• Home Page
• Computer Blog
• Chess Blog
• Exercise & Diet Blog
• Theology Blog
• Islamic Terrorism Blog
• Contact Us

“I did it for Islam but it wasn’t easy to kill people. We have to remember who they are though - they’re deceitful people who are against the Islamic Revolution.”

A member of Iran's Basij militia feels a rumble of conscience and tries to rationalize it away. "Basij militiaman: 'I hoped it would never come to shooting them'," from France 24, July 3:

The Basij militia has been blamed for extreme brutality in the violent aftermath of the contested June 12 election in Iran. A Basij commander, who volunteers for one of the Tehran branch of the militia, describes his account of one the bloodiest clashes, on June 20.

Iran's Basij militia is a pro-government volunteer force which comes to the aid of the regime when unrest hits the streets. It was established by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 during the Iran-Iraq war. During the last three weeks the Basij has been called upon by the government to quell the post-election protests, in which at least 20 people were reported to have been killed. The opposition says the figure is much higher.

Mehdi (not his real name) is a 39-year-old Basij commander and a former classmate of one of our Observers from Tehran (who prefers not to be mentioned). Mehdi led a mission in the city centre, close to the Tehran military base, on June 20, one of the most violent days of the clashes.

I did shoot at people myself. I am a military man I have to obey my orders. The crowd was attacking us like crazy people; throwing stones and Molotov cocktails. We had to protect ourselves; to show we were serious, and we did warn them, shouting several times, before opening fire. But they continued to attack. I don't remember who I shot, I just tried to shoot at the people's feet.

Later, we moved back and went behind the vans in middle of the street and I ordered my unit to shoot into the ground in the hope of scaring the crowds from coming closer.

I hoped it would never come to shooting them. That night, I had a nightmare in which the protestors threw me on a fire. It's come back several times, and I can see the faces of the people I was ordered to shoot. I've asked a very spiritual mullah to pray for me.

I did it for Islam but it wasn't easy to kill people. We have to remember who they are though - they're deceitful people who are against the Islamic Revolution. You can't expect us to stay calm when they want to overthrow our regime."

Hizb ut-Tahrir Conference Update

Syria’s Assad offers informal invitation to Obama

UK: Muslim dentist who forced his patients to wear Islamic dress can carry on

Cultural abdication. Absurd Britannia Alert, and an update on this story: "Islamic dress row dentist can carry on," by Paula Fentiman for the Press Association, July 3 (thanks to Block Ness):

A dentist who told Muslim patients he would treat them only if they wore Islamic dress will be able to continue to practise, a disciplinary panel ruled today.

Dr Omer Butt, of Prestwich, Greater Manchester, ordered two women to wear head scarfs before he would see them and their families, the professional conduct committee of the General Dental Council (GDC) found.

The panel concluded that he sought to impose a dress code on Muslim patients while working at the Unsworth Smile Clinic in Bury, Greater Manchester, between April 2005 and June 2007.

Dr Butt "discriminated" against people on the basis he "disapproved of their attitude to the requirements of Islam" and "did not act in the best interests of his patients", the panel found.

The GDC committee said it was "in no doubt that it amounted to misconduct" but found his fitness to practise was not impaired....

German TV: Germany sold torture devices to Iranian mullahs

Well, torture is one thing at which the Germans are certifiably expert.

It is not, unfortunately, in English, but the courageous Iranian dissident Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi sends this link from IranPressNews, to the effect that "German TV reports the sale of torture devices to the Mullah regime." You can watch the German news video there -- I caught the word "electroshock."

This redounds to the everlasting shame of the German corporation or corporations involved, and the German government.

If any German-speaking Jihad Watch readers can provide a translation of the video, I would be most grateful, and will post it forthwith.

U.S. to block new sanctions on Iran

A new and disquieting Which-Side-Is-Obama-On Update. Let Iran do what it wants! What could go wrong? "Report: U.S. to block Iran sanctions at G8 summit," by Shlomo Shamir for Haaretz, July 3 (thanks to JA):

The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday.

According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders....

However, diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran.

U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures.

The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the six permanent United Nations Security Council members.

American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members....

Supine appeasement and dhimmitude will get us nowhere.

