Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

El Mehdi Semlali Fahti: Muslim Illegal Alien Plots Terror Bomb Attack – Jeb Bush “Act of Love”

A very interesting post from www.debbieschlussel.com about a terrorist who attempted to use drones. This follows this post about New Jersey governor Chris Christie. This follows this post about a U.S. TV show that got canceled because of Muslim sharia. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more about what you can do to get more involved click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!




El Mehdi Semlali Fahti: Muslim Illegal Alien Plots Terror Bomb Attack – Jeb Bush “Act of Love”


By Debbie Schlussel
Hey, it’s yet another bomb plot “Act of Love” (according to Jeb Bush) by a Muslim illegal alien who came here on a student visa, stayed here and wasn’t deported b/c, hey, his lawbreaking is no biggie, and he deserves amnesty, right?
muslimgivingthefinger.jpgislamiccrescent

Shukran ["Thanks" in Arabic], Jeb Bush for Appreciating My Acts of Love Toward Great Satan America








In this case, El Mehdi Semlali Fahti, not only illegally overstayed his visa, but played the easily-gamed asylum claims system by lying to an immigration judge, claiming he would be subject to beatings if he was returned to his native Muslim Morocco. He also committed two more JebBushian “Acts of Love” when he was arrested twice–once in Virginia (for trespassing) and once in California (for theft); yup, he got around–without being arrested or deported by hamstrung Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
FBI officials say they’ve arrested a Moroccan national in Connecticut in an alleged plot to fly bombs on drone-like devices into a school and a federal building. Authorities say they arrested 27-year-old El Mehdi Semlali Fahti on Monday and found wires and tools in his Bridgeport apartment. The Connecticut Post first reported the arrest.
Fahti hasn’t been charged with terrorism, but authorities say that could come later in the investigation. He’s charged with immigration-related crimes for allegedly staying in the U.S. for seven years after his student visa expired after flunking out of Virginia International University. The FBI says Fahti targeted an out-of-state school and a federal building in Connecticut. The exact locations weren’t released.
More:
A Moroccan national who allegedly plotted to turn a radio-controlled model airplane into a drone-like flying bomb and crash it into a school and a Connecticut federal building was arrested Monday by FBI agents. Wires and tools were found in the High Ridge Drive apartment where El Mehdi Semlali Fahti, 27, had been living since January with an individual he met while incarcerated in Virginia, according to the FBI. It was not known if any explosives were found.
Fahti told an undercover agent in five recorded conversations that he studied the bomb attack operation for months, and had made a chemical bomb while in high school in Morocco, court documents charge. The recordings additionally claim he could obtain whatever else he needed for his plans in “Southern California on the border.” He said funding would come from “secret accounts” comprised of money-laundered cash and drug dealing profits, the FBI said
Like Jeb Bush said, an “Act of Love,” right?
If you like Jeb Bush’s “Acts of Love,” stay tuned for the menage-a-30-million orgy that comes with the amnesty he and the estab-you-in-the-back-lishment Repubs want along with their liberal Dem cronies.

Friday, March 8, 2013

The Coming King of the South

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the "King of the South" and the "Arab Spring" where sharia requires that women wear Burqas. Make sure this comes up while you celebrate "Women's History Month"! This follows this post about divorce and cohabitation.   For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

The Coming King of the South


 Bible prophecy keenly describes impending Middle East turmoil that will provoke an ominous, end time global crisis.


This is the Danube River running through Budapest, Hungary. Along its banks in the year 1526 the armies of the Ottoman Empire advanced in an attack upon central Europe. Their goal was conquest of lands for Islam.



It was not the first, nor the last attempt by a Middle Eastern power to push into these lands. Bible prophecy tells us there will be another in the future. Can we see how this may be developing through the current events in Europe and the Middle East? I think we can.



Join us on Beyond Today in Budapest as we look at "The Coming King of the South."



I recently traveled to Europe for a combined personal and business purpose. In Lisbon I heard news that the Eiffel Tower had been closed for a bomb threat. Now that gave me a bit of concern, as we were headed for Paris for a few days before traveling home. We were on the last leg of a two-week trip to Europe and looking forward to spending a few days in France's capital city, seeing some of its world famous sights.



A few days earlier, French police responded to a bomb threat by closing the symbol of the city. On the same day, a public transportation hub was closed when an unattended package was sighted.



At the same time the United States government issued a warning for Americans traveling to Europe to be vigilant. Intelligent forces had determined that al Qaeda was planning attacks on European cities similar to those done against Mumbai, India in November 2008. Hotels frequented by Westerners were invaded, and it took three days to repel the attackers.



While this warning contained nothing specific, it nonetheless gave me and my party a bit of concern and raised our level of what you might call situational awareness, a bit higher. While traveling in Paris and the environs the next few days, I did observe security personnel in the tourist locations, and I did keep a sharper eye out for anything suspicious.



Now why am I telling you this? Because terrorism is a worldwide concern and Europe is especially vulnerable. Also, Bible prophecy shows us a coming clash between two powers called the king of the North and the king of the South. Today we would interpret this as a clash between a power from the Middle East and from Europe.



Let me explain this a little bit more.



In Daniel chapter 11, it contains the longest prophecy in the Bible. It covers time from the period of Alexander the Great and the Greek Empire through the Roman period, down to our present day and into the years immediately ahead of us.



The first 35 verses of Daniel 11 are an accurate, detailed account of what would befall the people of Judah caught up in a conflict between the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt to the south, the king of the South, and the Seleucids of Syria to the north called the king of the North. The area that is covered by the king of the South also covers Egypt and related countries in North Africa.



