StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

Anyone who reads this space knows that I’ve frequently made predictions. Those among you also know that at the predicted time, it is time to step back, reflect and recognize the validity of those predictions. On December 26, 2007 Austin Bay wrote, “Sometime within the next six months or so, al Qaeda or Saddamist terrorists will attempt a Tet offensive.” The article urged readers to believe that the jihadists sought to emulate the strategic political effects North Vietnam’s 1968 attack obtained.

Mr. Bay then went to draw an historic parallel between the peacewing of the Democratic party during the Civil War led by Clement Vallandigham to Senator Harry Reid (who Bay called “our era’s Vallandighams”). And further, Mr. Bay predicted that:

Their “ultimate Iraqi Tet” would feature simultaneous terror strikes in every major Iraqi city. These simultaneous strikes would inflict hideous civilian casualties with the goal of discrediting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s and General David Petraeus’ assessments that Iraqi internal security has improved. The terrorists would reduce Iraqi government buildings to rubble.

Well, I don’t want to be proven wrong by near term events, but given the “effectiveness” of the surge. there is reason to expect that no Iraqi Tet will occur (too soon at least). Of course, Bay bought himself a bit of leeway by then saying that the Election period in November would give al Qaeda, the jihad, the Islamic Fundamentalists etc. the opportunity to inflict “sensational carnage that even momentarily seeds the perception of defeat is their only chance of victory.”

But I’ll bet that Bay got his 10 votes within minutes…LOL And yes, I’ve had this article bookmarked since it first appeared simply to see if the bold prediction played out in reality.

Austin Bay, Terrorists Tet

2 Comments »

Enabling and promoting terrorism while supressing free speech is what the United Nations seems to be these days. In fact, the UN Human Rights Council not only frowns on speaking about jihad, terrorism and shariah law, but also is promoting the conspiracy theory that the Sept. 11 attacks were an “inside job.”

This is discussed at length here

The UNHRC ban on debate regarding Sharia came as a result of a three minute joint statement by the Association for World Education with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to the Human Rights Council on women’s rights and the impact of Sharia law. These NGOs sought to address international issues of violence against women, specifically, the stoning of women, “honor killings” of women, and female genital mutilation, as a result of Sharia law.

In more detail, the bozo (Richard Falk) who is the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories and investigates alleged Israeli violations of human rights law for the U.N.’s Human Rights Council also wants to investigate the World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies to determine if they were, in fact, an “inside job.”

…investigate whether “some sort of controlled explosion from within” destroyed the Twin Towers, he told FOXNews.com.

“I do think there are questions that haven’t been answered, questions about the way the buildings collapsed and the failure to heed a variety of signals that there was danger coming,” Falk said.

John Bolton comments that while this position may be “conventinal wisdom” among some delegations at the UN, Falk’s beliefs are “fruit cake city.”

The executive director of UN Watch, the NGO that watches the UN, Hillel Neuer has called for Falk’s removal.

“He should resign,” said Neuer, who raised concerns about Falk’s ability to be an objective observer. Neuer has also criticized Falk for being biased against Israel.

“If he were a principled person he would recognize the fact that he has very extreme views,” Neuer said.

I’ve said it many times in the past. The best use for the United Nations now is to through them out of the United States, make them relocate to the Hague, and then let Donald Trump devleop an entire community on the East River. That would also eliminate the persistent problem of diplomats parking illegally on the streets of Manhattan, blocking thru-traffic and ignoring the fines.

Hillel Neuer, Human Rights Council, John Bolton, UN Watch

No Comments »

Never ever forget that we are dealing with cold blooded killers who have co-opted Islam. Even when they are found “not guilty” of writing bad poetry, “these” people are dangerous.

NEFA has released a new slide presentation about a woman known as the “Lyrical Terrorist” Samina Malik, who along with Sohail Qureshi was accused of planning terrorism in Afghanistan and other places against coalition. Malik was prosecuted for possessing the documents, and not for her poetry. See Kohlmann’s post at Counterterrorism Blog.

