Investment

» rasputin - Jihad

--

I've been doing some studying of jihad and jihadists and I've found some interesting material on the history and nature of jihad. So, I figured I'd share some of the references. Perfect reading for the poiltics junkie and those who want to know what we in the West are facing.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals...

Here's a link to testimony by one of my favorite terrorism analysts, Walid Phares. He appeared before the U.S. House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/09/...

"Future Jihad" by Walid Phares

Good interview with Steve Emerson from Journal of Counterterrorism.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-res...

Plus this. It's long, but it's cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHGK3qTdI...

-- posted by rasputin

» rasputin - Walid Phares on Hezbollah

--

This is a bit dated but still relevant, instructive and seemingly prescient.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Expert: Iran Poised to Be 'Mother of All World Threats'
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Friday, Aug. 11, 2006
WASHINGTON – For anyone who still thinks the Israeli-Lebanon war is just a border scuffle, one Middle East expert shouts a dire warning:

"As soon as a cease-fire occurs, the 'Hezbollah Blitzkrieg' will crumble the 'Lebanese Republic of Weimar' and install its own 'Khumeinist Republic' on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. The consequences of such a development are far beyond imagination for the region and the world. Hezbollah would have paved the way for Iran to create the mother of all world threats since Hitler."

So cautions Professor Walid Phares, author of "Future Jihad," a visiting fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy in Brussels and a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C.

In an exclusive interview with NewsMax, the Lebanese-born Phares likens the current Hezbollah offensive in Lebanon to a "putsch" – with the convoluted aims of re-establishing a pro-Syrian-Iranian regime in Lebanon, reconstructing a third wing to the Tehran-Damascus axis, re-animating the Arab-Israeli conflict, rejuvenating Syrian dominance, isolating Jordan, reaching out to Hamas, crumbling Iraq, and unleashing Iran's nuclear programs.

The author also sees half-measures and premature truces as catalysts to even bloodier future conflicts:

"If Israel takes 40 kilometers [into the southern belly of Lebanon] and sits, Hezbollah and its allies will take the rest of the country and eliminate the Cedars Revolution [the Lebanese democracy movement]. That is a certainty. Then the two camps will clash in a wider war in few more months."

As a corollary, however, the expert advises that if Israel gets even more aggressive and moves instead through the Bekaa (a fertile valley in Lebanon and Syria, located about 19 miles east of Beirut), it would shut down the Syrian-Lebanese borders (a major supply line for war materials flowing to Hezbollah).

But such a definitive move, says the author, would bring Syria into the conflict, and Israel would then have to engage the Assad regime (Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria).

Meanwhile, Phares suggests, under the scenario outlined above, Iran would not sit still but would intervene in a more covert way than has been seen thus far.

However, he advises, Iran doesn't have a land passage to Syria, so it would strike back by igniting an "intifada" in Iraq.

"But this will put Iran on the path of the U.S. coalition, leading the region to global confrontations," Phares predicts. "Israel could also reach the Syrian borders, but instead of a war with Damascus, Assad would accept a MNF [Multi-National Force] at this time to save his regime, which sounds the most realistic."

Phares then projects that a MNF in control of the borders would isolate Hezbollah from Syria and Iran – enabling a new Lebanese army to slowly take back control of the country, leading Israel to withdraw behind the borders.

Neighboring Jordan will try to remain neutral – unless Iranian forces try to link up with Syria via Iraq, says Phares. Jordan, he adds, will in the end most likely side with NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

For its part, Egypt will face increasing domestic Jihadism but will refrain from cross-border activities, he predicts.

The Risk of an Explosion

The author forecasts some bad outcomes.

If the Lebanon conflict persists too long or if Hezbollah takes over, Jihadi forces in Jordan and Egypt will explode, he predicts.

"In short, if Lebanon falls to Jihadism, all Arab countries will experience similar moves. If the free-Lebanese regain control, democracy forces will move forward in the region. It is a geopolitical crossroad," Phares says.

Phares emphasizes that the old parameters of a "buffer zone" don't work anymore.

He sees as the key for everyone in the region finding security, stability, freedom, and eventually peace – the stopping of the flow of weapons and support from Iran to Hezbollah.

