web viewpeople assume that using this word somehow ... by an mc-130 aircraft, ... that it will take...

A brief history of ISIS

F R O M

Tewfik Cassis

REUTERS/FBI/Handout via Reuters

Where we stand today:

ISIS considers itself the "Islamic Caliphate" (a theological empire) and controls vast swathes of land in western Iraq and eastern Syria. They also have "allegiance" from different radical Islamic groups around the world (from Afghanistan to Nigeria) who "govern" self-proclaimed provinces.

Within the areas they control they have established a reign of terror second to none. They have institutionalized slavery and rape (particularly of adherents to the Yazidi religion who they view as devil worshippers) and have carried out genocide and ethnic cleansing of Christians, Alawites, and other Shiites and Yazidis in the territories they control.

If you were absent, you will need to read all 6 articles to complete this activity.

http://www.dailypnut.com/

They have struck with a vengeance beyond their territories. Suicide attacks in Baghdad, Beirut, and Ankara killed hundreds. In October 2015, they detonated a bomb aboard a Russian airliner leaving from Sharm el-Sheikh airport in Egypt, killing all 224 people on board. In November, they orchestrated a multi-suicide attack in Paris, killing 129 people. They have inspired "lone-wolf" terror attacks by sympathizers in places as far away as Ottawa and Sydney.

A bit of nomenclature:

You may have heard about ISIS referred to as IS, ISIL, or Daesh. All of these acronyms describe the group in question.

ISIS: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria was the name of the group when it captured Mosul in 2014 and became the terrorist juggernaut it is today. They named themselves that to assert their dominance in Syria (more on that later).

ISIL: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (aka Greater Syria) is the name that Obama uses to describe the group (pretty much only Obama uses it). Superficially speaking, it is just a translation thing.

IS: Islamic State is the name the group gave itself after a "rebranding" effort when they wanted to show off their global strategy (they wouldn't be limited to Syria and Iraq anymore).

Daesh: You may have heard French President Francois Hollande refer to the group by this name. This is essentially the Arabic acronym of the group. People assume that using this word somehow weakens them… it doesn't, because unfortunately in this case it is one of those "sticks and stones" things.

Where did they come from?

ISIS was born out of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. When U.S. administrators, under Paul Bremer, decided to "de-Baathify" the Iraqi civil and military services, hundreds of thousands of Sunnis formerly loyal to Saddam Hussein were left without a job — and If you were absent, you will need to read all 6 articles to complete this activity.

they were mad. Al Qaeda chose to capitalize on their anger and established al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) to wage an insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq (Saddam was secular, but his intelligence and military supporters were able to make common cause with the jihadis of al Qaeda).

During this time they were quite active in waging a sectarian war against Iran-backed Shiite militias in central Iraq and bombing hotels in neighboring Jordan. Many of their members were imprisoned in U.S.-run "Camp Bucca," where they were able to meet up and radicalize.

Fast forward to the U.S. "surge" in 2007: The U.S.-installed, Shiite government in Baghdad began reaching out to Sunni tribes, encouraging them to reject AQI. By this point, AQI was basically defeated and it looked like peace was coming to the Middle East (kinda).

Fast forward again to the Arab Spring and the uprising against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (more info on that here). During the Iraq War, AQI would frequently go back and forth between Syria and Iraq to resupply, so it had a lot of contacts in the country. When Assad began shooting and gassing his own people, and the peaceful uprising turned into a civil war, AQI saw an opportunity to establish a presence there.

It quickly moved into Syria, renamed itself as The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and merged with its Syrian counterpart. This pissed off al Qaeda's HQ, because they were already establishing a separate al Qaeda in Syria (aka al-Nusra front) and wanted it to remain separate. The two groups fought another mini-war amongst themselves and officially separated with AQI rebranding itself into the ISIS we hear about today.

It is important to note that this tiff between the two groups was global and concerned some "practical" things (like if al Qaeda should rule territory or kill Sunnis), as well as ego matters (like if Osama Bin Laden's lieutenants, who have been on the run since 2001, should be the ones calling the shots). The intra-jihadi battle was waged on the battlefields of Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and northwest Africa, as well as in jihadi forums on the darknet.If you were absent, you will need to read all 6 articles to complete this activity.

As the Syrian civil war ground on, ISIS became the first rebel group to capture major cities (Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor). In the summer of 2014, the group had its breakout moment. In a lightning offensive, it captured Mosul in Iraq and drove south until it was on the borders of Baghdad. A few weeks later it rebranded itself as a Caliphate and demanded that all Muslims pledge allegiance (bay'ah). At this point, groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria and Ansar Beit Al Maqdis in Egypt's Sinai began pledging allegiance and flew the black flag of ISIS. They also established presences in half a dozen other countries.

