• December 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 67,785 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 33 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!

    CLICK THIS PICTURE!!!

  • NO TOLERANCE FOR INTOLERANCE, NO APOLOGY FOR BEING FREE!!!

  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

Taliban Leader Just Released By Obama Involved In The Pakistani School Massacre


U.S. forces captured Latif Mehsud, the former number two commander in Pakistan’s faction of the Taliban, in October 2013, in an operation that angered then Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Mehsud, a Pakistani, and his two guards were secretly flown to Pakistan, two senior Pakistani security officials told Reuters. The U.S. military confirmed it transferred three prisoners to Pakistan’s custody on Saturday, but would not reveal their identities.Taliban terrorist-led attack on Pakistan school leaves at least 141 dead, including 132 children
Taliban: “We Slaughtered 100+ Kids Because Their Parents Helped America.” Muslim Terrorists who attacked an army-run school in Peshawar claim it’s retaliation for U.S.-backed efforts to crush a group that’s helped protect al Qaeda.FOX News The horrific attack in Peshawar, carried out by a relatively small number of militants from the Tehreek-e-Taliban group, a Pakistani militant group trying to overthrow the government, also sent dozens of wounded flooding into local hospitals as terrified parents searched for their children.
After thousands of American lives had already been sacrificed to capture known terrorists in the Middle East, Mehsud had finally been apprehended by U.S. forces during an operation in October 2013. Up until Sunday, the convicted terrorist had been held in the Afghanistan prison. But according to officials, he was handed over along with two others to security officials in Islamabad.

“TTP senior commander Latif Mehsud who was arrested was handed over to Pakistani authorities along with his guards,” one Pakistani security official said. “They reached Islamabad.”

Although the Obama administration could try to claim that the release was due to the fact that the United States will no longer be allowed to keep foreign prisoners in Afghanistan when the mission led by the U.S. ends later this month, there were still other viable options available rather than handing these terrorists over to Pakistan.

In an interesting statement, a U.S. embassy spokesperson commented on the release, referring to the convicted terrorists released by Obama as merely “third-country nationals.”

You know, just normal everyday guys.

“We’re actually just going through and returning all the third-country nationals detained in Afghanistan to resolve that issue,” the spokeswoman said.

Obama views Muslim terrorists  “third-country nationals”  handed over to a Middle Eastern country like it’s nothing. With no certainty given by Pakistani authorities that these Taliban terrorists will not be released back into society to return to terrorism, the blood our Soldiers shed fighting this conflict lies in the hands of  Hussein Obama

What’s Obama’s goal releasing all these Muslim Terrorists? Do you believe Barack Hussein Obama is part of a Islamic Caliphate?

10443393_787212047966501_1859657195288003237_n

Posted on 18 Dec 14 by GOP the Daily Dose

Iran and the Shia Militias Advance in Iraq


by Jonathan Spyer and Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
The Tower
December 2014

Originally published under the title, “How Iraq Became a Proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Iranian-backed Shia militias are eclipsing the Iraqi government.

Iranian-backed Shia militias are eclipsing the Iraqi government.

The United States and its Western allies have recently undertaken airstrikes and other military measures against the Islamic State (I.S., also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq. Contrary to the spirit of most statements coming out of Washington, however, this military action cannot be properly viewed as simply an effort to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State—mainly because the Western actions are limited only to air strikes, which would be ineffective on their own in achieving that end. Rather, this campaign is quite obviously meant to help the main ground forces currently fighting the I.S.—namely, the Iraqi government and Shia militias in Iraq—in the hopes that the Islamic State may be defeated through their combined efforts.

What has been very little discussed in the West, however, is that it is the Shia militias who are quickly eclipsing the Iraqi government forces in importance in Iraq; and that these militias are largely dominated by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Indeed, many are Iranian proxies.

In other words, the U.S. and its allies have launched an air campaign whose most important effect, if successful, would be to advance Iran’s agenda of dominating Iraq and eventually becoming the hegemonic power in the region.

The U.S. and its allies have launched an air campaign whose most important effect, if successful, would be to advance Iran’s agenda of dominating Iraq and eventually becoming the hegemonic power in the region.

How did this happen, and what might its consequences be?

The fall of Mosul in June to a Sunni insurgent offensive spearheaded by the I.S.—which quickly asserted decisive authority in the city at the expense of its allies—revealed the incompetence of Iraq’s conventional armed forces, which are plagued by the same rampant corruption and nepotism that are pervasive in Iraq’s post-Saddam political order.

