| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa: North |
| Al-Qaeda's infrastructure in the Sinai surfaces anew |
| 2005-07-24 |
| Al-Qaida's infrastructure in Sinai once again surprised Egyptian intelligence. This is not an international attack. It is doubtful Al-Qaida's terror onslaught in Britain was coordinated with the attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh over the weekend. The two attacks should be seen as surges of terror taking place close in time. The London attacks are unique because the terrorists are Muslim British citizens. They formed ties with Al-Qaida people in Pakistan and perhaps in North Africa as well. Various intelligence services, including Israel's, detected the growth of radical Islam together with terror cells in Britain a long time ago. A Pakistani British citizen committed suicide in Mike's Place, a pub on Tel Aviv's promenade, two years ago and his colleague, another Pakistani-Briton, drowned off Tel Aviv's beach after apparently trying to carry out a suicide bombing. The intelligence coordination between Britain and Israel with regards to terror is considered good, but Britain always tried to blame others for the growth of the Muslim terror cells in its midst, like Israel or the United States. Britain was also among the first in the European Union to support contacts with Hamas, although it is defined in Europe as a terror organization. The attacks in Sharm el-Sheikh over the weekend are a painful blow, especially to the Egyptian government. Cairo assumed that if it treated the Sinai terror suspects moderately, Al-Qaida would grant it immunity. After the attack in Luxor in 1997, in which Al-Qaida men killed dozens of tourists at an antiquities site, President Hosni Mubarak took a hard line against terrorists. Hundreds of their supporters in Egypt suffered and the terror died down. However, after last year's attack at the Hilton Taba hotel, when 12 Israelis were killed (out of 30 fatalities), Egypt decided to try a gentler approach. There were arrests but no manhunts with firearms after the terrorists. Egyptian intelligence was surprised to discover that Al-Qaida managed to lay an extensive net in Sinai. A great amount of arms and explosives were captured, probably smuggled from Sudan or Saudi Arabia, by sea. An attack after that was not classified by the Egyptians as a terror act. Now it is clear this approach has not given Mubarak's government immunity. The recent attacks in Sharm were aimed mainly against the tourists in Egypt. The Egyptian intelligence failed to detect signs of the attack. Only by chance were there no Israelis among the fatalities in Sharm. Sinai is full of Israeli tourists who are indifferent to the terror warning to avoid Sinai at this time. Thousands are thronging there, convinced that in case of an attack they would receive swift aid from Israel, as was the case after the Taba attack last year. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #14 No, darling, facts don't change. But one's understanding of them changes as one's knowledge of the broader situation increases, hence my little disquisiton. I imagine some of our history specialists would be happy to suggest a course of reading to help you expand your knowledge; first person narratives are very helpful for getting the flavour and some of the details for specific moments in history, but their value is limited by the knowledge and understanding of the writer. For instance, the witness to the surrender of the British troops to General Washington that you referenced either didn't know or didn't care about the various moves of the chess game between France and England that had been going on (and off) since 1066 C.E. (or A.D. if you prefer), and continues, at least in the view of Jacques Chirac and his coterie, to the present day. Oh, and I'm afraid I'm not up on the lastest youth slang, dear. What is FAT an acronym for these days? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-07-24 22:37 |
| #13 Facts don't change FAT Trailing wife--the French helped us and without them we'd still be saying--"Jolly Good" and have a ruling class of heirs....OK never mind I forgot about the Bushies |
| Posted by: AgentProvocateur 2005-07-24 22:24 |
| #12 Why is that, mhw? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-07-24 22:20 |
| #11 ...Only by chance were there no Israelis among the fatalities in Sharm. Sinai is full of Israeli tourists... --------------------------------------- Actually, Sharm is a big hang out for Arab Israelis, not Jewish Israeli. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-07-24 22:14 |
| #10 Such a cleverboots, that AgentProvacateur (didja notice that he uses the French spelling... almost correctly?). I wonder how it is that he missed the world situation at the time of the American Revolution, ie that Royal France was backing enemies of their enemy England on all fronts? After all, it was the French scientists who led the charge that merely living in the Americas led to the physical and mental debasement of those that moved there, and that the native species were one or another sort of monsters in comparison to their European counterparts. Such people were not helping us out of the pure spirit of friendship and admiration, Mr. Provocateur. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-07-24 22:01 |
| #9 For the heart of Al Qaeda in Europe--look no further than Britain--for you French haters --read this: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/yorktown.htm |
| Posted by: AgentProvacateur 2005-07-24 21:03 |
| #8 We don't need excuses, infidel! The Prophet has spoken! Allah wants your conversion or your death! As for Sudan in 1882, we know very well you Crusaders were there to steal our oil. And the CIA covered it up. I mean, what else is there to take from the Ummah? Give us back Andalusia and we'll leave you alone, for a little while. OK, time for prayer and head-butting at the madrassa, alms to the poor international Islamic groups, peace be with you but only if you're a Moslem, salad aluminum, jihad forever, and hero-worship. |
| Posted by: Ahmed 2005-07-24 14:38 |
| #7 Glenmore---I would imagine that the Sundan op by the British a century ago is as good an excuse as any for the terrorists. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-07-24 13:18 |
| #6 Could the attacks against Egypt and Britain be in retaliation for the Egyptian/British war against the Mahdi and the Dervishes in the Sudan a century ago? (Not ENTIRELY a tongue-in-cheek question; there's a lot of similarity between the enemy then and now.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2005-07-24 13:07 |
| #5 That is one reason why I oppose Israel's Gaza pullout. Until the Dead Sea region Arabs become civilized, they don't deserve anything resembling autonomy. We didn't respect Taliban authority, so why should we allow beligerent Arabs to match that depravity? |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-24 12:31 |
| #4 That is one reason why I oppose Israel's Gaza pullout. Until the Dead Sea region Arabs become civilized, they don't deserve anything resembling autonomy. We didn't respect Taliban authority, so why should we allow beligerent Arabs to match that depravity? |
| Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler 2005-07-24 12:31 |
| #3 It's much easier when the ones evolving are the bad guyz, gromgorru. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-07-24 11:51 |
| #2 TW think of it as evolution in action. |
| Posted by: gromgorru 2005-07-24 09:13 |
| #1 convinced that in case of an attack they would receive swift aid from Israel It doesn't help if they died in the attack. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-07-24 02:39 |