“This Iranian form of theocracy has failed”

One simmering controversy over the Iran protests was over whether the protesters simply wanted to install Mir Hussein Mousavi as President and continue living in a Sharia state, or whether they wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic altogether. It seems likely that some wanted one and some wanted the other.

In any case, the evidence that some brought forward to show that the protesters had no problem with Sharia was lacking, to say the least: Mousavi is indeed an establishment figure in the Islamic Republic with a sinister past, but that in itself didn't establish that every demonstrator who took to the streets in Iran was doing so because he or she positively endorsed Mousavi, his program, and his resume. He became a focus of the protests, but as Pamela Geller notes here of the Iranian voters, their choices were limited: "it was not as if they could write in Ronald Reagan's name."

Nor did the fact that the protesters have been shouting "Allahu akbar" necessarily indicate a wholehearted endorsement of Iranian theocracy. The phrase has an extra weight in Iran due to its use as a rallying cry during the Khomeini revolution in 1979, and given Iran's cultural context, it is not in every respect the same thing to shout this on the streets of Tehran as to shout it on the streets of New York.

Of course, these considerations don't mean that the protesters, had they prevailed, would have installed a Western-leaning secular government akin to the Shah's. But those who supported the Shah and secularism have not entirely disappeared from Iran, and cannot be discounted as an element in those protests.

Anyway, this interview with Ayatollah Mohsen Kadivar, an establishment hack like Mousavi, as well as a theocrat and Jew-hater. He praises Obama's supine response to Iranian tyranny, as if the specter of American support for the protesters would have driven them to embrace Ahmadinejad in droves. But Kadivar does shed a bit more light on the nature of the protests. He insists that the protests have been "thoroughly Islamic," but also admits that "some young people are oriented towards the West" -- although he downplays that fact and maintains that most Iranians want Sharia. Still, the question Geller asked in her article still lingers: "Are people in Iran dying for more of the same thing they have been getting from the Islamic Republic for thirty years?" Since the protests have been essentially crushed at this point, we may never know the answer.

"'This Iranian Form of Theocracy Has Failed,'" from Spiegel, July 2 (thanks to Ruth King):

[...] SPIEGEL: Tehran appears quiet at the moment, at least compared with the mass protests of the week before last. Are we currently seeing the beginning of the end of the resistance -- or the end of the Iranian regime?

Kadivar: This Iranian form of theocracy has failed. The rights of the Iranian peoples are trampled upon and my homeland is heading towards a military dictatorship. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad behaves like an Iranian Taliban. The supreme leader, Mr. Ali Khamenei, has tied his fate to that of Ahmadinejad, a great moral, but also political mistake.

SPIEGEL: What has your counsel been for opposition leader Mousavi in recent days? Is he truly the undisputed head of the movement?

Kadivar: Yes, he is the leader. All reformists now support Mousavi, my friend from our days at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran. He was a professor of political science and I was professor of philosophy and theology. I believe he should insist on new elections and continue calling for non-violent protests ...

SPIEGEL: ... which would then be violently squashed by the security forces of the regime, the Basij and the Pasdaran.

Kadivar: In the long term, a regime can hardly oppose millions of peaceful protesters -- unless it opts for a massacre and, in doing so, completely loses its legitimacy. We should again and again point to the rights granted by the Iranian constitution. In Article 27, it is clearly pointed out that every citizen has the right to protest. Our protest is non-violent, legal and "green" -- thoroughly Islamic.

SPIEGEL: That's what you say.

Kadivar: Article 56 of our constitution includes the right of God that is give to all Iranian citizens. The citizens then elect their leader, president and parliament. The constitution is very clear on that: The leader must be elected and not selected by those claiming to know God's will.

SPIEGEL: The state doctrine of Welayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) and its highest representative, Ali Khamenei, see it quite differently. They claim the protest movement is directed against the law and against religion.

Kadivar: The people call "Allahu Akbar" from the rooftops. They carry signs asking "Where has my vote gone?" The protesters don't want to rebel against everything, but they do want justice and they do want fair elections. He who refuses those demands risks a civil war.

SPIEGEL: It is true that the protesters are using the color of Islam and chanting "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"). But have they not reached the point where they want more? They were also shouting, "Down with the Dictator!" Maybe the young people who are behind the movement want a democratic republic based on the Western model with separation of religion and state.

