The Arab Spring seemed natural, but it was far from it...

Recently published book "Fall of the Arab Spring: From Revolution to Destruction" examines modern imperialism vis-à-vis the so-called ‘Arab Spring.’


‘Liberal imperialism’ has continued to evolve. A more novel method for modern imperialism includes the use of the ‘color revolution.’ Adherents of this method, such as Peter Ackerman of the Albert Einstein Institute (AEI) and Carl Gershman of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (See Chapter II), argue unfriendly regimes can be toppled by mobilizing swarms of discontented adolescents, via mass communication media such as SMS, Facebook and Twitter. Illustrating its appeal to the Obama team, this later tactic of ‘civilian-based power’ was utilized as the initial driving force of the so-called ‘Arab Spring,’ and was later superseded by direct military intervention and America’s newest unconventional model of warfare.



Despite evidence to the contrary, the mainstream narrative is that the wave of uprisings against the status quo autocratic Arab regimes were entirely organic. Additionally, a narrative sometimes found in alternative media is that these uprisings were initially organic, but were subsequently hijacked or diverted by the West and Gulf state monarchies. The latter narrative is given credence through the West’s direct military intervention to topple Muammar Qaddafi’s government in Libya. Both of these notions are specious. The idea that romantic Arab youth activists alone initiated the attempt to topple their autocratic regimes is a myth. The objective of Fall of the Arab Spring is to shatter this prevailing mythology.



In truth, the so-called “Arab Spring”which swept through the MENA region was a wave of destabilizations sponsored by Washington and launched through ‘civilian-based power’ techniques. It was American imperialism of the most modern form. With the onset of multipolarity—with many of Washington’s vassals looking to resurgent power centers such as Moscow and Beijing—the US moved pre-emptively for ‘regime change’ against the independence of ‘enemy’ states and erstwhile clients. Additionally, the ‘Arab Spring’ offensive was given impetus by the imperative to accelerate the regional process of what Bernard Lewis, perhaps the most influential British Arabist, termed “Lebanonization” as a self- fulfilling prophecy. [3] This refers to the far-reaching balkanization, societal breakdown, and explosion of sectarian conflicts following the attenuation or collapse of the state—the model of Somalia.


You can buy the book from Amazon. 

I've ordered it and I'll probably write some blog posts regarding it inshaAllah.

The Different Types of Salafi's

A new article recently published on WarOnTheRocks raised some interesting points regarding the two types of Salafi's the West need to deal with.

I've collated some of the main points here:

If we want to stop the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s recruitment to violence, a better question is how does the group transform centuries-old theological concepts into real and present threats?

Answering that question requires that we begin by stipulating that the Islamic State is a Salafi organization. Salafism is based on an exclusive adherence to this early Islamic Sunni theology. Next, we must recognize the historical division of Salafism between violent and non-violent strains in the 20th century under specific political conditions. Finally, and perhaps most urgently, we might consider the lessons of this history for our own strategic planning today.

Because of its emphasis on redefining Islamic faith and practice, Salafis — both violent and non-violent ones — prioritize their attention on fellow Muslims (Sufis, Shi‘is, even non-Salafi Sunnis) for promoting what they regard as “deviant” interpretations of the faith.

So why do some use this to attack others violently, while others only do so rhetorically? There is only one conceptual factor that drives this decision: the reason why others, in the eyes of different Salafis, fail to adopt their worldview. To non-violent Salafis, the reason they give is misinformation and misunderstanding — not having been exposed to their theological views. Innocence by omission. For violent ones, the reason is because of a deliberate resistance to it — an expression of the internal “unbelief” in God’s monotheism (kufr). Guilt by commission, and commission of the religion’s gravest sin, violating God’s “oneness.”

This divide is nearly as old as the religion itself, and was a core question underlying the evolution of early Islamic theology. On the one hand there stood Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 855CE) and his circle (the so-called People of Hadith), who held that one’s faith is expressed in one’s “heart, tongue and limbs.” On the other, the more rationalist schools argued that this faith is only in the heart and tongue and need not be confirmed by actions of the limbs.

This debate surfaced in the 20th century as a fault line between violent and non-violent Salafis, who — unlike other Sunnis — ostensibly all identified with the People of Hadith in their theology, but who, in practice, came to different conclusions about the practical implications of this theology. The watershed moment came in 1986, when one Safar al-Hawali (b. 1950) put the finishing touches on his dissertation for the Saudi Umm al-Qura University. In it, Hawali — who, although not a jihadist, would be later regarded as something of their intellectual ally — attacked one Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani (d. 1999) for the latter’s view that one’s failure to pray was not a sign of “unbelief,” but rather could have been caused by laziness, oversleeping, or some other non-doctrinal factor. For Hawali, a Muslim’s neglect of proper Islamic conduct was evidence of ceasing to be Muslim. For Albani, who would later become the doyen of the so-called “quietist” strain of Salafism, a Muslim’s neglect of prayer was a sin but did not change one’s Muslim status.

In the 1990s, these positions became the core kernel of a new and broader debate on the issue of takfir (excommunication of other Muslims). Specifically, under what circumstances may Muslims excommunicate other Muslims, and thereby justify engaging in violence against them? On the one hand there were those who believed, as Hawali did, that failure to act in an Islamic way nullified one’s Islamic identity — these formed the intellectual nucleus of jihadism. On the other stood the quietists, Albani’s progeny, who resisted drawing the link between the need to behave in an Islamic way and the reasons for not doing so.

