#Jaish

[inyourfacex]

Jaish - Make Dat Work Ft Keeya Keys

[yashblower]

"Wishing everyone a blessed Hanuman Jayanti! May the divine blessings of Lord Hanuman fill your life with strength, courage, and devotion. 🙏🐒"

[theinfinitedivides]

i knew that was a shady mf

[kaitcreates]

Plot twist 2, electric boogaloo: the TWP love triangle isn’t Dru having to decide between Ash and Jaime. It’s Ash having to choose between Jaime and Dru.

[kimskashmir]

Kathua attack: Two Jaish associates arrested

JAMMU — The J&K Police on Thursday claimed a breakthrough in the Kathua militant attack by arresting two Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) associates who facilitated the militant attack. Police sources said that two JeM associates have been arrested from the hilly area of Kathua district. Sustained questioning of these two militant associates is likely to lead to more arrests of the persons involved in…

[dominousworld]

Stati Uniti sostengono gruppo terroristico “Jaish al-Adl”

Stati Uniti sostengono gruppo terroristico “Jaish al-Adl”

a cura della Redazione 20/01/2024 L’ex ambasciatore e ministro degli Esteri del Pakistan, Shamshad Ahmad Khan, ha sottolineato la legittimità delle preoccupazioni della Repubblica Islamica dell’Iran sulla minaccia del terrorismo ai confini comuni, affermando che gli Stati Uniti sostengono il gruppo terroristico “Jaish al-Adl” . Ahmad Khan ha rilasciato questo commento venerdì alla televisione…

[pebblegalaxy]

Pulwama Terrorist Attack: A Tragic Incident that Shook India #Pulwama #TerroristAttack #India #JaisheMohammed #Pakistan #AirstrikePulwama #PulwamaAttack

The Pulwama terrorist attack was a tragic incident that took place on February 14, 2019, in the Pulwama district of Jammu and Kashmir, India. The attack was carried out by a suicide bomber belonging to the Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). The attack resulted in the deaths of 40 Indian security personnel and was one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in India in recent…

[mapsontheweb]

Terrorism in South Asia has been a persistent and complex issue. The region has faced various forms of terrorism, often fueled by political, religious, and ethnic tensions. Countries like India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh have witnessed acts of terrorism with different motives.

🌐 Regional Dynamics: Tensions between India and Pakistan have fueled cross-border terrorism, with militant groups operating in disputed regions like Jammu and Kashmir. Afghanistan has been grappling with the Taliban, contributing to instability. 🛑 Extremist Groups: Several extremist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Taliban, have been active in the region, carrying out attacks and posing significant security challenges. ⚖️ Counterterrorism Efforts: Countries in the region have engaged in counterterrorism efforts, including intelligence sharing, military operations, and diplomatic initiatives. However, the effectiveness varies, and challenges persist. 🕊️ Peace Initiatives: Despite ongoing challenges, there have been occasional peace talks and diplomatic efforts to address root causes and find lasting solutions. However, achieving sustained peace in the region remains a complex task. 🔍 Ongoing Concerns: South Asia continues to face threats from both domestic and transnational terrorist groups. Socioeconomic factors, political instability, and historical grievances contribute to the persistence of terrorism in the region. Addressing terrorism in South Asia requires a comprehensive approach, combining security measures with efforts to address root causes and promote regional cooperation.

by themapsdaily

[david-goldrock]

They are shouting "Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud, Jaish Muhmmad Suf Ya'ud"

thanks for the reminder, I won't forget

[captain-price-unofficially]

The official tier list of globally recognized terrorist organizations based off of their flag designs