ISIS grew in notoriety through an aggressive social media and viral video strategy that had it engage with sympathizers and glorify violence. It beheaded many of its victims, including U.S. journalist James Foley. It often filmed executions through drowning, burning alive, and shooting. When it captured the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar, it institutionalized slavery and rape of the Yazidi minority. In short, it installed a reign of barbaric terror.

How did ISIS grow to become so powerful?

There are a number of forces that can explain its strength.

Feelings of disenfranchisement: Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria felt alienated by Shiite- and Alawite-led governments. ISIS played on these feelings, pushing forward a sense of victimhood and giving these communities a means to feel in control through violence. They also advanced a twisted interpretation of Islam that found ripe fodder among disenfranchised youth in the area.

Unlikely bedfellows: ISIS partnered with the lieutenants of Saddam Hussein's secular regime (who used to hate jihadis) to perfect their tools of repression along the same lines that Saddam used.

Syrian chaos: There is little doubt that as U.S. allies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar ,and Turkey) ploughed money and arms into the Syrian civil war much of it ended up in the hands of ISIS (and other jihadi groups).


Iraqi chaos: After the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the atrophied Iraqi army was over-equipped and underprepared (and very corrupt) to deal with ISIS. Much of the weaponry ended up in ISIS's hands.

Racketeering and extortion: Before ISIS formally controlled Mosul, it would run a racketeering business (similar to that used by the U.S. mafia) under the nose of the Iraqi government. Businesses and individuals had to pay them a "protection fee" to stay safe.

Taxation and exploitation: Properties belonging to religious minorities or regime sympathizers were promptly appropriated (e.g. churches, gold, hard currency), and once ISIS controlled territory and people it began taxing them like any state would.

Selling oil: It is the Middle East, so oil is always involved. While technically shut out from the international markets, ISIS could and did still find markets for its oil (usually in neighboring Turkey whose government was sympathetic to many of the Syrian jihadis).

So what now?

There are about a dozen countries (some of which hate each other) fighting ISIS. All of them (except for Iran, Syria, and Iraq) are basically doing it by bombing them from the sky. The U.S. has committed a few hundred "advisors" to the fight (and they are most certainly not wearing boots).

Despite a yearlong campaign against ISIS, the group still controls a lot of territory (even capturing new ground like Palmyra in Syria) and has demonstrated that it can strike in the heart of the Western world.


Post-Paris, there seems to be growing momentum for ground troop involvement against ISIS. The Obama administration has remained reluctant, insisting that its strategy is the successful one and that ISIS is weaker now than before. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad feels emboldened with Russia and Iran by his side, knowing that it is less likely for the West to oust him if the alternative will be ISIS.

As the Syrian civil war closes its fifth year, ISIS seems stronger than ever and the refugee exodus does not look like it will end. As Western governments try to grapple with the threat of ISIS terror reaching the Western world, they will feel the pressure to lock out these refugees (who are also fleeing ISIS). By using refugees as a convenient scapegoat, the risk is alienating them, leaving them susceptible to the toxic mix of conspiracy theories and extremism that breeds jihadi violence.

Note: It should go without saying that while ISIS is a radical Islamic group/movement, it

does not, by any means, represent the views of the vast majority of Muslims. The

majority of its victims have been Muslims and its twisted interpretation of the Koran is

not shared by the 1 billion+ adherents of the Muslim faith.

First on CNN: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in AfghanistanBy Barbara Starr and Ryan Browne, CN


Washington (CNN)The US military dropped America's most powerful non-nuclear bomb on ISIS targets in Afghanistan Thursday, the first time this type of weapon has been used in battle, according to US officials.

A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the "mother of all bombs," was dropped at 7:32 p.m. local time, according to four US military officials with direct knowledge of the mission. A MOAB is a 30-foot-long, 21,600-pound, GPS-guided munition.

President Donald Trump called it "another successful job" later Thursday.

The bomb was dropped by an MC-130 aircraft, stationed in Afghanistan and operated by Air Force Special Operations Command, Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump told CNN.

Officials said the target was an ISIS cave and tunnel complex and personnel in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province, a remote area in the country's east which borders Pakistan.]

"The United States takes the fight against ISIS very seriously and in order to defeat the group we must deny them operational space, which we did," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said later Thursday. The strike "targeted a system of tunnels and cave that ISIS fighters use to move around freely."

Afghanistan's ambassador to the US, Hamdullah Mohib, told CNN's Brooke Baldwin that the bomb was dropped after fighting had intensified over the last week between US Special Forces and Afghan troops against ISIS.

The US and Afghan forces were unable to advance because ISIS had mined the area with explosives, so the bomb was dropped to clear the tunnels, Mohib said.

Trump declined to say whether he personally signed off on the strike, but did comment, "Everybody knows exactly what happens. So, what I do is I authorize our military."

MOAB bomb: Related stories

He continued, "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing."

