U.S.-based Imam Urges Muslims to Join the Gaza Battlefield

A North Texas imam is calling on Muslims to take up arms in defense of Palestinians in Gaza. Are his comments within First Amendment protections?

Jihadism in 2009: The Trends Continue

by Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

For the past several years, we have published an annual forecast for al Qaeda and the Jihadist movement. Since the January 2006 forecast, we have focused heavily on the devolution of Jihadism from a phenomenon focused primarily on al Qaeda the group to one based primarily on al Qaeda the movement. Last year, we argued that al Qaeda was struggling to remain relevant and that al Qaeda prime had been marginalized in the physical battlefield. This marginalization of al Qaeda prime had caused that group to forfeit its position at the vanguard of the physical jihad, though it remained deeply involved in the leadership of the ideological battle.

As a quick reminder, Stratfor views what most people refer to as “al Qaeda” as a global Jihadist network rather than a monolithic entity. This network consists of three distinct entities. The first is a core vanguard, which we frequently refer to as al Qaeda prime, comprising Osama bin Laden and his trusted associates. The second is composed of al Qaeda franchise groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, and the third comprises the grassroots Jihadist movement inspired by al Qaeda prime and the franchise groups.

As indicated by the title of this forecast, we believe that the trends we have discussed in previous years will continue, and that al Qaeda prime has become marginalized on the physical battlefield to the extent that we have not even mentioned their name in the title. The regional Jihadist franchises and grassroots operatives pose a much more significant threat in terms of security concerns, though it is important to note that those concerns will remain tactical and not rise to the level of a strategic threat. In our view, the sort of strategic challenge that al Qaeda prime posed with the 9/11 attacks simply cannot be replicated without a major change in geopolitical alignments — a change we do not anticipate in 2009.

2008 in Review

Before diving into our forecast for the coming year, let’s take a quick look back at what we said would happen in 2008 and see what we got right and what we did not.

What we got right:

· Al Qaeda core focused on the ideological battle. Another year has passed without a physical attack by the al Qaeda core. As we noted last October, al Qaeda spent a tremendous amount of effort in 2008 fighting the ideological battle. The core leadership still appears to be very intent on countering the thoughts presented in a book written in 2007 by Sayyed Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl, an imprisoned Egyptian radical and a founder (with Ayman al-Zawahiri) of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Al-Sharif’s book is seen as such a threat because he provides theological arguments that counter many of the core teachings used by al Qaeda to justify jihadism. On Dec. 13, an 85-page treatise by one of al Qaeda’s leading religious authorities, Abu-Yahya al-Libi, was released to jihadist Web sites in the latest of al Qaeda’s many efforts to counter Dr. Fadl’s arguments.

· Pakistan will be important as a potential flashpoint. Eight days after we wrote this, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Since then, Pakistan has become the focal point on the physical battlefield.

· The November 2007 addition of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to the global Jihadist network will not pose a serious threat to the Libyan regime. The Libyans have deftly used a combination of carrots and sticks to divide and control the LIFG.

· Jihadists will kill more people with explosives and firearms than with chemical, biological or radiological weapons. We saw no Jihadist attacks using WMD in 2008.

What we got mostly right:

· The Algerian Jihadist franchise, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), will be hard-pressed in 2008, but not eliminated. AQIM succeeded in launching a large number of attacks in the first eight months of 2008, killing as many people as it did in all of 2007. But since then, the Algerian government has been making progress, and the Jihadist group has only conducted two attacks since August 2008. The Algerians also are working closely with neighboring countries to combat AQIM, and the group is definitely feeling the heat. On Dec. 23, 2008, the Algerian government reportedly rejected a truce offered by AQIM leader Yahia Djouadi. Djouadi offered that al Qaeda would cease attacks on foreigners operating in oil fields in Algeria and Mauritania if the Algerian security service would cease targeting al Qaeda members in the Sahel region. The group is still alive, and government pressure appears to have affected its operational ability in recent months, but it did take a bit longer than we anticipated for the pressure to make a difference.

• Syria will use Fatah al-Islam as a destabilizing force in Lebanon. We had intelligence last year suggesting that the Syrians were going to press the use of their jihadist proxies in Lebanon — specifically Fatah al-Islam. We saw a bit of this type of activity in late May, but notas much as anticipated. By November, Syria actually decided to cut ties with Fatah al-Islam.
• Jihadist operatives outside war zones will focus on soft targets. Major terrorist strikes in Islamabad and New Delhi were conducted against hotels, soft targets Stratfor has focused on as vulnerable for many years now. Other attacks in India focused on markets and other public places. While most of the attacks against hard targets came in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, there were a few attacks against hard targets in places like Pakistan, Yemen
  
  and Turkey. Granted, the Sanaa and Istanbul attacks were unsuccessful, but they were attacks against hard targets nonetheless.

What we missed:

· The Jihadist franchises in Yemen resurged, and the al-Shabab in Somalia found success.While we quickly picked up on these trends in April and May respectively (and beat most others to the punch with some very good analysis on these topics), we clearly did not predict them in December 2007. We knew that the influx of fighters from Iraq was going to impact countries in the region, but we didn’t specifically focus on Yemen and Somalia.

The Year Ahead

We anticipate that we will see the United States continue its campaign of decapitation strikes against al Qaeda leadership. While this campaign has not managed to get bin Laden or al-Zawahiri, it has proved quite successful at causing the al Qaeda apex leadership to lie low and become marginalized from the physical jihad. The campaign also has killed a long list of key al Qaeda operational commanders and trainers. As noted above, we believe the core leadership is very concerned about the ideological battle being waged against it — the only real way the theology of Jihadism can be defeated — and will continue to focus their efforts on that battlespace.

As long as the ideology of Jihadism survives (it has been around since the late 1980s), the Jihadists’ war against the world will continue. It will continue to oscillate between periods of high and low intensity. In the coming year, we believe the bulk of physical attacks will continue to be conducted by regional Jihadist franchise groups, and to a lesser extent by grassroots Jihadists.

