Al-Baghdadi faz seu "Call": Ghassan Kadi 27 dezembro de 2015 Em uma mensagem de áudio (publicado no link abaixo no Assafir diário libanês em 26 de dezembro de 2015), ISIS / ISIL / IS-Chefe, "Califa" Abou Bakr Al-Baghdadi dá um discurso bastante demorado 24 minutos. Metade da mensagem é dirigida aos muçulmanos, todos os muçulmanos, enquanto a outra metade é dirigido ao mundo; especialmente as nações que tomaram para si a lutar contra o Estado islâmico.
A abordagem não é sistêmica e salta de um "meio" para o outro, mas com uma chamada da linha de fundo para todos os muçulmanos a se unir a fim de lutar contra o que ele percebe como os inimigos do Islã.
"O mundo se uniu para lutar contra o Islã", argumenta ele, e isso era de se esperar. De qualquer maneira, os muçulmanos serão os vencedores, porque eles vão ser martirizado na batalha e se elevou ao céu, ou ganhar a batalha no terreno.
E quem são os inimigos do Islã em seu ponto de vista? Todas as nações que estão lutando o Estado Islâmico, incluindo a Arábia Saudita que se formou recentemente uma aliança militar contra o terrorismo. Al Baghdadi diz que a coalizão Arábia proposta se destina apenas a combater o Islã eo Estado Islâmico. Se seus objetivos eram para defender o Islã, ele estaria lutando na Síria ao lado do Estado islâmico e proteger os muçulmanos indefesos na Síria e na Palestina. Na menção da Palestina, ele se dirige a judeus e diz que eles não foram esquecidos nem perdoado. Eles vão em breve encontrar-se rodeado pelo Estado islâmico e eles vão ter para onde correr e se esconder.
Ele chama para a juventude saudita a se levantar contra seus governantes hereges, e para todos os muçulmanos a se juntar a ele e pegar em armas para a batalha que eles sabiam foi um dia que vem.
Ele faz menção direta da América, Europa e Rússia e promete-lhes retaliação.
O calendário deste discurso é estranho. Está relacionado com o assassinato de Zahran Alloush?
Alloush, o chefe do "Exército do Islã" foi a mão direita de Arábia Saudita, na Síria. Ele é o único que encenou o falso ataque com armas químicas em East Ghouta em julho de 2013. Ele é o filho de Bandar e dançou para músicas de seu mestre, mas ele também era altamente considerado e respeitado dentro do e-arquivo de classificação de todos os islamistas, porque ele era capaz de manter firmemente suas posições muito perto de Damasco e em um estágio não estava muito longe de entrar nela. Sua morte ao lado de muitos altos comandantes deixaram sua brigada em grande desordem, e mesmo que uma substituição pelo nome de Abou Humam Al-Bouweidani foi nomeado, já houve negociações em curso para limpar os lutadores para fora da área. Agora, é muito possível que Al-Baghdadi está tentando preencher esse vazio e para atrair exército de loyals de Alloush para dar-lhe a sua promessa de fidelidade.
Mas isso por si só não pode explicar totalmente a razão por trás a mensagem de Al-Baghdadi. Al-Baghdadi é claramente aproveitando o tempo dos eventos, a formação de diferentes coligações para lutar com ele, e tentar usá-los para se dar crédito, substância e validade religiosa.
Nas mentes de jovens muçulmanos que subscrevem a teoria de que o Islã é uma combinação de uma "espada e um livro", o conceito de perceber Jihad como uma luta armada não está longe de seus corações. Enquanto este é um enorme equívoco da verdadeira mensagem, não deixa de ser aceito como o que o Islã está destinado a ser. Neste contexto, as palavras de Al-Baghdadi cair sobre ouvidos receptivos. Muitos jovens estarão ouvindo suas palavras e se perguntando por que eles estão sentados em suas costas no conforto e segurança de suas casas quando seus irmãos e irmãs estão sendo abatidos por uma onda de infiéis internacionais?
