Al Qaeda: Tip of the Brotherhood's Spear

I strongly suspect that al Qaeda is the Muslim Brotherhood's "tip of the spear" in the Middle East and North Africa.  It is noteworthy that every time the Muslim Brotherhood is active in taking over a nation, al Qaeda happens to be involved.

Here are some considerations about the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda:

(1) Plausible Deniability.  Even though al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood share similar ideologies (through Egyptian Islamic theorist Sayyid Qutb), the Brotherhood does not currently acknowledge affiliation with al Qaeda.  This gives the Brotherhood plausible deniability should they utilize al Qaeda as its military arm to achieve its goals through violent jihad.

(2) Jihad is Obligatory.  According to "Reliance of the Traveller," a book on Sharia Law, it is obligatory (mandatory) for Muslims to either participate in the violent form of jihad, or provide assistance to those executing jihad.  The formation of "al Qaeda" groups gives Muslims an outlet to fulfill this obligation.

(3) Military Arm.  The organizational name of "Al Qaeda" presents a recognizable image that will readily attract jihadis in pursuit of the goals of Islam.  It is therefore convenient to establish a branch of al Qaeda anywhere the Muslim Brotherhood wants to undertake military action.

(4) Enemy of the United States.  Since the United States is at war with al Qaeda, if al Qaeda appears in a nation that is in revolution, the United States will feel obligated to prevent the al Qaeda forces from taking over the government, capturing chemical weapons, etc.  The United States must therefore get involved in the conflict and back the rebels who don't call themselves "al Qaeda."  This "other" rebel group would also be backed by the Muslim Brotherhood.  In this manner the Muslim Brotherhood receives support from the American taxpayer in the achievement of their goals.

These are my thoughts and are by no means certainties.  However, I do believe they deserve investigation, as I believe there is a plausible linkage between the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Read More

Video: Syrian Rebels Executing Government Loyalists

The following video is graphic in nature, and purportedly shows rebels in Syria executing Syrian government loyalist prisoners (if true, this is a violation of the law of war, or what is more commonly known as a war crime).  These rebels are the people we are (not so) covertly supporting, and the more of these jihadists we support in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, the sooner they will threaten our allies and be on our shores (some are already here--the Muslim Brotherhood).  As I have said many times now, we should not be involved in Syria, period.  It will be just like supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan...once a group of jihadists defeat their near enemy, they will come after us.
--Against All Enemies

Link to video: http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=11553161317e



Against All Enemies Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Read More

Obama plays both sides of the Benghazi issue, and loses

Commentary by James Shott

The terrorists in Benghazi, Libya who attacked our consulate last month on the anniversary of the September 11^th terrorist attacks and killed four American Foreign Service personnel have highlighted in tragic detail how deeply naïve President Barack Obama’s idea of foreign policy is.

His manic effort to deny the existence of Muslim terrorism to avoid offending Muslims confounds those of us grounded in reality. He put an end to the “war on terror,” and in its place we now have “Overseas Contingency Operations.” When a Muslim U.S. Army doctor screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he mowed down 13 of his fellow soldiers, Mr. Obama’s administration prefers to call it “workplace violence.”  

With that background it is no wonder that Mr. Obama and his disciples inside and outside of the administration twisted themselves into illogical knots to avoid admitting what was obvious to most people: that it was a planned terrorist attack. 

However, Mr. Obama tried desperately to claim the opposite during the second presidential debate, declaring that he identified the attack as a terrorist act the next day in a Rose Garden statement, and moderator Candy Crowley inappropriately backed him up on it. But the facts do not support Ms. Crowley or Mr. Obama.  

The President made a five and one-half minute statement consisting of 801 words. Several times he used descriptive language, such as:

• “… four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.”
• “The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.”
• “ … we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people”
• “The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”

Notice that he did not say “terror,” “terrorism,” “terrorist” or “terrorist attack,” and he did not utter any such word in the first three-fourths of the statement.  

About three and one-half minutes into the statement Mr. Obama referenced the 9-11-2001 attacks: “Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.” Still, there was no reference to terrorism.  

And then, four minutes and 15 seconds into the five and one-half-minute statement, and 618 words into the 801 words of the text, he spoke the words “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation …” That oblique reference – plural, not singular – was the only time the concept of terrorism entered into Mr. Obama’s text. Right after that he said: “We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.” “Terrible,” but not “terrorist.”

If he truly wanted the nation to understand that he thought terrorists killed those four Americans, he deftly disguised the message.  

As if to prove the assertion that he didn’t “really” call the attack an act of terror, for the next two weeks members of the administration – including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Press Secretary Jay Carney and President Obama himself (who mentioned it again and again at a speech to the United Nations on September 25^th) – repeatedly blamed the attack on a violent protest in reaction to an anti-Islam video produced by an American. Yes, an American; that “shadowy character” who created a video about Islam was the cause of the Benghazi attack.

The administration offered the video as the only cause of the violence for days on end, despite the common sense reaction that people don’t show up with RPGs and mortars at a spontaneous protest, even in places occupied by radical Muslims.  