Verse 36 continues the story line. Since verse 40 clearly advances the story to the time of the end, it may be that verses 36 to 39 apply to the whole history of the kingdom of the North from the time of the Maccabees and the beginnings of the New Testament Church, continuing up to the time of the end just as verse 35 appears to extend from ancient times all the way to the time of the end.



And who was the king of the North during this period? In 65 B.C., Seleucid Syria was swallowed up by the Roman Empire. Thus that Empire then became the kingdom of the North. Verses 36 to 38 appear to describe the actions of the Roman emperors and their successors, leading all the way up to the final leader of the end time.



Why the time gap in Daniel's prophecy between the ancient world and the world of today--a period of at least 2,000 years with only sparse details of events in between? Well the answer is simple: For almost 2,000 years there was no Jewish nation in the Middle East. The restoration of the Jewish state in 1948 has made the kings of the North and the South relevant again to impacting the Jewish people in the Holy Land.



We can now understand more clearly why the struggle between the kings of the North and the South resumes again at the time of the end there in Daniel 11:40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.



See All....



The verse continues to describe how "the king of the South shall attack him"--speaking of the king of the North--"and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships"--all which are symbols of military action--"and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them and pass through."



Clearly, at the time of the end another round of great turmoil will engulf the Middle East, only this time it will be far worse than anything ever seen before.



And again, the fulfillment of this prophecy would not have been possible until after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the division of those Arab territories that were a part of that into the various nations of the Middle East today.



Who might these terms refer to in our time--the time of the end? It's doubtful that they could once again apply only to Syria and to Egypt, as they are now brother Arab and Islamic nations. Also, while relatively strong by regional standards, neither currently has the military might to fulfill this prophecy.



As already noted, Rome swallowed up Syria and became the kingdom of the North thereafter. But did not Rome fall in ancient times? Well it did, but the Roman system has continued through the centuries and is today being revived as part of one final appearance before the return of Jesus Christ.



Part of the key to understanding this passage is to realize that the center of the prophecy is the Holy Land and Jerusalem, the historic land given to the children of Israel. The kings referred to are the powerful leaders who will come from regions to the north and south and vie for control of that area, trampling all over Judah in the process.



A century ago, no one could have understood many of the prophecies relating to this part of the world because the Ottoman Empire ruled over the places now occupied by the chief adversaries in the Mideast conflict. This fact helps us understand God's words to Daniel at the time of his prophetic book, where He said: "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end" (Daniel 12:9And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.



See All...). It would have been impossible for Daniel, living in the sixth century B.C., to have understood the astounding changes that would lead up to today's complex Middle East situation.



Just as the modern states of Israel, Egypt, Iraq and Syria did not exist a century ago, so at this time the final kings of the North and South have not emerged as yet. But the Bible does help us understand what to expect.



Historically, armies of both the North and the South have pushed back and forth at one another. In 732 A.D., Islamic armies advanced in what is modern France and were stopped by the Christian armies led by Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne. This effectively stopped Arab expansion into northern Europe, but it did not stop there.



In the twelfth century, Christian armies moved out of Europe during the Crusades with the intent of liberating the Holy Land from the Muslim control. This chapter of history is filled with many stories of intrigue and drama. Europe was successful only for a short time before being repulsed by the Muslims.



Once again, in the early sixteenth century, the armies of the Ottoman Empire swept up through Hungary, sacking Budapest and moved on Vienna in Austria. In 1529, the armies of the Holy Roman Empire successfully defended Europe and prevented Muslim domination. Another Ottoman attack in the 17th century was defeated, again at Vienna. Since then no Arab army has made any further attack.



Now, this story of the king of the South and the king of the North fits into a far larger picture. The Middle East is the focal point of so much Bible prophecy. Beginning with Abraham and his family, you can trace the development of families and tribes that make up the modern nations of the Middle East. Understanding the origins of the people and the culture helps one to understand the nature of the conflicts that impact the modern world today.



Our booklet, The Middle East in Bible Prophecy, explains this subject in a carefully laid out presentation. You can call right now toll free at 1-888-886-8632. Or go you can go online to BeyondToday.tv to order this booklet. There's no charge, it's free. We give it to you as a service.



And if you're on the social networks, go behind the scenes by joining us on Beyond Today Facebook page or by following us on Twitter. Go online. Leave us a comment or ask us a question. We might use it in a future program.



Now let's fast forward to today. What conditions could create another push or attack from the region of the king of the South? Well let's look at two.



First consider that more than half the world's proven supply of oil comes from the Middle East countries. The flow of oil from these nations is the lifeblood of our global economy. Sever these supply lines and regions like Europe will grind to a halt. Europe imports more than 60 percent of its oil from the Middle East. They need energy to sustain economic development and the high standard of living to which people are accustomed here.



The fear of war in the Middle East or political or religious upheaval is a constant concern that these energy supplies can be disrupted. The countries of the European Union carefully cultivate relations with the Gulf oil states to insure access to oil.



Now let's look at the matter of immigration, another possibility.



Recent events have highlighted a second possible cause for an attack or disruption leading to a reaction by the king of the North.



Muslim immigration to Europe over the past 40 years has resulted in large segments of the population that have not assimilated into Western culture. This has created a backlash that is growing and could lead to larger problems and leads me back to my earlier point about terrorism in Europe and its possible implications.



You see, there are possible threats to France, and Europe and other nations here. Tensions in major European countries like Holland, France and Germany highlight the problem of large Muslim population that does not mix with Western culture.



The French government has recently placed a ban on clothing worn by Muslim females. The ban pertains to the burqa , a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab , a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes. French courts have upheld the law, supported by the French public by a margin of four to one. Women will be fined if they break the law when it goes into effect. Many suspect that this law could provoke unrest, even an attack by Muslims or a terrorist group. France has about 3.5 million Muslims, or about six percent of their population.