The Shia militias, backed and coordinated by Iran, are now filling the vacuum left behind by the regular army. This phenomenon was rapidly if unintentionally bolstered by a fatwa from Iraq’s most senior Shia cleric, Ayatollah Sistani, on the obligation to defend the country in the face of the I.S. threat. While Sistani had intended to encourage people to enlist in the official security forces, in practice his fatwa midwifed the broad umbrella of Shia militias conventionally dubbed al-hashad al-sha’abi (“the popular mobilization”) in the Iraqi press. The militias themselves, however, like to call themselves, somewhat ominously, al-muqawama al-islamiya (“the Islamic resistance”).

Due to the wave of enlistment set off by Sistani and the weakness of the official security forces, there is scarcely a single area in which at least some of the Shia militias are not operating. In many cases, such as the recent successful offensive to clear the I.S. out of Jurf al-Sakhr—a predominantly Sunni area of Babil province, south of Baghdad—and the ongoing fighting to dislodge the I.S. from al-Muqdadiya in Diyala province, it is clear that the fighting has been or is being led by Shia militias.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most senior Shia cleric, has effectively blessed the formation of militias.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shia cleric, has effectively blessed the formation of militias.

The growing importance of the Shia militias’ resistance to the I.S. in Iraq is not simply the result of their own combat skills. It is very much a product of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian regime’s elite paramilitary force, whose role in regional conflicts—and, it should be noted, terrorism—is large and expanding. The Shia’s success in Iraq reflects the effectiveness of IRGC doctrine regarding the construction, support, and use of sectarian political and military proxies as a central tool—sometimes the central tool—of Iranian policy in the region.

Iran has displayed a peerless ability to harness and utilize forces of this kind in the Middle East. It is a major factor in Iran’s ongoing success in building political influence in surrounding countries.

The prototype for this approach was the establishment and sponsorship of the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Following the end of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon in 2005, Hezbollah rapidly emerged as the dominant political actor in the country, able to conduct its own military policy of aggression against Israel without any need to consult with other Lebanese factions.

For a considerable period, Iran’s success in Lebanon appeared to be unique. Its clients elsewhere were far less powerful and influential. However, the current unrest in the Middle East, characterized by the contraction or collapse of state authority in a variety of countries, has created an environment in which Iran’s skills have become extremely effective.

As a result of the weakening of the central government in Yemen, for example, the Iran-supported Houthi militia is now the decisive force in the capital, Sana’a, and looks set to determine the makeup of the next government.

Most importantly, however, and most relevant to Iraq, the Iranian ability to utilize sectarian paramilitary formations was perhaps the crucial factor in turning the tide of the Syrian civil war and preserving the Iran-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad.

The darkest days of the Assad regime were the closing months of 2012. At that time, with the rebels having succeeded in entering the city of Aleppo and the eastern suburbs of Damascus, it looked as though the regime’s days were numbered.

The use of sectarian political and military proxies is the central tool of Iranian policy in the region.

The problem for the Assad regime—similar to the current government of Iraq—was that, while the Syrian dictator possessed a large army on paper, the loyalty or reliability of many units was suspect. Hence, only a certain percentage of the armed forces could be reliably deployed. Assad’s power base is Syria’s Alawi minority, which is relatively small in numbers. Because of this, many analysts thought that the defeat of the Assad regime in Syria was simply a matter of time, because the narrow sectarian base of the regime meant that Assad would simply run out of men willing to take a bullet on his behalf.

The Iranians, however, spotted something different: On both sides, the number of men actually engaged in the fighting was relatively small. The Syrian civil war was one of small militias, not massive conventional armies. This meant that the establishment or insertion of a relatively modest number of committed men could make a major difference. In early 2013, under Iranian supervision, the number of Hezbollah fighters operating in Syria was increased. In tandem with this, the Iranians and Hezbollah began to train members of the Alawi paramilitary groups known as the Shabiha, which were reformed into a group called the National Defense Forces (NDF).

The NDF was a light infantry force of about 40,000 men that was deployed in the spring of 2013 alongside Hezbollah and reliable elements of the Assad-controlled Syrian Army, as well as some Iraqi Shia paramilitary forces. This closed the Syrian regime’s gap in manpower, and played a key role in pulling it back from the precipice.

In the summer of 2014, the army of another Iranian ally—the Iraqi government—faced a similar situation in regard to the Islamic State. At that time, a number of analysts predicted that the Iranians were likely to follow a similar strategy to that of Syria. It is now clear that Iran has pursued precisely such a policy, and with considerable success.

