By blaming foreign policy they try to divert pressure off themselves from the real need to tackle extremism being peddled within.
The events of the last few days have been sobering for us all. The response from some UK Muslim groups (influenced by Islamist thinking) is still largely to blame foreign policy (undoubtedly an exacerbating influence but not the cause), rather than marching "not in my name" in revulsion against terrorist acts committed in Islam's name. By blaming foreign policy they try to divert pressure off themselves from the real need to tackle extremism being peddled within. Diverting attention away from the problems within Muslim communities and blaming others - especially the west - is always more popular than the difficult task of self-scrutiny. And what part of foreign policy do the Islamists want us to change to tackle terrorism? Withdrawal from Iraq?
The government will not (and cannot) admit it, but we have been in withdrawal mode since the end of the war.
And once we've left Iraq, will they be satisfied? Of course not. Their list of grievances is endless.
The UK presence on the ground in Iraq is minuscule compared to the US. We currently have 5,500 troops from 40,000 at the start of the invasion. We will reduce them further to 5,000 by the end of the summer. The bulk of which will be located near Basra airport in a supporting role. Next year will likely see the numbers dwindle even further. Our troop presence is far more symbolic than military. It provides the Americans with their "coalition of the willing". The US, by contrast, is the only serious occupier in the country with over 160,000 troops. The government will not (and cannot) admit it, but we have been in withdrawal mode since the end of the war.
And once we've left Iraq, will they be satisfied? Of course not. Their list of grievances is endless: Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Burma ... so long as the world is presented as one where the west is forever at war with Islam and Muslims there is nothing we can do to appease the terrorists and those who share their world view. Instead it is this extremist world view that must change.
Where is their outrage at the 400,000 Muslims slaughtered in Darfur?
It is nowhere to be seen because the Darfurians have been massacred by fellow Muslims, not by the west. Hence it does not appear on the Islamist radar screen as a "grievance". Such is the moral bankruptcy of this ideology.
Take for example the idea that radical Islamists are concerned about Muslim life (let's ignore human life in general for a moment). Where is their outrage at the 400,000 Muslims slaughtered in Darfur? Where are the marches and calls for action against this ongoing genocide? Where is the "Muslim anger" boiling up amongst British Islamists? It is nowhere to be seen because the Darfurians have been massacred by fellow Muslims, not by the west. Hence it does not appear on the Islamist radar screen as a "grievance". Such is the moral bankruptcy of this ideology.
The radical Islamist ideology needs to be exposed to young Muslims for what it really is. A tool for the introduction of a medieval form of governance that describes itself as an "Islamic state" that is violent, retrogressive, discriminatory, a perversion of the sacred texts and a totalitarian dictatorship.
No, it's not foreign policy that's the main driver in combating the terrorists; it is their mindset. The radical Islamist ideology needs to be exposed to young Muslims for what it really is. A tool for the introduction of a medieval form of governance that describes itself as an "Islamic state" that is violent, retrogressive, discriminatory, a perversion of the sacred texts and a totalitarian dictatorship.
When the IRA was busy blowing up London, there would have been little point in Irish "community leaders" urging "all" citizens to cooperate with the police equally when it was obvious the problem lay specifically within Irish communities. Likewise for Muslim "community leaders" to condemn terrorism is a no-brainer. What is required is for those that claim to represent and have influence among young British Muslims to proactively counter the extremist Islamist narrative. That is the biggest challenge for British Muslim leadership over the next five to 10 years. It is because they are failing to rise to this challenge that the government feels it needs to act by further eroding our civil liberties with anti-terror legislation to get the state to do what Muslims should be doing themselves. If British Muslim groups focus on grassroots de-radicalisation then this will provide civil liberty groups the space they need to argue against any further anti-terror legislation.
Of course I would like to see changes in our foreign policy and have marched on the streets (with thousands of non-Muslims) in protest on many occasions. But blaming foreign policy in the face of suicide attacks is not only tactless but a cop-out that fails to tackle extremism, fails to promote an ethical foreign policy and fails to protect our civil liberties.
Posted by: lotp ||
07/03/2007 08:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Britain
This is from a discussion thread at National Review's military affairs blogg, "The Tank."
Gregory rightly said, "Sometimes even the inept terrorists are successful, and we should never forget that."
And as he alluded to, I would openly state that readers should very cautiously doubt just how inept the UK terrorists involved in this weekend's attempts really were.
