At what point does Obama’s so-called “jayvee” become enough of a threat to mobilize action to put them down?
At what point does Obama’s so-called “jayvee” become enough of a threat to mobilize action to put them down?
IntelCenter is an invaluable resource for information and updates on Jihadist terrorism. We highly recommend their services:
Their latest email bulletin included this update on hostages held by Jihadist terrorists around the globe, in places like Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Syria, Mali, Afghanistan, Niger, Iran and Iraq. The overwhelming majority of hostages are Western; 8 are Americans:
America is hamstrung in its efforts to defend itself from Jihadist terrorists by a remarkable denial in law enforcement, homeland security, intelligence and military circles as to the nature of our enemy and the threat we face.
This stems partly from political correctness and ignorant assumptions about our enemy and his doctrine.
But it also is the result of effective influence operations run by the Muslim Brotherhood to control how we ourselves describe our enemies and speak about our enemies. This has reached the point at which the Obama administration has openly embraced the Muslim Brotherhood overseas in nations like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and, evidently, Syria.
Muslim Brotherhood front groups, like Hamas-tied CAIR, ISNA and the Muslim Students Association, all of which were named unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history, and have been shielded from prosecution by Eric Holder, have tremendous influence in the Obama administration, to the point that we now know that, despite the fact that the FBI felt compelled to cut off all relations with CAIR, for example, Obama White House officials have met with CAIR hundreds of times over the past 3 years.
So, while the DHS pats down little old ladies and toddlers in airports, they are in TOTAL denial as to the war we are in.
Individuals like John Brennan, Eric Holder and Paul Stockton, who can only be described as bureaucratic train wrecks, control our policies and prevent America from ever being effective in coming to terms with the threat from violent Jihad, which is based in the doctrine known as Shariah.
I urge you to view the short videos below. I do not like terms like, “violent Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam,” but they are a far sight better than the terms our bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus uses to describe the threat.
The fact of the matter is that America and the West is confronted with a global Islamic insurgency. Like all insurgencies, this one is mostly political, not military, though it does have a military/violent component. This is born out in the fact that large, global Islamic organizations that claim to be peaceful, such as Hizb ut Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood and Tabligi Jamaat have the same goals as terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS, Lashkar e Taiba, the Taliban, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Jemaah Islamiyah.
These goals and this insurgency are anchored in Islamic doctrine, known as Shariah. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists or Jihadists, but there is no denying that the doctrine exists and has existed for many years. The fact is, most Muslims do not adhere to this doctrine some are unaware that it even exists. But unfortunately that cannot be said to delegitimize the Shariah doctrine that brings us violent Jihad and a global Islamic insurgency designed to bring about supremacy of Islam worldwide.
Thanks to our own ignorance and the influence operations of the political wing of the global Islamic insurgency (especially the Muslim Brotherhood in America), we have become willfully blind to the threat. We need no further evidence than the disgraceful bureaucrats in the three videos below:
Combative, willful denial of the threat we face
Late last week a State Department spokesman uttered “The war on terror is over.”
That utterance was followed up by President Obama’s surprise trip to Afghanistan (“coincidentally” on the anniversary of the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden, or so we are told…). While in Afghanistan, Obama gave a political speech aimed at folks back home in America in which he echoed the sentiments of his State Department spokesman in essentially declaring Al Qaeda beaten.
Before we deconstruct this politically motivated fantasy, we should probably point out that we are not now, nor were we truly ever engaged in a “war on terrorism.” We don’t want to belabor the point because many observers have pointed out this reality over the years. Terrorism is a method, not an enemy. As the late philosopher and columnist Jeff Cooper said shortly after President Bush named this struggle the “war on terrorism:” “Give us an enemy we can shoot at, Mr. President.”
But it was not to be. Obama stopped referring to the war on terrorism as soon as he came into office, his administration floating the term “overseas contingency operations” instead.
That drew instant and widespread ridicule and we haven’t heard the term mentioned much since it was originally floated after Obama got into office.
We should have paid closer attention. This wasn’t just about changing names. This was about ending the war effort. The goal in changing the name was to prepare the American people for an end to the war. Obama came into office knowing he was going to end the war–unilaterally. The fact is, the war and the threat of terrorism don’t help liberals get elected. There was a reason why the word “terrorism” was never uttered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention when the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry.
The DNC did the polling and the focus groups and found out that the issue was a loser for them. Ever since, the hard left has been hell bent for leather on ending the war effort.
