Dabiq #12: A Soda Can and John Cantlie

ISIS has released Dabiq #12, the 12th issue of its glossy English magazine. (no links to magazine in comments please.) It says a soda can was used to take down the Russian Plane.

There's an article by John Cantlie, "Shift and Paradigm, Part 2". He refers to events in June and July, so at least he was still alive then, and hopefully is today.

He writes about the future course of ISIS: [More...]

The first option is that they continue to expand the borders of the Caliphate throughout the region until economic or military limitations stop them and they afterwards consolidate their positions. Too bad for the West, it doesn’t look like such limitations exist for the Caliphate.

The second option is that they goad the West into launching an all-out ground attack, thereby setting the scene for the final battle between Muslims and the crusaders prophesized to be held at Dābiq in Syria, by conducting an operation overseas that is so destructive that America and its allies will have no alternative but to send in an army. This would have to be something on the same scale, if not bigger, than 9/11. Then again, I’m just guessing. American “hawks” may very well come to Dābiq on their own without the Islamic State needing to blow up any dirty bombs in Manhattan.

Back to the rest of the magazine: The reason for downing the Russian plane:

This was to show the Russians and whoever allies with them that they will have no safety in the lands and airspace of the Muslims, that their daily killing of dozens in Shām through their airstrikes will only bring them calamities, and that just as they kill, they will be killed, by Allah’s permission.

They say they compromised the security at the airport and smuggled the bomb on board:

[A]fter having discovered a way to compromise the security at the Sharm el-Sheikh International Airport and resolving to bring down a plane belonging to a nation in the American-led Western coalition against the Islamic State, the target was changed to a Russian plane. A bomb was smuggled onto the airplane, leading to the deaths of 219 Russians and 5 other crusaders only a month after Russia’s thoughtless decision.

The description of the attack on France: Only 8 attackers, not 9 and again, the motive was retaliation for airstrikes.

On Friday, the 1st of Safar, 8 soldiers of the Khilāfah carried out an operation in the heart of French crusader territory. The operation involved multiple simultaneous attacks with explosive belts and assault rifles on various targets including the Stade de France stadium, where the crusader president Francois Hollande was attending a soccer match, and the Bataclan theatre for exhibitions, where hundreds of French mushrikīn had gathered for a music concert.

The attacks, which included other targets around Paris and succeeded in killing hundreds of crusaders and wounding even more, shook the world and reminded the nations of kufr that the Islamic State will continue to stand firm in the face of their transgressions and retaliate with fire and bloodshed in revenge for the honor of the Prophet g and the multitudes killed and injured in crusader airstrikes in the lands of the Muslims.

Here's the magazine's cover photo.

< French Raid to catch Attack Suspects in Saint Denis | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It ain't your father's Anarchist's Cookbook. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    Thank you for not posting the link.  Once was enough.  

    What I find most disturbing is the attempt to normalize their message by coopting the surface appearance of glossy magazines.  The abased diatribe they publish deserves much less, to be tattoed in their writers' flesh with the coagulated blood of their victims.

    Gotta wonder if Cantlie has gone completely Patty Hearst or if he's simply doing everything he can to stay alive.

    The Schweppes can wired as an ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    ... explosive device seems entirely plausible. If that actually happened, I now have questions regarding:
    • The type of explosive which was used in the assembly of this device for this alleged attack;
    • How the bomb was then smuggled onboard the aircraft through otherwise very tight security at Sharm El Sheikh Intl. Airport, i.e., was this an inside job;
    • How it was detonated in flight, given that it looks to be a relative simple and jury-rigged device with no apparent timer or receiver; and
    • If my previous observation about the device's simplistic assembly is correct, then who actually set it off at 31,000 feet, since with the exception of one Belorussian and two Ukrainians, the passengers and crew on board the Metrojet airliner were nearly all middle-class Slavic Russian citizens of European extraction.

    Having been to both Egypt and Jordan in 2007, I can assure you that given the region's political volatility, security at those countries' airports is very rigorous and thorough, really much more so than in the United States. Security officers meticulously examine all hand-carried items and will go through your carry-on luggage by hand. We transited through Cairo, Luxor and Petra airports.

    Let's please not operate under the presumption here that airport security in Third World countries is necessarily lax and / or incompetent by virtue of their economic status, because that's really not been the case from my own experience. I've traveled to thirteen different countries on the African continent on four separate occasions. Their airports are quite often the most secure public locales over there.

    So, I think my questions regarding how this alleged bombing was carried out are perfectly valid.


    Did you make an unannounced stop (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 10:03:43 PM EST
    between Amman and Cairo?  We did. Damascus. Scary, even then. My friend thought Hatshepset's tomb to the west of the Nile at Luxor was really safe b/c of the uniformed armed guys, one atop each sand dune. I didn't. And the tourist guides always referred to the "accident" there.

    With respect (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by smott on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 01:55:19 PM EST

    Donald, aside from the bribery-as-normal Culture in Egypt where a 10 quid note can get you bypassed through all checks, the security at SSH is known to be very poor.