Asked about Trump's "total authorization" comments, a senior administration official declined to specify whether the President indeed ordered the strike in Afghanistan.

But the official said that in general, "We don't approve every strike," adding that, "This administration has moved further away" from dictating military strategy from the White House.

Trump won't say if he signed off on bomb use 01:33

It's a change both Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis wanted, the official said.

The President has granted military commanders broader latitude to act independently on several battlefields where US forces are involved, which Trump touted as making a "tremendous difference" in the fight against ISIS.


During the campaign, Trump vowed to eradicate ISIS, saying he would "bomb the s**t" out of the terror group, also known as ISIL.

Republican hawks were quick to voice their support for the strike Thursday.

"I hope America's adversaries are watching & now understand there's a new sheriff in town," tweeted Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. "Pleased Air Force dropped MOAB against ISIL in Afghanistan. Must be more aggressive against ISIL everywhere - including Afghanistan."

RELATED: Republicans praise bombing of ISIS target

White House: Bomb targeted ISIS tunnels, caves 00:47

But California Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier voiced concerns about potentially increasing US military involvement in Afghanistan.

"We are escalating in an area I think we should be deescalating in," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "Coupled with what happened in Yemen, what happened in Syria, these are efforts that are made to suggest that we will be engaging in wars in three different countries simultaneously."

Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on the use of the bomb, according to the sources. The authority to deploy the weapon was granted to Nicholson by the commander of US Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, Stump said.

Why did the US use the MOAB? 00:54


This is the first time a MOAB has been used in the battlefield, according to the US officials. This munition was developed during the Iraq war and is an air blast-type warhead that explodes before hitting the ground in order to project a a massive blast to all sides.

During the final stages of testing in 2003, military officials told CNN that the MOAB was mainly conceived as a weapon employed for "psychological operations." Military officials said they hoped the MOAB would create such a huge blast that it would rattle Iraqi troops and pressure them into surrendering or not even fighting.

As originally conceived, the MOAB was to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target set has also been expanded to include targets buried under softer surfaces, like caves or tunnels.

But while the MOAB bomb detonates with the power of 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosives, the size of its explosion pales in comparison to that of a nuclear bomb.

Afghanistan ambassador weighs in on bombing 02:27

Former Defense Secretary William Perry described the stark difference in power between a MOAB and nuclear bomb.

"The #MOAB explosive yield is 0.011 kilotons, typical nuclear yield is 10-180 kilotons - the US alone possesses over 7000 nuclear weapons," he tweeted.

"As ISIS-K's losses have mounted, they are using IEDs, bunkers and tunnels to thicken their defense," Nicholson said in a statement following the strike.

"This is the right munition to reduce these obstacles and maintain the momentum of our offensive against ISIS-K," Nicholson added.

"US forces took every precaution to avoid civilian casualties with this strike. US Forces will continue offensive operations until ISIS-K is destroyed in Afghanistan," read the statement from US Forces Afghanistan.

The extent of the damage and whether anyone was killed is not yet clear. The military is currently conducting an assessment.


MOAB bomb originally developed for Iraq war 00:57

The Pentagon is currently reviewing whether to deploy additional trainers to Afghanistan to help bolster US allies there.

The Achin district is the primary center of ISIS activity in Afghanistan. A US Army Special Forces soldier was killed fighting the terror group there Saturday.

There are about 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan and they regularly perform counterterrorism operations against ISIS in the Nangarhar Province.

The US counterterrorism mission is separate from the NATO-led effort to train, advise and assist the Afghan army and police force.

While ISIS is identified primarily with its presence in Iraq and Syria, US and coalition officials have long expressed concern about a growing presence in Afghanistan.

ISIS first emerged in the summer of 2015 in the country's east, fast gaining ground and support, often among disaffected Taliban or Afghan youth.

US military officials have said the ISIS branch is largely comprised of former members of regional terror groups, including the Pakistani Taliban and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

A US official told CNN that the military estimates are that the Afghan affiliate of ISIS has about 600 to 800 fighters, primarily based in two to three districts in southern Nangarhar. There are also a small number of ISIS operatives in Kunar province as well, the official added.

The Afghan offshoot's link to the organization's Syria-based leadership has been questioned. Many say in fact the Afghan ISIS fighters came from Pakistan and adopted the group's branding in order to get financing.

CNN's Zachary Cohen, Jim Acosta, Jeremy Diamond, Ehsan Popalzai and Euan McKirdy contributed to this report.

WORLDPOST

02/10/2016 03:01 pm ET | Updated Feb 10, 2016


Here's What The Taliban Wants America To Think About ISIS In AfghanistanThe Taliban knows how you feel about the Iraq War -- and the group wants to exploit it.

By Sophia Jones

CREDIT: MUSTAFA BAG/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGESAn Afghan soldier is seen in a helicopter during a military operation from Sar-e Pol, Afghanistan, on Aug. 29, 2015, as part of the operations which have been launched against the Islamic State in Afghanistan.