Almost immediately, Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC—the agency tasked with the creation and use of proxy political and military forces—was sent to Baghdad. Very clearly, his task was to coordinate the Iraqi response.

His influence appears to have been decisive in shaping the Iraqi response. Predictably, it involves the use of militias and Shia sectarianism along the lines pioneered in other countries. As an Iraqi official quoted by The Guardian put it, “Who do you think is running the war? Those three senior generals who ran away? Qassem Suleimani is in charge. And reporting directly to him are the militias.” Since then, Suleimani has guided much of the fighting against the I.S., and has even been physically present at a number of key engagements.

Alongside the Quds Force leaders, there are reliable reports of dozens of IRGC and Lebanese Hezbollah advisers on the ground in Iraq. In addition, Iraqi paramilitaries deployed in Syria have been returned to Iraq in order to join the fight.

So, what is happening in Iraq today is directly analogous to what happened in Syria. The Iran-aligned, Shia-dominated government in Baghdad is being protected from Sunni insurgents through the efforts and methods of the IRGC’s Quds Force, the most effective instrument of Iran’s regional policy. This, of course, has major implications for Western policy, which at the current time is acting as the air wing for this campaign.

The Militias

Precisely who are these militias, and how is Iran aiding them?

There are, at the very least, dozens of Shia militias in Iraq. The oldest date back to the days of the U.S.

The logo of Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq

The logo of Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq

occupation prior to 2011 and are clearly proxies of Iran. They receive training and weapons from the IRGC, and are dedicated to implementing Iran’s ideological system of governance in Iraq.

Iran, however, does not want any of these groups to become powerful enough to break off and follow its own agenda. To prevent this, it maintains multiple proxy militias competing against each other. Among the main proxies in question are Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), which developed particularly close relations with ex-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; Kata’ib Hezbollah (with its front group Saraya al-Difa’ ash-Sha’abi); and the Badr Organization. All three of these organizations have deployed fighters to Syria to assist the Assad regime, and have also been participating in the Iraqi government’s military efforts in Anbar since the beginning of this year, when Fallujah and parts of Ramadi first fell out of government control.

Besides these three important actors, other Iranian proxies exist, including Saraya al-Khorasani, Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, and Harakat al-Nujaba’, all of which have also deployed in Syria. These groups make no attempt to hide their ideological affinities with Iran, featuring portraits of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on their social media sites and “martyrdom” funeral banners for slain fighters.

Besides the direct Iranian proxies, a number of other Shia militias exist, the vast majority of which can be tied to one Shia political figure or another. The most well-known of these is undoubtedly Saraya al-Salam [“The Peace Brigades”], the reconstituted Mahdi Army of Islamist political leader Muqtada al-Sadr. Another interesting case is a militia known as Liwa al-Shabab al-Risali, which claims legitimacy through the Najaf-based cleric Ayatollah Muhammad al-Yaqoubi and ties itself to the legacy of Muqtada al-Sadr’s father, Ayatollah Muhammad Muhammad Sadeq al-Sadr. Also of interest are Sadrist-leaning militia brands that first emerged in Syria but have since withdrawn to Iraq, such as Liwa Dhu al-Fiqar.

Elsewhere on the mainstream Shia political spectrum, there are militias linked to figures from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), a Shia Islamic political party. These include Saraya Ansar al-Aqeeda, led by Sheikh Jalal ad-Din al-Saghir, and Saraya Ashura’, led by Ammar al-Hakim. These militias appear to be an attempt by ISCI figures to create their own military forces to rival the Badr Organization, which originated as a break-off from ISCI.

Other militias exist that can be tied to figures known for strong pro-Iranian tendencies, for example Kata’ib al-Ghadab, which is tied to the pro-Iranian Da’wah Party (Tanẓim al-Dakhil). Still other groups can be readily identified as clear attempts to emulate Iranian proxies or other Shia militias, such as “Kata’ib Hezbollah – the Mujahideen in Iraq” led by Abbas al-Muhammadawi of the Abna’ al-Iraq al-Ghayyara political bloc, and the Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas Forces, based on the famous Syrian Shia militia, Liwa Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas.

Naturally, the Shia militias are by no means a monolithic ideological bloc. The most obvious tension is between the Iranian proxies and those who follow the movement of Muqtada al-Sadr. This is the case even though their rhetoric often overlaps. They both emphasize the “defense of the homeland and the holy sites,” and attempt to claim they are unified behind the common cause of “resistance” and Shia sectarian pride. Nonetheless, the groups that are not explicitly aligned with Iran are by no means outside Iranian influence or control. Their relationship with the Islamic Republic is simply more complex and ambiguous than others.

