The Return of Al Qaeda and Jihad

[American_Jihad]

I thought the dear leader said they were finished...

The Return of Al Qaeda and Jihad

August 8, 2013 By Raymond Ibrahim

With the ousting of Muhammad Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, in the opinion of many Islamists, al-Qaeda has been vindicated and the terror-jihad exonerated.

According to the Associated Press, in a new video, al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri “said the military coup that ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi provides proof that Islamic rule cannot be established through democracy and urged the Islamist leader’s followers to abandon the ballot box in favor of armed resistance [i.e., jihad].”

In fact, in the Arabic video, Zawahiri gloats over two points that he has championed for decades despite widespread opposition: that the Brotherhood was foolish to engage in democracy and elections in the first place, and that the triumph of Islam can only be achieved through jihad.

Interestingly, these two points go back to a long but internal debate between nonviolent Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and violent jihadis, like al-Qaeda. While both groups pursue the same exact goals—a Sharia-ruling caliphate followed by the subjugation of the “infidel” world, according to Islamic teachings—they follow different strategies. The Brotherhood has long argued that, because the Islamic world is militarily weaker than the West, now is not the time for an all-out jihad, but rather a time for infiltration and subversion, a time for taqiyya and short-lived promises. Conversely, jihadis generally disavow pretense and diplomacy, opting for jihad alone.

...

No doubt Western apologists will now argue that it’s in the West’s interest to support and make concessions to the Muslim Brotherhood, since the alternative will be a renewal in jihadi terror. However, aside from the fact that such an argument is tantamount to submitting to blackmail—not to mention the fact that the resumption of jihad is just another reminder that al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood are two faces of the same coin—is it not better to get the ugly truth out in the open now, while the U.S. still has some power and influence, rather than later, when it will likely be even more infiltrated and handicapped?

The Return of Al Qaeda and Jihad | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Politico]

Return? They never went anywhere.

 

[tipofthespear]

.....and as long as there is a Christian or a Jew alive, they won't be "finished........."

They only have ONE goal........the eradication of all who do not bow to their extremist religion.

 

[Osomir]

.....and as long as there is a Christian or a Jew alive, they won't be "finished........."

They only have ONE goal........the eradication of all who do not bow to their extremist religion.

That actually isn't true at all. Al Qaeda Central doesn't support sectarian violence, nor do they advocate the eradication of all non-Muslims. In fact, the intel that we have gathered from our killing of Osama bin Laden shows a huge internal debate concerning kicking say Al Qaeda in Iraq out for engaging in sectarian conflict and for targeting civilians. They also were admonishing the Pakistani Taliban for targeting shias and Christians.

 

[JoeBlam]

.....and as long as there is a Christian or a Jew alive, they won't be "finished........."

They only have ONE goal........the eradication of all who do not bow to their extremist religion.

That actually isn't true at all. Al Qaeda Central doesn't support sectarian violence, nor do they advocate the eradication of all non-Muslims. In fact, the intel that we have gathered from our killing of Osama bin Laden shows a huge internal debate concerning kicking say Al Qaeda in Iraq out for engaging in sectarian conflict and for targeting civilians. They also were admonishing the Pakistani Taliban for targeting shias and Christians.

Bullshit. They've always supported sectarian violence. bin-Laden made a pact with Zarqawi and al-Tawhid shortly after we invaded Iraq, until his death in June 2006. Zarqawi hated shia and all non-muslims....and he was in-country operating a poison manufacturing facility with Saddam's blessing while our leftists were claiming there were no jihadists operating in Iraq. Stop trying to paint a pretty picture of these criminals.

 

[Osomir]

Bullshit. They've always supported sectarian violence. bin-Laden made a pact with Zarqawi and al-Tawhid shortly after we invaded Iraq, until his death in June 2006. Zarqawi hated shia and all non-muslims....and he was in-country operating a poison manufacturing facility with Saddam's blessing while our leftists were claiming there were no jihadists operating in Iraq. Stop trying to paint a pretty picture of these criminals.

Once again, this isn't correct. The fact that the ISI in Iraq engages in large scale sectarian violence doesn't mean that Al Qaeda Central supports it, it means that Al Qaeda Central simply can't control the ISI. Many in Al Qaeda wanted to publicly kick the ISI out of Al Qaeda in order to distance themselves from the sectarian violence and our captured documents when we took bin Laden show that he regrets ever having accepted the merger with them in the first place.

You can read it for yourself here: Letters from Abbottabad: Bin Ladin Sidelined? | Combating Terrorism Center at West Point

Al Qaeda's War Committee largely saw takfiris as one of the largest threats to their brand name.

For the record, Al Qaeda central is also against the ISI's attempts to establish an Islamic state in Iraq. Al Qaeda is non-statist in nature.

 

[JoeBlam]

Al-Qaida video advocates Islamic caliphate in Iraq

Published: Friday, July 06, 2007LEE KEATH
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BAGHDAD - A new video by al-Qaida's deputy leader Thursday left no doubt about what the terror network claims is at stake in Iraq - describing it as a centerpiece of its anti-American fight and insisting the Iraqi insurgency is under its direct leadership.

But the proclamations by Ayman al-Zawahri carried another unintended message: reflecting the current troubles confronting the Sunni extremists in Iraq, experts said.

The Islamic State of Iraq, the insurgent umbrella group that is claimed by al-Qaida, has faced ideological criticism from some militants, and rival armed groups have even joined U.S. battles against it. A U.S.-led offensive northwest of Baghdad - in one of the Islamic State's strongholds - may have temporarily disrupted and scattered insurgent forces.

