Thread: al-Qaeda enters the Twilight Zone

I find it hard to buy into the stuff Hussein is selling:

Obama, in his most revelatory comments about his thinking in the days before the raid, said he weighed the risks and judged that he should proceed with what was, by all accounts, the most promising opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden in nearly a decade. In doing so, he rejected the counsel of a substantial number of his national security advisers, who worried that the plan to send ground troops deep into Pakistan was too risky, he said.

“I concluded it was worth it,” Obama said. “We have devoted enormous blood and treasure in fighting back against al-Qaeda, ever since 2001. And I said to myself that if we have a good chance of not completely defeating but badly disabling al-Qaeda, then it was worth both the political risks as well as the risks to our men, after a pursuit that cost billions of dollars and stretched for nearly a decade.”

Obama’s national security team was sharply divided over Osama bin Laden raid
By Joby Warrick and Karin Brulliard, Published: May 8

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...NSG_story.html

I doubt that Hussein and his advisors were divided over the feasability of the raid. I believe the primary discussion at the highest level focused on whether to kill bin Laden or take him alive? The decision was a foregone conclusion. The last thing the Democrats wanted was bin Laden involving Muslim governments by telling the world that al-Qaeda is only one part of Islam’s military. Such an admission would shoot down the “terrorists are criminals not soldiers” crap Democrats have been pushing all along.

A live bin Laden could have brought down the Democrat party’s entire house of cards. In fact, a talkative bin Laden would have drowned leading Democrats in their own war policy. No amount of intelligence about al-Qaeda’s operations would have justified his capture.

Now that bin Laden sleeps with the fishes, Hussein & Company, along with the WaPo and just about every other media outlet, is on a quest to convince Americans that concern for military personnel was a factor before the SEALs went in. That fairy tale originates with the political party that was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American military people in Vietnam and Iraq. It makes no sense that those people would suddenly care about risking the lives of 40 or so SEALs.

Irrespective of what Hussein says after the fact, he cared about the political fallout if the mission failed. He also weighed the tremendous benefits he and every Democrat would harvest if the mission was a success, but to say the lives of American military people was a concern rings hollow coming from any Democrat.

Democrats today are the same people they were before bin Laden was killed. The success of the mission provided every one of them with a cloak of loyalty covering every traitorous act they engaged in throughout the Cold War, in Vietnam, in Latin America, In China, and in Iraq.

Note that Biden who is one of the worst going all the way back to Vietnam is remarkably subdued about the military taking out bin Laden. Ditto John Kerry and the rest of them who have been in Washington for so long.

And have you noticed that Democrats are stepping up the propaganda that says the war is against al-Qaeda? That’s like saying defeat the Mafia and the war against crime is over. Too bad Democrats did not think up the al-Qaeda scam during the Cold War. Defeat the KGB and you defeat communism?

The war America is fighting is against Islam not al-Qaeda. That’s a straightforward proposition until you realize the relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda would make a great plot for a segment of the Twilight Zone:

Obama a Great Benefactor to Al-Qaeda
by Tara Servatius
Posted 05/06/2011 ET

No one on Earth has done more to help al-Qaeda in the last six weeks than Barack Obama. Don’t let the bin Laden assassination thing fool you. Even with the loss of bin Laden factored in, al-Qaeda’s prospects have improved dramatically in recent weeks, and the group has Obama to thank.

Sure, bin Laden is gone, and that was a bit of a PR hit to the group. But Obama more than made up for that by setting up al-Qaeda financially for years to come. One of the first things the U.S.-led coalition did when it invaded Libya in March was to help the radical Islamist led rebels capture the oil fields. Thanks to Obama, they will no longer need to depend on rich Saudi sheiks to fund jihad because they now control oil fields capable of generating $34 billion worth of black gold a year.

Within a week of the takeover of the oil by the rebels, and while the White House was still promising to send the CIA to Libya to “figure out” who the rebels really were, the U.S. and NATO had brokered a sweet deal for them to control Libya’s oil and sell it to Qatar. The rebels sent the first shipment, worth about $100 million, by tanker in the beginning of April.

