Fatah al Islam to Attack in US

From JihadWatch:

 

TRIPOLI, Lebanon — Deep in a violent and lawless slum just north of this coastal city, 12 men whose faces were shrouded by scarves drilled with Kalashnikovs.

In unison, they lunged in one direction, turned and lunged in another. "Allah-u akbar," the men shouted in praise to God as they fired their machine guns into a wall.

The men belong to a new militant Islamic organization called Fatah al Islam, whose leader, a fugitive Palestinian named Shakir al-Abssi, has set up operations in a refugee camp here where he trains fighters and spreads the ideology of Al Qaeda.

He has solid terrorist credentials. A former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia who was killed last summer, Mr. Abssi was sentenced to death in absentia along with Mr. Zarqawi in the 2002 assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan, Laurence Foley. Just four months after arriving here from Syria, Mr. Abssi has a militia that intelligence officials estimate at 150 men and an arsenal of explosives, rockets and even an antiaircraft gun.

During a recent interview with The New York Times, Mr. Abssi displayed his makeshift training facility and his strident message that America needed to be punished for its presence in the Islamic world. "The only way to achieve our rights is by force ," he said. "This is the way America deals with us. So when the Americans feel that their lives and their economy are threatened, they will know that they should leave."

Mr. Abssi's organization is the image of what intelligence officials have warned is the re-emergence of Al Qaeda. Shattered after 2001, the organization founded by Osama bin Laden is now reforming as an alliance of small groups around the world that share a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam but have developed their own independent terror capabilities, these officials have said. If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has acknowledged directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a string of other terror plots, represents the previous generation of Qaeda leaders, Mr. Abssi and others like him represent the new.

[...]

In a 90-minute interview, his first with Western reporters, Mr. Abssi said he shared Al Qaeda's fundamentalist interpretation and endorsed the creation of a global Islamic nation. He said killing American soldiers in Iraq was no longer enough to convince the American public that its government should abandon what many Muslims view as a war against Islam.

"We have every legitimate right to do such acts, for isn't it America that comes to our region and kills innocents and children?" Mr. Abssi said. "It is our right to hit them in their homes the same as they hit us in our homes.

"We are not afraid of being named terrorists," he added. "But I want to ask, is someone who detonates one kilogram a terrorist while someone who detonates tons in Arab and Islamic cities not a terrorist?"

KSM vs America and the West

From OpinionJournal:

 

What his confession says about our enemy--and us. 

In Cairo last year, Deputy Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Habib told us that the 9/11 attacks were "great crimes," but that he doubted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible. It's probably too much to expect that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession that he "was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z" will sway minds like Mr. Habib's. But for the rest of us, the testimony by bin Laden's top operational lieutenant is a jolting re-education in the enemy we face.

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew," he boasted to a U.S. military tribunal on March 10, referring to our colleague Daniel Pearl. "For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head."

One lesson of his testimony is the scope of his terror success, and his even larger ambition. Among the 31 actual events: The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, chiefly carried out by his nephew Ramzi Yousef; the October 2002 nightclub bombings in Bali, in which 202 were killed and another 200 injured; the killing of two U.S. GIs in Kuwait the same month; the November 2002 hotel bombings in Kenya, in which 13 Israelis and Kenyans died; and the November 2003 attacks in Istanbul against Jewish and British targets, which killed 57 and wounded 700. That's roughly 3,280 murders.

But even this pales next to what might have happened had the U.S. not arisen from pre-9/11 complacency and gone on offense. By his own admission, KSM also planned attacks on targets in South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Israel, the Straits of Hormuz and Gibraltar, the Panama Canal, Brussels and London. He made extensive plans to assassinate Pope John Paul II during the pope's visit to Manila in 1995. He attempted to destroy an American oil company in Indonesia "owned," as he put it, "by the Jewish former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger."

Among other U.S. targets, there was "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid's failed attempt against American Airlines Flight 63 in December 2001, schemes to assassinate Presidents Clinton and Carter, and a "new wave" of attacks after 9/11 targeting skyscrapers in L.A., Chicago and Seattle, New York's suspension bridges and stock exchange, and nuclear power plants in "several U.S. states."

Perhaps most ominously, KSM also admitted to being "directly in charge" of "managing and following up on the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax and others, and following up on Dirty Bomb Operations on American Soil." Given such a confession, is it too much to ask the FBI to reconsider its dogmatic view that the 2001 anthrax attacks could only have had a domestic source?

