Wherefore By Their Fruits, Part 1

It was not my intention to write about this, but military operations have begun, this will end neither well nor soon, and this ties in to other series I am writing, so here begins another series. :)

As you of course know, after high-profile beheadings of Western journalists, multinational operations have begun against the self-proclaimed Islamic State or IS, known among Western governments as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL, and known among Western media as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS.

There has been much debate over which name to use. The term Islamic State is not commonly used in the West, which leaves the debate between ISIS and ISIL. For a variety of reasons, the media has settled on ISIS, and that will be the term I will use in this series.

Some of the discussion over which name to use is significant, however. By calling itself simply "the Islamic State", the group has doubled-down on its establishment of a caliphate, basically making a unilateral claim to lead the world's Islamic terrorist movement in battle against all infidels. While many other terrorist groups around the world have expressed support, including Boko Haram of Nigerian fame and Abu Sayyaf of the Philippines, ultimately, if all these guys get their way and start collectively defeating world infidel forces (to include all the apostate Muslim forces from countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia), there will have to be a decision as to who will really lead the jihadists. It is obvious to me that, amid many uses of the word "takfir" (apostate), such a decision would be arrived at violently.

__________

Basically, Al Qaeda had two horses in the Syrian civil war race: the Al Nusrah Front, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, ISIS left the Al Qaeda fold to go it alone. From The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, page 16 (28 of 81 in the pdf; numbers in ^superscript refer to notes - in cases where I have not reproduced them, see the original):

While ISIS and the Al Nusrah Front attract media attention because of their al-Qaeda affiliation, past or still existing, the other fighting factions in Syria deserve attention regarding their ideology and makeup as "moderate" forces, possible counterweights to al-Qaeda. The Syrian Islamic Front is the biggest alliance of salafi-jihadis, and, while many would like to see them as "moderate," they are committed first to defeating Assad's troops and then to creating an Islamic state, as opposed to al-Qaeda which is committed first and foremost to global jihad.

So in other words, the differences among the factions boil down to this: 1) Al Qaeda wants to go on a global jihad; 2) ISIS has by its name "The Islamic State" declared itself a caliphate, and now wants to go on a global jihad; 3) the "moderates" want to depose the current Syrian government of Assad, then declare an Islamic State, then expand their jihad on to other targets.

The very next paragraph explains how this Islamic state would work. Continuing with The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, page 16 (28 of 81 in the pdf):

Aron Lund's recent comprehensive reporting for Syria in Crisis³² notes that the Islamic Front wants "to establish an independent state where God's merciful law is sovereign and where the individuals of this state enjoy justice and a dignified life." It spurns the term "civil state" (dawla madaniya) as misleading and rejects democracy and parliamentary rule. They appear to be envisioning "a republican theocracy supervised by religious scholars where there is some degree of political competition within sharia-compliant but otherwise modern institutions and where the role of politicians is to administer a strict application of sharia rather than to make laws of their own."

In other words, there will be dictatorship by a small group of individuals who will decide what is Islamic and what is not, and membership in the group can be expected to change, and the group itself may be replaced with other groups.

It is not difficult to imagine that this will happen not democratically, since democratic processes are generally spurned, but rather by the will of Allah, which will naturally manifest itself in a violent manner as internal politics becomes a matter of convincing a strong enough faction to make takfir (apostate) out of the targeted faction.

However, this process of extremists declaring each other takfir has resulted not only in a great deal of violence within and among extremist groups; it has also alienated many Muslims. Skipping back in The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, to page 13 (25 of 81 in the pdf):

Al-Zawahiri, from his refuge in Pakistan, has belatedly realized that the militants' increasing ferocity and widespread practice of takfir (declaring other Muslims infidels) is not winning over the Muslim world.²³

To understand better the relationship between ISIS and Al Qaeda's Al Nusrah Front, as well as the relationship between these two and other Sunni militant groups in Syria, we skip ahead in The Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by Azeem Ibrahim at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2014, to page 18 (30 of 81 in the pdf):

The Al Nusrah Front (Jahbat al-Nusrah) is directly subordinate to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. The rival ISIS, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, despite its resurgence in Iraq, is being run as a renegade operation since al-Baghdadi defied al-Zawahiri's leadership. These two al-Qaeda branches have an estimated 6,000-7,000 operatives,³⁶ and new recruits are continuing to arrive in large numbers. The other salafist rebel groups in Syria total about 100,000;³⁷ thus the proportion of fighters with formal al-Qaeda loyalty is comparatively small. There are many groups who are on record as disavowing al-Qaeda, but that adhere to the salafi-jihadi objectives, adding to the complexity of predicting the strength of al-Qaeda as a distinct ideology, network, and organization.

This would support the view that al-Qaeda is divided effectively from other jihadist groups in Syria. Thus, not only is it at war with the regime and those who follow the Shia traditions, but is also at variance to other radical Sunni groups. In addition, even those who directly share its ideology are split into two factions. This may indicate that there are limits to its ability to influence events. However, in combination with its resurgence in Iraq, it is clear that al-Qaeda is again a major force.

The analysis of that paper had its focus on Al Qaeda. However, since then, ISIS has come to the forefront.