It is clear, however, that the overall leading role in the militia movement is played by the Iranian proxies, something that is most apparent in the appointment of Muhammad al-Ghaban of the Badr Organization as Iraqi Interior Minister under the new Abadi government. Under Badr’s leadership, Operation Ashura was launched to expel the I.S. from Jurf al-Sakhr. As a source in the Interior Ministry put it to the pro-government outlet al-Masalah, “The factions of the Islamic Resistance – Kata’ib Hezbollah, Badr, AAH, recruits and the popular mobilization, along with Saraya al-Salam, participated in Operation Ashura which was launched today under the leadership of the Interior Minister Muhammad Salim al-Ghaban to cleanse the Jurf al-Sakhr district in north Babil from the Da’esh [I.S.] gangs.” [emphasis ours]

In an interview with Aws al-Khafaji after the capture of Jurf al-Sakhr, the Shia militias that participated are listed as “The heroic brothers of Badr, Saraya al-Salam, Asa’ib [Ahl al-Haq], [Harakat] al-Nujaba, the Abu al-Fadl al-Abbas Forces … and some of the other Islamic factions.” That Badr was mentioned first seems to confirm the group’s leading role in the operation.

Implications

Needless to say, the proliferation of Shia militias in Iraq, with Iranian proxies as the strongest players, has important implications.

Due to the security situation in Iraq, the Shia militias will be necessary for the foreseeable future in the fight against the Islamic State. It is also highly unlikely that these militias will simply disband even if told to do so. Thus, it is worth assessing the implications of their rise to prominence and power.

First, it demonstrates the extent to which Iran considers the government of Iraq a client or proxy regime; one that Tehran will not allow to develop its own powerful, independent institutions and military. The government in Baghdad, like the regime in Damascus, is to be saved from those who would destroy it, but only in such a way that its future is to be an instrument of Iran’s will. The Iranians’ innovative use of sectarian militia power and the cultivation of a variety of paramilitary clients ensures that, if they get their way, no Iraqi government will be in a position to disobey them.

Moreover, Iran’s role in Iraq is clearly part of its desire—tracing back to the regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini—to spread its ideology throughout the Shia population of the Middle East. What this means is that, while the new sectarian military formation being developed by the Iranians in Iraq is likely to prove sufficient to stem the advance of the overstretched I.S. forces, they are also part of Tehran’s larger regional strategy to produce a contiguous line of pro-Iran states between the Iran-Iraq border and the Mediterranean Sea.

The fragmentation of Iraq and Syria may well thwart that ambition. But Iran has shown that its practice of creating and utilizing proxy political and military forces as a key instrument of policy is sufficient to defend its own interests—if not always to entirely defeat or destroy its Sunni enemies. The Quds Force is now proving this once again in Iraq.

For the U.S. and its allies, this may represent a short-term advantage, but it is a long-term threat. The Iranian proxy militias, quite naturally, also embrace Iran’s ideology, which is intensely anti-American, anti-Western, and indeed, anti-Semitic. They parrot, for example, Iran’s official propaganda line, according to which the I.S. is supposedly a creation of “the Great Satan” (i.e., the United States) and/or the Jews.

Nor does the eventual creation, or attempt to create, an Iranian sphere of influence across the Middle East bode well for American or Western interests. However effective they may be in fighting the I.S., Iran’s proxy militias in Iraq are part of this agenda and are helping Iran pursue it.

Thanks to current Western policy, this time they are doing it with Western air support.

Jonathan Spyer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Posted on 15 Dec 14 by Middle East Forum

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Wow… funny how that works…America fighting with once an enemy, now a supposed ally. Look at the big picture…Iran has, on multiple occasions, chanted they want to destroy America, the “great satan”, now we’re working together to “eliminate” the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic army that Barack Hussein Obama helped create? You see, Iraq is primarily Shia Muslims, so is Iran. Now the Muslim Brotherhood, Barack Hussein Obama and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are Sunni. They hate each other just as much as they all hate the US and Jews. Because there isn’t many US citizens in Iraq right now, nor Jews, the best way to vent and show their “ISLAMIC PEACE” is to kill the opposing sect…pretty much like the Catholics and the Protestants do in Ireland (the big difference between the two religious wars is that the Christian hostility preaches to LOVE ONE ANOTHER, whereas the Muslim religious hostility is based on KILL KILL KILL…KILL ANYONE THAT DOESN’T BELIEVE THE SAME WAY YOU DO.