"Israel can establish all the security zones," Phares instructs, "the U.S. and the U.N. can issue all the resolutions, and the Lebanese army can be sent to any area – as long as the Lebanese-Syrian borders are open between the Assad regime and Nasrallah's [Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the current secretary-general of the Lebanese Islamist party Hezbollah] militia, the war will go on."

The Issue of the Lebanese Army

Along with reciting the reams of regional history necessary to understand the origins of the quagmire, Phares tells NewsMax what he sees as intriguing subplots, including a draconian one to rid Hezbollah of the Lebanese army.

The author argues that no changes were made inside the Lebanese army to bring it in harmony with the Cedars Revolution (discussed below).

"So, what you have there is an army of which 80 percent of its officer corps and about 65 percent of its ranks dislike the Baathists, Iranians and Hezbollah – but it is still chained to a pro-Syrian president and paralyzed by [Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad] Seniora's unwillingness to disarm Hezbollah."

But despite the mixed allegiances of the Lebanese army, Hezballoh still wants it out of the way.

Phares opines that Nasrallah wants to move units of the Lebanese army southbound. Hezbollah would then trigger yet more violence with Israel, leading to the latter having to take on the whole Lebanese army.

"Nasrallah is pushing Siniora to send the army to southern Lebanon to be slaughtered," says Phares. "He wants Israel to destroy the Lebanese army – the institution which in the long term could dismantle the deep terror roots of Hezbollah, once a multinational force deploys and all borders are secured."

Phares pauses for a moment in his analysis of what could come to pass in the near term and looks out to a distant and perhaps hopeful future:

"If democracies allow Jihadism to crush the civil societies of the region, it would take at least two generations to begin another democratic revolution in the Middle East," the author opines. "So, by the end of this century, in this case, you have two scenarios: either bloody war in the region, with greater genocide than ever – and also possibly a number of nuclear blast spots ...

"However, if the international community focuses on assisting the peoples of the region to get rid of the Jihadi-fascism and the remnants of Baathism, in one hundred years you'll be able to ski in Lebanon, enjoy pastries in Damascus, and watch the clever female prime minister of Iran discussing environment issues with her colleague in Afghanistan.

"Jihadists would be looked at as the weird small fractions in the secular multiparty parliaments of the region who are still arguing how they lost the opportunity to re-establish a caliphate in the early century ..."

Lost Horizons

But whether the international community rises to its finest hour remains to be seen, says Phares.

Look back at the Cedar Revolution, he suggests.

The so-called Cedar Revolution was the chain of demonstrations and popular civic action in Lebanon triggered by the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on February 14, 2005.

Following the demonstrations, Syrian troops completely withdrew from Lebanon on April 27, 2005. The pro-Syrian government was also disbanded. History in the region since that time has been defined mostly by Hezbollah wanting to undo the progress toward democracy.

Since the Cedars Revolution, says Phares, no single event has shown the international community greater expression from Lebanon. And that is what Hassan Nasrallah wants to destroy, he maintains.

"His [Nasrallah's] real war waged at his own timing against Israel aims in fact at destroying the Cedar Revolution, the single most dangerous popular resistance against terrorism in the history of Lebanon and the region," argues the scholar.

Continuing, the author says: "The U.S. and Europe loved the images of youth and women chanting freedom in Beirut for many days and thought this was Eastern Europe all over again. They were right, but they missed the point.

"These masses were desperately calling on the international community for help. 'We showed you that we want freedom despite the threats of the most oppressive regimes (Syria and Iran) and of a terrorist organization; we've displayed all the courage of the world, alone and without weapons, responding to the calls of spreading democracy,' said the leaders of the Cedar Revolution's NGOs [non-governmental organizations]."

Poignantly, Phares says that the people of Lebanon were begging, in fact, "Now come and protect us – at least as you did for the Afghan and Iraqi voters."

Meanwhile, the author says, Hezbollah and its masters were watching the Western response: "Lots of celebrations and powerful speeches on both sides of the Atlantic. But inside Lebanon, the old wolves were back to work."

The long story short, says the expert: Syria, Iran and Hezbollah outmaneuvered the Lebanese politicians, as well as the West, by, among other things, keeping pro-Syrian Emile Jamil Lahoud, president of the Republic of Lebanon, at the helm.

"It was terrible how the Lebanese politicians lost all the opportunities provided by the Cedar Revolution," laments Phares, "but it is worse that the bureaucrats in the U.S. and Europe didn't understand what Hezbollah was doing."

