அமெரிக்காவில் இருக்கும் ஏராளமான முஸ்லீம் அமைப்புகளில் பல தங்களை மிதவாத முஸ்லீம் அமைப்புகள் என்று கூறிக்கொள்கின்றன. ஆனால், அனைத்தின் உள்ளேயும் தீவிரவாத ஆதரவு இருக்கிறது.
துயரத்தில் இருக்கும் அகதிகளுக்கு உதவுகிறோம் என்று வசூலிக்கும் பணம் ஆயுதங்களுக்குத்தான் செல்கிறது என்று அறிக்கை கூறுகிறது.
Inside the Ring
Bill Gertz
September 14, 2007
Jihadist threat
The international Sunni jihadist group Muslim Brotherhood set up numerous U.S. front groups since the 1990s that should be regarded as hostile and a threat to the United States, a Pentagon Joint Staff analyst said.
Stephen Caughlin, a lawyer and military intelligence specialist on the Joint Staff, stated in a Sept. 7 memorandum that many U.S. Muslim groups viewed as moderate by the Justice Department and other government agencies secretly are linked to the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. The groups also are engaged in influence and deception operations designed to mask their true aims, he said.
Documents entered into evidence in the federal terrorism trial in Dallas of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity charged with illegally funding the Palestinian Hamas terrorist group, reveal new security threats from a network of more than 29 U.S. Muslim groups.
"These documents are beginning to define the structure and outline of domestic jihad threat entities, associated nongovernmental organizations and potential terrorist or insurgent support systems," Mr. Caughlin said.
Specifically, a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum "describes aspects of the global jihad's strategic information warfare campaign and indications of its structure, reach and activities," Mr. Caughlin said.
The Muslim Brotherhood memo on organizing Muslims in North America said that all members "must understand their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
Mr. Caughlin said in his memo that "consequently, outreach strategies must be adjusted in the face of credible information that seeming Islamic humanitarian or professional nongovernmental organizations may be part of the global jihad with potential for being part of the terrorist or insurgent support system," he said.
Mr. Caughlin said the 1991 memorandum identifies the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) as part of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ISNA, one of more than 300 unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, recently became a subject of controversy among officials who opposed the Justice Department's participation in a conference held last month, despite opposition from two members of Congress.
In August, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, and Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican, wrote to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to oppose the Justice Department's attendance at the ISNA conference in Chicago as a "grave mistake" because it would legitimize a group with "extremist origins."
The Justice Department said in response that its participation at the Labor Day weekend meeting was part of "outreach efforts ... to educate the public about how the department works to protect religious freedom, voting rights, economic opportunity, and many other rights."
Mr. Caughlin warned in his memo that such outreach "can cause those responsible for its success to so narrowly focus on the outreach relationship that they miss the surrounding events and lose perspective."
"This could undermine unity of effort in homeland security, lead to potential for embarrassment for the [U.S. government] and legitimize threat organizations by providing them domestic sanctuary."
No war of Ideas
Sen. Joe Lieberman pressed senior U.S. intelligence and security officials this week on what the Bush administration is doing to counter the ideology of Islamic extremism domestically and internationally.
The answer from the top officials: Not much.
Mr. Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said during a hearing Monday that a war of ideas is needed to counter Islamic extremists.
"Because this is a war, but it is ultimately a war against, and with, an ideology that is inimical to our own values of freedom and tolerance and diversity," the Connecticut independent said.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III revealed during the hearing that the FBI has no counterideology response other than its "outreach" to Muslim-American communities so they "understand the FBI" and address "the radicalization issue," he said.
Asked whether the FBI has a responsibility to wage a battle of ideas within U.S. Muslim-American communities, Mr. Mueller said: "You put that where I would say no, that it would not be our responsibility for any religion to engage in the war of ideas."
The FBI's responsibility, he said, is "to explain that once one goes over the line and it becomes not a war of ideas but a criminal offense, this is what you can expect, and to elicit the support of those in whatever religious community to assist us in assuring that those who cross that line are appropriately investigated and convicted."
The comment shows that despite the creation of a dedicated FBI intelligence-gathering branch, the bureau remains limited to investigation and law enforcement.
Retired Vice Adm. Scott Redd, head of the National Counterterrorism Center who has a strategic operational role in countering terrorism, said one of the "four pillars" of the U.S. war strategy is the "war of ideas," but he noted that there is no "home office" for that effort in the United States.
Retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, said the intelligence community does not conduct any battle of ideas against terrorists in the United States unless there is a foreign connection.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff also said nothing is being done domestically to battle Islamist extremist ideas. The department's incident management team, he said, is focused on civil rights or civil liberties — not fighting terrorists' ideology.
USS New York
One place the World Trade Center attacks of six years ago will never be forgotten is aboard the Navy's new transport ship the USS New York, a San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock. The warship is unique because part of its hull was cast from 24 tons of salvaged steel recovered from debris at the World Trade Center.
