From the March 20, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0320/p09s01-coop.html

Al Qaeda's hand in tipping Iraq toward civil war

Creating chaos in Iraq serves Al Qaeda's goal of uniting the Muslim world under one caliph.
By Abdel Bari Atwan

LONDON - The Feb. 22 bombing of the golden mosque in Samarra - considered one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines - triggered the unprecedented levels of sectarian violence currently under way in Iraq. The hand behind this strike at the Shiite majority in all probability points to Al Qaeda, intent on fomenting the low-level civil strife that has churned for months into something far greater.

A full-out civil war in Iraq would strengthen Al Qaeda's growing reach in Iraq. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in this Land of the Two Rivers, has long expressed a vitriolic hatred for the "heretic and atheist" Shiites, the "secret allies of the Americans." In a June 15, 2004, letter to Osama bin Laden, Mr. Zarqawi described Shiites as "a sect of treachery and betrayal through the ages."

He had earlier claimed responsibility for the assassination of Iraqi Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir al-Hakim in August 2003. And his expressed hatred for the Shiites leads me to believe he was also behind the March 2, 2004, massacre of 185 Shiite pilgrims in Karbala and Baghdad and a string of other attacks on Shiite civilians. Studying this pattern of aggression reveals that Zarqawi's strategy to create such internal chaos to the detriment of US troops and the Iraqi military is indeed being carried out.

Thus it is highly likely that Zarqawi's group carried out the bombing of the golden mosque in Samarra last month. The Shiite majority, who have most to gain from maintaining stability in Iraq, have to this point exercised some restraint in retaliating against attacks on their members, but the destruction of one of their most sacred shrines unleashed a wave of reprisals and summary executions that has already resulted in hundreds (if not thousands) of Sunni and Shiite deaths.

In a letter to Zarqawi dated June 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mr. bin Laden's deputy, questioned whether targeting Shiite civilians might alienate the more moderate Sunni element from Al Qaeda. Zarqawi, however, disregarded such concerns, reasoning that in the event of the all-out civil war he hopes for, moderate and radical differences will disappear - a prognosis that may well prove gruesomely correct.

Zarqawi's rationale is threefold: Civil war in Iraq will undermine the current political process by preventing the engagement of Sunni factions and unseating the Shiite leaders; it will render the country ungovernable and ensure the failure of the United States project in the region; finally, an expanded conflict would draw on the huge reserves of Sunni Muslim military support available in neighboring countries - either on a national level or in terms of individual mujahideen pouring into Iraq to protect fellow Sunnis from annihilation at the hands of Iran-backed Shiite militia.

Sectarian civil strife could rapidly spread throughout the region. Many Sunni leaders are already unnerved by the growing influence of Shiite Iran in Iraqi internal affairs, and sectarian tensions have been brewing in several countries including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. Civil war in Iraq may well prompt the Kurds to declare independence, drawing Turkey into the arena.

All of this is in keeping with the five-stage plan posted on the Internet in March 2005 by Al Qaeda's main military strategist, Mohammed Makkawi, who described the third stage thus: "expand the [Iraqi] conflict throughout the region and engage the US in a long war of attrition ... create a jihad Triangle of Horror starting in Afghanistan, running through Iran and Southern Iraq then via southern Turkey and south Lebanon to Syria."

The neoconservatives in the US have been pursuing a dangerous policy of constructive anarchy in the Middle East, planning to rebuild it according to their own design and requirements. As long ago as 1997, former secretary of Defense Richard Perle, along with other architects of the Iraq war, wrote that a post-Saddam Iraq would be "ripped apart" by sectarian conflict but he urged US military intervention nonetheless. This policy has completely backfired and the US has lost any semblance of control over the political process and the leaders they created. Instead of the promised "national unity government," we are witnessing a level of ethnic cleansing last seen in the Balkans conflict.