Phares says he regrets that no one policy regarding the Cedar Revolution was ever put forth. Billions of dollars were spent on the War of Ideas and Iraq while requests by Lebanese NGOs, small media and civil society groups ready to resume the Cedar Revolution were left unheard, he adds.

Roots of Crisis

Phares argues that Washington and Brussels relied too much on a Lebanese Cabinet that had been penetrated by Hezbollah.

"How can you have U.S. officials sitting with the Lebanese Cabinet in the presence of Hezbollah ministers and talk about the Lebanese army disarming this organization? The naivete with which Hezbollah's offensive was dealt with is stunning."

-- posted by rasputin

» rasputin - More from Phares on Jihad

--

Phares and Bahbudi in the Washington Post: "The Axis of Jihadism"
By Op Ed
Aug 30, 2006, 18:16

LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ON THE AXIS OF JIHADISM

Behrooz Bahbudi and Walid Phares

The Washington Post

Because for 11 years years, the American public wasn’t informed about the threat that lead to September 11 and because the classrooms and newsrooms of the United States were not educated enough about the global threat of “Jihadism,” we feel it is incumbent on individual citizens to educate themselves about this danger and mobilize to prevent a Future Jihad looming around the world and at home. It is important that American citizens understand who the “Jihadists” are, what they want to
achieve, and how they are proceeding. Without this knowledge, the American public will be unable to be
part of the political debate about national security and the War on Terror. And if deprived from the support of an informed public, the US Government, now and in the future, cannot sustain difficult decisions pertaining to the defeat of the Terrorist enemy.

The ideology of the Terrorists: Jihadism

American and other democratic societies around the world, including Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hin du,
Muslim and other, have been subjected to an international ideological campaign by the ”Jihadists” who
aim to bring about a worldwide domination, that is the creation of a totalitarian global regime, similar to
the Taliban. Their ideology opposes Democracy, Pluralism, Secularism, and is a direct threat to Peace.
“Jihadism” rejects international law as we know it, the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, most governments around the world, women’s rights as agreed on in modern times, free
arts and expression, and any interpretation of the universe, history, and values other than their ow n.
“Jihadism” discriminates against all humans who do not abide by their vision. It calls them “Kuffars ”
(Infidels). This ideology prescribes violence against the “Infidels” should they be Christians, Jews ,
Hindus, Muslims or others; it calls for a global warfare against all who oppose them; and it terms t his war
“Jihad”. Hence, this ideology, in its various forms and expressions, is against international law and
should be banned by the international community.

Jihadists: The Two Forces

There are two major “trees” of Jihadism: The Salafists and the Khumeinists. The Salafists, influenced by
the radical Wahabis and the “Muslim Brotherhood” call for the removal of the current Arab and Muslim
Governments and their replacement by a worldwide power they call “Caliphate.” The Salafist movement
produced al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world and identifies itself as “The International Sa lafi
Jihadi Movement.” It is omnipresent in the Muslim world and has a significant presence inside democracies worldwide. The Salafi Jihadists established the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This was the model they wished to multiply around the globe. The Khumeinists are the Jihadist followers of the teachings of Iranian Ayatollah Ruhallah Khumeini. They have established what they call an “Islamic Republic” in Iran and have funded movements, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranian Regime
oppresses its own peoples and seeks regional and world expansion through Terrorism and Nuclear threat.

Axis of Jihadism

Each of the two “Jihadi” blocs has its own strategy and area of action: al Qaeda and the Salafists h ave
infiltrated many countries and penetrated some government institutions in the Muslim world. They have
also established cells within Western and other democracies. The Khumeinist Jihadists have full cont rol
of Iran’s regime and created an axis of terror in the Middle East, including the Baathist regime of Syria
and Hezbollah. Both powers aim at crumbling America, undermining democracies and repressing freedoms in the Arab and Muslim world. Although with different long-term goals, the Jihadi Salafists and Khumeinists have converging interests against common enemies: democracies. In many places and on different occasions the two blocs of Jihadism have established interim alliances: the regimes in Iran,Syria and Sudan and the organizations of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah,Islamic Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya, and many others have cooperated: against democracies and civil societies, they have formed an axis of Jihadism.
This is what the American public and civil societies around the world are up against since the 1990s. The victims of Jihadism belong to all ethnicities and religions: from the Muslim Sunni civilians in Algeria, the
black Africans in Sudan, the Copts of Egypt, Shiites and Kurds of Iraq, Christians and others in Lebanon, innocents in Indonesia, Iran, to the societies of Russia, Argentina, India, Europe and the United States. In short, humanity is under attack by Jihadism.