Another thing to remember…with this war between Shi’ites and Sunnis, there very well could be more Sunnis from all over the world go and join the ISIS army now, more than before…because their “Caliph” might be taken out, and that is not acceptable,

Now, Iran wants to kill Americans (1979 as evidence) but right now their primary focus is killing the Sunni that are conquering Shi’ites. Now I can kind of forecast that there will more than likely be an “accidental” friendly firing on US aircraft…just to remind America our frienemy is still with us. Be aware of the consequences of this “alliance”. FYI, America did not invite Iran to the war with the Muslim Brotherhood, Iraq pretty much knew that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim Brotherhood member, and a puppet for the group that made the Islamic Sunni army to take over Iraq and Syria, and wanted some backup so fighting could actually get done.

[Watch] Franklin Graham Has An Epic Message For Radical Muslims


Hackers Target Little Rock School District Website


12/12/2014
LITTLE ROCK, AR- If you typed in lrsd.org in the search engine around 7am Friday morning, chances are a hacking message popped up.

“I don’t like it. It doesn’t make me comfortable,” says Jason Spees, LRSD Parent.

Uncomfortable with the images and words displayed on the homescreen and the possible threat it could have on his two boys.

“I think they should notify everybody when there’s what could potentially be a terroristic threat. And that’s what that is to me,” he says.

The video playing on the site read “Hacked by MECA” the Middle East Cyber Army. According to its Facebook and Twitter pages, it appears to be a Muslim group dedicated to cyber attacks around the world.

“It’s a little shocking to be informed of it,” he says.

Another parent I spoke with didn’t see it, but learned about the hack through an automated call from the school district around noon.

“It basically said there had been a cyber attack against the district’s landing page on their website,” says Mandy Shoptaw, LRSD Parent.

Shortly after, that message from LRSD was relayed via email to parents and staff saying, “No student, parent, or personnel data was compromised. That information is housed on separate servers. When we discovered the unauthorized information on the landing page, it was immediately removed.”

“I think it’s very unfortunate that people take advantage of schools and businesses and hack their sites and put inappropriate materials up there,” she says.

In an email, LRSD says it’s investigating this incident and will provide additional details when they become available. We talked to the FBI and Arkansas Department of Emergency Management, both agencies were unaware of LRSD’s website getting hacked.

Posted on 12 Dec 14 by NWA Homepage

Egypt Uses Ferguson to Hit US Over Brotherhood Policy


When Egypt cracked down on violent Muslim Brotherhood protests, the US urged ‘restraint.’ Egypt is now giving the same advice to the US.

Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America; Will America Notice?


[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Another old article, but one that is holding true. The Muslim Brotherhood planned its war against America (the Islamic “Great Satan”) in 1991. They wanted to put in an Islamic Trojan horse president, and they did…they wanted to slowly changed the American laws to incorporate and then to change completely over to Shari’a (Islamic law), they are in the process of doing that successfully, they are fulfilling their mandated, Islamic act of lesser jihad (does not have to be violent, however; according to their text as well as their scholars and their “sacred law”, it is considered “Holy War” against non-Muslims), they are doing this successfully as well, by using our own civil laws against us. With their Trojan horse president, he is doing things that is also part of trying to comply with Shari’a…like gun banning…]

By Barry Rubin October 9, 2010

This is one of those obscure  Middle East events of the utmost significance that is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don’t fit their policies; and by experts, because they don’t mesh with their preconceptions.

This explicit formulation of a revolutionary program makes it a game-changer. It should be read by every Western decision maker and have a direct effect on policy because this development may affect people’s lives in every Western country.

OK, enough of a build-up? Well, it isn’t exaggerated. So don’t think the next sentence is an anticlimax. Here we go: The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has endorsed (Arabic) (English translation by MEMRI) anti-American Jihad and pretty much every element in the al-Qaida ideology book. Since the Brotherhood is the main opposition force in Egypt and Jordan as well as the most powerful group, both politically and religiously, in the Muslim communities of Europe and North America this is pretty serious stuff.

By the way, no one can argue that he merely represents old, tired policies of the distant past because the supreme guide who said these things was elected just a few months ago. His position reflects current thinking.

Does that mean the Egyptian, Jordanian, and all the camouflaged Muslim Brotherhood fronts in Europe and North America are going to launch terrorism as one of their affiliates, Hamas, has long done? No.

But it does mean that something awaited for decades has happened: the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action. At least, its hundreds of thousands of followers are being given that signal. Some of them will engage in terrorist violence as individuals or forming splinter groups; others will redouble their efforts to seize control of their countries and turn them into safe areas for terrorists and instruments for war on the West.