Al Qaeda's project, meanwhile, is one of destructive anarchy with the aim of removing the US and corrupt dictatorships from the region in order to clear the way for its ultimate goal: uniting the Muslim world under one Islamic leader, or caliph.

Al Qaeda has become a major player in the Middle East, having been virtually wiped out in Afghanistan after 9/11. This is entirely because of the US invasion of Iraq, which provided Zarqawi's fledgling mujahideen with a new haven and training ground, and inflamed the jihadi spirit in thousands of young men who flock to join him every week.

It is possible that Zarqawi has overestimated the cohesive effect of the sectarian conflict among the various Sunni factions in the present insurgency. The eventual loyalty of the large Baathist element in the insurgency is another unknown.

However, a regenerated Al Qaeda is flourishing and expanding. With its new horizontal structure, it has loosely affiliated "branches" in several regions including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Europe. It now represents a real threat to both oil production and Israel, the twin pillars of America's foreign policy.

Iraq has become a magnet for radicalism as it heads toward fragmentation. The situation for the US military is increasingly dangerous. America is already engaged in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program; if this escalates, as seems increasingly likely, the nearly 140,000 US soldiers in Iraq will become hostages at the mercy of their present allies, the Iran-backed Shiite militia, and their current enemies, the Sunni insurgent groups and Al Qaeda. The risk for the US has to be that those who are divided on sectarian grounds in Iraq will briefly pause in their destruction of each other to turn on a new, common enemy.

For Al Qaeda, everything is going entirely according to plan.

• Abdel Bari Atwan, editor in chief of al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper in London, is the author of "The Secret History of Al Qaeda."


Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related linksl

From Svenska Dagbladet, 03Apr06

A big number of websites on the internet were hijacked this monday. Instead of the companies' regular first page were threatening messages that there would be trouble if you do not respect muslims.

[...] Many traveling agencies and komvux [GED schools] in Skara have had their frontpages replaced.

Peter Blom, executive of Websolutions, says to Sveriges Radio Skaraborg that the hijacking was done from a Swedish address.

[...]

M

That's about as tough as I expect these cowards to be. :rolleyes: Cowards.

LINK
 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Interesting site.

Peaceful religion my a...
 

"When the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods wherever you find them, and sieze them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, let them go their way." Sura 9:5

"O Prophet, strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is hell, an evil refuge indeed." Sura 9:73

If this is what muslims are taught from birth and live their lives by, we may not be at war with islam... but it really looks like islam is at war with us. All this talk about killing and siezing doesnt seem all that peaceful either. I asked one of "the guys" I work with about that... he said, "It's peaceful for muslims."

Hmm... I don't know why I missed that....

getting closer and closer
 

scary, I knew the person and his dad....
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...metdetain.html
:

The follow-up news (copy and paste):
buzzbrockway.com/?p=499#comments
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_re_us/terrorism_arrests_3
or visit jihadwatch.org

perhaps this will get more people up to speed on how real the threat is:
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/


ah well, at least there's one good news:
CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR

"Nice Young Men"
 

Isn't it funny how they are all such "nice young men" until they fly a plane into a building, start shooting civilians or blow themselves up?

The keys to his actions were in the story. Nice of the MSM to print it. Getting more into his religion and wanting the family to follow? Islam-getting more into your religion means killing others.

How many "nice young men" have to kill Americans here in the US before the bone heads realize it's the religion not the individual?

There is a bunch of this out there but the MSM is doing a good job of keeping it below the radar. Funny how the press and libs don't understand that they will be some of the first to be chopped when Sharia comes to town.

Tribalism is the real enemy in Iraq.
 

Very interesting read by Steven Pressfield:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...ml?source=mypi


I think this guy broke the code!!!

:munchin

Later
Martin

I was being simplistic. I do not believe we are at war with Islam yet, but I think that is a serious medium-long term risk because of some members willingness to that means. Before then the muslim world are in the process of adaption, which is both friendly and hostile. That process could partly be called a power struggle and being at war with itself. This whole deal holds a resemblance of insurgency, IMHO.