Excerpt from “How to Behead” by Samina Malik
It’s not as messy or as hard as some may think.
It’s all about the flow of the wrist.
Sharpen the knife to its maximum.
And before you begin to cut the flesh.
Tilt the fool’s head to its left.
Saw the knife back and forth.
No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream.
But ignore the donkey’s ass.
And continue to slice back and forth.
You’ll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe.
But Don’t Stop.
Continue with all your might.
About now you should feel the knife vibrate.
You can feel the warm heat being given off.
But this is due to the friction being caused.

More of Malik’s poetry:
• In a poem titled “Raising Mujahideen Children,“ Malik suggested that indoctrination should begin at 7 years of age: “Show the children videos and pictures of mujahideen and tell them to become strong like them…Explain how the Mujahideen fear no man - they fear Allah alone, and for his sake they are able, willing and capable to do anything in defence of Islam.”
• In a poem titled “The Living Martyrs,” Malik wrote: “For the living martyrs are awakening and Kuffars [non-believers] world soon to be shaking.”
• She also wrote, “Let us make Jihad/ Move to the front line/ To chop chop head of kuffar swine,” as well as that “Kafirs your time will come soon, and no one will save you from your doom.
• Malik argued: “to partake in something and to write about something are two different things.” She continued, “this does not mean I wanted to convert my words into actions.” She even claimed she “did not realise there was such a thing as extremism.”
• Her defense team also drew parallels with the WWI poetry of Wilfred Owen: “Poetry can be described as disturbing, shocking, even repulsive. What is the intent? Is it to shock, to revolt? That in itself doesn’t make it criminal and it doesn’t help you to get into the mind of who has written it.”

And now for the “punch line.” While at first convicted, she was let go because the British courts rules that actions and not thoughts were illegal.

Lyrical Terrorist, Samina Malik

4 Comments »

If you read certain reports like this one, you might take the position that the War in Afghanistan against the Taliban is over (I like “brink of defeat” and “decapitated” - chuckle). Then there is the statement by Agha Lalai Wali, an official with the government-sponsored Peace and Reconciliation Commission in Kandahar who said, “The Taliban are getting stronger and stronger, and after they attacked the prison, that gave them higher morale.” How can that be?

Hundreds of Taliban fighters took control of seven villages in southern Afghanistan on Monday in what appeared to be a major offensive near the country’s second-largest city, according to Afghan officials.

Some people believe that the “sophisticated” and well planned jail break is an indication of the Taliban’s growing strength. IF the Taliban is losing the fight in Afghanistan, but moving to the Pakistani side of the Durand Line which in essence is a non-existent and arbitrary border between the two countries largely unrecognized by the mountain tribes, then I wonder who is actually winning or losing.

Kandahar jail break

No Comments »

OK, so I’m late posting on this ridiculous Supreme Court ruling, so I will keep it short. Jeffrey Imm on Counterterrorism Blog writes, “Don’t You Know There’s A War On?” Until this ruling, it was never considered that the Constitution covered foreign enemy combatants.

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ignores the reality that the U.S. Constitution was for American citizens, not foreign enemy combatants during wartime, by arrogantly demanding that “[t]he laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”(Justice Kennedy Majority Opinion, page 70).

The reality is that when this ruling was first announced, I had recently returned from another grueling business trip. In my moments of time, I sought sources that would detail any indication that even non-resident immigrants (legal) had Constitutional rights. While I am fairly certain that a lawyer or two among the readers here may chime in, I came across this dialog, Immigration Law: The Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens. I believe that this ruling is a sign of justice being blind. This time. however, blind to the realities that this War on Terrorism is a long war.

Jeff Imm’s post says it all…and makes the point better than any other writer I have seen on this subject. What I believe is that this ruling is likely to increase the battlefield deaths of enemy combatants. Kill of them! Kill them all!!! There are no rights on the battlefield…are there?  Check out the outrage here.