This is 100% scientific fact based off of my personal research into the field of vexillology. Argue with me if you want to in the comments. There groups in order from left to right are: (S): Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hezbollah, People's Defense Units, Khalistan Liberation Force (A): Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham, People's Anti-Fascist Front, Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front, Oromo Liberation Front, Free Papua Movement, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Tigray People's Liberation Front, United Liberation Front of Asom, Balochistan Liberation Army, Ogaden National Liberation Front (B): Al-Qaeda, The Base, Daesh, Hurras al-Din, Congress of the Peoples of Ichkeria and Dagestan, Lord's Resistance Army, People's Liberation Army of Manipur, Syrian Revolution, Kurdistan Workers' Party, National Liberation Army (Colombia) (C): Jamiat-e Islami, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Badr, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, United National Liberation Front, National Liberation Movement of Ahwaz, Kamtapur Liberation Organisation, Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (D): Taliban, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Liwa Fatemiyoun, Dukhtaran-e-Millat, al-Qaeda in the Indian subcontinent, Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (F): Houthi, Kurdistan Freedom Hawks, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Tehreek-i-Taliban, Turkistan Islamic Party, Shining Path

[beardedmrbean]

Iran has admitted carrying out a missile and drone attack on western Pakistan on Tuesday.

Officials in Islamabad said two children were killed and three others injured in the attack in Balochistan.

Iran's foreign minister said the operation targeted the militant group Jaish al-Adli, which he described as an "Iranian terrorist group" in Pakistan.

As a result the Pakistan's government recalled its ambassador to Iran and has blocked Tehran's envoy from returning.

The Balochistan attack comes after Iran attacked targets in Iraq and Syria earlier this week.

Islamabad said the attack was "illegal" and warned of "serious consequences".

However Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, speaking in Davos, insisted that no Pakistani citizens had been targeted, only members of Jaish al-Adl.

"We only targeted Iranian terrorists on the soil of Pakistan," Mr Amir-Abdollahian said.

He added he had spoken to his Pakistani counterpart and "assured him that we do respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan and Iraq".

The latest air strike comes at a time of growing tension across the Middle East, with war raging between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza.

Tehran says it does not want to get involved in a wider conflict. But groups in its so-called "Axis of Resistance", which include the Houthi militants in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and various groups in Syria and Iraq, have been carrying out attacks on Israel and its allies to show solidarity with the Palestinians. The US and UK have launched air strikes on the Houthis after they attacked commercial shipping.

China on Wednesday urged Pakistan and Iran to show "restraint" and "avoid actions that would lead to an escalation of tension". Foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning added that Beijing saw the countries as "close neighbours".

Perhaps stung by recent deadly attacks on home soil, Iran seems intent on exacting revenge on those it sees as responsible.

At a time of heightened regional tensions, Iran is keen to portray strength and demonstrate to its own population that acts of violence will not go unpunished.

Iran shows missile capabilities with regional strikes

Tuesday's strike in Pakistan hit a village in the vast south-western border province of Balochistan. Tehran said it was targeting Jaish al-Adl, or "army of justice", an ethnic Baloch Sunni Muslim group that has carried out attacks inside Iran as well as on Pakistani government forces.

Last December Jaish al-Adl attacked a police station in Rask, a town close to the border with Pakistan.

Two weeks ago Iran suffered its worst domestic attack since the Islamic Revolution, when two bombs killed 84 people at a ceremony in Kerman to commemorate the US assassination of Iran's notorious Revolutionary Guard general, Qasem Soleimani.

On Monday, Iran fired ballistic missiles at Syria and Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Iran said it was targeting Islamic State and Israel's Mossad spy agency, both of whom it said had been involved in the Kerman bombings.

The strike on Iraq hit a building in the northern city of Irbil. Four civilians were killed and six hurt in the attack, local authorities said. The US condemned the attack.

Iran then struck Syria's north-western Idlib province, which is the last remaining opposition stronghold in the country and home to 2.9 million displaced people.

But hitting its nuclear-armed eastern neighbour Pakistan is a dramatic escalation. Pakistan expressed outrage, saying the attack took place "despite the existence of several channels of communication" between the countries.

On Wednesday Islamabad said it had recalled its ambassador to Iran and the Iranian ambassador would not be allowed back into the country for the time being.

Pakistan and Iran have a delicate but cordial relationship. This attack took place on the same day as Pakistan's prime minister and Iran's foreign minister met in Davos and while the Iranian and Pakistan navies held military drills together in the Gulf.