Interesting link about tribes. I think religion and tribalism are both part of culture and that it may not be their center of gravity, but that culture is where the hostilities stem from and that is where adaption have to take place. It is the rudder of the ship. Then we get into governance and freedom.

I think many of these things, like the EU, China, Islam, and whatnot, is more about dealing with power and governance, after realizing values of both parties as important. Of course we will still face what for us can only be felt as evil, be it the murders of thousands or the flogging of one, so maybe it is not as much about the end state as it is about the striving for something good...

Haven't been here much lately. I hope you guys are doing alright!

Back to my hideout,
Martin

Not at war with Islam? Not right to describe Islamic terrorists as being Islamic? Most of the time they are not even called terrorists anymore by the MSM and up-for-reelection politicians, but called insurgents or rebels...as if that makes them something less than what they are and more acceptable to...???

But why shouldn't they be called Islamic terrorists? If a person ascribed to the writings of Marx and Lenin and blew up a bank to strike a blow at capitalism, wouldn't it be fair to call him a communist terrorist?

Look at the terrorist movements we're facing. Hezboallah (party of God), Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Al-Qaida--all of these orginzations take their inspiration from the Koran. I admit that I am not an expert on Islam, but I think I can figure out what this religion is about. I am a big believer in actions speaking louder than words--that what a person does is far more important than what a person says. Islamic terrorists kill non-believers simply because they aren't believers, and Koranic sanctioned murder is their calling card.

They want a world governed by sharia law, a law encompassing not only private morality but all facets of life, a system of law forged in 7th century Arabia that treats women and non-muslims like chattel (dhimmitude), that says war must be waged until Islam rules all of the world. Well, IMO this concept flies right in the face of Islam as being the so-called religion of peace.

But we are told that somehow this violence we are seeing and experiencing is not Islamic, that it has no place in their religion of peace. Well, they are right about the violence having no place, but wrong in declaring that it is not Islamic as it is a definite part of their religion. Islam has declared war on us and its warriors are fighting us in a very vicious manner. Personally I don't care about their theology; let's just recognize it for what it is and either win this war or prepare to become dhimmis in an Islamic ruled world.

IMO Victor Davis Hanson's contextual writings on our battles with Islam are the best. http://www.victorhanson.com/

Victor Davis Hanson rocks! I know it's probably been said, but I'm gonna say it anyways:

Are we at war with Islam? From reading our (liberal) press, and watching what goes on in the day-to-day civilian world, it sure doesn't seem like it, but one thing is damn sure, Islam is at war with us.

Do you then believe that Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth the current efforts?

How about the hatred between different tribes, leaders and brands of Islam? Is it not possible that we are talking about levels of extremism at a time when Islam has to adapt, even if it may be doubtful if it will?

There is a lot that lead me to answer yes, as you do, but maybe a better discussion would be to war game both sides.

I would love to hear what the trained members think about re-orientation/integration programs for insurgents.

Got to go.

Martin

Seven Explosions Hit India Train Stations During Rush Hour
 

Seven Explosions Hit India Train Stations During Rush Hour

FOXNEWS
Tuesday, July 11, 2006

MUMBAI, India — Seven explosions hit Mumbai's transit system on Tuesday, killing 131 people and injuring more than 300, police said. Shortly after the bombings, police arrested members of an Islamic group in India.

The explosions, which occurred as commuters were returning home from work during the evening rush, tore apart locomotives and scattered bodies around the tracks, as shown on Indian television.

“More casualties are expected,” Global Radio News reporter Arun Asthana said.

The Indian home minister said on Indian television that authorities had information of an attack but did not know when or where it was to occur.