What distinguishes ISIS from the other groups, then, is this: 1) unlike the other Sunni groups, the so-called "moderate" forces, ISIS feels it is ready to take on the entire world, both infidels and takfir alike, beginning right now; 2) unlike Al Qaeda, ISIS has gone ahead and declared itself a caliphate, seizing and claiming territory as a base for the jihad against the rest of the world; and, 3) unlike Al Qaeda, which is trying to profit from lessons about how past atrocious behavior alienated potential supporters, ISIS seems bent on behaving as atrociously as Allah wills.

Funding for Terrorism, Senator McCain, and Punishment for Treason

I have been rather actively involved in the social media. Lately, I have not done so many blog posts here as I have created images and made comments for posting on social media.

There, I notice a trend of patriotic Americans who are complaining about Senator McCain. McCain's viewpoints and proposals on many issues have people outraged. They call it treason. The more polite commentary blame it on senility. They want him imprisoned.

I have done tremendous research on the crowd in Washington. What got me started was hearing about Sibel Edmonds case. Honestly, I think I have forgotten more about her case than most of my readers will ever know, unless someone actually bothers to read her book - and that person may have to read it more than once to know more than I have forgotten.

However, I did not stop there. I began my own research. I dug. I mean I really dug. I mean, I really, really dug, looking in places other people do not look, for things other people do not seek, and cross-referencing a wide variety of data. A quick glance at the sidebar here at the blog should convince anyone of the possibility that, when I do research, I do way more than most bloggers, and way more than nearly anyone in our mainstream media.

I present this as factual, but make no effort to prove my statements. In many of my posts, I give links, I show images from documents... here, I merely tell you what I know, and hope you will independently verify the information and conclusions provided.

Based on the material I have seen, some of it posted on the internet by other bloggers and by competent journalists from outside the mainstream, there is no doubt in my mind that the problem of corruption in Washington, DC, goes far beyond the extensive situation described by Sibel Edmonds.

In particular, I am convinced that Senator John McCain of Arizona has been connected to foreign organized crime for nearly two decades. The cartel in question is of primarily ethnic Albanian origin, and is based in the Balkans. This cartel was closely linked to ethnic Albanian and Islamic terrorists who have also operated in the Balkans, but who operate elsewhere as well.

If you go back to the Cold War, terrorism was easy to understand: the Soviet Union was behind much of it, and it was aimed at the West. Whenever a terrorist organization tried to bite the hand that fed it, the KGB, whose job was protections of Soviet assets worldwide, would spare no expense to teach that organization a lesson and redirect its activities.

In the 1980's terrorist organizations began to diversify their sources of funding. In particular, they teamed up with drug trafficking organizations (DTO's). The alliance was natural: they both had the same enemy - the government - though one fought for an ideological reason, and the other for monetary profit.

The DTO's discovered that terrorists were ready-made anti-government militarized forces, trained and equipped, which could provide considerable balance in the fight to protect drug trafficking operations against government counternarcotics forces which themselves were becoming heavily militarized in much of the drug-producing and drug-transiting regions of the world.

For their part, the terrorist organizations saw the profit in the production and trafficking of drugs. Cocaine, in particular, is so profitable that even if a small percentage of the total amount produced gets sold rather than interdicted, the DTO is still making good money. DTO's have always been able to get several times more product through to buyers than the bare minimum needed for solvency. Terrorists saw that production and trafficking of drugs exacerbated problems for their enemies in the government, a situation which could then be leveraged politically and militarily. Furthermore, the immense profits available in drug trafficking could finance terrorist activities in a way that state sponsors never could: virtually unlimited money was available, with practically no strings attached.

Narcoterrorism was born, and the monster had the "DNA" of both its parents.

It was in Latin America, in places like Colombia and Peru, where some of the earliest innovations in this area took place. But, it happened elsewhere. The Palestine Liberation Organization - the well-known PLO - was trouble for its Arab and Soviet sponsors - so much so that Jordanian security forces drove it from Jordanian territory across from the West Bank. The PLO landed in Lebanon, where it found the Bekaa Valley a perfect place to produce narcotics. This was when the PLO began to become less ideologically-centered, and more centered on profit. Its nickname was the "Poppy Lovers' Organization"; suffice it to say that its leader, Nobel Peace Prize Winning Yassir Arafat, died a very rich man indeed - and its award to a drug-trafficking terrorist should tell you something about the Nobel Peace Prize.

The US government was not immune to the lures of easy money.

In Latin America, the US was dealing with the threat of communist subversion. Maoist rebels were fighting to take over Peru, and other communist groups were battling the government in Colombia; both nations had an extensive problem with DTO's as well.

But, Nicaragua was special. There, taking its name from a legendary bandit of the late 1920's whose forces were defeated with the help of the US Marines, a group called the Sandinistas deposed President Somoza and established a communist regime. This regime was a threat to the security of the whole region.

In particular, Costa Rica, Nicaragua's neighbor to the south, did not even have an army, rightly concerned that standing armies and the constant coups they produce were a scourge to Latin American countries. Costa Rica's neighbor farther south, Panama, considered contingency plans to move Panamanian troops north into Costa Rica, should this become necessary to answer communist aggression from Nicaragua.