The American people must learn more about the ideological movement that is waging war against them. The American public must ask the U.S. Congress to investigate Jihadism.

Dr Behrooz Bahbudi
President, Global Unity Partnership. US citizen born in Tehran, educated in Iran, Australia, Canada and the US. Advocate for Democracy in the Greater Middle East

Dr Walid Phares
Senior fellow, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
Professor of Middle East Studies

© Copyright 2003 by YourSITE.com

-- posted by rasputin

» rasputin - Hezbollah recruiting Shi'ite youth

--

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n...

-- posted by rasputin

» Normxxx - Sept. 11 Attack Econ Drag

Sept. 11 Attacks Drag on the World Economy Today: Kevin Hassett

By Kevin Hassett | 14 September 2006

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg)— The painful human costs of the 9/11 attacks are on our minds today as we mark the fifth anniversary of that terrible day. There were economic costs as well. What would the world economy look like if Sept. 11 never happened?

The attacks changed it in two distinct ways.

First, there was significant and immediate damage back in 2001. The closing of America's borders, the halt of international travel, and the CNN-effect on consumer spending sent growth into a nosedive that September. That gloomy month contributed to one of the worst third quarters in years, with U.S. gross domestic product declining 1.4 percent.

In retrospect, it seems clear that the U.S. wouldn't have had an official recession that year since there might have only been one quarter of negative GDP growth in 2001, the first.

Following the chain of events forward, the Federal Reserve aggressively reduced interest rates to levels not seen since the 1950s and held them low for some time. As spending by businesses plummeted, housing demand was stimulated by the low interest rates, keeping the economy afloat.

Looking back, it seems likely that we might be talking less of a collapsing housing bubble today if 9/11 had never happened.

Just as significant has been the intangible damage to the economy. The attacks taught the world that the risk to all of us is much higher than we believed. That realization has made market participants a great deal more risk averse.

That increased risk aversion has driven up the prices of assets that are perceived to be safe and depressed those of assets that may be more exposed to a sharp decline if another terrorist attack occurs. In this way, the intangible damage leads to visible symptoms.

Asset Prices

This has helped boost the price of gold and other commodities, as well as of government bonds. The yield on the 10— year U.S. Treasury, which closed at 4.77 percent on Sept. 8, is about three-quarters of a percentage point lower than in June 2001.

Given that the economic-growth and inflation rates are both higher than they were back then, we might well expect interest rates today to be as much as a percentage point higher than they now are. Flight to safety because of fears of terrorism probably explains much of the difference.

The avoidance of volatility is also seen in stock valuations. The price-to-earnings ratio of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index spent the first two years of this millennium ranging from 23 to 40. Last week, that ratio was about 17.

Again, it is likely that a good bit of that change is attributable to risk aversion that was heightened by 9/11. The index would have to rise 37 percent to reach the lowest P/E level in the two years before the terrorist attacks.

[ Normxxx Here: But earnings are also at record highs. And as earnings rates rise to the top of the channel (and exceed it), P/E ratios go down. ]

Middle East

Equally significant may be the impact of the attacks on the events in and economies of the Middle East.

Many Middle East nations share a common trait in their relative political oppression. Indeed, they rank among the least politically free countries in the world, according to the annual World Freedom survey conducted by Freedom House, a nonprofit organization that tracks the spread of freedom throughout the world. The survey ranks countries by political and civil freedom on a scale of one to seven, with one being the most free and seven the least. For context, the average world rating for both measures of freedom is about three, or closer to free than not.

Saudi Arabia, home to most of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, received a rating of seven for both political and civil freedoms, a distinction they share with only six other countries, including North Korea and Sudan.

Freedom Rankings

According to the Index of Economic Freedom, published by the Heritage Foundation, these nations differ in economic freedom as well. Ranked on a scale from one to five, with a lower score representing greater freedom, half of the nations examined were freer than the world average, while half were less free. Iran, for example, received a score of 4.5, the second worst in the index, while Jordan received 2.8, a score reflecting a freer economy than the world average of 2.98.