With the lack of regional franchises in North America, we do not see a strategic threat to the United States. However, as seen by the recent convictions in the Fort Dix plot trial, or even in the late October case where a U.S. citizen apparently committed a suicide bombing on behalf of al-Shabab in Somalia, the threat of simple attacks against soft targets in the United States remains. We were again surprised that no Jihadist attacks occurred in the United States in 2008. Given the vulnerabilities that exist in an open society and the ease of attack, we cannot rule out an attack in 2009.

In Europe, where AQIM and other Jihadist franchises have a greater presence and infrastructure, there is a greater threat that these franchises will commit sophisticated attacks. It must be recognized, though, that they will have a far harder time acquiring weapons and explosives to conduct such attacks in the United Kingdom or France than they would in Algeria or Pakistan. Because of this, we anticipate that they will continue to focus on soft targets in Europe. Due to differences between the Muslim communities in the United States and Europe, the grassroots operatives have been more active in Europe than they are in the United States. The May 22, 2008, attempted bombing at the Giraffe Cafe by a Muslim convert in Exeter serves as a good reminder of this.

Jihadist Franchises

After failing last year to predict the resurgence of the Jihadist franchises in Yemen and Somalia, we will be keeping a sharp eye on both for 2009. Somalia continues to be a basket case of a country, and the instability there is providing an opportunity for al-Shabab to flourish. There is currently an attempt under way to bring stability to Somalia, but we anticipate that it will not succeed, due to the militant factionalism in the country. The only thing working against al-Shabab and their Jihadist brethren is that the Somalian Jihadists appear to be as fractious as the rest of the country; al-Shabab is itself a splinter of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council (SICC), which ruled Somalia briefly before the Ethiopian invasion in 2006. There are currently as many as four different Jihadist factions fighting one another for control over various areas of Somalia — in addition to fighting foreign troops and the interim government.

In Yemen, things have been eerily quiet since the Sept. 17 attack against the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa and the government campaign to go after the group behind that attack. Six gunmen were killed in the attack itself, and the Yemenis have arrested numerous others whom they claim were involved in planning the attack. The Yemenis also killed or captured several significant Jihadists prior to the September attack. But given the large number of Yemenis involved in the fighting in Iraq, the number of Saudi militants who have traveled to Yemen due to pressure at home, and the Salafist-jihadist influence within Yemen’s security and intelligence apparatus, it will be possible for the two Jihadist franchises in Yemen to recover if the Yemenis give them breathing space.

Meanwhile, though Iraq is far calmer than it was a few years back, a resurgence in Jihadist activity is possible. One of the keys to calming down the many Jihadist groups in Iraq was the formation of the Awakening Councils, which are made up of many Sunni former Baathist (and some Jihadist) militants placed on the U.S. payroll. With the changes in Iraq, responsibility for these Awakening Councils has been passed to the Iraqi government. If the Shiite-dominated government decides not to pay the councils, many of the militants-turned-security officers might return to their old ways — especially if the pay from jihadist groups is right. Intelligence reports indicate that Baghdad plans to pay only a fraction of the approximately 100,000 men currently serving in the Awakening Councils. The Iraqi central government apparently plans to offer the bulk of them civilian jobs or job training, but we are skeptical that this will work.

Elsewhere, Pakistan is once again the critical location for the Jihadists. Not only is Pakistan the home of the al Qaeda core leadership as its pursues its ideological war, it also is home to a number of Jihadist groups, from the Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan in the northwest to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in the northeast, among several others. The coming year might prove to be pivotal in global efforts against the Jihadists in Pakistan. Pakistan already is a country in crisis, and in some ways it is hard to imagine it getting much worse. But if Pakistan continues to destabilize, it could very well turn into a failed country (albeit a failed country with a nuclear arsenal). Before Pakistan becomes a failed state, there are a number of precursor stages it probably will pass through. The most immediate stage would entail the fall of most of the North-West Frontier Province to the Jihadists, something that could happen this year.

This type of anarchy in Pakistan could give the Jihadists an opportunity to exert control in a way similar to what they have done in places like Afghanistan and Somalia (and already in the Pakistani badlands along the Afghan border.) If, on the other hand, Pakistan is somehow able to hold on, re-establish control over its territory and its rogue intelligence agency and begin to cooperate with the United States and other countries fighting the Jihadists, such a development could deal a terrible blow to the aspirations of the Jihadists on both the physical and ideological battlefields. Given the number of plots linked to Pakistan in recent years, including the November 26th Mumbai attack and almost every significant plot since 9/11, all eyes will be watching Pakistan carefully.

Fred Burton and Scott Stewart write for Stratfor.com, an online publisher of geopolitical intelligence.

Why are so many oligarchs, royal families, and special-interest groups giving money to the Clinton Foundation?

(Compiler's note: Think about this one people. Mr. Hitchens makes some very interesting points.)

By Christopher Hitchens

Here is a thought experiment that does not take very much thought. Picture, if you will, Hillary Clinton facing a foreign-policy conundrum. With whom will she discuss it first and most intently: with her president or her husband? (I did tell you that this wouldn't be difficult.) Here's another one: Will she be swayed in her foreign-policy decisions by electoral considerations focusing on the year 2012, and, if so, will she be swayed by President Barack Obama's interests or her own?

The next question, and I must apologize in advance for once again making it an un-strenuous one, is: Who else will be approaching Bill Clinton for advice, counsel, and "input" on foreign affairs? It appears from the donor list of the Clinton Foundation that there is barely an oligarch, royal family, or special-interest group anywhere in the world that does not know how to get the former president's attention. Just in the days since the foundation agreed to some disclosure of its previously "confidential" clients—in other words, since this became a condition for Sen. Clinton's nomination to become secretary of state—we have additionally found former President Clinton in warm relationships with one very questionable businessman in Malaysia and with another, this time in Nigeria, who used to have close connections with that country's ultracorrupt military dictatorship.

