"The things Kerry said are hurtful, they are unfair and they are intolerable," Mr Steinitz told reporters.
"Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our national interests."
Naftali Bennett, the industry minister and leader of the far-Right Jewish Home party, said: "We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece."
His comments were echoed by Adi Mintz, a senior official in the Settler's Council, who accused Mr Kerry of "an anti-Semitic initiative".
"The anti-Semites have always resorted to a very simple method - hit the Jews in their pockets," he told Israel's Channel 10 TV station.
Mr Netanyahu was more restrained, telling Sunday's cabinet meeting that efforts to impose a boycott were "immoral and unjust" and doomed to fail.
Jebus, I can't remember when I read something from Israeli officials and wasn't immediately struck by the idiocy and total lack of perspective they were stalwartly loudmouthing.
I certainly hope that ASA/Kerry stuff gains some traction though, it's just strange hearing american voices raising those kind of issues.
This is extremely interesting -- Judicial Watch (a conservative but nonpartisan group which files many FOIA requests, sometimes frivolous but usually substantive, and directed against corruption of Republicans as often or more often as against Democrats) obtained formerly classified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from 2012 which seem to indicate that the US and its allies foresaw and facilitated the rise of the Islamic State as a means to isolate the Assad government of Syria. Summary: http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.
Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved (see former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford’s admissions here and here), have since proven the State Department and CIA’s material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of “forensic evidence”: see UK-based Conflict Armament Research’s report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint program via identifiable serial numbers).
The newly released DIA report makes the following summary points concerning “ISI” (in 2012 “Islamic State in Iraq,”) and the soon to emerge ISIS:
* Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
* The West identifies with the opposition
* The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for Islamic State’s rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 4.D. below)
* The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government
* “Safe havens” are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of ‘humanitarian war'; see 7.B.)
* Iraq is identified with “Shia expansion” (8.C)
* A Sunni “Islamic State” could be devastating to “unifying Iraq” and could lead to “the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.” (see last non-redacted line in full PDF view.)
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
It does say "this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want". While noting earlier that Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey support the opposition.
Its not happy at all, but it doesn't need to be. If you're in the part of the military tasked with keeping Iraq stable, well you might not be too happy with your higher ups supporting rebels that you know are going to fuck you over.
It looks like the author was just getting to the juicy bits.
THE RENEWING FACILITATION OF TERRORIST ELEMENTS FROM ALL OVER THE ARAB WORLD ENTERING INTO IRAQI ARENA
[redacted]
Note "renewing" and "facilitation". Boy, I wonder who is doing the facilitating and why that'd be secret...
"The things Kerry said are hurtful, they are unfair and they are intolerable," Mr Steinitz told reporters.
"Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our national interests."
Naftali Bennett, the industry minister and leader of the far-Right Jewish Home party, said: "We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece."
His comments were echoed by Adi Mintz, a senior official in the Settler's Council, who accused Mr Kerry of "an anti-Semitic initiative".
"The anti-Semites have always resorted to a very simple method - hit the Jews in their pockets," he told Israel's Channel 10 TV station.
Mr Netanyahu was more restrained, telling Sunday's cabinet meeting that efforts to impose a boycott were "immoral and unjust" and doomed to fail.
Jebus, I can't remember when I read something from Israeli officials and wasn't immediately struck by the idiocy and total lack of perspective they were stalwartly loudmouthing.
I certainly hope that ASA/Kerry stuff gains some traction though, it's just strange hearing american voices raising those kind of issues.
Most of this has occurred over the last 5 years or so. The Kerry thing was last year.
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The leader of al-Qaeda's Syria branch has said the group will not target the country's Alawite minority despite their support for Bashar al-Assad's government.
Abu Mohammad al-Golani, leader of the Nusra Front, made the remark in an exclusive interview to Al Jazeera.
"The battle does not end in Qardaha, the Alawite village and the birthplace of the Assad clan," he said in the interview which aired on Wednesday.
"Our war is not a matter of revenge against the Alawites despite the fact that in Islam, they are considered to be heretics.
"Our fight is strictly with those who attacked us and murdered our people.
"Our faith is based on mercy and our noble traditions. We are not murderers. We will not hurt them or target them, the Druzes or anyone else."
This is a very interesting declaration. AQ's attitude toward the Shia is concisely expressed by al-Golani: they are theologically anti-Shia but do not call for their destruction, in contrast to IS, who explicitly advocate their genocide. In previous propaganda, especially in Yemen, IS has focused on this divergence, deriding AQ as insufficiently hostile* to the Shia. From what I've seen AQ has so far been less vocal on the matter than IS (though I don't follow their public statements closely enough to say for sure), so this statement may represent a shift in AQ's propaganda strategy (or at least al-Nusra's). They may be trying to present themselves as more "tolerant" of minority religious groups than IS, in keeping with their self-portrayal as the "gentler face of jihad." Their desire for continued support from Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara might be part of the reason for this, although in the past these countries don't seem to have cared too much, so perhaps not.
*This is not to say that AQ's professed view on Shia Islam is not extremely hostile, as seen in Golani's use of the term "heretic." If they succeed in establishing an Islamic emirate in much of Syria, the situation of Syrian Alawites, Christians, and Druze will not be enviable, even if their Salafist rulers do not attempt genocide.