Here's why:
There were three very powerful bombs, made completely of openly available materials and designed to duplicate similar bomb designs from Iraq and elsewhere that have the convenience of military grade high explosives as the triggered initiator for the blast. Other than that (largely), the designs were - in even their basic publicly sketched appearance - the same. And the only failure was common throughout each one: Failing dual cell phone triggering mechanisms.
We almost certainly do not know the half of this weekend's bomb designs being publicly supplied to and reported by the media outlets. It can be almost universally assumed that they were far more intricate than simply gasoline and propane tanks with zip-lock baggies full of nails taped to them. Though I have no direct knowledge of the specific design, I know enough to be confident that I have not yet laid eyes on the true complexity of the design. Nor has anyone currently calling these terrorists 'inept.'
I have, however, maintained in various offline discussions since Friday that there was either a minute (and system-fatal) flaw with the triggering designs or in the end-point bomb maker's implementation of them. The same failure indicates the same failed design or the same failed implementation, perhaps both. This is a minor issue technically. Important, but minor. And it will be overcome by an intelligent and adaptive enemy.
These were not 'cheesy' or 'amateur' bombs. They were bombs smartly made with materials designed to avoid detection...with a consistent glitch in the triggering mechanisms.
Those who wish to dismiss the attempted bombings as 'amateurish' would be well advised to quietly reconsider.
This would have been more deadly than the vast majority of bombing attacks by Palestinian terrorists in Israel.
And we don't call them inept, do we?
Hint: No. We don't.
Because intent is intent and dead is dead. And the enemy learns and adapts.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/03/2007 06:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Britain
#1
Any thoughts as to why, despite several calls, the cell phones failed to ignite the London Car Bombs?
#3
This was an amazingly close call and would have resulted in the death and maiming of hundreds of young Brits, much worse than the Bali episode. MI5 knows this. This would have eclipsed 7/7 by orders of magnitude. A slight malfunction and a tremendous amount of fortune are all that stood in the way. I wonder if the British public realize this? They are so proud of their ability to "carry on". When several of these tragedies occur and there is bits of corpses scattered across several blocks radii, splattered several stories high, I wonder if it will get their attention ?
#4
I have to disagree with claim that these bombs were of highly competent design. The bombs didn't contain any high explosives. Absent any high explosives to propel them, the nails were a total waste of effort. While it is true that the propane could have formed a vapor cloud that might have exploded, the explosion would have been a large-volume, low-order blast with the nails near the center of that large volume. With the nails at the center of the blast, there is no mechanism to propel them outward.
The mistake the perps made, and that many subsequent observers are also making is to believe that propane tanks can themselves explode like bombs. They can't; they contain fuel but no oxidizer. Heat from the petrol fire could have caused the propane to boil and in turn rupture the tanks, causing a release of the propane. The propane might then possibly ignite in such a way as to create a large-volume, low-order explosion. However, even that is very unlikely since the propane tanks probably had pressure-relief valves designed to prevent such an occurrence.
What the perps did was to build large fire bombs and load them with shrapnel, which shows them to be a bit unclear on the concept. I'm not suggesting that people not take these attacks seriously, but I do think the destructive potential of these particular car bombs has been wildly exaggerated.
#5
It appears the detonator in the Haymarket bomb went off causing a small fire, and probably the Glasgow 'bomb' as well. I'll speculate that home made explosives failed to explode or just burnt. It is very difficult to get your hands on commercial explosives in the UK.
Had the explosives ruptured the propane tanks causing sudden release, there would be a large flash fire and to some degree an explosion (propane leaks regularly cause explosions) especially in an enclosed space like an airport terminal.
The failure of the cell phone trigger looks like mis-information.
#6
With a more reliable trigger mechanism and a not uncommon phosphorus-based component which I will not mention here, these could have been inordinately powerful and destructive explosive devices.
In this age where so much information is just a link or two away, we have to assume the worst as far as the harm which can be inflicted by those with both intent and access to basic technology.
This near miss must be responded to as if it went off as planned because persistence even across many years is a characteristic of this enemy. They may use a subtly different method next time and perhaps pick a slightly different target, but something very similar will be attempted again and relying on their incompetence is suicidal.
In a similar vein, I am certain that security forces are taking special pains to watch for suspicious activity involving transit hubs over the next few weeks as this has also fit the targeting pattern in recent years.
Why consult the crystal ball when you can read the book? Bevin's epithet is more than ever appropriate as Britain wakes up to the beginning of a long combat with the Islamist ideologies that send young men to kill and maim our citizens.
The calm, rational, determined and unfussed response of the new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, as well as sombre language from the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is a welcome change after the theatricalities of declaring war on terrorism, or instant consultation committees whose members are keener to denounce Britain's foreign policy than ask hard questions about the thought processes that guide the suicide and car bombers.