This became the debate between violent Salafis (or jihadists) and the non-violent ones (quietists), and the labels they used to attack one another are revealing of the sensitivities of each. Quietist Salafis almost universally refrain from referring to jihadists by their proper ideological designation as “Salafi-jihadists,” but rather use the term “takfiri” or “extremist,” referring to their singular focus on using takfir as a justification for wanton bloodletting. Quietist Salafis further argue that they too have principles of takfir and jihad, but that these are enshrined in a “methodology” — i.e. there is a time and a place for them. The names of early Islamic sects are also commonly invoked as labels for each group, but these are used strategically in a derogatory way and do not, as we saw earlier, reflect the actual theological positions on which each relies (examples include “Kharijites” for jihadists, and “Murji’ites” for quietists). In other words, their use is akin to how Westerners would freely use the “Fascist” label to describe any form of bigotry, despite its frequently ahistorical use.

It goes on to interestingly state that the Salafi's are not different to those who compromise their deen and enter into the political framework. The author recognises himself that this is in itself unislamic yet the Salafi's do not?

In Egypt, perhaps noting Sisi’s wide-ranging crackdown on journalists, Salafis continue to lament the “media campaigns” against them as their primary concern. Salafis have even competed in elections — a violation of one of their cardinal principles of rejecting modern institutions — since that, for them, was a mechanism of survival within the specific context of Egyptian politics under Sisi. Indeed, over the last year, Egypt’s Salafi Nour Party was able to navigate the country’s political turbulence by branding itself an ally of the state in combatting terrorism, rather than siding with their pro-Morsi Salafi counterparts in demanding Sisi’s ouster. In short, these examples demonstrate that the survival of Salafi groups within local political circumstances are just as much expressions of their pragmatic skills as they are of their ideological commitments. However, since their ideology is often used as justification for the decisions they make, one might also conclude that, just as with the divide between non-violent and violent Salafism at the end of the last century, the practical implications of Salafi ideology in the present century is equally conditioned by local contexts as it is by long-established theological concepts.

What does it mean to be a Revisionist State?

I've always struggled to explain the term revisionist or revisionism until I came across this publication by RAND. It's titled "Mastering the Gray Zone: Understanding a Changing Era of Conflict".

I'm not going to discuss this publication as I've not yet had a chance to fully read it, however it summarises for me the term revisionist quite accurately and therefore I'd like to share this with you also.

The author starts off  explaining China's gradual and revisionist approach towards dominating the regions near to them.

In the remote reaches of the South China Sea in the Spratly Island chain, China is creating land. In order to bolster its claims to the waters of the region, Beijing is pouring millions of metric tons of sand and concrete onto submerged reefs, creating artificial islands.1 Island-building is merely one of the most obvious of many actions, ranging from propaganda to economic coercion and swarming fleets of fishing vessels, that China has been taking to solidify its assertion of territorial and resource rights throughout the region. Step by forceful step, China is laying the groundwork for a new order in the region that recognizes Beijing’s unquestioned primacy, and for an international system whose norms and institutions reflect China’s interests and preferences.

“China is biding its time,” one report recently concluded, “slowly eroding American credibility in the region, changing facts on the ground where it believes it can and carefully calibrating the coercion of its rivals in the South China Sea.”

The example of China is fitting for a revisionist state extending its reach into places it really has no authority due to the hand of the superpower that has it's fingers clenched into the soil across the entire globe.

Here the author explains revisionism  

This series of actions is a powerful example of an approach being used by more and more states with partial, but still obvious, revisionist intent—that is to say, states dissatisfied with the status quo and determined to change important aspects of the global distribution of power and influence in their favor. Unwilling to risk major escalation with outright military adventurism, these actors are employing sequences of gradual steps to secure strategic leverage. The efforts remain below thresholds that would generate a powerful U.S. or international response, but nonetheless are forceful and deliberate, calculated to gain measurable traction over time. In one important sense, they are classic “salami-slicing” strategies, fortified with a range of emerging gray area or unconventional techniques—from cyberattacks to information campaigns to energy diplomacy. They maneuver in the ambiguous no-man’s-land between peace and war, reflecting the sort of aggressive, persistent, determined campaigns characteristic of warfare but without the overt use of military force.

The Key Policy Making Reports and Articles of the 21st Century

In this post I have amalgamated all the key policy making documents that I feel are game changing for the Ummah in 2015. These are all a must read for all Muslims, to be aware of the plots and plans of the West.

The Redirection by Seymour Hersh

An article cited by many freelance journalists to be bluntly true about America's redirection in the Middle East.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

From Pol Pot to ISIS: "Anything that flies on everything that moves"

Interesting article that is packed with quotes from previous officials within the U.S regarding the Iraq war.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

Burma Campaign UK

A 2006 36-page document out of the "Burma Campaign UK" explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi's image and her "movement."

http://burmacampaign.org.uk/media/DFIDReview.pdf

Al Qaeda's Foreign Fighters in Iraq

In November 2007, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point received nearly 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. The data compiled and analyzed in this report is drawn from these personnel records, which was collected by al‐Qa’ida’s Iraqi affiliates, first the Mujahidin Shura Council (MSC) and then the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The records contain varying levels of information on each fighter, but often include the fighter’s country of origin, hometown, age, occupation, the name of the fighter’s recruiter, and even the route the fighter took to Iraq. The records were captured by coalition forces in October 2007 in a raid near Sinjar, along Iraq’s Syrian border. Although there is some ambiguity in the data, it is likely that all of the fighters listed in the Sinjar Records crossed into Iraq from Syria. The Sinjar Records’ existence was first reported by The New York Times’ Richard Oppel, who was provided a partial summary of the data. English translations of the Records can be accessed at

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/FF‐Bios‐Trans.pdf 

and the records in their original Arabic text at:

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/Foreign_Fighter_Bios‐Orig.pdf

However I think these original documents have now been removed, the summary is still available at:

http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

Choices for America in a Turbulent World by RAND

A magazine by RAND featuring many interesting articles which include counterterrorism, picking partners and identifying enemies, rebalancing civil liberties and security, the arab-israeli settlement, learning lessons from the past and US National Strategy.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1114/RAND_RR1114.pdf

Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change by Brookings Institute

This memo lays out six options for the United States to consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow, should it choose to do so:

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy; 
2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;
3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;
4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;
5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and
6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/3/15-syria-saban/0315_syria_saban.pdf

Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country by Brookings Institute

This paper makes a case for a new approach to Syria that attempts to bring ends and means more realistically into balance. It also seeks to end the Hobson’s choice currently confronting American policymakers, whereby they can neither attempt to unseat President Assad in any concerted way (because doing so would clear the path for ISIL), nor tolerate him as a future leader of the country (because of the abominations he has committed, and because any such policy would bring the United States into direct disagreement with almost all of its regional allies). The new approach would seek to break the problem down in a number of localized components of the country, pursuing regional stopgap solutions while envisioning ultimately a more confederal Syria made up of autonomous zones rather than being ruled by a strong central government. It also proposes a path to an intensified train and equip program. Once that program had generated a critical mass of fighters in training locations abroad, it would move to a next stage. Coupled with a U.S. willingness, in collaboration with regional partners, to help defend local safe areas using American airpower as well as special forces support once circumstances are conducive, the Syrian opposition fighters would then establish safe zones in Syria that they would seek to expand and solidify. The safe zones would also be used to accelerate recruiting and training of additional opposition fighters who could live in, and help protect, their communities while going through basic training. They would, in addition, be locations where humanitarian relief could be provided to needy populations, and local governance structures developed.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/06/23-syria-strategy-ohanlon/23syriastrategyohanlon.pdf

A Peace Plan for Syria by RAND

An important policy making document on advising America on which way to turn in Syria and which path to ultimately take. The two paths it discusses are:

1.  To concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. To secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

It advises the White House to take the second path into regionalising Syria into three safe zones, i.e. Alawi/Assad region, Kurds Region, Opposition/Rebel region. The rest of Syria will then be deemed to be ISIS held and targeted for mass killings by all three regions cooperatively including the international arena.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

2016 Global Forecast by Centre for Strategic & International Studies 

An important lessons learned forecast by CSIS who are a liberal leaning Washington think tank. It gives an insight into the frustrations of America and forecasts the future.

http://csis.org/files/publication/151116_Cohen_GlobalForecast2016_Web.pdf

Rethinking Political Islam by Brookings Institute

Rethinking Political Islam is the first project of its kind to systematically assess the evolution of mainstream Islamist groups across 12 country cases—Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Pakistan, as well as Malaysia and Indonesia. The project engages scholars of political Islam through in-depth research and dialogue to consider how the Arab uprisings and their aftermath have shaped—and in some cases altered—the strategies, agendas, and self-conception of Islamist movements.

Series of PDF can be found here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/08/rethinking-political-islam

RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

The "Islamic" Military Alliance by Abu Usaid

Observers of the research released by the US strategic centres can perceive clearly the policies America pursues in our lands. They have determined that in order to prevent the rise of an "Islamic State", or in case the current regimes failed, the US should move away from the "soft power" and the "idealist approach"  and resort to "hard power" and "realpolitik". As for the "Jihadi" movements, it is imperative to deal with them according to the following steps: they should be contained and recruited; and if the containment failed, it is imperative to provide their opponents with "Indirect Military Support" then resort to "Indirect Military Intervention" against them and then resort to "Keeping Them Out."  

If the Muslims wished to engage in a struggle against their enemies in order to achieve liberation and revival, they ought to perceive the doctrine of the enemies, their plans and their adopted styles and means of execution. Capitalism is the doctrine upon which Western thought is built and expediency is the viewpoint towards life and the criterion that determines their behaviour, and colonialism, in all its forms, is the method through which they acquire the benefits, repel the detriments and achieve their interests. Their strategy towards the Muslims involves eroding the political feature of Islam from the life of the Muslims and confining it to the rituals which does not influence ruling matters, especially in respect of the Ummah's relationship with other nations and peoples. Once the Ummah has accepted the doctrine of separating religion from life, even with her own acknowledgment and approval, her mentality will be hijacked, her volition will be forfeited  and her intellectual compass will be deviated; she will then think like her enemies do, accept what they decide and head to wherever they want. As for the styles and means, these are numerous and they vary according to the conditions and situations and they include direct and indirect "hard power" as we mentioned earlier, or "soft power" which includes the diplomatic activities and the generating of influence through agents, rulers, armies, media, judiciary, scholars and movements.   

These issues are among the most important political concepts the Muslims should acquire in order to perceive the political activities of their enemies. Hence, we may through such activities pass judgement on the political situation in the "Arab Spring" countries. In Syria, the American political activities towards the armed movements are still at the stage of recruiting some of them and attempting to contain the others; all the movements are recruited to fight the Syrian regime with the backing of America's agents in the Gulf and Turkey. However, some of the movements are yet to be contained and some of their members are yet to be tamed into accepting the post-Assad phase.

Hence, the categorising process took place at the Riyadh conference in order to implement the strategies of "Containment", "Indirect Military Support", "Indirect Military Intervention" and "Keeping Them Out". The decision to establish the "Islamic Military Alliance" to combat terror after the Riyadh conference has come to epitomise the American strategy of "Indirect Military Intervention" to isolate and keep  the opponents out. The task of this alliance will include areas in Syria, Iraq and Libya. As for Yemen, the situation is different on the ground since al-Houthi group is undertaking the role of servant for the American plan to fragment Yemen, while the Saudi military machine works towards maintaining an equilibrium among the Yemeni warring factions and preventing the fireball from reaching Saudi Arabia. If the alliance were compelled to intervene in Yemen against the Houthis, it would merely be to tame them and keep them under control rather than to destroy them.

