Islamist Wave 2013 - Overview & Updates

10 posts

Theo
The "link" isn't just an http link to some page, where someone says something. It is apalling, that I have to educate you on the basics of research, but its not a link, until it cites a specific source. To say "it was published somewhere in MHQ" is to say nothing - what edition? What year? What is the name of the article?


Soviets did have a land border in Sakhalin, the island was split in half.

As for Kurils, the Japanese powers were so miniscule in number, that less than 1 division (an assault of 8K men) could cut it. Surely, an assault of Hokkaido would have been a different story.

Nonsense. Noone expected Soviet invasion of Main Islands. Simply because it was impossible.

Withdrawal after withdrawal? Withdrawal from where? What country has America withdrawn from since 2000?
As far as I understand, this is an article of faith and you can't seriously present any arguments to support that?


Most of them? What's the population of Muslims in the West and how many of them have actively contributed to the Salafi cause?
Angocachi
Angocachi
It was written by David Glantz. One of the world's foremost historians on the Soviets during WW2.
Glantz , David M. (1995) "The Soviet Invasion of Japan "

I'm taking his word, and other professional historians, over yours that the Soviets intended to invade Japan, that they could have done it, and that it was the primary reason the Japanese surrendered to the US.

.
The Soviets had launched amphibious landings in Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kurils. An assault on Hokkaido would have been more difficult, but with an American invasion from the South, the Japanese feared that they would not be able to repulse it and the Soviets would have a foothold in the Japanese homeland... from which the USSR or their Communist allies could seize more. They saw the Soviets coming and surrendered to the US before it was too late.

Not according to historians. Who are you? You've cited nobody this whole time.

From Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and in the process now.. Afghanistan. Before 2000, Somalia, Lebanon.

Aside from the sources I cited.

How are either of those questions relevant? I stated that 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims in the West are turning to Islam in greater ratio and zeal than their parents. What does it matter how many of them there are or how many are Salafi?
Angocachi
More Jihadist groups organizing in the Sinai. If this doesn't prompt an Egyptian military campaign, it could soon see IDF strikes.


A representative of al Salafiyya al Jihadiyya in Sinai has announced the formation of a new front in the wake of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's ouster, according to the SITE Intelligence Group. The front is called, "Ansar al Sharia in Egypt."
The group is getting ready for a fight, saying it will "make preparations and acquire means of power such as weapons and training."
The group says "all the sects and tendencies have for a long time been gathering weapons and storing them, until churches became fortresses and weapons depots, and all declare their preparations to end any features in Egypt, and with the force of weapons," according to SITE's translation. "Here are signs of this criminality that are apparent in attacking Muslims everywhere, so shall we leave ourselves that weak to let massacres happen to Muslims in Egypt and let it turn to another Andalusia???"
Al Salafiyya al Jihadiyya in Sinai portrays recent events as part of a conspiracy against Islam, saying the Egyptian Army has implemented "unprecedented procedures against the Islamic current with all its factions." These procedures started with "detentions and gagging of mouths and closing of [television] channels, and reached the point of attacking the demonstrators in the streets and carrying out massacres against them by thugs with the help of elements from the army and the police."
In this perceived context, the group says it will work to "implement the Sharia of the Lord of the Worlds," but not "the alleged democratic Sharia," which is a "system that cannot deliver us to the implementation of the Sharia of Allah and the removal of the submission to the West over the necks of Muslims in any way."
There will be no elections for this group.
As we've documented many times here at The Long War Journal , there is already at least one group calling itself "Ansar al Sharia in Egypt." The group is run mainly by former members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), a terrorist organization headed by Ayman al Zawahiri that merged with al Qaeda. Mohammed al Zawahiri, Ayman's younger brother, stars at the group's events. And one of its co-founders, Ahmed Ashush, himself a former EIJ member, says he is " honored to be an extension of al Qaeda ." As we've reported , there are many other similar connections worth keeping in mind.
So, is al Salafiyya al Jihadiyya in the Sinai's "Ansar al Sharia in Egypt" really a new group, or simply a branch of the aforementioned one? I don't know the answer yet. The statement translated by SITE was not signed by any named ideologue, as far as I can tell. Nor was it released by Al Bayan Media Foundation, the propaganda arm of the already established Ansar al Sharia Egypt. I do know that Ashush's Ansar al Sharia in Egypt has roots in the Sinai. Propaganda from other groups in the Sinai has featured Ashush, and Mohammed al Zawahiri has been active in the Sinai as well.
Furthermore, here is an intriguing lead: Muhammad Jamal revealed in his letters to Ayman al Zawahiri that he had set up operations in the Sinai. US intelligence officials previously contacted by The Long War Journal say that Jamal, also a former EIJ commander, made a significant amount of progress prior to his capture in late 2012. At least some of the violence in the Sinai can be traced to Jamal's efforts, these officials say.
Jamal was a leader of the so-called Nasr City Cell, which Egyptian authorities say was plotting terrorist attacks inside Egypt and abroad. The group also has reported ties to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Some of Jamal's trainees were directly involved in the attack, according to multiple published reports.
Ashush's Ansar al Sharia Egypt and Mohammed al Zawahiri have forcefully defended the Nasr City Cell and Jamal .
Perhaps the Sinai's Ansar al Sharia Egypt is a new front with the same name. Or, perhaps it is a new brand for an effort that was already in the works. Time will tell.


Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/07/a_new_ansar_al_sharia_in_the_s.php#ixzz2YRUHNBL8



An article by Mohammed El Baradei... who has been trying to take Morsi's seat.

"You Can't Eat Sharia"
[​IMG]
Two years after the revolution that toppled a dictator, Egypt is already a failed state. According to the Failed States Index , in the year before the uprising we ranked No. 45. After Hosni Mubarak fell, we worsened to 31st. I haven't checked recently -- I don't want to get more depressed. But the evidence is all around us.
Today you see an erosion of state authority in Egypt. The state is supposed to provide security and justice; that's the most basic form of statehood. But law and order is disintegrating. In 2012, murders were up 130 percent, robberies 350 percent, and kidnappings 145 percent, according to the Interior Ministry. You see people being lynched in public, while others take pictures of the scene. Mind you, this is the 21st century -- not the French Revolution!
The feeling right now is that there is no state authority to enforce law and order, and therefore everybody thinks that everything is permissible. And that, of course, creates a lot of fear and anxiety.
You can't expect Egypt to have a normal economic life under such circumstances. People are very worried. People who have money are not investing -- neither Egyptians nor foreigners. In a situation where law and order is spotty and you don't see institutions performing their duties, when you don't know what will happen tomorrow, obviously you hold back. As a result, Egypt's foreign reserves have been depleted, the budget deficit will be 12 percent this year, and the pound is being devalued. Roughly a quarter of our youth wake up in the morning and have no jobs to go to. In every area, the economic fundamentals are not there.
Egypt could risk a default on its foreign debt over the next few months, and the government is desperately trying to get a credit line from here and there -- but that's not how to get the economy back to work. You need foreign investment, you need sound economic policies, you need functioning institutions, and you need skilled labor.
So far, however, the Egyptian government has only offered a patchwork vision and ad hoc economic policies, with no steady hand at the helm of the state. The government adopted some austerity measures in December to satisfy certain IMF requirements, only to repeal them by morning. Meanwhile, prices are soaring and the situation is becoming untenable, particularly for the nearly half of Egyptians who live on less than $2 a day.
The executive branch has no clue how to run Egypt. It's not a question of whether they are Muslim Brothers or liberals -- it's a question of people who have no vision or experience. They do not know how to diagnose the problem and then provide the solution. They are simply not qualified to govern.
We in the opposition have been urging President Mohamed Morsy and company for months that Egypt needs a government that is competent and impartial, at least through the upcoming parliamentary election. We need a broad-based committee to amend the Egyptian Constitution, which pretty much everyone agrees falls short of ensuring a proper balance of power and guaranteeing basic rights and freedoms. And we need a political partnership between the other established parties -- including those with an Islamic orientation -- and the Muslim Brotherhood, which represents probably less than 20 percent of the country. Unfortunately, these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears.
The Brothers are also losing badly because, despite all their great slogans, they haven't been able to deliver. People want to have food on the table, health care, education, all of that -- and the government has not been able to meet expectations. The Brotherhood doesn't have the qualified people, who hail mostly from liberal and leftist parties. You need to form a grand coalition, and you need to put your ideological differences aside and work together to focus on people's basic needs.You can't eat sharia.
We are paying the price of many years of repression and strongman rule. This was a comfort zone for people -- they didn't have to make independent decisions. Right now, after the uprising, everybody is free, but it's very uncomfortable. It's the existential dilemma between the yearning to be free and the old crutch of having somebody tell you what to do. Freedom is still new to people.
Most of our challenges are a byproduct of the old dictatorship. We still have an open wound and need to get a lot of the pus out. We need to clean that wound -- you cannot just place a Band-Aid on it. But that is what is happening -- relying on the same worn-out ideas. The uprising was not about changing people, but changing our mindset. What we see right now, however, is just a change of faces, with the same mode of thinking as in Mubarak's era -- only now with a religious icing on the cake.
How bad could it get? Different scenarios, of course, present themselves if law and order continues to deteriorate. People are now saying something that we never thought was possible before: that they want the Army to come back to stabilize the situation. Or we might have a revolt of the poor, which would be angry and ugly. There are worse things than state failure, and I'm afraid Egypt is teetering on the brink.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/24/you_can_t_eat_sharia?page=0,1
Angocachi
Zawahiri scolds Ikhwan and Al Nour, says battle has just begun.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri commented on the current events in Egypt in a video released online, in which he criticised Islamists for losing power and not uniting to implement Sharia.
“The battle isn’t over, it has just started…the Islamic nation should offer victims and sacrifices to achieve what it wants and restore power from the corrupt authority governing Egypt,” Al-Zawahiri said.
He said that the struggle in Egypt was clear, claiming that secular groups united with the church and empowered by “Mubarak’s armed forces” supported by the West waged a battle against Islamist forces in Egypt that strove to implement Sharia.
He scorned the Supreme Constitutional Court, labelling it a “secular” court.
Al-Zawahiri blamed Islamists for the current political situation, accusing them of praising the armed forces after the revolution and submitting to secular law.
“They raced to run for election on basis of a secular constitutional declaration,” he said.
He criticised Salafi groups for participating in elections after promises to the contrary, because the elections did not follow Sharia; he added that they should have united with the Muslim Brotherhood to form a strong coalition that calls for Sharia.
“They allowed enemies of Sharia and Islam to be part of the committee drafting the constitution…they didn’t agree on one candidate in presidential elections, leading the Brotherhood to ask for the help of secularists and Copts to vote for Morsi,” Al-Zawahiri stated.