To Nicaragua's north, communist infiltration through a stretch of Honduran jungle supported an attempt by communist-backed forces to seize power in El Salvador, resulting in a long, brutal civil war there.

All this trouble could easily be traced back to Managua, and from there to Havana and Moscow.

The US had to do something to keep the cancer of communism from spreading, so the US began supporting the "contras", people who were against the Sandinista revolution and the resulting communist regime.

However, the Reagan Administration had to deal with a deeply-entrenched Democrat Congress - one which too often sympathized with the communists.

The "solution" discovered by certain relatively low-ranking players was to traffic cocaine to America. The money could be used to fund the contras, and since the money was illegal, it was "black" money for black ops, out of reach of Congress. It was far from an ideal solution, but the reality was that Americans were getting their cocaine - they were going to buy from someone - and if the intelligence community provided some of it, then at least the profits could be channeled to a productive purpose, the defeat of communist subversion in the Americas. The laudable ends "justified" the criminal means.

Predictably, the drug money soon corrupted the laudable ends. Drug trafficking became an end itself, with support for the contras becoming merely a cover story for corruption. According to some accounts, the operation worked so well that corrupt US intelligence operatives had to start supplying arms to the Sandinistas, lest they be defeated, the war would end, and there would be no need for the profitable drug trafficking black op to continue. According to some accounts, the DTO's were caught in the middle between heavily-armed communist forces and heavily armed anti-communist forces, so corrupt US intelligence operatives had to supply arms to the DTO's so the drugs could continue to be produced and shipped. If all of this is true, US intelligence operatives were supplying all sides and making real money doing so, all under a cover story of stopping communist subversion.

The same recipe was used in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to greater effect, and with greater official sanction. Poppies grown along the Durand Line (the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) could be refined into heroin, and much of this heroin could be shipped into the Soviet Union and "sold" there. The Soviet ruble was not considered hard currency, but barter to rogue Soviet officials for arms and supplies could always be arranged. The heroin destroyed the infidel godless communist regime from the inside, while the arms helped support the jihad in Afghanistan. Once again, it was black money for black ops, well out of reach of Congress, but this time with fatwas avowing Allah's approval. The war in Afghanistan, fought right outside the Soviet border, became Moscow's "Vietnam", and kept Moscow from dealing more harshly with Poland and from causing problems elsewhere; in fact, the war in Afghanistan and the resulting stress in the Soviet Union proved to be the straw that broke the communist camel's back in Russia.

By the 1990's, the guys who came up with this recipe had moved up in rank in government service. Add to that the intrinsic corruption of the Clintons and their Administration, and the Clinton Administration became the most corrupt Administration in US history: no one else was even close. The cold war was over, but government officials were dealing with DTO's which, in turn, were connected to terrorist groups, including Islamic terrorist groups connected to the Arab-Afghan Mujahideen - "Al Qaeda" - and to the Poppy Lovers' Organization.

Bush-43 took was inaugurated in January, 2001. As a dedicated Republican, I was happy to vote for him after the outrages of the Clinton era, and I was confident America was on the right track again. Little did I realize...

Information that these Arab-Afghan Mujahideen were planning terrorist strikes against the US was not lacking. They had planned many attacks involving aircraft, including the Bojinka plot. They had attempted to crash planes into buildings, kamikaze style.

And, information was coming in that something was afoot for later in 2001. Blueprints to US skyscrapers had been sent to the Middle East - and, if you are going to crash a plane into a building, why do you need blueprints of the building? Guys affiliated with Islamic terrorist organizations were learning how to fly big commercial jets, and the way they were doing it looked suspicious.

So, there was background to this - Condoleezza Rice lied when she said she didn't "think anyone could have predicted" this - and there was hard intelligence coming in that it may have been about to happen.

The trouble is, an attack this big had never happened before. It was considered very unlikely.

Much more importantly, though, the intelligence coming that it could be about to happen was not coming in through counterterrorism channels; it was coming in through counternarcotics channels: the intelligence apparatus targeting DTO's was picking up information about possible ops being planned by terrorist organizations affiliated with the DTO's.

This was a major problem. An investigation into this could conceivably lead to highly-placed US officials, both elected and appointed, who were on the payroll of these DTO's. By this time - mid-2001 - this included Republican Dennis Hastert, who at the time was the 59th Speaker of the House, and who was on the payroll of Turkish organized crime.

It should be noted that by this time, Senator John McCain was already doing favors for the Albanian cartel described above. McCain was steering US policy in a direction favorable to the cartel and its terrorist allies; in return, a PAC affiliated with that foreign cartel was laundering illicit money from foreign organized crime activities into McCain's campaign coffers.

This illicit money wasn't just from moving Afghan heroin into Western Europe and America; it included the profits of operations for trafficking arms, for trafficking women for forced prostitution, and for trafficking in human body parts from living non-volunteers - Serbian prisoners of war and even civilians captured in the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. This money was mixed in with legitimate, legal campaign contributions from decent, honest, hard-working Americans of ethnic Albanian descent, and given to McCain. In return, McCain, who as a Republican in the Senate was aware of the reports about these terrorists and criminals that the Clinton Administration had been supporting (and that the Bush-43 Administration was now supporting - oh, yes, Bush-43 and even Joe Biden took money from the same guys), was helping Clinton to support them.

