“Dearborn, Michigan has become a Sharia enclave, much like those populating many European countries. The city of Dearborn, Michigan denied a permit Wednesday for Qurâ€™an-burning Pastor Terry Jonesâ€™ planned protest outside the Islamic Center of America on Good Friday.
“Islamic supremacists were handed a victory for their violent intimidation and threats. City spokeswoman Mary Laundroche said that Jonesâ€™ permit had been denied for ‘public safety reasons.’ In other words, theyâ€™re afraid Muslims will riot. And so the rights of free Americans have to be curtailed.
“Terry Jones burned a Qurâ€™an. So what? What happened to the freedom of assembly, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of expression? Terry Jones is prohibited from rallying in Michigan for fear of Islamic violence. Is that how far down the Sharia rabbit hole we have gone? Why is it that any time American law comes into conflict with Islamic law, it is American law that has to give way?”
Sayfallah states that his group is warning China one more time, threatening to attack key points related to the Olympic Games. He explicitly states that the group plans to attack Chinese cities using previously unused methods.
Sayfallah issued a stern warning:
“This is our last warning to China and the rest of the world. The viewers and athletes, especially those who are Muslim, who plan to go to the Olympics should change their plans and not go to China. The Turkistan Islamic Party plans military attacks on people, offices, arenas, and other activities that are connected to the Chinese Olympic Games.”
He claims the group has undergone special training and already has begun its operations against China, including bomb attacks on two buses in Shanghai in May and three buses last week in Yunnan. He also took credit for an attack on police forces in Wenzhou with an explosives-laden tractor and the attack with explosives on a plastics factory.
Chinese authorities have recognized for some time the threat from the organization, and have prepared for terror attacks against the Games.
Last week, an anti-terrorism manual was released to the public. People were urged to remain calm in the event of any attack and to notify authorities by text message. The Xinhua news agency reported an excerpt from the manual advised people that they might “also have to hide your mobile phones if kidnapped by terrorists,”
Xinhua reported that the manual covers a wide range of possible attacks, including explosions, shootings, hijackings and even chemical or nuclear attacks.
In his new message, Sayfallah promised to use “methods that have not previously been used.”
It is unknown if the group has chemical, radiological, biological, or nuclear capabilities but given its affiliation with al-Qaida, the possibility must be considered.
In March of this year, at least one plot targeting the games was busted up by Chinese security forces in a raid in the Turkistan region.
Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region is the Chinese term for Chinese Turkistan, which has been battling an al-Qaida-linked jihadist group called the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. ETIM is recognized by the U.S., China, Kazakhstan, and the United Nations as a terror group.
The U.S. State Department stated in its 2005 annual report on terrorism that ETIM was linked to al-Qaida, and that al-Qaida provided the group with training and funding. In 2002, the Chinese government claimed that the group’s founder, Hasan Mahsum, met with Osama Bin Laden and received funds from the terror leaders. The Chinese also claimed that Bin Laden exported dozens of terrorists to China to assist ETIM efforts. (Mahsum was killed in 2003 by Pakistani forces.)
Further indications of the jihadist link are found in the evidence recovered by police when the group planning the Beijing attack was raided. “Extremist religious ideological materials” were located along with guns, homemade bombs, and training material.
Turkistan has been referenced by al-Qaida leaders in numerous messages, most recently in a message from al-Qaida second-in-command Ayman al Zawahiri in part two of his “Town Hall” question-and-answer session, released in April of this year:
Concerning the United Nations, the program demanded reforming the United Nations so that it will be based on the principles of sound international democracy, which the program calls for, without presenting the theories on the rule of the strong. This means that the program agrees that the U.N. resolutions are adopted by the majority of members. This is an acceptance of two serious things. The first is the acceptance of non-sharia rules, and the second is acceptance of resolutions that the U.N. members agreed on by a majority, such as the decision to partition Palestine in 1947 and the decision to accept Israel’s membership in the United Nations, thus forcing all U.N. members, according to the U.N. Charter, to respect its sovereignty and the territorial integrity of its territory. This contradicts with what the program mentioned concerning the duty of liberating the entire Palestinian territory.
Indeed, this is not confined to Palestine but it transcends it to recognizing all the U.N. member states that have transgressed on the territories of Muslims; that is, recognizing Russia’s sovereignty over the Muslim Caucasus, the sovereignty of the Philippines on its Muslim south, the sovereignty of India over Kashmir until the referendum takes place, which the international powers will not allow, the sovereignty of China on eastern Turkistan, and the sovereignty of Spain over Ceuta and Milella, and indeed on the entire Andalusia, and so on.
The Turkistan front was also reference by Zawahiri in his message of March 11, 2007:
“The first question is: Who gave the killers the right to appoint judges to interfere in the affairs of Muslims? By what right the Security Council interferes in the affairs of Muslims and forms courts, which acquit this and convict that, while the hands of their criminals are stained with Muslims’ blood in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Algeria, Chechnya, and East Turkestan? How does America refer the Darfur case to an international court which it does not recognize and refuses to be subject to it? What injustice is governing this world.