Six weeks ago, David Cameron wrote an article in the Observer criticising those who used the word "Islamist" to describe the ideological roots of the terrorist threat. Yet "Islamist" is an accurate description of a global ideology that has been slowly incubating for decades. It took 69 years between the writing of the Communist Manifesto and the imposition of Bolshevik terror on Russia after 1917. Hitler's hatred of Jews was derived from writings and ideologues active before he was born. The Islamist equivalent of Marx's revolutionary appeal can be found in the writing of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, with a growing presence in Egypt, as well as off-shoots such as Hamas and a European network, including prominent members of the Muslim Council of Britain.
Writing in the 1930s, Hasan al-Banna declared: "The Koran is our Constitution. Jihad is Our Way. Martyrdom is Our Desire." At a stroke, the history of modernity that is based on separation of faith and democracy, church and state, politicians and priests was overturned. Today, it is al-Qa'eda and the myriad Islamist outfits from Indonesia to Britain who are inspired by Islamist ideology to carry out evil acts.
These are repudiated by decent Muslims everywhere. I spend more time in mosques than in churches in my constituency of Rotherham, where 10,000 Muslim citizens live. Their imams and members of mosque councils are men of peace. They teach their children to recite the Koran, just as I learnt to recite the Latin mass as an altar boy. British Muslims know the difference between their faith and the ideologies of Islamism. For Mr Cameron to deny the concept of Islamism would have al-Banna and all the other founding fathers of Islamism laughing in their graves.
But measured and impressive as the Government's response (and, to be fair, Mr Cameron's) have been to the attempted atrocities in London and Glasgow, the fact is that the Labour Government, Whitehall and the entire political-media class in Britain have been slow to wake up to the need for an intellectual-ideological confrontation with Islamism.
I experienced this first-hand when, in November 2003, as Europe minister, I made a speech after Islamist terrorists drove a lorry bomb into the British consulate in Istanbul, killing scores - mainly Turks. At the same time, a young man from South Yorkshire had been groomed by Islamists into becoming a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv.
I made what I thought were banal points, saying a choice had to be made between "the democratic rule of law, if you like the British or Turkish or American or European way, based on political dialogue and non-violent protests, or the way of the terrorists, against which the whole democratic world is now uniting. We need to move away from talk of martyrs and I hope we will see clearer, stronger language that there is no future for any Muslim cause anywhere in the world that validates, or implicitly supports, the use of political violence in any way."
Read today, those words are so commonplace every MP would endorse them. Four years ago, they were seen as provocative and unacceptable. "Experts" wrote articles denouncing me. Inside the Foreign Office, I was ordered to negotiate with a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain a partial retraction of my statement. I regret now my temporising, based on the genuine upset I could sense among Muslim friends in Yorkshire and, of course, any politician's wish to hold on to office.
Now, there is no excuse. If ministers and MPs want to know where terrorism comes from, they can read Ed Husain's book The Islamist, with its self-explanatory sub-title "Why I joined radical Islam in Britain, what I saw inside and why I left". Husain is one of a growing number of British Muslims who are telling the truth. Shiv Malik's remarkable reportage on the Islamist factionalism that won control of the July 7 bombers in Leeds can be read in a recent issue of Prospect. Unlike non-Muslims who tried to raise issues before a complacent political-media world was ready to listen, today's witness from British Muslims cannot be gainsaid. They are not like Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of al-Banna, who writes reverently about the founding father of Islamism. Recently, Prospect published a sympathetic profile interview of Ramadan. Last month, the magazine's editor, David Goodhart, wrote an open letter to him after Ramadan condemned a meeting at Downing Street that included Muslim leaders opposed to Islamism. Goodhart pointed out that neither foreign policy nor racist attitudes in a Britain where Muslim citizens have freer lives than in any Muslim state can justify the constant attacks on British democracy from the Islamist ideologues.
Ramadan did not deign to reply. He remains however a Whitehall consultant - despite his refusal to call for the abolition of stoning women to death under sharia.
But the days of refusing to confront Islamist ideology are drawing to an end. There is a new determination in government to spell out hard truths. And soon someone will explain to David Cameron that there is such a thing as Islamist ideology and Islamist terror crimes, and that they represent a fundamental challenge to everything Britain and British citizens - of all faiths and none - stand for.
Denis MacShane was Europe minister, 2002-05
Posted by: lotp ||
07/03/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Britain
#1
But the days of refusing to confront Islamist ideology are drawing to an end. There is a new determination in government to spell out hard truths.