When the extreme and arguably marginal British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary says that Islam will conquer the West and raise its flag over the White House, that can be treated as wild rhetoric. His remark is getting lots of attention because he said it in English in an interview with CNN. Who cares what he says?

But when the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood says the same thing in Arabic, that’s a program for action, a call to arms for hundreds of thousands of people, and a national security threat to every Western country.

The Brotherhood is the group that often dominates Muslim communities in the West and runs mosques. Its cadre control front groups that are often recognized by Western democratic governments and media as authoritative. Government officials in many countries meet with these groups, ask them to be advisers for counter-terrorist strategies and national policies, and even fund them.

President Barack Obama speaks about a conflict limited solely to al-Qaida. And if one is talking about the current military battle in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen that point makes sense. Yet there is a far bigger and wider battle going on in which revolutionary Islamists seek to overthrow their own rulers and wage long-term, full-scale struggle against the West. If it doesn’t involve violence right now it will when they get strong enough or gain power.

More than three years ago, I warned about this development, in a detailed analysis explaining, “The banner of the Islamist revolution in the Middle East today has largely passed to groups sponsored by or derived from the Muslim Brotherhood.” I pointed out the differences-especially of tactical importance-between the Brotherhood groups and al-Qaida or Hizballah, but also discussed the similarities. This exposure so upset the Brotherhood that it put a detailed response on its official website to deny my analysis.

Yet now here is the Brotherhood’s new supreme guide, Muhammad Badi giving a sermon entitled, “How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny,” translated by MEMRI. Incidentally, everything Badi says is in tune with the stances and holy books of normative Islam. It is not the only possible interpretation but it is a completely legitimate interpretation. Every Muslim knows, even if he disagrees with the Brotherhood’s position, that this isn’t heresy or hijacking or misunderstanding.

Finally, this is the group that many in the West, some in high positions, are urging to be engaged as a negotiating partner because it is supposedly moderate.

What does he say?

–Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.

–All Muslims are required by their religion to fight: “They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” Notice that jihad here is not interpreted as so often happens by liars, apologists, and the merely ignorant in the West as spiritual striving. The clear meaning is one of armed struggle.

–The United States is immoral, doomed to collapse, and “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise.”

–Palestinians should back Hamas in overthrowing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and unite in waging war on Israel.

Incidentally, what Melanie Philips has written on this issue fits perfectly here:

–Rational calculations of the kind applied by the West to its adversaries, mirror-imaging, assuming that Muslims won’t act in a revolutionary and even suicidal manner want a better future for their children, etc., do not apply to the Islamist movement:

“Allah said: ‘The hosts will all be routed and will turn and flee [Koran 54:45].’ This verse is a promise to the believers that they shall defeat their enemies, and [that the enemies] shall withdraw. The Companions of the Prophet received this Koranic promise in Mecca, when they were weak…and a little more than nine years [later], Allah fulfilled his promise in the Battle of Badr…Can we compare that to what happened in Gaza?…Allah is the best of schemers, and that though Him you shall triumph. Islam is capable of confronting oppression and tyranny, and that the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah.”

This says: It doesn’t matter how long the battle goes on, how many die, how much destruction is unleashed, how low your living standards fall, how unfavorable the odds appear to be, none of that is important or should deter you.

In the real world, of course, the Islamists are unlikely to win over the long run of, say, 50 or100 years. But those views do mean that these 50 or 100 years are going to be filled with instability and bloodshed.

Equally, Badi’s claims do not mean all Muslims must agree, much less actively take up arms. They can have a different interpretation, simply disregard the arguments, and be too intimidated or materialistic or opportunistic to agree or to act. Yet hundreds of thousands will do so and millions will cheer them on. And by the same token, neither the radical nor the passive will assist in moving toward more moderation or peace or compromise.

Well, will the problem go away if people in the West condemn “Islamophobia” or make concessions or apologize or produce a just peace? No.

His words provide some important points for people in the West to consider:

“Resistance is the only solution…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance – and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”

First, the more the likelihood that U.S. policy might obtains a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, the more anti-American violent activity will be sparked among the Islamists and their very large base of support, the more Iran and Syria will sponsor terrorism. Desirable as peace or even progress toward peace might be, the West should have no illusions about those things providing regional stability, and they will produce more instability.

Second, U.S. actions of apology, concessions, and withdrawals-whether or not any of the specific steps are useful or desirable-they are interpreted by the Islamists and by many in the Middle East as signs of weakness which should spark further aggression and violence. There are hundreds of examples of this reaction every month. Here’s a leading moderate Saudi journalist explaining how many Iraqis and other Arabs are viewing the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq means that it is turning the country over to Iran. Wrong but an accurate show of that very common Middle East way of thinking.