McCain went into this with his eyes open, he knew what he was doing, he knew where the money was coming from, and he knew that he was hurting innocent people in the Balkans and betraying US security interests.

An investigation into the intelligence about upcoming terrorist attacks - intelligence that was mainly coming in through counternarcotics channels - would inevitably lead to highly-placed, powerful people in the US government, and would be very embarrassing for them, implicating them in extensive, treasonous corruption.

So, they buried it, instead.

Then, when 9/11 hit, the cover-up began, and from the very beginning, Bush-43 was deeply involved in steering the investigation away from the corruption.

Meanwhile, these guys who came up with the idea to fund anti-communist groups with drug money in the 1980's... they had moved up in rank, and now found themselves under another Republican administration. They were calling the shots now.

This, coupled with the Bush-43 Administration's cronyism, made the Bush-43 Administration more corrupt than the Clinton Administration. And, when one considers how Clinton was giving critical military technology to Communist China in exchange for Chinese money laundered into Democrat campaign coffers, that's saying something.

I mentioned Condoleezza Rice above... she was involved in the Chinese espionage. While working at Stanford, she discretely failed to investigate a Chinese spy ring that was stealing critical technology there. But, that's another story.

Fast forward to the Obama Administration: we now have a "President" who openly, obviously hates America. He was raised by communists and nursed with communist propaganda. He received a strong dose of Islamic indoctrination - and Islam, like communism, is antithetical to everything America stands for.

On top of that, he has no integrity, no honor, no moral compass... in short, he's a perfect example of the worst the far left has to offer.

The treasonous corruption is now so bad, even the Clinton years look good by comparison.

Back to McCain.

As far as I'm concerned, McCain served his time in prison in the Hanoi Hilton. Provided he will cooperate fully with the investigation, I believe his time should be served restricted to the grounds of senior officer's quarters on a military base, where his family can stay with him and visit him, and where he will be safe from the criminals he will need to betray to recuperate some degree of honor.

The others... well, I want them in a federal prison. And, I think we need to build a new one, one big enough to house them all. We need honest investigators, answerable to an honest President, a real American, and we need those investigators to go through Washington, DC, with a fine-toothed comb.

Comment on Defensible Borders and "Occupied" Land

Tammy Bruce posted a link to a note on Facebook that linked back to this: The Topography of Defensible Israeli Borders.

Here was my extensive comment to her note:

The article brings up good points that are routinely neglected in the typical media discourse. Here are some of the points the article brings up, plus a few.

"Palestine" also refers to the territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan; the PLO and others want to "liberate" this, too.

The territory of Israel is considered "occupied" by the "Palestinian" leadership. The "Palestinian" leadership has never backed off from the idea that they need to "liberate" the entire region, killing or driving into the sea every single Jew there.

"Palestinian" Arabs are latecomers to the area; the Jews had the Holy Land as a homeland even after Rome changed the province's name. It was when Arabs attacked in the seventh century, waging Islamic jihad, that many Jews finally left. The Muslim Arabs built nothing, and very few stayed. As late the end of the nineteenth century, there was essentially nothing and no one there; that is why the international community agreed to establish the Jewish homeland there - they didn't have to move anybody.

Even today, most of Samaria and Judea are empty, except for a few cities.

And so on...

The Arabs keep getting clobbered every time they attack. Allah is letting them down. They know that the only chance they have is to negotiate Israel back to the 1967 "borders", and then attack from there. If they can do this, they will be able to launch their attack from the high ground overlooking the densely populated coastal plain that is the core of Israel. Arab artillery will be able to shell the whole region, Arab forces will descend to attack, and the hills of Judea and Samaria will block Israeli radar to attacking Arab military aircraft.

Israel should keep all the land the IDF has taken in repelling the Arab attacks, for security reasons, but also as a price the Arabs pay for their continued aggression. Egypt, in signing a peace treaty with Israel (which I think is now very much in jeopardy) deserved to have the Sinai returned. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan also has good relations with Israel, now, but Jordan occupied the West Bank as a result of the War of Independence. It is not really Jordanian territory; it should belong to Israel, if we are to keep with the Balfour Declaration.

Still, Israel does not want to do this. But, it is important that Israel maintain a presence in the Golan Heights and along the Jordan River. In the Golan Heights, the Syrians would currently have to ascend to attack, and the fight would be in mostly deserted land. Should Israel give up the Golan Heights, the Syrians would be able to descend to attack, shelling into populated Israeli territory. This is kind of parallel to the situation in Samaria and Judea. Currently, Israel has forces along the Jordan River. They could fight a delaying action, withdrawing up into the hills, as Israeli forces mobilized and marshalled for the defense and counterattack. Furthermore, with Israeli radars and surface-to-air missiles in the hills of the "West Bank", Israel is far less vulnerable to surprise Arab air attack coming through the airspace of Jordan. Give this up to the people who have repeatedly sworn to kill them, and the Israelis will be in real jeopardy.

The Arabs enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis in the extermination of the Jews during World War II, and have frequently announced their desire to destroy Israel as a nation, driving its people into the sea. It is written in Islamic holy texts that Jews must be exterminated; the Muslim Arabs consider it their duty to Allah to destroy Israel and kill all Israelis. They frequently announce this intention in the media in Arabic, intended for domestic consumption; they are a little less obvious with what they say to the international community in English.