Establishing  a military alliance with an "Islamic" flavour will undoubtedly justify the rejection of the undesirable foreign military interventions in the future, such as the Russian intervention. America managed to drag Russia into the Syrian quagmire and implicate her with the Muslims, so that her belligerence may turn into anger and resentment among the Islamic constituent of 25 million in Russia, thus weakening the coherence of the Russian Federation and threatening its existence.

The "Islamic" military alliance is also set to end or scale down the military services offered by Europe who always seeks a slice of the oil pie in return; France and Britain had demanded a third of the oil and building contracts before the military operation against the Gaddafi regime in Libya started. Those who think that the prospective  "Islamic" alliance will be in the interest of the Muslims are woolgathering because most of the Arab states have open and covert ties and treaties with the "Israeli" entity and are involved in military alliances with the world powers which means that such an alliance would target the Muslims rather than their enemies.

The "Islamic" alliance aims also to sidestep the Russian military campaign that has affected the efficacy of the aerial military campaign led by the US. There may also be an American plan to curtail the role of Daesh in Syria and Iraq through the "Islamic" alliance in order to nullify the pretexts of the Russian military campaign upon which Putin is relying to sustain his popularity inside Russia. Furthermore, the intervention of the alliance would dampen the aspirations of Iran in Syria and Iraq and prevent Hezbollah from achieving political gains to consolidate its domestic influence and increase its stake in the Lebanese regime.

"And if they had intended to march out, certainly, they would have made some preparation for it, but Allah was averse to their being sent forth, so He made them lag behind, and it was said (to them), "Sit you among those who sit (at home)." [9-46]

"Had they marched out with you, they would have added to you nothing except disorder, and they would have hurried about in your midst (spreading corruption) and sowing sedition among you, and there are some among you who would have listened to them. And Allah is the All-Knower of the evildoers." [9-47]

"Say: "Nothing shall ever happen to us except what Allah has ordained for us. He is our Lord And in Allah let the believers put their trust." [9-51]

"They swear by Allah that they are truly of you while they are not of you, but they are a people who are afraid." [9-56]

16 December 2015

Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550734741751596

The Jihadis - A Pawn for the West

A recent confab took place in Saudi Arabia which included "opposition" leaders from the factions fighting in Syria, namely Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam, both affiliated to Al-Nusra Front who are a designated foreign terrorist organisation according to America - Saudi's greatest ally.

After great strides made in Syria against Assad it was about time that they'd be put back into their place by America's "enemy" Russia - but what has this achieved?

1) Allows the West to negotiate with the "rebels" temporarily until a deal is struck
a) Then wipes them out after claiming they have sided with Al Qaeda - similar to how most of the Jihadi factions were used and abused in the past after they've aided in the West's plans.

2) It forces the many factions on the ground to compromise the political solution for Syria

a) Giving up the Sharia in return for a liberal democratic form of governance, contrary to what most of the factions call for.

3) Preserves the face of America as it is the 'Russian Bear' that is delivering the blows while America are the peacemakers that will inevitably be the leader in coming to a political solution. 

a) At the same time it weakens the Russians, pulling them in to a battle that they'll never be able to come out of without a dent, both domestically and internationally. 

b) Creates a wedge between Russia and Turkey that will affect Russia moreso than Turkey due to its high dependency on trade after the sanctions with the European states. 

As for the Jihadi's, well... better luck next time. Sincere intentions, but the wrong method. However the sympathy shouldn't be with them but rather the millions of innocent Muslims that will die due to their carelessness and inability to stick to the Prophetic method of bringing Islam back as a State. 

May Allah make us one of those who persevere in the correct manner and in the manner that won't be detrimental to the Ummah of Muhammad (sallalahu alayhi wasallam)

Kam Kashem

Where are the Muslim Brotherhood Taking the Ummah of Mohammed (saw)? - By Abu Usaid

The Muslim Brotherhood have sold Syria for a trifling worldly gain after they had forsaken Islam in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan. For a Muslim to sacrifice his wealth and his life to establish a state in which he is commanded to disbelieve is beyond comprehension. "They wish to refer legislation to Taghut, while they were commanded to reject it; and Satan wishes to lead them far astray." [4-60]
The deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, Mohammad Farouk Tayfour, who attended the Riyadh meeting yesterday, said in an exclusive interview with al-Arabiya.net: "The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria  have never viewed the revolution as a secular or religious issue." He added: "The revolution is a nationalist issue that excludes no one." He also confirmed the openness of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to dealing with the West and the US by saying: "We have our special method and we have a similar vision to that of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and the Congregation for Reform in Yemen." In respect of the notion of Khilafah and the group's opinion on it in Syria, he explained that "the specifics and the conclusive evidences on the issue of ruling in Islam are limited." And on the Muslim Brotherhood's relationship with al-Nusrah Front, he said: "We have made great strides in terms of deepening the principle of centrism and moderation but we are yet to reach an agreement on their willingness to sever their ties with al-Qaeda." 