Kadivar: I admit that some young people are oriented towards the West. But one should not give too much weight to that. The majority of my compatriots would not want a complete separation of state and religion. Neither would I. Iran is a country with Islamic traditions and values. More than 90 percent of our citizens are Muslims.

SPIEGEL: Which values specifically are you referring to?

Kadivar: Above all, stands justice and the fulfillment of the will of the people. Under the rule of Ali, our first Shiite imam, there were no political prisoners, non-violent protests were permitted and critical comment even invited. One must not betray those values.

SPIEGEL: And Khamenei and Ahmadinejad did?

Kadivar: Yes. I plead for a truly Islamic and democratic state, a state that respects human dignity and does not refuse the rights of women, a state where people can freely elect their religious and secular leaders.

SPIEGEL: But now you are talking about a revolution -- a completely new, different Iran.

Kadivar: I am speaking of a country where religious leaders do not have the right to determine how the country is led in opposition to the majority of the community, ostensibly according to the will of God. Such a right does not exist, neither in the Shiite tradition nor in other imperatives. I do not believe in any divine rights for clergy or believers....

SPIEGEL: Can other countries do anything to aid the opposition?

Kadivar: No. This is a battle the Iranian people have to win by themselves. I think that so far, President Obama has acted very prudently and not given those looking for any reason to attack ammunition. Ahmadinejad's insistence that Washington has fueled the unrest has no effect.

SPIEGEL: Obama compared Ahmadinejad and Mousavi and commented that the difference between the candidates is only minor. Is he correct?

Kadivar: This is correct, but then again, it is not correct. The differences regarding the nuclear question and the evaluation of Israeli politics are indeed minor. As for the right to uranium enrichment, you won't find an Iranian politician who thinks differently. But on the question of democracy, the differences are formidable. Ahmadinejad takes an aggressive position, while Mousavi emphazises the adherence to laws and the constitution. I believe that the issue of democratization is presently the central problem. Everything else, including the nuclear question, is secondary....

SPIEGEL: Some in the West fear that things could get far worse -- and they mean for the world -- if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

Kadivar: We are particularly concerned about Israel. This country has handed its nuclear energy to the military. Every Muslim -- well, everyone -- is afraid of Israel. Israel's nuclear arsenal should be placed under the control of the United Nations and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

SPIEGEL: Do we understand you right, that there will be no change on the nuclear question regardless of who wins the power struggle in Tehran?

Kadivar: Every Iranian government will claim the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy ...

SPIEGEL: ... but that is not the issue. We are talking about the nuclear bomb.

Kadivar: America has it, Israel has it. What is said about my country is only potentiality not reality. If the nuclear bomb is evil, then it is evil everywhere -- not only in those countries that oppose US policy. It is a double standard policy.

SPIEGEL: What would happen if Israel or the United States attacked nuclear plants in Iran?

Kadivar: That would be in contempt of all moral values. The Iranians would take up resistance, and they would do it together, regardless of political disposition and religion....

“This Iranian form of theocracy has failed”

One simmering controversy over the Iran protests was over whether the protesters simply wanted to install Mir Hussein Mousavi as President and continue living in a Sharia state, or whether they wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic altogether. It seems likely that some wanted one and some wanted the other.

In any case, the evidence that some brought forward to show that the protesters had no problem with Sharia was lacking, to say the least: Mousavi is indeed an establishment figure in the Islamic Republic with a sinister past, but that in itself didn't establish that every demonstrator who took to the streets in Iran was doing so because he or she positively endorsed Mousavi, his program, and his resume. He became a focus of the protests, but as Pamela Geller notes here of the Iranian voters, their choices were limited: "it was not as if they could write in Ronald Reagan's name."

Nor did the fact that the protesters have been shouting "Allahu akbar" necessarily indicate a wholehearted endorsement of Iranian theocracy. The phrase has an extra weight in Iran due to its use as a rallying cry during the Khomeini revolution in 1979, and given Iran's cultural context, it is not in every respect the same thing to shout this on the streets of Tehran as to shout it on the streets of New York.

Of course, these considerations don't mean that the protesters, had they prevailed, would have installed a Western-leaning secular government akin to the Shah's. But those who supported the Shah and secularism have not entirely disappeared from Iran, and cannot be discounted as an element in those protests.

