Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaeda-41

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent [email protected] In Confidence

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaeda-41

US President Barack Obama, Nov 22 has urged Russia to focus on fighting the ISIL terrorists in Syria instead of targeting what he called moderate anti-Damascus militant groups. President Barack Obama says Russia needs to make a strategic decision to go after the Islamic State group, not the moderate opposition forces trying to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad. He says initial military operations by Russia did not add to efforts to deter IS, and in some ways, strengthened it.

Moderate? The Americans accused Russia of striking moderate rebel factions fighting Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime under cover of their claimed assault on the Islamic State group. The move increased tensions between the two countries after the Washington accused Moscow of only targeting areas held by moderate rebels rather than the Islamic State. To the notion of America helping the “moderate opposition” in Syria, Mr. Putin responded that the division of “moderate” and “non-moderate” leads to the empowerment of Islamic terrorists. “We shouldn’t play with words here and divide the terrorists into

moderate and non-moderate,” Mr. Putin said.

Many observers—both Muslim and non-Muslim—as well as the Dictionary of Islam, talk of jihad having two meanings -i: an inner spiritual

struggle (the "greater jihad"), and an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam (the "lesser jihad") which may take a violent or non-violent form.

Moderate? “Are you saying I’m only 50% Muslim? When someone says to me ‘you’re moderate’ it suggests to me they’re saying ‘you’re not fully Muslim’.” Meanwhile those who had committed appalling acts of terror – and who were often far from religious in their earlier lives – would immediately be considered “real” or “full” Muslims. This is about more than politeness and semantics. The language matters because if ordinary Muslims feel they are being divided into camps, into “good” (moderates) and “bad” (non-moderates) then any statements made by politicians will be heard with great scepticism, especially if for many Muslims “moderate” has come somehow to mean more secular. To assume most Muslims are moderate is to imagine that progress is inevitable but if we want the next generation of Muslims to have values we associate with being moderate, we need to be prepared to make an argument for a progressive Islam. That is not possible if politicians employ terms many Muslims find alienating.

As the Turkish Prime Minister commented (McCarthy, 2010, p. 39); “These descriptions are very ugly. It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”.

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 1 of 8 01/05/2023

mailto:[email protected]


Islam, just like the Roman God Janus, has two faces”. -- Abul Kasem. “The militant Muslim is the person cutting the head of the infidel while the moderate Muslim holds the victims feet”. -- Dr. M. Sabieski

THE QUR’AN tells us THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MODERATE ISLAM OR MODERATE MUSLIMS: Moderate Muslims are Muslims in name only, and those who are true to the Qur’an and to their prophet, Muhammad, hate them. Who are the infidels? This term means anyone who does not believe the words of their prophet, Muhammad. In fact, the Muslims who are obedient to the words in the Qur’an only hate the Muslims in name. Are you beginning to understand why the so-called moderate Muslims do not speak out against the terror? They are fearful for their own lives!

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun [the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.].”

Muslim jihadists must obey the words of their book. They fear for their own lives if they do not live as terrorists, because Allah has told them in their book that they should be killed for not obeying. In fact, doubting Allah in the mind of a Muslim is terrible thing. We wonder how they can be so brutal and merciless. It’s because they must show their god that they believe him, and that they will bring terror against all infidels and slay them if they do not convert to Islam.

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

To the notion of America helping the “moderate opposition” in Syria, Mr. Putin responded that the division of “moderate” and “non-moderate” leads to the empowerment of Islamic terrorists. “We shouldn’t play with words here and divide the terrorists into moderate and non-moderate,” Mr. Putin said. “The difference, according to the ‘specialists’ [a jab to the Obama advisors], seems to be that ‘moderate’ bandits behead people softly.” To Mr. Putin, the groups fight not because of ideological differences but because of money. Lately, he said, the terrorists’ infrastructure has grown, along with the territories they control.

Armaments the U.S. gave to the “moderate oppositionists” inevitably ended up in the hands of ISIL fighters—the “moderate” fighters, supported by the U.S., desert to ISIL camp with “orchestra’s greetings.”