KABUL -- As the United States ramps up its offensive against the Afghanistan branch of the Islamic State, the Taliban -- a self-declared enemy of ISIS -- says the American people are being fed lies.

The Islamic State isn't a major issue in the country, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told the The WorldPost in an email. “The existence of the ISIS rumor in Afghanistan is an advertisement issue and is used to invade Afghanistan,” he said, adding that the American government and the CIA, in particular, are betraying Americans in order to keep troops in Afghanistan.


The Taliban brutally ruled the country between 1996 and 2001, when the U.S. and its allies invaded to target Al Qaeda camps there following the Sept. 11 attacks. The group has led an insurgency against the Western presence in the country ever since, and hopes to eventually re-establish control over Afghanistan now that the U.S.-led coalition is slowly pulling out.

The Obama administration has allowed American troops in Afghanistan to train the nation's army for battle against the Taliban and to target what's left of Al Qaeda there. But now the U.S. says its forces are going to target a new threat: In January, the White House cleared the way for Americans to target the Islamic State in Afghanistan, a branch of the group formally known as ISIS-Khorasan or ISIS-K. It was the first legal action of its kind meant to curb the extremist organization's growth outside of Iraq and Syria, where Islamic State fighters have raped, pillaged and enforced a violent interpretation of Islam.

While the Taliban’s distaste for the Islamic State is no secret, the powerful militant group has reacted to U.S. strikes against its newly emerged enemy with fury -- and tried to turn anyone who'll listen against the new action by referencing bad memories of high-level deception by war-mongers in Washington.

“[This] happened in Iraq, where the CIA betrayed the people of America [saying] that Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons,” Mujahid said. “The CIA has been spreading such rumors to draw the attention of the American people to the Afghanistan invasion, which is a useless economic and human resource loss for the American people.”


CREDIT: ZABIULLAH GHAZI/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGESSoldiers belonging to a special forces unit created to fight the Islamic State in Afghanistan are seen in the country on Jan. 6, 2016.Such arguments, designed deliberately to play on "the people of America," are strategically important to Mujahid's group. While the Taliban and the Islamic State share a hatred of the U.S. as well as some hardline interpretations of Islam, ISIS-K is a threat to the Afghan movement. The Taliban has been furious over Taliban fighters being bribed and pulled from its ranks to join this new rival, analysts say. Experts also note that for the Taliban to admit that another militant group has sway in Afghanistan would be to admit weakness.

“The Taliban, of course, have no interest in saying there is reality behind [the claims of ISIS in Afghanistan],” said Frederic Grare, an Afghanistan expert and nonresident senior associate in the South Asia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “What we see are basically facets of groups from the Taliban rebelling against the movement.”

Concerns over ISIS-K are emerging just at what looked like the perfect moment for the Taliban to take more ground in the country, bringing back policies like a ban on women's education and mass public executions.

Attempts at negotiations between the government and the Taliban have faltered. Meanwhile, the extremist group's sphere of influence has crept up once again to become greater than it's been at any time since the U.S.-led invasion, and the Afghan armed forces remain relatively weak, corrupt and plagued with controversy, the


latest being the revelation that U.S. advisers ignored Afghan officers' rape of young boys. Now that the Taliban must spend time battling the Islamic State, the group has less time, money and manpower available to attack Afghan forces, foreigners, and civilians deemed to violate their strict beliefs.

Mujahid, the Taliban spokesman, refused to say that the Islamic State posed a threat to Afghanistan.

“Very soon, we will clean all the areas from their dirtiness,” he said by email. “ISIS is neither welcomed in Afghanistan nor the ISIS thoughts are accepted by our nation here. So, it is not possible to count ISIS as a threat to us and our people.”

There are currently some 9,800 American troops in Afghanistan. Their primary job is to train, advise and assist Afghan forces, though the primarily non-combat nature of this role has been called into question. While President Barack Obama previously vowed to reduce the number of troops to 5,500 by 2017, leading military commanders have called for an increased longer-term troop presence amid strategic gains made by the Taliban.

The emergence of fighters who are aligned with the Islamic State poses yet another challenge to the U.S. plan.

Gen. John F. Campbell, the outgoing commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has estimated there are somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 Islamic State fighters in the country, mostly consolidated in the east.


CREDIT: ZABIULLAH GHAZI/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGESFour suspected members of the Islamic State are blindfolded by Afghan forces in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, on Jan. 20.The extremist fighters recently claimed responsibility for a deadly attack near the Pakistani consulate in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad. The group has broadcast violent rhetoric urging Afghans to join their cause by radio since 2015. Two U.S. airstrikes destroyed a radio station in the eastern Nangarhar province in early February, reportedly killing 29 people described as Islamic State members.

