ISIS Eyes Nuclear-armed Pakistan

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

Pakistan’s use of Islamic militancy as an instrument of its foreign policy, including knowingly playing host to Osama bin Laden, may now pose a looming threat to its own national security.

According to Pakistani sources, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is gaining strength in Pakistan. Altaf Hussain, the founder and leader of Muttahida Quami Movement, a Pakistani political party representing the Urdu-speaking community, said the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Al-Qaeda are merging with ISIS and may challenge Pakistan’s integrity and stability.

Six prominent members of the Pakistan Taliban have turned their allegiance away from Afghan Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Omar to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Five regional Taliban commanders also affirmed their support for al-Baghdadi, who, in June, declared himself the Caliph of the Muslim world and ordered all Muslims to pledge their allegiance to him. Al-Baghdadi’s success has been largely attributed to his ability to consolidate disparate militant factions into a single fighting force.

The October 23, 2014 killing of eight Shia Muslims in the southwestern city of Quetta suggests that ISIS may be having an influence on indigenous Sunni militants in Pakistan. Abdul Khaliq Hazara, leader of the Shia Hazara Muslim community, said: “There are indications of ISIS seeking to expand its presence in Baluchistan. I suppose ISIS are [sic] looking to build up a support base here along the border with Iran, to add pressure on Iran from its eastern border [along Pakistan].”

Pakistan remains a central node in global terrorism. For forty years, Pakistan has been backing Islamic extremist groups as part of its expansionist foreign policy in Afghanistan and Central Asia and its efforts to maintain equilibrium with India. As early as the 1950s, Pakistan began inserting Islamists associated with a Pakistan-based Jamaat-e-Islami into Afghanistan.

Strategically, Pakistan may present the greatest threat to Afghan independence and the success of American policy in the region. Pakistan views Afghanistan as a client state, a security buffer against what they consider potential Indian encirclement and as a springboard to extend their own influence into the resource-rich area of Central Asia. In 1974, then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto set up a cell within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to begin managing dissident Islamists in Afghanistan. Pakistani President Zia ul-Haq (1977-1988) told one of his generals: “Afghanistan must be made to boil at the right temperature.”

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, Pakistan backed Pashtun Islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who struggled with his main rival (Ahmad Shah Massoud, an ethnic Tajik from the Panjshir Valley of Afghanistan, later assassinated by al-Qaeda two days before the 9/11 attacks.)

In 1994, under Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan shifted its support from Hekmatyar to the Taliban, who by 1998 had consolidated their power over most of Afghanistan and provided a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Without doubt, Pakistan and its intelligence service have more influence over the Taliban than any other country. It provides critical safe haven and sanctuary to the groups’ leadership, advice on military and diplomatic issues, and assistance with fundraising. In 1999, Bhutto’s Minister of Interior, Nasrullah Babar, admitted it quite explicitly, pronouncing, “We created the Taliban.”

Pakistan has been playing a double game with the US appeasement on the outside, whilst covertly funding, arming, and training the Taliban in the hope that after a coalition defeat and withdrawal, they could once again be the dominant power in Afghanistan.

It is important to note that Turkey’s current situation resembles the early years of Pakistan’s sponsorship of the Taliban. ISIS is recruiting militants in Turkey. Failure to clean its own house now could lead Turkey down the path of “Pakistanization,” whereby a resident jihadist infrastructure causes Sunni extremism to ingrain itself deeply within the fabric of society. Like Pakistan, Turkey’s dilemma may be far graver than its leaders realize.

The conclusion is clear. Unless ISIS is defeated now in Syria and Iraq, it will present a far greater threat to US national security as it grows in strength, geographic presence, and access to weapons of mass destruction.

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Watch: Proof That Hamas Is Alive And Well In The U.S. And Could Be Planning Their Next Attack

Screen shot from clip

Warning: Clip contains rough language, threats of murder

To get the proper context before reading the rest of this article, please take a look at the above clip of a recent pro-Hamas demonstration in Miami.

A Brit in London was arrested recently for quoting Churchill on the subject of Islam.  American Christians are threatened and sanctioned for quoting the Bible on the subject of homosexuality.  Hamas supporters can threaten to kill American citizens, and there are no police in sight.

Years ago I met a remarkable man from Lebanon.  He grew up in Beirut with Arab youth.  He spoke Arabic.  He eventually became a pastor, and he had a stern warning for the West.  Jihad is an obligation, and Jihad is coming to the West.  He told me 30 years ago terrorist attacks would escalate.  He tried to warn the State Department.  No one would listen, that is, until 9/11.

He foretold the infiltration of America, noting that Hezbollah fighters years ago were marrying American hookers to acquire citizenship, take up residence, and plan.  We have Jihadist sleepers in great numbers throughout the U.S.

The Fort Hood shooter should have been a wakeup call to the snoozers seduced by political correctness.

And we have read much about the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of the Obama administration.

The number of Muslims coming to America has doubled in the last 20 years.  We used to see about 50,000 Muslim immigrants per year.  Now, 100,000 come here to live as citizens every year.  Given the birth rate in Muslim communities, which is much higher than the average in the U.S., the Muslim community is growing even more rapidly.

Today, there are about three million Muslims in America, and by far, most are peace-loving citizens, but according to my friend from Lebanon, and the polling data, a substantial number are sympathetic to Jihad, and remain under an obligation to cooperate with Jihad.  According to reliable studies, about 10% of the Muslim population worldwide is radicalized. (Some argue they are not radicalized at all, only fundamentalists, ones who insist they practice pure Islam.)  This means there are now about 300,000 Muslims in America poised to participate in acts of violent terrorism, ordinarily characterized by mass killing.