By comparison, Hong Kong was ranked as the freest economy in the world with a score of 1.28, while the U.S. was tied for eighth at 1.84.

There is ample evidence that the lack of freedom undermines economic growth, and the miserable standard of living in most Muslim-dominated Middle Eastern countries can be attributed to their position in these rankings. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund recently released a careful analysis of the Arab growth deficit. Except for oil, things look very bad indeed.

Immune to Freedom

Compare that with the rest of the world. The past few decades have seen an enormous spread of freedom across the globe, from Asia to the former Soviet Union, and with that freedom has come striking improvement in economic wellbeing. The Middle East continues to be more or less immune to these forces.

The decline of totalitarian regimes elsewhere in the world suggests that their existence is perilous at best. The world's citizens prefer freedom. Osama bin Laden has doubtlessly had a negative effect on the spread of economic freedom. His radical agenda gave repressive regimes in the Middle East an excuse to tighten their grips on power, thwarting the spread of liberty that has brought prosperity to so many other regions of the world.

[ Normxxx Here: And not just fear of OBL; a move to loosen the screws (under Carter) helped mightily in giving us modern day Iran. Deposing SH has given us a tripartite civil war in Iraq (of which we were well warned in advance), and destabilized the whole ME— even Turkey is poised to move quickly to seize Iraqi Kurdistan, if Iraq falls completely apart (and Iran gets two-thirds of the rest). Hezbollah and Syria, and Hamas and the Palestinians, are arming to dispose of Israel 'once and for all,' when Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites (fully backed by the Arab 'street' throughout the ME). Even the current Iraqi 'government' is on record as backing Iran's 'right' to nuclear sites. ]

That leads to the final point. Regardless of the damage Bin Laden inflicted on western economies with his heinous attacks, the harm he has done to the standard of living of the Muslims throughout the Middle East is far worse.

If 9/11 had never occurred, we would all be better off,

[ Normxxx Here: By something considerably north of $1 Trillion, worldwide. ]

but the biggest economic winners might have been the world's Muslims.

[ Normxxx Here: But, do they really care? ]

(Kevin Hassett is director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.)

-- posted by Normxxx

» bob90245 - Expert: No peace with Muslims, ever

Expert: No peace with Muslims, ever

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...

Ynetnews.com ^ | Published: 09.14.06, 16:38 | Yaakov Lappin
.
Professor Moshe Sharon tells counter-terrorism conference Iran's regime is seeking Armageddon, says no peace ever possible with Muslim world
.
The Iranian government is seeking nuclear weapons in order to bring about an apocalypse, Professor Moshe Sharon, a professor of Islamic studies from the Hebrew University, told the annual conference at the Counter-Terrorism Institute in Herzliya Thursday.
.
Iranian president says nuclear standoff with West can be resolved peacefully; adds: ‘there is no need for UN sanctions against his country; US should moderate its language’
.
Sharon said there was "no possibility of peace between Israel and the Palestinians whatsoever, for ever," since the Arab and Islamic world viewed the establishment of Israel as a "reversal of history," and would never accept Israel .
.
He described peace agreements with Arab Muslim states as "pieces of paper, parts of tactics, strategies," adding that they have "no meaning."
.
"The root of the problem between us and the Arab world is Islam. Islam is not only a religion. It is a culture, politics… a state, Islam is everything. It has been like this, and it will be like this for the foreseeable future," Sharon said.
.
"Islam is a messianic religion… from the very beginning, it talked about the end of the world," Sharon said. In Islam, "Allah is the king of the end of days," Sharon explained, before addressing the Shiite Islam guiding Iran .
.
According to Sharon, the Iranian regime genuinely believes that the Shiite messiah, the twelfth Imam (also known as the Mahdi), "is here. And he will come. And first, he will establish the Shiite house of Ali. This is a time of messianic expectation."
.
"What moves today the Iranian government, prime minister, is first and foremost the wish to bring about the twelfth Imam." The power of the ayatollahs in Iran came from the grassroots and popular belief that they can "contact the Mahdi. Everybody believes," Sharon said.
.
'Nuclear weapons for apocalypse'
.
"How will they bring him? By an apocalypse. He (the Mahdi) needs a war. He cannot come into this world without an Armageddon. He wants an Armageddon. The earlier we understand, the better. Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons for this," Sharon declared.
.
Israel was a side issue for Iran, the professor said, adding that Iran was using Israel as a means "to enter the Islamic world" and dominate it. "But they cannot bluff the Saudis, the Wahabbis… the Shiite are hated by the Sunnis. The Saudis are far more apprehensive of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran than Israel," he said.
.
Speaking to Ynetnews about the possibility of a military conflict with Iran, Sharon said: "The only way to avoid military confrontation with Iran is to leave this military confrontation to powers bigger than Israel."
.
"I'm not so sure that the business with Iran will be finished without confrontation, but it's not an Israeli business," he added.