No one disputes the fact that the notion of "nationalism", from which Dr Tayfour is departing, is built upon the doctrine of separating religion from life and it removes the barriers and boundaries between Islam and Kufr; otherwise how could one reconcile between the exigencies of nationalism which legitimises the accession of a citizen to power irrespective of his religion and the prohibition of a non-Muslim assuming power? Allah (swt) says:"And never will Allah give the unbelievers a way over the believers." [4-141] Ibnul-Arabi said: "Indeed Allah (swt) does not allow the Kuffar a way over the believers in Shari'ah; and if it were to materialise, it would be contrary to Shari'ah." Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you." [4-59] This proves in a conclusive manner that authority belongs to the Muslims because the address in the ayah is to the Muslims and Allah's (swt) saying "from among you" denotes that the supreme authority belongs exclusively to the Muslims; Allah (swt) has also forbidden us from obeying the Kuffar by saying:"O you who believe if you pay heed to those who are bent on denying the truth, they will cause you to turn back on your heels and you will be the losers." [3-149]

Another ayah denoting the prohibition of the Kafir's authority over the Muslim is Allah's (swt) saying: "O you who believe do not take the Kuffar as allies in preference to the believers". [4-144] Al-Qurtubi said about this: "This means do not take as your confidential and close staff from among them." It is also reported on the authority of Ubadah Ibnul-Samit that he said: "The Prophet (ﷺ) called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam..... to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah." Qadi Ayyadh said: "If he were to commit Kufr or to change the Shari'ah or concoct an innovation, he would deviate from the authority and his obedience would be nullified; and the Muslims would have to stand up to him and remove him, and establish a fair Imam if they could; and if this were to only occur to a group, they ought to undertake the removal of the Kafir."

Hence, how does the concept of nationalism and the criterion of citizenship that Tayfour is calling for tally with the Islamic system he has been commanded to establish?

These evidences are sufficient to demolish the foundation upon which the thought of Dr Tayfour is built and they are binding on every member and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood movement to return to the Book of Allah (swt) and act according to it before calling the masses to it. The movement should refrain from deceiving people with the slogan of "Allah is our aspiration and the Qur'an is our constitution" because they stand the farthest from it; and Allah (swt) says: "O you who believe why do you say one thing and do another? Most loathsome in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do." [61-2,3] 

If the decision maker in the Syrian file has assigned to the Muslim Brotherhood the task of dissuading al-Nusrah Front from pursuing armed struggle and of luring them into the camp of "moderation and centrism" instead, they should then refrain from trumpeting the slogan of "Jihad is our way" and tinkering with the Ummah's objective. 

Dr Tayfour says the Muslim Brotherhood has never viewed the revolution as either a "secular or a religious" issue; so what is their issue then? Does he want to justify his acceptance of the state's secularity or does he want us to understand that dealing with the issue through religion would cast a shadow over the victory that descends from the White House? If the plane of the struggle against the regime were not an issue of Islam and Kufr, how would we then describe the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in the revolution?  Was it a cheap functional reaction to the American exigencies to shape the Middle East? Or was it an exploitation of Islam to solidify secularism and secure its embracing among the masses? Or was it meant to deviate the direction of the Muslims and curtail their aspiration to achieve liberation and revival?

The statements of Dr Tayfour about the conclusive evidences on the legitimate Khilafah being limited indicates very clearly that the Muslim Brotherhood have washed their hands of the Ummah's central issue and submitted to the volition of the colonialist Kafir West regarding the regime they intend to establish on the ruins of Bashar Assad's regime. Tayfour is attempting to belittle the issue of the Khilafah and propagate the secularist state to the masses in Syria under the pretext that the "conclusive" evidences for al-Khilafah are limited. By disowning the Khilafah system, Tayfour is also attempting to provide support for the outcome of the Riyadh meeting and to dissipate the Western fears of the Islamic trait sported by the "opposition" movements, thus aping the American viewpoint towards Islam. He is also attempting to nullify the Russian arguments and justifications for rejecting the "Islamic" movements and present his group to the West as being a match to their foster child Erdoğan as a guardian of secularism.  

Hence, the call of the Muslim Brotherhood through Dr Tayfour contradicts the conclusive texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, violates the volition of the Muslims, squanders their dignity and their sacrifices and gives a way to the Kuffar over the Muslims. No sincere Muslim should accept or support such a call.

"O you who believe do not betray Allah and the Messenger and do not knowingly betray the trust that has been reposed in you." [8-27]

13 December 2015  

by Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/549926258499111

Beyond the Rome Conference on the Libyan Crisis - by Abu Usaid

The Rome conference on the Libyan crisis aims at fragmenting the General National Congress and replacing it with an entity that would lend legitimacy to the Western military intervention to strike the opponents under the guise of fighting terrorism. It also aims to ensure the expansion of the movements affiliated to the West into the power vacuum and besiege or isolate their rivals to prevent them from influencing the design of the forthcoming regime. Daesh has become the "secret code" for activating all the political files and for imposing the foreign agendas in the region. During the Rome conference US Secretary of State John Kerry announced: "We cannot allow the status quo in Libya to continue. It is dangerous for the viability of Libya, it is dangerous for Libyans, and now, because of the increase of the presence of Daesh [Isis] purposefully migrating there, it is dangerous for everyone.... reaffirm support for a new Government of National Accord....So we say that those who persist in trying to disrupt the agreement will pay a price for their actions.... to address the problem of security – security in Tripoli to bring the government, which must be based at the end of the day in Tripoli..."  The way was paved for these statements in the previous week by circulating the rumour that the ISIS leader al-Baghdadi had moved to Libya and by hyping up the activities of the organisation in Sirte and Ajdabiya. The fragmentation became evident among the ranks of the General National Congress when Misrata and the forces of Fajr Libya backed the outcomes of the Tunis meeting and the Rome conference in addition to  when the forces of the General National Congress differed over who would represent it in signing the agreement of al-Sukhayrat in a few days. The General National Congress are most probably conspiring to effectuate the agreement since the difference over their representative is inconsequential, especially that they had agreed on forming a government of national unity.t Furthermore, the struggle between the Libyan  political forces is not ideological but rather based on partisan interests, and because most of the influential movements on the ground are linked to foreign agendas executed through the US agents in the gulf and Libya's neighbouring countries.