Navy spokesman Cmdr. Jeff Davis said the use of World Trade Center steel in building the ship is one of the most often asked questions. "I think people see it forwarded around on e-mail and think it sounds so incredible that it must be an urban legend, but it's absolutely true," he said.
The ship will haul Marines and U.S. special operations commandos once it is commissioned in the summer of 2009.
The new ship will be a key element of the Navy's 21st-century strategy of moving troops and equipment more rapidly around the world with amphibious ready groups, expeditionary strike groups or joint task forces.
It will carry advanced weapons and communications gear, including Marine aircraft, air cushion landing craft and advanced amphibious assault vehicles.
First kill
The Army's Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle recently scored its first combat kill by blowing up two Iraqi insurgents with a smart bomb as the enemy fighters were involved in planning an improvised explosive device attack.
The landmark bombing took place Sept. 1 near Qayyarah, Iraq, in Nineveh province after a scout team spotted the two enemy fighters and radioed in the Hunter strike. It was the first time an armed Hunter, a twin-tail drone that can fly for up to 15 hours and at heights of up to 20,000 feet, made such a kill.
"It"s very humbling to know that we have set an Army historical mark in having the first successful launch in combat from an Army weaponized UAV," said Capt. Raymond Fields, commander, Unmanned Aerial Surveillance Company.
"We will see more weaponized Army unmanned vehicles being used instead of manned platforms to save not only our aviator brethren but our Army ground brethren from enemy contact."
Showing posts with label ஏமாற்றுவேலை. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ஏமாற்றுவேலை. Show all posts
Friday, September 14, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
மேற்கில் வலிமையாகும் வரைக்கும் முஸ்லீம்கள் அங்கு அமைதியாக வாழவேண்டும்
மேற்கில் வாழும் முஸ்லீம்கள் வலிமையாக ஆகும் வரைக்கும் அவர்கள் அங்கே அமைதியாக வாழ வேண்டும் , அவ்வாறு வலிமையாக ஆனபின்னால் அங்கே ஜிகாத் தொடுக்க வேண்டும் என்று பாகிஸ்தான் சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் ஷாரியா ஜட்ஜ் தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
Andrew Norfolk
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
The final chapter delivers a rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam.
For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”
These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.
Mr Usmani told The Times that Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu book, “which at times gives a connotation different from the original”.
Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’
Andrew Norfolk
One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam” worldwide.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking.
Mr Usmani, 64, sat for 20 years as a Sharia judge in Pakistan’s Supreme Court. He is an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken, he revealed to The Times a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.
He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire nonMuslim world was intent on destroying Islam. Yet this is a man who, in his published work, argues the case for Muslims to wage an expansionist war against nonMuslim lands.
Mr Usmani’s justification for aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy is revealed at the climax of his book, Islam and Modernism. The work is a polemic against Islamic modernists who seek to convert the entire Koran into “a poetic and metaphorical book” because, he says, they have been bewitched by Western culture and ideology.
The final chapter delivers a rebuke to those who believe that only defensive jihad (fighting to defend a Muslim land that is under attack or occupation) is permissible in Islam. He refutes the suggestion that jihad is unlawful against a nonMuslim state that freely permits the preaching of Islam.
For Mr Usmani, “the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”
These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.
Mr Usmani told The Times that Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu book, “which at times gives a connotation different from the original”.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
குவாண்டனமோ ஏமாற்றுவேலை
குவாண்டனமோ சிறையில் இருந்து பல வருட விசாரணைகளுக்குப் பிறகு பல சிறைக்கைதிகள் பயங்கரவாதத்துக்கு சம்பந்தமில்லை என்று விடுவிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறார்கள்.
இவ்வாறு விடுவிக்கப்பட்டவர்களில் பெரும்பாலோனோர் குறைந்தது 30 பேர் மீண்டும் ஆயுதம் தாங்கி அல்குவேதா போராளிகளாக அமெரிக்க துருப்புகளை எதிர்த்து போரிட்டு இறந்திருக்கிறார்கள்.
இவ்வாறு விடுவிக்கப்பட்டு மீண்டும் மாட்டியவர்கள் பாகிஸ்தானிலும் ஆப்கானிஸ்தானிலுமே இருக்கிறார்கள். ஈராக்கில் இல்லை என்றும் கூறுகிறார்.
Freed prisoners return to jihad, says US military
Ian Munro
Herald Correspondent in New York
July 28, 2007
AT LEAST 30 former prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against US and allied forces following their release, the US military says.
They have been discovered in Afghanistan and Pakistan but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman said yesterday.
Lieutenant-Commander Jeffrey Gordon said that while in custody the men had falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan.
"We are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or engaged in other activities," said Commander Gordon.
His comments follow the death this week of a Taliban commander and former prisoner, Abdullah Mehsud, who reportedly blew himself up rather than surrender to Pakistani forces.