-- posted by bob90245

» runner26 - Al-Qaida Against France

Al-Qaida Joins Algerians Against France
Sep 14, 5:07 PM (ET)

By JOHN LEICESTER and OMAR SINAN

(PARIS (AP) - Al-Qaida has for the first time announced a union with an Algerian insurgent group that has designated France as an enemy, saying they will act together against French and American interests.

Current and former French officials specializing in terrorism said Thursday that an al-Qaida alliance with the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, known by its French initials GSPC, was cause for concern.

"We take these threats very seriously," Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said, adding in an interview on France-2 television that the threat to France was "high" and "permanent," and that "absolute vigilance" was required.

Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, announced the "blessed union" in a video posted this week on the Internet to mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States.

France's leader have repeatedly warned that the decision not to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq would not shield the country from Islamic terrorism. French participation in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon could give extremists another reason to strike.

The national police had no immediate comment on the announced alliance, but officials have long regarded the GSPC as one of the main terror threats facing France.

French experts agreed, but also noted the group has been severely weakened by internal divisions, security crackdowns and defections in Algeria, a former French territory still working to put down an Islamic insurgency that reached its most murderous heights in the 1990s.

"The GSPC is losing speed and has suffered very significant losses in recent months," said Louis Caprioli, former assistant director of France's DST counterterrorism and counterintelligence agency.

Some GSPC fighters took advantage of a recent Algerian amnesty for Islamic insurgents and others have been killed, said Caprioli, who works for Geos, a risk management firm.

Of the 800 combatants that GSPC was estimated to have had last year, probably no more than 500 remain, and the group has had no operational cells in France since the late 1990s, he said.

But Caprioli and others also said an alliance of GSPC and al-Qaida could increase the terror risk for France - not least because al-Zawahri's designation of the country as a worthy target could inspire extremists to take action.

In his video, Al-Zawahri hailed "the joining up" of the GSPC with al-Qaida as "good news."

"All the praise is due to Allah for the blessed union which we ask Allah to be as a bone in the throats of the Americans and French Crusaders and their allies, and inspire distress, concern and dejection in the hearts of the traitorous, apostate sons of France," he said.

"We ask him (Allah) to guide our brothers in the Salafist Group for Call and Combat to crush the pillars of the Crusader alliance, especially their elderly immoral leader, America."

Although GSPC leaders had previously sworn allegiance to al-Qaida, al-Zawahri's video marked the first al-Qaida recognition of a union between the two, French terror experts said.

"From now on, the links are official, legitimate, and they are taking part in the same combat," said Anne Giudicelli, a former French diplomat specializing in the Middle East who runs the Paris-based consultancy Terrorisc.

Sarkozy said it was "not by chance" that al-Qaida used the emblematic Sept. 11 date to announce the insurgency movement's alliance with al-Qaida.

"But there is nothing new," he added, noting that the GSPC had done the same three years ago.

The GSPC, in its own statement on a Web site used by militants, confirmed the alliance and urged other militant groups to also join al-Qaida.

Giudicelli said the alliance could act as a green light for al-Qaida and GSPC militants to operate together and thus raises the risk for France.

"The Americans have become harder to target domestically, so they are trying to widen the field of action and strike their allies," she said.

---

Omar Sinan is based in Cairo, Egypt. Associated Press writer Verena von Derschau in Paris also contributed to this report.

-- posted by runner26

» bob90245 - POPE = HITLER? ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MUSLIM OVERKILL.