“President [Ashraf] Ghani [of Afghanistan] takes them very seriously and considers Daesh to be a potential threat to national security,” U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Wilson A. Shoffner told The WorldPost during an interview at the headquarters of the U.S.-led coalition in Kabul, using another term for the group. “We are actively sharing information and intelligence with the Afghans.”

Shoffner said many of the Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan are former members of the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban, a sort of rebranding he says is like “changing your T-shirt” to fight under a different name.

The U.S. military categorizes the Islamic State in Afghanistan as “operationally emergent,” one step above "nascent." Still, it urges caution about overestimating the group's ability to rival the Taliban or link itself to the so-called Islamic State's other branches around the Muslim world.

“Based on what we’ve seen, we’re not seeing a lot of deep-seated ideological support for Daesh,” Shoffner said. “We’re not seeing them having the ability of coordinating operations in more than one part of Afghanistan at a time. We’re not seeing Daesh elements in Syria or Iraq being able to orchestrate operations here in Afghanistan.”

And just as the Taliban has an interest in downplaying the Islamic State's presence, it's key to remember that the Afghan government and some parts of the U.S. military have an interest in exaggerating it to keep American soldiers and funds flowing.

Grare called U.S. claims of the Islamic State threat in Afghanistan “overblown.”

“This is one way for the Afghan government to keep whatever is left of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan,” the analyst said. While he believes the Islamic State's threat to Afghanistan’s national security is likely inflated, Grare added that fighting between the group and the Taliban could reduce the already low chance of the Taliban investing in peace talks with the government.

And in terms of armed attacks, the Taliban is still the issue in Afghanistan. Civilian casualties in the country, nearly three-quarters of which have been linked to the Taliban, are now at record highs.

Akbar Shahid Ahmed in Washington and Naiemullah Sangen in Kabul contributed reporting.


Revealed: Why ISIS Hates the TalibanThe Islamic State and the Taliban won’t get along–and that’s a good thing for South Asia.

By Akhilesh PillalamarriJanuary 29, 2016

Is the Islamic State (IS, also commonly known as ISIS) obsessed with the Taliban? And if so, why? A new issue of the group’s self-published magazine, Dabiq, offers some hints as to why this is the case. Dabiq’s pages are filled with refutations of the Taliban’s ideology.

Thomas Joscelyn, in the Long Wars Journal, describes how the hostility that ISIS bears toward the Taliban stems from the fact that the Taliban draws its legitimacy not from a universal Islamic creed, but from a narrow ethnic and nationalistic base. In other words, while ISIS fights to establish a Caliphate encompassing the entire ummah (Muslim community), the Taliban merely seeks to establish an Afghan state that they claim is ruled ruled by Islamic Law. However, in an interview with the ISIS Wali (custodian) of Khorasan, a self-declared ISIS province that includes Afghanistan, the group denies that the Taliban even rule by Islamic Law at all:

Does the nationalist Taliban movement have areas of consolidation in Khurāsān? And do they rule them by Allah’s law?

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.The Wālī: The nationalist Taliban movement only has control of some regions of “Afghanistan,” nowhere else. As for ruling them by Allah’s law, then it does not do that. Rather, they rule by tribal customs and judge affairs in accordance with the desires and traditions of the people, traditions opposing the Islamic Sharī’ah.

Ironically, the Taliban claimed to rule by Islamic law and made much of sweeping away the tribal traditions it claimed were practiced by Afghan warlords. The 13th issue of Dabiq frequently uses the adjective “nationalist” to describe the Taliban, brandishing it as an insult. Despite its characterization of its mission as universal, this is evidence that ISIS retains a reputation of advancing Arab interests and the unlikeliness of it gaining much ground in South, Southeast, or Central Asia, despite the spread of Islamist activities in those regions.

The list of the Islamic States’ grievances against the “nationalist” Taliban are long, and most of it involves criticizing its alliances towards groups that ISIS also loathes, such as Shias and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. ISIS reserves the greatest loathing for the Shia, whom it labels as the Rafidah, or rejectors, a term considered incredibly derogatory. The 13th issue of Dabiq dedicates dozens of pages to attacking and explaining the necessity of killing Shia, going through the history of how Persia became Shiabefore concluding:If you were absent, you will need to read all 6 articles to complete this activity.

Initiated by a sly Jew, [the Shia] are an apostate sect drowning in worship of the dead, cursing the best companions and wives of the Prophet , spreading doubt on the very basis of the religion (the Qur’ān and the Sunnah), defaming the very honor of the Prophet , and preferring their “twelve” imāms to the prophets and even to Allah! …Thus, the Rāfidah are mushrik [polytheist] apostates who must be killed wherever they are to be found, until no Rāfidī walks on the face of earth, even if the jihād claimants despise such…

Not surprisingly, then, the Taliban are roundly condemned for believing otherwise, and the Taliban have historically not have had the best relations with the Shia minorities in Afghanistan or with the state of Iran. Afghanistan’s Taliban government nearly went to war with Iran in 1998. Dabiq attacked the Taliban for “considering the Rāfidah to be their brothers and publicly denouncing those who target the Rāfidah:”

Abdullāh al-Wazīr, the official correspondent of the nationalist Taliban media committee, said, “The Shī’ah are Muslims … Everyone who says there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger is a Muslim. The sects are many and Allah will decide between them on Judgment Day.

