concurred: The terror threat to the public was unprecedented, the biggest that Britain had ever faced. 