Obama’s State Department spokesman claimed last week that “since most of Al Qaeda’s is now dead” Islamists have other places to turn for legitimate inclusion in the political process.
There is so much to comment on here that we hardly know where to begin.
First of all, most of the original members of Al Qaeda were dead before Obama even got into office. Most estimates were that some 75% of Al Qaeda’s leadership had been killed or captured in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. The killing of Osama Bin Laden just over a year ago likely did not add much to the operational degradation of Al Qaeda. Despite claims to the contrary, it is highly unlikely that Bin Laden still exercised operational control over Al Qaeda around the globe at the time of his death. So, this is hardly a new development as the Obama State Department spokesman implies.
We now know from seized documents and from former intelligence operatives that Bin Laden had, for years, limited his communications with the outside world, including Al Qaeda, to a single human courier. There is simply no way he could possibly have maintained operational authority or control over the organization in such circumstances.
This suggests that his death did not add substantially to the degradation of Al Qaeda’s operational capability.
Bin Laden was barely involved any more. He wasn’t even in a position to raise money–his chief role for years in the past. Nor did he find it necessary to issue frequent videotaped messages to his followers or to the world at large, something he took great pride in doing earlier in Al Qaeda’s war against the West.
Because of this, Bin Laden’s death cannot be accurately described as ending Al Qaeda. Perhaps we are on the cusp of defeating Al Qaeda in the Afghan-Pak theater of operations, but that is not due to Bin Laden’s death. Bin Laden’s death was in reality a byproduct of the campaign against Al Qaeda in that region over a period of years, starting way back in 2001.
Moreover, Al Qaeda globally is far from finished. The organization has evolved into an umbrella group for Jihadists around the globe. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is active in Africa. Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula is locked in an active, violent insurgency in Yemen. Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s successor and always the organization’s ideologue, is still at large. His Jihadist brother, released from prison in the so-called “Arab Spring” is back in operation in Egypt.
Then there are the Al Qaeda affiliates that don’t identify themselves as Al Qaeda, but certainly operate in a similar fashion. There’s Aby Sayyaf in the Philippines, which has kidnapped and murdered Americans in the past. There’s Al Shabaab in Somalia, which recruits heavily from the Somali refugee community here in the USA. There’s Boko Haram, which is making life in Nigeria a living hell for Christians. There’s Jemaah Islamiyah in Malaysia and Indonesia, which has attacked Westerners, including the 202 deaths in the Bali, Indonesia bombing in 2002. And of course, the Taliban themselves, who are allied with Al Qaeda and gave them a launching pad for operations in the 1990s.
All of these organizations still exist. We are told now that Bin Laden did not have a high regard for these affiliates, but that doesn’t necessarily make them any less of a threat.
But let’s not forget the Jihadist terrorist organizations that operate and who are not overtly aligned with Al Qaeda. These serve as a reminder that the enemy isn’t just “Al Qaeda,” despite what the Obama administration wants you to believe. We should not take too much comfort in the fact that most of these organizations operate overseas and don’t regularly target Americans. They don’t view Americans any differently than they view other Westerners or kafirs.
There is the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines, which, like Abu Sayyef, has targeted Americans in the past. There’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, which carried out the horrific Mumbai attacks in 2008. Keep in mind that LeT used an American to conduct reconnaissance for that operation and their captured literature showed plans to target the American homeland. There are the Islamic Jihad Union in Uzbekistan and Jaish-e-Mohammed in Kashmir. There’s Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which has known operatives in the US. And, along those same lines, we have HAMAS, which currently only targets Israel, but which has an extensive network in the US.
Most ominously, given the threat from Iran, is Hezbollah, described by more than one US official as the “A” team of terrorism. Congressional investigations estimate that they have thousands of supporters and hundred of operatives here in the US. A very recent report indicates that Hezbollah has a network centered on Shia mosques here in the US as well.
But this all misses the basic point. We are on the receiving end of a global Islamic insurgency. It’s not a homogenous insurgency by any stretch. Many of the insurgent groups are completely unrelated and some even hate each other. But they are all united in one goal: establishment of Islamic rule under Shariah law.
This war did not start on September 11th, 2001, with Al Qaeda’s attacks on the US homeland; it had been raging on a lower level overseas for decades. And the war will not end with the death of Osama Bin Laden, or the outright defeat of Al Qaeda, or the inevitable NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The declaration of victory is purely for domestic political consumption, which is very sad and dangerous indeed.
