#richarddent | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

international-intelligence-inc · 9 months

Text

The man CATOVIC was primarily responsible for the 9111 terrorist attacks in 2001. Becuse he entered the country, ours USA using diplomatic immunity, after confessing he had planned to bomb additional targets in upper Manhattan on 911 he was thrown out of America "persona non-grata," never to return. Now he is back in America the Serbian government has informed me and no one seems to care. He is allegedly according to Serbian intelligence sources here in the tri-state area building Al Qaeda training bases here and has been back here since 2004. Doesn't anyone care in the CIA they have a 911 terrorist illegally or legally back in America with malicious intent or do we just sit back and allow another 911 to occur. He is teaching at Rutger's in Newark NJ additionally.

Catovic is in charge of every single "white al Qaeda," person you see armed dressed ion white above in Bosnian and has been in Bosnian attempting with the former Bosnian President Izetbegovic for decades to construct a pure radical Al Qaeda state of Bosnia. This is a case of the CIA refusing to do their due diligence and repeating the history they did in 2001 causing 911 to begin with thanks to Bill Clinton. Anybody else want to comment please? Jilly

PS: CATOVIC worked between 1999-2004 with me in the United Nations BOsnian UN Mission in NYC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1999 Photo I hand delivered to Richardd Holbrook who and Bill CLinton ignored and did not even tell Mi6 their so called friends "about where Bin Laden was hiding out in Bosnia."

by Jill Louise Starr on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 at 21:10

Photos of Al Qaeda Operative Passports. Thank My Serbian Friends in Bosnia & Beograd!Read more: http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/entry/photos-of-al-qaeda-operative-passports-thank-my-serbian-friends-in-bosnia-beograd/#ixzz0wup5hCtj

QUICK LINK TO OUR-->>ANTI-TERRORISM & AL QAEDA NEWS ALERTS ((Click This Link Now !!!)

The euphoria surrounding the signing of the Dayton and Paris Accords toward the close of 1995 created the impression of an emerging political solution for the bitter and cruel wars in the former Yugoslavia. The key to the new era of peace was to be the emergence of the unified state of Bosnia- Herzegovina. Although divided into two distinct entities (Muslim-Croat and Serb) and ruled by a predominantly Muslim government, the Accords stipulated that the new Bosnia was to be a truly multinational, democratic state. Completely ignored in the Dayton-Paris Accords was the Islamist factor: the force which enabled the Sarajevo leadership to endure and fight since the early 1990s, and the force most capable of breaking down the Accords while confronting the NATO forces enforcing it.

Since mid-November 1995, the Sarajevo Administration has been stressing the growing importance of the Islamist factor to its very survival and ability to consolidate its control over Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the process, Sarajevo highlighted and endorsed the vehemently anti-US/anti-West character of the Islamists. Thus, having gone to great lengths to ensure all-out US support during the Dayton negotiations earlier in November, Sarajevo could not wait to resume pursuit of its real policies, having just gained, in the words of US State Department negotiator Richard Holbrooke, 85 percent of its objectives. Washington should not have been surprised by the swift, stark revival of Sarajevo's Islamist character, for even during the Dayton negotiations the Bosnian Muslim leadership was going out of its way to ensure that nobody could doubt Sarajevo's enduring commitment to the radical Islamist cause.

2. The Real Sarajevo After Dayton

Sarajevo's insistence on retaining and expanding its close relations with the Islamists -- particularly the Islamic Republic of Iran -- was repeatedly stressed and demonstrated during the Dayton negotiations. Since late November 1995, Sarajevo has emphasized its close relationship with Iran and its commitment to the Islamist cause. These activities were conducted along two main courses: (a) high-level political activities in which Sarajevo's gratitude to Tehran and determination to further improve and expand relations have been stressed; and (b) a host of clandestine and semi-clandestine activities in which Sarajevo's willingness and determination to continue the Islamist jihad in Bosnia-Herzegovina has been clearly demonstrated. The latter activities are most significant for they are in flagrant contradiction with Sarajevo's promise to Washington that it would evict all the mujahedin by mid-January 1996.

Already in mid-November 1995, Bosnian Muslim sources in Dayton and throughout the Middle East revealed that during the negotiations, the US delegation made repeated and futile efforts to pressure Sarajevo to reduce the level of its close relations with Iran. Sarajevo not only refused, but rushed to demonstrate its commitment to Tehran. On November 21, on the eve of the initialing of the Dayton Accords, Omar Bahman, the Bosnian Ambassador to Tehran, assured the government that the Tehran-Sarajevo ties were "deep and extensive" and that he "had not heard of any report [from Sarajevo] about cutting or curtailing relations with Iran". He reiterated Sarajevo's commitment to policies agreed upon with Tehran.

Ambassador Bahman also routinely briefed Tehran on the progress and character of the Dayton negotiations. The essence of Bahman's, and thus Sarajevo's, reading of the Dayton process was reflected in the November 23 analysis of the agreement by pro-Islamist circles in Tehran. They suggested that agreement was imposed upon Sarajevo through US threats and pressures. These circles, closely associated with the opinion of the leadership of the Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and VEVAK (Iranian intelligence), therefore anticipate a resumption of fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The cruel nature of the imposed Ohio accord reveals why this accord has many dissenters among the politicians, combatants, and people of Bosnia-Herzegovina. No-one knows whether all the Bosnian people and combatants prefer the unjust accords to war. The Bosnian crisis will not end with the Ohio accord. It will smolder under the embers and erupt into a conflagration sooner or later." Tehran, they assure, will wholeheartedly support the Bosnian Muslim forces in the case of such a resumption of the Islamic struggle in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Meanwhile, official Tehran's reaction to the news of an agreement in Dayton was measured and calm, reflecting inside knowledge and confidence that things would continue Tehran's way. Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's Ambassador's to the UN and a senior Pasdaran intelligence officer involved in terrorism sponsorship, stated that Tehran "share[s] the sentiment expressed by Bosnians that although the agreement [signed in Dayton] is not just, it is a move to prevent further bloodshed in Bosnia-Herzegovina". In Tehran, Deputy Foreign Minister Mahmud Va'ezi stressed Tehran's support for Izetbegovic. If Izetbegovic was content with the agreement, Tehran would support him. The same approach was expressed in Iranian President Hashemi-Rafsanjani's congratulatory message to Izetbegovic.