In December 2001 Mehsud was captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay until his release in March 2004. He later became the Taliban chief for South Waziristan.
Commander Gordon said the US did not make it a practice to track prisoners after their release but it had become aware, through intelligence gathering and media reports, of many cases of released prisoners returning to combat.
"These former detainees successfully lied to US officials, sometimes for over three years," Commander Gordon said.
"Common cover stories include going to Afghanistan to buy medicines, to teach the Koran or to find a wife. Many of these stories appear so often and are subsequently proven false, that we can only conclude that they are part of their terrorist training."
An analysis of 516 Guantanamo prisoners, by the Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point military academy, has found while there was no evidence linking six of them to terrorist activities, 95 per cent were a threat to US interests. This was based on their affiliations with groups such as al-Qaeda, their enthusiasm for jihad, having undertaken small arms training or having been willing to perform a support role for terrorism.
But only one in three could be definitely identified as a fighter for the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated groups, the analysis found. Most of the prisoners were considered a greater-than-potential risk because of support they had shown the Islamist cause by fighting for Islamist forces or by undertaking advanced military training.
The analysis was based on material released publicly after hearings of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal between July 2004 and March 2005. It followed claims some men held at Guantanamo did not pose a serious threat to the US and had not supported action against it.
The review does not include the so-called Australian Taliban, David Hicks, who pleaded guilty to material support of terrorism.
The co-author, Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Felter, said the study had relied only on publicly available evidence against the men, although in some cases further evidence was available.
"We were very careful only to list someone as a fighter if that was explicitly listed against them. We were very neutral. We were given some more records but we limited our work to whatever was publicly available," Colonel Felter said.
The study was undertaken after a Seton Hall University analysis of the detention system found only 8 per cent of prisoners had been found to be al-Qaeda fighters.
இவ்வாறு விடுவிக்கப்பட்டவர்களில் பெரும்பாலோனோர் குறைந்தது 30 பேர் மீண்டும் ஆயுதம் தாங்கி அல்குவேதா போராளிகளாக அமெரிக்க துருப்புகளை எதிர்த்து போரிட்டு இறந்திருக்கிறார்கள்.
இவ்வாறு விடுவிக்கப்பட்டு மீண்டும் மாட்டியவர்கள் பாகிஸ்தானிலும் ஆப்கானிஸ்தானிலுமே இருக்கிறார்கள். ஈராக்கில் இல்லை என்றும் கூறுகிறார்.
Freed prisoners return to jihad, says US military
Ian Munro
Herald Correspondent in New York
July 28, 2007
AT LEAST 30 former prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been killed or recaptured after taking up arms against US and allied forces following their release, the US military says.
They have been discovered in Afghanistan and Pakistan but not in Iraq, a US Defence Department spokesman said yesterday.
Lieutenant-Commander Jeffrey Gordon said that while in custody the men had falsely claimed to be farmers, truck drivers, cooks, small-arms merchants, low-level combatants or had offered other false explanations for being in Afghanistan.
"We are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or engaged in other activities," said Commander Gordon.
His comments follow the death this week of a Taliban commander and former prisoner, Abdullah Mehsud, who reportedly blew himself up rather than surrender to Pakistani forces.
In December 2001 Mehsud was captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo Bay until his release in March 2004. He later became the Taliban chief for South Waziristan.
Commander Gordon said the US did not make it a practice to track prisoners after their release but it had become aware, through intelligence gathering and media reports, of many cases of released prisoners returning to combat.
"These former detainees successfully lied to US officials, sometimes for over three years," Commander Gordon said.
"Common cover stories include going to Afghanistan to buy medicines, to teach the Koran or to find a wife. Many of these stories appear so often and are subsequently proven false, that we can only conclude that they are part of their terrorist training."
An analysis of 516 Guantanamo prisoners, by the Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point military academy, has found while there was no evidence linking six of them to terrorist activities, 95 per cent were a threat to US interests. This was based on their affiliations with groups such as al-Qaeda, their enthusiasm for jihad, having undertaken small arms training or having been willing to perform a support role for terrorism.
But only one in three could be definitely identified as a fighter for the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated groups, the analysis found. Most of the prisoners were considered a greater-than-potential risk because of support they had shown the Islamist cause by fighting for Islamist forces or by undertaking advanced military training.
The analysis was based on material released publicly after hearings of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal between July 2004 and March 2005. It followed claims some men held at Guantanamo did not pose a serious threat to the US and had not supported action against it.
The review does not include the so-called Australian Taliban, David Hicks, who pleaded guilty to material support of terrorism.
The co-author, Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Felter, said the study had relied only on publicly available evidence against the men, although in some cases further evidence was available.
"We were very careful only to list someone as a fighter if that was explicitly listed against them. We were very neutral. We were given some more records but we limited our work to whatever was publicly available," Colonel Felter said.
The study was undertaken after a Seton Hall University analysis of the detention system found only 8 per cent of prisoners had been found to be al-Qaeda fighters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)