The Nigerian example is an especially instructive one. Gilbert Chagoury is a major figure in land and construction in that country and has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as arranged a huge speaking fee for President Clinton at a Caribbean event and kicked in a large sum to his 1996 re-election campaign. In return for this, he has been received at the Clinton White House and more recently at Clinton-sponsored social events in New York and Paris. This may have helped to alleviate the sting of Chagoury's difficulties in Nigeria itself. As a close friend of the country's uniformed despot Gen. Sani Abacha, he benefited from some extremely profitable business arrangements during the years of dictatorship but was later compelled, after an investigation of his transactions, to return an estimated $300 million to the Nigerian treasury in exchange for a plea-bargaining arrangement by which his bank accounts could be unfrozen.

Aha, you say, there's no evidence of any quid pro quo here. (Or, in other words, Chagoury gives a fortune to Clinton because he, too, wants to "fight AIDS.") Of course, this may only be seed money for a later "quid" or even "quo" that hasn't yet materialized. And if Chagoury or anyone else had ever received the impression that the Clintons would play for pay, it's easy to see how he got the idea. (See my Nov. 24, 2008, Slate column on the investigations of the Clinton campaign-finance scandals and the shenanigans surrounding the Marc Rich pardon.)

But does a contribution to Bill Clinton's foundation get you any traction with Sen. Clinton, at least in her political and official capacity? Let's see. A recent story in the New York Times managed to begin with some very crisp and clear and fact-based paragraphs:

An upstate New York developer donated $100,000 to former President Bill Clinton's foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman's mall project.

Mrs. Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert J. Congel, to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse.

Mrs. Clinton also helped secure a provision in a highway bill that set aside $5 million for Destiny USA roadway construction.

Why should anyone doubt, then, that in small matters as well as in large ones, the old slogan from the 1992 election still holds true? As Bill so touchingly put it that year, if you voted for him, you got "two for one." What the country—and the world—has since learned is a slight variation on that, which I would crudely phrase as "buy one, get one free."

The deal struck by the wide-eyed incoming Obama administration is that the list of donors to the Clinton Foundation will be reviewed once every year and that only the new donations from foreign states—which already include an extraordinarily large number from Gulf sheikdoms—will be scrutinized by administration lawyers. How would we react if we read that this was the rule for the Vladimir Putin government, say, or former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's regime in Germany? Before me, for example, is the report of a pledge of $100 million to the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative by a set of companies based in Vancouver and known as the Lundin Group. The ostensible purpose of this mind-boggling contribution is stated in the usual vacuous terms of "sustainable local economies," chiefly in Africa. All I know for sure about the Lundin Group is that it does quite a lot of business in Sudan. And all I can think to ask—as perhaps some senator might think to ask—is why such a big corporate interest doesn't just donate the money directly, rather than distributing it through the offices of an outfit run by a seasoned ex-presidential influence-peddler. What do they and the other donors suppose they are getting for their money? A good feeling?

That was another no-brainer question I just asked. So let me stop insulting you, dear reader, and pose a question to which we do not have any obvious answer. Why is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.

U.S. veterans attack illegal immigration

The nation's largest veterans organization released this week a policy bulletin that takes a firm stand against illegal immigration and calls on its members to hold elected officials accountable for implementing and enforcing U.S. immigration law.

The 30-page bulletin is officially titled, "The American Legion Policy on Immigration: A Strategy to Address Illegal Immigration in the United States."....

"We want to raise public awareness that illegal immigration is a national security issue," Raughter said. "The American Legion wants to remind people that included in the Fort Dix Six conspirators and 9-11 attackers were men in the country illegally."

An electronic version of the 30-page booklet is available for download at the American Legion website. Hard copies may be requested by calling (317) 630-1212 or mailing The American Legion, National Americanism Commission, 700 N. Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible

By Diana Washington Valdez

EL PASO - Mexico is one of two countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse," according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.

The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.

The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."

The U.S. Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va., is one of the Defense Departments combat commands that includes members of the different military service branches, active and reserves, as well as civilian and contract employees. One of its key roles is to help transform the U.S. military's capabilities.

In the foreword, Marine Gen. J.N. Mattis, the USJFC commander, said "Predictions about the future are always risky ... Regardless, if we do not try to forecast the future, there is no doubt that we will be caught off guard as we strive to protect this experiment in democracy that we call America."

The report is one in a series focusing on Mexico's internal security problems, mostly stemming from drug violence and drug corruption. In recent weeks, the Department of Homeland Security and former U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey issued similar alerts about Mexico.

Despite such reports, El Pasoan Veronica Callaghan, a border business leader, said she keeps running into people in the region who "are in denial about what is happening in Mexico."

Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon instructed his embassy and consular officials to promote a positive image of Mexico.

The U.S. military report, which also analyzed economic situations in other countries, also noted that China has increased its influence in places where oil fields are present.

More stories on the violence in Mexico

Related story: 2,000 fresh troops sent to Juarez as violence continues

Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

(Compiler's note: Follow the money.)

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.

The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton's foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raise new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband's fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator's government letters under the Freedom of Information Act. ...

Bush, Obama aides simulate terrorism attack

Aides to US President George W Bush and his successor Barack Obama have held a joint exercise at the White House simulating a terrorist attack on several American cities.

They received a briefing in which they discussed government responses to scenarios such as nuclear, chemical or biological attacks.

They also responded to a simulated outbreak of pandemic flu and natural disasters.

The exercise is part of an unprecedented effort to ensure a smooth handover to Mr Obama on January 20. ....

The Time Clock Has Run Out: Israel Ready to Strike Iran

(Compiler's note: A must read article.)

By: Jim Meyers

Informed sources in Washington tell Newsmax that Israel indeed will launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities soon – possibly in just days as President George W. Bush prepares to leave office.

The reason: The time clock has begun to run out. Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear device under the control of its radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in June that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in as little as six months.

That six-month period has passed.

Reports of Israel’s decision to imminently launch strikes, although unconfirmed, would seem to contradict the Bush stance outlined in a front-page New York Times story last week, which asserted that Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran’s main nuclear complex.