“The second question is: If you want to try those who term criminals in Darfur, who will try the criminals in Bosnia, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Indonesia, Philippines, and East Turkistan? Who will try Bush, Blair, Putin, and Sharon? Who will try the villains who are shedding our blood and violating our sanctities on a daily basis, which is many times more than what was committed in Darfur? Who will try Mubarak, Al Sa’ud, Bouteflika, Zine El Abidine, and Bin-al-Husayn, and Musharraf?”
In November 2006, a video was released by Al Fajr highlighting activities of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. A number of other videos from the group are available for viewing on YouTube.
The link between the “Global Jihad” and the East Turkistan Islamic Movement is indisputable, and the solidarity between that group and al-Qaida appears to continue to be strong.
It is very likely that this plot to attack the Beijing Olympics was not simply an isolated, stand-alone attack planned by a rogue group; instead, it is very likely that this was planned to be another mass casualty terror attack planned and financed by al-Qaida using one of its favorite and most successful weapons â€“ commercial airliners. G2B contributor Laura Mansfield is an author and counter-terrorism analyst
WASHINGTON — U.S. military casualties in Iraq skyrocketed during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and following a ban on coercive interrogation of prisoners 18 months later, shows an analysis of monthly Defense Department reports on troop deaths conducted by G2B.
Only two times during the course of the war do statistics show combat deaths significantly increasing:
The first came just as the Abu Ghraib scandal was breaking in April 2004, casting international doubt upon the American-led mission and, say U.S. military sources, giving encouragement to terrorist forces on the ground.
The second came in 2006, following the implementation of new rules of engagement and a congressional ban on so-called “torture” that strictly limited interrogation techniques by U.S. military personnel.
In addition to being the month the world first heard of Abu Ghraib, April 2004 also was the second-highest month for U.S. military deaths in Iraq and it set off a period of significant instability.
The 136 U.S. combat deaths in April were rivaled only once — seven months later, as the scandal continued to unfold in the international media.
In the first 13 months of the war, leading up to April 2004, there were a total of 605 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. In the following 13 months there were 928 — more than a 50 percent increase.
Casualties remained steady and slightly higher than at the beginning of the war through the next 18 months of the war, followed by another major surge of violence directed against U.S. troops, U.S. military sources that include veterans of multiple tours of Iraq, those involved in interrogations and military intelligence experts told G2B.
In early 2006, the Congress approved the ban on interrogation methods widely labeled as “torture.” However, U.S. military interrogators say the more accurate terminology for the practices banned is “coercive interrogations.” They say the prohibitions left the U.S. without the kind of information it needed to prevent future attacks, to assess the strength of the enemy and to locate strongholds.
Analysis of statistics suggests those assessments may have some validity.
Beginning in October 2006, the U.S. faced an 11-month period of greatly increased field casualties — a total of 1,091. Only the introduction of higher U.S. troop levels and new surge strategies offered up by Gen. David Petraeus had the effect of reducing casualties to the lowest levels of the war over the last seven months.
Besides the alarming statistics, there are on-the-record sources linking Abu Ghraib fallout, changing rules of engagement and the ban on coercive interrogations to higher death tolls for U.S. troops.
According to Army Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the chilling effect of the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib caused about a 25 percent decline in intelligence gathered from inmates.
Back in 2006, one military insider told G2B: “There are absolutely no standards and everybody — and I mean everybody — graduates now. They’ve essentially removed all structure to the questioning techniques and now students, mostly 18-year-old kids, get to question any way they like. The instructors at the end of the iteration have to provide the student with all the information they missed.”
According to the Iraq Study Group’s report in December 2005, “our … government still does not understand very well either the insurgency in Iraq or the role of the militias.” It said there had been too little investment in intelligence gathering and analysis.
The worst part of the new manual on interrogations, say experts on the subject, was the fact that the U.S. made the restrictions public.
Veteran military interrogators say the public release of the Army’s limits on techniques tipped the hand to terrorists and enemies worldwide virtually ruling out the possibility that prisoners would offer up any effective intelligence in the field.
One critic said “tactical HUMINT” — meaning human intelligence gathering — is now a dead concept as far as effectiveness is concerned.
“The worst thing is that the new manual has been released, with no secret amendments totally unclassified to the world — not even ‘for official use only,'” said a field interrogator with experience in Iraq. “All the briefers were honest enough to state that every terrorist entity in the world is now is fully aware of all of our techniques and all of our limitations and therefore, is prepared to resist. The rationale is that the Army and the DoD (Department of Defense) want no bad press and doesn’t want anybody in the world to think we are doing anything ‘sneaky.'”
New rules of engagement that began to go into effect for some units in Iraq at the end of 2005 also played a role in turning U.S. troops into targets rather than warriors. G2B first reported that year soldiers were told not to fire unless fired upon.