No doubt many terror experts will declare that much or all of this is boasting, and perhaps some of it is. We can only hope so. And no doubt the truly credulous will assume it is largely a product of CIA coercion, as if the attacks KSM claims credit for had some other provenance.

But we think KSM's world of war makes clear that, if anything, President Bush understated the danger posed by the 14 "high-value" enemy combatants he transferred to Guantanamo last autumn. And it reveals just how terribly mistaken was the view of those who told us, pre-9/11, that terrorism was merely a law enforcement threat like any other.

That view permeated the CIA, where Paul Pillar helped run the Counterterrorist Center and wrote that "There is no . . . BinLadentern" akin to the old Communist Comintern. He denounced "overheated rhetoric that has spun out ever more frightening and unusual ways in which terrorism might inflict large numbers of casualties." And he deprecated President Clinton for ordering government agencies to examine the plausibility of a biological attack on New York City after he'd read "The Cobra Event," Richard Preston's 1998 novel on the subject.

When the 9/11 Commission concluded that the failure to avert that awful day was above all "a failure of imagination," the Pillar world view is Exhibit A. And we mention it here because now, after five years without a terror attack on U.S. soil, that view is making a comeback in the growing opposition to holding enemy combatants in Guantanamo or to warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda.

As KSM makes clear, bin Laden and his acolytes declared "war" on the U.S. in his fatwa of 1998, a fact the U.S. only figured out on September 11. He professes to regret the death of women and children, but calls such indiscriminate killing "the language of any war" and justified by his religious motivation.

"For sure, I'm American enemies," said KSM in his broken English. For sure, too, he is a reminder of the evil that still confronts us in this conflict with radical Islam, and one that we underestimate at our existential peril.

Cross-posted at Hidden Dragon Politics

Creeping Sharia

From LGF:

At "The American Muslim," Issa Smith describes the plan to establish shari'a law in the United States—and yes, he is talking about shari'a for everyone: Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system. (Hat tip: The Gathering Storm.)

This is the violence-deferred front of the global jihad—the attempt to use our own democratic institutions to subvert themselves and institute a Dark Ages legal code, first for themselves, but in the long run for the entire country. It's Islamic supremacism in a Trojan Horse disguise of free speech.

Although the Muslim community in North America is vastly different from the Indian community, I feel that in developing a plan for the implementation of Muslim family law, we can in some ways imitate the paradigm of the tribal court system and its supporting network. In particular, I recommend that as a first step, supporting organizations dealing with Islamic family law be established immediately. A professional association of Muslims in the law field (of whatever specialty) is a must. A law school students' support group should be formed, and Muslim youth should be encouraged to enter this field. A second step would be to establish institutes in the U.S. which can supplement legal education with courses in Islamic family law. At the same time, pressure should be put on law schools to include courses in Shariah taught by Muslims. An idea suggested in several quarters and being developed by the American Muslim Council, is the moot court where students and legal experts can act out Muslim family court scenarios. … The process of implementing Muslim family law will not be accomplished overnight. Changes of their type take place very slowly in American society, and our community is far from being prepared for this task. I commend the continental council of Masajid for organizing this conference, and bringing together so many workers and thinkers. I pray to Allah the real decisions are made here that can be implemented by those ready to work. However, I strongly urge that consideration be given to political realities and the sensitivities of the American public. Such a radical change in American law—allowing Muslims to take control over their family law issues - must be initiated from the indigenous Muslim community here in the United States. To have it seem that this initiative is originating from overseas or from organizations financed overseas, would create a very negative impression that would likely destroy this effort.

Note: this article was originally published in 1993, and we've seen the efforts already bearing fruit.

If the US Wins in Iraq, Will the MSM Report it?

From Captain Ed at Frontpage Mag:

 

The Washington Post, among other news outlets, made a stink last week about the lack of a publicly-stated Plan B in the event the surge strategy failed to make a difference in Iraq. However, with preliminary indications showing success, Robert Kagan wonders whether journalists have a Plan B for themselves:

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect. ...

Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."

It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.