Yet both have accused one another of harbouring militant groups that carry out attacks on the other in their border areas for years.

Security on either side of their shared border, which runs for about 900km (559 miles), has been a long-running concern for both governments.

The Iranian strike is believed to have hit Sabz Koh village about 45km from the Iranian border and 90km from the nearest town Panjgur. Local officials described it as a sparsely populated area home to livestock-owning Baloch tribes where smuggling of goods, drugs and weapons is rife.

"People on both sides of the border consider themselves to be deprived of basic necessities, face discrimination and demand a larger share from their own resources," security commentator Zaigham Khan told the BBC.

In Iran, the Sunni Muslim Baloch minority complains of discrimination in the Shia Muslim-majority state, while Baloch separatist groups are continuing an insurgent movement against the Pakistani government.

Jaish al-Adl is the "most active and influential" Sunni militant group operating in Sistan-Baluchestan, according to the office of the US Director of National Intelligence. It is designated as a terrorist group by Washington and Tehran.

Another security commentator in Pakistan, Aamir Rana, told the BBC he thought the diplomatic crisis "would take a while to calm down but this is also something that Pakistan would not like to escalate".

He said in the past Pakistan had not reacted to Iran's actions along the border - "but now the ball is in Iran's court, whether it wants to get its act right".

[mariacallous]

Since the Israel-Hamas war began, Iran and its archipelago of proxies have steadily advanced a collective campaign against Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East. That campaign—which has included Hezbollah’s strikes into northern Israel from Lebanon, the Houthis’ attempted blockade of shipping through the Red Sea from Yemen, and near-daily rocket attacks by Shiite militias on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria—has threatened to drag the United States into an expanding conflict. With its recent missile strikes on three neighboring states, Iran signaled a potential new phase in the evolving turmoil, one that seemingly inched the Middle East closer toward a regionwide war.

In those attacks, Iran was attempting to showcase its military strength and resolve. Yet, it also betrayed something else: Iran’s inherent weakness and strategic limitations.

On Jan. 16, using a combination of ballistic missiles and drones, Iran struck targets in Syria, Iraq, and Pakistan that its officials claimed had been associated with Israeli intelligence and anti-regime terrorist groups. The assaults were ostensibly in response to the suicide bombing attacks in the southern city of Kerman earlier this month, which killed at least 84 Iranians.

Although the Islamic State claimed responsibility for that carnage, which hit a crowd commemorating Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, who had been assassinated in a U.S. drone missile strike four years earlier, Iranian officials also blamed Israel and the United States.

In its brazen response, the IRGC launched a barrage of ballistic missiles and drones that struck buildings in northwestern Syria, destroyed the villa of a prominent Kurdish businessman in Erbil, Iraq, who Iranian officials implied was an Israeli asset, and hit the mudbrick house of a Baluch family in the rural Pakistani town of Koh-e Sabz, which Iranian officials claimed was linked to the anti-regime Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice) terrorist group. The actions showcased Iran’s refined missile capabilities and underscored that Tehran could violate the sovereignty of neighboring states at will and free of meaningful consequence.

Although not much has been confirmed about the strikes in Syria, which hit a rebel-held area, Iraqi and Pakistani officials reported that the strikes in their countries hit family homes and killed at least six innocent civilians, including two young girls and an infant. For Iran’s leaders, the victims mattered less than the demonstration effect of the act. Iran’s choice of retaliation was designed to send a clear message to its enemies, and to Israel and the United States in particular: Any aggression against Iran will be met with quick and severe retaliation.

A willingness to respond to its enemies through missile attacks against neighboring states is something Iran has steadily showcased. In 2019, Iran struck Saudi Arabian oil facilities with cruise missiles and drones in retaliation for Riyadh’s support for the Trump administration’s pressure campaign on Iran. In 2022, in response to a series of sabotage attacks inside Iran linked to Israel, the IRGC launched a missile salvo that destroyed a Kurdish compound in Erbil that Iranian officials claimed had been used by Mossad to plan operations inside Iran.