The Times said Israel was rebuffed after it requested from the U.S. specialized bunker-busting bombs that it needs to attack Iran’s nuclear complex at Natanz. The U.S. also reportedly nixed permission to the Israeli warplanes to fly over Iraqi territory to reach Iran.

Israel’s requests to the U.S. for military assistance came as the Jewish state was reportedly angry over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons.

But an investigative report circulated by IAEA chief ElBaradei late last year disclosed that Iran was continuing to carry out uranium enrichment and had already established 6,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium, of which 3,800 were then in operation.

American intelligence officials now estimate that the figure is 4,000 to 5,000 centrifuges, enough to produce about one weapon’s worth of uranium every eight months or so, according to the Times.

The IAEA report estimated that Iran has obtained two tons of enriched uranium since its enrichment program was restarted at Natanz two years ago.

Last year 100 Israeli jets took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean that was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran.

And on Sept. 6 Israel launched an air attack against a site in Syria believed to be a nuclear-related facility containing material delivered by North Korea.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton predicted that Israel would stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Barack Obama won the presidential election.

Bolton stated that he believed the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20.

In an interview with FOX News, Bolton reasoned that Israel wouldn’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given Obama’s more conciliatory approach to Iran.

The Israeli government “would have to make a judgment whether to [strike] during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor,” Bolton added.

William Perry, U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton, said that Obama would face a major crisis in his first few months in office over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Perry, speaking at a foreign policy conference on Jan. 8, said that Iran is "moving inexorably toward becoming a nuclear power" and “it seems clear that Israel will not sit by idle while Iran takes the final steps toward becoming a nuclear power."

And former CIA officer Robert Baer, author of the new book “The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower,” told Newsmax in October that Iran was at that time probably months, if not weeks, away from war with Israel.

The repercussions of an Israeli attack are not clear.

Though Arab states remain openly hostile to Israel, many who belong to the Sunni branch of Islam fear the rise of a nuclear Iran, a nation dominated by Shiite imams. Gulf states like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have been quietly pressing the U.S. to take action against Iran – and may secretly root for an Israeli attack.

But Iran, even without nuclear weapons, is a regional power. If attacked, they are likely to press proxy terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to launch offensives against Israel and possibly the U.S.

Iran has warned in the past that it would launch a “missile blitz” against Gulf states if it is attacked.

And last July a senior Iranian official said the Islamic Republic would destroy Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the Middle East if Iran is attacked over its nuclear program.

“Israel and 32 U.S. military bases in the region would not be out of the reach of our missiles and would be destroyed," the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Mojtaba Zolnour as saying in a speech.

Zolnour is the deputy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards.

Even more ominously, Iran has reportedly carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the U.S.

UN must investigate Hamas

from ACT for America

.... On this video, you will see how Hamas terrorists and their sympathizers begin training children as young as 1 year old to be terrorists; how they brainwash children to hate and want to kill Jews; and how they use children as human shields to protect themselves from opposing fire.

If you didn’t see this disturbing video, please click on the image below.

Once you’ve seen this, we’re sure you’ll agree that international attention must be drawn to this outrage. That’s why we have crafted a petition to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, calling on him to initiate an investigation into Hamas’ terrible abuse and exploitation of children in the Gaza Strip.

To read and sign the petition, please click here. This is about more than the children of Gaza. This is about exposing to the world the horrors of the jihadist doctrine that drives Hamas and its virulent, ugly anti-Semitism. It’s about giving the world yet one more perspective on the evil inherent in Islamofascism, the perspective that I witnessed first-hand as a child used as a human shield by the Palestinians in Lebanon, as detailed in my New York Times Best Seller Because They Hate: A survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.

It will only take you a few moments to sign the petition. When we present it to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, it will include only your name and state.

I appeal to your conscience to join me today. Children are the future. Hitler used the children to build a killing machine without conscience. The Islamists are doing the same today preparing and calling for the second holocaust. We cannot sit silent and allow this to happen under our watch. Join me in sending a strong message to the UN saying, “not in my name, not in my time, we demand an investigation and action about this.”

Please forward this to everyone you know. If you haven’t yet seen the video below, please do so right away. Then click here to sign our petition.

I thank you and our future generation will thank you.



Brigitte Gabriel

Closing Gitmo Requires Tough Judgments on Inmates

by AP

President-elect Barack Obama's planned review of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, a prelude to closing the detention center, must weigh the threats posed by an extraordinarily diverse group, from die-hard jihadists to innocent men swept up in war.

Two presidential transition team advisers said Monday that Obama is preparing to issue an executive order in his first day or week in office setting in motion the extensive survey needed to close the US military prison in Cuba.

His team faces a daunting task.

Some cases are clear cut. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, brought to Guantanamo in 2006 from CIA custody, has claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks. He said he wants to be executed to achieve martyrdom.

On the other end of the spectrum are men even the Pentagon acknowledges are no threat -- 17 Uighur dissidents who remain detained over fears for their safety if returned to their homeland in China.

Most of the roughly 250 remaining prisoners lie in the murky middle....

What Do You Do When The Guy Across the Negotiating Table Wants to Destroy You?

by Newt Gingrich

Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearings are underway in the Senate today. A good question for any senator who is interested in being honest about the real problem in the Middle East is this:

“Senator Clinton, imagine that you’re the Israeli Foreign Minister: What do you do when the other party at the ‘peace table’ is openly committed to your destruction?”

This is the question that all our political and foreign policy elites who are demanding that Israel immediately agree to a “cease fire” with Hamas in Gaza should be asking.

And this is the fact that the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic mobs that are taking to the streets in London, Edinburgh, Berlin and Washington, DC should know:

Hamas is openly, publicly and proudly committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. This is a negotiating partner?

“There is No Solution For the Palestinian Problem Except Through Jihad”

These are the words of the Hamas charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

And here is how the founding document of Hamas treats the concept of “negotiations”:

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Two Facts of Violence in Mid-East: Hamas and Iran

There are two main facts of the violence in the Middle East that all Americans -- and particularly our leaders -- should be aware of:

The first is that Hamas exists to destroy Israel. Its leaders wake up every morning with one goal -- to eliminate what they call the “Zionist entity.”