Was there a protest prior to the terrorist attack, or wasn’t there? It really doesn’t matter. What matters is that the security provided to our people in Libya was dismally inadequate. There were eight attacks in Libya in a 6-month period, one on a British convoy and another on the Red Cross facility, causing both the Brits and the Red Cross to leave Libya because of the growing level of violence. And in June, there was an attack on the American Embassy in Tripoli.  

U.S. personnel in Libya knew danger was mounting and practically begged for increased security measures. But Mr. Obama is fond of boasting that “Al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead,” and mounting violence in Libya really doesn’t fit into that narrative. Al Qaeda is still alive and well, and Barack Obama’s dream of a “New Dawn in the Middle East” has proved to be a nightmare. Putting the “Dream” ahead of protecting Americans at home and abroad, the administration declined those requests for help, and now four brave Americans are dead.  

Extremists in the Middle East may make it impossible for that long-troubled region to ever become a peaceful place, and perhaps no president can change that. But a position of strength on the part of the United States best serves the interests of peace and stability. We don’t have that in President Obama’s America, where foreign policy focuses on offering apology and appeasement. Leading from behind just doesn’t cut it.  

Cross-posted from Observations

Read More

BENGHAZI-GATE: The Timeline

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Hat Tip to Poppy (G-d Bless You)
Stolen from Bare Naked Islam

This is a time-line which explains the trail of lies from the Obama regime:

April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.

April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.

May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.

May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.

May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.

May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.

June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”

June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.

Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.

August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.

September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.

September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.

September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”

September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror.

September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary, which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi.

September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”

September 20: Carney tries to back up Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism, citing insufficient information.

September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.”

September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says, “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”

September 25: To the U.N. assembly, Obama blames “A crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says, “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”

September 26: Published reports show U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.

September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail on the charges of “probation violation.”

September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.

October 2: Carney declines to comment on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation

Read More

Turkey Authorizes Military Strikes Into Syria

After a mortar attack that killed five Turkish civilians, the Turkish government has authorized the use of force against Syria (which is not necessarily the same as declaring war).  Turkey's membership in NATO creates a potential challenge for the United States as hostilities between the two nations may drag us into the conflict, which we should avoid.

Syria is positioned as yet another nation to fall to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now that the Brotherhood controls most of North Africa, they are shifting their focus eastward.  Back in the early 1980s, Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, crushed a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood, the most notable of which was the siege of the town of Hama in 1982.  Now the Brotherhood wants to kick out the ruling Shia Alawite clan and replace it with a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government.

Supporting this theory is the appearance of al Qaeda fighting against the al-Assad regime.  I find it curious that everywhere the Muslim Brotherhood takes over, al Qaeda shows up first.  This is why I believe that al Qaeda is really the tip of the spear for the Muslim Brotherhood, and thus why we see al Qaeda in Syria now.

If we support the overthrow of the al-Assad regime, we are doing the Brotherhood's dirty work for them.  Yes, al-Assad is bad.  Yes, he is associated with Iran.  But I believe that facilitating the expansion of Muslim Brotherhood power in the Middle East is ultimately far worse.  The Brotherhood seeks the destruction of the West (which coincides with the objectives al Qaeda), so the US and its Allies facilitating the Brotherhood's control of another nation-state is by its very nature suicidal.  We've already done this in Libya and Egypt--it must stop.

Regarding our current state as a nation, we are not standing on solid ground.  We are being crushed by an enormous national debt that is increasing exponentially.  Inflation is increasing, with no end in sight due to the Federal Reserve implementing "Quantitative Easing 3."  Our military is about to take a huge cut in their budget that will be devastating in its consequences.  The domestic conflict between constitutionalism and socialism create the conditions for internal strife and will be exacerbated by deteriorating economic conditions.  Any war we undertake at this moment in time must be waged only if the security of our nation is truly threatened.  Intervention in Syria certainly does not meet that criteria--we should not sacrifice the lives of our citizens or our wealth (do we have any left?) to advance the goals of our declared enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iran is a different case, but linked to Syria for obvious reasons.  I fear that our forward deployment of two, and reportedly soon to be three, Carrier Strike Groups to the Persian Gulf region places us in a very vulnerable position.  Similarly, the deployment of two carrier battle groups to Japan may also put us at risk (five carriers is about half our fleet of eleven).  Should our carriers in the Middle East and Pacific be attacked with some success and our economy further destabilized, America will be hard pressed to recover.  America and its interests will become vulnerable.

But vulnerable to whom, you ask?  Well, Russia and China.  As we face a precipitous reduction of our military spending, they are increasing theirs.  China is becoming more and more aggressive in the Pacific.  These two nations have everything to gain from America's demise.  Should they be able to neuter our ability to project power amidst an economic collapse, China and Russia have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fill the vacuum that is created.  We must be on guard.

(AAE Note: We have seen conflicting reports as to whether the USS Stennis battle group is in the Middle East or Pacific.  Could be deliberate misinformation or deception.)

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Read More