More provocatively, Iran countered the assassination of Suleimani with a missile barrage against U.S. forces stationed at Iraq’s Ayn al-Assad air base in January 2020. That attack could have easily resulted in a shooting war with the United States, and had it not been for the mercurial decision-making of former President Donald Trump and the IRGC’s downing of Ukraine Air Flight 752 with an anti-air missile after mistaking it for a U.S. missile in the immediate aftermath of the attack, it may have. Yet, in all of those attacks—none of which were lethal, other than the downed flight—Iran incurred no military retaliation. The lack of responses emboldened Iran’s behavior and helped secure its policy of retaliation as a viable option.

Iran’s recent strikes were similarly designed to remind its foes that is has both the will and capabilities to escalate. Its missiles are accurate and can be deployed against targets anywhere in the region. Yet, while Iran may have succeeded in messaging resolve and ability, it did so by attacking straw men. Even though it blamed Israel and the United States for the suicide bombings in Kerman, it did not retaliate against either. And despite its vocal support for the people of the Gaza Strip, Iran did not attempt to use its military power for their benefit.

Instead, Iran fired ballistic missiles against isolated family homes—not military targets—in weak states. Iran chose actions against countries that it calculated would not seek to impose meaningful consequences or serious escalation.

Syria’s government did not acknowledge Iran’s attack, and because the missiles fell in rebel territory, it probably supported the effort. Iraq’s government, which is controlled by politicians close to Iran, was outwardly embarrassed and troubled by Iran’s actions and moved to take modest action by recalling its ambassador and issuing a diplomatic démarche in protest. However, because of Iran’s outsized influence among Iraq’s heavily armed Shiite militias and within Iraqi officialdom, Baghdad was in no place to do much more.

Pakistan was the only state in a position to reply to Iran’s aggression with anything other than words. Beyond withdrawing its ambassador from Tehran and barring Iran’s envoy from the country, Pakistan’s military promptly launched airstrikes against Baluch dissidents in Iran. But after matching Iran’s actions in a tit-for-tat exchange that killed at least 11 civilians and left smoking ruins in residential neighborhoods in both countries, Pakistan’s government issued a statement calling Iran a “brotherly” country and sought de-escalation. As Iran’s leaders assuredly predicted, Pakistan had no appetite to prolong hostilities, which meant that Iran’s actions were once again likely to escape significant ramifications.

Iran has therefore become adept at—but also reliant on—posturing for its deterrence. That is because, despite its military’s regional prominence, Iran lacks the power to take the fight to its enemies or clash with more powerful adversaries head-to-head. Even in the wars in Syria and Iraq, where the IRGC was heavily involved, Iran-led forces struggled in both conflicts until Russia and the United States intervened. It was under the umbrella of Russian air power that Iran-backed forces were able to turn the tide against Syria’s rebels, and it was the U.S.-led coalition (including Iraqi military and Kurdish forces) that was chiefly responsible for defeating the Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq.

Iran possesses impressive missile and drone capabilities, but those capabilities can only achieve so much. Relative to some of its neighbors, Iran’s air force is weak and relies on outmoded, Cold War era platforms such as the F-4 Phantom. Iran’s ground forces are more formidable, but they are strongest in defense and cannot easily take or hold territory beyond Iran’s borders.

Iran’s Shiite militia proxies are similarly limited. They are most effective when acting as insurgents in their home territories or as political spoilers. Unless they’re given a permissive environment in which to operate or backed by a more powerful foreign military force, such as in Syria, they are not adept at conventional operations. They can set up roadside bombs, fire mortars, launch missiles and drones, kidnap and kill local rivals, and engage in ambush attacks, but not much more.

Such tactics can still be effective, primarily because they are difficult for foreign state militaries to counter without committing to lasting campaigns and employing significant force. The effort waged by Shiite militias against U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq is a good example of this. Even though the United States has retaliated at times with limited strikes, it has been largely hesitant to respond to the more than 120 rocket attacks against U.S. forces conducted by Iran-backed militias since October. That is because there is no simple way to deal with those militias without fighting them directly, and doing so would not only drag the United States into another Middle East war, which would undoubtedly be unpopular in U.S. domestic politics—it would also jeopardize ongoing U.S. efforts against the Islamic State as well as relations with Iraq.