Constitutional rights, habeus corpus, Justice Kennedy, Supreme Court

No Comments »

EDITORIAL (Got Some Dissonance? Read it anyway)

For quite some time I have battled against the “blogospheric obsession” with Obama’s middle name. I’ve known that those who focused on his name and heritage did more harm than good, and that they were actually playing into the hands of the jihadists by amplifying the expected anti-Muslim sentiment. Yes, each and every one who insists on (falsely) highlighting Obama’s middle name, claiming that he is really a Muslim, or other shameless assertions, is helping the terrorist cause…(by the way, it is easy enough in my opinion to fight an Obama candidacy without resorting to racial and religious innuendo and falsehood).

In today’s Counterterrorism Blog entry by Evan Kohlmann (and yes “Virginia” he is an expert), makes it clear how much damage those people who insist on falsely accusing Barak Obama of being a Muslim or worse (as one blog post earlier today asserted - was the Manchurian Candidate) are actually doing (thank you Evan Kohlmann for your clarity).

Thus, the real terrorism-related problem here is how to deal with the long-term political fallout stemming from the ignorant and highly-polarized American portrayals of Islam unleashed during the context of the U.S. election, which are now inevitably being manipulated by Al-Qaida as propaganda fodder to recruit new sympathizers and terrorists. Even setting aside its obvious partisan bias, this form of reckless and irresponsible “scholarship” has no rightful place in the Christian Science Monitor nor, as Clark Hoyt rightly noted, on the New York Times Op-Ed page.

Kohlmann focuses his attention (actually ire if I may characterize his feelings) on two articles, President Apostate? from the NY Times Op-Ed page and Barack Obama – Muslim apostate? For Al Qaeda, the answer – and the implication – is clear. from the Christian Science Monitor

The problem, as Mr. Kohlmann points out, is that neither article is substantiated. A third articlecited by Kohlmann, also from the NY Times, makes it very clear that in referring to Obama (as President) as the “Apostate” is very, very wrong (headed). Clark Hoyt, the author of the third article (”Entitled to their Opinions, Yes. But Their Facts?”) spent the time to interview Muslim scholars (I am certain here, that those who have spent their blogging time making it clear that their opinion was that Obama was a Muslim, will now choose to dismiss these Muslim scholars)…and found that they all disagreed with Luttwak’s “opinion.”

So Hoyt’s conclusion is this: When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.

UPDATES:
NYT has second thoughts about “Sharia smear” on Obama

“The Times Op-Ed page, quite properly, is home to a lot of provocative opinions,” Hoyt wrote. “But all are supposed to be grounded on the bedrock of fact. Op-Ed writers are entitled to emphasize facts that support their arguments and minimize others that don’t. But they are not entitled to get the facts wrong or to so mangle them that they present a false picture.”

Where Facts are Made-Up

As a blogger, I’m hardly in a position to dispute Luttwak’s right to opine on matters about which he knows nothing. But if I were the editor of an op-ed page and I were interested in publishing a provocative opinion piece grounded in an interpretation of Islamic law, I would try to get a scholar of Islamic jurisprudence to write it.

Dear readers…if some of you have consistently harped on the unsubstantiated rumor that Barak Obama is a Muslim in hiding, and that he is somehow the “Manchurian Candidate,” I urge you to re-think your views (if that is within your capability and mental capacity). As far as I am concerned, Evan Kohlmann is an acknowledged expert in things relating to counterterrorism and the jihad. I read his material, and the material of others, as often as my time permits. Kohlmann has written in words far better and more pointed than I have been able to muster til now: “…the ignorant and highly-polarized American portrayals of Islam unleashed during the context of the U.S. election, which are now inevitably being manipulated by Al-Qaida as propaganda fodder to recruit new sympathizers and terrorists.” Yes, ignorant.

You are all, and have been, playing into the hands of the jihadists who want to prove just how anti-Muslim the United States is…so, all of you have been aiding and abetting the enemy. Expecting that Obama will declare himself the presumptive winner of the Democratic nomination for the Presidency (confirming my long held conviction that Hillary would not be the nominee - unless something major occurs to change the Obama-Clinton nomination race), it is now time to focus on defeating Obama on the policies and on the capabilities of leadership. Can you do that? Frankly, I doubt it very much.

apostasy, Clark Hoyt, Evan Kohlmann, Manchurian Candidate, Obama

4 Comments »

This is early, and the source is somewhat dubious since ABC has had a recent spate of “breaking news” blurts that diminishes the network to a “blogoburster,” but ABC is reporting that “officials familiar with highly sensitive intelligence on this issue,” that Iran and al Qaeda are in high level discussions. While questioning whether Iran will release bin Laden’s son’s (who are at the core of these discussions), the motives are unclear.