Anyway, this interview with Ayatollah Mohsen Kadivar, an establishment hack like Mousavi, as well as a theocrat and Jew-hater. He praises Obama's supine response to Iranian tyranny, as if the specter of American support for the protesters would have driven them to embrace Ahmadinejad in droves. But Kadivar does shed a bit more light on the nature of the protests. He insists that the protests have been "thoroughly Islamic," but also admits that "some young people are oriented towards the West" -- although he downplays that fact and maintains that most Iranians want Sharia. Still, the question Geller asked in her article still lingers: "Are people in Iran dying for more of the same thing they have been getting from the Islamic Republic for thirty years?" Since the protests have been essentially crushed at this point, we may never know the answer.

"'This Iranian Form of Theocracy Has Failed,'" from Spiegel, July 2 (thanks to Ruth King):

[...] SPIEGEL: Tehran appears quiet at the moment, at least compared with the mass protests of the week before last. Are we currently seeing the beginning of the end of the resistance -- or the end of the Iranian regime?

Kadivar: This Iranian form of theocracy has failed. The rights of the Iranian peoples are trampled upon and my homeland is heading towards a military dictatorship. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad behaves like an Iranian Taliban. The supreme leader, Mr. Ali Khamenei, has tied his fate to that of Ahmadinejad, a great moral, but also political mistake.

SPIEGEL: What has your counsel been for opposition leader Mousavi in recent days? Is he truly the undisputed head of the movement?

Kadivar: Yes, he is the leader. All reformists now support Mousavi, my friend from our days at Tarbiat Modares University in Tehran. He was a professor of political science and I was professor of philosophy and theology. I believe he should insist on new elections and continue calling for non-violent protests ...

SPIEGEL: ... which would then be violently squashed by the security forces of the regime, the Basij and the Pasdaran.

Kadivar: In the long term, a regime can hardly oppose millions of peaceful protesters -- unless it opts for a massacre and, in doing so, completely loses its legitimacy. We should again and again point to the rights granted by the Iranian constitution. In Article 27, it is clearly pointed out that every citizen has the right to protest. Our protest is non-violent, legal and "green" -- thoroughly Islamic.

SPIEGEL: That's what you say.

Kadivar: Article 56 of our constitution includes the right of God that is give to all Iranian citizens. The citizens then elect their leader, president and parliament. The constitution is very clear on that: The leader must be elected and not selected by those claiming to know God's will.

SPIEGEL: The state doctrine of Welayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) and its highest representative, Ali Khamenei, see it quite differently. They claim the protest movement is directed against the law and against religion.

Kadivar: The people call "Allahu Akbar" from the rooftops. They carry signs asking "Where has my vote gone?" The protesters don't want to rebel against everything, but they do want justice and they do want fair elections. He who refuses those demands risks a civil war.

SPIEGEL: It is true that the protesters are using the color of Islam and chanting "Allahu Akbar" ("God is great"). But have they not reached the point where they want more? They were also shouting, "Down with the Dictator!" Maybe the young people who are behind the movement want a democratic republic based on the Western model with separation of religion and state.

Kadivar: I admit that some young people are oriented towards the West. But one should not give too much weight to that. The majority of my compatriots would not want a complete separation of state and religion. Neither would I. Iran is a country with Islamic traditions and values. More than 90 percent of our citizens are Muslims.

SPIEGEL: Which values specifically are you referring to?

Kadivar: Above all, stands justice and the fulfillment of the will of the people. Under the rule of Ali, our first Shiite imam, there were no political prisoners, non-violent protests were permitted and critical comment even invited. One must not betray those values.

SPIEGEL: And Khamenei and Ahmadinejad did?

Kadivar: Yes. I plead for a truly Islamic and democratic state, a state that respects human dignity and does not refuse the rights of women, a state where people can freely elect their religious and secular leaders.

SPIEGEL: But now you are talking about a revolution -- a completely new, different Iran.

Kadivar: I am speaking of a country where religious leaders do not have the right to determine how the country is led in opposition to the majority of the community, ostensibly according to the will of God. Such a right does not exist, neither in the Shiite tradition nor in other imperatives. I do not believe in any divine rights for clergy or believers....