The Iraqi government’s response to a recent U.S. strike that killed a militia commander in Baghdad, which seeks to end the U.S. military presence in the country, is illustrative of the political sensitives limiting U.S. actions. The Houthis in Yemen are using a similar strategy in their attempt to blockade shipping through the Red Sea. Again, relying on missiles and drones, the Houthis are willing to tolerate limited blowback from the United States because they can reasonably assume that the United States doesn’t want to fight a war in Yemen, and therefore will not commit enough resources and firepower to meaningfully endanger the Houthis’ control of their home turf. The Houthis are willing to absorb some losses because they view that the political upside of their effort outweighs the risks.

The same is true for Iran and its other proxies, which is why they keep pushing. They hope to ensnare the United States in an unwinnable situation, one that may eventually prompt Washington to see more value in simply walking away from its military commitments in the region rather than obligating more resources to preserve the status quo.

Iran’s proxies can risk limited blowback from the United States and Israel because they have very little to lose. Iran, on the other hand, would have much more to lose if it were to spark a direct conflict with the United States or Israel. Iran could not, for example, replicate the Houthis’ shipping blockade effort in the Strait of Hormuz. It could try, but the risk of sparking direct escalation with the United States, much less the strain that it would place on relations with China and its neighbors, would present significant risk.

Seeking to reduce risk is why Iran outsources much of the violence to its clients—and why its clients have taken the lead in military action against foreign adversaries during the current crisis. Funneling its strategic activities through proxies keeps the fight away from Iran’s doorstep and allows others to absorb the costs.

In the present context, as Iran and its proxies attempt to assert themselves as the chief countervailing force against Israel and the United States, they have few cards to play. That is especially true in terms of military action, where they are mostly limited to standoff strikes. They can fire at targets from a long distance and use the threat of such as coercion with neighbors and foes, but Iran and its clients cannot do much more. They cannot take their war to Israel or liberate Palestine by force.

Instead, they are limited to conducting provocative acts in an attempt to shape the political environment. For Iran, such acts signal both what it can do and the limits of what it’s willing to do for its cause.

[curiositasmundi]

[...]

La novità più sorprendente degli ultimi giorni sono sicuramente i bombardamenti dell’Iran contro alcuni paesi a maggioranza musulmana.

Dal 7 ottobre dell’anno scorso, il giorno dell’attacco di Hamas contro i civili israeliani, le tensioni in Medio Oriente si sono concentrate tutte attorno a Israele e alla Striscia di Gaza. Tutti i rischi di nuovi scontri e di un’estensione del conflitto finora sono stati fatti risalire alla guerra a Gaza e alla possibilità che l’Iran e i suoi alleati, come il gruppo libanese Hezbollah, decidessero di intervenire contro Israele, il loro più grande nemico. In realtà i timori di un’estensione del conflitto in questo senso si sono rivelati alla fine esagerati: in più di un’occasione l’Iran e Hezbollah hanno fatto capire che, allo stato attuale delle cose, non intendono attaccare direttamente Israele.

Diverso è invece il discorso sui ribelli Houthi, che controllano metà dello Yemen dopo avere iniziato una guerra con il governo centrale yemenita dieci anni fa. Da dicembre i ribelli hanno cominciato ad attaccare con razzi e missili le navi commerciali che passano per il mar Rosso. Gli Houthi hanno detto che gli attacchi contro le navi sono una risposta alla guerra a Gaza, e che si interromperanno quando Israele smetterà di attaccare la Striscia. Gli Stati Uniti, davanti a una crisi commerciale che rischiava di diventare molto grave, hanno deciso di bombardare obiettivi militari degli Houthi.

Fin qui i legami tra tutte queste vicende, benché complicati, sono piuttosto chiari: le azioni di tutti i paesi e dei gruppi coinvolti ruotano attorno alla guerra a Gaza. Poi però l’Iran ha cominciato a bombardare altri paesi.