“There is no information about who is behind these blasts,” Asthana said, but soon after the attacks, police arrested members of Lashkar-e-Toiba, an Islamic group in India responsible for previous attacks in India.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202920,00.html




We're not the only ones islam is at war with.
TS

Team Sergeant:

Before I delve into this, a little background history on myself. I am a son of an Indian immigrant. My father came here in 1970, got his BS in Mechanical Engineering, worked, realized he wanted to be independent, so he owned an Auto Body shop for 20 years with his buddies and was self employed as a Mechanic. I was born in the Chicago burbs, but was sent off for schooling in India between the ages of 7 through 16 with regular trips back home to Chicago in the summers.

I've lived through curfews during riots there, have had a distant relative of my mom die in the 1993 bombings in Bombay (Mumbai) and an acquaintence of my parents gunned down in the Pan Am Flight 73 Hijackings in 80s. I can't say I necessarily feel the pain since I was too young to comprehend any of that as youngling. My sister fortunately was on the first Air India flight leaving Toronto when Air India (the second one that day) was bombed in the 80s by Khalistani Canadian terrorists. The monster has lurked around.

I've gone the other way around on this. I used to be the opinion of that Islam, the religion, was to blame. While in India, it was pretty common to hear of all the terrorist attacks. People may be desensitized to it in some ways. My stay there was during the beginning and maturation of the Kashmir insurgency. I lived in the state of Gujarat, which has a history of Hindu-Muslim riots.

I feel that men, who don't want to see a future beyond their local tribal tradtions have gravitated towards the revisionist salafist movements in order to assert their position by force. Plenty of folks yell and scream death to [insert infidel community here], but most of those situations seem to be fuelled more by a mob dynamic. How many of those idiots who scream and yell actually wind up taking the step and murdering/becoming a terrorist? From a few sources I've read/reading, people who make the act of actually killing vs 'going with the flow' of the mob and apathetically/passively/actively supporting the global jihad activities have different psychologies.

I'll try to make an analogy here. Nazi Germany had an incredible machine with soldiers fighting us and their leaders, a select group of men, actively leading their sheeple to a facist ideology. The propoganda and psychological opeations altered the mindset of a modern European nation to conduct some of the worst atrocities ever known. But was the individual German, a member of the Nazi party, a real Nazi? They all said 'Heil Hitler' and moved along. Massive rallies supported the leaders as they conducted war and genocide. A significant population was Nazi, but I see a difference between the average soldier and the SS/core leadership from whatever I've read. The equivalency I'm drawing here is Nazi=Salafist.

To me, Salafists are the Nazi party leadership, who through their propoganda machine have unleased their version of Islam on the masses. Many Sheeple, ordinary muslims, have bought into their well oiled machine just like ordinary Germans bought into the Nazi Party's. These people range the specturm from the educated profiles of AQ/EIJ's membeship, to the uneducated Afghani Pakistani NWF type folk. Each though, seems to play to a different part of Jihad (muslim majority land occupation vs Global ambitions). It is also interesting to see how the original Kashmir seperatist groups like JKLF have been sidlelined by the global jihadi Lashkar types. JKLF looked for Kashmiri liberation, LET has a goal to blanket the Indian Subcontinent in Islamic Rule, again. Unfortunately, events like these have been old news and continue to be current news for the subcontinent.

I understand this thread has been around for some time, I've read through it. I'm not out to change opinions, I figured I'd throw my viewpoint out among professionals and get feedback.

Sir,
I do not believe we are at war with Islam as a whole, but instead facets of islam. I therefore term (and this is policy with many think-tanks) these terrorists as "Islamist" terrorists. The "ist", as in Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Capitalist... suggests that they are not necessarily representative of all islamIC peoples.

I think that this point is important because Wahabism is not representative of all of islam, and I truly believe that certain moderate strains of islam can easily co-exist with other religions without causing instability. As has been said numerous times, the key to overcoming this one is long term economic, political, educational, social reform to remove the negative structures which currently enable or promote the existence of this violent form of Islam. The same, I believe, can be said for the war against Communism. We did not defeat 'communism' per se, but instead defeated those structures in the Soviet bloc which put people in the position that believing in communism seemed natural.


JMO,

Solid