Al Qaeda no. 2 in Arabian Peninsula

[timpage]

....sleeps with the fishes. Drone strike. Outstanding.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=31802904

[IIFFOFRDB]

1!?... Read this Timmy... http://shoebat.com/2015/06/16/the-cl...th-by-hanging/

[timpage]

Clueless buffoon.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

1!?... Read this Timmy... http://shoebat.com/2015/06/16/the-cl...th-by-hanging/

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by timpage

Clueless buffoon.

Calm down Tim, just read this! http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/1...-takeover.html

WWW.ISLAM-WATCH.ORG

Knowing Four Arabic Words May Save Our Civilization from Islamic Takeover
Tuesday, 31 July 2012 04:02 Louis Palme
In 539 BC, King Belshazzar of Babylon saw a dismembered hand-written four prophetic words on the wall. This "handwriting on the wall" was finally interpreted by the prophet Daniel as predicting the fall of the kingdom. He was right. Babylon fell to the Medes-Persians that very night.

Like the “handwriting on the wall” that Prophet Daniel had interpreted, there are four Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are takiyya, tawriya, kitman, and muruna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims. Muhammad famously said, “War is deceit.” (Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 268) The Quran boasts that Allah is the “master of all scheming” (Surah 13:42) and that he is “profound in his machinations” (Surah 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, “We are wise to your shenanigans. Knock it off!”

Takiyya

Takiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah) (Surah 3:28). This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation. Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2) Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.

Tawriya

Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) How does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of “those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”. A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” In your mind, you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim.

Kitman

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts. Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse. Here is an example:

“There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early Medina

“Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” (Surah 3:83 Later Medina)

Another example:

“Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Surah 22:39) Late Mecca

“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Surah 9:5) Late Medina

Muruna

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected. The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during their off-times while taking classes in the U.S. to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. Many Americans believe Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner at least in part to burnish her security credentials so she could infiltrate the highest levels of the Administration.

The implications of these highly-honed tactics of deception could be enormous for unassuming Western societies. Twenty years ago, psychologist Paul Ekman wrote an insightful book, “Telling Lies”, which demonstrated that people give off recognizable clues when they are practicing deceit. Their consciences cause them, involuntarily, to sweat or raise their voices or make other recognizable gestures. However, Dr. Ekman’s research was exclusively with people from Western cultures. Muslims, on the other hand, show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam. Because any Western person who has raised children knows almost intuitively when someone is lying, so they assume they can do that in all cases. Unfortunately, those same Western people can be easily duped by Islamic deceit because there are no tell-tale signs in the deceiver.

Hopefully, this article will be a wake-up call to the unsuspecting infidels. Trust but verify – as was an old American strategy in dealing with potentially hostile parties – is the way to go in dealing with Islamists.

[shanm]

Thank you for the copy/paste IFFYIdiot.

The real end times begin when IFFYtard successfully constructs a full-on sentence on his own.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Calm down Tim, just read this! http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/1...-takeover.html

I am completely calm shit-for-brains. What am I calmly waiting for? Some sort of coherent, on-point response from you? Knock us dead moron.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by shanm

Thank you for the copy/paste IFFYIdiot.

The real end times begin when IFFYtard successfully constructs a full-on sentence on his own.

You are most welcome, Chancre Eater... http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/1...-of-islam.html

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Calm down Tim, just read this! http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/1...-takeover.html

Sure sounds like the Clinton's and all the other dumbascraps and their followers are MUZ-slimes to me. Especially woomby / undercunt / rusty balloon knot / wanna-be jalapeno sucker, shammy and assup !

[JD Barleycorn]

So number 3 moves up to number 2. Al Queada's problem is solved and maybe the former # 3 is better than the original # 2. We need more than the occasional hit on some shit. We need a strategy.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So number 3 moves up to number 2. Al Queada's problem is solved and maybe the former # 3 is better than the original # 2. We need more than the occasional hit on some shit. We need a strategy.

Tell us what that should be admiral...and, let's have a theory that has at least some semblance of reality. No airliners-hidden-in-bushes theories please.

crickets

Oh, I know...let's invade some other middle eastern country like Iran that has nothing to do with al Qaeda. Oh, wait, we tried that and are still dealing with that disaster in blood and treasure ten years later.