But the Iranian charade did not last long. On November 27,1995, Ebrahim Rahimpur, a senior Foreign Ministry official, stressed Tehran's commitment to ensuring the Islamic character of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The US-imposed agreement had its shortcomings, Rahimpur explained, the primary being the effort to suppress the country's Islamic character. "Bosnia has survived due to sacrifices of its Muslim citizens and the help of its friends, particularly Iran," he stressed. In the aftermath of the Dayton accord, "the commitment of Muslim countries towards Bosnia and its Muslim population has become deeper than before."

By now, Tehran was at the helm of more than just Islamic solidarity. The Iranian unique position in the Muslim World on the Bosnian issue was clearly demonstrated in the emergency gathering in Tehran of the Islamic Countries' Aid Mobilization Group for Bosnia. The foreign ministers attending included those from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, all ostensibly recognizing Iran's prominence and leadership.

Reflecting the real emphasis of the conference, Sarajevo's representative was Rasim Delic, Bosnia's Chief of General Staff and architect of its long-term military strategy.

On the eve of the conference, in a separate meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Velayati, Delic defined the Dayton accord as "unjust" and urged "the continuing assistance of Islamic countries to the people of Bosnia". He singled out Iran for its "unstinting assistance" to Sarajevo and expressed his confidence that such aid will continue. Velayati assured Delic that Iranian assistance, particularly military, would only increase.

Indeed, in his address to the Tehran Conference, Delic repeated his argument that "the Dayton peace accord was unjust for Bosnian Muslims" and urged "Islamic countries to increase their assistance particularly in the military area to Bosnia-Herzegovina". Delic anticipated the military confrontation to resume "because the unjust peace may cause fresh clashes in the future". Therefore, Delic stressed, "under present circumstances Bosnia-Herzegovina should continue to be a strategic region for all Islamic countries and these [Islamic] states should increase their political and military aid to Bosnia to alleviate pressures being exerted on it".

In response, the conference chairman, Ja'afar Kamel of Malaysia, reaffirmed the commitment of the Islamic states to provide comprehensive political and military assistance to the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The military factor dominated the key addresses. In his speech, Hashemi-Rafsanjani stressed that assistance to "Muslim Bosnia" has always been an "Islamic Duty". "Establishing military balance [in Bosnia-Herzegovina] in order to guarantee lasting peace ... is one of the main duties of this group," Iran's Foreign Minister Velayati declared. "The message that this meeting should convey is that we as members of a single Islamic Ummah (people) are all sensitive to the future and prosperity of other members." Indeed, the Conference decided to provide "new military assistance" to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Tehran concluded the Conference with the declaration: "Islamic countries should not spare any effort to boost the defense capability of Bosnia along with actively participating in the reconstruction of that country."

Meanwhile, the Conference of the Islamic Countries' Aid Mobilization Group for Bosnia also served as a cover for far more significant meetings between Delic and his aides and senior terrorist and intelligence leaders, and senior commanders from Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, as well as representatives from Sudan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, including senior HizbAllah and Arab Afghan leaders. Their deliberations were devoted to the struggles ahead, anticipating a marked escalation rather than an era of peace. They discussed the transfer of additional combatants/terrorists and arms to Bosnia-Herzegovina to be able to deal with the NATO "invasion" and the demands of the ensuing escalation of the Islamist jihad into Western Europe.

Reflecting these decisions, the pro-Islamist circles in Tehran stressed the anti-Islamic character of the Dayton accords. "The West only thinks of... stopping an Islamic state from taking root in Bosnia," they argued. The all out support from the entire Muslim world should ensure that this design did not materialize.

Meanwhile, on November 29, 1995, upon the conclusion of the Tehran Conference, Iran's Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Velayati, left for Zagreb and Sarajevo at the head of a high-level delegation.

In their meeting, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman asked Velayati for Tehran's help in mediating outstanding disputes with Sarajevo in order to improve relations between the three countries. Tudjman stressed that Zagreb recognized Tehran's unique position in Sarajevo.

The most important part of Velayati's visit was the discussion of bilateral -- Iranian-Croatian -- strategic relations. These were held between Velayati and Gojko Susak, Croatian Defense Minister. Iran agreed to sell cheap oil to Croatia and purchase ships from Croatian shipyards as part of expediting Iran's ability to contribute to the "reconstruction" and "consolidation" of Bosnian Muslims: especially the transfer of arms and personnel via Croatia. Zagreb stressed the importance of the "military cooperation among Bosnia, Iran and Croatia" agreed upon with Velayati. Before leaving Zagreb, Velayati announced that Iran and Croatia would conclude a military cooperation deal before the end of 1995.

On November 30, Velayati arrived in Sarajevo on a UN aircraft. He was denied his request to fly in a special Iran Air aircraft in order not to alienate the Serbs. Tehran highlighted this incident as an example of the UN's and NATO's anti-Muslim stance.

The official reason for Velayati's visit to Sarajevo was the inauguration of the new huge complex of the Iranian Embassy.

President Alija Izetbegovic and virtually the entire Sarajevo elite attended the ceremony. In his remarks, Izetbegovic stressed the importance of the enduring close relations between Iran and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Significantly, the new Embassy complex includes a major communication center, as well as a vast intelligence and terrorism sponsorship complex. These facilities were built in accordance with the Iranian-Bosnian cooperation agreement which Baker Izetbegovic, the son of Alija Izetbegovic, signed in Tehran back in November 1994. Presently, this Iranian Embassy complex now also provides "legal" cover for numerous (close to 100) senior Iranian experts previously operating semi-clandestinely in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim military and intelligence arms.

In Sarajevo, Velayati held lengthy discussions with Izetbegovic on the regional and strategic situation, their joint reaction to the Dayton agreement, and the challenges ahead. Velayati reiterated Iran's all out support, especially military, for the Sarajevo leadership. Velayati also met with Bosnian Foreign Minister Muhamed Sacirbegovic and Presidency Member Ejup Ganic.

During Velayati's visit, Tehran and Sarajevo reached a new memorandum of understanding between their countries. They agreed that Iran had an important role to play in the reconstruction and securing of a Muslim Bosnia even though this would be "a source of displeasure" for some governments, particularly the US.

Velayati and the Iranian delegation also met with the Bosnian Muslim leadership led by Reis ul-Ulema Mustafa Efendi Ceric and Hadzi Haset Ismet Effendi Spahic to discuss the position of Bosnian Muslims in the region, and Iranian assistance to strengthen Islam in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Balkans as a whole.

Velayati returned to Tehran convinced that Iranian relations with both Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina "have brighter prospects ahead than in the past".

The main reason for Tehran's optimism was the rapid implementation of the military-terrorism preparations in Bosnia-Herzegovina despite the Dayton Accords. The Bosnian special forces, including the Mujahedin, play the central role in these activities.