Center for Security Policy Vice President Christopher Holton is available for speaking engagements on the subjects of terrorism, terrorism financing, Shariah, Shariah-Compliant Finance and Jihad. For more information, contact him at email@example.com
Periodically here on TTB, we have covered the Jihadist insurgency going on in the Philippines:
Many people around the world are unaware of the war that has been raging in the Philippines. At the heart of the violence is the desire of Jihadist terrorist groups such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah to establish an independent Islamic state ruled by Shariah law on the island of Mindanao.
Along with the Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand, these Asia-Pacific Jihads illustrate the global war we find ourselves in. They also debunk the theory that US foreign policy, presence in the Middle East or support for Israel is the primary reason for Islamic terrorism.
No one can say that the Jihadists are killing innocent civilians in Thailand and the Philippines because the US supports Israel or because the US has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Wikileaks documents have given us a clear view into just how serious the situation on the Philippines is, as well as the character of the global Islamic threat we face.
• US diplomats characterized the Jihadist terrorism on Mindanao as on a par with the insurgency in Afghanistan.
• US diplomats openly acknowledged in the secret cables leaked by Wikileaks the role Saudi Arabia was playing in funding the Islamic groups in the Philippines and declared that it must be stopped. This is a common theme around the world. Saudis fund Jihad with “private” donations (often from members of the royal family) while the Saudi government looks the other way and denies any support for terrorism. It’s called plausible deniability and the Saudis have been playing this double game for over 30 years. They fund Jihadist terrorism and claim they are our “allies” in the “war on terrorism.”
Read more at Philippine Daily Inquirer…
In the wake of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, there is a debate as to the extent that Bin Laden was operationally in charge of Al Qaeda. There have also been those who have naively speculated that Bin Laden’s death means an end to the war on terror or even Jihad altogether.
It seems apparent that Bin Laden was actively communicating with Al Qaeda elements, but it wasn’t in real time. He used a system of couriers to relay messages via email and the internet, but went to great pains to securely communicate. This means no direct internet connection and no phones, cellular, satellite or landline.
This would preclude any real dialogue with operators and cells. It seems as if Bin Laden was able to communicate in general terms about his “commander’s intent,” but was in no position to take part in detailed planning. Bin Laden wanted his followers to carry out mass casualty attacks, he wanted the attacks to occur on important anniversaries and holidays, and he was especially interested in attacks on trains, which is not hard to believe given that Jihadists have been targeting trains in the UK, Spain, France, Germany and India in recent years.
Unfortunately, what this probably means is that the loss of Bin Laden will not operationally hinder Al Qaeda. It may hurt the group’s morale and it may erode some of the group’s financial and moral support, but it might also energize those who seek to avenge Bin Laden’s death at the hands of US special operations forces.
Al Qaeda doctrinal leader Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri still lives and he has been by far more active in communicating in recent years than Bin Laden was. Anwar Al-Awlaki is still at large in Yemen and he has been the one who has successfully trained and inspired Jihadi attacks on US targets in recent years, such as the Fort Hood Jihadi murderer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Little Rock Jihadist murderer, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe) and the unsuccessful plot to send bombs embedded in printer cartridges from Yemen to the US on board cargo and passenger airliners.
Muslim Brotherhood apologist Peter Bergen maintains that Awlaki is a small player and that the war on terror should end with the killing of Bin Laden, but this is hardly surprising that Bergen essentially built a career around Bin Laden, including perpetuating the illusion that Bergen himself was some sort of expert on Jihad because he had managed to spend a few hours with Bin Laden in a tent 13 years ago or so.
On top of all this, there is the additional issue of groups and organizations sympathetic to Al Qaeda and allied with Al Qaeda, but not actually part of Al Qaeda. Two significant organizations fall into this category: the Taliban and Lashkar e Taiba.
The Taliban need no introduction, but many people do not realize two things about the Taliban: Taliban leader Mullah Omar specifically declined to merge with Al Qaeda and refused to take an oath of loyalty to Bin Laden. Because of this, Bin Laden exercised no operational control over the Taliban. Second, the failed Times Square bomb plot appears to have been a Taliban operation, vice an Al Qaeda operation: http://terrortrendsbulletin.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/new-york-times-square-car-bomb-bulletin/
The significance of this is that the Taliban are willing and able to attempt terrorist attacks here in America. Adding to this worry is the recent news that six American Muslims, including Imams at a Florida mosque, appear to have been raising money for the Taliban: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387185/Imam-Florida-mosque-sons-arrested-charges-financing-Taliban-Pakistan.html Moreover, there is no ignoring the Taliban’s recent bombing attack against a Pakistani paramilitary training facility in northern Pakistan, which was declared as vengeance for Bin Laden’s death–with the promise of more to come.