#2
Islamic organizations in the West claim to be oriented on civil rights. BS. They are Islamists. Their true agenda won't be declared until - and if - they have the numbers to steamroller their totalitarian scheme. In France, within a generation the election of someone like Sarkozy will be impossible. Islamists will have a veto over French foreign and domestic policies, even as Western ideas are cleansed out of their homelands. Ergo: do whatever we have to do to ensure that they don't have the numbers.
#3
These are repudiated by decent Muslims everywhere.
Stark testimony to the sparse population of "decent Muslims".
They teach their children to recite the Koran, just as I learnt to recite the Latin mass as an altar boy.
Except one preaches death and destruction and the other doesn't. Slight difference there, eh?
'Islamist' is the word for these terrorists
Bullshit. They are not "Islamists", they are Muslims following the correctly interpreted dictates of their beloved Koran. Robert Spencer is absolutely correct in pointing out how even a most polite translation of the Koran still yields up a terrorist handbook. Islam is a violent, intolerant political ideology with no redeeming features. I invite anyone to prove otherwise.
"Islamists" are dutiful Muslims performing the recommended acts of their supposedly holy book. Those Muslims who protest such terrorist atrocities are blasphemers or apostates that Islam would just as soon put to death. We need to stop turning such a blind eye to these simple and basic facts.
#5
Agreed, they are brave people. I'll never deny that, but they are not "true" Muslims. The Koran is very plain about who should be killed or subjugated and its approval of using terrorism to do so.
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property-either as a child, a wife, or a concubine-must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proseltyzing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
#8
Maybe there'll be a new aphorism: "Is the Pope Catholic? Do Muslims believe in Jihad?"
"But the days of refusing to confront Islamist ideology are drawing to an end." -- Nope, this is wishful thinking & is not happening. The moral leadership from the top is just not there. The "whole democratic world" no longer believes in itself. However, this article is a baby step in the right direction.
Posted by: Pearl Greaper5013 ||
07/03/2007 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think the jury's out on whether 2x4 or Zen is right on this.
Ultimately, what is and is not a true Muslim is for Muslims to decide. We know what the Wahabists and Salafists claim. We also should acknowledge the fledgling start at reformation of Islamic teachings by some respected imams who reject those claims.
I had read this quote before. I think Churchill uttered it very early in his career around 1908. Never more true. Amazing how he could lay things out plainly. There has been no peer since. Only Thatcher approached his clarity of thought. If only he were here today to guide his British compatriots.
#16
Catholocism is but one sect of Christianity.
Obviously, you must be killed.
Who's to say that Islam can't find ways to water itself down, like Lutherans?
One noted french pundit on islam noted that islam is an involutive religion, where the ideal is not in some kind of soteriology like for the christian religion, with the apothesis being in the future, but at the start. That is, perfection is in the beginning, in mo', who is the perfect human being who must be imitated as closely as possible, and in his original companions.
So, whenever islam try to evolve, there always will be a reverse pulse to go back to that initial perfection, embodied by the k'ora'n and by old mo'. And that perfection is one of a looter and conqueror who set rules for dealing with the "outside world".
I think the jury's out on whether 2x4 or Zen is right on this.
Reading people far more intelligent than me led me to believe our current "muslim problem" is both circumstancial (muslim theological and ideological reawakening, transnational orgs and revolutionary gvt that form an "islamintern" to structure that, strenghts due to population surplus exported to kufr lands, oil money to buy influence, pusillanimity - real or perceived - of the opponents, self-inflicted cultural and ideological weakness of the West and Europe in particular, cognitive dissonance between the muslim self-perception and the reality of thes tate of muslimland & sense of being under siege from "modernity" brought by globalization)... and inherent to the "civilizational DNA" of the muslim identity.
Thus, if/when our "muslim trouble" ends successfully for us kufrs, we'll have peace, as it will go to sleep, like it did under colonization, with the ins allah fatalism,... only to resurge again and again, whenever the circumstances are right (think the original late 19th century mahdi). Until islma is reformed top to bottom, the trouble being it was originally conceived, perhaps by other people than old mo' (jewish or judeo-nazarean roots of islam, old mo' being a semi-mythical or mythical messiah figure invented later), as a motivator for conquest and a glue for conquered empires, at heart a vehicle for arab and arabized imperialism.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/03/2007 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Good lord -- look at our a5089 write! I remember when he clearly sat with a French-English dictionary propped up in front of his monitor and a grammar next to it, painstakingly translating his thoughts. And now look at his post #16: I've got a pretty good vocabulary (in English, anyway), and I had to look up words and concepts completely new to me, and reread the post twice to make sure I got everything out of it. anonymous5089, I am highly, highly impressed!! :-D
#21
5089, that's a good post about the problems restarting again. The reason that mussellmen have a chance to again be a problem is oil money. The west is funding both sides of this current war.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/03/2007 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Mike, today it's oil, tomorrow it will be dillitium. The problem is Islam itself, not the means. Contained tomorrow, the ambers would grow into fire again the day after tomorrow.