"Some of the developments suggest that it (the Islamic State) is more fragile than it was before," said Bruce Hoffman, a Washington-based terrorism expert at the Rand Corp. think tank.

Al-Zawahri "is trying to replenish the Islamic State brand," he said. "It's time to reassert its viability, but how connected to reality that is, is another issue."

In the unusually long video - at just over an hour and a half - al-Zawahri depicted the Islamic State of Iraq as a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a "caliphate" of Islamic rule across the region.

"The Islamic State of Iraq is set up in Iraq, the mujahedeen (holy warriors) celebrate it in the streets of Iraq, the people demonstrate in support of it," al-Zawahri said, "pledges of allegiance to it are declared in the mosques of Baghdad."But al-Qaida in Iraq - the group that claims allegiance to Osama bin Laden's goals - has been put on the defensive. Some Sunni insurgent groups have publicly split with it, distancing themselves from its bomb attacks on Iraqi civilians and accusing al-Qaida of trying to strong-arm their members into joining.

One influential faction, the 1920 Revolution Brigades, has openly helped U.S. forces in new offensives against al-Qaida in and around Baghdad, and some Sunni tribes have turned against it in western Anbar province.

U.S. forces have focused on al-Qaida-linked fighters in their security clampdowns in Baghdad and so-called "belts" around the city in recent weeks. That has brought an increase in American casualties, but insurgent and militia attacks appear to have fallen.

Al-Qaida video advocates Islamic caliphate in Iraq | Lubbock Online | Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

 

[Osomir]

I don't dispute your article; what it is important to understand though is the special relationship that the ISI has with Al Qaeda Central.

Al Qaeda Central is also split in terms of how to deal with rogue regional jihadi groups like the ISI. Some wanted to publicly disown them and distance themselves from them, others, such as Zawahiri, wanted to accept them even if they didn't conform to Al Qaeda's jihadi ideology because they felt that, in the face of their own operational weakness, having more people out there with the name Al Qaeda would make Al Qaeda seem stronger and continue to draw people to them. Most Al Qaeda members (most of whom are dead now) were of the former belief, which is why Al Qaeda in Iraq (notice that they have since changed their names to the ISI) was the only affiliate that Osama bin Laden formally allowed to join al Qaeda. Al Shabaab had to wait until bin Laden was killed to be recognized by Al Qaeda Central. AQIM likewise was never ecognized by bin Laden but only by Zawahiri.

Overall, a jihadi group having the name Al Qaeda in their title, doesn't really make them Al Qaeda per say, especially since most of these groups are only really interested in regional jihadism.

 

[JoeBlam]

I don't dispute your article; what it is important to understand though is the special relationship that the ISI has with Al Qaeda Central.

Al Qaeda Central is also split in terms of how to deal with rogue regional jihadi groups like the ISI. Some wanted to publicly disown them and distance themselves from them, others, such as Zawahiri, wanted to accept them even if they didn't conform to Al Qaeda's jihadi ideology because they felt that, in the face of their own operational weakness, having more people out there with the name Al Qaeda would make Al Qaeda seem stronger and continue to draw people to them. Most Al Qaeda members (most of whom are dead now) were of the former belief, which is why Al Qaeda in Iraq (notice that they have since changed their names to the ISI) was the only affiliate that Osama bin Laden formally allowed to join al Qaeda. Al Shabaab had to wait until bin Laden was killed to be recognized by Al Qaeda Central. AQIM likewise was never ecognized by bin Laden but only by Zawahiri.

Overall, a jihadi group having the name Al Qaeda in their title, doesn't really make them Al Qaeda per say, especially since most of these groups are only really interested in regional jihadism.

Fair enough but obviously the inner-core of AQ is operating in a statist mode, first tyring to run Somalia, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Yemen....they have made it clear that a failed-state is their objective for a new caliphate. That's why I said the Egyptian was always the operational leader while binny boy was simply being his Che.

 

[Claudette]

Those dirtbags will always be out there just waiting to kill anyone who isn't Muslim.

Anyone who doesn't believe this is a fucking idiot.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Meanwhile back at the Reichstag, Herr Obama arms terrorists who in turn murder children, Shia, Kurds, Christians, kittens or pretty much anything that isn't a filthy Sunni dog like they are.

 

[Osomir]

Those dirtbags will always be out there just waiting to kill anyone who isn't Muslim.

Anyone who doesn't believe this is a fucking idiot.

The simple fact is that the central leadership of Al Qaeda has pretty much always disagreed with you. Even modern internal Al Qaeda documents show Al Qaeda threatening other jihadi groups including the Pakistani Taliban over acting in such a manner.

I understand that you view these people as monster, and surely they are, but they don't view themselves that way, the Al Qaeda Military Committee has all sorts of rules for the following of what they see as lawful and just jihad. Part of that process is limiting civilian casualties and no sectarian violence (one reason why bin Laden was so upset with Al Qaeda "affiliate" groups and refused to acknowledge AQAP, AQIM, and Al Shabaab).

Al Qaeda doesn't even support US immigrants engaging in Jihad because it would violate the oath of citizenship they took to not harm the US. They only support jihadis in the US who are on visas or who were born here. Crazy, but true.

 

[Osomir]

Meanwhile back at the Reichstag, Herr Obama arms terrorists who in turn murder children, Shia, Kurds, Christians, kittens or pretty much anything that isn't a filthy Sunni dog like they are.

We aren't arming terrorists in Syria. That buzz line is getting pretty old and is incredibly intellectually dishonest.