Stratfor, an American based intelligence service, recently assessed the threat to Europe and the United States and concluded that further attacks are inevitable with the loss of innocent life. Their report stated, "The United States and Europe are going to be attacked by(the) jihadist terrorists from time to time, and innocent people are going to be killed, perhaps in the thousands again. There is a deeply embedded element within a small segment of the Islamic world that is prepared to conduct terror attacks, and this element will occasionally be successful."



The report concludes that, "...the United States and the West in general cannot focus all of its power on solving a problem that is beyond its power to solve. The long war against terrorism will not be the only war fought in the coming years. The threat of jihadism must be put in perspective and the effort aligned with what is effective. The world is a dangerous place, as they say, and jihadism is only one of the dangers." ("Terrorism, Vigilance and the Limits of War on Terror")



That's the end of the Stratfor quote.



This threat to Europe from radical Islam is not to be ignored. When, not if it happens, it will trigger a reaction from key nations that could set in motion what is sometimes called unintended consequences.



France is not the only nation with large Muslim populations that have not integrated into European culture.



Recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a speech addressing the problem of multiculturalism in Germany. Germany has had decades of immigration from Muslim countries. Contrary to expectations they did not blend into German culture. Some politicians are calling for policies that would force immigrants to assimilate into German culture.



Chancellor Merkel's comments were outspoken and highlighted what many feel. She said, "This is a country that brought guest workers to Germany in the 1960s…and for a while, we kidded ourselves into believing that they wouldn't stay and would leave. Naturally, the notion that we would become ‘multicultural,' that we would live next to one another and be happy about one another, failed." (Merkel Enters Immigration Fray, Wall Street Journal, October 18, 2010).



Quite a quote. You see the fear in Germany, as with other European countries, is the decline of the native birthrate and the rise of the immigrant birthrate. If the trend continues, in a few years immigrants, primarily Muslim immigrants, will outnumber native populations and dominate culture and politics. With 80 million population, Germany is Europe's largest nation, but it has a very low birth rate. Immigration and the growing Islamization of Germany is a serious issue of discussion.



The prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation tell of another global superpower to arise at the end of this age. We find further details of this end-time power in Revelation 17. Just as Daniel saw various beasts that represented the dominant powers to come, so the apostle John saw a vision of another beast that would dominate the world at the very time of the end.



The 10 horns referred to here, as an angel explained to John, represent 10 rulers who receive power for one hour--symbolic of a short time--with a single ruler who is also called "the beast" (Revelation 17:12-13 [12] And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

[13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.





See All...). Notice the time setting of these events: "These will make war with the Lamb"--who is the returning Jesus Christ--"and the Lamb will overcome them…"(verse 14). This prophecy, then, is for the future, and leads right into the return of Jesus Christ to this earth.



But these are not the only significant end-time players. A religious leader, symbolized as having two horns like a lamb but who speaks like a dragon, (Revelation 13:11And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.



See All...) will also play a very prominent role in this end-time union of nations. Jesus Christ is the true Lamb of God (John 1:29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.



See All..., 36; Revelation 5:8-9 [8] And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

[9] And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;





See All...; 19:7-9), so this religious leader apparently will claim to be Christian. But he is in reality of Satan, "the dragon who…deceives the whole world" (Revelation 12:9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.



See All...).



The beast referred to in Revelation 17 is a continuation of the four beasts of Daniel 7, as we saw earlier. Daniel, while in captivity in Babylon, recorded a vision of four great beasts (verse 3), gentile empires that would dominate the Middle East and have a major impact on the people of God. The empires were in chronological order, the Babylonian Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire.



Attempts to revive the Roman Empire are to succeed dramatically at the time of the end. At that time a successor empire is prophesied to restore the European unity that Rome first achieved more than 2,000 years ago. This empire is to lead right into Christ's return and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth (verses 9-14).



Since the fourth beast described in Daniel 7 exists at the time of Christ's return, and the same is true of the beast, John saw in Revelation 17, both then, both prophecies, speak of an end-time resurrection of the Roman Empire. This is the other key to understanding the prophecy: The kingdoms of the North and South concern successive powers. Rome took over Syria and Rome did indeed fall. But the Roman Empire has been revived in numerous forms over the centuries. And one final revival remains.



This final resurrection of the Roman Empire, like the original Empire, will be centered in Europe. It appears that it can be seen today in its embryonic form in the European Union. That's not to say that all current EU nations will be part of that final configuration, but those that choose to participate will combine to form a powerful military force that will involve itself in the Middle East.



This end-time king of the North spoken of in Daniel 11, then, appears to be the final ruler of the end-time, European-centered superpower, the same one called the beast in Revelation 17. It will retaliate when attacked by the king of the South and roll into the Middle East and center its attention on the land of Israel.



Notice what it says: "At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through. He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels."



Mentioned here are prominent nations like Egypt and Libya. Whatever the cause of this attack, the shut off of oil or an attack of terrorism, it will provoke a response that will seek to impose a solution on this troubled world region.



Egypt has been a sleeper nation since it negotiated a peace settlement with the State of Israel years ago. Other nations like Iraq and Iran have occupied center stage. Yet, this prophecy indicates Egypt will play some greater role that draws the attention of the king of the North.



Other regions mentioned in this prophecy correspond to the modern nations of Jordan and the State of Israel. When other prophecies are brought into this unfolding drama, we see the world will be aroused to action on an unprecedented scale. Daniel 12:1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.



See All... describes a time of world trouble unlike any previous age.



Armies will mass and move on Jerusalem in a climactic battle long foretold in the book of Revelation. We can read about it in Revelation 16. But before doing that let me pause and ask: What does this all mean to you?