What universe do you live in where killing terrorists who want to attack and destroy the United States is not a good thing? Who gives a shit if no. 3 moves up to no. 2? We grease him too....and every other motherfucker who steps into no. 2's shoes. Maybe these clueless whacked-out religious psychotics will smarten up and start realizing that the life-expectancy of the no. 1 or 2 or 3 man is measured in months rather than years and they'll start having some problems filling the positions, eh?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

Tell us what that should be admiral...and, let's have a theory that has at least some semblance of reality. No airliners-hidden-in-bushes theories please.

crickets

Oh, I know...let's invade some other middle eastern country like Iran that has nothing to do with al Qaeda. Oh, wait, we tried that and are still dealing with that disaster in blood and treasure ten years later.

What universe do you live in where killing terrorists who want to attack and destroy the United States is not a good thing? Who gives a shit if no. 3 moves up to no. 2? We grease him too....and every other motherfucker who steps into no. 2's shoes. Maybe these clueless whacked-out religious psychotics will smarten up and start realizing that the life-expectancy of the no. 1 or 2 or 3 man is measured in months rather than years and they'll start having some problems filling the positions, eh?

You are full of yourself today aren't you? Must have had your Wheaties....was Caitlyn on the box?

A strategy has been announced here by such luminaries as Carly Fiorina, myself, and many others. First, let's identify our enemy by name; radical Islamic terrorism. Not some terrorist group that worships rocks or somethng. Islamic! Identify where they are? Everywhere it seems. Figure out for ourselves how far we're willing to go. If we're not going for the win, then what's the point. Coexistence may not be possible. As the general said yesterday, strengthening the Iraqi army is not going to work. We have to decided whether are going to go in ourselves and destroy ISIS or not. We should. We have to eliminate every stronghold, every ISIS controlled city and village, every group of muslim terrorist that we find where ever they are. We will not eliminate the lone wolves but I'm sure that when the body count gets high enough our own western idiots will think a few times that joining ISIS is not so cool. We need to support out allies even if they're Kurds. That's just for starters. I don't hear any crickets outside, do you?

Now, I have someplace to be.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We need more than the occasional hit on some shit. We need a strategy.

+1

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

We need to support our allies even if they're Kurds. That's just for starters.

"Even if"? You mean especially if! Helping the Kurds is a no-brainer. Odumbo is dropping the ball by subjecting all of our Kurdish military assistance to Baghdad's approval! How can he come up with a coherent strategy? He doesn't even know how to do the simple, obvious no-brainer things like aid the Kurds.


From yesterday's WSJ:


Wins in the War on Terror

The Kurdish advance in Syria is more important than drone kills.


The U.S. scored a noteworthy victory last week when an American missile killed Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the longtime leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the global organization’s Number Two. Coupled with unconfirmed reports that an F-15 airstrike in Libya killed jihadist mastermind Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the strikes are a reminder that the war on terror continues, whatever the Administration calls it.

Yet the strikes are also a reminder that while killing senior jihadists has tactical and symbolic value—disrupting terrorist networks while underscoring U.S. resolve—they do not turn the tide of war. “Core” al Qaeda was not defeated after Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011, even if it was humbled. Neither was al Qaeda in Iraq beaten after the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2006. Killing the kingpins is necessary but not sufficient for victory.

That much was made clear by the way Wuhayshi met his end—near a beach in the Yemeni city of Al Mukalla, population 300,000. Al Qaeda took control of Al Mukalla in April, seizing close to $80 million from the central bank. The group now controls the better part of southern Yemen.

The same goes with Belmokhtar, who orchestrated the 2013 attack on an Algerian gas plant that killed 38 people and had pledged allegiance to al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri. If reports of Belmokhtar’s death are confirmed—this wouldn’t be the first time he’s been presumed dead—it’s a tactical coup for the U.S. and a moral victory for the terrorist’s victims. But it does little to change the fact that jihadist groups, led by Islamic State, control significant territory in Libya, including Moammar Ghadafi’s hometown of Sirte.

All of which is to say that the U.S. will not defeat its terrorist enemies by going after them one at a time. This is what makes the recent success of the Kurdish Peshmerga against Islamic State so promising. This week the Kurds defeated Islamic State to take control of the Syrian town of Tal Abyad, on the Turkish border. Now the Kurds are headed south to Islamic State’s Syrian stronghold of Raqqa.

Success in Raqqa would be the most important victory to date in rolling back ISIS, which is why the U.S. should concentrate military efforts in support of the offensive. The Kurds are among our best anti-jihadist allies, and they deserve more support than the U.S. has provided so far.

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are full of yourself today aren't you? Must have had your Wheaties....was Caitlyn on the box?

