Watch: Former Al Qaeda Member Steps Forward With Disturbing Warning About The Next Attack

A former Al Qaeda member in Yemen turned CIA double agent warned the U.S. Tuesday night to be ready for a likely terror attack in the next two weeks.

Morten Storm told Megyn Kelly on Fox News, “I believe that within the next two weeks, we will have an attack.” He added: “The people who are on the run at the moment from ISIS in Europe are very desperate, and they know their time’s up, and they will need to do as much damage as possible.”

He explained to the Fox News host that an attack on American soil may not be the kind of coordinated strike with military-style weaponry seen in Paris on Friday night, given the security measures in place in the U.S. Rather, the former terrorist believes that lone wolf strikes, like those seen at Fort Hood and Chattanooga, are more likely, noting the easier access to firearms in the United States. “I…believe that copycats in America will do their best to do what their brothers have done in Europe,” he said.

Storm thought shopping malls and other soft targets would probably be places strikes would happen, as seen in Paris. “The terrorists want to scare and make people afraid to lead a normal life. What they do is terrorize them mentally, so they are too afraid to go outside,” he said. 

The former Islamic fighter pointed out that the Prophet Muhammad actually sanctioned the use of terror as a weapon, quoting him from the Hadith: “I have been made victorious by terror.” Storm added that “It is permissible [under Islam], if it serves the cause, to kill women, children and babies.”

“Is this radical Islam?” Kelly asked. 

“No this is in the book…this is Prophet Muhammad,” Storm replied. He then noted that the Quran instructs followers to “Fight them [the infidel] until there is no more Fitnah, disbeliever” so that “religion alone will be for Allah.”

“I don’t understand how we make peace with these people, as long as they believe in this,” Storm said.  

Do you think Storm is right? Please share your comments below. 

Something So Terrifying Was Just Found On A Boat Of ‘Migrants’ That Gov’t Tried To Hide It

A convicted terrorist with links to ISIS and Al Qaeda was caught trying to smuggle into Europe posing as an asylum seeker. Mehdi Ben Nasr, 38, arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa last month on a refugee boat that had set sail from Libya. 

The Telegraph reports that Mehdi was arrested in northern Italy in 2008 and sentenced to seven years in prison after he was found to be head of a terrorist cell with links to Al Qaeda. He was extradited to Tunisia following the conviction.

“Upon his arrest…police said they had seized poisons, remote explosive detonators and manuals on guerrilla warfare. He was captured then along with 13 Algerians and Tunisians across Europe as part of an anti-terrorism operation led by Italian authorities. Medhi’s seven-year sentence, based largely on 25 wiretaps, was confirmed by the Reggio Emilia appeal court in 2011,” the Independent reports.  

Mehdi returned to Italy on October 4 under the assumed name of Mohamed Ben Sar, with false identity papers to back up his claim. He told authorities that he wanted to travel to northern Europe to be with relatives. However, officials became suspicious after meeting with him over a three day period, and then fingerprint records revealed his true identity.

“During the arrest [last week], police found al-Qaeda manuals linked to the production of explosives and detonation devices. Just days before, he was heard giving advice and recommending contacts to a group of terrorists in Syria during an intercepted phone call,” according to the Telegraph. Among the intercepted calls was one made to terrorists in Damascus. 

“German channel n-tv claims the Italian government initially tried to hide the story to avoid ‘panic’ and ‘scare tactics.’ The news did not emerge until several days after Mehdi had been detained last week,” Breitbart reports

The Italian government deported the terrorist back to Tunisia, where he was handed over to authorities.

European government officials have feared that ISIS and other terrorist groups would use the refugee crisis to infiltrate their operatives into the continent. The BBC reported last spring that refugee boat operators in ISIS controlled areas must turn over up to half their earnings to the Islamic State, as well as smuggle fighters into Europe.