Eles vão se sentir vergonha de si mesmos se não se levantar e lutar, e se eles não basta fazer isso por conta própria, em seguida, sua pressão dos colegas será tão grande e muitos deles não será capaz de resistir.
A maioria dos recrutamentos são feitos por pressão dos colegas, especialmente daqueles que são um pouco mais velhos e mais versados em retórica islâmica e são capazes de fornecer "prova" do Alcorão para o seu argumento e chamar para pegar em armas.
A chamada de Al-Baghdadi não é muito específico em tudo. Ele está chamando para todos os muçulmanos, onde quer que estejam, para fazer tudo o que podem para lutar pela causa. Isso inclui mini-ataques terroristas auto-planejado aqui e ali em todo o globo? A resposta óbvia é sim ou pelo menos por que não, porque Deus de acordo com ele, ordenou que os muçulmanos a lutar contra seus inimigos onde quer que encontrá-los, e até que o mundo inteiro está unido pelo Islã.
Suas palavras foram cuidadosamente escolhidos, e teologicamente falando, ele não disse nada em tudo que é contra o conceito de integrar o Islã.
Clérigos moderados vai achar que é muito difícil fazer quaisquer argumentos contra o discurso se e quando desafiado por seus seguidores. Sua incapacidade de refutar a sua mensagem será visto por alguns seriam recrutas como uma indicação de que Al-Baghdadi fala a verdade e deve ser seguido. Para muitos novos recrutas, isso vai soar como a "chamada" que eles estavam esperando.
O Al-Baghdadi "chamada", se ele é seguido por uma campanha de recrutamento enorme ou não, é um testemunho do fato de que mesmo o mais determinado dos que estão preparados para lutar contra o Estado islâmico ainda não despertaram para a enormidade sua ameaça.
O Estado Islâmico é muito mais do que uma organização de terroristas com um exército e campos de petróleo roubados. É uma ideologia, uma ideologia que se alimenta de uma religião, comumente realizada más interpretações de uma religião, com mais de um bilhão de potenciais recrutas em vista.
Ora aqui está a ironia. A Arábia Saudita tem sido baseada em wahhabismo, que por sua vez é fundada sobre essas interpretações erradas violentas do islamismo. Arábia Saudita alimentados com a ideologia que criou Al-Qaeda e, mais tarde, o Estado Islâmico, mas eles têm politicamente colidiu com os dois mais tarde.
O Estado Islâmico tem quebrado solto, e com a ajuda da Turquia, o seu comércio de petróleo está a gerar receitas suficientes por si para ser auto-suporte. O Estado Islâmico também tem quebrado a sua aliança com os EUA, embora os americanos são realmente temerário o suficiente para pensar que eles podem continuar a utilizá-las na luta contra Assad.
Mas mesmo que o exército do Estado Islâmico é derrotado, o seu comércio de petróleo colocar ao fim, Erdogan deu um soco e enviado para o canto impertinente e Arábia Saudita vai à falência e incapaz de financiar quaisquer mais fundos para o aumento dos jihadistas, o conceito de um Estado Islâmico semelhante a Al-Baghdadi de não se vai longe por tanto tempo quanto há muçulmanos que acreditam na versão violenta do Islã. Será somente uma questão de tempo antes que um novo Al-Baghdadi nasce e as tentativas de ressuscitar o sonho.
A visão simplista de que o Estado Islâmico foi suportado pelos sauditas e os norte-americanos e que ambos continuam a controlá-lo é apenas como indicado; simplista. Os jihadistas vai aceitar apoio de ninguém quando eles precisam, mas eles não são fantoches. Eles são muito bem doutrinado pessoas em uma missão. E a menos que eles são compreendidos por aquilo que são, o que eles acreditam e como tencionam atingir os seus objetivos, eles nunca será derrotado.