There is much more for you to explore and our free magazine, The Good News fills that need. Each issue covers topics on prophecy, Christian living and biblical teaching. If you like what you see on Beyond Today , you will want to read The Good News .



We have a free subscription waiting for you when you call our toll free number: 1-888-886-8632. That's 1-888-886-8632. Or you can go online at BeyondToday.tv to order as well. The call is free and so is the magazine. We'll never charge you a subscription. You can't beat the offer.



While online you can follow us on Facebook and on Twitter. Leave us a comment or a question. We'd love to hear from you!



Now, let's go back to why this is important to you. You may be interested in Bible prophecy, but you still have a life to live with all of its challenges and opportunities. How does all this relate to you personally? What should you take from this for your daily life?



This is the part of Bible prophecy you need to understand. World events are moving to the conclusion of the age. Spiritual deception will cause many to not understand what is happening.



God wants you to understand the times you live in and where we are in His plan of salvation and the purpose.



Let's notice what is said in Revelation 16:



"Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, (and) out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty."



"Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame."



Spiritual deception is one of the signs of the end of the age. At the highest level, leaders and their nations will be moved to a great conflict in Israel. Diplomats will be unable to prevent the rapidly escalating crisis. No doubt there will be noble goals and motives stated as the reasons for these actions. People will be deceived into thinking they are preserving the global order, not realizing they are pawns in a greater spiritual struggle--one that has gone on for centuries.



The words of Christ in verse 16 are critical. He says to "watch…keep your garments." In biblical language garments mean righteous character. It means living a godly life in a world that makes that very difficult. We are to maintain a high level of spiritual discernment and righteous living. This will be the key to avoiding the spiritual deception of the age and understanding what is occurring.



To watch means to understand the times. It means to understand how to live in a world cut off from the knowledge of God. Your challenge, like mine, is to listen to what Christ tells us and live with an expectant hope of His salvation.



Bible prophecy describes a world headed towards a time of great tribulation. This verse we just read from Revelation speaks of the biblical battle of the great day of God almighty. Armies mass in the place of Megiddo in Israel and from this reference we take the term, Armageddon--commonly understood to be an age-ending battle.



What is important for you to take from this scripture is Christ's teaching to us to watch and be moved to action in our lives. Avoiding the deception that engulfs the world--a subject for another Beyond Today program--but that is a very critical issue for all of us.



Watching means several things. Christ wants to watch, us to watch, as we learn the lessons from the past. As you study Bible prophecy, you learn from nations and leaders of the past and how they related to God and His people. You see that God has a hand in history. This is often called the unseen hand in history and it opens new dimensions of understanding. Great empires and nations have come and gone through the centuries and many played key roles in God's unfolding plan for humanity. Seeing history through the dimension of prophecy makes the whole subject come alive.



To watch also means to understand current events and why the world is changing as it is. We're seeing shifts among global powers. Europe continues on its path toward greater unification and a larger role in world affairs. China is becoming a major player with great ambition among the nations. Its size and its needs are impacting daily life around the world. The nations of the Middle East are critical to the future stability and the world order. Religious fervor, massive energy supplies and the potential of nuclear armed nations in the region are a potent mix for problems. At the same time we see a shifting of power from the United States to these other regions. This too was prophesied in the Bible.



To watch also means to keep focused on the hope of the coming Kingdom of God. The conflict prophesied in the Bible, ends with the return of Jesus Christ to save all life from destruction. The world will not end in a nuclear winter. There is coming a better world with a better ruler.



This is the only hope this world has. It is the hope that should guide our daily lives and impact every decision we make. Christ said to pray Thy Kingdom come. Today we are to live by the teachings of the coming Kingdom. When we focus on God and His coming rule, we can avoid the global spiritual deception foretold in the Bible.



This is why a correct understanding of these events is so critical to you. It's why on Beyond Today we speak of what Bible prophecy has to say about today's world. Along with other biblical subjects, we provide a mix of what is important for you live a successful Godly life. It's what God wants you to understand.



Before closing today, let me again offer you a free subscription to the one publication that continues this discussion we are having. The Good News magazine is our way to give you additional information on all the topics we cover on Beyond Today . Articles on Bible prophecy, Christian living, marriage and personal development are featured regularly.



You can call: 1-888-886-8632 to request your free copy. That's 1-888-886-8632. Or go online to BeyondToday.tv to read or to request, the subscription is waiting for you there. There is no cost and it's a free publication given as a service.



The Middle East continues to produce events that impact our world. Energy from the region fuels the global economy. Religious fundamentalism creates tension in the region and in Europe. Bible prophecy shows us the Middle East will be the center of world attention in the years ahead.



While it is the region that has given rise to major world religions, it has also seen its share of conflict through the centuries. Bible prophecy shows one significant incident lies in the future. It will trigger the crisis at the close of the age.



Watch the Middle East. Watch Jerusalem. And watch for the coming of the Kingdom of God to bring a lasting peace to this world. This is your sure hope for the future.



For Beyond Today from Budapest, I'm Darris McNeely. Thanks for watching.

.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil

A very interesting post from http://www.stratfor.com/ analyzing the NATO attack on Pakistan. This follows this post about the affect that blocking the supply lines will have on the U.S. in Afghanistan. This follows this article about  American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!


A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil

December 1, 2011



By Nate Hughes



In the early hours of Nov. 26 on the Afghan-Pakistani border, what was almost certainly a flight of U.S. Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and an AC-130 gunship killed some two dozen Pakistani servicemen at two border outposts inside Pakistan. Details remain scarce, conflicting and disputed, but the incident was known to have taken place near the border of the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nangarhar and the Mohmand agency of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The death toll inflicted by the United States against Pakistani servicemen is unprecedented, and while U.S. commanders and NATO leaders have expressed regret over the incident, the reaction from Pakistan has been severe.