Indeed, this last factor explains the Brotherhood’s timing. Note that he says nothing about fighting Egypt’s government, which won’t hesitate to throw the Brotherhood leaders into prison and even to torture them. Still, the coming leadership transition in Egypt, with the death or retirement of President Husni Mubarak, seems to offer opportunities.

The new harder line coincides with the Brotherhood’s announcement that it will run candidates in the November elections, another sign of its confidence and increased militancy. The Brotherhood is not a legal group but the government lets members run in other parties. Its candidates won about 20 percent of the vote in the last elections, especially impressive given the regime’s repressive measures. If the Brotherhood intends to defy Egyptian law now there will be confrontations, mass arrests, and perhaps violence.

Most important of all, however, Badi and many others sense weakness on the part of the West, especially the U.S. leaders, and victory for the Islamists.

Even former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is warning about such things. Blair comes from the British Labour Party. Many conservatives understand these issues. But the West can never respond successfully without a broader consensus about the nature of the threat and the need for a strong response. Where are Blair’s counterparts in the left-of-center forces in North America, the kind of people who played such a critical role in confronting and defeating the previous wave of anti-democratic extremism, Communism?

This new hardline signals

1. Increased internal conflict in Egypt, the start of a decade-long struggle for power in the Arabic-speaking world’s most important country.
2. The likelihood that more Brotherhood supporters in the West will turn to violence and fund-raising for terrorism.
3. The true nature of the radical indoctrination–preparing people for future extremism and terrorism–in the mosques and groups they control.
4. A probable upturn in anti-American terrorist attacks in the Middle East and Europe.

In August 1996, al-Qaida declared war on America, the West, Christians and Jews. Nobody important paid much attention to this. Almost exactly five years later, September 11 forced them to notice. Let it be said that in September 2010 the Muslim Brotherhood, a group with one hundred times more activists than al-Qaida, issued its declaration of war. What remains is the history of the future.

Update: A well-informed friend in Egypt just said that while he’s been expecting this move by the Brotherhood for some time that I have been the only one who’s noticed it outside the country. This is the kind of service I’m trying to give my readers.

Posted on 9 Oct 10 by Gloria Center

Is the Islamic ‘state’ doomed to failure?


Smoke rises behind an Islamic State flag after Iraqi security forces and Shiite fighters took control of Saadiya in Diyala province from Islamist State militants, Nov. 24, 2014. (photo by REUTERS)

Smoke rises behind an Islamic State flag after Iraqi security forces and Shiite fighters took control of Saadiya in Diyala province from Islamist State militants, Nov. 24, 2014. (photo by REUTERS)

This Islamic State (IS) is offering a new job for those interested. No, it’s not aimed at carrying out a suicide mission or executing hostages, but rather it’s a high-paying position involving managing one of the organization’s oil refineries in exchange for 140,000 British pounds ($220,000) per year.

IS today controls a section of land stretching between Iraq and Syria that is more than three times the size of Lebanon and contains 8 million people. In the event that a political project attracting Arab Sunnis in both Iraq and Syria does not emerge, the area IS controls could extend west toward Aleppo and south in the direction of Baghdad, and perhaps even beyond. It is very likely that we are currently witnessing the birth of a new nation in the Middle East, but the question is: what will be the nature of this state?

The majority of analyses on IS have revolved around the organization’s ideology and speeches, and in particular its brutality and the doctrine of violence that it believes in. Yet if we want to understand the nature of the state IS is establishing, our analysis should not be limited to statements made by the group. Rather, we should be concerned with its actions. We can conclude from the analysis that IS is repeating the bad model of the states that existed in the Middle East, and whose failure led to the popular revolts known as the Arab Spring.

IS has begun to establish an economy based on oil that is no different from the system that existed in Iraq under the rule of [former Prime Minister] Nouri al-Maliki, or even before him under [former President] Saddam Hussein. To operate the oil and gas facilities that the group now controls in Iraq and Syria, IS is in dire need of engineers and directors, because of the fleeing of many technicians that were living in the largest Iraqi and Syrian cities that fell under IS control. The recent air raids carried out by coalition forces targeted oil product facilities in order to direct a blow at the organization’s economy. In response, IS is searching for volunteers from Arab and Islamic states, recently calling on Saudi youth working for oil companies to volunteer to join the “Islamic caliphate” and help it manage its oil sector.

