FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’
By Spencer Ackerman – September 14, 2011 – Danger Room

The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that “main stream” [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader”; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a “funding mechanism for combat.”

At the Bureau’s training ground in Quantico, Virginia, agents are shown a chart contending that the more “devout” a Muslim, the more likely he is to be “violent.” Those destructive tendencies cannot be reversed, an FBI instructional presentation adds: “Any war against non-believers is justified” under Muslim law; a “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah.”

These are excerpts from dozens of pages of recent FBI training material on Islam that Danger Room has acquired. In them, the Constitutionally protected religious faith of millions of Americans is portrayed as an indicator of terrorist activity.

“There may not be a ‘radical’ threat as much as it is simply a normal assertion of the orthodox ideology,” one FBI presentation notes. “The strategic themes animating these Islamic values are not fringe; they are main stream.”

The FBI isn’t just treading on thin legal ice by portraying ordinary, observant Americans as terrorists-in-waiting, former counterterrorism agents say. It’s also playing into al-Qaida’s hands.

Focusing on the religious behavior of American citizens instead of proven indicators of criminal activity like stockpiling guns or using shady financing makes it more likely that the FBI will miss the real warning signs of terrorism. And depicting Islam as inseparable from political violence is exactly the narrative al-Qaida spins — as is the related idea that America and Islam are necessarily in conflict. That’s why FBI whistleblowers provided Danger Room with these materials.

Over the past few years, American Muslim civil rights groups have raised alarm about increased FBI and police presence in Islamic community centers and mosques, fearing that their lawful behavior is being targeted under the broad brush of counterterrorism. The documents may help explain the heavy scrutiny.

They certainly aren’t the first time the FBI has portrayed Muslims in a negative light during Bureau training sessions. As Danger Room reported in July, the FBI’s Training Division has included anti-Islam books, and materials that claim Islam “transforms [a] country’s culture into 7th-century Arabian ways.” When Danger Room confronted the FBI with that material, an official statement issued to us claimed, “The presentation in question was a rudimentary version used for a limited time that has since been replaced.”

But these documents aren’t relics from an earlier era. One of these briefings, titled “Strategic Themes and Drivers in Islamic Law,” took place on March 21.

The Islam briefings are elective, not mandatory. “A disclaimer accompanied the presentation stating that the views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. government,” FBI spokesman Christopher Allen tells Danger Room.

“The training materials in question were delivered as Stage Two training to counterterrorism-designated agents,” Allen adds. “This training was largely derived from a variety of open source publications and includes the opinion of the analyst that developed the lesson block.”

Not all counterterrorism veterans consider the briefings so benign. “Teaching counterterrorism operatives about obscure aspects of Islam,” says Robert McFadden, who recently retired as one of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service’s al-Qaida-hunters, “without context, without objectivity, and without covering other non-religious drivers of dangerous behavior is no way to stop actual terrorists.”

Still, at Quantico, the alleged connection between Islam and violence isn’t just stipulated. It’s literally graphed. …more

cb editor note: Please read the article by Voltaire’s, Thierry Meyssan, HERE regarding the resurrection of Al Qaeda as a supported US operative in Libya. This is an important article that clearly identifies a failing and misdirected US foreign policy in North Africa and the Middle East regarding the “Arab Democracy Movement”. It sets up a rerun of the scenario of felling trade towers, bombing embassies and sinking naval vessels that the resurrected US ally in Libya, Al Qaeda, once mastered, blow-back squared. Thierry Meyssan’s article is cross-posted on this blog HERE

The article below highlights the Weapons Brokering for Democracy movement that the USG and NATO have created in MENA while the largely peaceful and nonviolent movements for democracy remain under the repression of the Western supported regimes. It seems the Western leaders with their broken economies have reduced their foreign policy ambitions to ensuring success of black markets and increasing tradition weapon sales in the name of “democracy armed”. The lesson to be learned here is; if you don’t buy weapons from the West then you will not know “democracy”.

Phlipn Pagee

Main Article
U.S. helps create potential market to terrorists for WMDs
By D. Lindley Young – Knoxville Journal

Some question whether U.S. involvement in Libya was really thought out. There are a couple of big problems that the United States has in the war in Libya. First, we don’t really know who the “rebels” are and in all likelihood would count in their numbers members of al-Qaeda attempting to take advantage of the unrest and instability as there is a transition of power from Gaddafi to the rebels or representatives of the rebels.

Second, while some want war with Iran because they could potentially make a nuclear bomb and put it in the hands of terrorists, the Obama administration opens Pandora’s weapons box without control of it creating maybe the greatest opportunity ever for terrorists to get a large supply of Gaddafi’s stock pile of dangerous weapons. Gaddafi controlled chemical weapons, mustard gas, shoulder-held rockets, materials to make road side explosive devices and processed uranium which was left from his nuclear weapons program, which the U.S. does not want to get in the hands of al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.