Until the Arabs change their rhetoric, both in Arabic and in English, and until they demonstrate a commitment to doing things peacefully, there can be no peace in the region. Beyond Israel, the Arabs repeatedly fight among themselves; Egypt invaded Yemen, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Jordan got tired of PLO agitation and drove the PLO out - during this latter fight, the PLO was crossing the Jordan River to surrender to Israelis so they wouldn't be murdered at the hands of their fellow Palestinian Arabs of Jordan. The problem is not Israel; it is the Arab regimes in the region.

In my opinion, Israel should never give up Judea and Samaria; it is acceptable that they allow the Palestinian Arabs in the few population centers there to rule themselves, but the uninhabited expanses of the West Bank were intended by the Balfour Declaration to belong to Israel, and Israel had to take them in self defense against one of many Arab attacks. Israel should keep Samaria and Judea regardless of any settlement.

Thanks for keeping this issue on the front burner, Tammy. Obama's recipe of withdrawal to the 1967 "borders", which echoes a proposal by Saudi Arabia, is a recipe for what the Arabs want most - an Israel vulnerable to a new war of annihilation.

Unity and Faith, Part 4

In Part 1 we had an overview of Nigeria and introduced the various angles of the north/south split in the country. Then in Part 2 we considered some of the various factors in the unrest in Nigeria. Next, in Part 3 we examined the jihad and counterjihad aspects of this unrest a little more closely, encountering reason to suspect Nigeria's security forces of committing excesses, including extrajudicial killings, in dealing with the trouble.

We now review excerpts from 'Nigeria's Taliban': How Big a Threat?, dated July 30, 2009. With the ongoing violence in Nigeria today, it is important to keep in mind this article is from two years ago.

The immediate crisis may be over in Nigeria, but the threat of violence remains. Government security forces today attacked a mosque filled with Islamist militants, killing scores of fighters and forcing more to flee. The militants, blamed for days of violence across the country's north, belong to a group known as Boko Haram, which aims to overthrow the federal government in Abuja and impose a strict version of Islamic law. The sect's leader Mohammed Yusuf escaped the raid along with some 300 of his men, but was later arrested and then died in custody according to police. Four days of clashes, sparked by attacks on police stations and government buildings, have killed at least 300 people.

The Boko Haram leader died in police custody; interesting in light of the allegations against Nigeria's security forces that we considered in Part 3.

Continuing:

Also known as Nigeria's Taliban, Boko Haram formed about eight years ago. A huge government operation against the group in 2004 ended with the police claiming victory. But five years on and the militants are back, stronger and more vicious. In the latest outbreak of violence, in Maiduguri, the capital of northeastern Borno state, militant gunmen assaulted police stations and engaged armored-personnel backed troops.

Africa's most populous country sits on a religious fault line. Its 150 million people are split almost evenly between Muslims in the north and Christians in the south. For many years, the northern Muslim élite have dominated Nigerian politics, using their positions to enrich themselves and their families.

The allegations are that it was a "northern Muslim élite" responsible for much of the corruption.

Skipping down a little:

Over the past few years a new breed of young Muslim activists, most of them educated and from the middle class, have aggressively embraced a stricter version of Islam, rejecting anything Western and Christian.

It seems this sect may have been founded by younger Muslims who were angry at corruption among their parents. Regardless, as if often the case, the terrorist organization has its foundation among educated, middle class Muslims.

The article concludes pointing out the concern that al Qaeda might gain a foothold here, and calling attention to a special place Osama bin Laden had assigned Nigeria in the world's jihad.

A month later, Nigeria's Vanguard reported that Boko Haram ressurects, declares total Jihad:

The Islamic sect Boko Haram has declared total Jihad in Nigeria, threatening to Islamise the entire nation by force of war.

[snip]

WE SPEAK AS BOKO HARAM
For the first time since the Killing of Mallam Mohammed Yusuf, our leader, we hereby make the following statements.

1) First of all that Boko Haram does not in any way mean "Western Education is A sin" as the infidel media continue to portray us. Boko Haram actually means "Western Civilisation" is forbidden. The difference is that while the first gives the impression that we are opposed to formal education coming from the West, that is Europe, which is not true, the second affirms our believe in the supremacy of Islamic culture (not Education), for culture is broader, it includes education but not determined by Western Education.

[snip]

2) That the Boko Haram is an Islamic Revolution which impact is not limited to Northern Nigeria, in fact, we are spread across all the 36 states in Nigeria, and Boko Haram is just a version of the Al Qaeda which we align with and respect. We support Osama bin Laden, we shall carry out his command in Nigeria until the country is totally Islamised which is according to the wish of Allah.

[snip]

Having made the following statement we hereby reinstate our demands:

1) That we have started a Jihad in Nigeria which no force on earth can stop. The aim is to Islamise Nigeria and ensure the rule of the majority Muslims in the country. We will teach Nigeria a lesson, a very bitter one.

[snip]

3) That we shall make the country ungovernable, kill and eliminate irresponsible political leaders of all leanings, hunt and gun down those who oppose the rule of Sharia in Nigeria and ensure that the infidel does not go unpunished.