3. The Mujahedin? What Mujahedin?

Immediately after the Dayton accords were initialed, official Sarajevo expressed its apprehension that fighting would soon resume. In an interview with Sarajevo weekly Ljiljan, President Izetbegovic did not rule out that "the Serb side will annul the [Dayton] agreement, but if that happens... the fighting will continue, but under far more favorable conditions for us. Then the Serbs will wage war against the rest of the world." Furthermore, Izetbegovic attributed the outcome of Dayton, at least to a certain degree, to the contribution of the Muslim world. "The Islamic world is still not well organized and strong enough. Nevertheless, the very fact that the Islamic world exists has influenced the behavior of the West to a degree, and particularly that of some Western countries." Thus, it is impossible for Muslim Bosnia to trust or rely on the West for its future and salvation. Izetbegovic concluded that he returned from Dayton convinced that under the leadership of the West, "it is a world in which it is possible to start an unjust war and impose an unjust peace".

The conclusion driven to by official Sarajevo in late 1995 was that irrespective of the Dayton accords and the anticipated deployment of the strong NATO forces, it was imperative for the Bosnian Muslim forces to prepare for the imminent resumption of fighting.

These were not idle threats. Starting in late November, as the Dayton negotiations were drawing to conclusion, several senior foreign experts with the Bosnian Muslim forces, including senior Iranian intelligence officers, went underground. Many Iranian and Arab "Afghans" were deployed undercover to the Tuzla area, and other sites where US forces were expected to deploy, in order to conduct reconnaissance and operational preparations should the need arise to launch strikes against the US forces.

Meanwhile, there was an increase in the number of attempts by Bosnian Muslim commando units in the greater Sarajevo area to cross the Serb lines. The primary objective of these operations was to instigate provocations which might tarnish the image of the Serbs and strengthen the Muslims' hand in the forthcoming struggle over the Serb sectors of Sarajevo. For example, on November 27/28, a detachment of the 445th Light Infantry Brigade (permanent base in Konjic) was engaged in the Serb rear near Mt. Igman. On December 3/4, another Bosnian Muslim reconnaissance-sabotage detachment was engaged behind the Serb lines in the Mount Ozren area. There were also a few cases of sniping into the Muslim sector of Sarajevo from "gray areas" between the Serb and Muslim lines. The Bosnian Serbs denied that their forces were responsible and UNPROFOR "could not determine" who was responsible for these snipings.

At the same time, the Bosnian Muslim army continued to integrate the mujahedin into its ranks. This process was clearly demonstrated in the December 10 parade in Zenica. It was a major show of force presided over by Rasim Delic and President Alija Izetbegovic. Some 10,000 troops representing numerous units paraded, and a variety of heavy weapons -- tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft guns and mortars, rockets and missiles -- were presented. "This is our demonstration of power. We must prove we have the power for further fighting if it's needed; if Dayton doesn't work," an army spokesman explained. The fighters of several elite units paraded in front of Izetbegovic and Delic shouting such slogans as "Allah-hu-Akbar!" [God is Great] and "American tanks will not scare us!"

The centrality of the foreign component of the Bosnian Army was evident, albeit not specifically mentioned. In his comments, Mr. Izetbegovic highlighted the contribution of the 3rd Corps -- the mother unit of the Mujahedin -- to the war effort. The elite elements \ of the 3rd Corps paraded wearing green and red headbands with Islamic slogans.

Observers on scene noted that "Best-equipped were the elite 7th Muslim brigade ... whose members copy the ardor and bravery of foreign Islamic warriors, known as mujahedin, whom they have fought alongside." Actually, even by most conservative estimates, there were still more than 800 mujahedin from Islamic countries in the ranks of the Zenica based 7th Muslim brigade in December 1995. Many of the fighters of the 7th Muslim brigade were dressed in white coveralls over their uniforms. Officially, these were "white winter camouflage", but the green headbands these warriors were wearing left no doubt that these were actually Shaheeds' shrouds.

The Zenica parade clearly demonstrated Sarajevo's effort to portray the Bosnian Army as a Muslim force relying as much on public prayers and Iran-style unit motivation methods as on conventional weapons. The vast majority of mujahedin have long been fully integrated into these elite forces. Being clean-shaven now, they are impossible to detect from a distance.

A closer examination of the entire Bosnian Muslim Armed Forces of late 1995 clearly demonstrates not only the magnitude of the Islamist forces, but that their relative importance and influence far outweighed their sheer numbers. Significantly, all the Islamist -- so-called mujahedin -- units constituted integral parts of the Bosnian Muslim Armed Forces. The Islamists were now serving in Bosnian national uniforms and as such were entitled to Bosnian citizenship and were exempt from eviction by the Dayton-Paris Accord.

In late 1995, the key Mujahedin units were:

The Armija Republike BH 3, Korpus Odred 'el-Mudzahidin' remained the main Mujahedin unit, serving as the primary assault troops of the Bosnian Muslim Army. The main HQ was in Zenica. The 3rd Mujahedin Corps was comprised of three Brigades, each of about 1,500 troops. These brigades were: The 7th Muslim Liberation Brigade in Zenica, The 9th Muslim Liberation Brigade in Travnik (now operating under the Tuzla-based 2nd Corps), and The 4th Muslim Liberation Brigade initially deployed in the front lines in the "bulge" (Botsilo region) and then in Konjic. Another Brigade -- the 807th Muslim Liberation Brigade --was established and sworn-in on December 20, 1995. The 807th Muslim Liberation Brigade is an integral component of the Gorazde-based 81st Division.

There were separate Islamist elite forces in the Zenica-Travnik area known as the Volunteer Mujahedin Battalion, the Ansar. The Ansar was 300 to 600 troops strong. The main headquarters was in the Vatrostalno Factory building in Podbrijezje (near Zenica). In ad-edition, there was a new camp called the "Martyrs' Detachment", which, since the Spring of 1995, had absorbed a few hundred new Mujahedin (including suicide terrorists and other experts) arriving from Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Another elite special forces unit which was still being expanded in late 1995, at the time the foreign mujahedin were supposed to be leaving Bosnia-Herzegovina, was the Kata 'eb al-Manikin (Battalions of Believers). Troops, mainly Arabs including "Afghans", were still arriving from Sudan. They were serving under the command of military officers from Pakistan and Afghanistan. The trainers and leadership were from Iran. Each Battalion was 300 to 600 troops strong. The first operational battalion was based in the Buzim area (north-west Bosnia-Herzegovina). Another battalion served as a special forces unit for the 2nd Corps in the Tuzla area. Other battalions were being organized throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.