A strategy has been announced here by such luminaries as Carly Fiorina, myself, and many others. First, let's identify our enemy by name; radical Islamic terrorism. Not some terrorist group that worships rocks or somethng. Islamic! Identify where they are? Everywhere it seems. Figure out for ourselves how far we're willing to go. If we're not going for the win, then what's the point. Coexistence may not be possible. As the general said yesterday, strengthening the Iraqi army is not going to work. We have to decided whether are going to go in ourselves and destroy ISIS or not. We should. We have to eliminate every stronghold, every ISIS controlled city and village, every group of muslim terrorist that we find where ever they are. We will not eliminate the lone wolves but I'm sure that when the body count gets high enough our own western idiots will think a few times that joining ISIS is not so cool. We need to support out allies even if they're Kurds. That's just for starters. I don't hear any crickets outside, do you?

Now, I have someplace to be.

You are a dumb motherfucker. Where are they? You think we don't have tabs on a shit ton of these guys? How far are we willing to go? We just killed one in a drone strike. I'd say we're willing to go all the way. We have supported what were considered our allies. Now ISIS has those weapons because our allies are pussies. Your plan sucks and isn't any better than what we're currently doing. I wouldn't trust you to lead me out of a paper fucking bag.

Just go to every village, every city, every group of muslim terrorist that we find, wherever they are

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

+1




"Even if"? You mean especially if! Helping the Kurds is a no-brainer. Odumbo is dropping the ball by subjecting all of our Kurdish military assistance to Baghdad's approval! How can he come up with a coherent strategy? He doesn't even know how to do the simple, obvious no-brainer things like aid the Kurds.


From yesterday's WSJ:


Wins in the War on Terror

The Kurdish advance in Syria is more important than drone kills.


The U.S. scored a noteworthy victory last week when an American missile killed Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the longtime leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the global organization’s Number Two. Coupled with unconfirmed reports that an F-15 airstrike in Libya killed jihadist mastermind Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the strikes are a reminder that the war on terror continues, whatever the Administration calls it.

Yet the strikes are also a reminder that while killing senior jihadists has tactical and symbolic value—disrupting terrorist networks while underscoring U.S. resolve—they do not turn the tide of war. “Core” al Qaeda was not defeated after Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011, even if it was humbled. Neither was al Qaeda in Iraq beaten after the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2006. Killing the kingpins is necessary but not sufficient for victory.

That much was made clear by the way Wuhayshi met his end—near a beach in the Yemeni city of Al Mukalla, population 300,000. Al Qaeda took control of Al Mukalla in April, seizing close to $80 million from the central bank. The group now controls the better part of southern Yemen.

The same goes with Belmokhtar, who orchestrated the 2013 attack on an Algerian gas plant that killed 38 people and had pledged allegiance to al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri. If reports of Belmokhtar’s death are confirmed—this wouldn’t be the first time he’s been presumed dead—it’s a tactical coup for the U.S. and a moral victory for the terrorist’s victims. But it does little to change the fact that jihadist groups, led by Islamic State, control significant territory in Libya, including Moammar Ghadafi’s hometown of Sirte.

All of which is to say that the U.S. will not defeat its terrorist enemies by going after them one at a time. This is what makes the recent success of the Kurdish Peshmerga against Islamic State so promising. This week the Kurds defeated Islamic State to take control of the Syrian town of Tal Abyad, on the Turkish border. Now the Kurds are headed south to Islamic State’s Syrian stronghold of Raqqa.

Success in Raqqa would be the most important victory to date in rolling back ISIS, which is why the U.S. should concentrate military efforts in support of the offensive. The Kurds are among our best anti-jihadist allies, and they deserve more support than the U.S. has provided so far.

.

They're both important, dipshit. So you say Obama is dropping the ball by not aiding the kurds and then you copy and paste an article about how they're having success...

And here's an article that says the exact opposite of what you're contending about our support of the Kurds. And the problem with supporting the Kurds is they aren't going to take their fight on the road. They will defend their land and the general area, but they aren't going to take the fight TO Isis.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-group-in-iraq

[CuteOldGuy]

Why do the Islamists want "Death to America"? It's because we won't leave them alone. Why won't we leave them alone? There is big money to be made in a war on terror. So we keep provoking them, then we respond with outrage when they retaliate. They only care about killing infidels. If we left them alone, they will find enough infidels in their various sects to keep them happily killing each other for decades. The War on Terror is a loser for us. Look at all the freedom we've lost, and it isn't over. We need to tell big business and the defense contractors we are done sending Americans overseas to kill and be killed so they can make outrageous profits for themselves and their cronies in government.