It is not uncommon that analysts point to economic disparities as a source of the violence in Nigeria. But, the terrorists themselves point to Islamic ideology. Furthermore, at least some of the economic disparity is the fault of a corrupt "northern Muslim élite". Consequently, any analysis that does not factor in jihadist Islamic ideology is inadequate.

Fast forward to June 15, 2011, when an article in the Nigeria Daily News entitled Nigerian Islamist sect, Boko Haram vows fiercer, wider attacks quoted Boko Haram as declaring:

"Very soon, we will wage jihad...We want to make it known that our jihadists have arrived in Nigeria from Somalia where they received real training on warfare from our brethren who made that country ungovernable...," said the group in a handwritten statement.

"This time round, our attacks will be fiercer and wider than they have been," it said, adding it would target all northern states and the country's capital Abuja. The statement in Hausa, a widely spoken language in the North, was anonymously delivered to journalists in the North-eastern city of Maiduguri, capital of Borno State, where the attacks were concentrated.

The sect admitted links with a foreign Islamist group connected to Al-Qaeda, although security experts had already speculated that it had established ties with Islamists in North Africa.

Maiduguri featured in an attack only days later.

From Nigerian Boko Haram Islamists 'kill nurse' in Maiduguri, June 20, 2011:

Gunmen from Nigeria's radical Islamist sect Boko Haram have killed a nurse who was playing cards in the north-eastern city of Maiduguri, according to police.

Police said four people were also wounded in the shooting at a bus stop in the city.

Of interest is the connection to foreign terrorist groups; this is an international Islamic extremist ideology that is manifesting itself locally in Nigeria. Boko Haram's statement specifically mentioned Somalia, and there are reasons to suspect other connections.

First, we look at excerpts from Boko Haram Declares War, dated June 27, 2011:

Few seem convinced by President Goodluck Jonathan's assurances that the security situation is under control following the bombing on 16 June of Louis Edet House, the national police headquarters in Abuja. It killed at least two people and wounded seven. Agents of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived to help investigate claims of international terrorist links.

[snip]

Some immediate questions emerge from the latest round of attacks: Who is behind Boko Haram? How much foreign support has it got and how can it best be confronted? After downplaying its importance and regional ties for some years, Nigerian security officials now point to cross-border links.

[snip]

It seems their tactics are working: security sources speak of training camps of Hausa-speaking Nigerians in Burkina Faso and Niger as well as a wave of new recruits to Boko Haram across northern Nigeria. It's harder to trace the international links, but some officials are taking seriously claims from Boko Haram that their militants, including bomb-makers, have been training in Somalia alongside Al Shabaab and Al Qaida operatives. There are also small, highly mobile affiliates of Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb across the Sahel, which could provide the training and the materiel to launch the type of bombings and guerrilla attacks that Boko Haram favours.

Also, in Part 2 we began reviewing a paper entitled Key Issues in Nigeria's 2011 Elections, dated March 29, 2011, by Sola Tayo. We now pick up with an excerpt from page 7:

Concerns about internal security are common during electoral periods, but the possible action of outsiders is also causing concern within the government. In November 2010 a shipment of arms was intercepted in Lagos. The intended destination of the shipment was unclear, although it is claimed it was to be re-exported to The Gambia. However the trafficked rockets and explosives, which came from Iran, were the responsibility of a Nigerian and two Iranians who have been charged with the importation of prohibited firearms. The incident caused a diplomatic storm which resulted in Nigeria reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for a possible arms violation. Although Nigeria has not severed diplomatic ties with Iran, the relationship (on the Nigerian side at least) is tense.

Whatever the intended destination of that shipment, the Nigerian government is understandably wary of arms shipments entering the country and ending up in the possession of militant groups. It is equally suspicious of direct interference by outsiders. In March 2010 the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, suggested that Nigeria be split in two to end the violence between Muslims and Christians. His comments provoked a strong reaction from the Nigerian government, with Abuja recalling the Ambassador in Tripoli and accusing Libya of trying to destabilize the country. The issue of partitioning the country into a Muslim north and Christian south is a deeply sensitive subject in Nigeria.

Gaddafi is not the only one to suggest this division of Nigeria; there are calls among Nigerians for a north/south (= Muslim/infidel) "divorce" and I am sure recent events in Sudan will fuel these calls. Also, the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, where a "northerner" of questionable Ivoirian credentials was installed by force by the international community, in violation of Ivoirian law, may set a precedent that worries the southerners in Nigeria.

The arms shipment addressed in the quoted passage above was quite substantial, too.

In fact, it was so substantial that some analysts suggested it was a new way to supply anti-Israeli terrorists forces. From Nigerian arms seizure may indicate new Iran-Hamas route, October 29, 2010.

Weapons discovered in 13 shipping containers in the Port of Lagos earlier this week could signify that Iran is trying to develop a new route to smuggle arms and explosives to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, defense officials said on Thursday.

The ship, apparently from Iran, reportedly docked in the Lagos Port on Tuesday and, according to the bill of lading, was supposed to be carrying construction supplies. On inspecting the 13 containers, customs officials discovered rockets, mortars, bombs, rifles and heavy machine guns hidden among crates of building tiles.