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/07/06/al-zawahiri-calls-for-victims-and-sacrifices/
anunnaki
I agree, it was. For Arab women, 1400 years ago. Today, neither Islam/Sharia is a good choice for the modern woman. If anything, 1950s Western Christendom is better for both modern men and women.


Irrelevant. They come from majority-Muslim countries, they lived among countrymen who by and large shared their Islamic sentiments and still they chose to leave for the "degenerate" West, where they plant their wide behinds down and start demanding Sharia law, knowing fully well that that must be easier to do back home where 98% of the population are Muslim. Parasites.

The UK is filled with Paki scum, probably the worst of the worse when it comes to Muslims. Come to Scandinavia and you'll find extremely few 2nd Muslims who are interested in imposing Sharia law. They either become more integrated (especially the women who opt more and more for Swedish husbands) or they become criminals. Here it's the 1st gen who are strongly opposed to their children leading a Swedish lifestyle, but their offspring are of a completely different mindset. Extremely few become devout Muslims. As for America, I'd say the situation is not as dire as it is in the UK. Also, it's a half-truth to say that 1st gens are less religious. They are just as devout as any extreme 2nd gen, but they often lack the means, the knowledge of the society they live in and the language to make their demands for Sharia, which is why they stay quiet. My experience in Sweden is that those who come here as adults are a hell of a lot more religious than any 2nd or 3rd gen immigrants. And as western countries keep bringing new immigrants in, any secular 2nd gens are going to drown in the flood of religious 1st gens.

Iranians are pretty much the only people where the 1st gens become almost completely secular the minute they step off the boat and their children have not become more religious, on the contrary, we are probably the best integrated "Muslim" group there is. Arabs and Turks from MidEast proper (not NA or South Asia) tend to follow but it takes a generation or so. Pakis have no soul so they don't count.

Add Scandinavia to the list of exceptions. Not even 1st gens attend mosque often here, let alone any 2nd gens. Stop fooling yourself. Britain's numbers are the odd man out. The major problem the west has with 2nd gens is that they have a higher propensity for criminal activities, not that they go to mosque every Friday. Another problem is the huge number of young 2nd gens who fear being married off or killed by their 1st gen parents if they don't abide by Islamic laws.