Watch: Al Qaeda Leader Al-Zawahiri Calls For New 9/11 Style Attacks And Cooperation With Islamic State

Al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri released a new 16-minute audio message on Sunday evening in which he called for new 9/11 style attacks against the United States and hailed the knife jihad that currently is rocking Israel. The message was titled “We Shall Unite To Liberate Jerusalem.”

The Lebanese news site Ya Libnan was the first to report on Zawahiri’s new audio message to Muslims all over the world. Zawahiri explained that the U.S. should pay for its support for Israel.

“Those who support Israel should pay in their blood and economy the price for supporting the crimes of Israel against Islam and Muslims,” Al-Zawahiri exclaimed while he urged his followers to follow the path of the terrorists who carried out the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and those who carried out the attacks in Madrid, Bali, London and Paris.

The Al Qaeda leader called upon Muslims everywhere to unite and to establish a Caliphate in the Levant (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel) and an Islamic state in Egypt. Muslims must liberate “Palestine” and face “American-European-Russian-Shiite-Alawite aggression, and stand in one line, from East Turkestan to Morocco, against the satanic alliance that attacks Islam, its nation, and its house,” Al-Zawahiri said.

Over the last few months, Al-Zawahiri has released a series of audio statements from his hideout. One of them dealt with Islamic State and its leader, Abu Baqr al-Baghdadi, who he criticized for establishing a Caliphate without consulting other Muslim leaders. The tone in his new statement was more reconciliatory toward Islamic State. Some even suggested that he now seeks cooperation with the radical jihadist group.

If reconciliation between Al-Qaeda and Islamic State should materialize, it would be another blow to efforts to stabilize the Middle East.

Is Instability The Goal Of U.S. Mideast Policy?

Donald Trump’s indictment of the Bush II administration for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks presents an opportunity for more of a bird’s eye view of American foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy that has killed many hundreds of thousands, maimed countless more, and laid waste to entire societies.

As Peter Beinart reminds us, when George W. Bush took office in January 2001, he and his closest national-security staff showed little interest in al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, despite alarms set off by the CIA and National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke. Al-Qaeda of course had attacked U.S. government assets in the decade before Bush became president. (Also see this.)

“But both Clarke and [CIA boss George] Tenet grew deeply frustrated by the way top Bush officials responded,” Beinart writes. “Clarke recounts that when he briefed [national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice about al-Qaeda, ‘her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before.’”

Repeated attempts to get Bush’s attention were frustrated despite accelerating indications that “Bin Laden [was] Determined to Strike the US.” Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.
But Bush and his top national-security aides were interested in other things. What things? Ballistic-missile defense, which Bush had promised in his campaign, and Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Let’s remember that the overthrow of Saddam, euphemistically dubbed “regime change,” was a U.S. goal at least since 1990. In 1991, Bush’s father, President George H. W. Bush, sent forces to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait, but he didn’t go in for the kill and send the military to Baghdad to topple Saddam’s government. Instead, Bush imposed a trade embargo on the Iraqi people, subjecting them to unspeakable hardship, a policy maintained by his successor, Bill Clinton. The deaths of half a million children — the result, among other things, of U.S. destruction of the sanitation and water infrastructure — constituted the price for regime change that Clinton’s UN ambassador, Madeleine Albright, infamously and coldly found “worth it.” (Clinton rewarded Albright by naming her secretary of state — something an enterprising reporter might want to ask Hillary Clinton about.) Bill Clinton also conducted regular bombing raids on Iraq in the name of maintaining no-fly zones. When will Clinton get his share of the responsibility for 9/11? (Another question for Hillary Clinton.)
So the Bush II administration had Iraq on its collective mind in the first eight months of its tenure not withstanding repeated warnings from its terrorism specialists that al-Qaeda was the likely immediate threat.
Beinart writes:

When that April [cabinet-level] meeting [demanded by Clarke] finally occurred, according to Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected that “I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.” Clarke responded that, “We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States.” To which Wolfowitz replied, “Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example.”

