Considering that this comes from Clueless Clapper, who believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular," it will need independent verification, but given the character of the Islamic supremacist "Arab Spring" uprisings thus far, there is nothing implausible about it.
"Al-Qaeda infiltrating Syrian opposition, U.S. officials say," by Greg Miller for the Washington Post, February 16 (thanks to Wimpy):
Members of al-Qaeda have infiltrated Syrian opposition groups, and likely executed recent bombings in the nation’s capital and largest city, the United States’ top intelligence official said Thursday.The remarks by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are the most definitive to date from a senior Obama administration official on al-Qaeda’s efforts to insert itself into the Syrian uprising.
Two bombings in Damascus in December, as well as deadly attacks on security and intelligence buildings in Aleppo last week, “had all the earmarks of an al-Qaeda-like attack,” Clapper said, adding that the network’s affiliate in Iraq “is extending its reach into Syria.”
But Clapper suggested that al-Qaeda has so far not sought to call attention to its presence, and that its operatives may have slipped into groups of fighters opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Al-Qaeda extremists “have infiltrated” opposition groups that “in many cases may not be aware they are there,” Clapper said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee....
Actually, this makes sense. The so-called moderate Muslims such as CAIR and even the Saudi government, do distance themselves from overt terrorism. And why not? Their program is Islamization of western countries through immigration, political infiltration, and huge globs of money strategically placed. Overt terrorism, by waking up the populations of western countries, has the very real possibility of derailing their program of stealth Islamization.
So, US intelligence agencies and government agencies meet no resistance from Muslim groups when they go after overt terrorists. Incidentally, al-Qaeda is seen by the Saudi government to be a deadly threat to them. This is not because of any ideological or religious differences, but mainly because the Saudis are comfortable as the established government, and al-Qaeda seeks to destroy any established government.
But, the official line from the US government and the Muslim political groups is that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism. Any criticism or even critical examination of Islam derails the program of peaceful Islamization.
Seculars, non-political muzlims and business people led the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt. In the latter, the MB at first rejected participation. Then they used their quran-waiving to put themselves in position where they could the reformers.
Hitler never won an election in Germany. In fact, his party vote count was lessened from the next to last to the last election. He was granted Chancellorship based on the then ruling party's inability to implement the security clause - articl 33 - of the Weimar Constitution. Once in power he jailed and eventually executed all Social Democrat and Communist members of the reichstag, which he burnt down to prevent it from re-opening. Similarly, after the Moscow Spring in 1917, Communists were 4th in votes in the only free election in Russia's history. Then the Octoberists led a coup in the Fall. US policy was then and is now subsidizing tyranny in the name of freedom.
Syria's opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda is a spin-off of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, and Egypt & Syria have, at grassroots level, been politically like one country (historically, Egypt & Syria were typically ruled by the same sultans). So the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria have the same goals, and probably close ties. So how much effort would al Qaeda need to put in to infiltrate Syria's Ikhwan? al Qaeda is already an Ikhwan.
Of course, leave it to 'nuanced' analysts to come up w/ convoluted explanations as to why they are different
IP:
"So how much effort would al Qaeda need to put in to infiltrate Syria's Ikhwan? al Qaeda is already an Ikhwan.
Of course, leave it to 'nuanced' analysts to come up w/ convoluted explanations as to why they are different."
____________________________________________________
Yeah. That's what I was thinking...
"Al-Qaeda extremists “have infiltrated” opposition groups that “in many cases may not be aware they are there,” Clapper said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee...."
_____________
I find this clusterfark very difficult to fathom.
How could "Al-Qaeda EXTREMISTS (we see, again, the futility of the use of words such as, "Islamist") "infiltrate" opposition forces"? How would one not notice, when everybody's carrying sidearms and kalashnikovs, and suspicion is acute?
______________________________________________
Well, the answer is simple, to me. Could be terribly wrong, though.
1.) If they did infiltrate, it is because of Islam and Mohammedism.
2.) If they did not, it is because of Mohammedism, Tribalism and Islam.
Of course they have.
Why wouldn't they?
"Verily the believers are a Brotherhood." (Qur'an 49:10)
Let us remember that Syria is ruled by the Alawites, who are predominant not only in government but also in the military. But the Alawites, headed by Assad, comprise only about 12% of the Syrian population, and the Alawites themselves, an offshoot of Shi'a Islam, are considered by many Sunni to be heretics - i.e. essentially non-Muslim. While Syria's Sunni majority may not be wholly averse to being ruled by the Alawite minority, al-Qaeda, primarily Sunni and religiously zealous, would not view Assad's regime favorably, and would actively seek to depose him on a religious basis alone. In addition, al-Qaeda (or any other orthodox Muslim group for that matter) would never countenance the installation of a nonsectarian democratic government where Shari'a was de-emphasized. It is to be expected, then, that al-Qaeda would infiltrate and seek to gain control of any anti-government movement in Syria.
No! How could this be! Whatever happened to that "Spring" thing?
If they are making most of their profits from these 'forbidden' things - then it is obvious who is giving them the most money - doesn't seem to be the local Muslim community.
Typical Islamic incessant need to control every detail of people's lives - in the name of religion.