It’s a windfall that the al-Qaeda infiltrated rebels, led by a former Gitmo detainee and two former jihadists fresh from battle in Afghanistan, couldn’t possibly have achieved without the help of US airpower in Libya . With billions they’ll eventually reap in profits from the oil each year, they could easily wage a multi-front jihad and have plenty of money left over for a bio weapon to wipe out the entire American East Coast. The thought of what these jihadist thugs could do inside our borders with the kind of money Obama and NATO helped secure for them ought to terrify Americans.

There is little doubt that al-Qaeda and like-minded groups are behind the Libyan efforts. Regional leaders tried to warn us that the rebel movement in Libya was al Qaeda-backed and affiliated, but the American media largely brushed that off. This week, as the world sat glued to the TV, taking in the bin Laden assassination story, the Christian Science Monitor reported that al-Qaeda fighters are streaming into Libya to help the Obama-backed rebels. Despite this, the rebels say they are expecting to receive $2 to $3 billion in aid from the U.S., France, and Italy in the coming week.

According to UPI, bin Laden himself was so ecstatic about these developments that he became almost sloppy in the weeks before his death, breaking cover and traveling between Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to “merge al-Qaeda's war against the West with the wave of uprisings across the Arab world.”

The pattern by the Obama administration is almost eerie. First, al Qaeda-led rebels capture part of a country and declare it an Islamic emirate or caliphate. Then Obama backs the overthrow of that country’s embattled leader, declaring that he must go in the interest of democracy, even when that goes against U.S. interests in the War on Terror.

That’s exactly what happened in Libya. It’s what happened again in Yemen. Within a week of al-Qaeda rebels seizing a province there earlier this year, Obama stunned foreign policy experts by suddenly calling for the ouster of Yemen’s president Ali Abdullah Saleh, a critical ally of ours in the war on terror.

Many of the recent attempted attacks on America were planned in Yemen, which has become a base of operation for al-Qaeda. So it was baffling to many that Saleh was thrown under the jihadist bus by Obama even though his help has been critical to the U.S. in tracking and apprehending the al-Qaeda and jihadist plotters attempting to overthrow Yemen. This raises a question. If Obama isn’t for Saleh in Yemen, exactly who is he for? The options are pretty awful—unless you are partial to radical jihadist thugs.

The whole pattern is similar to what Obama did in Egypt, where he backed a democracy movement that quickly proved to be a poorly disguised vehicle for those sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the country.

Which brings us back to bin Laden. His assassination is the one fact that doesn’t seem to fit Obama’s otherwise perfect pattern of aiding jihadist thugs in the overthrow of relatively stable countries. That’s because taking out bin Laden wasn’t about hurting al-Qaeda. It was about helping Obama get reelected. So far though, al-Qaeda seems to have come out way ahead in the deal.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43345

Ah yes.. you doubt, you feeel, you find... you believe.

Originally Posted by Margot

Ah yes.. you doubt, you feeel, you find... you believe.

To Margot: Because I know.

Sir, 'Islamists' do control areas around the oil plants in Libya indeed - the majority of Libyans are Mohamedans but that does not make them followers of extremist sects a la M. BL... They are payed to protect the investments of the west. This analysis is fundamentaly flawed.

Originally Posted by snapper46

Sir, 'Islamists' do control areas around the oil plants in Libya indeed - the majority of Libyans are Mohamedans but that does not make them followers of extremist sects a la M. BL... They are payed to protect the investments of the west. This analysis is fundamentaly flawed.

To snapper46: I posted the article as an appendage to my comments because I found it to be logical. However, you’ll be better off going to the source —— Tara Servatius —— for details on how she arrived at her analysis:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43345

I agree with all of this. Obama is giving power to Al Qaeda. You have to ask yourself why.

Don't think that Bush wasn't involved in the same thing as well.