As soon as the 9/11 attacks occurred, the Bush administration’s eyes were on Iraq, and the intelligence agencies were ordered to get the proof. Detainees were even tortured to force them to implicate Saddam Hussein, and false stories about contact between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime were floated.

Can we make any sense of this fixation on Iraq? I think we can.

It begins to make sense when we realize that American neoconservatives, who include Wolfowitz and a host of people in the Bush Pentagon and State Department, have for years acted as a brain trust for the right-wing of Israel’s ruling elite (Likud). In that capacity, they issued papers, under the auspices of the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, expressing favor toward policies to destabilize the secular regimes in Iraq and Syria, as well as the governments in Lebanon (home of Hezbollah) and, ultimately, Iran — the Shia Crescent. (Hence the general demonization of Iran and the touting of the nonexistent nuclear threat.) These proposed policies would embody a change in strategy for Israel, from seeking a “comprehensive peace” with its neighbors to managing a balance of power. Those signing on to these papers, which were issued in the mid-1990s just as Benjamin Netanyahu was about to become Israel’s prime minister, were aware that, at least in the short run, radical Sunnis would profit from the destabilization and fill the vacuums created in Iraq and Syria. (The papers are here and here. The author is David Wurmser, who later worked in the Bush II administration for both Vice President Dick Cheney and John Bolton in the State Department. The “study group leader” who oversaw the preparation of the papers was Richard Pearle, a leading neoconservative intellectual.)
As the first of these papers stated, “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” The paper envisioned, bizarrely, King Hussein of Jordan extending his rule over Iraq, a move that the neocon brain trust expected to unite Iraq’s Sunnis and Shi’ites and cut Iran out of the picture. Note how well that worked out.
The second paper, in speaking of Syria but with Iraq in mind, stated, “The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance.” (Emphasis added.) Observe the hubris in assuming that chaos can be limited, that is, managed. (For more on these papers, see Dan Sanchez’s writings here and here.)
If this is not enough to make sense of an otherwise seemingly senseless U.S. policy in the Middle East, we may also mention an earlier paper, written in the early 1980s by Oded Yinon, a journalist who had been in Israel’s foreign ministry. This paper saw the Arab world as a “house of cards” ripe for “dissolution” by Israel and the United States:

Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue [sic] areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today….

Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.

Inter-Arab confrontation promoted by the United States and Israel — let’s recall here Israel’s medical care for al-Qaeda fighters — would suit expansionist Israelis who have no wish to deal justly with the Palestinians and the Occupied Territories The more dangerous the Middle East appears, the more Israeli leaders can count on the United States not to push for a fair settlement with the Palestinians. The American people, moreover, are likely to be more lenient toward Israel’s brutality if chaos prevails in the neighboring states. Chaos would also undercut Hezbollah, which repelled Israel’s last invasion of Lebanon, and Hamas, which refuses to disappear despite savage Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.

The success of radical Islamists in the wake of the destabilization of Iraq, Libya (home of Benghazi, a source of arms thanks to the CIA), and Syria came as no surprise to people in the know. Indeed, a 2012 Defense Information Agency report, widely circulated through the upper echelons of the U.S. government, noted that U.S. policies to “isolate the Syrian regime” — such as funneling arms indiscriminately to rebels — were enabling the emergence of a “Salafist principality” (i.e. an Islamic state), a development (the report said) that would be viewed favorably by the West and its regional allies. Since that time, U.S. policy in Syria, and Yemen (i.e., the backing of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war and starvation blockade), have worked to the advantage of al-Qaeda affiliates. Not coincidentally, in both cases the targets are interests that get support (in widely varying degrees) from Iran. This helps us understand why the Obama administration condemns Russian President Vladimir Putin for directing airstrikes against Islamists seeking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

As a recent Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, put it, “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” (Emphasis added.) Hence the suggestions, most notably from retired general and former CIA chief David Patraeus, that the U.S. government side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria — its “moderate” elements of course — against the Islamic State. (Nusra also opposes the Assad government.)