POPE = HITLER? ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MUSLIM OVERKILL.
.
http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_re...
.
Catholic League for Religious and .
Civil Rights ^ | September 15, 2006 | Dr. William Donohue
.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the latest Muslim reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s address at Regensburg University on September 12:
.
“It is a mark of a civilized people that they answer discourse they find disagreeable in a rational manner. Sadly, many Muslims are responding to the pope’s speech in an irrational way, making true dialogue next to impossible. To compare the pope to Hitler, as a high-ranking Turkish official did, is the mark of an uncivilized person. To burn the pope in effigy, as the thugs in Srinagar, India, have done, is also the mark of incivility. Both are classic examples of Muslim overkill.
.
“Ironically, these pathetic examples underscore the central message of the pope’s address: he was beckoning the world to embrace both faith and reason. Reason unhinged from faith delivers a debased conception of mankind, the result of which has often been violence on a grand scale. But it is also true that faith unhinged from reason is capable of delivering the same outcome. Sadly, this part of the pope’s message has gone unheard in much of the Islamic world.
.
“Pope Benedict XVI is a brilliant philosopher and theologian. He offers so much to so many, and that is why it is sad to see this kind of reaction. Fortunately, he is also a courageous man, and will not be intimidated from speaking the truth.”
.
More here:
.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/00593...

-- posted by bob90245

» rasputin - Emerson on Jihad

---

I posted a bad link in an earlier post so...