Claims and Interests



The initial Pakistani narrative of the incident describes an unprovoked and aggressive attack on well-established outposts more than a mile inside Pakistani territory — outposts known to the Americans and ones that representatives of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had visited in the past. The attack supposedly lasted for some two hours despite distressed communications from the outpost to the Pakistani military’s general headquarters in Rawalpindi.







(click here to enlarge image)

The United States was quick to acknowledge that Pakistani troops were probably killed by attack aircraft providing close air support to a joint U.S.-Afghan patrol near the Kunar border, and while U.S. Marine Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, promised a high-level investigation, the United States and NATO seemed to be more interested in smoothing relations with Islamabad than endorsing or correcting initial reports about the specifics of the attack.



What has ensued has been a classic media storm of accusations, counteraccusations, theories and specifics provided by unnamed sources that all serve to obscure the truth as much as they clarify it. Meanwhile, no matter what actually happened, aggressive spin campaigns have been launched to shape perceptions of the incident for myriad interests. Given the longstanding tensions between Washington and Islamabad as well as a record of cross-border incidents, stakeholders will believe exactly what they want to believe about the Nov. 26 incident, and even an official investigation will have little bearing on their entrenched views.





The Framework



While statements and accusations have often referenced NATO and the ISAF, it is U.S. forces that operate in this part of the country, and this close to the border the unit involved was likely operating under the aegis of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (the U.S. command in Afghanistan) rather than under the multinational ISAF. Indeed, many American allies have also expressed frustration over the incident, convinced that it undermines ISAF operations in Afghanistan.



Reports indicate that a U.S. special operations team (likely a platoon-sized element, but at least a 12-man detachment) accompanied by Afghan commandos (generally a seven-man squad accompanies a U.S. platoon, but 25- to 30-man platoons sometimes accompany 12-man U.S. teams) were involved in an engagement and called for close air support. It now seems clear that both sides opened fire at some point. At least one unidentified senior Pakistani defense official told The Washington Post that it had been the Pakistanis who fired first, opening up with mortars and machine guns after sending up an illumination round. However, most Pakistani sources continue to deny this.



Given that Washington has been trying to smooth over already tense relations with Islamabad, such an aggressive attack taking place without provocation seems unlikely. In any event, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operated by the CIA essentially have free rein in Pakistani airspace over the border area and are often used for targeted assassinations, meaning that the involvement of attack helicopters rather than UAVs does lend credence to the close air support claim. (The principle of hot pursuit, which is understood and often exercised by U.S. patrols along the border, might also have been applied.)





The Border



The “border” between Afghanistan and Pakistan in this area is part of the Durand Line agreed upon between the Afghan monarch and the colonial authority of British India in 1893. Not only is the border poorly marked, it also divides extraordinarily rugged terrain and essentially bisects the Pashtun population. And from the British perspective, the agreement was intended to establish a broad buffer between British and Russian interests in Central Asia by establishing a line along the distant, outer frontier of British India. British priorities had little to do with the day-to-day realities of a fixed linear boundary, and to this day the specific border exists primarily on paper.



The border is characterized by a string of outposts — often little more than prepared fighting positions and some crude shelters that are difficult to distinguish between military, government or civilian structures — manned by the paramilitary Frontier Corps on the Pakistani side. These positions presumably are selected for their tactical value in monitoring and dominating the border, and the troops occupying those positions invariably know the general location of the border before them. Similarly, U.S. special operations teams are well trained and practiced in land navigation at night, regularly conduct operations in the area and are there to patrol that very border. Both sides know full well their general positions relative to the border.





Reuters

A post-attack image of the Pakistani outpost involved in the Nov. 26 cross-border incidentThe point is that, whatever the specifics of the Nov. 26 incident, it appears largely consistent with and governed by the underlying tactical realities of the border. A small Pakistani outpost that perceives a threatening, armed entity will take advantage of its position and heavier weaponry in engaging the force rather than let it slip any closer — and this will be more true the smaller and more isolated the garrison. Under fire, a U.S. interdiction patrol (as distinct from a reconnaissance patrol, for which breaking contact is prescribed if feasible) will move quickly to advantageous terrain dictated by the direction of fire and the immediate geography around it, regardless of the border. If the situation dictates, the patrol may engage in hot pursuit across the border after being attacked.



The border is a highway for insurgents (both those who use Pakistan as a sanctuary for their fight in Afghanistan and those who are doing the reverse), other militants and supplies. That’s why the border outposts are manned and U.S.-Afghan teams conduct patrols — to interdict both types of insurgents. But it also means that there are plenty of armed formations moving around at night, and from the perspective of both a Pakistani outpost and a U.S. patrol, none of them is friendly.





Close Air Support



Pakistani forces have regularly shelled targets on the Afghan side of the border, and on a number of occasions U.S. forces have killed Pakistani troops — in firefights, with artillery, with UAVs and with attack helicopters. Indeed, standard U.S. operating procedures allow Pakistani troops and militants alike to know the probable American response in a given tactical scenario — including what it takes to get close air support called in.



Any dismounted American foot patrol that takes fire from both mortars and heavy machine guns is going to call for whatever fire support it can get. And given the frequency of incidents and the rugged terrain near the border, special operations teams operating near the border are likely to have a flight of Apaches close by ready to provide that support.



The forward-looking infrared sensor mounted on the nose of the AH-64 Apache is capable of remarkable resolution — sufficient to make out not only adult individuals but the shapes of weapons they may be carrying. But the history of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is also rife with incidents where aircrews, acting on the information available to them (and with the context of being called in to support friendly forces under fire), engaged targets only later to find that the activity or weaponry had not been as it appeared — a reporter with a long, telephoto lens on a camera rather than a rocket launcher or children picking up pinecones instead of insurgents emplacing an improvised explosive device.