This is not to say that the neoconservative-Likud alliance is the only force driving U.S. policy. It is well known that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states (which are no threat to Israel) wish to throttle Iran, perhaps fearful that a U.S.-Iran detente could be in the offing. Regime change in Syria would suit the Saudis’ anti-Iran, anti-Shi’ite agenda, which is another reason why arms, money, and fighters have flowed so freely to the Sunni rebels in Syria. (If bona fide moderates there be among the rebels, their chief role has been as arms conduits to the jihadis.) The U.S. government, it hardly needs saying, does not wish to alienate its Arab allies, as long as their interests do not conflict with Israel’s.

Thus, we need not puzzle over a lethal and self-defeating U.S. policy that appears more aimed at Iran and its allies rather than at the radical jihadi network that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government should not be intervening in the Middle East at all, but working with Israel and corrupt Arab states in order to create an instability that serves Islamist interests is simply crazy.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Did Al-Qaeda Really Declare War On The Islamic State?

On Thursday evening, Israeli television network Channel Two’s security expert, Ronnie Daniel, reported on the stunning developments in Syria this week where Russia intervened to give a boost to the ailing regime of President Bashar Al-Assad. Daniel said that not only did Russian troops arrive in Syria to participate in the battle against Sunni opposition groups, but Iranian troops did as well.

Until now, regular troops of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps were not stationed in Syria, but rather advisors who were aligned with Shiite militias, such as Hezbollah and the Syrian Army.

A source in the Israeli Defense Ministry told Daniel that the Iranian troops will help Hezbollah’s forces in the northwest and southwest of Syria in the Al-Zabadani area along the Lebanese border and the northeast of the Golan Heights. Rebel forces such as Jabhat al-Nusra which already control most of the border area with Israel on the Golan Heights have repeatedly tried to push Assad’s army and Hezbollah out of the area of the Druse village Khader on the Golan Heights, but to no avail.

Control of the strategically important area along the Israeli border is contested by various groups fighting in Syria–but especially by Hezbollah, which wants to expand its front with Israel into Syria.

After Daniel’s report about the Iranian troops built up in Syria, Channel Two reported a second scoop when the Channel’s renowned Middle East expert, Ehud Yaari, said that Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri had called for cooperation with Islamic State in the war against the Russian and Iranian-backed Syrian dictator.

Yari showed a fragment taken from an Al Qaeda video with an audio message from Ayman al-Zawahiri that was released on Wednesday. In the audio message, Al-Zawahiri said that despite his rejection of the caliphate – that was declared by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi last year – he acknowledged that Islamic State has made an impact ‘despite their many mistakes.’

The al-Qaeda leader then stated that he was interested in “cooperation with ISIS in the war against the crusaders, the apostates, the Alawites (Assad belongs to the Alawite sect) and the Iranians in Syria” despite the fact that he didn’t recognize the Islamic caliphate of al-Baghdadi.

Yaari explained that a coalition of Al Qaeda branch Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State would be a game changer that would not only be dangerous to the Assad coalition but to Israel as well. Such a coalition would bring Islamic State on Israel’s border with Syria, he warned.

Ya’ari’s report totally contradicted other media reports about the same audio message that said the Al Qaeda leader had declared war on Islamic State. British and U.S. media omitted the fragment about al-Zawahiri’s proposal for cooperation with Islamic State.

Instead, they focused on the ‘irreconcilable divide’ between the two groups and highlighted the counter-terrorism experts’ hopes that the divide between the two organizations could be an opening to exploit.

Al-Zawahiri’s criticism of Islamic State and its leader al-Baghdadi was portrayed as a declaration of war; but in fact, the al-Qaeda leader only blasted the ISIS leader for establishing the caliphate without consulting with other Muslims.

ISIS was originally the Al Qaeda branch in Iraq but split from al-Zawahiri’s organization two years ago.