    Further this aircraft sat overnight in a hangar making it all the more vulnerable to unauthorized activity.

    Truly - read Pprune. Much good info there, and muchbofnit sources what you've read in the press.  My Dad is a pilot and upon hearing of this was quite certain that if it really was a bomb, it would be frighteningly easy to penetrate what passes for security at SSH.

    It's over for Egyot as far as tourism and their GDP if this proves out. But interesting to note that the U.S. Govt is still not on board with the latest explanation.


    Does this help? (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 03:39:48 PM EST
    However, Russia has said it believes the device was smuggled on board and detonated via a timer device.

    Viktor Poplavsky, an explosives expert from the Russian defence ministry told Russian television that the device shown was "very simple if you know how to connect the timer".

    Before the image emerged Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the FSB, had told Russian President Vladimir Putin that the device responsible was relatively small - equivalent to about 1 kilogram of TNT.

    The FSB believed the bomb was made of an industrially produced explosive such as plastique or TNT.

    They believed the device probably exploded inside the passenger cabin, possibly directly beneath a passenger's seat next to a window towards the rear of the fuselage and triggered by a timer set for one hour.

    That would fit with the plane being brought down shortly after taking off and the FSB has discovered a one-metre hole in a fragment of the plane's fuselage.

    It is feared the bomb was likely to have been smuggled on board by airport service personnel, such as cabin cleaners or workers delivering baggage and food.

    What's old (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 18, 2015 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    is new again it seems. I seem to remember this type of stuff being used back in the 70's for attacks.

    Both (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 05:28:11 AM EST
    attacks were provoked, from their point of view, because we have taken sides in another civil war - this time in Syria.  

    We learned nothing from our intervention in Vietnam it seems.

    Could we consider, since it is "not our fight", not fighting - not bombing them - with the inevitable "collateral damage" that that entails - and the predictable retaliation against our civilians that provokes?

    Just asking.

    Or is there some other agenda in place?
    An agenda that accomplishes nothing and puts targets on our backs?

    Do you honestly believe the indiscriminate (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2015 at 09:40:34 PM EST
    violence would cease if the U.S. followed Canada's lead?

    What I do (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 05:00:03 AM EST
    know is that certain countries are attracting this kind of violence.

    It happens that the ones who have been busy overthrowing governments and responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties are the ones being plagued by "indiscriminate violence".

    Are you considering "collateral damage" to be more discriminate than what we are experiencing - and do you honestly believe that we and our bedfellows could go on doing that indefinitely with no negative consequences?

    When a horrific event happens - as in Paris - some scratch their noggins and ask, "why do they hate us?". Then, they sigh, and expend zero effort in trying to answer the question.

    I believe that is what J.C. meant when he is reported to have said, "Turn the other cheek".
    I don't believe he was saying, "smile and ask for another hit"... I think he meant, "put yourself in your adversaries shoes"...


    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 05:53:47 AM EST
    We may be past that tipping point. They have territory, collect taxes, train recruits, and teach and indoctrinate children.
    You may be talking about turning the other cheek for a whole generation or two.
    At a minimum, many believe they must be rendered territoriality impotent, they cannot be left with a "functioning state".

    A question: (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    They have territory, collect taxes, train recruits, and teach and indoctrinate children....

    If there is a "they", isn't there someone we could sit down with and discuss grievances with?

    Remember the IRA? Terrizing London.

    That went on for like forever... and then it ended with talks.

    The Basque "separatist" movement was plaguing Spain... then they sat down, talked, and ended the attacks. (This against the admonishments of the US and their "no talking to terrists mantra"...)

    And if there isn't a "they", who is collecting the taxes?


    The (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    "They" collecting the taxes are probably the same bureaucrats that worked for Saddam and Assad. They are just sending the receipts to Raqqa instead of the Shia dogs in Baghdad or their cousins in Damascus.

    I suspect whole "nation-state" aspect old ISIS is way more complex then most people understand. I imagine that you could sit down with 99% of the population of the so called caliphate but for whatever reason the 1% are calling the shots.

    Unfortunately that 1% happens to be religiously  insane, there is no talking to them.


    This quote... (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 06:13:16 PM EST
    ...for whatever reason the 1% are calling the shots.

    Unfortunately that 1% happens to be religiously  insane, there is no talking to them.

    sounds as if it is, or is about to be, true of us as well.


    Substitute (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Sat Nov 21, 2015 at 06:02:44 AM EST
    Wealth for Religion and it's pretty much a done deal here.

    Not that I am aware of (none / 0) (#25)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    If there is a "they", isn't there someone we could sit down with and discuss grievances with?

    The Atlantic


    An very extensive analysis,

    The group seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been its leader since May 2010

    We can gather that their state rejects peace as a matter of principle; that it hungers for genocide; that its religious views make it constitutionally incapable of certain types of change, even if that change might ensure its survival; and that it considers itself a harbinger of--and headline player in--the imminent end of the world.

    The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior.