Just don't make it a left-right issue. The power elite want to empower Al Qaeda so there will be never-ending war. It has nothing to do with Obama (who is just a puppet).

sgtslaughter42, et al,

Yes, we will, for some time into the future, be afraid of the monster under the bed. Like children being told ghost stories, al-Qaeda is hidden in the shadows, just waiting to spring upon us.

Originally Posted by sgtslaughter42

I agree with all of this. Obama is giving power to Al Qaeda. You have to ask yourself why.

Don't think that Bush wasn't involved in the same thing as well.

Just don't make it a left-right issue. The power elite want to empower Al Qaeda so there will be never-ending war. It has nothing to do with Obama (who is just a puppet).

(COMMENT)

The original al-Qaeda, for some time, has not been the real monster. But it did spawn a series of independently operating cells and separately evolving affiliates that we call (properly) as "Salafis Jihadists."

These affiliated/associated groups are known as Salafis Jihadist; and have come to be confused with al-Qaeda. Salafis Jihadist are not controlled, directed or sponsored by al-Qaeda; but many of the emerging leaders in the newer evolving Jihadist movements want to dedicated their most significant operations in remembrance and emulation of the legendary Sheikh (Osama bin Laden). It is true that al-Qaeda (proper) has encouraged these independent Jihadist to continue the struggle, the original al-Qaeda has not been a viable C3 for some number of years. Al-Qaeda (as a brand name) has become the monster under the bed, and we will call every Jihadist we come across by the monster's name; and tied to the events of 911.

It is much like AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq), originally the Jordanian terrorist group Jama‘at al-Tawhid wa-al Jihad (Unity and Jihad Group), established by the jihadist Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi.

Similarly, "al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb" (AQIM) was originally the Algeria-based Sunni Muslim jihadist group called the "Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat" (GSPC). It was formed in the late 1990's; but renamed just a few years ago.

Most Respectfully,
R

Originally Posted by Flanders

To Margot: Because I know.

You don't know squat.. Bin Laden is hated in most of the Arab world because he has killed so many Arabs and brought dishonor to the Arabs.

Further.. Bin Laden is the antithesis of the goals of the Arab Spring.

But rattle on....

Salafi Jihadist? Only by those who are listening to the insta pundits like Robert Baer or Emerson.. who don't know their butts from a hot rock.

Bin Laden was a follower of Syed Qutb.. and the Wahabbis or Salafis have been fighting AQ and other terrorist for over a decade.. they have become a HUGE asset in the fight against terrorism.

Originally Posted by RoccoR

sgtslaughter42, et al,

Yes, we will, for some time into the future, be afraid of the monster under the bed. Like children being told ghost stories, al-Qaeda is hidden in the shadows, just waiting to spring upon us.

(COMMENT)

The original al-Qaeda, for some time, has not been the real monster. But it did spawn a series of independently operating cells and separately evolving affiliates that we call (properly) as "Salafis Jihadists."

These affiliated/associated groups are known as Salafis Jihadist; and have come to be confused with al-Qaeda. Salafis Jihadist are not controlled, directed or sponsored by al-Qaeda; but many of the emerging leaders in the newer evolving Jihadist movements want to dedicated their most significant operations in remembrance and emulation of the legendary Sheikh (Osama bin Laden). It is true that al-Qaeda (proper) has encouraged these independent Jihadist to continue the struggle, the original al-Qaeda has not been a viable C3 for some number of years. Al-Qaeda (as a brand name) has become the monster under the bed, and we will call every Jihadist we come across by the monster's name; and tied to the events of 911.

It is much like AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq), originally the Jordanian terrorist group Jama‘at al-Tawhid wa-al Jihad (Unity and Jihad Group), established by the jihadist Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi.

Similarly, "al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb" (AQIM) was originally the Algeria-based Sunni Muslim jihadist group called the "Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat" (GSPC). It was formed in the late 1990's; but renamed just a few years ago.