Nigerian officials were quoted in the media claiming that the cargo had been under surveillance for some time. It was possible that the intelligence on the cargo was supplied by Western sources.

"On opening the first container, the service operatives discovered rocket launchers, grenades and other explosives; the weapons were concealed among crates of floor tiles," Nigerian State Security Service spokeswoman Marilyn Ogar was quoted as saying.

The largest rocket appeared to be a 107-mm. Katyusha, which Iran is known to manufacture and which makes up the backbone of Hizbullah's and Hamas's arsenals.

Even if most of the weapons, including the rockets, are intended for Palestinian terrorists, it is not unreasonable to expect that local Nigerian jihadists might take a cut for helping move them.

So, we have Iranian arms smuggled into Nigeria, resulting in an international incident reported to the UN.

But, the report previously quoted above, Key Issues in Nigeria's 2011 Elections, only mentions the smuggled arms; why don't we hear about the heroin?

From From Iran: Customs intercept container of heroin at Tin-Can port, November 19, 2010 (I fixed misspellings of "heroin"):

LAGOS—Nigerian Customs Service has intercepted a large quantity of heroin concealed in a 40-foot container, which was believed to have originated from Iran. The container which was brought into the Tin-can Island Port [Nigeria's Tin Can Port - EL] was concealed among machine parts.

[snip]

Also confirming the interception of the large quantity of hard drugs at the Tin-Can Island Port, Customs spokesman, Mr. Wale Adeniyi, said that about ten wraps of heroin each weighing 112kg had been off-loaded from the container.

It was also gathered that CMA-CGM, the shipping company that brought in the 13 containers of arms and ammunition intercepted recently at the Apapa Port, also brought the heroin-laden container.

The heroin and the arms were being moved via the same smuggling route, it appears.

Nigeria is a major oil-producing country. We now see arms- and heroin smuggling from Iran, and connections to international Islamic terrorist groups. Where have we seen this combination before: oil, heroin, and Islamic terrorists?

A November, 2009, NATO research paper entitled An assessment of crime related risks in the Sahel touches on the role played by Nigerian organized crime cartels, and points to increasing movement of marijuana and cocaine across the Sahel region. Of course, I have been pointing to the movement of arms, terrorism and heroin through this region, and alluding to (though not yet establishing) connections between events in Côte d'Ivoire and cocaine trafficking from South America to Europe.

Boko Haram is connected to international Islamic terrorists who, in turn, are connected to international arms- and narcotics traffickers. These connections run to Iran, to Somalia, and across the Sahara/Sahel region to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. They of course run through nearby countries; Burkina Faso was specifically mentioned. Burkina Faso is a significant player in the world of transnational smuggling, and is implicated in the situation in Côte d'Ivoire; in fact, Côte d'Ivoire's new strongman, Ouattara, is from Burkina Faso. Nigerian groups are also connected to movement of South American cocaine.

Boko Haram's ideology is shared with terrorists all over the world; the "Religion of Peace" is in fact an ideology of terrorism. But, it would be cut off at the knees without all the transnational organized crime activities that fund it, via smuggling of cocaine, heroin, arms and other commodities, and that supply it with potent weapons.

Unfortunately, though, our "War on Terror", or whatever they call it these days, will only deal the most superficial aspects of terrorism. Political correctness will not allow us to connect terrorism to Islam, and corruption and illicit money which finds its way to important officials in Washington from transnational organized crime will not allow us to effectively address terrorism in any case.

Hazy Shade of Winter, Part 1

Earlier this month:

Jim Carafano, deputy director of the Heritage Foundation, says "I honestly don't know what the administration was thinking."

This has been Obama's policy all along, ever since he won the election. How did everyone miss this?

We examine excerpts from Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal; notice that the link is dated November 16, 2008!

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America's president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be "crazy" for Israel to refuse a deal that could "give them peace with the Muslim world", according to a senior Obama adviser.

[snip]

[Dennis] Ross [a senior Obama adviser and former Middle East envoy] and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan.

According to a Washington source Obama told Abbas: "The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco."

[snip]

Livni, the leader of Kadima, which favours the plan, is the front-runner in Israeli elections due in February. Her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is adamantly against withdrawing to borders that predate the Six Day war in 1967.

The 1967 "borders" scheme would result in Israel's destruction. Anyone with any amount of knowledge regarding the situation in the Middle East should know this, and any President who doesn't know this could ask his intelligence and military analysts to explain it to him. (See Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace for excellent background.)

Is Obama so incompetent that he thinks this might work?

Or does he want to destroy Israel?

Or, maybe both?

The amazing thing is that 78% of the US Jewish vote went to Obama in 2008 (see 2008 Jewish Vote for Obama Exceeds All Expectations and 78% of American Jewish Vote Goes To Obama-Biden); within days, Obama was planning a Mideast "Peace" that would obviously result in Israel's eventual and likely fairly prompt destruction.

We now consider an excerpt from Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror:

Could the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 return? It could be argued that conditions have entirely changed; Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that have withstood the test of time. After 2003, the threat of Iraq seems to have been neutralized. In addition, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Syria finds it more difficult to arm itself sufficiently. However, this is only a relatively static snapshot of Israel's strategic situation over the last ten years.