Unfortunately, the slaying of Osama Bin Laden will have no operational impact on Taliban operations.
Then there is Lashkar e Taiba, the Pakistani Jihadi terrorist group which carried out the horrific Mumbai attacks. Again, this is a group that is often misidentified as an Al Qaeda affiliate, but, like the Taliban, LeT is a separate, standalone organization that declined to pledge any oath to Osama Bin Laden.
What does LeT have to do with America? Two things:
1. The Jihadist who conducted recon ahead of the Mumbai attacks was an American from Chicago named David Coleman Headley:
In fact, Headley also conducted recon on an Indian nuclear power plant as well:
2. LeT is known to be active in America:
Members of the group fought against US forces in Iraq back in 2004. The group is known to have a presence in Germany and the UK as well.
These are just two examples of Jihadi organizations that pose a threat to America that will not be impacted at all by the death of Bin Laden.
Then there is the “lone wolf” threat, the so-called “sudden jihad syndrome” threat in which enraged Muslims commit acts of violence because they were inspired by organizations like Al Qaeda and people like Osama Bin Laden. There have been examples of this, the most recent being the case of a Yemeni-American who tried to storm the cockpit door of an American Airlines flight whilst screaming “AllahuAkbar!” Fortunately, the reinforced door was securely locked and there were a retired Secret Service agent and retired police officer on board who subdued the subject:
Officials have issued warnings about such “lone wolf” attacks in the wake of Bin Laden getting his brains blown out:
What of Al Qaeda itself? At least four Al Qaeda affiliates have either declared their intent to avenge Bin Laden’s death or issued veiled threats to carry on with the Jihad:
Somalia’s Al Shabaab, including Daphne, Alabama-born Jihadist, Abu Mansur Al-Amriki, mourned Bin Laden’s passing in a radio communication, confirming, incidentally, Al Qaeda’s role in fighting US forces in Somalia way back in 1993:
In Indonesia, Jemmaah Islamiyah leader Abu Bakar Bashir, mourned Bin Laden and issued a veiled threat:
And, finally, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (which has been especially active in hostage taking in recent months and years) and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, both vowed to carry on with Jihad after Bin Laden’s death:
None of this takes two other significant Jihadi terrorist threats into account: Hezbollah and HAMAS.
Hezbollah has not issued any comments on Bin Laden’s death, but a former Hezbollah leader mourned Bin Laden as a hero who defended Islam:
Hezbollah has not targeted Americans with terrorism in recent years, but they did take an active combat and advisory role against US forces in Iraq and they are believed to have a substantial presence inside the USA. Most recently, reports have once again surfaced of the group’s presence along the American-Mexico border:
What could touch off renewed attacks by Hezbollah? A confrontation with Iran for one.
The same can be said for the Palestinian Jihadist terrorist group HAMAS. Like Hezbollah, HAMAS is greatly dependent on Iran for financing, arms and training. Any confrontation with Iran carries with it the danger of HAMAS terror attacks. Many Americans do not remember that Palestinian terrorists used to target Americans with regularity. They stopped, not out of love for America, but to avoid being targeted by American power. HAMAS has the same basic goals as Al Qaeda and issued a eulogy honoring Bin Laden in which they bestowed upon him the honorific title “Sheikh:”
HAMAS is known to have conducted extensive fundraising inside America and, like Hezbollah, is believed to have a major presence inside our country.
So, we have no answers but certainly some educated guesses:
• Bin Laden was unlikely to have played an active operational role in Al Qaeda in recent times; most likely he was limited to expressing “commander’s intent” via intermediaries with little or no direct contact with operatives around the globe.
• The Jihad will of course continue. Jihad is not limited to a few groups and it didn’t commence on September 11th, 2001. It’s been going on for a millennium and is based on Shariah doctrine, not just the personal philosophy of Osama Bin Laden. Jihad, however, can be made dormant for a period through strong resistance since, according to Shariah, Muslims are specifically not supposed to wage Jihad if they are not strong enough to do so, therefore the situation is far from hopeless.