Most Respectfully,
R

Margot, et al,

My apology for getting back to this so late. I was out of town and off the grid.

Originally Posted by Margot

Salafi Jihadist? Only by those who are listening to the insta pundits like ... ... ... who don't know their butts from a hot rock.

Bin Laden was a follower of Syed Qutb.. and the Wahabbis or Salafis have been fighting AQ and other terrorist for over a decade.. they have become a HUGE asset in the fight against terrorism.

(COMMENT)

I seldom criticize members of the establishment (Robert Baer and Steve Emerson included). As you are aware, al-Qaeda has, and continues to be, a constantly evolving entity.

Originally Posted by THE EVOLUTION OF AL QAEDA, by SEAN P. WILSON, MAJ, USA B.A., Virginia Military Institute, 1993 M.A., American Military University, 2006, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2007

The ancient interpretations of Islam, represented by Ibn-Taymiyyah (1263-132 and Mohammed Abdel Wahabb (1703-1792) helped to develop Bin Laden’s concept of restoring Islam’s past glory through the reestablishment of the caliphate. The writings of Ibn-Taymiyyah, an Islamic scholar, are important because they help to derive how Bin Laden and Al Qaeda conceptualize jihad and takfir. According to Taymiyyah, Islam in the thirteenth century was under threat from two elements, colonialism and the declining prestige of Islam. Islam faced two opposing forces, the Mongols to East and Christians from the West.3 Taymiyyah believed that the key to Islam’s survival was strict adherence to the principles of the salaf. They were the companions of Mohammed whose strict interpretation of the Koran and pious behavior Taymiyyah believed was responsible for the glory of Islam.

Reasonable research can trace the tendencies of most contemporary salafi-jihadi groups and make an ideological connection to that of of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (and especially to several of its key figures, including (but not only) Sayyid Qutb). I agree that Sayyid Qutb is no friend of American culture/society, by nearly any standard applied. But in the end, he was promoting Sharia Law, a common theme behind many of the Islamic Terrorists entities; suggesting and principles of Sharia Law should be the sole basis for governing a nation and the moral values of society. Sayyid Qutb believed that "physical power and Jihad" were the means and tools for change.

I respectfully disagree that "Wahabbis or Salafis... ... ...have become a HUGE asset in the fight against terrorism." I would like an example of any (any!) official Salafis group that you believe has contributed, any demonstrable way, in the suppression of terrorism. While Salaif is not interchangeable with terrorism, the terrorist association is made clear when phrased with "Jihadist Salafis" - or when describing their participation in terrorist activity.

The al-Qaeda terrorist network directly arose out of the radical Salafi Jihadist.

Having said that, all movements evolve. Many knowledgeable experts suggest that the "use of violent jihad is not inherently associated with puritanical Islamic beliefs." The evolution of the has a start point and a current point in the time line.

• The Start: Terrorism Concepts: Islamic Terrorism has been historically documented and acknowledged by the greater community for more than half a century. It is self evident.
  
• The Current: Reform State: Some Salafis and Wahhabis believe that "violence should be a last resort and," which ultimately will lead to the establishment of a pure Islamic state.

NOTE: While the reformers condemn acts of violence, they still do not rule it out as a means of achieving the ultimate goal.

I recommend that you review the

• GUIDE TO WAHHABI ORGANIZATIONS IN NORTH AMERICA, to see an assessment. http://www.basicsproject.org/reports...th_america.pdf
  
• THE ISLAMIC RIGHT – key tendencies http://www.centreforsecularspace.org...Tendencies.pdf

I grant you that the topic is controversial, and emotion. The generous and prevailing opinion of many, is that Islam is going through a phase in its evolution, in which competing forces from within (Pro-Jihad vs Anti-Jihad) are locked in a struggle over the intent conveyed by the ancient writings. However,the pro-Jihadists have the upper-hand. They control the image being projected. That image can only be changed by the Islamic Community through its deeds and actions; which define them.

Just My Thought.

Regards,
R