The second fact of violence in the Middle East is the ongoing effort by Iran (using Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas as its proxies) to undermine pro-American governments in the region.

“A New Emphasis on Respect” in Relations with Iran?

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, President-elect Obama repeated his campaign pledge to negotiate with Iran.

He also promised that there would be a “new emphasis on respect” in his administration’s dealings with Tehran.

President-elect Obama may want respect.

But Iran’s theocratic rulers want victory.

This is a dangerous mismatch of goals for America and a potentially nuclear, aggressor regime to have.

To Understand Iran and Gaza, Obama Should Look to Lincoln

President-elect Obama has expressed a welcome fondness for Abraham Lincoln. To understand the regimes in Iran and Gaza, all of us should read more Lincoln.

When the southern states began to secede from the Union with Lincoln’s election in 1860, Lincoln concluded that negotiating with the South would be futile. There were only two options:

To make it impossible for the South to leave the Union.

Or to allow the Union itself to be destroyed.

Lincoln choose to “preserve, protect and defend” the Union and 620,000 Americans died implementing his policy.

But in doing so, Lincoln saved the Union. And the “mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone” endure to this day.

The Policy of the United States Must Be That Israel’s Right to Survive is Unequivocal

Similarly, there are no easy solutions in Gaza. But there are a few milestones that Israel should achieve -- and the United States should support -- before any ceasefire with Hamas is granted:

1) Hamas’ capacity to inflict violence on the state of Israel must be destroyed, or at least significantly reduced.
2) No missiles -- period -- must be fired from Gaza into the sovereign state of Israel.
3) The border between Gaza and Egypt must be sealed and verified by an Israeli and/or independent verifier.

The policy of the United States of America has been and must be that Israel’s right to survive is unequivocal. Therefore, the greatest danger to Israel in the long run is for it to experience violence followed by a false truce which allows its enemies time to rearm and initiate yet another cycle of violence.

Iran and Hamas will not voluntarily end this cycle of violence. They must be brought to the point where they have no choice.

Smart Spending Versus Dumb Spending

As Democratic and Republican politicians in Washington busy themselves with the task of spending hundreds of billions more of your tax dollars to stimulate the economy, it is high time Washington realize that not all spending is equal.

There is smart spending, and there is dumb spending.

I’ve talked before about what I consider smart spending to be. It’s spending that improves the long-terms health and productivity of the economy, that attracts new investment to America, and that allows taxpayers to keep more of what they earn.

Then there’s dumb spending.

This often takes the form of pork barrel projects; spending, not in America’s interest, but in the narrow, political interest of a politician or interest group.

$22 Million to Fund Two Downtown Harrisburg, Pa., Hotels

In other words, dumb spending is typically political spending. And it’s hard to see how politicians in Washington can be expected to pass the $750 billion stimulus bill advocated by President-elect Obama without a lot of politics creeping in.

Especially when the nation’s mayors have compiled a wish list of over 15,000 local projects they’d like Uncle Sam to fund.

Exhibit A is a proposed Museum of Organized Crime in Las Vegas, Nev. As I said on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" (watch it here), one would think the mob has enough money to build their own museum.

Exhibit B on the dumb spending list is the request by the mayor of Harrisburg, Pa., for $22 million to build two downtown hotels.

This isn’t stimulating the economy. This is stimulating the mayor’s friends in Harrisburg – and hurting the private entrepreneurs who own and operate hotels in the area.

For the sake of the taxpayers footing the bill, and the entrepreneurs struggling without a government bailout, this kind of dumb spending must end.

Your friend,

States continue spending sprees

As a federal bailout takes shape, many states continue to spend money at boom-time rates even though revenue is sinking.

The mismatch between spending and revenue has left states facing projected shortfalls of up to $80 billion over the next six months, equal to as much as 10% of what states had planned to spend.....

Obama to order Guantanamo Bay prison closed

President-elect Barack Obama plans to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay as early as his first week in office to show a break from the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror, according to two officials close to the transition.

In Foreign Policy, a New Trio at the Top

By Anne E. Kornblut and Glenn Kessler

When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) gavels the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to order today and welcomes Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to her confirmation hearing as President-elect Barack Obama's nominee to be secretary of state, he will mark the ascendance of a new triumvirate dominating the foreign policy arena.

The hearing will also call attention to a particularly awkward tangle of relationships.....

Homeland Security Approves $450M 'Bio Threat' Lab

The Department of Homeland Security has approved a site at Kansas State University for a $450 million lab to study livestock diseases and some of the world's most dangerous biological threats.

Is the Trans-Texas Corridor dead?

Gov. Rick Perry and TxDOT want you to think so

.... the Trans-Texas Corridor project includes a 4,000 mile network of four NAFTA Superhighway truck-train pipelines that TxDOT plans to build over a 50-year period.

"Still," Corsi says, "close examination shows Perry's declaration from Iraq involves yet more public relations efforts by the governor and TxDOT to defuse criticism from voters and reposition a hugely unpopular initiative by dropping the designation 'Trans-Texas Corridor,' or 'TTC,' while still allowing TxDOT to proceed with the components of the original TTC plan that had been scheduled for implementation now."

TxDOT Executive Director Amadeo Saenz said major corridor projects will be scaled back to comprise several small projects closer to 600-feet wide than the originally planned 1,200 foot-wide TTC design. Perry has also confirmed that a new corridor parallel to Interstate-35, previously known as TTC-35, and projects like Interstate 69 will continue.....

From each group that backed Obama, an agenda

(Compiler's note: Hmmmmm - food for thought.)

by Joe Garofoli

Nobody disagrees that passing an economic stimulus package is the top priority for the incoming Obama administration and the new Congress. Then what? Tighter emissions standards for cars? Easing the rules on organizing for labor unions? Universal health care? Ending the wars? Net neutrality?