“The Iranians know there would be hell to pay if these guys were set free,” a U.S. official told ABC News.

“Iran likely sees these individuals, as major bargaining chips,” says another official. “How and when they’re going to use those chips or whether they are going to keep them in the bank is part of an ongoing strategic discussion they are having internally.”

Apparently, after September 11th, al Qaeda split into two groups, one heading to the mountains of Pakistan and the other, led by Saif al Adel (an Egyptian), went to Iran (Adel is suspected as the leader of the group that attacked the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 - the US State Department has put a $5 million bounty on his head). The group that fled to Iran is said to include al Qaeda’s shura (management council), and over 2 dozens members including some of bin Laden’s relatives, including two of his sons, Saad and Hamza.

“Al Qaeda would like to get those folks a deal and they’ve been trying to work a deal,” a senior defense official tells ABC News. “Right now there is greater effort being applied by al Qaeda to seek a resolution.” Although Iran has recently signaled a willingness to discuss the issue, this official says, “I don’t see the Iranian government desiring to work very fast or quickly on that. ”

AND

“Iran has repeatedly resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its AQ detainees to their countries of origin or third countries for interrogations or trial,” the report says. “Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.”

Motives behind these reported talks?
* Under one theory, the talks are a reaction to al Qaeda’s recent anti-Iranian rhetoric…Iran may be making an unspoken threat to al Qaeda’s leadership: If al Qaeda attempts to attack Iran, these people will suffer.

* Iran may have initiated the talks as a threat to the United States, that if the U.S. takes hostile action against Iran, these captives could be released, set free to plot attacks against the West.

Either way, I have an issue with the ABC statement: ABC News interviewed several high-level U.S. national security officials for this story. Because of the sensitive nature of intelligence on this subject, all spoke on the condition that their names not be used. We also asked the government of Iran to comment on this story. The spokesman for the Iranian Mission to the United States said he could not answer our specific questions but told us combating terrorism “remains one of the main Iranian political priorities.”

Also covered by the Right Truth in Iran Joining Forces with al Qaeda.

Frankly, I’ll be interested to see how this all plays out in the next few days.

ABC News, al Qaeda, Iran, Kenya and Tanzania bombings, Saif al Adel

2 Comments »

As I have before, I find myself in a sort of political “nowhere land” largely because despite what I believe in my heart, I also have a deep-seated distain for the type of personal attack politics that now pervades our society. On many issues, including the War in Iraq, I am strongly Republican (even though I feel that policy, strategy and tactical mistakes have been made). Yet when I voice my pro-choice belief, I am immediately challenged and branded a “librul.” It is clear that one is not afforded the opportunity (or privilege) of walking that thin-line in the American Middle.

There is nothing in either Democratic Party candidate that could prompt me to vote for them. Frankly, I am glad that John McCain, regardless of his flaws (aren’t we all flawed afterall?), is the candidate for the Republican Party (I am equally thrilled that a social, or “values” conservative is not the party’s nominee).

At the same time, it is impossible to maintain my views in World and National Affairs, focused on security both home and abroad, and not be appalled by this video compilation in which the Democratic Party leaders ask for what amounts to be a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

The road to democracy, our continuing quest to perfect an already perfect Union, remains a challenge each day. If not motivated solely by partisan politics, but in fact, driven by strongly held beliefs, these Democratics leaders are entitled to their opinions.