According to Abu-Ma'ali, the commander of the mujahedin, the entire organized mujahedin forces numbered between 5,000 and 6,000 troops. Yugoslav, Croat and Bosnian Muslim military sources put the number at more than 7,000 troops.

Another major Islamist force remained: the Handzar Division, named after the 13th SS Handzar Division which served under the German flag in World War II. The current Handzar Division is Sarajevo's Praetorian Guards, and is comprised of a 2,500 to 3,000 elite force deployed in Sarajevo and a 6,000 to 7,500 strong back-up force at a major training base around Fojnica, but is moved around to augment major fighting fronts. The majority of the troops of the Handzar Division come from the region's non-Bosnian Muslim minorities, primarily Albanians, and are led by veteran Pakistani and Afghan experts.

During the escalation of 1995, elements of the Handzar Division took part as special forces in fighting in the Sarajevo area, Tuzla and in the surge into western Bosnia-Herzegovina. In many cases, particularly in the surge into western Bosnia-Herzegovina in the Summer-Fall of 1995, they operated in close cooperation with the "Eastern Europe" mujahedin units.

There were also a few thousand Islamist military experts from Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and other Muslim countries serving in key positions in regular units of the Bosnian Muslim forces. They were providing expertise in artillery, air defense, logistics, etc. Their numbers are not included in the estimates above. In late December 1995, there was no indication that they were about to leave for their home countries.

There were other sizable Islamist forces involved in subversive and terrorist operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A major component of the Iran-sponsored Islamist terrorist infrastructure in the former Yugoslavia, and especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was being concealed in the ranks of various Islamic charities. The key Islamist humanitarian organizations are confirmed to be working under the sponsorship of Iranian intelligence. These organizations operate from Zagreb, Croatia, in cooperation and coordination with the local representatives of Iranian intelligence and the HizbAllah. Mohammad Javad Asayesh, a senior diplomat in the Iranian Embassy in Zagreb, responsible for overseeing intelligence and terrorism operations in the Balkans and Europe under the cover of humanitarian activities. The vast majority of funds for these "charities" are coordinated via the Mostazafin Foundation (a front of Iranian intelligence) and a host of Saudi and Persian Gulf foundations that, through Usama bin Ladin, answer to Sudan's radical Islamist leader, Hassan al-Turabi. Altogether, in late 1995, between 4,000 and 6,000 Islamist terrorists were operating in Bosnia-Herzegovina under the cover of these "charities" and "humanitarian projects". (Their numbers are on top of the mujahedin forces in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim Army.)

As for the anticipated removal of the mujahedin by mid-January 1996 -- as promised by President Izetbegovic -- both Islamist and UN sources in Sarajevo were in agreement that, at best, it would be a half-hearted, show effort. With the official estimates of only a few hundred mujahedin in-country accepted by the US, Sarajevo would parade a few bearded hard-core cases to the Sarajevo airport and "deport" them, most likely to a well-deserved R&R in Sudan or Pakistan. Indeed, a Sarajevo official explained in late December that "El-Mujahid" was "merely a small unit" whose members would pull out "when all other foreign military and paramilitary withdraw from Bosnia". Indeed, the majority of the 15,000 to 20,000 foreign volunteers were already fully integrated into the key Bosnian Muslim units. Both Islamist and UN sources in Sarajevo acknowledged that for as long as these mujahedin remained clean shaven and in proper uniforms, nobody would touch them.

4. The True Meaning of the Dayton-Paris Agreement

Since mid-November 1995, once it was becoming clear that the Dayton negotiations would result in some form of an agreement, the international Islamist leadership (primarily in Iran and Sudan) and their senior representatives in Bosnia-Herzegovina have been studying the ramifications of the agreement for their activities in and out of the Balkans. The primary issue studied by the Islamists is the character of the future Islamic State in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the aftermath of a US-brokered agreement. Presently, the Islamist leadership leaves no doubt as to its determination to ensure the establishment of an Islamist State in Bosnia-Herzegovina even by force of arms. Significantly, the Islamists consider the US forces as the primary threat to their immediate and long-term objectives, thus laying the justification for military confrontations or terrorist strikes in the future.

This commitment was first stated authoritatively on November 18, 1995. Abu-Ma'ali, the commander of the Mujahedin, declared their readiness to continue the war against both Serbs and Croats if the just demands of the Bosnian Muslims were not met in Dayton. "Bosnia is the country conquered by Islam," he stressed. Such a situation was irreversible, he said, even though the political process was threatening this development. "For us, there is no difference between the Serbs and the Croats. Croatia has territorial pretensions toward Bosnia and Serbia wants to create a greater Serbia. The Muslims in Bosnia will never accept such an outcome," Abu-Ma'ali concluded.

Abu-Ma'ali's stand accurately reflected a major study of the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina conducted by the international Islamist leadership. This internal study, which was also signed on November 18, examined the situation in Sarajevo as the Dayton negotiations were drawing to a successful completion. Significantly, this study is presently being circulated among senior Islamist leaders as a guideline for future activities.

The international Islamist leadership is apprehensive about the principles of the future Bosnia-Herzegovina as outlined in Dayton. But they stress, despite appearances and popular impressions to the contrary, that there are no real surprises in the negotiations process and the principles of the agreement.

According to the Islamist study, the real role and posture of the United States constitutes the key to understanding and confronting the emerging situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A close examination of both the negotiations process and the final outcome revealed, to the study, the true face of Washington, portrayed as an active ally of the Serbian anti-Muslim campaign. The Islamist study states that "history will see this deal-making as the West's compliance with Serbia's territorial demands, brutally obtained up to now by genocide under the guidance of America's new friend in Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, whom many have called the 'Butcher of the Balkans'." Indeed, the ultimate objective of the NATO I-FOR has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the Bosnian Muslims. "The NATO troops will go in to try to protect the credibility of NATO and the UN," the study concludes.

The international Islamist leadership has already determined that "real peace will not be possible since the peace agreement is being signed under pressure and is thus illegal, null and void". The study further stressed that the principals in Sarajevo shared this reading of the situation. The international Islamist leadership assured in mid-November that the Dayton Agreement had already been "rejected" by the centers of power in Sarajevo, particularly "the Bosnian Army generals and all their soldiers".

The Islamist elite is not worried by the apparent support for the negotiations process and the proposed agreement demonstrated by President Alija Izetbegovic. They recall four previous cases when the elite in Sarajevo had overruled Izetbegovic's signature on so-called international solutions and plans for ending the war because such plans failed to deliver the maximalist demands of the hard-core leaders in Sarajevo and their Islamist allies.