Particularly on the border, the pilot and gunner are making the same distinction Pakistani outposts and American patrols are likely to make in the area: Armed individuals and groups not known to be friendly are probably hostile. The position of friendly forces will be communicated by the air controller in contact with the aircrew and also generally by infrared strobes or other means. Though the air controller will indicate the immediate threat, any non-friendly position could quickly be judged hostile. Any unit firing or maneuvering with what appears to be weaponry may quickly be deemed hostile in the exigency of the moment and the uncertainty of the environment based on limited information. And while ISAF has tightened its rules of engagement and added additional oversight for close air support in Afghanistan in response to domestic outrage over collateral damage, there is still going to be an enormous difference between the restraint exercised in, say, Marjah, where a population-centered counterinsurgency campaign is actively under way, and an isolated special operations patrol near the Pakistani border in an area known to be frequented by militants.





The Big Picture



In a way, the Afghan-Pakistani border is a microcosm of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. The U.S. patrols and the Pakistani outposts are there for entirely different and in some cases directly opposing reasons. The Pakistanis are spread thin in the FATA and are focusing their efforts on the Pakistani Taliban, which have their sights set on Islamabad. Not only are they less interested in confronting the Afghan Taliban as a matter of priority, but Pakistani national interest dictates maintaining a functional relationship with the Afghan Taliban as leverage in dealing with the United States and as a way to control Afghanistan as the United States and its allies begin to withdraw.



Hence, elements of the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate are actively engaged in supporting the Afghan Taliban and have in some cases come to see common cause with them — not only in supporting the Afghan Taliban but also in actively undermining U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and disrupting Pakistani cooperation with the United States. Indeed, the timing and magnitude of the Nov. 26 incident — which was entirely plausible under a number of scenarios — calls into question whether it may have been staged or intended to provoke the response it did. Some reports have indicated that the Taliban may have staged an initial attack intended to draw the Pakistani positions and the American patrol into a firefight with each other.



Whatever the case, factions that benefit from a greater division between Pakistan and the United States will be aided by the incident and subsequent public outcry — as will the Pakistani state, which is now holding its own cooperation hostage for better terms in its relationship with Washington.



Ultimately, however, there is a reason for the long, established history of cross-border incidents and skirmishes. The United States and Pakistan are playing very different games for very different ends on both sides of the border and in Afghanistan. They have different adversaries and are playing on different timetables. The alliance is one of necessity but hobbled by incompatibility, and near-term American imperatives in Afghanistan — lines of supply, political progress, counterterrorism efforts — clash directly with the long-term American interest in a strong Pakistani state able to manage its territory and keep its nuclear arsenal secure. The near-term demands Washington has made on Islamabad weaken the state and divide the country. Obviously, the Pakistani government intends to retain its strength and keep the country as unified as possible.



The reality is that as long as the political objectives that dictate U.S. and Pakistani military strategies and tactics are generally at odds, there will be tension and conflict. And as long as Pakistani and American forces are both patrolling a border that exists primarily on paper, they will be at odds. Tactically, this means armed groups with many divergent loyalties will be circling one another.





The Fallout



What actually happened early on Nov. 26 is increasingly irrelevant; it is merely a symptom of larger issues that remain unresolved, and the fallout has already taken shape. Pakistan is leveraging the incident for everything it can and is already demonstrating its displeasure (both for political leverage and to satisfy an enraged domestic populace) by doing the following:



Closing the crucial border crossings at Torkham near the Khyber Pass and Chaman to the south

Giving the CIA 15 days to vacate the Shamsi air base in Balochistan from which it conducts UAV operations (though Pakistani airspace reportedly remains open to such flights)

Reviewing its intelligence and military cooperation with the United States and NATO

Boycotting the upcoming Dec. 5 Bonn conference on Afghanistan, though there are some hints already that it may reconsider; it is difficult to imagine what a conference on Afghanistan without Pakistan might achieve, but Islamabad would face other risks in not attending such a conference.

The larger question is whether the calculus for an alliance of necessity between the United States and Pakistan still holds. As the American and allied withdrawal from Afghanistan accelerates, without a political understanding between Washington, Islamabad, Kabul and the Afghan Taliban, there is little prospect of American and Pakistani interests coming into any closer alignment. The United States and its allies are moving for the exits while the Pakistanis try to ensure optimal circumstances surrounding the withdrawal and at the same time ensure maximum leverage to manage whatever ends up being left behind. The two countries still have numerous incentives to continue cooperation, but all the ingredients for cross-border incidents and skirmishes — as well as the opportunity to stage, provoke and exploit those incidents and skirmishes — remain firmly in place.









Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report.



"A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil is republished with permission of STRATFOR."









Read more: A Deadly U.S. Attack on Pakistani Soil
STRATFOR

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Pakistan, Russia and the Threat to the Afghan War

A very interesting post from http://www.stratfor.com/ about the affect that blocking the supply lines will have on the U.S. in Afghanistan. This follows this post about the chance that Pakistanis might retaliate for the defensive airstrike on the border.  This follows this article about  American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!


Pakistan, Russia and the Threat to the Afghan War

November 30, 2011



By George Friedman



Days after the Pakistanis closed their borders to the passage of fuel and supplies for the NATO-led war effort in Afghanistan, for very different reasons the Russians threatened to close the alternative Russia-controlled Northern Distribution Network (NDN). The dual threats are significant even if they don’t materialize. If both routes are cut, supplying Western forces operating in Afghanistan becomes impossible. Simply raising the possibility of cutting supply lines forces NATO and the United States to recalculate their position in Afghanistan.