The main problem of the masses in the region is their inability to view the solution to their problems outside the frameworks imposed by the world order, though it has been the cause of their crisis and misery and though it only takes into account the interests of the influential powers. Instead of taking the international interests into account when thinking about her system in her quality as an Ummah with a message who does not wish to harm other nations, the Ummah is working towards establishing a system and solving her problems according to the exigencies of the other nations' interests under the pretext of her inability to confront the world order and the major powers. In fact, the powerlessness of the Ummah stems from her thinking rather than her reality. She is capable of achieving liberation and revival more than any other nation because she possesses the doctrinal and material forces. She is the only nation capable of leading the world, muzzling capitalism and achieving justice and happiness in the world if she perceived her mission in life and what her message necessitates in terms of sacrifices.   

This Ummah will not achieve liberation until she perceives that Allah (swt) has not created her for the objective generated by the capitalist ideology that has halted her productive way of thinking and her will to achieve liberation. The Ummah will not recover her volition until she is prepared to endure boycott, blockade, hunger and deprivation like the Messenger of Allah (saw) and his noble Sahaba (ra) did; they accepted the challenge and their weakness and poverty produced power and prosperity, and they ruled the world with their good-hearted Shari'ah. The history of our Ummah is rich with parables for those who wish to take heed.
 
"And unto everyone who is conscious of Allah, He grants a way out and provides for him in a manner beyond all expectation; and for everyone who places his trust in Allah, He alone is enough. Indeed Allah always attains to His purpose and indeed, unto everything has Allah appointed its term and measure."

14 December 2015

By Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550077131817357

The Western Lie of Terrorism by Abu Usaid

Terrorism is a lie which the West concocted, believed it, lived its episodes and built its policies towards the Muslims upon its basis. The Muslims swallowed the bait, accused themselves, disowned their religion and punished themselves for a crime they never committed; they even agreed with their enemies to slay and dissect the victim and reward the perpetrators. They capitulated to reality and became the major player in concretising it despite what it carries in terms of Kufr and misery. They handed their leadership over to the preachers of "renouncing Islam for the sake of Islam"; those whose thoughts agree with the allegations, values and systems of the West.

How could they ever achieve victory while they admit they are the perpetrator and their enemy is the victim? How could they ever carry the message of Allah (swt) to guide humanity while they believe that their religion is one of terrorism? How could they ever despair from the Da'awah of Allah (swt) who says:

"Hence, place your trust in Allah; for behold, what you believe in is the self-evident truth. But indeed you cannot make the dead hear and you cannot make the deaf hear this call when they turn their backs on you and go away. Just as you cannot lead the blind of heart out of their error; none can you make hear save such as those who believe in our Ayat and thus surrender themselves unto Us." 27-79,80,81]

15 December 2015   

By Abu Usaid

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550122795146124?fref=nf&pnref=story

The Debauched 'Scholars'

The so-called scholars from among the "moderates and centrists" always hasten to defend every single wrong perpetrated by the collaborating rulers in service of their masters in the White House and deem it in the interests of the Muslims. Why don't they declare that betrayal and collaboration are part of the rules of Islam and that the continuance of Kufr, the misery and decline of the Ummah is the goodness and the mercy that Allah (swt) has promised the believers, that the Shari'ah is corruptive, thus it is imperative to snub it and that Jihad is a crime whose perpetrator must be annihilated?

There is none lowlier and more debauched than the forces of religious shadiness that justify the collaboration of the rulers against their masses.

16 December 2015

by Abu Usaid 

https://www.facebook.com/abu.usaid.35/posts/550341341790936?fref=nf

Tommy Robinson Former EDL Leader, Claims Quilliam Paid Him To Quit Far-Right Group

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/03/tommy-robinson-claims-quilliam-paid-him-to-leave-edl_n_8710834.html?1449244376&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067






Tommy Robinson claims he was paid thousand of pounds by the Quilliam Foundation to leave the English Defence League in a deal the anti-extremism think-tank coordinated so they could take "credit" for his resignation.

Quilliam has never previously acknowledged they paid Robinson to leave the group he formed in August 2009, or to work with them, and the 32-year-old has previously remained silent on the deal that was struck with the organisation he now says has "no credibility" and is "more despised by Muslims than I was".

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, unexpectedly announced he was quitting the EDL at a highly publicised press conference in October 2013, which he fronted alongside Quilliam director Maajid Nawaz, and his cousin, fellow defence league member, Kevin Carroll. Robinson, who is now aligned with Pegida UK, claims he made the decision to leave the EDL some time earlier, and it was unrelated to Quilliam.


Robinson told the Huffington Post UK that Quilliam, which was once said to receive millions of pounds of government funding, initially paid him £2,000 a month in a deal struck despite him expecting to be imprisoned the following month.

In November 2013 Robinson pleaded guilty to mortgage fraud, and two months later was sentenced to 18 months jail. Once inside, Robinson said Quilliam halved his payments - which were intended to cover "my wife's rent and help with basic bills, in return Tommy Robinson would be their poster boy".

Robinson claims he was on the Quilliam payroll for six months and received about £8,000. During that time, beyond attending the press conference, Robinson got involved in a few "Quilliam-orientated projects". One was a meeting in Luton between the EDL and a group of Muslims that was "chaos".

Quilliam on Friday acknowledged they paid Robinson, but refuted the nature of their financial agreement.

In a statement it said: "Quilliam never claimed to 'deradicalise' Tommy, nor 'reform' him, only that we facilitated his departure from the EDL. Quilliam cannot comment on Tommy's intentions (or "staging") for leaving the EDL, as it cannot read his mind. We simply helped him leave the EDL, rendering that group leaderless since.

"Tommy has never been a Quilliam member of staff, nor on our payroll, nor did he join Quilliam.

"Tommy was remunerated, as an external actor, after invoicing us for costs associated with outreach that he & Dr Usama Hassan did to Muslim communities after Tommy's departure from the EDL, in an attempt to reconcile Tommy with our Muslim communities. "

Robinson on Friday called Quilliam's response PR-Spin.