Dabiq goes on to criticize the “nationalist Taliban” for “defend[ing] the Rāfidī state of Iran – both its government and public,” and “condemn[ing] attacks [in Afghanistan] against their Rāfidī brothers.” ISIS also condemned the Taliban’s alliance with Pakistan, whose forces are referred to as “armies of apostasy” because they are allied with “Crusaders.” Thus, the Dabiq argument concludes:

the war between us and the Taliban carries on…the jihād against the Pakistani and Afghan armies of apostasy is continuing and is proceeding with force, by Allah’s grace, power, and strength. The mujāhidīn bravely carry on in fighting the armies of both apostate governments and their forces who have betrayed Allah, His Messenger, and the Muslims…It is upon every Muslim who wants to support the Sharī’ah to hasten in making hijrah [migration] to this wilāyah [Khorasan] or to one of the other wilāyāt of the Khilāfah, for it is their land, the land of Islam.

Though this may seem like petty factional infighting to outsiders, it cannot but be a good thing that the Islamist terror groups of much of the eastern part of the Islamic world are at odds with each other. This prevents the strengthening or consolidation of extremist ideology in Afghanistan and Pakistan since Islamist extremism discredits itself with such infighting. Moreover, it makes it possible for the Taliban to have cause to reign in their its excesses and continue to speak with the Afghan government. Additionally, Pakistan’s intelligence services may be incentivized to refrain from further entrenching extremism in the country’s northwestern regions, especially after some Islamist groups there allied with ISIS.

Finally, ISIS will have a difficult time gaining a foothold in Khorasan and subsequently other parts of Central and South Asia. In a strange way, they have brought together groups and nations as disparate as the United States, Iran, and the Taliban in the fight against them. They may be entrenched in Iraq and Syria for a while, but they certainly


won’t be growing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, given the enemies they have made there with their hate for the “nationalism” of the Taliban in those countries.

Syria: US warns Assad over using chemical weapons againTensions with Russia rise as US says Assad must abide by deal not to use chemical weapons but fails to outline objectives

US missile strikes in Syria: what we know so far

The US says it has put Bashar al-Assad on notice that it will take further military action if he uses chemical weapons again, while appearing to back away from wider military involvement in the Syrian conflict, less than 24 hours after launching Tomahawk missiles at a regime airbase.

“The United States will no longer wait for Assad to use chemical weapons without any consequences. Those days are over,” the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, told a special session of the UN security council.

“The United States took a very measured step last night, Haley added. “We are prepared to do more, but we hope that will not be necessary.”

However, the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, refused to discuss any next steps – military or diplomatic – as the world struggled to understand Trump’s policy on the civil war.

Syrian warplanes were reported to have taken off from the airbase targeted by the US missiles, suggesting that the military impact of the overnight attack had been minimal. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also said that government aircraft had bombed the outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, the town targeted in Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack

Spicer called the missile strike on the airbase “very decisive, justified and proportional” and entirely justified for “humanitarian purposes”.

But he demurred on saying whether Assad had to leave power, despite secretary of state Rex Tillerson’s insistence before the missile strike that diplomatic steps to oust Assad were already “under way”.


“At a minimum,” Spicer said, Assad had to agree “to abide by agreements not to use chemical weapons”, but he did not say what, if any, further objectives the US had in Syria, even as Trump came under renewed congressional pressure to present a comprehensive strategy for the US in the Syrian conflict.

On Saturday, the Iraqi government confirmed that US vice-president Mike Pence had discussed Syria and the fight against Islamic State with the country’s prime minister, Haider al-Abadi.

America’s mixed signals on Assad are likely to unsettle or disappoint the Syrian opposition that initially viewed the strike as a glimmer of hope amid a relentless onslaught.

Trump’s missile barrage suggested a reversal from his previous indifference to Assad’s continued rule. The US president now faces conflicting demands – from Congress to escalate militarily and from Russia to back down. Humanitarians, meanwhile, are demanding evidence of a strategy to end the conflict peacefully.

The first big diplomatic test comes as Tillerson is scheduled to travel to Moscow next week for talks, which will include Syria.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is attempting to revive a critical military communications hotline between the US and Russia that has become the first geopolitical casualty of Trump’s abrupt decision to attack Assad in Syria.

By shutting down the so-called deconfliction channel after the missile strike on Russia’s Syrian client, Vladimir Putin has dared Trump to choose between attacking Assad and attacking Isis, Trump’s priority.