But just in case Izetbegovic had been co-opted by the US, the international Islamist leadership also laid down the legal and moral case for the overthrow of Izetbegovic. The leadership stressed the precarious legal position of Izetbegovic, namely, that there was no legal justification for his stay in power. They noted, and quite correctly, that Izetbegovic continued to serve as President "three years after his constitutionally prescribed (12 months) term and mandate ought to have expired". This situation alone made his signature on any agreement non-obligatory, and therefore "Izetbegovic's forced and illegal promotion of these plans" need not obligate the loyal leadership in Sarajevo.

It is in the context of delegitimizing Izetbegovic that the international Islamist leadership admitted that "Serb mortar shells" used so effectively to promote Sarajevo's cause were actually self-inflicted. The study explains that because "the Bosnian people reject his claim to being President," Izetbegovic had to resort to means of terror in order to remain in power. Toward this end, "he has often used the Serb grenades/shells against Sarajevo as the negotiating argument for his terroristic/horrific-style state to be accepted by the Bosnians and signed on by the USA".

The main challenge facing the Islamists in Bosnia-Herzegovina is still the anticipated deployment of massive NATO forces, and particularly the large US contingent. The study interprets the NATO mandate as an intentional effort to contain the Bosnian Muslims and prevent them from establishing an Islamic State. "The preliminary NATO mandate states quite literally that 'decisive military action will be exercised against any party that violates the new borders'," which, to the Islamist leadership, means active prevention of the Muslim forces from completing the liberation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. "Whatever happened with Bosnia's internationally recognized borders or internationally recognized (1992) legal system?"

Hence, as far as the international Islamist leadership was concerned: "US Soldiers in Bosnia are on mission ... to guard Serb Gen. Mladic's gains in Srebrenica region, and guard his logistic corridor near the Tuzla region." They stress that such a development cannot and will not be tolerated by the Muslim combatants and all these committed to the establishment of an Islamic State in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The international Islamist leadership concludes its November 18, 1995, study with a seemingly veiled threat to the US forces: "The question will boil down to only one: How many US boys will have to pay with their lives by Serb criminals' sniper bullets and landmines this Christmas for the new decisive American policy in Bosnia?... The Americans are falling into the Balkan trap of entering Bosnia to protect the Bosnian Serb front lines."

A closer examination of this statement shows that this is a ver loaded threat. Having stressed above the utility of self-inflicted "Serb" grenades/shells to the Islamist cause, the study need not elaborate on the real origin of the Serb sniper bullets, mines, and other threats. Furthermore, the study is quick to stress that the actual objective of the US forces is to preserve the gains of the Serb forces, which means that the Serbs have no reason to take on their US protectors. The Islamist forces, on the other hand, being committed to the liberation of all of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the establishment of an Islamic state, have every reason to confront the US, and other NATO, forces deployed to Bosnia in order to suppress the march of Islam in the Balkans.

The possibility of Islamist provocations against the NATO forces was also alluded to by Morteza Sarmadi, the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister. In a December 19 interview, he warned that "there are certain warmongers in Bosnia -- like the Bosnian Serbs --who would challenge the commitment of the United States and NATO to the Dayton peace accord." He then discussed in great length the reservations several Muslim leaders and communities in the Balkans and the Near East had, stressing Izetbegovic's observation that the Dayton Accord was "unjust" toward the Bosnian Muslims. Sarmadi stressed Tehran's conviction that the Bosnian Muslims were the aggrieved party against whose interests the deployment of the NATO forces was actually aimed.

By now, mid-December 1995, the role of Izetbegovic was no longer an issue. The international Islamist leadership was confident that its allies and supporters in Sarajevo are in full control over the situation. Ultimately, the Islamists are now even confident that they can include Izetbegovic himself among their loyalists for he had not been co-opted by the US, as feared beforehand (when he was in Dayton). The mere signing of the Paris Peace required closer study of the situation in Bosnia- Herzegovina.

* * *

The signing of the Dayton and Paris Accords, and the worldwide expressions of commitment and support for Izetbegovic's Bosnian Muslim administration in Sarajevo, only aggravated the situation as far as the international Islamist leadership was concerned. On December 13, Khartoum, Sudan-based Pan-Islamic Movement (PIM) leader Hassan al-Turabi decreed the Dayton Agreement as "a plot aimed [at] eradicating Islam in Bosnia in a way which resembles eradicating Islam in Europe 500 years ago".

On December 16, 1995, the international Islamist leadership issued a new analysis of the Dayton-Paris Agreement under the headline "Erasing Islam From Bosnia!" Their key argument is that the essence of the US-led diplomatic and military effort is to ensure under the guise of a "peace treaty" the establishment of a westernized secular state so that the Muslims of Bosnia would not be able to establish an Islamic State in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The Islamist analysis builds the case that the anti-Muslim design has been a major objective of Washington from the very beginning of the Dayton Process. To prove this, the Islamist analysts point to remarks made by US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott on November 1, 1995, and entitled "Strengthening American Security Through World Leadership -- Bosnia and Beyond".

The Islamist analysts stressed that Mr. Talbott confirmed that the US had global designs in devising the Dayton process. They cited Mr. Talbott: "The entire Islamic world, from Morocco to Indonesia, is watching to see how events unfold. Muslims everywhere are waiting to see whether their co-religionists in Bosnia will be accorded the same rights and protections as other Europeans. The answer to that question could have an impact on the future of moderate, pro-Western leaders such as Prime Minister [Tansu] Ciller of Turkey and Prime Minister [Benazir] Bhutto of Pakistan. Other less friendly forces in the Middle East and Persian Gulf see the Balkans as a target of opportunity."

The analysts see the roots of the conspiracy in these sentences. "Strobe Talbott recognizes that Muslims are feeling and reacting as one body, admitting to a worldwide Islamic revival."

The Islamist analysts point to subsequent statements made by Mr. Talbott on November 1 as substantiating their analysis: "Doing the right thing in the Balkans has been especially difficult.... But there is no question what doing the right thing means today -- and today is surely a crucial moment. It means using a combination of diplomatic skill and the credible threat of force to keep the parties at the negotiating table."

For the analysts, these sentences constitute proof of the anti-Muslim conspiracy. "Talbott here tells it as it is: Credible threat was definitely used to force the Bosnian Muslim State to agree to both the partition and the federation ideas which were designed by NATO."