Anyone here know Arabic well enough to tell me if the original AJ article describes his position the same way AJ English does? @Hamurabi perhaps? Not asking anyone to watch the hour long interview, just to read the second section of that article, where he talks about the Alawites and Christians.
The leader of al-Qaeda's Syria branch has said the group will not target the country's Alawite minority despite their support for Bashar al-Assad's government.
Abu Mohammad al-Golani, leader of the Nusra Front, made the remark in an exclusive interview to Al Jazeera.
"The battle does not end in Qardaha, the Alawite village and the birthplace of the Assad clan," he said in the interview which aired on Wednesday.
"Our war is not a matter of revenge against the Alawites despite the fact that in Islam, they are considered to be heretics.
"Our fight is strictly with those who attacked us and murdered our people.
"Our faith is based on mercy and our noble traditions. We are not murderers. We will not hurt them or target them, the Druzes or anyone else."
This is a very interesting declaration. AQ's attitude toward the Shia is concisely expressed by al-Golani: they are theologically anti-Shia but do not call for their destruction, in contrast to IS, who explicitly advocate their genocide. In previous propaganda, especially in Yemen, IS has focused on this divergence, deriding AQ as insufficiently hostile* to the Shia. From what I've seen AQ has so far been less vocal on the matter than IS (though I don't follow their public statements closely enough to say for sure), so this statement may represent a shift in AQ's propaganda strategy (or at least al-Nusra's). They may be trying to present themselves as more "tolerant" of minority religious groups than IS, in keeping with their self-portrayal as the "gentler face of jihad." Their desire for continued support from Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara might be part of the reason for this, although in the past these countries don't seem to have cared too much, so perhaps not.
Yeah that makes it curious. It could be for domestic consumption (to try and break Alawaites away from Assad- good luck). It does have the feel of an international message though. In any case its clear this is a carefully measured statement, with some sort of goal behind it. I really wonder what brought it on and what that goal is.
Yeah, no. If Nusra considers you a heretic, guess how you'll be treated once Nusra establishes a government.
I bet even the Islamic State would let Shi'ite Muslims live as long as they converted to the "proper" version of Islam ... that's probably how they would characterize "mercy and noble tradition."
I haven't actually read this piece yet, but NPR had a very interesting interview with the author on my drive home and I wanted to post it before I forgot.
It looks at the recruitment and subsequent recovery of a teenage ISIS recruit, how he and others are groomed for jihadi movements, and the politics that they respond to.
I can't decide if this kid is just that stupid or if his account of totally not actually fighting for IS is a transparent attempt at avoiding prosecution.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I haven't actually read this piece yet, but NPR had a very interesting interview with the author on my drive home and I wanted to post it before I forgot.
It looks at the recruitment and subsequent recovery of a teenage ISIS recruit, how he and others are groomed for jihadi movements, and the politics that they respond to.
I can't decide if this kid is just that stupid or if his account of totally not actually fighting for IS is a transparent attempt at avoiding prosecution.
Huh?
I met Jejoen several times last winter, usually at his mother’s home, in Antwerp, where he was awaiting sentencing in Belgium’s largest terrorism trial.
The leader of al-Qaeda's Syria branch has said the group will not target the country's Alawite minority despite their support for Bashar al-Assad's government.
Abu Mohammad al-Golani, leader of the Nusra Front, made the remark in an exclusive interview to Al Jazeera.
"The battle does not end in Qardaha, the Alawite village and the birthplace of the Assad clan," he said in the interview which aired on Wednesday.
"Our war is not a matter of revenge against the Alawites despite the fact that in Islam, they are considered to be heretics.
"Our fight is strictly with those who attacked us and murdered our people.
"Our faith is based on mercy and our noble traditions. We are not murderers. We will not hurt them or target them, the Druzes or anyone else."
This is a very interesting declaration. AQ's attitude toward the Shia is concisely expressed by al-Golani: they are theologically anti-Shia but do not call for their destruction, in contrast to IS, who explicitly advocate their genocide. In previous propaganda, especially in Yemen, IS has focused on this divergence, deriding AQ as insufficiently hostile* to the Shia. From what I've seen AQ has so far been less vocal on the matter than IS (though I don't follow their public statements closely enough to say for sure), so this statement may represent a shift in AQ's propaganda strategy (or at least al-Nusra's). They may be trying to present themselves as more "tolerant" of minority religious groups than IS, in keeping with their self-portrayal as the "gentler face of jihad." Their desire for continued support from Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara might be part of the reason for this, although in the past these countries don't seem to have cared too much, so perhaps not.
Yeah that makes it curious. It could be for domestic consumption (to try and break Alawaites away from Assad- good luck). It does have the feel of an international message though. In any case its clear this is a carefully measured statement, with some sort of goal behind it. I really wonder what brought it on and what that goal is.
Other versions of the article arguably make things more clear, although perhaps more surprising as well.
"The instructions that we have are not to use al-Sham [the Levant region] as a base to launch attacks on the West or Europe, so as not to muddy the current war," Jolani said.
"Our mission in Syria is the downfall of the regime, its symbols, and its allies, like Hezbollah," Jolani said, referring to the powerful Shiite movement fighting alongside the Bashar al-Assad regime.
The fact that this is all from an al-Jazeera interview is the key to the puzzle, I think. AJ is owned by the Qatari royal family, and their reporting is regarded by many (including myself) as reflective of Qatari foreign policy to some degree. Qatar is a primary backer of Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies, and we have previously discussed the Qatari plan to have al-Golani renounce his allegiance to Zawahiri in exchange for more open/larger scale support. Al-Golani apparently rejected this plan, so Qatar decided the next best thing would be to have them promise not to attack the West or slaughter the religious minorities of Syria. The Jaysh al-Fatah coalition (led by JN and their fellow Salafi-jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham) is on the verge of taking complete control of Idlib province - today they are storming the regime's last city, Ariha - and Aleppo may be their next major target. The question of how foreign powers regard al-Nusra is more important now that they essentially control a small state in what was northwest Syria than it was when they were just one of many rebel/jihadist groups in the country. While Qatar and Turkey (and, since King Salman came to power, Saudi Arabia) have no qualms about supporting the jihadist coalition, the US occasionally bombs JN, seemingly more as a political statement than as part of any military strategy. Qatar wants to convince the US that JN is an acceptable alternative to the Iranian-backed Syrian government and Hezbollah militia. Perhaps they were unsuccessful in persuading the Obama administration in private discussions - given recent US bombing of JN, this seems relatively likely - and instead opted for a public appeal. JN's own goals here are probably more simple: they don't want to get bombed by the US, they want US allies to keep arming them heavily, and they might want people in Syria to be more accepting of the prospect of living under Salafist rule.
IS's response to this is going to be furious. The last two issues of Dabiq (which is actually an extremely boring magazine, I don't recommend reading it) featured a lengthy two part story called "The Allies of al-Qaida in Sham," where they castigate Jabhat al-Nusra for working with nationalist groups, less radical Islamists, and others that do not adhere to a Salafi-Jihadi ideology. The goal of these pieces is obviously to discredit JN, but they do so in an intriguingly roundabout/indirect way, focusing on their relationships with other rebel factions rather than their own ideology or character. Al-Golani's attempt at making a local peace with the Western powers will be regarded by IS as evidence of JN's corrupt/un-Islamic/heretical nature; they will probably be calling them apostates or tawaghit in future public statements.
Also, I'm sort of amused that part of al-Golani's argument was "hey, at least we're not the regime or IS!" while Assad's argument is "hey, at least we're not as bad as al-Nusra or IS!"
Yeah, no. If Nusra considers you a heretic, guess how you'll be treated once Nusra establishes a government.
That's what I'm wondering too. Maybe we would see a similar situation to that of Shia in Saudi Arabia, where they are essentially second class citizens subjected to various forms of bigotry and discrimination by the KSA's government, media, and clerical establishment.
The leader of al-Qaeda's Syria branch has said the group will not target the country's Alawite minority despite their support for Bashar al-Assad's government.
Abu Mohammad al-Golani, leader of the Nusra Front, made the remark in an exclusive interview to Al Jazeera.
"The battle does not end in Qardaha, the Alawite village and the birthplace of the Assad clan," he said in the interview which aired on Wednesday.
"Our war is not a matter of revenge against the Alawites despite the fact that in Islam, they are considered to be heretics.
"Our fight is strictly with those who attacked us and murdered our people.
"Our faith is based on mercy and our noble traditions. We are not murderers. We will not hurt them or target them, the Druzes or anyone else."
This is a very interesting declaration. AQ's attitude toward the Shia is concisely expressed by al-Golani: they are theologically anti-Shia but do not call for their destruction, in contrast to IS, who explicitly advocate their genocide. In previous propaganda, especially in Yemen, IS has focused on this divergence, deriding AQ as insufficiently hostile* to the Shia. From what I've seen AQ has so far been less vocal on the matter than IS (though I don't follow their public statements closely enough to say for sure), so this statement may represent a shift in AQ's propaganda strategy (or at least al-Nusra's). They may be trying to present themselves as more "tolerant" of minority religious groups than IS, in keeping with their self-portrayal as the "gentler face of jihad." Their desire for continued support from Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara might be part of the reason for this, although in the past these countries don't seem to have cared too much, so perhaps not.
Yeah that makes it curious. It could be for domestic consumption (to try and break Alawaites away from Assad- good luck). It does have the feel of an international message though. In any case its clear this is a carefully measured statement, with some sort of goal behind it. I really wonder what brought it on and what that goal is.
Other versions of the article arguably make things more clear, although perhaps more surprising as well.
"The instructions that we have are not to use al-Sham [the Levant region] as a base to launch attacks on the West or Europe, so as not to muddy the current war," Jolani said.
"Our mission in Syria is the downfall of the regime, its symbols, and its allies, like Hezbollah," Jolani said, referring to the powerful Shiite movement fighting alongside the Bashar al-Assad regime.
The fact that this is all from an al-Jazeera interview is the key to the puzzle, I think. AJ is owned by the Qatari royal family, and their reporting is regarded by many (including myself) as reflective of Qatari foreign policy to some degree. Qatar is a primary backer of Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies, and we have previously discussed the Qatari plan to have al-Golani renounce his allegiance to Zawahiri in exchange for more open/larger scale support. Al-Golani apparently rejected this plan, so Qatar decided the next best thing would be to have them promise not to attack the West or slaughter the religious minorities of Syria. The Jaysh al-Fatah coalition (led by JN and their fellow Salafi-jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham) is on the verge of taking complete control of Idlib province - today they are storming the regime's last city, Ariha - and Aleppo may be their next major target. The question of how foreign powers regard al-Nusra is more important now that they essentially control a small state in what was northwest Syria than it was when they were just one of many rebel/jihadist groups in the country. While Qatar and Turkey (and, since King Salman came to power, Saudi Arabia) have no qualms about supporting the jihadist coalition, the US occasionally bombs JN, seemingly more as a political statement than as part of any military strategy. Qatar wants to convince the US that JN is an acceptable alternative to the Iranian-backed Syrian government and Hezbollah militia. Perhaps they were unsuccessful in persuading the Obama administration in private discussions - given recent US bombing of JN, this seems relatively likely - and instead opted for a public appeal. JN's own goals here are probably more simple: they don't want to get bombed by the US, they want US allies to keep arming them heavily, and they might want people in Syria to be more accepting of the prospect of living under Salafist rule.
IS's response to this is going to be furious. The last two issues of Dabiq (which is actually an extremely boring magazine, I don't recommend reading it) featured a lengthy two part story called "The Allies of al-Qaida in Sham," where they castigate Jabhat al-Nusra for working with nationalist groups, less radical Islamists, and others that do not adhere to a Salafi-Jihadi ideology. The goal of these pieces is obviously to discredit JN, but they do so in an intriguingly roundabout/indirect way, focusing on their relationships with other rebel factions rather than their own ideology or character. Al-Golani's attempt at making a local peace with the Western powers will be regarded by IS as evidence of JN's corrupt/un-Islamic/heretical nature; they will probably be calling them apostates or tawaghit in future public statements.
Also, I'm sort of amused that part of al-Golani's argument was "hey, at least we're not the regime or IS!" while Assad's argument is "hey, at least we're not as bad as al-Nusra or IS!"
Yeah, no. If Nusra considers you a heretic, guess how you'll be treated once Nusra establishes a government.
That's what I'm wondering too. Maybe we would see a similar situation to that of Shia in Saudi Arabia, where they are essentially second class citizens subjected to various forms of bigotry and discrimination by the KSA's government, media, and clerical establishment.
I think this may be the crucial part, especially with Ariha falling. This is an al-queda branch (well, with others) seizing a town. Some trigger fingers in the US get mighty twitchy at such a thing.
Is the magazine as highly produced as people say it is? I'm not googling that shit.
The leader of al-Qaeda's Syria branch has said the group will not target the country's Alawite minority despite their support for Bashar al-Assad's government.
Abu Mohammad al-Golani, leader of the Nusra Front, made the remark in an exclusive interview to Al Jazeera.
"The battle does not end in Qardaha, the Alawite village and the birthplace of the Assad clan," he said in the interview which aired on Wednesday.
"Our war is not a matter of revenge against the Alawites despite the fact that in Islam, they are considered to be heretics.
"Our fight is strictly with those who attacked us and murdered our people.
"Our faith is based on mercy and our noble traditions. We are not murderers. We will not hurt them or target them, the Druzes or anyone else."
This is a very interesting declaration. AQ's attitude toward the Shia is concisely expressed by al-Golani: they are theologically anti-Shia but do not call for their destruction, in contrast to IS, who explicitly advocate their genocide. In previous propaganda, especially in Yemen, IS has focused on this divergence, deriding AQ as insufficiently hostile* to the Shia. From what I've seen AQ has so far been less vocal on the matter than IS (though I don't follow their public statements closely enough to say for sure), so this statement may represent a shift in AQ's propaganda strategy (or at least al-Nusra's). They may be trying to present themselves as more "tolerant" of minority religious groups than IS, in keeping with their self-portrayal as the "gentler face of jihad." Their desire for continued support from Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara might be part of the reason for this, although in the past these countries don't seem to have cared too much, so perhaps not.
Yeah that makes it curious. It could be for domestic consumption (to try and break Alawaites away from Assad- good luck). It does have the feel of an international message though. In any case its clear this is a carefully measured statement, with some sort of goal behind it. I really wonder what brought it on and what that goal is.
Other versions of the article arguably make things more clear, although perhaps more surprising as well.
"The instructions that we have are not to use al-Sham [the Levant region] as a base to launch attacks on the West or Europe, so as not to muddy the current war," Jolani said.
"Our mission in Syria is the downfall of the regime, its symbols, and its allies, like Hezbollah," Jolani said, referring to the powerful Shiite movement fighting alongside the Bashar al-Assad regime.
The fact that this is all from an al-Jazeera interview is the key to the puzzle, I think. AJ is owned by the Qatari royal family, and their reporting is regarded by many (including myself) as reflective of Qatari foreign policy to some degree. Qatar is a primary backer of Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies, and we have previously discussed the Qatari plan to have al-Golani renounce his allegiance to Zawahiri in exchange for more open/larger scale support. Al-Golani apparently rejected this plan, so Qatar decided the next best thing would be to have them promise not to attack the West or slaughter the religious minorities of Syria. The Jaysh al-Fatah coalition (led by JN and their fellow Salafi-jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham) is on the verge of taking complete control of Idlib province - today they are storming the regime's last city, Ariha - and Aleppo may be their next major target. The question of how foreign powers regard al-Nusra is more important now that they essentially control a small state in what was northwest Syria than it was when they were just one of many rebel/jihadist groups in the country. While Qatar and Turkey (and, since King Salman came to power, Saudi Arabia) have no qualms about supporting the jihadist coalition, the US occasionally bombs JN, seemingly more as a political statement than as part of any military strategy. Qatar wants to convince the US that JN is an acceptable alternative to the Iranian-backed Syrian government and Hezbollah militia. Perhaps they were unsuccessful in persuading the Obama administration in private discussions - given recent US bombing of JN, this seems relatively likely - and instead opted for a public appeal. JN's own goals here are probably more simple: they don't want to get bombed by the US, they want US allies to keep arming them heavily, and they might want people in Syria to be more accepting of the prospect of living under Salafist rule.
IS's response to this is going to be furious. The last two issues of Dabiq (which is actually an extremely boring magazine, I don't recommend reading it) featured a lengthy two part story called "The Allies of al-Qaida in Sham," where they castigate Jabhat al-Nusra for working with nationalist groups, less radical Islamists, and others that do not adhere to a Salafi-Jihadi ideology. The goal of these pieces is obviously to discredit JN, but they do so in an intriguingly roundabout/indirect way, focusing on their relationships with other rebel factions rather than their own ideology or character. Al-Golani's attempt at making a local peace with the Western powers will be regarded by IS as evidence of JN's corrupt/un-Islamic/heretical nature; they will probably be calling them apostates or tawaghit in future public statements.
Also, I'm sort of amused that part of al-Golani's argument was "hey, at least we're not the regime or IS!" while Assad's argument is "hey, at least we're not as bad as al-Nusra or IS!"
Yeah, no. If Nusra considers you a heretic, guess how you'll be treated once Nusra establishes a government.
That's what I'm wondering too. Maybe we would see a similar situation to that of Shia in Saudi Arabia, where they are essentially second class citizens subjected to various forms of bigotry and discrimination by the KSA's government, media, and clerical establishment.
I think this may be the crucial part, especially with Ariha falling. This is an al-queda branch (well, with others) seizing a town. Some trigger fingers in the US get mighty twitchy at such a thing.
Is the magazine as highly produced as people say it is? I'm not googling that shit.
It is pretty well put together, I guess. I feel like there's an upper bound to how impressive a .pdf can really be, but Dabiq at least seems to have a competent editing team, is coherently organized, and does a decent job of combining imagery with text. The cover of the latest issue, for example, is an image of John Kerry standing in line with various US allies in the Muslim world, including Erdogan and several Arab kings, with "They plot and Allah plots" overlaid in the center. But it's excruciatingly boring to read, even for someone who spends a lot of time reading about the Middle East and the US's war with the salafi-jihadist movement. Most articles start with lengthy quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith, which are meant to justify whatever point they're trying to make in the article according to Islamic scripture. Then they proceed to hammer the point home for many pages, usually resulting in a ~40-80 page magazine. I read the first few issues in full, but eventually decided that whatever knowledge of IS that I gained from their propaganda wasn't worth the mind-numbing experience of reading it; since they generally start from assumptions that I see as blatantly ridiculous, the lengthy arguments they make in defense of their positions aren't very compelling or enlightening.
I haven't read the most recent issue of AQAP's "Inspire," but the last one I saw was definitely way shittier in terms of production quality than IS's Dabiq. They may have improved since; from what I can tell AQ has adapted to the emergence of IS by significantly altering its PR strategy.
They deserve a good trolling at the very least after they hacked US Army WTF Moments on Facebook and said they'd kill us. That Facebook page is hilarious god dammit.
0
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
"Coming to you from one of the liberated areas in northern Syria... At the time when the regime is targeting the locations and the men of Al Jabha, Americans planes are bombing Syria, going after the same targets." And the interview hasn't even begun. I guess I could watch this.
Libyan forces aligned with Tripoli and Misrata have withdrawn from some areas of Sirte after IS conquered the city's main air base and other important locations. This is upsetting; I was really hoping Libyan Dawn would be able to push IS out of its limited territory in the country (basically Sirte, some of Derna, and some small towns nearby).
General John Allen has said some rather dumb things in defense of the US's Iraq policy:
With regard to militias, it’s really important to understand that the militias are not just a single monolithic entity. There are the militias that you and I are used to hearing that have close alignments with Iran. Those are the extremist elements, and we don’t have anything to do with that.
So the fact that militias are involved and tribes are involved in this part of the campaign, this part of the implementation of supporting Iraq ultimately to recover the country, should not alarm us. We just need to ensure that we manage the outcome of this.
The distinction he draws between "good" militia receiving US support and "bad" militia receiving Iranian support is dishonest and misleading. The largest militias, who are leading the assault on Anbar, are openly backed by Iran, and the US has provided air support for them in multiple battles, most notably in Tikrit. As LWJ points out:
...the Popular Mobilization Committee itself is directed by Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, a former commander in the Badr Organization who was listed by the US government as a specially designated global terrorist in July 2009. The US government described Muhandis, whose real name is Jamal Jaafar Mohammed, as “an advisor to Qassem Soleimani,” the commander of the Qods Force, which is the external operations wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
The US's propaganda regarding Iraq and Syria becomes more absurd and divorced from reality on a weekly basis. Obama needs to hire a better PR team or something.
edit - also, the Shia militia in Anbar have seemingly abandoned any pretense of seeking to avoid inflaming sectarianism. They've adopted something like "We serve you, Hussein [a revered figure in Shia Islam]" as their battle slogan. The US has accurately described this as "not helpful."
Kaputa on
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
In the 13-minute-long recording, the speaker said Islamic State had ordered its followers everywhere to "kill enemies of Islam, especially Shi'ites", according to SITE.
"What then if they live with their disbelief in the Peninsula of Mohammad," SITE quoted the speaker as saying, referring to the Arabian Peninsula, birthplace of Islam and where Saudi Arabia is located.
"They are disbelievers and apostates, and their blood is permissible to be shed, and their money is permissible to be taken. It is a duty upon us to kill them ... and even to purify the land from their filth," he said.
"The spark has been lit, so you must all ignite a fire with which you burn the faces of the Rafidha (Shi'ites) and apostates. You must all come to burn the thrones of the tyrants," he said.
When you support Al-Qaeda and its enemies hate you, don't be surprised when they come a-blowing stuff up.
Not sure where to put this, there's no Islam thread anymore I don't think, but shit like this impacts the middle east. I wouldn't be surprised if because of this today ISIS got thousands of new recruits. At the very last they got some more propagation material that you cannot be a Muslim in America.
Not sure where to put this, there's no Islam thread anymore I don't think, but shit like this impacts the middle east. I wouldn't be surprised if because of this today ISIS got thousands of new recruits. At the very last they got some more propagation material that you cannot be a Muslim in America.
The demonstrators were only armed because people tried to kill them at the last one, and the Middle East needs to get a thicker skin. The Vatican didn't angrily chant about Piss Christ or Religulous. Mocking of religion and blasphemy is just something that happens in the West.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Not sure where to put this, there's no Islam thread anymore I don't think, but shit like this impacts the middle east. I wouldn't be surprised if because of this today ISIS got thousands of new recruits. At the very last they got some more propagation material that you cannot be a Muslim in America.
The demonstrators were only armed because people tried to kill them at the last one, and the Middle East needs to get a thicker skin. The Vatican didn't angrily chant about Piss Christ or Religulous. Mocking of religion and blasphemy is just something that happens in the West.
They're dressed in paramilitary gear and body armor and carrying rifles designed to look like military weapons. They're a bunch of reactionary assholes and there's little need to defend them (but obviously they have the right to be reactionary assholes).
Somehow I doubt you'd be this sanguine if it was Muslims protesting a Christian church somewhere dressed in the same fashion.
The artist of Piss Christ and curators who displayed it received death threats for years, and galleries were attacked by vandals multiple times.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Somehow I doubt you'd be this sanguine if it was Muslims protesting a Christian church somewhere dressed in the same fashion.
Oh no I'd be fine with it, free society, 2nd amendment and all that. They're absolutely free to draw cartoons of Jesus raping a kid outside a cathedral. It's annoying, yes, and obnoxious, but as long as they don't shoot anyone I'd be fine with it.
The artist of Piss Christ and curators who displayed it received death threats for years, and galleries were attacked by vandals multiple times.
Huh. Did not know that. Well, that's bad but at least no one's been shot over it.
Deliberate blasphemy against Islam in the West always provokes sly hinting about racism from commentators, and if/when the people responsible get assassinated by fanatics there's a sense of "they deserved it". They didn't deserve it! No one deserves to get killed over free speech. "Islamaphobia" isn't a thing just because the skin color of the majority of Muslims is non-white; you might as well say "Hinduphobia" or "Confuciuphobia".
I actually support those that want to do things like the cartoon 'events', to force the point of free speech.
This is on a personal level, mind you. Stuff like 'piss christ' looks stupid to me, but I could never consider violence of any kind justified over it, and that goes for any religion.
And all of that stuff is meant to be insulting to religions. In western society, you don't have a right not to be offended.
There's not many things that would worry the US, Russia, China, Iran, India and maybe Turkey all at once, but this is one of them. The region is a bit of a power vacuum and is subject to competition for influence by the powers listed, plus Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who may not be as worried about it. If IS was able to get some territory in Central Asia, that would.... well do a lot of stuff, hasten the demise of governments there I suppose, and bring about another regional war.
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
There's not many things that would worry the US, Russia, China, Iran, India and maybe Turkey all at once, but this is one of them. The region is a bit of a power vacuum and is subject to competition for influence by the powers listed, plus Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who may not be as worried about it. If IS was able to get some territory in Central Asia, that would.... well do a lot of stuff, hasten the demise of governments there I suppose, and bring about another regional war.
Just wondering, why would India be worried? Something to do with Pakistan?
I actually support those that want to do things like the cartoon 'events', to force the point of free speech.
This is on a personal level, mind you. Stuff like 'piss christ' looks stupid to me, but I could never consider violence of any kind justified over it, and that goes for any religion.
And all of that stuff is meant to be insulting to religions. In western society, you don't have a right not to be offended.
I agree, with the caveat doing it outside a mosque is bad form. Anyone who gets meaningfully upset about other people committing blasphemy behind closed doors is a bad person and possibly even security threat, but I think actively getting in the faces of normal Muslims going about their standard routine is overly confrontational.
Though, regarding that interview, I wish that dude had made the point, "Yeah, this does feed into IS propaganda, but so does equal rights for sexual minorities. So does a lack of anti-semitism in our society. So does treating women like human beings. Making wholly evil people angry is a badge of honor, not a problem."
There's not many things that would worry the US, Russia, China, Iran, India and maybe Turkey all at once, but this is one of them. The region is a bit of a power vacuum and is subject to competition for influence by the powers listed, plus Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who may not be as worried about it. If IS was able to get some territory in Central Asia, that would.... well do a lot of stuff, hasten the demise of governments there I suppose, and bring about another regional war.
Just wondering, why would India be worried? Something to do with Pakistan?
They run a military airbase there. They've been making inroads into central Asia, yes as part of their strategy against Pakistan.
Posts
I certainly hope that ASA/Kerry stuff gains some traction though, it's just strange hearing american voices raising those kind of issues.
It does say "this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want". While noting earlier that Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey support the opposition.
Its not happy at all, but it doesn't need to be. If you're in the part of the military tasked with keeping Iraq stable, well you might not be too happy with your higher ups supporting rebels that you know are going to fuck you over.
It looks like the author was just getting to the juicy bits.
THE RENEWING FACILITATION OF TERRORIST ELEMENTS FROM ALL OVER THE ARAB WORLD ENTERING INTO IRAQI ARENA
[redacted]
Note "renewing" and "facilitation". Boy, I wonder who is doing the facilitating and why that'd be secret...
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
This is a very interesting declaration. AQ's attitude toward the Shia is concisely expressed by al-Golani: they are theologically anti-Shia but do not call for their destruction, in contrast to IS, who explicitly advocate their genocide. In previous propaganda, especially in Yemen, IS has focused on this divergence, deriding AQ as insufficiently hostile* to the Shia. From what I've seen AQ has so far been less vocal on the matter than IS (though I don't follow their public statements closely enough to say for sure), so this statement may represent a shift in AQ's propaganda strategy (or at least al-Nusra's). They may be trying to present themselves as more "tolerant" of minority religious groups than IS, in keeping with their self-portrayal as the "gentler face of jihad." Their desire for continued support from Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara might be part of the reason for this, although in the past these countries don't seem to have cared too much, so perhaps not.
*This is not to say that AQ's professed view on Shia Islam is not extremely hostile, as seen in Golani's use of the term "heretic." If they succeed in establishing an Islamic emirate in much of Syria, the situation of Syrian Alawites, Christians, and Druze will not be enviable, even if their Salafist rulers do not attempt genocide.
Anyone here know Arabic well enough to tell me if the original AJ article describes his position the same way AJ English does? @Hamurabi perhaps? Not asking anyone to watch the hour long interview, just to read the second section of that article, where he talks about the Alawites and Christians.
Yeah that makes it curious. It could be for domestic consumption (to try and break Alawaites away from Assad- good luck). It does have the feel of an international message though. In any case its clear this is a carefully measured statement, with some sort of goal behind it. I really wonder what brought it on and what that goal is.
I bet even the Islamic State would let Shi'ite Muslims live as long as they converted to the "proper" version of Islam ... that's probably how they would characterize "mercy and noble tradition."
I can't decide if this kid is just that stupid or if his account of totally not actually fighting for IS is a transparent attempt at avoiding prosecution.
Huh?
The fact that this is all from an al-Jazeera interview is the key to the puzzle, I think. AJ is owned by the Qatari royal family, and their reporting is regarded by many (including myself) as reflective of Qatari foreign policy to some degree. Qatar is a primary backer of Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies, and we have previously discussed the Qatari plan to have al-Golani renounce his allegiance to Zawahiri in exchange for more open/larger scale support. Al-Golani apparently rejected this plan, so Qatar decided the next best thing would be to have them promise not to attack the West or slaughter the religious minorities of Syria. The Jaysh al-Fatah coalition (led by JN and their fellow Salafi-jihadist group Ahrar al-Sham) is on the verge of taking complete control of Idlib province - today they are storming the regime's last city, Ariha - and Aleppo may be their next major target. The question of how foreign powers regard al-Nusra is more important now that they essentially control a small state in what was northwest Syria than it was when they were just one of many rebel/jihadist groups in the country. While Qatar and Turkey (and, since King Salman came to power, Saudi Arabia) have no qualms about supporting the jihadist coalition, the US occasionally bombs JN, seemingly more as a political statement than as part of any military strategy. Qatar wants to convince the US that JN is an acceptable alternative to the Iranian-backed Syrian government and Hezbollah militia. Perhaps they were unsuccessful in persuading the Obama administration in private discussions - given recent US bombing of JN, this seems relatively likely - and instead opted for a public appeal. JN's own goals here are probably more simple: they don't want to get bombed by the US, they want US allies to keep arming them heavily, and they might want people in Syria to be more accepting of the prospect of living under Salafist rule.
IS's response to this is going to be furious. The last two issues of Dabiq (which is actually an extremely boring magazine, I don't recommend reading it) featured a lengthy two part story called "The Allies of al-Qaida in Sham," where they castigate Jabhat al-Nusra for working with nationalist groups, less radical Islamists, and others that do not adhere to a Salafi-Jihadi ideology. The goal of these pieces is obviously to discredit JN, but they do so in an intriguingly roundabout/indirect way, focusing on their relationships with other rebel factions rather than their own ideology or character. Al-Golani's attempt at making a local peace with the Western powers will be regarded by IS as evidence of JN's corrupt/un-Islamic/heretical nature; they will probably be calling them apostates or tawaghit in future public statements.
Also, I'm sort of amused that part of al-Golani's argument was "hey, at least we're not the regime or IS!" while Assad's argument is "hey, at least we're not as bad as al-Nusra or IS!"
That's what I'm wondering too. Maybe we would see a similar situation to that of Shia in Saudi Arabia, where they are essentially second class citizens subjected to various forms of bigotry and discrimination by the KSA's government, media, and clerical establishment.
edit - My information was out of date. Ariha has fallen to Jaysh al-Fatah.
Be hilarious if a special forces member tweeted "Ha. In your base, killing your doods"
I think this may be the crucial part, especially with Ariha falling. This is an al-queda branch (well, with others) seizing a town. Some trigger fingers in the US get mighty twitchy at such a thing.
Is the magazine as highly produced as people say it is? I'm not googling that shit.
I haven't read the most recent issue of AQAP's "Inspire," but the last one I saw was definitely way shittier in terms of production quality than IS's Dabiq. They may have improved since; from what I can tell AQ has adapted to the emergence of IS by significantly altering its PR strategy.
I want to twitter troll these people so badly but my wife won't let me....
They could track your IP address.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/deadly-car-explosion-shia-mosque-saudi-arabia-dammam-150529102343732.html
Where did we last see this nonsense? Oh right, in USA Today two weeks ago.
And both of those are basically a whitewash.
"Coming to you from one of the liberated areas in northern Syria... At the time when the regime is targeting the locations and the men of Al Jabha, Americans planes are bombing Syria, going after the same targets." And the interview hasn't even begun. I guess I could watch this.
General John Allen has said some rather dumb things in defense of the US's Iraq policy:
The distinction he draws between "good" militia receiving US support and "bad" militia receiving Iranian support is dishonest and misleading. The largest militias, who are leading the assault on Anbar, are openly backed by Iran, and the US has provided air support for them in multiple battles, most notably in Tikrit. As LWJ points out:
The US's propaganda regarding Iraq and Syria becomes more absurd and divorced from reality on a weekly basis. Obama needs to hire a better PR team or something.
edit - also, the Shia militia in Anbar have seemingly abandoned any pretense of seeking to avoid inflaming sectarianism. They've adopted something like "We serve you, Hussein [a revered figure in Shia Islam]" as their battle slogan. The US has accurately described this as "not helpful."
When you support Al-Qaeda and its enemies hate you, don't be surprised when they come a-blowing stuff up.
Good going Turkey. Way to look non-repressive.
They're dressed in paramilitary gear and body armor and carrying rifles designed to look like military weapons. They're a bunch of reactionary assholes and there's little need to defend them (but obviously they have the right to be reactionary assholes).
Somehow I doubt you'd be this sanguine if it was Muslims protesting a Christian church somewhere dressed in the same fashion.
The artist of Piss Christ and curators who displayed it received death threats for years, and galleries were attacked by vandals multiple times.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/05/28/the-u-s-trained-commander-of-tajikistans-special-forces-has-joined-the-islamic-state/
Huh. Did not know that. Well, that's bad but at least no one's been shot over it.
Deliberate blasphemy against Islam in the West always provokes sly hinting about racism from commentators, and if/when the people responsible get assassinated by fanatics there's a sense of "they deserved it". They didn't deserve it! No one deserves to get killed over free speech. "Islamaphobia" isn't a thing just because the skin color of the majority of Muslims is non-white; you might as well say "Hinduphobia" or "Confuciuphobia".
This is on a personal level, mind you. Stuff like 'piss christ' looks stupid to me, but I could never consider violence of any kind justified over it, and that goes for any religion.
And all of that stuff is meant to be insulting to religions. In western society, you don't have a right not to be offended.
There's not many things that would worry the US, Russia, China, Iran, India and maybe Turkey all at once, but this is one of them. The region is a bit of a power vacuum and is subject to competition for influence by the powers listed, plus Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who may not be as worried about it. If IS was able to get some territory in Central Asia, that would.... well do a lot of stuff, hasten the demise of governments there I suppose, and bring about another regional war.
Just wondering, why would India be worried? Something to do with Pakistan?
I agree, with the caveat doing it outside a mosque is bad form. Anyone who gets meaningfully upset about other people committing blasphemy behind closed doors is a bad person and possibly even security threat, but I think actively getting in the faces of normal Muslims going about their standard routine is overly confrontational.
Though, regarding that interview, I wish that dude had made the point, "Yeah, this does feed into IS propaganda, but so does equal rights for sexual minorities. So does a lack of anti-semitism in our society. So does treating women like human beings. Making wholly evil people angry is a badge of honor, not a problem."
They run a military airbase there. They've been making inroads into central Asia, yes as part of their strategy against Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farkhor_Air_Base