SPIEGEL: Can other countries do anything to aid the opposition?

Kadivar: No. This is a battle the Iranian people have to win by themselves. I think that so far, President Obama has acted very prudently and not given those looking for any reason to attack ammunition. Ahmadinejad's insistence that Washington has fueled the unrest has no effect.

SPIEGEL: Obama compared Ahmadinejad and Mousavi and commented that the difference between the candidates is only minor. Is he correct?

Kadivar: This is correct, but then again, it is not correct. The differences regarding the nuclear question and the evaluation of Israeli politics are indeed minor. As for the right to uranium enrichment, you won't find an Iranian politician who thinks differently. But on the question of democracy, the differences are formidable. Ahmadinejad takes an aggressive position, while Mousavi emphazises the adherence to laws and the constitution. I believe that the issue of democratization is presently the central problem. Everything else, including the nuclear question, is secondary....

SPIEGEL: Some in the West fear that things could get far worse -- and they mean for the world -- if Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

Kadivar: We are particularly concerned about Israel. This country has handed its nuclear energy to the military. Every Muslim -- well, everyone -- is afraid of Israel. Israel's nuclear arsenal should be placed under the control of the United Nations and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

SPIEGEL: Do we understand you right, that there will be no change on the nuclear question regardless of who wins the power struggle in Tehran?

Kadivar: Every Iranian government will claim the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy ...

SPIEGEL: ... but that is not the issue. We are talking about the nuclear bomb.

Kadivar: America has it, Israel has it. What is said about my country is only potentiality not reality. If the nuclear bomb is evil, then it is evil everywhere -- not only in those countries that oppose US policy. It is a double standard policy.

SPIEGEL: What would happen if Israel or the United States attacked nuclear plants in Iran?

Kadivar: That would be in contempt of all moral values. The Iranians would take up resistance, and they would do it together, regardless of political disposition and religion....

Here’s a new tax Obama hasn’t thought of yet

I guess I shouldn't be giving him ideas. Anyway, in all seriousness, note that the Hamas government in Gaza doesn't seem concerned that increased Koran study in the lands they control will lead people to wake up, realize that Islam is peaceful and tolerant, and conclude that they should not be waging war against the respected "People of the Book" in Israel. On the contrary: "Korean study centers in the Strip are considered a major Hamas power source used to elicit support for the organization."

If you or someone you love is mystified as to how and why this great book of peace could lead people to support a bloodthirsty and brutal terror organization like Hamas, watch for my forthcoming book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, which explains it all. It is coming in September from Regnery Publishing.

"Gaza: Hamas imposes 'Koran levy,'" by Ali Waked for Ynet News, July 2 (thanks to Neil):

Special Hamas tax: The Hamas government in Gaza has recently decided to cut the salaries of Palestinian Authority employees in the Strip in order to finance Koran studies.

In an effort to reinforce Koran study centers across Gaza, Hamas has decided to deduct one percent of the salaries of public officials in the Strip and earmark the funds to the Koran schools.

Notably, Korean study centers in the Strip are considered a major Hamas power source used to elicit support for the organization.....

Hizb Ut-Tahrir Australia Video

After an increase of “wife-killings… on the pretext of adultery,” Syria allows for tougher penalties for honor killings — two years in prison!

Syria has scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'" Wow -- two years for murder! You can serve more time than that for serial double parking.

Why is the penalty so light for honor killings in majority-Muslim Syria? After all, we are constantly told in the West that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam. So why can't Islamic clerics agitate for stiffer penalties for honor killings? Well, because they are on the other side: a manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In accord with this, in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

"Syria amends honour killing law," from the BBC, July 2 (thanks to Pamela, who has some interesting information about Assad and Obama at the same link):

Syria has scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences handed down to men convicted of killing female relatives they suspect of having illicit sex.

Women's groups had long demanded that Article 548 be scrapped, arguing it decriminalised "honour" killings.

Activists say some 200 women are killed each year in honour cases by men who expect lenient treatment under the law.

The new law replaces the existing maximum sentence of one year in jail with a minimum jail term of two years.

Justice Minister Ahmad Hamoud Younis said the change was made by the decree of President Bashar al-Assad, following a recent increase in "wife-killings... on the pretext of adultery".