A close examination of the Dayton-Paris Agreement clearly demonstrates the success of the anti-Muslim designs and conspiracies of the West. Moreover, the Islamist analysts stress, the agreement over Bosnia could be considered as a prototype for future anti-Muslim efforts by the US-led West. "The [Dayton] document is of great importance because it provides Muslims with the American-European strategy in dealing with emerging Islam." Within the entire agreement, the Islamists are especially worried by the segment defining the "Constitution" of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The Islamist analysts state: "NATO countries have designed a constitution which is aimed at liquidating any Islamic presence in Bosnia; the word "Muslim" is rarely mentioned."

The two main problems which the Islamist analysts have with the agreed upon constitution are that: (a) the "legal existence" of Bosnia-Herzegovina will be secured "under international law as a state"; and, (b) that "Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be a democratic state, which shall operate under the rule of law and with free and democratic elections." (These are direct quotations from the Dayton Agreement.) The Islamist analysts see in these clauses "step one in erasing any Islam, [which] is by declaring the state as democratic" [sic].

The analysts see in the internal division of Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Muslim-Croat federation and the Serb republic the next phase in the destruction of Islam in Bosnia. "Step two [in] erasing any Islamic entity [is] by first dividing the country, then conglomerating and joining the mostly Muslim part into a Croat federation, thus denying Muslims any independent existence politically or otherwise.

The next phase in the intentional effort to destroy Islam in Bosnia could be found in the segment of the Dayton-Paris Agreement devoted to ensuring "Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" to all the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Islamist analysts emphasized the importance of the determination that the rights and freedoms accorded to all Bosnians would be based on "international standards" as "set forth in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols". These principles, the Dayton-Paris agreement stipulates, "shall have priority over all other law". (These are direct quotations from the Dayton Agreement.)

For the Islamist analysts, these sentences contain "step three" in the campaign for the suppression of Islam. By stressing the overruling stature of international law, the West is "ensuring that Shari'a or Islamic Law can never be implemented by making other laws supersede it. The Europeans have done this in every Muslim country they colonized. The US is particularly doing it in Egypt." Pres. Hosni Mubarak's Egypt is considered one of the fiercest enemies of the international Islamist leadership. The mere comparison of the Dayton-Paris Accords to Pres. Mubarak's Cairo reflects the extent of Islamist hostility toward the Accords.

The Islamist analysts see in the definition of the Bosnian Presidency yet another facet of the conspiracy against Islam. This definition delves in great length into the delicate composition of the centralized institutions and decisionmaking process aimed to ensure that the rights of all national groups are taken into consideration. For the analysts, these arrangements constitute the seeds of an intentional suppression of Muslim rights. "The similarities between Bosnia and Lebanon are astonishing. The French have installed a constitution which ensured minimal representation of the Muslim majority and turned the government into a mixed bag of ethnic blend. There was one problem -- it failed!" Left unsaid here is the fact that the fratricidal Lebanese civil war which ultimately doomed the French-installed system of government was unleashed by an alliance of Islamists and Palestinian terrorists. The intended readers of this analysis are fully aware of what happened in Lebanon in the 1970s-'80s, and, for them, this comparison is more than just an academic issue.

The Islamist analysts are also worried about the powers of the Presidency in Sarajevo. They find the roots of yet another conspiracy of far-reaching potential in the fact that the Presidency is expected to have responsibility for "Conducting the foreign policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina," including the "Appointing [of] ambassadors and other international representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no more than two-thirds of whom may be selected from the territory of the Federation ..." (Again, these are direct quotations from the Dayton Agreement.)

For the Islamist analysts, the main reason for this arrangement of Presidential powers over foreign policy is to de-link Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Muslim World. "Another step to uproot Islam is by ensuring important arms of government are controlled by non-Muslims. The above provision would deprive Bosnia from a vital foreign policy link to other Muslim countries." Consequently, without massive help from sisterly Islamist states and organizations, and given the pressure from the West, it will be extremely difficult for the Muslim leadership in Sarajevo to establish and maintain a proper Islamic State.

The composition of several key state institutions provides the Islamist analysts with the proof of a Western design to prevent the establishment of an Islamic State. One such example is the multiethnic composition of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, particularly considering that some of its members will be appointed by a European Court to ensure impartiality and judicial excellence. "Even the Constitutional Court is occupied by foreigners who will most likely ensure that any Islamic Tendencies are stopped," the Islamist analysts explain.

Of greater threat to Islam are "Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", as accorded by the Dayton-Paris Agreement to all citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Islamist analysts stress the hidden agenda behind the decree that "No amendment to this Constitution may eliminate or diminish any of the rights and freedoms" as guaranteed to all citizens. (Direct quotations from the Dayton Agreement.) For the Islamist analysts, this is a legal "smoking gun": "There you have [it] Muslims: Even the Qur'an can not overrule the laws set up for Bosnian Muslims by US and European militaries. It is truly an occupation at all levels of life in this Muslim country."

The Islamist analysts further strengthen and substantiate this point by providing a detailed list of the 15 international human rights agreements that the Dayton-Paris Agreement ensure will be applied to all citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina. "It is amazing to see the enemies of Islam write thousands of books about freedom, draft hundreds of laws about human rights and hold many conferences and conventions for human rights, but when it comes to applying these rights for Muslims, then suddenly there is no-one listening. The above so-called human rights were never intended to protect Muslims, they were intended solely to protect the interest of the enemies of Islam so that they can selectively use them as they wish and whenever they please."

The Islamist analysts conclude their December 16 study of the Dayton-Paris Agreement with a tacit threat that the suppression of Islam in Bosnia-Herzegovina would be the catalyst for the forthcoming spread of Islam into Western Europe. They quote an exchange between the Prophet Muhammad and one Amr Ibn al-Asi. Amr Ibn al-Asi asked: "Which of the two cities will be opened to Islam first? Constantinople or Rome?" Muhammad answered:

"The city of Hercules will be opened [to Islam] first." Indeed, Byzantium, and with it Eastern Christianity as a regional power, fell to the Turks in 1453. Now, the Islamist analysts explain, the time of Rome, and with it Western Christianity as a regional power, has come. This is because NATO's perceived imposition of anti-Muslim order in Bosnia-Herzegovina is bound to incite a backlash against Western Europe. The Islamist analysts concluded their analysis of the Dayton-Paris Agreement with the promise: "And Rome will be opened to Islam. It is a Godly Promise told to us by the Prophet, and it looks like NATO has started that Promise fulfillment."