In his new book, Enemy Of The State, Robinson writes: "In October 2013 you might have seen a lot about Quilliam taking the credit for effectively converting me to the right side of the battle against extremism. I smiled to myself a lot about that.

"I dare say my motives were a bit muddled, although I honestly wanted to discover (if) Quilliam had something to offer but I'm not sure it has.

"Quilliam wanted to be seen to be facilitating my exit from the EDL and taking the credit for it. That was okay, I know how the world of public funding works. They have to show results from somewhere and I ticked the box of sorts."

Robinson wrote that Carroll thought Quilliam "were bullshit", but agreed to go along with the ruse. Robinson had first come into contact with Quilliam while filming a BBC documentary called 'When Tommy Met Mo'. In the documentary Robinson and Mohammed Ansar challenged each others views.





In hindsight Robinson opines: "I was using them, they were using me, but the bottom line from what I witnessed was that nothing truly productive was going to come out of it.

"I don't believe I'd sold my soul to them. I'd said I was going to try to be a part of the solution with them, as opposed to be part of the problem. Not everything works out the way you wished, even with the best intentions."

Later in the chapter on Quilliam Robinson gives the group who saved him "when I was in a desperate place", a serve, summing them up as "a handful of well meaning people unfortunately with little influence".

Writing in his book Robinson claims Nawaz was seen as a "apostate and a government stooge by some Muslim clerics", and noted, that the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for London's Hampstead and Kilburn constituency in the 2015 General Election had even been pictured getting a lap dance in a strip club.

Robinson writes: "The evidence of my eyes was that they were an organisation that was useful for the government to throw money at. It helped the politicians and establishment feel good about themselves and it fed the idea, the illusion, that they were making some kind of difference. I didn't see it, if they were."

In February 2014 Political Scrapbook reported that the Quilliam Foundation wanted taxpayer funded money to lure Robinson, and that the link-up between the unlikely allies was motivated by the groups poor financial position.

It obtained emails under the Freedom of Information Act which showed Nawaz talking to Carroll about Quilliam needing to acqire funding.






Nawaz opened the press conference announcing Quilliam's EDL coup with a lengthy speech, drawing parallels between his formative years and Robinson's - albeit the pair were on opposing sides of Islam.

Nawaz told how an attack on him in Essex, age 16, by Neo-Nazi paramilitaries known as Combat 18, had led to him joining radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, an association which later saw him jailed for six years in Egypt from December 2001.

Amnesty International, he told gathered journalists, adopted him as a "prisoner of conscious and reached out to me, which healed my heart". He continued: "And what I've said so often is where the heart leads, the mind can follow."

Nawaz then went on to say Robinson had "come to me and said he wants to reach out in a similar way".

Nawaz: "He (Robinson) wants a chance to prove to the world that he isn't happy with the association the EDL has with Neo-Nazis, neither is Kevin here to my left, and they want a chance to demonstrate they're not happy and to move forward positively."

The Quilliam founder said he chose to "invest his trust" in Robinson and Carroll, because the "alternative was to have the English Defence League still out there on the streets".

He said: "I don't know if that's an alternative many of us want, and I know many Muslims wouldn't want."

At the time Robinson said: "I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive."

"I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.”




In a statement Nawaz later said: “As well as being a very positive change for the United Kingdom, this is a very proud moment for Quilliam. This represents not a change but a continuation for us, as challenging extremism of all kinds forms the basis of our work.

"We have been able to show that Britain stands together against extremism regardless of political views and hope to continue supporting Tommy and Kevin in their journey to counter Islamism and neo-Nazi extremism.”

At that time Fiyaz Mughal, the director of the anti-Islamophobia monitoring group Tell MAMA, warned about the dangers of the union: "This will legitimise the man (Robinson). His views, which are on the fringes of British society, are now being allowed to enter the mainstream. It is the most dangerous when views like this come from mainstream commentators."




Once released from jail Robinson writes that he was visited by Quilliam's senior researcher, Usama Hasan, who wanted him to get involved with the Forgiveness Project, "the cheeky bastards".

Robinson: "It was all part of their pet Tommy Robinson project." He declined the offer saying he didn't need "forgiveness".

Robinson claims Hasan later approached him "concerned at some of the things he'd seen me tweeting", and worried he was about to return to the EDL. Robinson's twitter account reads like an anti-Islam news aggregator.

Robinson writes: "In Quilliam's case they needed to be seen to have some form of control over me, to have influence over the 'reformed' Tommy Robinson." He ignored the request, but never returned to the EDL.Robinson is however, now throwing his support behind Pegida UK and will help to "advise" the leadership of the new group, which will campaign for a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the UK, as well as place a ban on the building of mosques.

Terror in Mali: An Attack on China and Russia?

International media have now confirmed that at least nine of the 27 killed in the attack were Chinese and Russian. While this alone would indeed be curious, it is the identities and positions of those killed that is particularly striking. The three Chinese victims were important figures in China’s China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC), while the Russians were employees of Russian airline Volga-Dnepr. That it was these individuals who were killed at the very outset of the attack suggests that they were the likely targets of what could perhaps rightly be called a terrorist assassination operation.

But why these men? And why now? To answer these questions, one must have an understanding of the roles of both these companies in Mali and, at the larger level, the activities of China and Russia in Mali. Moreover, the targeted killing should be seen in light of the growing assertiveness of both countries against terrorism in Syria and internationally. Considering the strategic partnership between the two countries – a partnership that is expanding seemingly every day – it seems that the fight against terrorism has become yet another point of convergence between Moscow and Beijing. In addition, it must be recalled that both countries have had their share of terror attacks in recent years, with each having made counter-terrorism a central element in their national security strategies, as well as their foreign policy.