The possibility of insufficient lines of supply puts NATO’s current course in Afghanistan in even more jeopardy. It also could make Western troops more vulnerable by possibly requiring significant alterations to operations in a supply-constrained scenario. While the supply lines in Pakistan most likely will reopen eventually and the NDN likely will remain open, the gap between likely and certain is vast.





The Pakistani Outpost Attack



The Pakistani decision to close the border crossings at Torkham near the Khyber Pass and Chaman followed a U.S. attack on a Pakistani position inside Pakistan’s tribal areas near the Afghan border that killed some two-dozen Pakistani soldiers. The Pakistanis have been increasingly opposed to U.S. operations inside Pakistani territory. This most recent incident took an unprecedented toll, and triggered an extreme response. The precise circumstances of the attack are unclear, with details few, contradictory and disputed. The Pakistanis have insisted it was an unprovoked attack and a violation of their sovereign territory. In response, Islamabad closed the border to NATO; ordered the United States out of Shamsi air base in Balochistan, used by the CIA; and is reviewing military and intelligence cooperation with the United States and NATO.



The proximate reason for the reaction is obvious; the ultimate reason for the suspension also is relatively simple. The Pakistani government believes NATO, and the United States in particular, will fail to bring the war in Afghanistan to a successful conclusion. It follows that the United States and other NATO countries at some point will withdraw.



Some in Afghanistan have claimed that the United States has been defeated, but that is not the case. The United States may have failed to win the war, but it has not been defeated in the sense of being compelled to leave by superior force. It could remain there indefinitely, particular as the American public is not overly hostile to the war and is not generating substantial pressure to end operations. Nevertheless, if the war cannot be brought to some sort of conclusion, at some point Washington’s calculations or public pressure, or both, will shift and the United States and its allies will leave Afghanistan.



Given that eventual outcome, Pakistan must prepare to deal with the consequences. It has no qualms about the Taliban running Afghanistan and it certainly does not intend to continue to prosecute the United States’ war against the Taliban once its forces depart. To do so would intensify Taliban attacks on the Pakistani state, and could trigger an even more intense civil war in Pakistan. The Pakistanis have no interest in such an outcome even were the United States to remain in Afghanistan forever. Instead, given that a U.S. victory is implausible and its withdrawal inevitable and that Pakistan’s western border is with Afghanistan, Islamabad will have to live with — and possibly manage — the consequences of the re-emergence of a Taliban-dominated government.



Under these circumstances, it makes little sense for Pakistan to collaborate excessively with the United States, as this increases Pakistan’s domestic dangers and imperils its relationship with the Taliban. Pakistan was prepared to cooperate with the United States and NATO while the United States was in an aggressive and unpredictable phase. The Pakistanis could not risk more aggressive U.S. attacks on Pakistani territory at that point, and feared a U.S.-Indian entente. But the United States, while not leaving Afghanistan, has lost its appetite for a wider war and lacks the resources for one. It is therefore in Pakistan’s interest to reduce its collaboration with the United States in preparation for what it sees as the inevitable outcome. This will strengthen Pakistan’s relations with the Afghan Taliban and minimize the threat of internal Pakistani conflict.



Despite apologies by U.S. and NATO commanders, the Nov. 26 incident provided the Pakistanis the opportunity — and in their mind the necessity — of an exceptional response. The suspension of the supply line without any commitment to reopening it and the closure of the U.S. air base from which unmanned aerial vehicle operations were carried out (though Pakistani airspace reportedly remains open to operations) was useful to Pakistan. It allowed Islamabad to reposition itself as hostile to the United States because of American actions. It also allowed Islamabad to appear less pro-American, a powerful domestic political issue.



Pakistan has closed supply lines as a punitive measure before. Torkham was closed for 10 straight days in October 2010 in response to a U.S. airstrike that killed several Pakistani soldiers, and trucks at the southern Chaman crossing were “administratively delayed,” according to the Pakistanis. This time, however, Pakistan is signaling that matters are more serious. Uncertainty over these supply lines is what drove the United States to expend considerable political capital to arrange the alternative NDN.







(click here to enlarge image)



The NDN Alternative and BMD



This alternative depends on Russia. It transits Russian territory and airspace and much of the former Soviet sphere, stretching as far as the Baltic Sea — at great additional expense compared to the Pakistani supply route. This alternative is viable, as it would allow sufficient supplies to flow to support NATO operations. Indeed, over recent months it has become the primary line of supply, and reliance upon it is set to expand. At present, 48 percent of NATO supplies still go through Pakistan; 52 percent of NATO supplies come through NDN (non-lethal); 60 percent of all fuel comes through the NDN; and by the end of the year, the objective is for 75 percent of all non-lethal supplies to transit the NDN.



Separating the United States yields a different breakdown: Only 30 percent of U.S. supplies traverse Pakistan; 30 percent of U.S. supplies come in by air (some of it linked to the Karakoram-Torkham route, probably including the bulk of lethal weapons); and 40 percent of U.S. supplies come in from the NDN land route.



Therefore, Dmitri Rogozin’s threat that Russia might suspend these supply lines threatens the viability of all Western operations in Afghanistan. Rogozin, the Russian envoy to NATO, has been known to make extreme statements. But when he makes those statements, he makes them with the full knowledge and authorization of the Russian leadership. Though he is used to making statements that the leadership might want to back away from, it is not unusual for him to signal new directions in Russian policy. This means the U.S. and NATO militaries responsible for sustaining operations in Afghanistan cannot afford to dismiss the threat. No matter how small the probability, it places more than 100,000 U.S. and allied troops in a vulnerable position.