The international Islamist leadership is quite optimistic about the prospects of a confrontation with NATO. A follow-up analysis issued by the international Islamist leadership on December 18, noted: "It is striking to see NATO so fearful from mujahedin," as well as from the rise of "Islam in Europe". The Islamists relish this phenomenon. "We recall the saying of our Prophet, Peace and Blessing be upon Him, when He said: "I was helped by Allah with the terror in the heart of the enemy for as far as a month's walk.'"

At the same time, the international Islamist leadership considers NATO, and especially the US, responsible for the possibility of armed confrontation between the mujahedin and NATO troops. The Islamists are furious with the military segments of the Dayton Agreement that call for the deportation of at least some of the mujahedin from Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Islamist analysts consider this demand an integral part of a US conspiracy to weaken the Muslim forces and strengthen the Serb forces. "The Bosnia agreement which was forced on the Muslim government sums it all up. On the one hand the US is pretending to request arming and training of Muslim forces, [but] on the other hand they are telling them to expel their best defenders from [among the] mujahedin, in addition to turning a blind eye to the thousands of tons of supplies that are making their way under the nose of the US embargo observers from Russia and Greece to Serbia." The aggregate impact of these steps, if the US has its way, is seen to significantly weaken the Bosnian Muslim forces, a development the Islamists are determined not to allow.

The Islamist analysts have no doubt that the NATO preparations in Bosnia-Herzegovina are aimed to create favorable conditions for the escalation of fighting against the mujahedin and loyal Bosnian Muslim forces. They point out that according to Article IV: "All Parties understand and agree that they shall be subject to military action by the I-FOR, including the use of necessary force to ensure compliance" with numerous clauses from withdrawal to the new lines to cessation of hostilities. (Dayton Agreement.) The Islamist analysts couple this provision with these of Article III which stipulates the deactivation of independent irregular forces, which theoretically include some mujahedin elements: "The Parties also commit themselves to disarm and disband all armed civilian groups ... within 30 days after the Transfer of Authority." (Dayton Agreement.) Taken together, the international Islamist leadership concludes, these two Articles constitute the legal key to the initiation of armed clashes between NATO and the Islamist forces. "Note that in accordance with the Agreement, NATO will use force if the mujahedin did not leave in 30 days," the Islamist analysts conclude.

By the intent of the Dayton-Paris Agreement, and in accordance with promises made by Izetbegovic to Holbrooke, the vast majority of the mujahedin should have left Bosnia-Herzegovina within the first 30 days. Theoretically, with the mujahedin disarmed and gone, there should not have been any threat of an armed confrontation between them and the NATO I-FOR. The possibility of such a clash need not worry the Islamist leadership. However, this is not the case. The international Islamist leadership knows very well that the vast majority of the mujahedin and other Islamist forces, as well as the legions of Bosnian and other Balkan Muslims, they have indoctrinated, trained, organized and still lead, intend to legally remain in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Having received Bosnian citizenship and having been integrated into the Bosnian Army, they are exempt from the Dayton-Paris Agreement. Little wonder that the Islamist analysts are convinced that there will be clashes between NATO and their own forces. Therefore, the anticipation of clashes with the NATO forces should be considered as yet another facet in the building of the case for an escalation in the Islamist struggle for the establishment of an Islamic State in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Taken together, the analyses written for the international Islamist leadership build a strong case that the Dayton-Paris Accords are inherently anti-Muslim and that an armed struggle -- & jihad -- is the primary method for the realization of an Islamic State in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In late December 19 95, the Sarajevo weekly Ljiljan, which is considered Izetbegovic's mouthpiece, highlighted the contribution of the Islamist volunteers to Bosnia's military might through their personal sacrifices and the overall Islamicization of the Bosnian Muslim forces. The December 10 parade in Zenica was presented as an example of the latter achievement. Ljiljan favorably quoted several Arab mujahedin still in Bosnia-Herzegovina reaffirming their commitment to the Islamist cause and expressing disregard for the Dayton-Paris Accords. "The infidels will not tell us how to live and what to do. This is a Muslim country and the Muslims have to defend it," explained an Arab mujahid. Ljiljan left no doubt that the mujahedin were ready to fight for an Islamic Bosnia against the NATO forces. Considering the unique role of Ljiljan in political Sarajevo, the mere inclusion of this article cannot but be interpreted as Izetbegovic's tacit endorsement of the Islamist defiance and readiness to confront the US/NATO forces.

Significantly, these sentiments are not limited to the extremist Islamist circles. Even the relatively "moderate" factions of the Muslim Brotherhood in Western Europe are adamantly against the Dayton-Paris Agreement because of its "anti-Islamic clauses". They even label the Peace Treaty signed in Paris "the Butcher's Bill". These Islamists also imply that the signing in Paris will only result in a resumption of fighting. "A surrender treaty was signed in Paris on Thursday 14 Dec[ember] 1995 that allegedly ends the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina," they explain. "Clinton's Bosnian peace may turn out ... as 'a period of cheating between two periods of fighting'."

Taken together, the importance of these Islamist documents, particularly the November 18, and more so the December 16 analysis of the Dayton-Paris Agreement -- "Erasing Islam From Bosnia!" -- issued by the international Islamist leadership, lies in that these analysts are also the supreme leaders of the mujahedin and the Bosnian Muslim forces operating with them. These documents essentially constitute a legally valid spiritual and ideological justification for resisting the implementation of the Dayton-Paris Agreement, including armed confrontation with the NATO troops enforcing it. In their December 1995 documents, the Islamist analysis also sets forth the justification for the escalation of the fight over Muslim Bosnia-Herzegovina into a fateful clash aimed to destroy "Rome". While radical militant Islam is incapable of conquering Europe or destroying Western Christianity, it surely can express its wrath and frustration in the form of spectacular terrorist strikes at the heart of Europe.

5. Initial Operational Ramifications

Considering that the leadership of the Bosnian Muslim military is very close, both ideologically and in working levels, to the Islamist leadership, this Islamist document -- "Erasing Islam From Bosnia!" -- should be considered as reflecting the reading of the agreement in Sarajevo as well. Furthermore, since the early 1990s, and particularly since 1994, the Islamist leadership's interpretation of events in the Balkans has indeed been identical to the analysis of the same events by President Izetbegovic and his closest aides. Therefore, the mere existence and distribution of the document "Erasing Islam From Bosnia!" in late 1995 amounted to laying the spiritual and ideological foundations for an obligatory declaration of jihad against the Western forces about to embark on an effort to destroy Islam in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, what is still being termed in Washington as "the implementation of the Dayton-Paris Agreement".