The flipside of knitting together a winning coalition of techies, anti-war activists, women, labor unions, young voters and the like is: (a) everybody thinks they were most instrumental in sending Obama and more Democrats to Washington, and (b) they want Obama and the Democrats to make their policy wish lists reality - first. Or, at least, right after a stimulus bill is passed.

"But since Obama won by such a wide margin, no one group can claim credit for his victory," said Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Even before it addresses the stimulus package, Congress has to consider nine appropriations bills left from the last Congress, Lilly said. And, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi anticipates having a stimulus bill ready for Obama to sign by the Feb. 16 Presidents Day holiday, Lilly, a former staff director for the House Appropriations Committee and a 30-year veteran of Capitol Hill, said "that sounds to me to be extremely ambitious."

After a stimulus package is approved, the legislative runway will get really crowded. Health care reform is near the top of many lists, but not all.

The problems facing the country are so severe that Obama is not going to be able to favor one group over another because they were major contributors to his election, Lilly said. "And there is probably an international situation that will take up a lot of the president's time and attention after the stimulus gets done."

Here's a look at some of the proposals, wish lists and demands that await the president-elect and the 111th Congress:

Anti-war activists

After spending almost eight years toting George W. Bush effigies through the streets, the anti-war movement is confident that Obama will address its issues. But even before Obama has taken the oath of office, he has already disappointed some.

"Obama has been missing in action on the massacre of people in Gaza," said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war organization Code Pink. It makes little difference to her that Obama has avoided making broad policy statements before becoming president for fear of giving mixed signals to foreign governments. "It makes me tremendously worried about what he'll do when other situations like that come up. It took him until (last week) to say he was concerned, and he didn't even call for a cease-fire."

Code Pink has compiled a list of "President Obama's Promises to Keep" from his campaign statements. Among them:

-- End the war in Iraq.

-- Close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

-- Reject the Military Commissions Act, which critics say violates the civil rights of people held as enemy combatants.

-- Bar the torture of prisoners of war and enemy combatants.

-- Work to eliminate nuclear weapons.

-- Abide by Senate-approved treaties.

Organized labor

Labor organizations spent more than $450 million to send Obama and other Democrats to Washington. The AFL-CIO alone has compiled a 64-page list entitled the "AFL-CIO Recommendations for the Obama Administration." Top priority - besides jobs in the stimulus package - is the Employee Free Choice Act. It would enable employees to form a union as soon as a majority signed cards saying they wanted one. The Service Employees International Union, the nation's largest labor union, will spend $10 million to support such legislation. Various employer groups are lining up against it.

But would Obama be risking too much political capital early in his term on a politically partisan issue that could galvanize - and revive - conservatives?

"The Obama transition team absolutely has not communicated that to us," said Thea Lee, policy director for the AFL-CIO.

Some of labor's other top wishes:

-- Health care reform.

-- Reverse staffing cuts that led to long Social Security claim backlogs.

-- Extend unemployment benefits.

-- Increase financing for food stamps.

-- Change Bush administration policies on government contract work, worker safety and training to be fairer to workers.

Women

The National Organization for Women has an 11-page "Feminist Action Agenda for 2009 and Beyond" for the incoming administration and Congress. "And that was our short list," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "After eight years of going backward with the Bush administration, we have a lot of issues that need to be addressed."

NOW already has a beef with Obama's stimulus package: It is too heavy on male-dominated infrastructure-rebuilding - i.e., construction jobs - Gandy said. She'd like to see more stimulus cash spread to what she described as "human infrastructure-rebuilding jobs" such as home health aides, teachers, teacher's aides and social workers.

Here are a few top items from NOW's agenda and Gandy:

-- Address the wage gap between men and women.

-- Stop abstinence-only birth control education funding in favor of programs that stress both abstinence and contraception.

-- Assure access to contraception.

-- Establish a Cabinet-level Office on Women that's analogous to the Office on Drug Control Policy.

Environmentalists

Environmental organizations were some of Obama's strongest backers, as many were upset by Bush administration positions on everything from climate change to land conservation to water policy. Shortly after the election, leading environmental organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, created a new group called Saveourenvironment.org and submitted a list of goals to the Obama transition team.

Among them:

-- Cut the nation's dependence on oil in half.

-- Move electricity generation to 100 percent from clean sources like wind and solar.

-- Create 5 million new clean-energy jobs.

-- Reduce global warming pollution by at least 80 percent.

In a speech on the economy last week, Obama called for "the creation of a clean-energy economy" that "will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years." Without being specific on the number of new jobs this would generate, he said, "We will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced - jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings."

Techies

The Obama campaign had a special affinity with the online world, as it revolutionized the Internet as a fundraising and organizing tool in a presidential campaign. The Free Press Action Fund, a media reform organization, has outlined an expansion of the nation's broadband network - at a cost of $44 billion - and compiled a wish list that mirrors those of other online activists:

-- It wants Obama to back his long-stated support for the principles of net neutrality with a law that would "forbid discrimination on the Internet based on the source, destination or ownership of online content."

-- It wants the Obama administration to champion greater diversity in media ownership. Changes to current ownership rules could come after the administration appoints a new Federal Communications Commission chairman.

-- San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation has been fighting how the Bush administration has used electronic surveillance of citizens. It would like to see that practice end.

In a speech last week on infrastructure investments, Obama proposed "expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world."

Groups and their agendas

Several organizations are compiling wish lists and suggestions for the new administration and Congress.

-- Through Thursday, the social change digital hub Change.org of San Francisco is hosting online voting for its "Top 10 Ideas for America." When it presents the ideas on Friday, it hopes to form a national advocacy campaign for each idea with nonprofit organizations and create policy. For more information go to www.change.org/ideas.

-- In December, members of the liberal online hub MoveOn.org voted on their top priorities for the new administration. The top four: universal health care; economic recovery and job creation; building a green economy and ending the war in Iraq. For more information, go to

www.pol.move on.org/2009/agenda/results/results2.html.

-- For more information about Code Pink's "President Obama's Promises to Keep," go to www.code pinkaction.org/arti cle.php?id=4568.