And so, given these basic facts, it becomes clear that the attack in Mali was no random act of terrorism, but a carefully planned and executed operation designed to send a clear message to Russia and China.

The Attack, the Victims, and the Significance

On Friday November 20, 2015 a team of reportedly “heavily armed and well-trained gunmen” attacked a well known international hotel in Bamako, Mali. While the initial reports were somewhat sketchy and contradictory, in the days since the attack and siege that followed, new details have emerged that are undeniably worrying as they provide a potential motive for the terrorists.

It is has since been announced that three Chinese nationals were killed at the outset of the attack: Zhou Tianxiang, Wang Xuanshang, and Chang Xuehui. Aside from the obviously tragic fact that these men were murdered in cold blood, one must examine carefully who they were in order to get a full sense of the importance of their killings. Mr. Zhou was the General Manager of the China Railway Construction Corporation’s (CRCC) international group, Mr. Wang was the Deputy General Manager of CRCC’s international group, and Mr. Chang was General Manager of the CRCC’s West Africa division. The significance should become immediately apparent as these men were the principal liaisons between Beijing and the Malian government in the major railway investments that China has made in Mali. With railway construction being one of the key infrastructure and economic development programs in landlocked Mali, the deaths of these three Chinese nationals is clearly both a symbolic and very tangible attack on China’s partnership with Mali.

In late 2014, Mali’s President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita traveled to China to attend the World Economic Forum in Tianjin. On the sidelines of the forum the Malian president sealed a number of critical development deals with the Chinese government, the most high-profile of which were railway construction and improvement agreements. Chief among the projects is the construction of an $8 billion, 900km railway linking Mali’s capital of Bamako with the Atlantic port and capital of neighboring Guinea, Conakry. The project, seen by many experts as essential for bringing Malian mineral wealth to world markets, is critical to the economic development of the country. Additionally, CRCC was also tapped to renovate the railway connecting Bamako with Senegal’s capital of Dakar, with the project carrying a price tag of nearly $1.5 billion.

These two projects alone were worth nearly $10 billion, while a number of other projects, including road construction throughout the conflict-ridden north of the country, as well as construction of a much needed new bridge in gridlock-plagued Bamako, brought the cumulative worth of the Chinese investments to near (or above) the total GDP for Mali ($12 billion in 2014). Such massive investments in the country were obviously of great significance to the Malian government both because of their economically transformative qualities, and also because they had solidified China as perhaps the single most dominant investor in Mali, a country long since under the post-colonial economic yoke of France, and military yoke of the United States.

It seems highly implausible, to say the least, that a random terror attack solely interested in killing as many civilians as possible would have as its first three victims these three men, perhaps three of the most important men in the country at the time. But the implausible coincidences don’t stop there.

Among the dead are also six Russians, all of whom are said to have been employees of the Russian commercial cargo airline Volga-Dnepr. While at first glance it may seem irrelevant that the Russian victims worked for an airline, it is in fact very telling as it indicates a similar motive to the killing of the Chinese nationals; specifically, Volga-Dnepr is, according to its Wikipedia page, “a world leader in the global market for the movement of oversize, unique and heavy air cargo…[It] serves governmental and commercial organizations, including leading global businesses in the oil and gas, energy, aerospace, agriculture and telecommunications industries as well as the humanitarian and emergency services sectors.” The company has transported everything from gigantic excavators to airplanes, helicopters, mini-factories, and power plants, not to mention heavy machines used in energy extraction.

And so, their killing, like that of the CRCC executives, is a symbolic strike against Chinese and Russian investment in the country. And perhaps even more importantly, the attack was a symbolic attack upon the very nature of Sino-Russian collaboration and partnership, especially in the context of economic development in Africa and the Global South.

It would be worthwhile to add that Volga-Dnepr has also been involved in military transport services for NATO and the US until at least the beginning of the Ukraine conflict and Crimea’s reunification with Russia. Whether this fact has any bearing on the employees being targeted, that would be pure conjecture. Suffice to say though that Volga-Dnepr was no ordinary airline, but one that was integral to the entire economic development initiative in Mali. And this is really the key point: China and Russia are development partners for the former French colonial possession and US puppet state.

To be sure, China is not offering such deals to Mali solely out of altruism and in the spirit of generosity; naturally China expects to enrich itself and ensure access to raw materials, resources, and markets in Mali now and in the future. This is the sort of “win-win” partnership forever being touted by China as the cornerstone of its aid and investment throughout Africa. Indeed, in many ways, Mali is a prime example of just how China operates on the continent. Rather than a purely exploitative investment model (the IMF and World Bank examples come to mind), China is engaging in true partnership. And, contrary to what many have argued (that China is merely a rival imperialist power in Africa), China’s activities in Africa are by and large productive for the whole of the countries where China invests, a few egregious bad examples aside.

China is a friend of Africa, and it has demonstrated that repeatedly throughout the last decade. And perhaps it is just this sort of friendship that was under attack in the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako.


While the world has been transfixed by terrorism from the downing of the Russian airliner in Egypt, to the inhuman attacks in Paris and Beirut, not nearly enough attention has been paid to the attack in Mali. Perhaps one of the reasons the episode has not gotten the necessary scrutiny and investigation is the seemingly endless series of terror attacks that have transfixed news consumers worldwide. Perhaps it is simply good old fashioned racism that sees Africa as little more than a collection of chaotic states constantly in conflict, with violence and death being the norm.

Or maybe the real reason almost no one has shined a light on this episode is because of the global implications of the killings, and the obvious message they sent. While media organizations seem to have deliberately ignored the implication of the attacks of November 20th in Mali, one can rest assured that Beijing and Moscow got the message loud and clear. And one can also rest assured that the Chinese and Russians are well aware of the true motives of the attack. The question remains: how will these countries respond?

Source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/terror-in-mali-attack-on-china-and.html#more