E enquanto alguns ocidentais sempre a mudar o nome do Estado Islâmico do ISIS para ISIL a IS e / ou o Estado Islâmico anteriormente conhecido como ISIS, o Estado islâmico não mudou seu nome em tudo, e continua a apodrecer ideologicamente sem oposição e pouco notados.
O entendimento mais próximo do Estado Islâmico do lado de fora do mundo muçulmano parece estar presente na Rússia. Se qualquer coisa, a derrubada do Su-24 tem quebrado as barreiras do politicamente correto entre Moscou e Ancara e Moscou agora está falando abertamente sobre e relatar o apoio da Turquia ao Estado islâmico. Moscou tem feito comentários semelhantes, mas muito mais sutis sobre o papel da Arábia Saudita.
When Qatar received its independence from Britain in 1971, its population was a meagre 100,000. Fifty years or so later, its population has ballooned to nearly 2.2 million, but only 275,000 are actual Qataris. The rest are not migrants, they are not going to be integrated in the population as fully fledged citizens, they are simply hired expats on contracts, performing different tasks, and when they finish their work, they return to their homes.
In the few centuries leading up to its independence, successive Qatari emirs have engaged in fierce battles with rulers of Bahrain and the Wahhabis of Najd (to become later on Saudi Arabia). The Al-Thani family took the throne by the mid nineteenth century, and they continue to do so today.
The peninsula that was marred by regional and tribal conflict was otherwise a quaint pearling centre until oil was discovered in the 1930’s.
When the British declared Qatar as a protectorate, a reciprocal deal was struck between the Qatari rulers and the British, in which Britain wanted to secure safe trade routes whilst the Qataris needed protection from their neighbours and rivals.
The new-found oil wealth might have reduced the need of those warring tribes to continue fighting over limited resources, but their rivalries and hatred towards each other did not go away. As a matter of fact, Qatar refused to join the United Arab Emirates and chose independence instead.
The seemingly united Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in reality a consortium of ancient enemies who were brought together by common fear over their wealth from would-be invaders. Certainly, over and above their fear of each other, they also fear Iran and this fear goes back to the days of the Shah and beyond, and it is much deeper than a sheer sectarian Sunni-Shiite hatred.
Security has always been a Qatari obsession, and it doesn’t take much research effort to read about the many military conflicts that the Qataris have had with their neighbours. It’s a long story of deception, treachery, distrust, invasions and pillaging. And what is interesting is to note that historically speaking, the Qatari rulers had no qualms seeking protection from friends afar against their local neighbours.
But why would a country, which has never been a true state in its own right till very recently, a so-called nation that has a population that is no bigger than that of a single district of Damascus, Aleppo or Baghdad, why would such a tiny insignificant entity want to be a regional leader? And why would it be so adamant about using Islamist Jihadists to destroy much older and bigger states like Iraq, Libya and Syria?
The more one looks into what Qatar is doing, the question of why it is doing so become less significant. The question changes from why is Qatar doing what it is doing to the question of what Qatar really is.
Qatar is not a nation. It does not have the foundations of a nation. Qatar is not even a state when it has the population of a municipality, and it is definitely not a regional leader.
Qatar ought to be seen for what it is. Qatar is simply a very big and rich company. It is not any different from Shell Oil or BP, with the single difference that it has a UN-given mandate that gives it a seat as a UN member and the legitimacy that comes with it, something that private corporations do not have.
This is on the political scene. On the military scene, Qatar is a much more sinister “company”. In this respect, it is not a Western partner, a colony, a vassal state, an agent state or an ally in strategic military alliance.
Qatar is simply an outpost, a precinct, but not for America as first comes to one’s mind.
The rise of Blackwater Security Company to prominence, a couple of decades ago, raised some eyebrows about the nature of future reliance of rich states on hired security. Qatar most certainly depends on the USA for its defence, just like historically it has depended on Britain. Strategically, it has reciprocated favours with the American “Big Brother” when it offered its soil as a base to launch the attacks on Saddam.