The reality is as former Secretary of State Powell noted…”we broke it, we need to fix it” (or something close to that). Leaving Iraq and abandoning the Middle East…in fact, abandoning the “fix the Middle East” strategy of the Bush Administration can only lead to the emboldening of those people who our State Department and Department of Homeland Security refuse to call what they are, Isalamic Fundamentalist Jihadists, exactly the opportunity they plan…a World power without the resolve to see through to the end an effort, regardless how flawed, poorly planned and implemented, or even falsely justified…and with that, the Long War of the Global War on Terrorism will be both longer, and more difficult to win.

Prevail we must…for the sake of our democracy, we must. And we will. Despite the character assassination, the inuendo, the gossip, the lies and falsehoods, the “swift boating” and all of the rest of the dirty, Internet inspired politics…we will emerge the day after this coming election day with a President who will have won the most Electoral votes, and as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, power will transfer, and the Nation shall prevail. In what state the World will be on that day, is a completely different question.

democracy, librul, McCain

2 Comments »

Last week, under the title Pre-emptive Assassinations, I posed once again the merits of targeted assassinations of certain individuals. At the time, I was writing about people like Ahmadinejad and Chavez, but it could also hold for our jihadist “friends.” I have long favored sending a “black” team into the mountains of Pakistan to hunt down and kill bin Laden (and wondered why we haven’t sent them). There are many reasons why this hasn’t occurred. The least likely is Presidential Executive Order 12333 prohibiting the killing of World leaders. Afterall, bin Laden isn’t the head of any nation. It also cannot be that we don’t have the reason or the will to do it. My own conclusion is that we actually don’t know where he is, despite all of our Intelligence. It is possible.

Just the other day, my blog buddy at Right Truth posted, Target — Osama? In one of the comments to that post, another new “blog friend” posed a few suggestions that, frankly, I do not understand (not that I don’t see what he’s getting at, but more, that I’m not aware of the technology to which the individual refers). This is what he wrote (referring to the Waziristan Accords between Pakistan and the Taliban/tribes):

However, once the accord was established, it meant that we could walk into that region and take out OBL, but it never happened. We passed up a unique window of opportunity.

Given today’s GPS technologies and the ability to place a “beeper” inside a living body cavity, I am certain that they know the exact whereabouts of bin Laden. Maybe they’re just too concerned they might botch things up as usual. Why they never released an al-Qaida prisoner from GTMO, but infused a sensor inside his body is beyond me.

That might have allowed for easy detection, as the ex-prisoner would lead us directly to bin Laden, thus us being able to capture him alive, perhaps.

Now, without disclosure, and for alot of reasons, these suggestions “do not compute” for me (see “Lost in Space“). So I posed a couple of questions to the original commenter. Unfortunately, Right Truth is a busy place, and the individual did not see my queries. So, in case he “happens by” here at some point, I now reproduce those questions (because I really do want to know and be informed):

I am hoping that he will return at some point and provide some insight into the idea of our “ability to place a beeper inside a living body” (that would have to be done covertly)…or how we can “infuse a sensor” into bin Laden’s body. I only ask because I’m interested in such things

I’m not as certain as he is that we know the exact location of Osama. As for “infusing a sensor,” I’d be fascinated to know what technology we’re discussing here.

So, hopefully, with this blogs slower traffic, perhaps I will be illuminated.

bin Laden, targeted assassinations

No Comments »

Its a good thing that I’ve been busy all day and ignored some of the earlier trash about this story. En garde! Despite some reports to the contrary from some of the usual suspects like Drudge, a scary report about an al Qaeda tape threatening a WMD attack has been declared a prank and a hoax.

The headlines, splashed across The Drudge Report, ABC News and other major news sites last night, were scary indeed:

AL QAEDA TAPE TO CALL FOR USE OF WMD

According to the reports, the tape urged jihadists to use “biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to attack the West,” and a quote from an official source followed, adding further credibility:

“There have been several reports that al Qaeda will release a new message calling for the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against civilians,” FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told ABC News in an e-mail.