For the Russians, the issue is the development and deployment of U.S. ballistic missile defenses in Europe. The Russians oppose the deployment, arguing it represents a threat to the Russian nuclear deterrent and therefore threatens the nuclear balance. This was certainly the reason the Soviets opposed the initial Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. Carrying it forward to the 2010s, however, and the reasoning appears faulty. First, there is no nuclear balance at the moment, as there is no political foundation for nuclear war. Second, the U.S.-European BMD scheme is not designed to stop a massive launch of nuclear missiles such as the Russians could execute, but only the threat posed by a very small number of missiles such as might be launched from Iran. Finally, it is not clear that the system would work very well, though it has certainly proven far more capable than the turn-of-the-century predecessor systems.



Nevertheless, the Russians vehemently opposed the system, threatening to deploy Iskander short-range ballistic missiles and even tactical nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and other locations in response. The Russian concern is obviously real, but it is difficult to believe it is the nuclear balance they are concerned about. Rather, it is the geopolitical implications of placing BMD infrastructure in Central Europe.





Opposition to a Second Containment



Elements of the weapons, particularly radars and interceptors, are being deployed around the periphery of Russia — in Poland, Romania, Turkey and Israel. From the Russian point of view, the deployment of radars and other systems is a precursor to the deployment of other military capabilities. They are extremely valuable installations that must be protected. Troops therefore will be deployed along with air defenses, and so on. In other words, the deployment of the BMD infrastructure itself may have no practical impact on the Russians, but the indirect consequences would be to set the stage for more expansive military deployments. The Russians must assume this could entail a return to containment, the principle employed by the United States during the Cold War to limit Soviet power.



The Russians see the inclusion of other military forces at the locations of the interceptor and radar deployment as creating a belt of nations designed to contain Russia. Given the uncertain future of Europe and the increasing relative power of Russia in the region, the United States has an interest in making certain any disruption in Europe doesn’t give the Russians opportunities to extend their political influence. While the extent to which American planners chose the sites with the containment of Russia in mind isn’t clear, from the Russian point of view the motive doesn’t matter. Planning is done based on capability, not intent. Whatever the U.S. intent, the move opens the door for containment if and when U.S. policy planners notice the opportunity.



The Russians have threatened actions for years, and in the past few weeks they have become increasingly vocal on the subject of BMD and on threats. Rogozin obviously was ordered to seize on the vulnerability created by the Pakistani move and introduced the now-indispensible NDN as a point where the Russians could bring pressure, knowing it is the one move the United States cannot tolerate at the moment. Whether they intend to shut down the supply line is questionable. Doing so would cause a huge breach with the United States, and to this point the Russians have been relatively cautious in challenging fundamental U.S. interests. Moreover, the Russians are worried about any instability in Afghanistan that might threaten their sphere of influence in Central Asia. However, the Russians are serious about not permitting a new containment line to be created, and therefore may be shifting their own calculations.



It is a rule of war that secure strategic supply lines are the basis of warfare. If you cannot be certain of supplying your troops, it is necessary to redeploy to more favorable positions. The loss of supply lines at some point creates a vulnerability that in military history leads to the annihilation of forces. It is something that can be risked when major strategic interests require it, but it is a dangerous maneuver. The Russians are raising the possibility that U.S. forces could be isolated in Afghanistan. Supply lines into the landlocked country never have been under U.S. or NATO control. All supplies must come in through third countries (less than a third of American supplies come by air, and those mostly through Russian airspace), and their willingness to permit transit is the foundation of U.S. strategy.



The United States and NATO have been exposed as waging a war that depended on the willingness of first Pakistan and now increasingly Russia to permit the movement of supplies through their respective territories. Were they both to suspend that privilege, the United States would face the choice of going to war to seize supply lines — something well beyond U.S. conventional capacity at this time — or to concede the war. Anytime a force depends on the cooperation of parties not under its control to sustain its force, it is in danger.



The issue is not whether the threats are carried out. The issue is whether the strategic interest the United States has in Afghanistan justifies the risk that the Russians may not be bluffing and the Pakistanis will become even less reliable in allowing passage. In the event of strategic necessity, such risks can be taken. But the lower the strategic necessity, the less risk is tolerable. This does not change the strategic reality in Afghanistan. It simply makes that reality much clearer and the threats to that reality more serious. Washington, of course, hopes the Pakistanis will reconsider and that the Russians are simply blowing off steam. Hope, however, is not a strategy.







Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report.



"Pakistan, Russia and the Threat to the Afghan War is republished with permission of STRATFOR."









Read more: Pakistan, Russia and the Threat to the Afghan War
STRATFOR

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

NATO "braces for reprisals" from Pakistani-backed jihadists in retaliation for airstrike

A very interesting post from http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about the chance that Pakistanis might retaliate for the defensive airstrike on the border. This follows this previous post about the defensive airstrike against Pakistan. This follows this article about  American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

NATO "braces for reprisals" from Pakistani-backed jihadists in retaliation for airstrike


"This will come back at us, and at a time and a place of their [the ISI's] choosing."



"Nato braces for reprisals after deadly air strike on Pakistan border post," by Julian Borger and Saeed Shah for the Guardian, November 27:



"Nato braces for reprisals after deadly air strike on Pakistan border post," by Julian Borger and Saeed Shah for the Guardian, November 27.

Senior officers from the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), were scrambling to resume contacts with their Pakistani counterparts in the hopes of setting up a joint investigation into the incident.

But Pakistani officers severed communications and Islamabad cut Isaf's two supply routes running through Pakistan.

It also gave the US two weeks to vacate the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan, which has been used to launch American drone aircraft.

One Isaf source voiced concern that the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, could go much further and use its suspected influence over insurgent groups in the tribal areas along the Afghan border to launch reprisal attacks on Nato. "This will come back at us, and at a time and a place of their [the ISI's] choosing," the source predicted. In September the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said the ISI was using insurgent groups such as the Haqqani network to wage a "proxy war" in Afghanistan....Posted by Marisol