The Ministry of Defence has admitted that secret information about the UK's nuclear powered submarines was made available on the internet by mistake.
A technical error meant blacked-out parts of an online MoD report could be read by pasting into another document. Details were reported to include expert opinion on how well the fleet could cope with a catastrophic accident.
The MoD said a secure version had now been published and it was working to stop such an incident happening again.
Information also included measures used by the US Navy to protect its nuclear submarines.
Continued on Page 47
#1
What exactly makes you think it's a mistake on their part, moose?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/17/2011 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I seem to recall a similar incident on this side of the pond a couple of years ago.
Doesn't anybody check anything anymore?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/17/2011 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's hard to keep up with what MS Office does to an electronic document. It is probably some secretary typing the document or even worse, the actual Officer making the report. If they aren't trained about these "little things" then you get these leaks. There ARE advantages to paper files.
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said that not covering the face is a "shortcoming" and suggested that any Muslims who advocate being uncovered could be guilty of rejecting Islam.
In a statement published on its website the MCB, warns: "We advise all Muslims to exercise extreme caution on this issue, since denying any part of Islam may lead to disbelief.
"Not practising something enjoined by Allah and his Messenger is a shortcoming. Denying it is much more serious."
The statement quotes from the Koran: "It is not for a believer, man or woman, that they should have any option in their decision when Allah and his Messenger have decreed a matter."
The statement will add to controversy about the veil after France earlier this week banned the full-face covering.
Continued on Page 47
There are moderate Muslims, and some of them speak up. Here is another case study.
To Hasan Afzal, the reaction to his new pro-Israel group may demonstrate just why the organization is necessary.
Ive been really overwhelmed just by how shocked people have been that theres been a group called British Muslims for Israel, Afzal said.
That surprise isnt surprising. The debate over Israel and the broader Middle East conflict has become so tense and toxic that a group calling itself British Muslims for Israel inspires a mix of suspicion and fascination. But Afzals group is real. Formed by young Muslim professionals in Britain in January under the umbrella group Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, it really took off after Afzal was interviewed by Israels Channel 10. Their Web site (BritishMuslimsForIsrael.com) received thousands of hits and the group began receiving letters of all kinds, from thank you for what you said to how can we help? One writer offered to help jazz up their Web site, and several spoke admiringly of the groups bravery.
Although I never for one second thought I was being brave, I just thought I was being obvious in what I was saying, Afzal told me. We were worried that the dialogue, when it comes to the Middle East and especially Israel, had in the past five or six years moved from how do Muslims build an independent Palestinian state and coexist with Israel, to nonsense questions like should Israel even exist, or should the Jews even have a homeland, Afzal said. And we found that disturbing for two reasons: first is, its a completely delusional question to even ask if Israel should even exist.
Afzal likes to pose the following hypothetical to anyone willing to discuss Israels right to exist: Suppose the argument was about India-Pakistan, and Afzal said to his interlocutor, you know, I really support Indias right to existhow silly would he sound? In addition, Afzal knows where such a question, with respect to Israel, would lead. Once you start asking if Israel has a right to exist, Afzal said, that is almost like a back door Trojan horse entry to some pretty dark aspects of Islamism.
The media environment in Britain can be downright hostile to the Jewish state. Part of Afzals work is countering the misinformation in British media. Im sure you know that the UK has an infamous leftwing newspaper which cant help itself but print editorials or op-eds linked to members of Hamas. And Im talking about the Guardian here.
Afzal points to the coverage of the massacre of the Israeli family in Itamar. It was mostly ignored in British media, he said, and when the BBC finally covered it, they did so in a dehumanizing and insulting way, insinuating that since the family lived in the West Bank, they got what they deserved.
Though Israel does have a tense relationship with European intellectuals and media, these groups arent ready to give upquite the opposite. Thats because the media in Britain, according to Afzal, doesnt speak for the people. I asked him how representative British media is of the populations opinions on the whole.
Its not representative, which is the bottom line, he said. But their work remains so important because such biased media coverage can, over time, erode sympathy for Israel even among its supporters. Take your average consumer of news in Britain, he said. If he gets the same anti-Israeli, delegitimized point of view, day in and day out, then decent people will start to turn their backs on Israel.
On a cultural level, Afzal made a point to avoid the traditional talk of coexistence between Jews and Muslims in Europe and beyond. He isnt opposed, of course, to this activity, but rather wants to take it beyond the commonalities and into the realm of real debate.
What I would say about coexistence groups is, its great having a Muslim and a Jew in a room together and agreeing that we shouldnt eat pork and agreeing that male children should be circumcised, he said. But what youll rarely find is that they actually talk about the issues that matter. So thats why we try not to get too into the coexistence game. We have set beliefs and its our job to advocate it to the grassroots Muslim community and beyond.
Continued on Page 47
#2
I think the extremists are terrified of any voices of moderation, because of a simple point.
If you look at any group of people, including Muslims, the vast majority of them have "inertia". They just live their lives and never really "do" much of anything other than that.
Extremists of all kinds are always a minority, and their hardest problems is having to push and coerce this inert majority into doing anything. Typically, they do so with violence against their own people, and desperately try to create the illusion that the majority are extremist.
For example, while the vast majority of post-Czarist leftists in Russia were moderates, or "Mensheviks", the "Bolsheviks", a tiny minority, had a name that meant "majority".
In a civilized society, extremists have to do everything in their power to keep the majority isolated and apart from society at large. Because if they integrate, they are no longer under control.
They also are reliant on creating a persecution or victimization complex among their people, the actually rather rare "Islamophobia". Which in most cases should instead be called "Islamoskepticism".
In any event, over time, more and more Muslims in the west are going to start noticing that they aren't persecuted, and are treated fairly equally, or enough so that extremism is seen as just that. Not offering them anything of value.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