JCT Interviews Steve EmersonJune, 2006 JCT: You have been doing terrorism investigative research for 12 years now. What drives you to work the hours you do? Emerson: Look, I’ll be honest with you--I would rather not be eating dinner at midnight over my keyboard. But when I think about other things that I could be doing, and for a lot more money, there is nothing that compares with the satisfaction that this job brings. Yes, there is also the instinctive thrill of the chase—for example, uncovering hidden terrorist assets and secret terrorist connections-- that still energizes me from the days that I used to be an investigative reporter. I have met dozens of families who have lost their children in terrorist attacks for whom life will always be a function of grieving. They need a voice and, for them, I can play some small role. I am grateful for the opportunity. I also draw inspiration from the incredible dedication of government officials who don’t get public recognition for their hard work. FBI agents, Justice Department prosecutors, local police, and Treasury analysts are some of the faceless members of the government who understand what this war is all about. JCT: And what would you say this war is all about? Emerson: Well, it is not just a war on terrorism. That’s like saying World War II was a war against submarines. There is a particular enemy who seeks to kill Americans and westerners and impose its theological totalitarianism on countries with Muslim populations. That enemy is militant Islamic fundamentalism. It is rooted in theological doctrine—and the West makes a big mistake claiming that radicals have “hijacked” a religion or that they have perverted the meaning of “jihad.” While genuine moderates certainly exist, and while jihad can mean spiritual struggle to some, the stark reality is that jihadists have been in control of Muslim hierarchies and religious institutions throughout the Muslim world, and for that matter, many Muslim institutions in the West. When we sanitize the concept of jihad, or when we simply call the war we are fighting a “war on terrorism” instead of calling it a war on Islamic extremism, we are only playing into the hands of the savvy Islamic fundamentalist apologists by essentially rendering the attacks by radical Islam to be devoid of a motive. There is clearly a religious motive behind the suicide bombings in Israel, the bombings on the London and Madrid transport systems and Bali clubs, and the attacks of 9-11. That motive is the belief by some that their version of Islam can be imposed or that they are entitled to attack their “enemies” who block their imposition of Islam. It is that totalitarianism that empowers Islamic terrorists to carry out their attacks. JCT: So is it a war against Islamic terrorism or a war against radical Islam? Emerson: It is both. We need to be fighting those would kill us, but we also need to be fighting the parental ideology and leadership that sanction these attacks. Islamic terrorists are subsumed under the larger body of radical Islamic religious and political leaders, who not only provide the justification for attacks, but who also provide the religious rationale for rules that subjugate women to second class status, for honor crimes in which young women are executed by their brothers and fathers, for the rights of husbands to beat their wives, and for throwing acid in the faces of secularized Muslim women if they do not cover—i.e., wear a hijab—as has happened in Gaza and Algeria. Additionally, Christians in the Muslim world are routinely persecuted. Frankly, focusing on the Islamic terrorists who are targeting us is the easiest part of explaining what the war is about. No, not easy in terms of actual fighting, but it is easy in terms of understanding who the enemy is. It is more difficult to understand that we are fighting the larger force of Islamic fundamentalism, of which Islamic terrorism is but one tool. Aside from the treatment of women, there is the unremitting virulent hatred expressed towards Christians, Jews and Hindus in many Islamic textbooks, in many mosque sermons, on the airwaves, and on the internet – to “educate” both children and adults. And perhaps most difficult to understand in an open pluralist society are the related assiduous efforts made by Islamic fundamentalists in the West who insinuate themselves into positions of authority, intimidate us into accepting their version of reality and who advance an unspoken agenda that has totalitarian goals – all to acquire political influence. These actions are exactly from the playbook of the Muslim Brotherhood. We in the West are supremely naïve in accepting their sincerity. JCT: What is their agenda? Emerson: Ultimately, it’s about conquering the West and imposing their interpretation of Islam. Oh, I am not worried that the US is going to become part of a Caliphate. But I am worried that we are being intimidated, by either implicit threats of violence or by false charges of racism, into compromising our beliefs and values. Nowhere was this more evident than in the confrontation over the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. The West gave in to the fear of violent bullying and thereby engaged in self-censorship. Muslim groups phrased the argument in terms of religious disrespect for Islam: in other words, they wanted to suppress publication of material they considered blasphemous. And we obliged them. Aside from the sheer hypocrisy shown by many in the Muslim world with their unremitting daily demonstrations of hatred toward other religions in their media and culture, since when did “blasphemy” become part of American jurisprudence? With only a few notable exceptions, many of the beacons of freedom of thought, who pride themselves in the freedom of the press’ right to disclose national security secrets, acquiesced to the demands of the Muslim world. The editors at the Washington Post and New York Times performed rhetorical acrobatics in trying to explain why they would not publish the cartoons. And yet it came down to pure raw intimidation. Journalists, too, have to suffer the false branding of somehow being ‘anti-Islam’ when legitimately reporting on Islamist extremism. Ironically, it is the extremists who are making that connection! When you add the deception perpetrated nearly every day by radical Islamic groups falsely pretending to be victimized, often with the witting and unwitting connivance of some members of the media and government, you start to see another facet of this war—and it is this facet that we are losing. JCT: Can you give examples of deception? Emerson: I think the American public would be absolutely shocked to see how some within the FBI, DHS, State Department, the Bureau of Prisons and numerous other governmental agencies have kowtowed to officials of radical Islamist groups who purport to be moderate. Many of the leaders of these groups claim to speak on behalf of most Muslim Americans, while they attempt to close down other voices within the Muslim community. The “dialoguing” that goes on – with group leaders who demand to be the only representatives of the Muslim community with whom the government should meet -- has real consequences: There is in fact a cost to our long term security --because ultimately, the answer to the threat of militant Islam is to encourage an Islamic reformation. That means empowering genuine moderates, not the ones who ostentatiously issue “fatwas,” (with no content), against terrorism as was done last summer, yet attack every prosecution of Islamic terrorists as part of a sinister war against Islam. How can one be against terrorism yet champion Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Lashkar-e-Taibah and others? Rather than call these groups on their hypocrisy, some within the FBI and State Department—and I don’t mean all members of those institutions—have often legitimized, and sometimes even given grants to groups such as CAIR, MPAC and ISNA—all of whom are ideological derivatives of the Muslim Brotherhood – to provide “sensitivity training” to government agents. The agencies even have used these groups’ conferences as sites for recruiting new agents. This legitimization goes far beyond our own borders. Does the State Department’s Karen Hughes honestly believe that promoting the leaders and members of ISNA and the Muslim Student Association as the poster models of American Muslims will make the Muslim world respect us, or cause these groups to stop championing Islamic terrorist movements or cease portraying the war on terrorism as a war against Islam? The State Department has continued to give visas to radical Islamic extremists to visit this country. And under the banner of outreach, State has arranged for officials of radical Islamic groups to represent the US abroad. Moreover, US embassies abroad have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe millions of hard-earned tax payer money, on conferences in which radical Islamic groups and leaders from the US have been feted abroad. In one case we just discovered, the Embassy in Pakistan gave a grant of $22,000 to Islamic fundamentalist groups to produce a 10 part CD series that promotes wearing of the hijab and spawns conspiracy theories about the “war against Islam.” JCT: Who is watching over these practices? Emerson: That’s the problem. No one is. If federal agencies are prepared to spend millions of dolla