It’s better to fight terrorists in Syria than to wait for them to come to Russia, Mr. Putin told the audience. The terrorist threat for Russia has not increased as result of Russia’s





bombing in Syria. “Terrorists hate Russia for what it is, not because of Syria.” To Mr. Putin, the American goal in Syria is limited to the removal of Assad. Russia’s goal is to fight terrorism.

“Just imagine that in case of taking Damascus or Baghdad, terrorist bands might have received, practically, the status of the official government. The bridgehead for global expansion could have been created. Does anyone think about that?

Russia’s failure to distinguish between Islamic State fighters and moderate opposition forces battling against Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, is a “recipe for disaster,” Barack Obama has said, as more evidence emerged that Moscow is targeting anti-regime rebels and not just Isis. The US president said his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, “doesn’t distinguish between Isil [Isis] and a moderate Sunni opposition that wants to see Mr Assad go. From their perspective, they’re all terrorists. And that’s a recipe for disaster.” Moscow’s strategy, he said, was a self-defeating exercise which would strengthen Isis, drive the moderate opposition underground and further complicate any hopes of a political settlement. - Obama 02 Oct 2015.

Senators appear incredulous and call for a new plan after hearing news that US military’s $500m effort has resulted in training of only a handful of fighters; “We’re talking four or five,” General Lloyd Austin, commander of US Central Command, told a dissatisfied Senate armed services committee

To take down the so-called Islamic State in Syria, the influential former head of the CIA wants to co-opt jihadists from America’s arch foe. The tactic worked, at least temporarily. But al Qaeda in Iraq was later reborn as ISIS, and has become the sworn enemy of its parent organization. Now, Petraeus is returning to his old play, advocating a strategy of co-opting rank-and-file members of al Nusra, particularly those who don’t necessarily share all of core al Qaeda’s Islamist philosophy.

The United States, I want to emphasize, welcomes support in the fight against Daesh. And if Russia intends to join in that fight, we welcome a constructive role. But targeting moderate fighters doesn’t hurt Daesh. It makes it easier for Assad to continue brutalizing the Syrian people, it threatens to exacerbate the sectarian tensions that feed extremism, and it encourages more fighters – particularly foreign fighters – to flock to Daesh. – 23 Oct 2015. David Cameron will set out his “comprehensive strategy” to defeat Islamic State as he accelerates efforts to win cross-party backing for British air strikes in Syria, Nov 21. Britain looks set to join bombing raids against Isil terrorists in Syria before Christmas. Today George Osborne, the Chancellor, will promise to put Britain on a “full war footing” and reveal plans to buy 138 stealth fighter jets at a cost of £12 billion. The purchase will be the centrepiece of the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, unveiled tomorrow.The deal will treble the firepower of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers and, Mr Osborne said, put the country on a “full war footing” in the Middle East for a generation. Writing in





The Telegraph, Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, even suggested Syrian refugees in camps on its borders should be trained and returned to Syria to fight Isil.

“They should be motivated and armed, with our help, to fight for their villages, towns and cities. It may sound harsh, but some of their blood should be shed in the attack on Isil before we even consider committing British ground troops to combat,” he said.

“The military success we seek will not come from the air alone. Every well-informed observer must surely recognise that. Throughout history, issues have been settled on the ground.” Lord Dannatt also urged Mr Cameron to call a Commons vote immediately.

Nov 22, How should the United States respond to Islamic State attacks in Paris?The response from the Republican presidential candidates has been to whip up hysteria over Syrian refugees and hostility toward all Muslims - with rhetoric so repulsive that it shames the country. Ben Carson likened refugees to "rabid dogs," while Donald Trump said he would "absolutely" create a database to track Muslims inside the country.Much easier to play the demagogue than to present a detailed plan.To her credit, Hillary Clinton did just that in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday. She called for an intensified focus on Syria (implicitly criticizing President Obama's timid approach). But to my mind, her most important point was about Iraq.

She called for U.S. help for Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders who want to fight ISIS but can't get the weapons and support to do it. That is the one step that, in the near term, might set the so-called caliphate back on its heels.