Luckily, Evan Kohlmann posted a prompt dismissal of this as a hoax. From the Counterterrorism Blog:

For the record: there is no indication whatsoever that Al-Qaida’s As-Sahab Media Foundation is preparing to release anything in the next 24 hours. There has been no notification posted on the usual channels, there are no glitzy advertisements, and there is no credible electronic chatter, period. Rather, the intel community appears to have (once again) fallen victim to poorly researched open source news reporting. In recent days, several fringe media organizations have published stories about a video recording posted by anonymous Al-Qaida miscreants on extremist Internet chat forums. The video consisted of a remarkably amateurish mash-up of Discovery Channel documentaries, widely published sermons by radical clerics, and stolen propaganda footage. While it is perhaps true that the video offered subtle encouragement for nuclear attacks on the United States, it featured no original content and could have been clumsily strung together with little more than two VCRs. The video was meandering, boring, and difficult to follow–and it certainly was not the product of Al-Qaida.

Further debunking of the Nuclear Jihad Web Threat is found here.

al Qaeda, nuclear jihad, WMD hoax

No Comments »

Is this a scramble to avoid accountability or a parsing of words?  Seems that the “supreme guide” of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, had some 2nd thoughts.  At first, it sounded like he was praising bin Laden, but then he tried to “swallow his words.” It is clearly a question of the meaning of “jihad.”

Mr. Mahdi Akef tried to water down his statements in which he had praised Bin Laden and thus justified it by saying, “what Bin Laden is doing against the occupier in Iraq and other Muslim countries that are under occupation is jihad, but what he is committing against people and civilians in Muslim and other states is wrong.”

The question is: Are the acts that Al-Qaeda is committing in Iraq; the killing, treachery and entrapment of people, including the physically ill, women and children; the beheadings and targeting of markets, schools and houses of worship, not to mention the demolition of installations and the crippling of the political process in Iraq – be considered jihad? Can the crimes that Al-Qaeda commits in Afghanistan be considered jihad?

Alas, “bin Akef” is caught in his own words…backtracking is so hard to do…Even his subsequent statements denying that he praised al Qaeda make it hard(er) for him to justify…

Akif said: “We (the Brotherhood) have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden… we are against violence except when fighting the occupier…When he (Bin Laden) fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, and when he attacks civilians, then this is rejected.” He added that “the word Al-Qaeda (Organization) is an American illusion…Bin Laden has a thought …his thought is based on violence, and we do not approve of violence under any circumstances except one and that is fighting an occupier. We have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden…we condemn any thought that leads to violence. When Bin Laden fights the occupier then he is a mujahid, when he attacks the innocent and citizens then this is rejected.”

But he draws a very thin line, differentiating between the “occupier” and the people of the “occupied” land. Such is the conflict that exists in today’s Muslim world. Caught between speaking out against America, and not looking like it supports the violence and bloodshed brought upon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in al Qaeda’s efforts to fight the Coalition.

al Qaeda, bin Akif, Muslim Brotherhood

No Comments »

Aside from having been wrong (for a number of reasons revealed below), I was unwilling to believe that the U.S. would cave to the likes of CAIR and Muslim Public Affairs Committee and ban the use of “Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad” (and other variants) from the GWOT Thesauraus. In reality, however, the DHS, the State Dept. and others have mandated the elimination of words describing the callous and cowardly barbarous al Qaeda mujahadeen who appropriated Islam for their inhumanity, to quell the concern of moderate Muslims that using such language confused the true meaning of those terms as used in secular Islam.

Thanks to Steve Emerson’s IPT, the government documents detailing this change are offered here and here. Maybe even more to the point, the Muslim proponents of this change, also reject the use of the word “moderate” to describe themselves, and instead wish to be referred to as “mainstream” or “traditional.”

Various Muslim groups including the MPAC praised these changes.  But MPAC accepts, not isolates terrorists.  In fact, MPAC differentiates between such groups as Hezbollah and Hamas, and the more dastardly al Qaeda by saying that “Hezbollah and Hamas are distinct in methods, motivations and goals from Al Qaeda.” Hamas and Hezbollah work to the elimination of Israel. And their use of suicide attacks and other indiscriminant killing tools of terrorism are not unlike those used by al Qaeda.