Geopolitically, Qatar has played a big role serving the interests of the same “Big Brother” in Syria. It spent billions on munitions to supply Al-Nusra Front, and other terrorist organizations within Syria. Speaking of Syria, one should not forget the huge role that Qatar played in Libya against Gaddafi.
In both Libya and Syria, the role of Qatar was not restricted to financing revolts, but Qatar has also contributed significantly to the propaganda campaign, using its elaborate Al-Jazeera network to ramp up public anger against both Gaddafi and Assad.
Al-Jazeera has gone to the extent of staging events in Hollywood style productions, creating backgrounds that are similar to iconic places in major Syrian towns and filming scenes of actors dressed up in Syrian Army uniforms performing massacres against civilians.
So once again, how and why would such a small “nation” be so adamant on destroying Syria?
And here’s another big question. America has a major ally in the Arabian Peninsula, and this ally is Saudi Arabia, so why does America need another major ally in the same region? Convenience can be an answer to some situations. For example, when the US needed a base on the ground to attack Iraq, it couldn’t have used Saudi soil (being Muslim holy ground) without angering the Muslim street to an extreme, so Qatar was a handy religiously-neutral ground. By why does the US need Qatar in the fight against Syria? And why would America continue to intimidate its Saudi friends by appeasing their Qatari rivals?
A closer analysis clearly shows that Saudi and Qatari policies in Syria have had many congruencies, but some stark differences as well. In Egypt, The Qataris supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi and the Saudis did not. In as much that they both sponsored all terrorist organizations, Saudi Arabia primarily backed the “Free Syria Army” (FSA), The Army of Islam and other minor organizations, whilst Qatar was the main backer of Al-Nusra Front and what later became ISIS.
The polarization of Qatar with Turkey forming an MB-based front against Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi-Salafist front became more obvious when Qatar absconded and refused to attend GCC meetings. Needless to say that the major leadership rival for Saudi Arabia is the Sunni Turkey, not the Shiite Iran.
What is least obvious behind the Turkish-backed support of Qatar is the silent partner; Israel. Now, after the downing of the Su-24, Erdogan wants to build a military base in Qatar. How odd indeed? Why does Turkey need a base in Qatar? And how would America allow having a non-American base in Qatar?
Perhaps the question becomes easier to answer if we ask it in a different manner; if we ask who is it that really needs a military base in Qatar? Again, the only non-Qatari party that would love to have a base in Qatar is none but Israel.
It is easy to allow imagination to fly and go astray, but given the American-Iranian nuclear deal, any Israeli attack on Iran needs a launch pad that is close enough to Tehran, and you cannot get much closer than Qatar. Is the proposed Turkish base in Qatar going to be a disguised Israeli base? This is not a far-fetched speculation.
The relationship between Qatar and Israel is weird, unique, and perhaps the first of its kind. Qatar is not hiring Israel for a fee per se. Israel is protecting the “company” of Qatar and using its UN state membership status to legitimize actions that can only be sanctioned by states; a new type of warfare that not even Blackwater is capable of doing.
Qatar is neither a nation nor a state. It is a major corporation like Haliburton. It has a UN-given guise of a state, but it is a corporation that seeks survival and in doing so, it has contracted its security to Israel. Strategically and geopolitically, Qatar is an extension of Israel in the Gulf, an Israeli outpost and precinct. Its aspirations for regional leadership are just a façade created to hide its actual substance and to mislead observers from what it really is.
A clan with 200,000 subjects who need 2 million foreign expats to look after them, ten expats for each national, in order to make sure that water and hospitals are running, there is food on the supermarket shelves, and teachers are there to teach their children, is not by any measure a regional leader, a self-respecting nation, let alone a nation. A tribe is perhaps a good description of Qatar, but the word “company” hits the nail on the head.