The new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour "provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing".

The legislation covers any man who "unintentionally" kills his wife, sister, daughter or mother after catching her committing adultery or having unlawful sex. It also covers cases where the woman's lover is killed.

Reports say women's rights activists have given a cautious welcome to the change, with one group calling it a "small contribution to solving the problem"....

Very small.

Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Terror Tentacles in the Gulf

I just published one article on the Lashkar-e-Taiba's gulf based cells and operatives who have masterminded series of recent attacks against India. The article titled,"Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Financial Network Targets India from the Gulf States" in Jamestwon Foundation's Terrorism Monitor, Vol. 7 (19), July 2, 2009.

Here is an excerpt:

An impending threat from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist group has prompted security establishments to raise an alert along India’s western sea-coast. According to intelligence sources, the LeT’s marine wing is planning a Mumbai-type incursion to target vital installations in the three coastal states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Goa. The group is also reported to have funneled huge amounts of money from its Gulf-based networks to fund jihad activities in India (Times of India, June 30). This is not an isolated intelligence alert. The threat emanating from the LeT was partially revealed following the recent arrest of Muhammad Omar Madni, a close associate of LeT/Jamaat-ud- Dawa chief Hafeez Muhammad Saeed. The arrest and interrogation of Madni revealed several startling details, including new routes used by terrorists, the location of bases inside and outside India, terrorist finances, and the recruitment strategy of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

...........
Besides the usual routes of intrusion in Jammu and Kashmir, LeT has managed to build alternate routes through the porous borders of Nepal and Bangladesh while establishing bases in the Gulf countries. Investigating agencies have now confirmed that LeT is working on a new strategy which involves using Dubai as the center of planning for future strikes against India (India Today, June 22). Past and ongoing terror investigations suggest the Gulf countries have been the major hubs for LeT terrorists and many terrorist plots against India are now hatched outside Pakistan’s territory.
.......
Mumbai’s crime branch probe revealed that the November 2008 Mumbai terror events were financed by LeT’s Gulf cells and Gulf-based operatives masterminded and executed a series of blasts in Indian urban centers ( Bangalore, Ahmadabad, Delhi and Surat) in 2008. These operations were carried out in collusion with militants of the Indian Mujahedeen (IM) and the proscribed Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

While investigating the August 2003 twin blasts in Mumbai (car bombs at the Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar), Mumbai Police unearthed a strong Dubai link. The plot was hatched by LeT’s Dubai operatives, who colluded with sleeper cells in Hyderabad, Ernakulum and Chennai. The blasts were claimed by an unknown group—the “Gujarat Muslim Revenge Force” (GMRF)—one of the many groups set up by SIMI and LeT following the 2002 Gujarat communal riots to avenge atrocities perpetrated against the Muslim community (Press Trust of India, October 10, 2003). Hanif, one of the Lashkar militants arrested in connection with the blasts, reportedly told police about the planning, logistics and targets of the LeT’s GMRF wing. Since 1993, Hanif worked in Dubai as an electrician and was sent to Mumbai in September 2002 to organize and execute the attacks. Police also interrogated Hanif about his ties to Basheer, a fugitive SIMI figure who fled to Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and one Abu Hamza, affiliated to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) (Frontline [Chennai], September 13-26, 2003).

The recent spurt of terror activities by the LeT in India has a direct connection to contributions from the Gulf-based cells that have planned and financed most of the group’s operations. The LeT’s Gulf based networks are becoming the lifeline for LeT/JuD operations in Pakistan and India. With this threat in view, India is now seeking a comprehensive anti-terrorism treaty with the Gulf nations. For now, Madani and Nawaz’s confessions have provided investigating agencies an outline of the shape of things to come regarding the LeT’s plans for terrorist operations in India.

For Complete Issue, Read Here.

Full Transcript of Joel’s Interview with Harun Yahya

JihadTube indeed

YouTube is widely known as JihadTube for good reasons.

And here's another, from Internet Haganah (thanks to Sr. Soph).

Does Obama need a brain scan?