The military channel is pivotal for ensuring US and Russian pilots avoid accidentally colliding, confronting one another in midair or attacking each other’s forces or proxies in north-eastern Syria. It also has a significant political component, according to former defense officials: to ensure competing air wars in Syria do not accidentally spiral into a confrontation between two nuclear powers.

The morning after ordering missile strikes, Trump held a meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Trump made no mention of his decision and ignored shouted questions on whether he would also consider military action against North Korea. Trump spoke only about the relationship with China, claiming “tremendous progress” had been made in the one-day summit.

Xi replied: “President Trump has given us a warm welcome and treated us very well.” Without referring to Syria or North Korea, he stressed the need for “peace and stability”, “partnership”, and “prosperity”.

At a UN security council session, Russia’s deputy envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned the “consequences for international stability could be extremely serious”.

“It’s not hard to imagine how much the spirits of the terrorists have been raised by this attack,” Safronkov said.If you were absent, you will need to read all 6 articles to complete this activity.

The Russian defense ministry said it was beefing up its air defenses in Syria.

A Russian defense ministry spokesman, Maj Gen Igor Konashenkov, said a “complex of measures” would be carried out shortly to “protect the most sensitive Syrian infrastructure facilities”.

The Russian navy was reported to be sending a frigate aimed with cruise missiles to Tartus, on the Syrian coast.

Konashenkov insisted that the effectiveness of the US strike was “very low”, claiming that only 23 of the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles reached the Shayrat airbase in the province of Homs. He said the strikes had destroyed only six MiG-23 fighter jets of the Syrian airforce, which were under repair, but didn’t damage other Syrian warplanes at the base.

The US military insists all but one of the missiles reached their targets.

The US was supported by its western allies and Turkey. France’s president, François Hollande, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said Assad bore “sole responsibility” for provoking the missile strike.

The UK’s defense secretary, Michael Fallon, said the strike was “wholly appropriate”. He added that the UK would not be directly involved in any military action without parliamentary approval. Fallon said he had been in “close discussions” with his US counterpart, James Mattis, but stopped short of claiming to have been consulted on the decision.

The UN security council was convened on Friday to hear briefings on the situation in Syria and to hear arguments over the chemical weapons attacks and retaliatory missile strikes. No vote was scheduled on the competing resolutions on Syria currently before the council, and it was not expected to lead to an agreed course of action.

An opportunity for Russia and the US to stop the slide toward confrontation will come on Tuesday, when Tillerson is due to make his first trip to Moscow as secretary of state. He has signaled that the missile strikes had limited objectives – to deter the use of chemical weapons – and that the US priority remained fighting Isis first, and dealing with political transition later.

In the days before Tillerson’s visit there are expected to be urgent efforts to repair the suspended deconfliction channel.


The Pentagon would not address whether its airstrikes on Isis had already been reduced in response, nor if it had anticipated Russia’s move to abandon the channel before Mattis, the defense secretary, briefed Trump on options for the missile strike. But the Pentagon left little doubt it wanted Moscow to reopen military-to-military communications.

“The Department of Defense maintains the desire for dialogue through the flight safety channel. It is to the benefit of all parties operating in the air over Syria to avoid accidents and miscalculation, and we hope the Russian ministry of defense comes to this conclusion as well,” said Lt Col Michelle Baldanza, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

After Russian forces moved into Syria to bolster Assad’s then faltering regime, “we recognized in the fall of 2015 that the airspace over Syria was going to get much more crowded, and we didn’t want to kick off an international incident from our planes being in proximity to one another,” said Andrew Exum, the senior Pentagon official with the Middle East policy portfolio when the US established the communications channel.

Whatever the tactical military advantages of opening the deconfliction channel, it also had a substantial political component.

“We’re not talking about going head-to-head, nor locking radars at each other,” said Christopher Harmer, an ex-navy pilot and a defense analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. “The fact that we’re no longer actively deconflicting is a political escalation, not a military one.”

The channel also had propaganda value: Putin has sold his intervention in Syria at home and abroad as a necessary measure to fight Isis, despite his overwhelming tactical focus on helping Assad regain territory.

Exum said: “We didn’t want to give the impression we were coordinating with the Russians. The Russians very much wanted to give impression we were working together in a great endeavor against violent extremism in Syria and that’s just not the case.”


https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/850362060407963650/photo/1

The aftermath of the strikes saw congressional pressure, even from Democrats normally opposed to Trump, for the White House to escalate its involvement in Syria’s brutal civil war. Several legislators pressed Trump to deliver a strategy to guide future US action and welcomed a renewed debate for congressional authorization of future strikes, a measure that failed in 2013 when Barack Obama proposed it.

“I fully support a robust US role in ending the Syrian civil war as soon as possible,” said the Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein, who asked Trump for a “comprehensive strategy to end Syria’s civil war”.