[...]

In Siria, l’Iran sostiene di aver bombardato le postazioni di alcuni gruppi terroristici sunniti, e in particolare dell’ISIS, gruppo che aveva rivendicato l’attacco terroristico compiuto a Kerman, in Iran, all’inizio di gennaio, in cui erano state fatte esplodere due bombe ed erano state uccise 84 persone. Quello di Kerman era stato uno degli attentati più gravi della storia recente dell’Iran, che aveva messo estremamente sotto pressione il regime sciita che governa il paese. I bombardamenti in Siria contro l’ISIS sono con ogni probabilità una risposta all’attentato.

Sui bombardamenti iraniani in Pakistan le interpretazioni sono meno chiare. L’Iran ha detto di aver colpito postazioni del gruppo sunnita Jaish al Adl, che opera al confine tra Iran e Pakistan e che viene considerato terroristico sia dal governo iraniano sia da quello statunitense.

[...]

Quindi, almeno in apparenza, i bombardamenti iraniani contro Siria e Pakistan sono eventi isolati, che l’Iran ha compiuto contro altri nemici e non hanno niente a che fare con il crescente aumento della tensione in Medio Oriente provocato dalla guerra a Gaza. In realtà non è proprio così.

Benché le ragioni immediate degli attacchi non riguardino Israele, questi bombardamenti sono la prova che l’Iran e i suoi alleati sono sotto pressione, e questa pressione è stata ovviamente creata dalla guerra a Gaza.

[...]

[head-post]

Iran targets military bases in Pakistan, US base evacuates in Syria

Iran launched airstrikes in Pakistan, allegedly targeting a Sunni militant group, meanwhile the US military evacuated the Hemo base near the town of Qamishli following repeated attacks by Islamic resistance groups in Iraq, signalling an escalation in the Middle East.

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry reported that two children were killed and three injured in an “illegal” airstrike. To protest the “unprovoked violation of its airspace,” the ministry summoned Tehran’s senior diplomat to Islamabad.

Iran reported that the strikes targeted bases of the Sunni militant group Jaish al-Adl, but any mention of the attack disappeared rapidly in Iranian media.

The strikes in Pakistan came less than a day after Iranian missile strikes in Syria and Iraq, part of Tehran’s retaliation after the bombing in the city of Kerman at the memorial of commander Qasem Soleimani.

Read more HERE

[communist-ojou-sama]

'And of course any principles on such matters will be reduced to “campism.”' ok but what are your principles here. I sincerely do not understand why supporting ukraine against the russian invasion is incompatible with supporting palestine against israeli occupation

Because the Maidan regime is not "Ukraine", it is a NATO cat's-paw puppet government that was installed in a 2014 coup d'état spearheaded by avowed neo-Nazis. And comparing their proxy war on behalf of NATO to the long-standing struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom from Zionist repression is a genuinely vile insult to the Palestinian resistance, that's why. Because the ethnic cleansing of the Nagorno-Karabakh, the Zionist terror bombing of Gaza, the arming and training of Jabhat al-NuSra, Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam and a myriad of other salafist jihadi groups by the US, Israel, and Turkey in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government, the mass deaths of Pakistanis from floods and droughts brought about by western climate change, and the militarization and "fortress"-ization of the West are all part of one world system that facilitates all of these horrors and more. In an extension of the idea of "stochastic terrorism", I personally have begun to theorize it as "the stochastic Holocaust". And Zelensky and his masters are on the side of the perpetrators.

[kimskashmir]

Jaish module busted in Srinagar, four associates arrested: Police

SRINAGAR (KIMS) — The Jammu and Kashmir Police along with joint team of security forces busted a module of Jaish-e-Mohammd (JeM) militant outfit by arresting its four associates in Srinagar on Saturday. The joint team of security forces recovered arms and ammunition from their possession. “Acting on a specific information, a joint Mobile Vehicle Check Post (MVCP) comprising of Srinagar Police, 50…