The Al-Thani clan, the owners of the “company” aka Qatar, have gone the full circle. They are back on the track of their treacherous predecessors who were prepared to sign off to the devil in order to guarantee their security. This is exactly what the current Qatari royals are doing with Israel, and the best protection Qatar can get from Israel is by covertly striking a deal with Israel in which Qatar is rendered a military Israeli outpost.
Every other action Qatar does that is not directly related to its security, is simply a cover up and a diversion.
The EU and the US still refuse to see a direct connection between the ideology of Islam and its military Daesh and al-Qaeda wings; neither the US, nor the EU has taken serious steps to prevent new Paris/San Bernardino-style attacks, Ghassan Kadi, The Vineyard of The Saker's columnist and expert on Middle Eastern affairs, told Sputnik.
A de-classified US Defense Intelligence Agency's 2012documentstated clearly that the Syrian uprising of 2011 was orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the Salafists and al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is not the first time when the Muslim Brotherhood has taken part in a regime change attempt: after the Egyptian revolution of January 2011 the Muslim Brothers had even come to power in Egypt.
Why has the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Sunni Islamist organization, become the headliner of the Arab Revolt in North Africa and the Levant?
"It's hard to give this question enough justice because it encompasses a multitude of areas and topics. Mubarak had been in power for over three decades and there was a huge level of dissatisfaction with his presidency at most levels of society; and not with the MB's alone. The secular youth, known then as the '25th of January movement' played the most substantial role in the initial revolt, and at that time, the MB's were nowhere to be seen. I continue to believe that up till that point in time, the revolt in Egypt was a genuine popular uprising. All of a sudden the MB's came in at a later stage and capitalized on an existing unrest and hijacked it to their advantage. They were organized, and they had been preparing for such an opportunity for decades," Ghassan Kadi, Syrian political analyst and expert on Middle Eastern affairs told Sputnik.
"The precedent that was created in Egypt became later on known as the 'Arab Spring' with the intention of using Islamists to destroy Syria," Kadi continued.
According to the expert, in the 1950s and 60s, Arab youth became very affected by Marxism and Maoism. Many Arab states were adopting socialist agendas and doctrines and going under the Soviet sphere of influence.
"The battle for the hearts and minds of Arab youth in general, and Muslim youth in specific, was first launched between the then secular pro-Soviet Egyptian President Nasser and the Islamist pro-American Saudi King Faisal," the Syrian expert emphasized.
Up until 1967 Nasser was extremely popular and Islamist ideology had no chance at all. However, Egypt's defeat in the 1967 June war with Israel was detrimental for Nasser's popularity.
Kadi pointed out that it was the time when Islamists came onto stage promising a "new direction" to restore the Levant's "former glory."
"The rise of the economic power of Saudi Arabia facilitated that process, and the West was very happy to see Arab/Muslim youth diverting away from Communism, until they realized that they can in fact be brethren in arms fighting together against the 'Infidel' Soviets in Afghanistan," the Syrian expert narrated.
Remarkably, the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood go back to the late 1920s, when the Brotherhood was founded by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna in Egypt. Incredible as it may seem, al-Banna and his followers had been enchanted by Western Nazi ideology. Furthermore, the Brotherhood closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the World War II. Why did Muslim Brothers embrace Western fascism in the 1930s?
"In the 1930s, and for fairness to al-Banna, no one in the Arab and Muslim worlds cared much about finding out about the true nature of Fascism. Hitler presented himself via Nazi propaganda to Arabs as a liberator and an enemy of the traditional British and French usurpers and colonialists. After all, propaganda was running high and the introduction of the radio at that time made it easy for different parties to put their messages across, and there was an Arabic radio station transmitting from Berlin to the Arab World. By then, Arabs had all the reasons not to believe anything the allies told them, after all, it was France and Britain who lied to the Arabs and did not grant them independence as they promised that they would be provided when they joined the fight against the Ottoman Turks," Kadi elaborated in the interview with Sputnik.