However, others also insisted the military strike must be followed by the difficult and complex process of diplomacy. David Miliband, former UK foreign secretary and now president of the International Rescue Committee humanitarian aid organisation, said: “We share the fury of the president at the use of chemical weapons against civilians. The impunity of those who wage war against civilians, whether by chemical or conventional attacks, must be brought to an end.

“The question we have for all those engaged in military action in Syria concerns their plan to stop the killing and build a durable peace. That question is even more important after the events of the last 72 hours. Every Syrian is waiting for that question to be answered.”

The Taliban resurge in Afghanistan — and ISIS also moves in


http://www.pbs.org/video/2365752300/ 4:36 min. (you can watch the following on your phone if you have headphones)

HARI SREENIVASAN: It’s been 15 years since the fight began in Afghanistan. There are signs that the Taliban is now strengthening again. And ISIS is making its presence felt, too.

The U.S. and NATO formally ended their combat mission in 2014, but thousands of foreign troops remain to aid in the fight.

We’re joined now by special correspondent Jennifer Glasse in Kabul.

Jennifer, we have noticed an increase in the number of headlines about violence, the car bombs and so forth from Afghanistan. Put this in perspective. How active is this fighting?

JENNIFER GLASSE: Well, Hari, we have seen fighting around the country. The Taliban announced their spring offensive in April.

And, of course, we have seen them fighting in the north in Kunduz. There was a large attack here in Kabul about a week after they announced the spring offensive. But just in the last 10 days or so, we’re seeing an uptick in fighting in their heartland, in Helmand in the south of the country.

We spoke to people in Lashkar Gah. That’s the provincial capital of Helmand province. And they are very concerned. They say there’s been a lot of fighting, especially in the last nine or 10 days. They can actually hear the gunfire in the center of the city.

They say the Taliban have tried to attack a number of areas around the city, in the ring of security around the city. They have managed to take a few checkpoints, and, yesterday, 15 Afghan policemen were killed.

HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, so it seems that multiple forces here, Taliban on one side, maybe ISIS on the other. Any idea of the scale of how large this opposition is?

JENNIFER GLASSE: We don’t know exactly how many fighters there are. The Taliban claimed to have thousands of fighters ready to launch an offensive this year.

They usually exaggerate their numbers. What is clear then is the Taliban can inflict very, very large damage. Last year, Afghan security forces took very heavy casualties, 5,500 killed. That’s about 15 a day, and 14 — about 14,000 injured. That was 2015 alone, and they’re bracing for another difficult year.


http://www.pbs.org/video/2365752300/

The Taliban have been effective in the kind of attacks they have carried out. So, even when they took Kunduz for three days last year, the first time they took a city, they only went in, stayed for three days, and went out. It really created a lot of fear. It was very effective, and yet they have been able to hold a lot of area in the country.

And things have really picked up just in the last 10 days or so because it’s the end of the poppy harvest season, the opium harvest season in the south. A lot of Taliban fighters take part in that opium harvest. We’re told it’s going to be a bumper crop. And so, of course, that’s a lot more money for the Taliban.

As for ISIS, they are largely in the east of the country, and their numbers are estimated to be in the hundreds, but it’s very hard to tell.

HARI SREENIVASAN: How involved is the American military in these battles?

JENNIFER GLASSE: Well, there are about 10,000 U.S. forces still here. They have got two missions, train, advise, and assist, and a counterterrorism mission.

Now, we know that Afghan special forces have been fighting alongside Afghan forces. We just learned recently that in the — in Kunduz last September and October, when the Taliban took the city for three days, American special forces were fighting very actively in Kunduz.

We know that there are also American special forces guiding Afghan special forces in Helmand province, and about several hundred, about 500 or more U.S. army troops from the 10th Mountain Division are in Helmand province now. They got there in February. Now, that’s a big mission. They’re trying to reform and retrain the army 215 Corps.

They have fired all the commanders and all the leaders there. They are trying to get the Afghans to be a little bit more aggressive, to get off checkpoints and to engage the Taliban more effectively.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Now, there has also been some change in military leadership on the American side. Has there been any sort of a strategy or a vision laid out on what might change in the near future?

JENNIFER GLASSE: Well, we know that the new commander here, General Nicholson, is conducting a 90-day review as to what should happen next.

Right now, there are 9,800 U.S. forces in country. That right now is scheduled to go down to 5,500 by the end of the year. And we know that General Nicholson is reviewing that, checking to see what is going on here. And he’s expected to give President Obama his advice in the next month or so, when he finishes that review, as to whether he believes those forces should remain — those 10,000 forces should remain in Afghanistan.

HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, Jennifer Glasse joining us from Kabul tonight, thanks so much.


JENNIFER GLASSE: Good to be with you.


web viewpeople assume that using this word somehow ... by an mc-130 aircraft, ... that it will take...

Documents