FBI sources and intelligence operatives have known for years there have been significant movements of Syrians, Somalis and others into our country, and many of these men have traveled to Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere for training, returning to America to await orders.

Today, many of these fighters join others from around the world, swelling the ranks of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Add the increasing numbers of terrorists within, the proliferation of mosques and homegrown radicalization, and the establishment of training cells here in America, and you have a recipe for disaster: serial attacks in various places perpetrated by infiltrators.

For perspective, take a look at the recorded number of terrorist attacks on American soil.  One American retaliated after 9/11, a felon who was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

Pages: 1 2

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

As China Sells Weapons to Iran and Pakistan, Obama Bows to Beijing

Jim Emerson, FloydReports.com

New documents added to WikiLeaks leaked United States embassy cables revealed that China has been selling missiles and parts to Iran, Syria, and Pakistan in violation of its agreement with the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

MTCR was formed in 1987 as an informal, voluntary partnership of 34 countries to prevent the export of long-range weapons of mass destruction to hostile nations. China is not a member but has assured the members it will support the group’s policy of missile non-proliferation. China has not been allowed to join the MTCR because of its non-existent export controls. China has not signed nor agreed to the UN’s “Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.” China always says the right things but has a difficult time honoring its own words.

A September 2009 State Department cable entitled “China’s Ballistic Missile-Related Export Control Record” outlines Chinese missile export transfers to Syria and Iran. As excerpted from the cable….

Read more.

Tim Pawlenty: We Need More, Bigger Unconstitutional Wars!

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

In election years, candidates inevitably promise voters they will do more than their opponents. In practice that usually means increased debt-spending and expanding unconstitutional encroachments on liberty. Now one Republican presidential candidate has doubled-down on the most blatantly illegal action of this presidency, saying Barack Obama has not gone far enough in waging war-by-decree in Libya — and those who want to follow the Constitution are bead-wearing hippies bent on dragging America down in disgrace.

On Tuesday, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty gave what he dubbed a “major” foreign policy speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. In it, Pawlenty pouted, “parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments.”

“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal,” he said. “It does not need a second one.”

He fleshed out what he meant in the speech — calling on Obama to “commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi” and recognize the rebels as Libya’s legitimate government. During a question-and-answer session afterward, TPaw agreed with President Obama that the War Powers Resolution “does not apply” to the war in Libya.

In March, Pawlenty told students at Vanderbilt University that getting Congressional authorization for a war, as required by the Constitution and the resolution, is “a very complex matter and it’s not something that lends itself to an easy answer.” He added, “we need to make sure we don’t tie the executive or the commander in chief’s hands so tightly that he or she can’t respond in an emergency quickly or in a situation that deserves and needs a quick response.” Pawlenty told the CFR on Tuesday he would consult with Congress “as a courtesy and gesture of respect.”

His speech and his attack on his fellow Republicans raises (at least) 15 questions this author would like to ask Gov. Pawlenty:

  1. You have stated the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the war in Libya. However, the administration’s best lawyers disagreed with your assessment. Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly sided with them. The highest legal scholar in the administration to hold to your view is Harold Koh, who advocates “transnationalist jurisprudence,” who once branded the United States a member of the “axis of disobedience,” and who often co-authors articles with members of the Center for Constitutional Rights — a pro-terrorist legal house founded by Marxists. How can a self-identified “conservative” find himself to the Left of Eric Holder? If elected, will you rely on the advice of Koh or others of his ideology?
  2. The Founding Fathers clearly placed the war-making power in the hands of Congress alone — in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as well as their deliberations before its passage and their practice following its adoption. Since the Constitution has not been amended, what legal precedent do you believe suspended and nullified the Founders’ intentions?
  3. Since you do not believe Congressional authorization is necessary to initiate hostilities, at what point, if any, would you consider Congressional authorization necessary to continue military interventions abroad in which American personnel or weapons were killing or attempting to kill foreign nationals (referred to as “hostilities” in the War Powers Resolution)?

Read more.

One View: Obama’s Afghan Withdrawal Will Cost Lives

Note: Reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of our ongoing war in Afghanistan, its proper goals or methods of execution, and which policies will best secure our interests following the death of Osama bin Laden. Conservatives continue to debate these issues. Below, Lisa Curtis offers her view that by ignoring the generals, Obama is threatening the mission and setting America up for more serious consequences to come. Is Obama showing his hatred for the military and playing politics with American lives? – Ed.

Lisa Curtis, Human Events

President Obama’s plan for a hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan risks squandering the hard-won gains made on the battlefield in southern Afghanistan over the last ten months.

U.S. military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan had reportedly requested a slower pace of withdrawal to afford them the opportunity to consolidate recent gains against Taliban insurgents.  President Obama has denied his military commanders flexibility to determine the pace and scope of withdrawal based on conditions on the ground, and instead appears to have based his decision largely around the U.S. domestic political calendar.

The plans for rapidly withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan also risks upending the major achievement of eliminating Osama bin Laden across the border in Pakistan.

Bin Laden’s death and an aggressive drone campaign in Pakistan’s tribal border areas have put al-Qaeda on its back foot.  The Administration deserves credit for accomplishing this crucial objective.

However, it is short-sighted to use bin Laden’s death as justification for hastening the U.S. troop draw down in Afghanistan.  Announcing rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces will likely bolster the morale of the Taliban and encourage them to stick with the fight.

Read more.