Long-Term Strategic Threats

The determination of defensible borders must be based on an assessment that takes into account potential long-term strategic threats as well. In this context, the following questions need to be considered:

1. Is there any way to guarantee that Iraq will not evolve into a radical Shi'ite state that is dependent on Iran and hostile to Israel (differences between Iraqi and Iranian Shi'ites notwithstanding)? Indeed, King Abdullah of Jordan has warned of a hostile Shi'ite axis that could include Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

2. Is it not conceivable that a Palestinian state will arise in the West Bank that will ultimately take over Jordan? It is worth recalling that just as Iraq has a Shi'ite majority, Jordan already has a Palestinian majority. Can Israel defend itself if it is attacked by a Palestinian state that stretches from Iraq to Kalkilya?

3. Is it not possible that in the future, militant Islamic elements will succeed in gaining control of the Egyptian regime?

None of these possible scenarios can be discounted; each of them, and certainly their combination, requires thinking about how to defend Israel against a classical military threat.

A combination of these scenarios is exactly what is developing - and what had been developing for months prior to Obama calling for Israel to withdraw inside the 1967 "borders".

First, we consider reports about the situation in Jordan. From Jordan's New Generation of Salafi-Jihadists Take to the Streets to Demand Rule by Shari'a dated May 5, 2011:

Jordan has not escaped the political turmoil and street confrontations that have enveloped the Middle East during the so-called "Arab Spring." The ongoing debate between the Jordanian government and protestors seeking political reform in Jordan escalated on March 24 when one man died and scores of others were injured in clashes that erupted between progovernment and pro-reform protesters at the Interior Ministry Circle in Amman. The pro-reform protestors claimed that security forces turned a blind eye to the attacks against them.

Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit blamed the Muslim Brotherhood for the violent developments (Jordan Times, March, 25). In an interview with Jordanian television, Bakhit accused the group of creating chaos in the country and taking orders from Islamist leaders in Egypt and Syria, while warning them "not to play with fire" (Petra News [Ammon], March, 27).

Jihadists on the Street

Some Jordanian Islamists have joined street protests for the first time in their history. These include the Salafi-Jihadists, whose members have held demonstrations in several cities of Jordan demanding the release of their imprisoned colleagues while stressing that their movement has paid a high price for Jordan's alliance with United States in the so-called "War on Terror." The jihadists, who demanded that Jordan be ruled by Shari'a, have shown that they are large in number, organized and defiant. The jihadists hailed the recent release of four of their colleagues and cancelled a pre-planned demonstration in Amman a few days later, adding that "the State [of Jordan] knows our strength" (al-Jazeera.net, April 12).

On April 15, Salafi-Jihadists were among other Jordanian groups demonstrating after Friday prayer in various Jordanian cities. After demonstrating in Amman, Ma'an, Salt, and Irbid, jihadists then went into the streets of Zarqa, the hometown of Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in June 2006.

The protest ended with clashes between jihadists and pro-government and security forces that resulted in some 80 injured policemen. Jordan's police chief, Lieutenant General Hussein Majali, stated that eight civilians had been hurt when police fired tear gas to stop Salafist demonstrators from attacking shoppers in Zarqa: "It was clear that the demonstrators had plans to clash with police. They carried swords and daggers and were provocative, seeking to drag police into a bloody confrontation" (AFP, April 15). Jordanian security services responded to the violence by conducting a series of raids in Zarqa and the nearby town of Rassifeh that rounded up some 70 Islamists, including prominent leader Shaykh Abdul Shahatah al-Tahawi (AFP, April 16).

The Hashemite dynasty in Jordan is facing the same instability as other regional governments, with the same players involved.

Next we consider New Nazi Party for Egypt by IPT News, May 27, 2011:

Egyptian leftist news portal Al-Badeel reports that a group of Egyptian activists will form a Nazi party for upcoming elections. The Egyptian Nazi group claims it will bring together prominent figures and ex-military officers, to promote fascist single-party rule.

Founding member Emad Abdel Sattar summed up the group's belief in single-party rule. The party "believes in vesting all powers in the president after selecting him or her carefully," and within the party "preparations are under way to choose the most competent person to represent the party." The appeal of authoritarianism comes from recent chaos in the streets, burning Coptic churches by Salafi Muslims, and random violence against civilians, according to the report.

Members are "increasing at an unexpected rate, and several people came to ask about the nature of the party and its plans," it says. The group has an ambitious plan to rapidly advance development in Egypt, in a single year, and rejects the "marginalized liberal parties, which are like dead bodies."

Nazis aren't the only group in the country that rejects long term democracy. Salafi Muslim groups support the reestablishment of the Caliphate, starting in Egypt, while the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party has sent mixed messages.

These are developments in two countries that have peace treaties with Israel; what about the countries that have continued to call for Israel's destruction?

As this series continues, we will examine what the concept of "defensible borders" means to Israel, and how developments in the region threaten renewed wars of annihilation against Israel, even as the "leader" of Israel's most important ally calls on Israel to change and make suicidal sacrifices in the hope of achieving peace with neighboring powers who consider it their religious duty to destroy Israel and kill Israelis.