    A Insiders look at Isis (none / 0) (#26)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    Someone who left,

    The Daily Beast


    Confessions of an ISIS Spy
    He joined the self-proclaimed Islamic State, trained jihadist infantry, and groomed foreign operatives--including a pair of Frenchmen. And now, Abu Khaled says he is ready to talk.
    For all the attention paid to ISIS, relatively little is known about its inner workings. But a man claiming to be a member of the so-called Islamic State's security services has stepped forward to provide that inside view. This series is based on days of interviews with this ISIS spy.


    I Am With You... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 09:04:19 AM EST
    ...and it's funny that the above question mentioned Canada.  They are not indiscriminate attacks, they are low hanging fruit attacks against perceived enemies.

    Today they are in Mali, a French colony and al Qaeda is calling for more attacks on France.

    To call them indiscriminate IMO is to mis-label them.  France is without a doubt under attack and I don't think that is because the dart hit France on the terrorist indiscriminate attack board.

    To believe our foreign policy, which include drone bombings has no effect on the very people the policies and the bombings are directed at, is being rather niave.  Muslims aren't on the streets chanting 'death to America' because it's the first name in the yellow pages.


    I don't think that country is responsible for many drone bombings.

    No they have their own internal problems though (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 11:21:17 AM EST
    That doesn't change the fact that these events aren't necessarily random.

    Fair enough, the events are not (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    necessarily random.

    I think "indiscriminate" was meant more in a "kill whoever is in the area - man, woman, or child" way than "throw a dart at the map of the world and start chopping heads there."

    My personal belief is that this is kinda like two neighbors of mine, both of whom have gotten restraining orders against the other over the years, in that it really doesn't matter what the restraining orders/foreign policies are, they simply are just not going to get along.


    Right... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    ...and you managed to stay out of it, like many countries have managed to do, Canada and Mexico being good examples since they are in the same global vicinity of us.  I would imagine both of your neighbors have stoked the fires of hatred against each other and you just stay out of it.

    The notion that only one party is at fault here to me is not being able to step back and look at the situation for what it is.  And using your example, we are fighting with 'neighbors' that are on the other side of town, 5000 miles away.

    I am not defending jack, but to think we have probably been responsible for around half of a million muslim deaths, most innocent, on their lands, in the last couple decades and that there is no price/hatred/repercussions for that kind of behavior, does not understand how human beings work.  People generally don't like people killing innocent women and children.  

    I still don't know why we accidentally bombed a hospital in Afghanistan, or even if it was an accident.  But I do know, no one will be held accountable for that war crime and if it were my town, I would be hoppin' mad, if it were my family, I just might want revenge.

    It's just too bad both sides have such little regard for innocent human life.


    and much I don't agree with.

    Ultimately, IS, etc., wants power, to do what it thinks is "good" or "right."

    In order to get that power IS needs to take it from the entities that have more power.

    IS doesn't really care who has the power it wants.

    This guy writes it better than me:

    A U.N. report released late last year found that ISIS had killed thousands of Muslims -- both Sunni and Shia -- between July and September of that year. This includes the slayings of three nurses in Mosul, Iraq, because they refused to provide medical care to ISIS fighters. ISIS also killed numerous Sunni imams for refusing to swear allegiance to ISIS, and beheaded another Sunni leader for refusing to support the group.

    And the reality is that that's truly what al Qaeda and ISIS are about. They are not about the concept of "submit to Islam or die," as some have claimed. It's submit to ISIS/al Qaeda or die. Both organizations clearly don't care how many Muslims they kill. Yet at the same time they will both claim they are carrying out their actions in the name of Islam. In fact, al-Ansi stated in Wednesday's video that the terrorist brothers who carried out the attack on the Charlie Hebdo officers were "two heroes of Islam."

    He couldn't be more wrong.


    Obviously, calling out the hypocrisy of al Qaeda and ISIS won't change these organizations' goals -- they will continue to invoke Islam as cover for their political ambitions because it helps them entice new recruits and raise funds which are vital for their continued existence.

    But maybe if their hypocrisy is consistently laid bare then it might help all understand the true motivation of these terrorist groups and hopefully even give pause to any Muslims thinking of joining their un-Islamic cause. After all, al Qaeda and ISIS aren't interested in upholding the principles of Islam. They are focused only on power, however many Muslim lives they take.​

    Sorry, But I am Not Following Your... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 02:41:40 PM EST
    ...point as it relates to US involvement.

    than just the US involvement, and touch a little on your point about non-military Muslim deaths and how they are used politically by the various actors.

    Got it... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 03:56:55 PM EST
    ...I liked the fishing comment better, it has enjoyment and enthusiasm written all over it and I am so burned out about thinking about this garbage.

    With all the disagreements around, I will say this, you, me and everyone else wants the same thing, to be safe and for others to be safe.  I just wish we could accomplish that without a bunch of killing.


    Agreed. It sucks. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    Not indiscriminate (none / 0) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 05:48:33 PM EST

    The killing in Mali was not indiscriminate. If you could recite verses from the Koran you were spared.

    Fair point. (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 20, 2015 at 11:46:45 PM EST