"I sincerely hope that when the president goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran." -- Burt Prelutsky (thanks to Errol Phillips)

NEFA Foundation: AQIM Threatens Attacks on France over Veil Controversy

The NEFA Foundation has obtained a new communique from Al-Qaida Committee in the Islamic Maghreb threatening to carry out terrorist attacks against France in revenge for the recent decision by the French government to ban the niqab (a full body veil worn by some conservative Muslim women). According to the statement, titled "France: the Mother of All Evils," "the mujahideen in the land of the Islamic Maghreb have sworn an oath to Allah, not to keep silent in the face of this provocative repression, and we will avenge the honor of our sisters and daughters, targeting France and its interests in every way we can, in every place we can and at every time we can, until France abandons its tactics of repression and insolence."

An English translation of the AQIM communique can be downloaded from the NEFA Foundation website.

Temptation and Original Sin: The Perfect Couple

I was just being tempted to do something I shouldn't do. And instead of doing it, I came over here and wrote these lines.

It is amazing to see how your brain starts coming up with excuses for you to do the thing you don't want to do and should not be doing.

Psychologically speaking - temptation doesn't make sense?

Theologically speaking -- it sure do...

As James and the rest of the Bible saints tell us ... A test of Faith.

Saudi Arabia to build Apartheid Wall!

"Specifically, the Saudis are worried about weapons and drug smuggling." Sounds strikingly similar to the reasons why the Israelis built their security fence. But one thing is certain: no one, anywhere, will ever call the Saudi fence an "apartheid wall." In today's international climate, only the Israelis could possibly build such a thing.

"Saudi Arabia to fence itself in," from the BBC via Australia's ABC News, July 2 (thanks to JE):

Saudi Arabia has signed a deal with a major European defence contractor to build a hi-tech security system including a fence around the whole of its 9,000 kilometre border.

The country has been wanting to build a strong border security system for some time.

Its two main concerns are its neighbours Iraq and Yemen, and the instability and lawlessness of these two countries have raised fears in Saudi Arabia that their problems will overflow the border.

Specifically, the Saudis are worried about weapons and drug smuggling....

U.S. soldier captured by Taliban

Just in: "Taliban capture U.S. soldier," from CNN, July 2:

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A U.S. soldier has been captured by militants in Afghanistan, the U.S. military and the Taliban said Thursday.

The unidentified soldier has been missing since Tuesday. U.S. forces are exhausting all resources to find the soldier, the military said.

"We are not providing any further details at this time, in order to protect the welfare of the soldier," a military statement said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the abduction. The U.S. soldier was kidnapped along with three Afghan soldiers, Taliban commander Mulvi Sangeen said.

The U.S. soldier visited a military post in the Yousaf Khel district and got drunk, Sangeen said. He was ambushed while returning to his car and was taken to a safe place, Sangeen said.

CNN could not independently verify Sangeen's claims.

A source with the U.S. military denied the claim that the soldier was drunk.

"The Taliban are known for lying and what they are claiming are not true," the source said.

"War is deceit."

The soldier's family has been informed, the military said.

Hizb ut-Tahrir America Conference Update: HTA Books Grand Ballroom at Chicago Area Hilton

Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA) has booked the Hilton in Oak Lawn, IL for the "Fall of Capitalism & Rise of Islam" conference, according to an update on their Khilafah Conference web site. HTA was forced to find another venue at which to hold their conference after the original venue, the Aqsa School in Bridgeview, Illinois canceled. The Aqsa School's business manager told a CBS News reporter that the representatives of HTA had "misrepresented themselves and the event" and the school did not "want to be in the middle of something like that."

According to the announcement on the HTA conference web site, the conference will still be held on July 19th, from 11 am to 5 pm, as originally planned.

The Hilton Oak Lawn reservations department does not have any record of guest rooms held under the name "Hizb ut-Tahrir," or "Khilafah Conference," or "Fall of Capitalism & Rise of Islam." The Hilton's catering department, which keeps a record of the organizations that have booked event spaces at the hotel, was not open at the time of the publication of this article; therefore, it cannot be determined at this time whether HTA booked under its own name or if it has used a cover name to reserve the Grand Ballroom. *** UPDATE: 7/2/09 - Hizb ut-Tahrir reserved the banquet space at the hotel under its own name and apparently did not find it necessary to use a cover name. ***

For more information on HTA and the Khilafah Conference, please see my recent posts on the Counterterrorism Blog.