I am sorry, this is off topic again, maybe it can be split into another thread.
anunnaki

Problem is, the men pretend to follow Sharia when it comes to women and they get pussy without any strings. The hypocrisy in the Muslim world is astounding (and you can see it here too in the West). Women are suppose to follow (or are forced to follow) every single ridiculous Islamic law there is, while the men do as they please. There is no perfect system for a human society and Sharia is one of the worse choices, especially for women. The world can do better.
Angocachi
​

Without a state to enforce Islamic law, people can pretend to abide it for appearances sake but break it without fear of consequences.
The low std rates, in conjunction with very lower condom use, in societies that do enforce some degree of Sharia in regard to sexual relations... suggests that the hypocrisy you're complaining about (men preach purity, but get dirty) is effectively addressed if Islamic law is adhered to.

Christianity and a Christian society isn't bad at all for women.
More women convert to Islam than men.
Women are less likely to convert from Islam than men.
Arab Muslim women are just as likely to support Sharia as Arab Muslim men.

You are arguing against Sharia by stating some Muslims immigrate from Muslim majority countries to non-Muslim majority countries, but they don't have Sharia in their countries. Can you follow that? It's like arguing that a Buddhist state must be invalid because Burmese leave Myanmar, or that a Halachic state is invalid because Jews leave Israel.
Muslim immigration from their anti-Islamic governments is, if anything, testament to their need for Sharia.

This is all anecdotal and overlooks the bottom-line; surveys show and sociologists agree that later generation Muslims in the West are in general more religious than the first generation immigrants.

In France now (since I've cited the increased religiosity in American and British 2nd generation Muslims),

"The number of Muslims in France who respect the Ramadan fast is growing, young people most of all. Ramadan started today at dawn. A survey carried out by Ifop and published by La Croix daily suggests that 71% of them stay off food all day during the holy month. This figure is 10 points higher than it was in 1989, the year in which the first poll on the question was carried out in France.

Based on the Ifop survey, 9% go without food for a few days only, and 20% of Muslims in France do not fast at all. The same survey shows that the Ramadan is strictly observed by 73% of men and 68% of women. The most diligent group consists of people between the age of 18 and 24 and people over the age of 55 (73% participation in both cases). The number of people who go to mosque for Friday prayer is also rising: 25% in 2011 against 16% in 1989."
http://www.webcitation.org/query?ur...info/en/news/ME.XEF68071.html&date=2011-08-02

First generation Muslim immigrants to the West are generally more secular than ordinary Muslims in their home countries, and they become even more secular after they arrive (I've read the surveys on this as well). Their children and grandchildren, however, very often make a swing back toward Islam.

BTW, in the US.. " a new study by JWT , an advertising agency, points out that the 6m or so Muslims in America are, on average, richer and better educated than the general population. Two-thirds of Muslim households make more than $50,000 a year and a quarter earn over $100,000; the national average is $42,000. Two-thirds of American Muslims have a college degree, compared with less than half of the general population. Muslim families also tend to have more children."
http://muslimmatters.org/2007/08/08/the-relative-affluence-of-muslim-america/
Angocachi
[​IMG]
Theo


What page, where? I don't believe you've actually read it. You are grasping at straws now.

Once again. Slowly. The Soviets had a LAND border with Sakhalin. Action in Kuril and Korea was miniscule in size and involved forces less than 1 division. And even then the transports had to go thrice, virtually undefended, to deliver 8K men.

Invasion isn't about just throwing people at a piece of land, you actually have to supply them, constantly send reinforcements, etc. Anything short of a full scale invasion force would have been completely annihilated by the Japs, which is what Americans even with their fleet understood perfectly.

I'm the guy who studies actual historical documents. You just read crap on the internet and call the stuff that's left there "opinion"

You sure are one naive person. The only thing leaving is regular troops. Blackwater and the rest of the boys ain't going anywhere and still doing the majority of fighting on behalf of "Afghanistan army" ,etc.



What do you mean by "turning to Islam"? Just saying "yeah, well, yeah, Sharia would be kool an' shit we are muzlims after all, know what I'm sayin', my gramps came from that country Morocco, its in the Middle East between Pakistan and Turkmenistan" doesn't really mean anyone's actually doing anything, rather than engaging in "soul searching" and more of identity politics - as if "homosexual identity" wasn't enough.