Arab states question Washington’s list of designated pro-Palestinian groups and humanitarian organizations. It is clear that the current terrorist threat to the US emanates from Al-Qaeda and not Palestinian groups. There is no evidence that Palestinian groups designated as terrorist organizations have any connections to Al-Qaeda. Yet the preoccupation with these groups raises the question as to whether targeting Palestinian groups serves true national security interests or is based on political considerations.

Certainly expressed better than I by IPT, the issue is clear…in an effort to satisfy the still fearful and quiet “mainstream” or moderate Muslim community in the U.S., where Islam remains a minority, the U.S. agrees to blur the distinction between the politically correct, and the literally obvious. In quoting M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, IPT raises the spectre that the suggested changes could diminish American understanding of the ideological motivations behind those who threaten our security…and also ignores that in Muslim majority nations the radicals call themselves Muslims, Islamists, and Jihadists in Arabic and every other language with little time spent admonishing society not to call them what they call themselves.

Of course, it is interesting that in Europe, we have such articles as Today’s Islamist radicalization in Spain. Just the subhead says it all: “The protecting the safety of Spanish citizens should override the fear of sacrificing human rights, writes Carlos Echeverría Jesús for Strategic Studies Group.”

The Spanish jail population with ties to Salafist jihadism continues to grow. Because of this, it is even more urgent to prevent radicalization among the relatives and friends of terrorists. With their friends and family imprisoned, it is likely they will feel victimized and attempt to carry on the terrorist work. It is necessary to assume that the Muslim population as a whole, especially its youth, will feel besieged or marginalized as a community by Christians. It is imperative that the public powers try to change this.

The establishment of the Salafist jihadist ideology or any other variety of radical Islamism must be prevented. The way to do so is to filter the access to these messages by both young and old.

It is also interesting that in this article from Bloomberg, Al-Qaeda’s Recruitment Efforts Intensify in Europe, the word “Islamist” is used to refer to the U.S. and coalition efforts in Afghanistan.

A further, direct quote from IPT’s dialog with Jasser:

Certainly pious loyal American Muslims will be frustrated with the inappropriate use of the name of Islam and ‘jihad’ in the militant causes by these radicals around the world. But that frustration should be directed toward frontal Muslim anti-Islamist and anti-militant causes and movements. Denying that considerable movements of radical Muslims exist around the world which exploit our religion and truly believe that their barbarism is ‘jihad’ will only empower them more and delay the inevitable conflict within our faith community over “whose Islam, which Islam”. For the USG to paternally dismiss the self-described nomenclature of ‘jihadists’ and “Islamists” is to in fact embark into a realm which really is an internal struggle within the consciousness of the Muslim community. We should call the terrorists what they call themselves. Once any Muslim, let alone non-Muslims, begins to determine who is and who is not qualified to define ‘jihad’, ‘Muslim’, or ‘Islam’ they are creating a clergy and a ‘church’ with a communication and excommunication process. That is exactly what the likes of Bin Laden and other radical Islamists want.

To parrot the phrase, yes, “words matter.” But in its fear to offend the “mainstream American Muslim” by using such words as “mujahadeen,” “jihadist,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” or simply, “Islamist,” the government removed a tool, words to describe, the very blight that bin Laden and al Qaeda has perpetrated on World society.

On Why I Denied
1- my unwillingness to believe such political correctness could win out
2- the rush to scoop inherent in the Internet and the quoting of an undisclosed “reliable source.”
3- the spreading like wildfire of Internet scoops that take on their own lives, even if/when proven false.
4- no excuse, but I’m very busy (busier than I could have ever imagined) and my tolerance for unsupported claims is thin.

I am not the USG, nor do I work for it. Thus, those who follow bin Laden and his offshoots are forever Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadis. How about towel-headed animals.

al Qaeda, CAIR, Islamist, jihadist, mujahadeen, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, words matter

7 Comments »

Has al Qaeda been “lured” back into Baghdad because of the recent bombings in Sunni areas? With the attention drawn to al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, it appears possible that AQI has returned. This happens as the Iraqi forces remain focused on the Mahdi.

Pointing to the bombings last weekend, the fear is that AQI has returned.