The concern is real. Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch says that “weapon proliferation out of Libya is potentially one of the largest we have ever documented — 2003 Iraq pales in comparison — and so the risks are equally much more significant.”

As put by Adam Rawnsley in his article titled Gaddafi’s Loose Weapons Could Number a ‘Thousand Times’ Saddam’s: “Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi spent decades piling up a huge stash of weapons like a crazy old lady hoarding cats. Ironically, rebel forces looted his arms depots to turn Gaddafi’s missiles and guns on their old master. But the ease with which the rebels were able to arm themselves points to their next massive problem: securing those weapons before they fuel a lethal insurgency or flood the global arms bazaar.”

Although the U.S. may have special ops trying to secure the weapons our intelligence is weak and the rebels are not malleable to U.S. demands. Will the “rebels” who put their lives on the line in months of fighting and dying just turn them over to the U.S. if they have or get them?

The rebels got at least some of the weapons and used them against Gaddafi. So, can the U.S. count on the rebels since we helped them take down Gaddafi. Probably not.

Despite our help the rebels outright rejected U.S. demands to turn over the master mind behind the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 in Lackerbie, Scotland. The bombing killed over 270 people – mainly Americans. The bomber has been living in Libya as a hero under Gaddafi for the past two years after being released from prison in Scotland for humanitarian reasons. He was supposed to die within months of release from cancer. …source

U.S. Asks Saudi Arabia to Arm Libya Rebels
March 9, 2011 – Leak Source

[cb editor: This article is a bit dated but no less to the point that in President Obama’s Middle East and North Africa “democracy grows at the barrel of a gun”. With the Saudi’s as the only weapons broker for Obama’s “Armed Democracy Movement” in MENA it seems nonviolent protest, reform and opposition to tyrants, such as Bahrain’s King Hamad, will be a hard slog. Lacking the respect and value from the governments of the US and UK for nonviolent democracy movements, there comes a call to action to all nonviolent and peace living people to engage their countries to demand support and respect for these movements. ]

Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a “day of rage” from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington’s highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.

Washington’s request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 and later – to America’s chagrin – also funded and armed the Taliban.

But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain – even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.

The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi’s armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.

Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi’s strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato – not least from Republican members of Congress – to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.

US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya’s functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi’s opponents.

For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi’s private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.

Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.

The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission’s existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West’s lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.

Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi’s jet.

An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi’s own VIP airport.

Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: “Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?”

Malta air traffic control replies: “Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan.”

But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.

After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America’s request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region. …source

The Bahraini regime is carrying out outrageously reprehensible actions by torturing and imprisoning doctors and nurses, a political observer tells Press TV.

In an interview with Press TV, Colin Cavell, former assistant professor at University of Bahrain, commented on the crackdown by the Bahraini regime on peaceful anti-government protesters in the country.

The following is a transcript of the interview:

Press TV: The international community say they are urging the US and Saudi Arabia to pressure the Bahraini authorities to cease violating their citizen rights. But reality on the ground is that the opposite is taking place. Why is there such inconsistency?

Cavell: Everyone knows the US has a large military base in Bahrain and because of this reason of state, they are keeping quiet. Even though the US is funding and supporting the rebellions in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Syria, when it comes to the (Persian) Gulf kingdoms and sheikhdoms and Saudi Arabia, [there is] absolute silence, [which is] hypocritical, inconsistent.

Press TV: Let us look at this international human rights panel headed by law professor and former human rights expert Bassiouni. His findings were prejudiced. The Bahraini government has been accused by the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Navi Pillay for having her words distorted. How can human rights then be upheld in Bahrain?

Cavell: Nothing will come of substance from this commission, because it is being paid for by the monarchy. What is going be, there is another whitewash just as the national dialog was a whitewash. So, do not expect any lasting criticism or substantive criticism of the regime from this commission. He is accepting his pay from King Hamad and he is not going to swap the hand that feeds him.

Press TV: What is the role of Saudi Arabia and the United States in Bahrain? What is plan B if the Bahrainis move ahead with their demands?

Cavell: My name is Colin Cavell and it would be associated with my great grandmother Edith Cavell. She was a nurse who was shot by the Germans for giving aid to both German soldiers and Allied soldiers, exactly what the Bahraini doctors and nurses were doing, and what the Bahraini government is doing by torturing and imprisoning these doctors and nurses is an outrage, it is reprehensible and unforgivable. The regime should be held to account for this outrageous behavior against medical personnel.

With regard to the United States and Saudi Arabia, the Saudis have an economic hold on the United States. The United States, given its financial difficulties right now, is reluctant to speak out against the Saudi regime. It is a sclerotic and rotten regime that needs to fall … The regime, if not for oil, would have been overthrown 50 years ago. The regime needs to go. …source

Bahrain at the heart of Middle East tensions
September 13th, 2011 – By Rabah Ghezali – Special to CNN
Editor’s Note: Rabah Ghezali is a member of the Transatlantic Network 2020.