-- For more information about the "AFL-CIO Recommendations for the Obama Administration," go to change.gov/open_

government/entry/afl_cio_turn_around_amer ica/.

-- For more information about the Free Press Action Fund's "Down Payment on Our Digital Future: Stimulus Policies for the 21st-Century Economy," go to www.freepress.net/files/DownPayment_Digital Future.pdf.

-- For more information about the environmental community's Obama wish list, go to www.saveourenvi ronment.org/.

How Tech Changes Our Thinking About War

By Noah Shachtman

Technological innovations – from the clock to the internet – don't just change how armies fight their battles. They changed how those armies think about war, in the first place. That's the subject of one of the more important new books of 2009: The Scientific Way of Warfare: Order and Chaos on the Battlefields of Modernity (Columbia University Press, 2009).

Author, Antoine Bousquet, a Lecturer in International Relations at Birkbeck College in London, offers a vision of modern Western military organization that draws its fundamental logic from the social artifacts of science and technology. "From the ascendancy of the scientific worldview in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to present day," he writes, "an ever more intimate symbiosis between science and warfare has established itself with the increasing reliance on the development and integration of technology within complex social assemblages of war." Instead of debating whether war drives technological innovation or vice versa, it actually explains how key technologies in modern history evolved into metaphors for social organization -- in turn enabling the military, as a consummate social organization, to regulate itself.

The Scientific Way of Warfare ("SWOW," Bousquet calls it) is a remarkable work of synthesis, drawing on the contemporary writing of Manuel Castells, Paul Edwards, John Arquilla, and (especially) Martin Van Creveld. The book’s broad historical sweep doesn’t get caught up in the finer details, though, which might frustrate readers looking for a more detailed military history. Instead, it boils its subject down to "four distinct regimes of the scientific way of warfare, each of which is characterized by a specific theoretical and methodological constellation: mechanistic, thermodynamic, cybernetic, and chaoplexic warfare." At the heart of each, he writes, "we find an associated paradigmatic technology, respectively the clock, the engine, the computer and the network."

Clocks, with their precise parsing of time, gave us "mechanistic warfare," characterized by linear, predictable, reliable geometries (think Frederick the Great’s archetypal Prussian forces). "Thermodynamic warfare" evolved from concepts of dynamic motion and energy, associated with newly developed mechanical engines, resulting in the sort of industrialized, technologically enabled slaughter that chewed up millions of human bodies in World War I. "Cybernetic warfare" came about in World War II, Bousquet explains, with the ascent of the computer technology needed to manage the data floods of the code-breakers of Bletchley Park and the bomb-builders of Los Alamos. It signaled the dominance of information in strategic thinking, and the ascent of the all-powerful systems analyst in war planning.

One stage of military practice doesn't collapse under the weight of the next, however. In fact, new scientific regimes of warfare don’t necessarily improve how war is organized and fought. Instead, they get tripped up on the limitations of the previous generation, legacies of the old school preventing the next regime from fully taking hold and moving things forward. This might just be a fancy way of saying we always plan to fight the last war. But it identifies some important distinctions and helps explain things like the failure of Vietnam - Robert MacNamara’s pervasive quantification didn’t do much, in the end, to convince the Viet Cong that they were facing defeat.

It also sets the conditions for Bousquet’s fourth scientific regime of war, which looks to chaos theory and complexity science to understand and predict the networked threats of everything from L.A. street gangs to transnational jihadis and Russian hackers. Bousquet borrows the term "chaoplexity," which first appeared in John Horgan's 1996 book The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age, to coin his own terminology, "chaoplexic warfare."

Chaoplexic war, likes its cybernetic predecessor, is information driven. But cyberneticism emphasized total control of the battlespace through information dominance; in theory, that was supposed to create a predictable, controllable warzone environment. Chaoplexity, on the other hand, understands the order hidden within chaos and complexity. It's an understanding, translated to military thinking, that would theoretically enable soldiers to recognize, accept, and cope better with the uncertainties of combat. Characterized by "non-linearity, self-organization, and emergence," the central metaphor of chaoplexic war "is that of the network, the distributed model of information exchange perhaps best embodied by the Internet."

Pentagon has a doctrine of "network-centric warfare," of course. But, despite paying lip service to chaoplexity, it's still stuck in the cybernetic muck, Bousquet argues. "Serious questions" remain as to whether network-centric warfare is really part of the new way of war – or just a "re-branding" of older approaches.

The book’s later chapters, on cybernetic and chaoplexic warfare, are mostly about the United States, which has had radically different experiences of armed conflict since WWII from almost any other nation on earth. Here, SWOW’s descriptions of networks and chaoplexity feel more like tactical cyberneticism than a truly new approach to war. New communications and surveillance technologies make it possible for the military to coordinate networked units right down to the squad level. But it also makes it possible to nano-manage them by remote control, second guessing every move they make, often under fire. That’s not the same thing as giving field units the autonomy to make their own decisions and accepting the uncertainty that comes with it. It’s also dangerous. SWOW doesn’t tell us much about where chaoplexic war will be fought, either - or more importantly, how chaoplexic armies will interpret and cope with the spaces in which they fight. When I pressed Bousquet on this, I had in mind the sort of urban worm-holing that Israeli Defense Forces have perfected for operations in and through Palestinian camps. He acknowledge that wars of the future will likely happen, for the most part, in cities. And so it goes in Gaza.

-- Michael A. Innes is Director of The Complex Terrain Laboratory, and the editor of Denial of Sanctuary: Understanding Terrorist Safe Havens. (Praeger, 2007). This is his first post for Danger Room.

Our Broken CIA and the Death of Innocents

(Compiler's note: A must read article. We will be hearing more about this in the future.)

By Peter Hoekstra

Some within our intelligence community seem to think that they are above the law.

On April 20, 2001, one of the worst tragedies in the CIA’s history occurred when an infant baby girl — seven-month old Charity Bowers — and her mother, Roni, were killed when a bullet passed through Roni’s body and lodged in Charity’s skull. The projectile was fired by the Peruvian air force, which shot down the Bowers’ single-engine Cessna with the assistance of the CIA as part of a counternarcotics program. Charity’s father, brother, and the pilot survived a crash landing on the Amazon River.