Why do I focus on Iraq, not Syria? Because I see little chance of routing ISIS in Syria, even with a more resolute policy than Obama's. Airstrikes alone won't do it (although more U.S. special forces on the ground would make them more effective). Almost no one, certainly not Trump or Clinton, advocates sending tens of thousands of U.S. ground troops. So it is crucial to find Arab allies on the ground who can drive ISIS back with our help.Obama missed his chance in 2012 to aid thousands of moderate Syrian Sunni fighters, including many army defectors, who might have developed into a viable force to repel both ISIS and Bashar al-Assad. Those moderates have long since fled, been killed, or joined Islamist militias out of frustration. This leaves Washington without a ground force that can crush the Syrian portion of the jihadi state. As for enlisting the help of Russia or even Iran in a grand coalition to defeat the jihadis, forget it. Moscow and Tehran hold all the cards in new diplomatic efforts to end the Syrian conflict. Even after the terrorists' downing of a Russian plane, Putin's primary goal - and Iran's - is to bolster the Assad regime, not to defeat ISIS. This practically guarantees that the talks - or any plan to hold Syrian elections - will ultimately fail.Thus the best chance to squeeze the caliphate, which extends across eastern Syria and western Iraq, is to push from the Iraqi side of the border. This is why it is so important for the administration to stop its shilly-shallying about helping Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders who have been eager to enter the fight for more than a year. "If Iraq is the only front where we can reduce ISIS, it becomes acutely important to get back the cities there that they control," said retired Col. Richard Welch, who spent more than six years working with Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq.

Comment. Where are the “moderate Muslims” and when will they stand up against all this murder and mayhem committed in the name of their faith? These questions tend to be





followed up by a call for a “moderate Islam” to counter religious extremism.The idea of a moderate Islam certainly sounds appealing. There is plenty in the Islamic

sources and tradition that promotes the virtue of moderation and in praise of the middle way. The Qur’an describes the ideal Muslim community as one that pursues the “middle way” (2:143) and continuously insists on moderation in all spheres of life (7:31 and 25:67, for example). The Prophet Muhammad, in authenticated traditions, specifically warns his followers not to go to extremes in religion and corrected three men from his community who made vows of continuous fasting, night vigil, and celibacy — teaching them instead to follow a more moderate course even in their devotional commitments to God.But, the problem with “moderate Islam” is two-fold: First, often it is invoked in a very imperialist way by the rich and powerful who just want Muslims to join their bandwagon and make no trouble. The imperialist trend insists that Muslims condemn Muslim fanaticism, but do nothing to oppose the extremist agenda of the military industrial complex that too often (mis)guides American foreign policy or the prison industrial complex, for example, that leads to too many abuses here at home. Second, it is arguably this “moderate Islam” attitude that has led to a quietism in the face of intolerable crimes as political Islam is left to the “radicals” and “extremists.” This type of Islam that is promoted, inside and outside the Muslim community, often insists that Muslims engage in social justice–but not at the risk of their careers or livelihoods–or that Muslims align themselves with the poor and weak in society, but without ever compromising their own personal comfort. In summary, “moderate Islam” has led to an Islam that is just too darn convenient for those who insist on maintaining the status quo. And, thus, “moderate Islam” has lost any capacity among the masses to lead a serious movement for change.

The Qur’an, while acknowledging the virtue of the middle way, often pushes its readers to be more radical in their approach — responding to enmity with peace (25:63), choosing forgiveness instead of revenge even when blood has been spilled (2:178), embracing former enemies as friends (60:7), and so on.

"Walid Phares, - is a Lebanese-American "terrorism expert- why can't we take 'em out?" Meaning, ISIS? Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He's getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don't want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won't have access to them. That's the bottom line of it. The last little note in this story supports the theory of Walid





Phares that Obama's real strategy is to be more on the side of Shi'ite Iran rather than moderate Sunnis, like those in Syria and Iraq who are fighting ISIS. - the Fox News Channel, Nov 17.

Though the concerned governments, such as those in the West, spend billions to protect their citizens from Islamic jihadis, the policy-makers often fail to see this point. They are making the same mistake what the early Meccans did. They realize the impact of radical Islam, but fail to pay attention to moderate Islam. Little do they understand that this so-called moderate Islam is much more dangerous than the radical Islam, because it grows and silently kills the host. It is impossible for a Muslim to live and commune with non-Islamic societies without an obligation to convert them to Islam by force or deception. Islamic jihad has many faces. Jihad is not just slaughtering people for Islam; it is also a systematic suppression of truth and propagation of lies. If not, how can the moderate Muslims boldly assert (despite hard evidence to the contrary) that Islam is a peaceful religion?