Available reports reveal that oil production lies at the head of IS’ “new” economy. After the acts of violence perpetrated by IS drove away technicians and managers, the group is urgently in need of workers possessing the necessary qualifications to move the wheels of the economy. Otherwise, in the end it will be forced to face the wrath of the large number of residents under its control — reaching 8 million today — or will be unable to provide food to fighters raising its black banners, whose numbers range from 30,000-50,000.

The volume of IS’ oil production has been estimated at 80,000 barrels per day (bpd), but it has declined since the start of the US bombings. This figure only represents a fraction of Iraqi oil production, amounting to 3.4 million bpd in 2013, or Syrian production, which reached 400,000 bpd in the same year.

In addition, IS will realize that the Arab young people, who are enchanted with ideological vows, have limited wherewithal; thus IS will be forced to relinquish some of its ideological fervor to attract cadres from the former regime. The enticing authorization to grant a salary of 140,000 British pounds is only the beginning. All revolutions, from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the anti-colonialism movements, passed through similar stages whereby the choice lay in either allowing for the collapse of existing economic and political institutions, or integrating “ideological enemies” into the new state.

IS controls 11 oil refineries, bringing in an estimated daily income from oil sales ranging between $2 million and $3 million. Given that oil is its primary source of income, the state that IS is working to build will not differ from that of the Iraqi government in power today, nor from the one that managed the affairs of the country under the Baathist regime. With oil at the heart of the organization’s economic activity, this will define the features of all other activities and sectors, something known as the “Dutch disease.” Non-oil imports will become easier and cheaper than developing domestic production, whether industrial or agricultural.

Available information suggest that IS sells oil at a low price, not exceeding $20 per barrel domestically and $40 per barrel for exports, while the international price stands at about $80 per barrel. The low quality of the oil produced may be the reason it is selling for such a low cost, as its production is considered illegitimate and therefore must be sold at a cheaper price. The second reason as to why IS is selling oil at cheaper prices within the areas it controls is to supply local residents with cheap oil sources. This is a policy pursued by oil-rich countries to support the local economy and stimulate consumption.

Taxes, alongside embezzlement and the looting of ancient treasures, is one of the means used by IS to gain profit. The organization also receives support from wealthy donors abroad, with the value of total gifts estimated at $40 million during the past two years.

The worst repercussions of IS policies are evident in the social and educational sectors. In order to understand the method IS will adopt to manage its state, one cannot ignore the group’s ideology. It has excluded half of the workforce — women — from the labor market. IS has also implemented strict control on the educational system, excluding any reference to evolution, Darwin, democracy, elections and many other things. In the field of media and communications, the group has imposed laws and strict controls on journalists, requiring them first and foremost to express their loyalty to the “caliphate,” not to the truth or their readers.

IS has not shown any signs of having a clear vision for projects related to agriculture, aside from the destruction of farms belonging to those who do not share their beliefs. However, the decline of the agricultural sector should be of concern to IS leaders. The Jazeera region of northeast Syria has been totally destroyed as a result of years of drought, which caused the collapse of thousands of farms and led to the internal migration of a large number of residents. This is one of the causes for the current conflict in the country. Population growth and declining water supply — which can be attributed to a number of reasons, including climate change and the construction of dams in Turkey — will only increase these pressures in the coming years.

Furthermore, demographics is another issue that should be of concern to IS. Syria was one of the countries experiencing rapid population growth, witnessing an annual increase of 2% before the outbreak of the war, compared with a growth of 2.9% — equivalent to 1 million people — in Iraq in 2013. Unemployment among youth was a common problem that arose in 2011, the year in which the “Arab Spring” began. How will IS solve this problem in the areas under its control?

Worst of all, IS is establishing a state mired in permanent conflict. While the organization maintains power in a limited geographic region, its ideology knows no boundaries. As a result, there will be an ongoing war with its neighbors. Here, too, the organization has brought nothing new. The two Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria did not resolve the borders of their states, and they were living in a state of constant conflict with their surroundings and with each other.

At its core, IS is no different — in terms of both its economic system and its oppressive and ideologically heavy-handed social policies — from the former Baathist regimes, or from Abdul Hamid II, the last of the “real” caliphs and the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire in the final decades preceding its collapse. History is repeating itself in the Middle East — the region will not experience a new farce, but rather an ongoing tragedy.

As for the 140,000 British pound salary being offered by IS, the British Daily Mail noted that while the amount may be high for the group, the same is not true for an international oil director with many qualifications.

Posted on 9 Dec 14 by al-Monitor

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33 other followers

%d bloggers like this: