Syria Rebels Are The Same Salafi Extremists Attacking US Embassies
As Islamic militants of Saudi Arabia’s Salafi persuasion wage attacks on US embassies around the globe the alternative media is presented with a golden opportunity to point out that these are the same Islamic extremists the west is backing to overthrow the government of Syria.
Specifically, both the Syria rebels and the Islamic extremists launching attacks against western embassies are Salafi Jihadists.
Salafi Jihadists extend to include Al Qaeda and numerous other Islamic Jihad organizations.
These same Salafi Jihadists make up the rebel forces in Syria and conducted the attack on the US embassy in Libya and lynched the US Ambassador.
These Salafi extremists are now waging attacks on the embassies of the United States and its allies across the globe.
These Salafi Jihadist organizations are given different names depending on were they are located but regardless of the names they are given they are all subscribed to Saudi Arabia’s fundamentalist Salafi interpretation of Islam.
They are all controlled by Saudi Arabia’s religious leaders who also happen to be top-level Saudi government officials and they and do the bidding of Saudi controlled Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
The world-wide attack on western embassies finally present the opportunity to provide the public of these extremists and to finally give the public an accurate depiction of what Syria must deal with on a daily basis.
While the western mass media has categorically dismissed claims from the Syria government that they are fighting armed terrorist groups.
Despite those dismissals the public is now seeing with their own eyes the type of attacks these extremists are conducting against western targets.
These are the same type of attacks these Salafi Jihadists carry out in Syria except the attacks on Syria are much more brutal.
Informing the public that the west is backing the same extremists that are now attacking our embassies to attack Syria will play a key role in bringing them to the realization that the backing of these terrorists in Syria is not justified.
The attacks also highlight the dilemma Al Assad faces in dealing with Salafi Jihadists who are operating in Syria with the full backing of foreign influences.
Indeed Saudi Arabia and its satellite states, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, openly admit they are providing lethal aid, weapons and other financial assistance to the terrorists.
Meanwhile several western nations, including the U.S., the U.K., and France are openly admit to providing non-lethal aid as well as the use of their intelligence assets to help the terrorists conduct their attacks.
Given this context we now have the opportunity to present the public with an accurate depiction of the events in Syria by framing the narrative in a manner that juxtaposes the roles of the conflicting forces.
Imagine if the international community stepped in and demand that the United States stop protecting their embassies against the attacks being wages by these Salafi terrorists organizations.
As civilians are massacred in Syria, hospitals are blown up, police are murdered, military officials are attacked, Christians are being cleansed, government officials are being assassinated, military aircraft are being shot down and civilian airplanes are being targeted the west is demanding Assad stop defending his people against these attacks.
At the same time the west demands Assad stop defending himself the west fuels further attack through the lethal and non-lethal aid that is being provided to mercenary Salafi terrorists.
I will be adding detailed sources pertaining specifically to this article shortly.
In the mean time general sources about the Salafi Jihadists follow below.
Click here to read extremely detailed information on explaining how the Syria rebels are really hired Saudi Arabia’s Salafi extremists who are waging Jihad against Syria.
Hurriyet Daily News – The Salafi Jihadists In Syria
Syrian rebels: Too fragmented, unruly
There are more than 30 different rebel groups, including the most prominent rebel group, the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA), fighting in Syria, according to officials from the most prominent Syrian opposition group, the Syrian National Council (SNC).
The Jihadists, Islamists, pro-al-Qaida and secular groups that are not under the control of the FSA and which are fighting in different areas of Syria against the Syrian regime forces prove how fragmented and disorganized the Syrian rebel groups were in Syria.
According to the SNC media officer, Ahmad al-Halabi, there are more than 30 opposition groups fighting in Syria – of whom only 15 could be identified by Hürriyet Daily News research. “Fifty armed men come together and they form a rebel group. They generally give their groups names from the Quran or the names the towns and areas they are coming from,” Ahmad al-Halabi told the Daily News.
“Some groups such as the al-Tawhid and al-Fatah brigades consider themselves part of the FSA, however mostly they don’t listen to the orders of the regional leaders of the FSA,” he added.
“Nashar has met one rebel from Jabhat al-Nusra which is al-Qaida in Syria, another one from the al-Fatah Brigade and another one from the al-Tavhid Brigade in an effort to unite them,” another member of the SNC, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Daily News.
The SNC member said mainly Chechens, Libyans and a few Afghans were fighting on the fronts in Syria. “Most of them fight in Syria to be martyrs,” he added.
Source: Hurriyet Daily News
Institute of Police Studies – The Salafi Jihadist In Libya
From the Institute of Police Studies we get an overview of the Salafi Jihadist who worked as NATO’s foot solders to overthrow Gadaffi.
Many of the Islamic Salafi Jihadist organizations are now direct branches of the official Libya security forces.
Omar Ashour, Director of Middle East Graduate Studies, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, and Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Doha Center explains their role in overthrowing Gadaffi and details the group that was behind the attack on the US Embassy in Libya and the lying of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in his article Libya’s Jihadist Minority:
Salafi jihadism is not an organization, but an ideological trend based on the core belief that armed tactics of all kinds are the most effective – and, in some versions, the most legitimate – method of bringing about social and political change.
Last year, its adherents did play an important role in the removal of Libya’s brutal dictator, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi. Many subsequently matured politically, revised their worldview, and shifted from armed to unarmed activism, forming political parties and contesting elections.
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, for example, has produced two main political parties. Al Watan (The Homeland) is led by former LIFG and Tripoli Military Council commander Abd al-Hakim Belhaj. The other, Al Umma al-Wasat (The Central Nation), is led by Sami al-Saadi, the group’s former chief ideologist, and Abd al-Wahad Qaid, an LIFG military commander and the brother of the deceased Al Qaeda commander Hasan Qaid (Abu Yahya al-Libi). Both parties fared poorly in the election in July of a new General National Congress, with only Qaid winning a seat. Indeed, the GNC elections were in many ways a defeat for Libya’s non-violent Salafi parties(such as Al Asala), as well as for the post-jihadists.
Other armed Islamist formations, including Salafi groups, accepted integration into Libya’s new state institutions, such as the Supreme Security Committee (interior ministry) and the Libyan Shield Force (defense ministry). The National Guard, headed by the former LIFG deputy leader, Khaled al-Sharif, absorbed more than 30 brigades, mostly from the west and southwest.
But several armed formations, such as Ansar al-Shariah and the Imprisoned Sheikh Omar Abd al-Rahman Brigades, still reject the transition to party politics and integration into state institutions. These organizations are numerous, but small. Some were not invited – or given sufficient incentive – to join official bodies.
PBS on The Salafist Movement And Their Attack On The US Embassy
PBS Frontline notes:
The Salafist Movement
An examination of the ideology that has inspired the global jihad and the emergence of its most dangerous incarnation.
When Gilles Kepel was researching a book about the origins of the global jihad movement back in the 1980s, he recalls rarely coming across Muslim fundamentalists known as “Salafists” living in Europe. “The ones who were prevalent … were totally apolitical and they didn’t deliver theoretically or in terms of doctrine,” he says.
Salafism is an ideology that posits that Islam has strayed from its origins. The word “salaf” is Arabic for “ancient one” and refers to the companions of the Prophet Mohammed. Arguing that the faith has become decadent over the centuries, Salafists call for the restoration of authentic Islam as expressed by an adherence to its original teachings and texts. “Salafists originally are supposedly not violent,” Kepel explains. “They are not advocating the revolt against one who holds power, against the powers that be. They are calling for re-Islamization at the daily level.”
By the mid-’90s, Kepel saw an alarming change among Europe’s Muslims. Increasingly he was coming across Salafists who had embraced jihad — in other words, who felt violence and terrorism were justified to realize their political objectives. Kepel explains that when Salafists, who tend to be alienated from mainstream European society, meet and mingle with jihadists, it fuses into a volatile mixture. “When you’re in the state of such alienation you become easy prey to the jihadi guys who will feed you more savory propaganda than the old propaganda of the Salafists who tell you to pray, fast and who are not taking action,” he says. “And this is why the [Islamist terrorists] who had been arrested were often good Salafists in the beginning.”
Kepel labeled these Muslim fundamentalists “Salafist jihadists”, a term that he extends to include the followers of Al Qaeda. Salafist jihadists are now a burgeoning presence in Europe, having attempted more than 30 terrorist attacks among E.U. countries since 2001.
While European counterterrorism experts recognize that Salafist jihadism is an ideological movement with deep religious and historical roots, they feel that their counterparts at the FBI and American intelligence agencies don’t share this understanding. “I began using the word Salafi and Salafists in 1997 in meetings in Washington and nobody raised the word and asked what does it mean,” says Xavier Raufer, a Paris-based expert on Islamic terrorism who has close ties to France’s intelligence community. “And I used it and wrote it many times, and the first response they had was when Ahmed Ressam [who planned to attack Los Angeles International airport] was arrested in 1999. I had a friend in Washington who called me and said, ‘What is that word you were using, “Salafist?”‘ They didn’t know that such a thing existed.”
PBS – Salafist Asserting Power In US Embassy Attacks
Read Entire Article
The there is the recent report on the Salafist looking to assert their power by attacking the US embassy.
Libyan Salafists Assert Power with Embassy Attacks, Hoping to Catch Public Eye
Since Libya established a secular democracy, conservative Muslims in Libya known as Salafists have felt disenfranchised. Gwen Ifil speaks to Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and journalist Robin Wright about the link between Salafi Muslims and the latest attacks in the Middle East.
GWEN IFILL: For more on the developments of the last 24 hours, I’m joined now by two people with deep experience in Libya.
Robin Wright is a journalist and author who knew Ambassador Stevens personally and has reported extensively from Libya and the wider Middle East.
And Frederic Wehrey is a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Robin Wright, tell us about Ambassador Stevens.
ROBIN WRIGHT, journalist: Chris was an extraordinary envoy, in that he understood the streets as well as the elites.
He spoke the language. He understood the culture. And he had seen Libya through — all through three of its phases. He spent two years as the number two during Moammar Gadhafi’s rule at the American Embassy. And then he was — he spent a year during the transition as the liaison to the Transitional National Council in Libya based in Benghazi.
And then he returned to establish the American Embassy in the post-Gadhafi era. And he really was tremendously thoughtful.
He was willing to get out, even facing the extraordinary dangers of a country with 300 militias, going through a fragile transition, and trying to kind of change a country that had been the nemesis for the United States for 40 years into an ally.
GWEN IFILL: Frederic Wehrey, based on your experience on the ground in Libya and in Benghazi in particular, did any of this surprise you? Did it seem unusual? The latest reports we’re hearing is that this attack was actually planned.
FREDERIC WEHREY, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace: Tragically, I think there were a lot of indicators that this was coming.
What you had was, since the July 7 elections in Libya, security really declined, especially in Benghazi.
And this was really unnoticed by a lot of Western press. You had almost daily incidents of car bombings, attacks on Gadhafi officials, rocket attacks on Western icons like the Red Cross, and in May, an attack on a consulate in Benghazi.
So, this wasn’t the first of its kind. This is really a problem of the weakness of the government and the weakness of the police forces throughout the country.
GWEN IFILL: But one of the things we have been hearing, to the extent we have been hearing anything from Libya, is how welcoming Libyans were and how — even Ambassador Stevens had been quoted saying how much better things had gotten. Was he misguided, or were we?
ROBIN WRIGHT: Well, I think the majority of Libyans are overwhelmingly welcoming of the United States and the role of NATO in facilitating the transition to post-Gadhafi rule.
But as you saw in Egypt as well, there are a small group of extremists, hard-liners, ultra-conservatives of different ilks who are sensitive about the role of the United States, in the case of Egypt inflamed by a film about the Prophet Mohammad, that play into passions.
It may also be that you have an al-Qaida affiliate involved in some way in the Libyan attack. We don’t know, but there are early indications that what happened in Benghazi and in Cairo may actually have slightly different causes.
GWEN IFILL: There may have been a retaliatory effect, we think, perhaps. There are so many versions of what may have been the spark.
FREDERIC WEHREY: Absolutely.
And I think — just to echo, I think Libyans, culturally, temperamentally, historically, are not predisposed to support this sort of violent radical Islamism that is motivating these attacks.
In many of the previous instances of violence, you have seen Libyans mobilize in protests or on social media against the violence.
And, as Robin mentioned, this is a country that is still very grateful to the West for the intervention that toppled Gadhafi.
GWEN IFILL: What do we know, Robin, about this video, this film, whatever, however you choose to describe it, that was posted some time ago online and suddenly caught fire this week?
ROBIN WRIGHT: Very little.
There have been different reports in the first 24 hours about who may have been behind it different sources, people from different parts of the world, different religions. And it’s kind of dangerous to get into that turf until we really know more about where it came from.
But it did portray, an excerpt from it that was put on YouTube, actions by the Prophet Mohammad that people in the region felt were sensitive, in the same way that people of other — Christians might feel about the portrayal of Jesus in — controversial.
This is a sensitive issue for people of all faiths. And Muslims at this particular juncture, so sensitive about the roles and tensions of the outside world in countries as they are reclaiming control of their own faith — and fate, political fate, you know, can trigger exceptional or extraordinary responses, but, again, by a tiny minority.
When you look at Egypt, 2,000 people in a country with 85 million people, that’s almost infinitesimally, but it happened on 9/11 and it was something that echoed the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979.
So, it clearly inflames us as well. And it’s — the tragedy is that this is a very small minority of people I think in both countries.
GWEN IFILL: Tell me about the Salafi Muslims. What role do we think they may have played? They have been stirring up some of this?
FREDERIC WEHREY: Well, they have certainly been behind a lot of the attacks in Libya against Sufism, which is a variant of Islam that they regard as heretical.
They have attacked other Western targets.
My reading of the Salafis in Libya is that they’re such a marginal minority, and Libyans are really predisposed to a more moderate interpretation — and we saw this in the elections — that the Salafis are grasping at relevance and they’re trying to rattle their sabers. They’re trying to muscle their way to prominence through this violence.
And this is not the strategy of a movement that has grassroots support or a winning movement. So again they’re a fringe movement. That said, they can still cause violence. They can still play a spoiler role. And, importantly, they’re highlighting the weakness of the government.
And what you’re seeing is a lot of Libyans, they’re mad at the Salafis for this attack and for other violence, but they’re turning their anger toward the government and they’re saying, why aren’t you providing security?
GWEN IFILL: One of the interesting things is the difference between the reaction in Egypt and the reaction in Libya.
The Libyan government came out. We heard the prime minister denounce this, the U.S. ambassador from Libya to the U.S. also denouncing it. We haven’t gotten the same response in Egypt for the breach of the U.S. Embassy there.
ROBIN WRIGHT: Yes, it was very striking, the different responses in Tripoli and in Cairo.
And I think that was a subtheme of the remarks by both the secretary of state and the president today, acknowledging the immediate and heavy-hearted response by the Libyan government, the role that the Libyan security forces played in trying to fight back those who were mobbing the consulate in Benghazi, and then trying to save Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues.
And by the absence of words about Egypt, it was almost as if saying, and where were you?
And I think this is a tragic moment, the timing of this, not just because of 9/11, but also because both of these countries need U.S., in the case of Libya, technological help, and Egypt financial help to deal with the issues that triggered the uprisings in the first place.
And you just had 100 top-level executives from American corporations in Cairo to talk about private investment, helping create jobs, which is what really is so critical in stabilization. And these kinds of attacks in Cairo and Benghazi undermine American faith, business or diplomatic, in the future of these countries.
GWEN IFILL: I think most Americans looked back at the Arab spring and think, good, done, that’s all taken care of.
But, instead, I wonder if both of these events happening within 24 hours in two different capitals should be sending us some sort of warning signal, something that the U.S. should be aware of, on alert for.
FREDERIC WEHREY: Well, certainly, I think it’s an indication that revolutions are a long-term process, and the initial victors can sometimes lose out to more radical actors.
And I think, importantly, the international community shouldn’t disengage from these countries, and especially in Libya. The country is grateful for our assistance, but they also need more assistance in building representative institutions and especially building their security forces.
ROBIN WRIGHT: Chris’ message would have been, do not waver. That’s the one thing he would have wanted more than anything, that this commitment to try to help stabilize fragile democracies is really what he had devoted his life to.
And that — the challenge now is to instill the rule of law and help them, not only find those who perpetrated, but to bring them to justice in fair trials, and to be a contrast to, for example, the execution of Moammar Gadhafi, but to put them in on trial in ways that reflect that these are new democracies committed to the principles of law and order.
GWEN IFILL: That’s what we will be watching for next.
Robin Wright, Frederic Wehrey, thank you both very much.
FREDERIC WEHREY: Thank you.