The slogan “Islam is a peaceful religion” is about 1,400 years out of date. The seed of terrorism is germinating inside every Muslim. Anyone, who has put a single grain of trust on Muhammad and his Qur’an, fills up his mind with unjustified hate and paranoia, and he is bound to have similar destructive ideas like his Prophet. The dark force of Muhammad’s narcissism immediately starts working in him.

Islam and terrorism are blood brothers. In the wake of the two London bombings in 2005, al-Ghurabaa, one of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, stated (Dawkins, 2006, p. 307): “Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir (nonbeliever)”. And a similar self-explanatory statement from Zakir Naik (Al-Kindy, 2005, p. 86; Downing, 2009, p. 354) is: “Every Muslim should be a terrorist”. These so-called peaceful Muslims are very calculative and proceed sophistically. As example, the influential American convert to Islam Hamza Yusuf in November 2004 exhorted Muslims to advance strategically to their goals (cited Spencer, 2006, p. 189); “There are times when you have to live like a sheep, in order to live in the future like a lion”.

This is called al-taqiyya (legal deception) in Islam, which allows Muslims to literally deny any aspect of their faith, and defined as (Richardson, 2006, p. 172), “Taqiyya is merely uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith.”

Even after a decade into the war on Islamic terror, we often hear that Islam is a religion of peace. While those so-called peaceful Muslims use this term for obvious reasons, those, who know Islam, use this term sarcastically. Terrorism is there in every cell of Islam. Islam cannot survive without terrorism, because terrorism is the life-force of Islam. Those, who are against terrorism, have no place in Islam; they are infidels. As Habis al Saoub, in his Arabic document, entitled A Martyr’s will, quoted (Spencer, 2003, p. 23): “The Prophet Muhammad’s seventh-





century assertion is that abandoning the cause of jihad is a disgraceful act tantamount to leaving the Islamic religion.

From the above quote it is very clear that jihad in the cause of God is an integral part of a Muslim’s life.

The so-called peaceful Muslims would not hesitate to implement Jyzia tax on Christians and Jews, and slit the throats of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, ex-Muslims, atheists and agnostics in accordance with Sharia law. Deep down, every “believer” is potentially the judge and executioner of every “nonbeliever”. After all, both the terrorists and the peaceful Muslims are working for the same cause – to dominate the world in the name of Islam.

Thanks to the teachings of Islam, a terrorist is lurking inside every Muslim waiting for a chance to come out. One such example (Martin, 2010, p. 195): Qur’an says, “When the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them…” (Q: 9.5).

In closing: Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken;[2] funding began with $20–$30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987. Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) program to arm and finance the Afghan mujahideen prior to and during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet intervention. Brzezinski told Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin:

We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over – there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.

To this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, “Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.

Three decades later we still haven’t learned form history. And Putin remembers. Cees




i The two forms of Jihad in Islam are sometimes explained by apologists as follows:Lesser outer jihad (al-jihad al-asghar); a military struggle, i.e. a holy warGreater inner jihad (al-jihad al-akbar); the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base

desiresThey claim this "inner Jihad" essentially refers to all the struggles that a Muslim may go through, in adhering to the religion. For example, a scholarly study of Islam can be an intellectual struggle that some allegedly may refer to as "jihad."

During Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, and onward to the present, the word 'Jihad' was, and is, almost always used in a military sense. This idea of a greater and lesser jihad was a later development which originated from the 11th century book, The History of Baghdad, by the Islamic scholar al-Khatib al-Baghdadiis, by way of Yahya ibn al 'Ala', who said:We were told by Layth, on the authority of 'Ata', on the authority of Abu Rabah, on the authority of Jabir, who said, 'The Prophet returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, 'You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad - the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires.'

In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Fiqh) as well as the Shi'ite tradition make no reference at all to the "greater" jihad, only the lesser. So even before examining the evidence against the validity of this hadith, it is known that the concept of the greater jihad is unorthodox and heretical to the majority of the world's Muslims.

Documents

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaeda-41