Bahrain’s uprising did not receive the same attention as other revolts in the Arab awakening, but it was perhaps the most strategically significant. The protests against the Bahraini government began on February 14, 2011. In response, Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa declared a state of emergency and called on his allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to suppress the uprising.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar intervened to curb the spread of the so-called “Arab Spring.” These other monarchies wanted to staunch the spread of uprisings because they threatened their regimes too. But even more was at stake for them. Bahrain is where the tension between the Gulf monarchies and Teheran, between Riyadh and Washington and between the traditionalists and the reformists played out.

Bahrain’s geopolitical significance

Bahrain is of real strategic significance for Riyadh in its power struggle against Iran. The Bahraini population is predominantly Shia and maintains a close relationship with Iran. Bahrain is ruled by a Sunni regime and Saudi Arabiawants to ensure the continuation of this regime.

Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Saudi Arabia has been living with the threat of Shia revolutions in regional countries that would upset the balance of power. Riyadh sees Shia revolts as attempts by Tehran to increase regional influence. This happened before in 1981 when the Iranian regime orchestrated an attempted uprising in Bahrain to overthrow the ruling ( Teheran still officially claims Bahrain as part of its historic territory emphasising the Iranian identity of 75% of the Bahraini Shias).

It’s important to note, however, that Bahrain confronted Iran with its own contradictions: how to support the uprising there while keeping silent on the bloody repression in Syria and of its internal opposition.

Saudi Arabia, which witnessed the political rise of the Shia communities in Lebanon and Iraq, would like to avoid having to face a similar scenario with Bahrain. Despite what Riyadh says, however, religion is not driving the revolts in Bahrain. Protesters in the capital city of Manama call for social equality, the end of discrimination and the democratization. Unemployment is close to 20% and affects mainly the Shias, which are barred from part of the public services such as the police and the army. This feeling of discrimination has been reinforced by the naturalization of Sunni immigrants. The disillusionment of the Shia has been magnified by the security crackdown, which has been perceived as a collective punishment.

However, playing the religious card allows the Saudis to “ideologize” the conflict. What would happen if Iran were to invoke a “responsibility to protect” to intervene militarily in Bahrain? Saudi Arabia and its allies are engaged in a dangerous game and that could lead to a military escalation between Riyadh and Tehran and to the crystallization of the tensions between Sunnis and Shias in the region.

Saudi Arabia counted on the restraint of its Western allies when it led the “counter-revolution”. Indeed, the measured critics of the United States before the Saudi-led operation contrasted with the firmness displayed against Libya. The tense relationship between Riyadh and Washington has been reinforced by the Obama administration turning on Hosni Mubarak. Washington was confronted with a tricky decision, scrambling to strike a balance between its support for allies in Manama and Riyadh and its pledge to back the Arab people in their pursuit of freedom. If Washington seemed in favour of political and social reforms in Bahrain, however, it did not necessarily want the fall of the regime. Bahrain is a traditional ally of Washington and home of the U.S. FifthFleet, which responsible for ensuring the security of the Strait of Hormuz through which 40% of the world’s oil passes.

Inside Bahrain

Inside the regime, the gap has widened between reformists led by Crown Prince Salman and hardliners grouped around the Prime Minister, Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa. The conservatives gained the upper hand after attempted negotiations in March between the Prince and the opposition were derailed by radicals of both sides. Since then, the Prime Minister is Bahrain’s strongman to the dissatisfaction of the reformist and the Shias.

The King of Bahrain recently called for a national dialogue and lifted the state of martial law. Al-Wefaq, Bahrain’s main Shia opposition party, welcomed King Hamad’s call but the changes al-Wefaq is seeking such as a constituent assembly to write a new constitution designing a parliamentarian monarchy would certainly not be accepted by the King. However, the negotiation could perhaps focus on giving more powers to the Parliament and on a redrawing of the constituencies, which today are designed to ensure that the Shia party remains permanently in opposition. Any changes to the King’s power or the removal of the Prime Minister are red lines.

On both sides of the divide, the next months are critical as the results of the negotiations and the findings of the human rights commission emerge and the trials of activists, politicians and doctors resume, all of which could lead to a deepening of internal tensions. Having little hope of change, the youth may soon assume that only street pressure will make the regime listen, recalling the promise of reforms made a decade ago in the National Action Charter of Bahrain, which ended the 1990’s popular uprising. To avoid such a deadlock and help move this divided society away from recriminations towards a constructive dialogue, the underlying causes of February’s protests – unemployment and discrimination – must be solved. Failing that, a new outpouring of protest may overwhelm the region. …source