Al-Banna (third from left) with Aziz Ali al-Misri (fourth from right) and Egyptian, Palestinian and Algerian political and religious figures at a reception in Cairo, 1947.
Hitler's Nazi Germany had not been the only dubious ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. The transnational organization has certain ties with the infamous al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Experts note that the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, the Brotherhood's leading member and the so-called father of modern Islamist fundamentalism had had an influence on Osama Bin Laden. After Sayyid Qutb was executed in Egypt in 1966, his brother and follower Muhammad, fled to Saudi Arabia and taught as a professor of Islamic Studies at Jeddah's King Abdel-Aziz University. Reportedly, Osama bin Laden was one of his "star" students. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the architects of 9/11 terrorist attacks was also believed to be one of the Brotherhood's "pupils."
Do al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood's ideologies have much in common?
"The ideologies of the MB's and Al-Qaeda are identical. In this same basket, you can include the Wahhabis, the Salafis, and all other Islamist groups. And even though the Egyptian MB's did not have a history of violence like their say Syrian counterparts, members walk in and out of these organizations all the time, and in effect, there is no difference between them at all. After all, Ayman Zawahiri himself, the current leader of al-Qaeda, is a former Egyptian MB member," Kadi emphasized.
"All of those organizations are based on a distorted form of Islam that believes in coercion and enforcing the rule of Sharia over the entire globe. They may hate one another at times, they may fight over loots and political alliances to different sponsors, but ideologically-speaking, they are identical, although disagreeing at times on very insignificant theological and practice issues," the Syrian expert explained.
Why are European and American policymakers still in denial and refuse to recognize the threat posed by Islamists' ideology? The Muslim Brotherhood has not yet been designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU. Many Muslim Brothers are working in European reputable foundations and lecturing in Europe's numerous Mosques.
It was US Senator Ted Cruz who has eventuallyintroduced a billaimed at designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in November 2015. The legislation is currently being considered by American lawmakers.
Interestingly enough, back in 2007 America's influential Council of Foreign Relations' media outlet argued that the Muslim Brotherhood was"the world's oldest, largest, and most influential Islamist organization" had rejected global jihad and embraced "democracy."
"In the anxious and often fruitless search for Muslim moderates, policymakers should recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood presents a notable opportunity," Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke wrote in their article entitled "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood" for Foreign Affairs.
Ayman al-Zawahri, left, holds a press conference with Osama bin Laden in Khost, Afghanistan in 1998.
"The EU and the US are either refusing to see the ideological link between the religious wing (i.e. the MB's) and military wing (i.e. the terrorists), or they are trying to distance themselves from the terrorist organizations in the hope to use the MB's in the future," Kadi told Sputnik.
"However, the EU and the US do not see further than their noses and they have proven this time after time. For them to even imagine that they can have another go at harnessing Islamic fundamentalism is a proof of their short-sightedness and lack of ability to learn from previous mistakes," he added.
While playing with Islamism Europe and the United States make a big mistake. They do not take into consideration the possible outcomes of their socio-engineering experiments.
"Is America foolish enough to forget 9/11, and not clever enough to understand the underlying foundations needed to launch an attack like the San Bernardino attack?" the Syrian expert asked.
"I cannot see that the West has planned its interactions and the outcome of its support of different Islamic organizations and the states that support them in an intelligent manner at all. It has always been known that the state of Saudi Arabia has been right behind the rise of Islamist fundamentalism with the blessing of the United States. Turkey is finally emerging to be another such supporter and irrespective of how much Erdogan rejects the Russian accusations regarding his illegal oil trade with Daesh [IS/ISIL], the satellite photos are here for all to see and people are not stupid," Kadi told Sputnik.
"Apart from a few outcries from ultra-right wing European politicians, the Europeans have not yet taken any serious steps of preventing repeats of the Paris attacks, and if they continue to opt to play with fire, they will have to be prepared for the fruit of their action," the expert warned.