These were not idle threats. The international Islamist leadership issued its first explicit warning to the United States over the presence of NATO forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the last days of December 1995. The warning was issued as a communiqué of the Islamic Committee for the Defense of the Persecuted [ICDP] titled "Beware of Erroneous Handling of Mujahedin Issue". The communiqué was disseminated through authoritative Islamist channels in Cairo and Western Europe, thus leaving no doubt that it originated at the highest levels of the international Islamist leadership in Tehran and Khartoum. An accompanying letter presented The Islamic Committee for the Defense of the Persecuted as "a body comprised of prominent leaders of Arab religious groups that are in close contact with the Arab mujahedin in Bosnia". The ICDP, like the International Justice Group that already issued communiqués over terrorist operations in Switzerland and Pakistan, is a front organization used as an organ for publishing authoritative high-level communiqués for the Islamist leaders without implicating them directly.

The essence of the ICDP communiqué is to warn Washington of the ramifications of its handling of the mujahedin issue, as well as to reiterate that many of the mujahedin intend to remain in Bosnia. The ICDP warns that the US "is leading a hostile NATO campaign against Muslim mujahedin. This grave situation is not unique to Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the contrary, it is a natural component of the blatant US position, which is hostile toward whatever is Islamic, has become a distinguishing feature of US foreign policy." With this depiction of the overall situation, the ICDP sets the logic for the all-Islamic aspects of the continued presence of the mujahedin in Bosnia- Herzegovina and for the possibility of a worldwide Islamist struggle to ensure the interests of these mujahedin in the context of the global anti-US Islamist jihad.

The ICDP communiqué first explains that the US is hostile to the! mujahedin because they prevented the US design to destroy Islam in Bosnia-Herzegovina. "The United States was not alarmed by the thousands of people who helped the various parties, while it continues to make a stir over a few hundred mujahedin, even though these have repeatedly declared that they have no political objectives in Bosnia and that they will depart once they have assured themselves about the Muslims' safety and the recovery of their rights. So why is the United States condemning them? Is it because they thwarted its schemes by heroically standing by their brothers, defending them with their lives, while it [the US] was gambling on the Muslims' defeat and surrender when they were besieged between the Serbs and the Croats? Or is the United States condemning them because of their role in the Islamic Call and their efforts to acquaint Muslims with their religion, which, with Allah's help, has had a great impact on the Muslims' coherence and steadfastness?"

The ICDP stresses that the mujahedin are answerable only to Islam. The communiqué states that although "the Mujahedin do not need anyone to recognize their role and efforts in Bosnia ... if the United States or anyone else want to acquaint themselves with their [the mujahedin's] role, they should go to the cemeteries to see their headstones." However, the ICDP highlights the vital contribution of the mujahedin to the Islamicization process in Bosnia-Herzegovina, urging that the US "should go to the cities and villages to feel their [the Mujahedin's} effects and count those taught by them".

The ICDP communiqué now raises the terrorism issue, accusing the US of intentionally portraying the mujahedin as terrorists simply because they are Islamists. First, the communiqué strongly denies that the mujahedin have anything to do with terrorism. But then the ICDP threatens the US and NATO with terrorism if they confront the mujahedin. "What right does the United States have to accuse the mujahedin of terrorism? Did they rape women? Did they slaughter children? Did they annihilate mankind as the Serb and Croat criminals did? No wonder ... standards have been disrupted and racism and ill intentions prevailed."

The ICDP now dwells on the heroic combat record of the mujahedin in Bosnia, and particularly their willingness to confront the enemy despite most adverse odds. The mujahedin prevailed through their heroism and willingness to endure heavy losses. The communiqué emphasizes that "the mujahedin set the most brilliant examples of sacrifice, Islamic brotherhood, and self-initiative, proving that the Islamic peoples, Arab and non-Arab, are qualified to carry out the greatest of tasks, even if some governments are lax".

In this context, the ICDP warns that just as the mighty weapon of Islamist sacrifice was used so effectively against the Serbs and Croats, the mighty weapon of martyrdom -- suicide terrorism -- can be directed also against the US. "Here is the weapon of martyrdom and death for the sake of Allah's cause being highly valued once again:

the lethal weapon that is worrying the United States."

Instead of confronting Islam, the communiqué suggests, the West should come to terms with the presence of the mujahedin in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The ICDP stresses that "the mujahedin issue should be tackled within a framework of wisdom and through the Bosnian Government, for which the mujahedin have always declared their respect. They have also declared their intention not to embarrass it. Their policy is not to interfere in its affairs. The Bosnian people, represented in their government, know their interests well."

The above does not mean, however, that all the mujahedin are ready to leave Bosnia-Herzegovina. Instead, the ICDP brings up the primary methods already used by the Sarajevo Government to conceal the continued presence of the mujahedin as legitimate reasons for their continued stay in Bosnia. The communiqué explains that "in view of the reality resulting from a four-year war, during which the Mujahedin intermingled with the Bosnian people, marrying among them and having children, some are entitled to live in this land, to whose people they are bound. The humanitarian aspect of the issue cannot be ignored, nor can the Bosnian Government's right to grant residence permits or citizenship to those who fought alongside their Bosnian brothers to defend this people."

Furthermore, according to the ICDP, there are legitimate reasons even for the continued stay of hard-core Islamist terrorists in the former Yugoslavia: for settling scores with Croatia. The Islamists are determined not only to avenge the arrest and extradition of Fuad Tal'at Qassim as well as the assassination of Sheikh Anwar Sha'ban and four of his escorts, the responsibility for all of which they accurately attribute to the highest levels of the Croatian Government in Zagreb, but also to deter further Croatian confrontations with the Islamists traveling to and from Bosnia-Herzegovina via Croatia. Significantly, the ICDP stresses that the December 14 ambush of the mujahedin "was a blatant violation of the ceasefire declared under recent [Dayton-Paris] agreements". Hence, since the Croats have already violated the Accords, so can the Bosnian Muslims and the mujahedin in pursuit of higher and nobler causes.

In conclusion, the ICDP communiqué returns to the growing threat of conflict between the mujahedin and the US/NATO forces, The ICDP emphasizes that it is virtually irrelevant what the mujahedin do or don't do because the present problems between the US and the mujahedin "proceed from a US position hostile toward whatever is Islamic". Therefore, the ICDP concludes, it is quite possible that a confrontation will take place. Under such circumstances, the mujahedin do not intend to remain passive. "If some of them [US/NATO forces] try to use the big stick and the language of threats, intimidation, and treachery with the mujahedin, the Arab proverb says: They have brought it upon themselves."

#jeremy paxman #JIll Starr #CAtovic #911 #Al Qaeda #Joe Biden #Mi6

1 note · View note