Al Qaeda and its affiliates have pledged to continue the Jihad and allied Jihadist groups still pose an independent threat above and beyond Al Qaeda. In fact Bin Laden’s death may ironically spur them to action. This says nothing of the threat from Jihadists that were not aligned with Bin Laden, such as Hezbollah and HAMAS, who pose an ongoing, if dormant, threat to Americans.
Now is no time to rest or become complacent. Just the opposite.
Ron Paul is at it again.
But let’s not get to worked up about the crazy old loon. After all, he’ll be 76 in August. That will make him 77 by the time the next president is inaugurated. That’s nearly the age President Reagan was when he left office after two terms.
Ron Paul isn’t in this race to win. He’s one of those perpetual candidates for president who just adores the attention.
In his latest appearance on Fox News, Paul manages to stick to his McGovern-like “Blame America First” script with the tired old assumption that Jihad is being waged against us just because we are in Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or especially because we are an ally of Israel. Paul appears to be a disciple of Michael Schuerer, who has been spouting that line since BEFORE he left the CIA.
Anyway, the good folks at Gateway Pundit posted Paul’s appearance. My comments follow the link:
Here are my thoughts:
It is interesting that Ron Paul bases his entire philosophy on the global Islamic insurgency on the opinions of Michael Sheuer. Michael Sheuer epitomizes all that is wrong with America’s bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus. First of all, he broke longstanding CIA regulations at the encouragement of his politicized superiors to write a book while in active service. This alone makes him a scumbag in my book. Thousands of honorable CIA operators could have done the same, but none did. There is a reason. It’s called honor. Second, Sheuer had a uniquely disturbing career in the CIA. A career analyst with no field experience, he was somehow allowed to become a case officer and eventually found himself in charge of the CIA unit tasked with killing or capturing Bin Laden. He failed miserably. Moreover, if you actually read his work, it is readily apparent that Sheuer has at best a superficial level of knowledge of Islamic threat doctrine. He is appallingly ignorant for someone who was in the position he was in. This has resulted in his belief that we are only being attacked because of things we have done and especially for our support for Israel.
I ask my friends:
Is Jemmaah Islamiya attempting to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia because the US supports Israel?
Are the Chechyan jihadists waging Jihad against Russia because the US supports Israel?
Is Abu Sayyef attempting to establish an Islamic state on Mindanao because the US supports Israel?
Are Jihadists attempting to establish an Islamic state in southern Thailand because the US supports Israel?
Have Nigerian Jihadists attacked innocent Christians repeatedly because the US supports Israel?
Is Al Shabaad conducting terrorist attacks in Kenya and Somalia on innocent civilians because the US supports Israel?
Are Jihadists attempting to create an Islamic state in India’s Kashmir because the US supports Israel?
Have Jihadists killed thousands in attacks on innocent civilians in Morocco, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, the UK, Spain, Jordan and Bangladesh because the US supports Israel?
Are young Jihadis rioting in France because the US supports Israel?
Why is all this happening? Could it be that there is something more to this global violence than the simple “blame America first” concept that Ron Paul supposes?
Why hasn’t he bothered to learn about the enemy threat doctrine?
Suspected Abu Sayyaf Jihadist terrorists kidnapped three fishermen in the southern Philippines and called their employer to demand ransom.
Boat captain Renato Panisales and two crewmen were fishing off southern Sulu province Saturday when Abu Sayyaf gunmen approached on a motorboat and abducted them at gunpoint. The terrorists called the captives’ fishing company in nearby Zamboanga city on Sunday to demand ransom.
In a separate kidnapping, three Abu Sayyaf gunmen seized restaurant caretaker Rolando dela Cruz on Monday in Lamitan town on Basilan island near Sulu. They fled aboard a jeep, which the terrorists later burned.
Army troops and police pursued the kidnappers, who were pressured into abandoning Cruz near a remote village in Basilan’s Tuburan town late Monday. Government forces handed the victim back to Lamitan town officials.
Cruz’s kidnappers were believed to be led by Abu Sayyaf commander Nurhassan Jamiri, who has been blamed for kidnappings, bombings and beheadings in predominantly Muslim Basilan.
Al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf, notorious for bombings, kidnappings for ransom and beheadings, is blacklisted by Washington as a terrorist organization. U.S.-backed offensives have taken out several of its top leaders and hindered its ability to launch bombings and other attacks.