Now, some observers fear Sunni insurgents allied with al-Qaeda may seek to capitalize on the situation by wreaking havoc in other neighborhoods where U.S. and Iraqi forces are paying less attention. Last month, American troops found a letter in a farmhouse northwest of Baghdad, purportedly signed by an al-Qaeda operative, which called on insurgents to sow disunity among the nation’s Sunni fighters who have begun working with the Americans.

Apparently using a new tactic of tandem events, if this is AQI, they are drawing crowds of people to the first incident, like the recent assassination style killing of a shopkeeper and his son, and then exploding the bomb.

“These attacks are evidence that al-Qaeda is still a very large threat,” Rear Admiral Patrick Driscoll, a spokesman for the multi-national forces in Iraq, said Sunday, “We are continuously very closely focused on al-Qaeda.”

I may well be swimming against the stream of the happy talk right on this one. The question could well be whether AQI ever really left. The question may still remain if even American presence in Baghdad and the region, whether the Sunni/Shi’a conflict will be quelled, or if it remains the festering boil that it has always been.

al Qaeda in Iraq, AQI

No Comments »

Hamid Karzai has once again escaped assassination today when Taliban insurgents sent mortar fire and bullets at a spectator stand where he was speaking. This occurs within hours of his declaration that the U.S. should “leave the Taliban alone.” One person died and 11 were injured. There have been atlleast 3 earlier attempts to kill him - this is the first time an attempt was made in Kabul.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack and said that it had disrupted the ceremony to show that it could carry out an attack anywhere in Afghanistan. “We cannot say Afghanistan is free. Afghanistan is still under the domination of infidels. This ceremony being held by Mujahadeen is baseless,” Zabiullah Mujahed, a Taliban spokesman, said when contacted by telephone.

Note the use of the word “mujahadeen.” But for the counterpoint, we have Karzai deriding the U.S. and the U.K. to let him deal with the Taliban. So here, thanks to the BBC, are pictures of the attack. I’m certain that there are people smarter than me who disagree about the tenuous condition of the Afghan government. Just as I am sure that some people will argue that Karzai was not the target and that the Taliban (or some other group of “baddies” were simply trying to disrupt the ceremony (celebrating 16 years since Kabul was taken from the Soviet-led government), but “whatevah!”

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has called on British and American troops to stop arresting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, saying that their operations undermined his government’s authority and were counter-productive.

I still want Karzai in the World leader death pool (with the over/under).

assassination, Karzai, mujahadeen, Taliban, World Leader death pool

No Comments »

I WAS WRONG. GAME, SET MATCH.

It is spreading like wild fire. Didn’t ya hear? The words “jihad” and “jihadist” have been banned from use by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Its not in any news blurb…its not announced on the State Department website. It has been posted by one blog and then repeated, and repeated and repeated etc. Even by some bloggers of “some repute.” I also note that while it may not be a subject that would normally be covered, websites like Counterterrorism Blog, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Doug Farah, Evan Kohlmann, Powerline, Bill Roggio (Long War), StrataSphere, Small Wars Journal, BlackFive, and others of that level mention nothing about this “ban.” Perhaps later on in the day??? It is also not shown on the State Department website. There is currently no substantiation of this claim.

A reliable source has informed me that Condoleeza Rice has approved a new lexicon for State Department usage, absolutely forbidding the use of the terms “jihad” and “jihadist” by any State Department official.

[:]

I will publish more information on this when possible.

The “I” is not me, Stormwarning (the “I” refers to the originator of the information). But publish more information indeed…when possible, of course. The reliable source isn’t named. The origin of the “information” isn’t verified.

Previous post on StormBlog: Double Speak and the Lunacy of Language and The War on Terror - Facing Reality.

I don’t know about you, but I’m involved in an early morning conference call in which the term GWOT was used yesterday and will be used today.  Its the “war of words” versus the reality of the War on Terrorism against the Global Jihad.

As always and as is my practice, when (if) corroboration of this “report” is shown, I will eat my words. In fact, I might actually give up blogging if my name isn’t StormWarning (really? - well, maybe).

jihad, jihadist, lexicon, U.S. State Department

7 Comments »