A CIA Inspector General report concluded that baby Charity and her mother died due to the apparently deliberate failure of CIA officers to follow proper procedures to protect the lives of innocent civilians — not only in the 2001 shoot-down of the Bowers aircraft, but in all previous shoot-downs that occurred in Peruvian airspace between 1995 and 2001.

The CIA Inspector General also found that persons within the CIA mounted an extensive cover-up of the facts of this tragedy from the White House, the Justice Department, and Congress. The CIA lied to Congress and the executive branch about the downing of the Bowers plane to shield its personnel from being held accountable and from possible prosecution.

Shocked? You should not be. Such behavior has become all too commonplace at America’s premier intelligence agency. The CIA is supposed to closely coordinate all intelligence matters with the executive branch and Congress because their very nature precludes transparency and normal accountability mechanisms. It has repeatedly failed to do so.

Instead, the CIA briefs Congress as little as it believes it can get away with, and frequently plays what I call the “20-questions game” — where CIA officers tell Congress about important information only if members of Congress stumble upon the exact right questions. In addition, I have been long concerned that some within the agency have intentionally undermined the Bush administration and its policies over the last few years. This argument is supported by the Valerie Plame case, and the long string of unauthorized disclosures to the news media from an organization that prides itself on being able to keep secrets.

The shoot-down of the Bowers’ plane is an example not only of CIA incompetence and mismanagement, but of an intelligence subculture that thinks it is above the law. Some CIA managers apparently think they can evade their legal requirement to fully and honestly cooperate with the Justice Department and Congress. How can we trust our nation’s security to intelligence officers who have been so reckless and irresponsible?

In response to the publicity over the CIA Inspector General report, CIA Director Michael Hayden promised to turn over the matter to an accountability board to determine whether any disciplinary action is warranted in the Bowers case. When a board is convened, I plan to testify before it. However, given the CIA’s abysmal record in handling the Bowers case to date, Congress and the Justice Department must also carefully review the relevant facts. The CIA cannot be trusted to investigate this case alone.

The CIA’s repeated failure to keep Congress fully and currently informed requires a shake-up in the Agency’s senior leadership. I am encouraged, therefore, that President-elect Obama has tapped Leon Panetta, a man with significant managerial and Washington experience — outside of the intelligence community — to be the next head of the CIA. I support Panetta’s nomination as part of what I hope will be the first step to clean up the agency and make it more accountable to Congress and therefore the American people. True, he is not part of the intelligence club. That is a positive. A fresh perspective is needed.

Baby Charity and her mother Roni were killed not because of a one-time human error. They died because of an intelligence bureaucracy where parts are broken and which thinks it can operate above the law. Without accountability, U.S. intelligence agencies cannot be trusted to protect our nation from harm or to operate in an ethical manner that will not embarrass our nation abroad or endanger American civil rights at home. Without accountability, U.S. intelligence agencies cannot be trusted with the significant authority they have been given to keep America safe and secure.

'Beware, we are coming!'

By Bob Unruh

Islamic rule 'from Alaska and Chile to South Africa'

Radical Muslims in Somalia are promising Islamic rule from Alaska and Chile to South Africa and from Japan to Russia, issuing the warning "Beware, we are coming," according to a media monitor

The Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, cites excerpts from television reports on the Somali terror organization Shabab al-Mujahideen that aired on Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya in recent weeks.

MEMRI monitors, translates and interprets media reports from the Middle East on critical issues including religion, terror and war.

The report said Islamic leaders spoke of their world plans in a pre-Christmas broadcast on the Middle East satellite channel Al-Jazeera.

See the incredible video on Islam that was banned in Detroit! "Obsession" shows you what they don't want you to see.

"We are defending ourselves against those who attacked us," Abu Mansour said in the report. "Once we succeed, we will fight to end oppression in other places in the world."

Added Ibrahim Al-Maqdasi, "We want to inform Bush and our rivals about our real intentions. We will establish Islamic rule from Alaska and Chile to South Africa, and from Japan to Russia. Beware, we are coming."

Somalia's move toward radical Islam has raised concern internationally. Officials in the U.S. fear American youth are being recruiting into jihad in the African nation and believe at least one already has carried out at suicide attack.

Said Mansour, "We welcome any Muslim from anywhere in the world who wants to join us. We will allow him to marry our daughters and share our crops. Many have died fighting for our cause, and others are here with us."

A separate Al-Jazeera report had a reporter describing the work of the Shabab Al-Mujahideen in Somalia, implementing Islamic Shariah law by reducing a Catholic church to rubble.

"We are a people chosen by Allah to spread the Islamic Shariah throughout Somalia," Hassan Ya'Qoub said in the report.

It cited three drug dealers who were sentenced to 40 lashes.

A report on Al-Arabiya TV shortly said Somali Islamists resemble al-Qaida "in everything, except for swearing allegiance to al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden."

An unidentified man said, "I'll tell you one thing. I'll put a bullet in the head of the infidels, and I'm ready to do it. Allah willing, the 'saved sect' will lie in wait for each and every dog the infidels bring. … We will put bullets in their heads."

On Al-Jazeera, Muqtar Robow, identified as a spokesman for Shabab al-Mujahideen, said his group intends "to implement Shariah completely – every single element of it."

"Our objectives, by the grace of God, are to see the return of the Islamic Caliphate, the last of which was the Ottoman empire that collapsed in the 1920s. We want to bring that system back and govern the world with God's law," he said.

Somalia has been in turmoil for decades, and the U.S. has contributed more than half a billion dollars in aid, mostly food, in recent years. The transitional government in recent months has begun to organize.

However, the report said Robow considers the new leaders as "war criminals."

"We urge them to just repent and seek forgiveness from the Lord, and then return to the people, take up their guns, and fight the enemy they brought into the country, because the enemy forces will not listen if we ask them to leave today," he said.