A recent government threat assessment report said the 410 remaining Abu Sayyaf fighters, who remain without a central leader, have been hounded by funding problems, forcing them to kidnap even poor victims to get ransom.
The new kidnappings and a recent deadly bombing in Sulu indicate the danger posed by the terrorists despite their many battle setbacks and underscore the difficulty of fighting terrorism.
Intelligence reports show the kidnappers and the fishermen were moving about in Sulu’s coastal town of Patikul, where the Abu Sayyaf has mountain strongholds.
Patikul officials were trying to establish contact with the kidnappers to negotiate because a rescue attempt might danger the hostages.
The militants killed at least six hostages whose families failed to pay ransom immediately last year, according to the government report.
At their strongest, the Abu Sayyaf seized 21 people, mostly European tourists, from the Malaysian resort of Sipadan in 2000, and abducted three Americans and 17 Filipinos from the Philippines’ Dos Palmas resort the following year.
The Sipadan hostages were freed, reportedly for huge ransoms. One of the three American hostages from Dos Palmas was beheaded, while a second was killed during an army rescue attempt. The third American was wounded but freed in the army rescue operation.
A founding member of the Philippine Jihadist terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf pled guilty today in federal court in Washington, DC to the 1995 kidnapping of 16 people, including four US citizens.
Madhatta Haipe, a Philippine citizen who was extradited to the United States in 2009, pled guilty to four counts of hostage taking and faces up to 25 years in prison as part of a plea agreement, according to the Justice Department.
Haipe admitted organizing the kidnap of four US citizens, one US permanent resident and 11 Philippine citizens in December 1995 near remote waterfalls on the island of Mindanao in the southern Philippines.
Abu Sayyaf is designated terrorist organization by the US, and was founded in the 1990s with funding from Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda-network to fight for an independent Islamic state in the south of mostly Catholic Philippines.
The Jihadist terrorists of Abu Sayyaf often resort to hostage taking, mostly targeting foreigners and Christians, to raise money from ransoms. Failure to pay ransoms often results in the beheading of the hostages.
Abu Sayyaf is also capable of much larger attacks, such as the bombing of a ferry in Manila Bay in 2004 that killed more than 100 and was the Philippines’ worst terrorist attack.
Hopefully, Haipe will not be allowed to proselytize during his 25 year stay in US federal prison. He will be 73 years old when he gets out of prison, should he serve his full sentence.
Approximately 30 hooded Abu Sayyaf Jihadist terrorists, shot and hacked terrified, innocent victims running for their lives in the southern Philippines, police said Thursday. Four civilians died and six were wounded in the attack.
The Al Qaeda-linked terrorists were likely trying to divert Philippine troops from a major offensive nearby, according to Antonio Mendoza, police chief for the island province of Basilan, where the terrorist raid occurred.
Most of the victims were commuters in a passenger jeep headed home from Basilan’s capital of Isabela City. The attackers were positioned on a hill overlooking a road and opened fire with small arms. Two passengers were killed instantly but others leapt from the vehicle to escape, Mendoza reported.
“They were fired upon as they ran. One of the attackers hacked a 10-year-old boy, who survived,” Mendoza told The Associated Press.
The daylight ambush is the latest violence committed by Abu Sayyaf and its allied armed groups on Basilan, a predominantly Muslim island about 550 miles (880 kilometers) south of Manila.
Two weeks ago, Abu Sayyaf terrorists beheaded three loggers in a rain forest near Maluso.
Mendoza, who heads a 675-strong force, said he has sought at least 300 more policemen to better secure Basilan towns. About 100 extra police commandos were deployed to Basilan weeks ago to reinforce marines and army troops hunting Abu Sayyaf fighters.
Some 400 Abu Sayyaf terrorists operate in Basilan and on nearby Jolo island and the Zamboanga peninsula. They remain a major security threat as part of a decades-long Muslim insurgency.
The Abu Sayyaf, founded in Basilan in 1991, is believed by U.S. and Philippine security officials to have received funds and training from Osama bin Laden’s network. Evidence also indicates that funding has come from other Saudi and Persian Gulf sources and captured documents in Iraq revealed that Saddam Hussein’s regime provided support to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines.
|HUFFMAN on A Couple of Random Thoughts on…|
|lburt on A Couple of Random Thoughts on…|
|PETER BECK on Backgrounder: A History of Rec…|
|a12iggymom on This is What National Security…|
|firstname.lastname@example.org… on A Stark View Into the Female J…|