Here the premise, Muslims are supposed to set an example - attends to its supremacist nature - which only works when people bother to take notice - or as in the Islamic world when they are 'forced' to notice - but in the west without control over society - over the non-Muslims - its neither here nor there.
What you do or don't eat, or do or don't do, is your business.
They are acting as an Islamic police force.
To ask them to stop selling pork to local community - is not generous.
They are penalizing small business owners.
Picking on a guy that's working hard - they should send members down to help carry some of those boxes into the store and pack some shelves. If they really want to help!
Whoops!!
AQ in Syria? Quick, we better invade!
Good to see Clapper immediately trusting raw Arab human intelligence. He's not the brightest bulb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk6sW9b6_es
Here's some first hand evidence to consider...
Yeah. Alawites are also more commonly known as the "Nusayris" a group which many fundamentalist Islamic scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah rejected for polytheism.
WATCH THIS DEBATE FROM AMSTERDAM
Haitham Al-Haddad is a Muslim scholar who teaches what is the Islam of Muhammad and the Caliphate that in one way or another lasted till 1924 .He is a member of the UK’s Islamic Sharia Council.
A majority in the Nederlands parliament tried to block entrance into the Nederlands of Al-Haddad for his views.He was invited to an Amsterdam University to debate with a politician and a journalist, about the position of Islam in the West.Al-Haddad had been invited by the Amsterdam Islamic students association.
Al-Haddad says in the Debate that Women and Men who are Adulterers are to be Stoned
The first 55 seconds are in Dutch and Arabic,then the debate begins,in English.His stoning statement begins around 5:55 minutes in the second video.But before,at minute 2 of the second video a woman in the audience began arguing with Al-Haddad and a minute later she was allowed to sit at the table and participate.And incredibly Al-Haddad claimed that he had been approached by European women who had committed adultery and wanted to go to a Muslim country to be stoned for their bad deeds.
At minute 8:25 of the second video an Iranian ex-Muslim begins to ask him a question
Asked by him,a member of the audience,who left Islam what the cleric thought of him, al-Haddad told him apostates should be killed in an Islamic country.
About Irak
He said 1.5 million have been killed in Irak because of Western democracy,at minute 14:41 of the second video.It continues in the 3rd video.Then there is talk about the Jews and Israel.
Here is the Debate
http://www.antisharia.com/2012/02/19/what-a-debatemuslim-scholar-al-haddad-and-his-surprising-statements/
Director of National Intelligence says Al-Qaeda infiltrating Syrian opposition
...........................
I'm shocked, shocked! Oh, wait...no I'm not.
I was watching some stupid show—it was either on MSNBC or the even sillier Current TV. There was a panel that was lamenting that the Syrian "resistance" hadn't got it together yet to request assistance from the West the way the Libyans had.
Never mind that Libya is a chaotic mess of in-fighting and torture as we speak—they'd prefer not to notice.
I am *no* fan of the oppressive Assad—but if he falls, it will result in a Shari'ah state, a massacre of the country's semi-protected Christians, a likely genocide of minority Alawites—and another foothold for Al-Qaeda...oh joy...
Agree with you on the results if Syria reverts to the Allah Akbar screeching "rebels."
Your citing of Clapper, "Considering that this comes from Clueless Clapper, who believes that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular,", evidences the same contempt I have for him, Brennan, and HE WHO IS.
What we'll not hear is that this movement is not only secular, but universal and nihilistic and held together by the glue of religion with the most draconian of practices.
If one of these clowns could compose a statement that is inclusive - it would be the most major break-through in the culture of Weltpolitik since the Treaty of Westphalia and the Enlightenment.
Minoria wrote, citing a debate with a "Muslim scholar":
And incredibly Al-Haddad claimed that he had been approached by European women who had committed adultery and wanted to go to a Muslim country to be stoned for their bad deeds.
...................................
Minoria, I've heard this grotesque assertion before.
I can imagine a remorseful woman who would regret her actions; who would want to make things up to the people she had emotionally betrayed, if possible; and who would want to mend her ways in the future.
I can even—tragically—imagine someone so despondent that she would harm herself over her actions.
Can I—under *any* circumstances—imagine such a woman willingly deciding to go to some pit (figuratively *and* literally, in this case) in Dar-al-Islam to be stoned to death by a howling Mohammedan mob?
**Absurd**.
And it is notable that this vile "scholar" would posit that only women—never men—had allegedly come to him with this pathological desire.
Also—Muslims do not consider betrayal of an Infidel to be of any import, in any case—an Infidel woman who betrays an Infidel *with a Muslim man* has no problem under Islam.
Even more grotesquely, pious Muslims consider it perfectly acceptable to kidnap Infidel women married to infidels and rape them and re-marry them to Muslim men. So, clearly, they have no respect for the sanctity of marriage for non-Muslims.
Add to this that many of those accused of "adultery" are in loveless, forced marriages, where there is no betrayal—at least not in the all-important emotional sense; or are part of a couple engaging in completely consensual pre-marital relations where there is no betrayal of *any* kind; or are *even unwilling rape victims*—and the whole idea of Islam's "moral" obsession with "adultery" is more and more suspect.