The defeatists have received large boosts from journalists all too willing to write about the successes of the insurgents but mostly silent on the successes of the Coalition. This may have been especially true in 2006, which did not go well for the Coalition, but got portrayed as an unmitigated failure in the American media during the 2006 election campaign. It made little difference in the end -- the Republicans did more to ensure their defeat domestically than anything that happened in Iraq -- but the result has left the media screeching like harpies that the mission in Iraq is doomed. Democratic leadership has taken the ball and wants to run with it in Congress, but only if they can do so without actually accepting responsibility for the retreat they demand.

If the surge succeeds, journalists won't be the only people who need a Plan B.

Wars occasionally produce negative, short-term results -- occasionally as in "frequently". The point of a war isn't to win every gun battle and force a surrender within 30 minutes. Iraq is not Grenada, and if it were, it wouldn't matter nearly as much to our national interests and global security.

The mission in Iraq is critical, and failure fatal. The collapse of Iraq would create a terrorist haven exponentially more dangerous than Somalia or Afghanistan, with oil revenues gorging terrorists on the hard currency they need to launch attacks all over the world. That's the reality now, the one we have to face, and that means we have to find ways to defeat the insurgencies and allow the elected, representative Iraqi government to gain enough strength to take control on their own.

Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy seems to be showing remarkable results. Talking about defeat and retreat while we have not finished playing out our hand would represent an unprecedent capitulation by the US to an enemy in the field -- and not an enemy like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the Soviets, with a military that should frighten us -- but an enemy that has so little support and so few combatants that they dare not show their face to American troops in the streets of their own cities.

Plan B should be victory by another means, not defeat by surrender to terrorists. 

The Answer is More Islam

More from Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

 

As I show in The Truth About Muhammad, this is a belief that goes back to the Battle of Badr, the first great victory in Islamic history. And if losses follow, they will not lead to a reexamination of the assumption that faith and victory are tied together, but will be ascribed to lack of faith, and more Islam will be prescribed as the remedy.

From AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

KANDAHAR - Top Taleban commander Mullah Dadullah says faith and popular support will see his men fight off an offensive in southern Afghanistan by NATO and Afghan troops.

The troops Tuesday kicked off what NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) called their biggest offensive yet against the Taleban and their allies, focused on the lawless northern part of Helmand province.

Coalition war planes struck Taleban compounds and armouries and dropped "precision-guided munitions" on a Taleban militant who had been helping move anti-aircraft weapons, military statements said.

Two British soldiers and an unknown number of rebel fighters have died in various clashes.

Dadullah, who is reported to be the Taleban's military operations chief for southern Afghanistan, acknowledged the superior might of ISAF in a telephone interview Saturday with AFP but said he was undaunted.

"No one in the world has better weapons than NATO. They have got better weapons, but we will defeat them with the power of faith and belief," Dadullah told an AFP reporter who has spoken to him several times and knew his voice.

"The entire nation is with us: the people give us food, fruit and money. The people are fed up with infidel, invading troops and their puppets," he said.

He claimed to be in Helmand province.

"We have enough men to fight this battle," he said. "Some foreign mujahedin (holy fighters) are also fighting alongside our mujahedin.

Dadullah said Taleban fighters were being backed by Al Qaeda-linked foreign jihadists, including from Chechnya and the Palestinian territories.

"We have relations with Iraqi mujahedin—we send fighters to them, they send to us," he added.

Hamas Still Seeks Destruction of Israel

From Jihad Watch:

 

GAZA (Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas rejected on Monday criticism by al Qaeda's second-in-command and said it was still committed to Israel's destruction despite a power-sharing deal with the Fatah faction.

"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet on Sunday, al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri accused Hamas of serving U.S. interests by agreeing to respect past Palestinian peace accords with Israel in a recent Saudi-brokered unity government deal with moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah.

The coalition agreement fell short of meeting demands by the Quartet of peace mediators -- the United States, the European Union, the
United Nations and Russia -- to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing interim peace deals.

Zawahri said the Mecca accord, which calmed weeks of Hamas-Fatah warfare in which more than 90 Palestinians were killed, was part of an attempt by Washington to offset Muslim anger at what he described as its bias toward Israel.

"It is an American scheme to hit the Islamic jihadist resistance against the Crusader-Zionist campaign. America wanted a sham solution to the Palestinian issue to remove the biggest reason for Muslim hatred (of the United States)," he said.

The biggest reason for Muslim hatred of the U.S.? Hmmm. I thought we were supposed to believe that that was Britney Spears and Survivor.