Find a way to kill not the people but the ideology, Islam, and the problem will be solved.
#23
Tubafor, I agree. I just also think that the ultimate decision has to made by the followers of the prophet. I can see Islam shrinking and I can see what's left of Islam being much less militaristic, I just can't see it going away completely.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/03/2007 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Gordon Brown has already failed the first test of leadership during a crisis: speaking honestly and forthrightly about the nature of the problem.
Any poster to this site could serve the English better.
#25
On July 4, 1776, ole England started to loose it's best posession. On July 3rd, 2007, ole England started to loose it's mind.
Better silence your new idiot, Brown and save face now. What the hell ius Brown's vision of the future ? Animal Farm ?
A New York Times DeviantRenegade best-selling author has just released a scathing new book that exposes what he considers a blatant, well-coordinated campaign by the Left to sabotage the U.S. military.
Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (U.S. Air Force - Ret.) is best known as a man who once carried the emergency condom box(es) nuclear missile codes for Bill Clinton. In his latest book -- War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror -- he claims the Left has shamelessly aided and abetted America's terrorist enemies.
"The Left has become the fifth column as a result of the Vietnam War, [and] it has become more and more entrenched," asserts the author. "I argue in the book that I don't think we can win either this war against global Islamic extremism, or any future war, without coming to grips with the fact that we have this internal enemy that we have to defeat from within."
In Patterson's view, that "internal enemy" is attempting to undermine the war on terror. "We haven't won a major war in this country since WWII," he observes, "and the Left has been very, very skilled and adept at turning military victories into political defeats -- and that's what they're attempting to do with the war in Iraq."
Patterson says the terrorists know they cannot defeat the United States militarily -- unless Americans become so demoralized that they run from the fight. He says it is unfortunate that liberals in America are working overtime to make this happen.
[ Editor's note: Webster defines "fifth column" as a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders.]
#3
I think he's right, though he may (I repeat, may) be overstating his case. Within the Left, there are really three different groups who are working against the war effort:
1. Honest-to-Chomsky America-haters, the Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores and Rosie O'Donnells who really do want to see us lose 'cause they don't like this country.
2. Hyperpartisan Dems who see political advantage for themselves in defeat. I don't know that they really hate the country so much as they really, really, really hate their political opponents and reflexively oppose the war because it's being led by a Republican president. In their heart of hearts, they probably don't want America to lose, but they're so repulsed by the idea of rallying around a Republican administration that they rationalize their opposition by pretending the terrorist threat is overstated.
3. The wet-finger-to-the-poll-numbers types, who were for the war when the poll numbers told them to be. Opinion shifts again, they'll be back in the hawk camp.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/03/2007 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The blood is already on congresses hands. Some days, I feel the need to see the whole thing doing the perp walk. They are looked at by me as criminals.
#6
Mike nails it. The problem is, that the three of those groups, taken in aggregate, may constitute a majority of voters, at least in some geographic areas. I hope this isn't the case, but it may be until some real hurt occurs.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/03/2007 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"I argue in the book that I don't think we can win either this war against global Islamic extremism, or any future war, without coming to grips with the fact that we have this internal enemy that we have to defeat from within."
Amen to that. I don't see how the war against the fifth column can be won unless treason and sedition laws are seriously considered.
#8
I agree a lot w/newc. There are some congresscowards I view as domestic enemies. Men who are cowards and have no business making or debating upon bills or formulating any sort of foreign policy. I look at leaders in one of two varieties - a guy I'd follow up a hill or a guy I'd have to push up a hill w/my rifle in his back. Most of the guys I see in congress make up the latter variety.
#9
#8: "I look at leaders in one of two varieties - a guy I'd follow up a hill or a guy I'd have to push up a hill w/my rifle in his back shoot at the bottom of the hill to protect my own life."
There - fixed that for ya', Broad.
When I worked for the Army in Germany (as a civilian) many years ago, we had a Lt. Col. who was the poster child of REMFs, and had been the same in 'Nam before he landed in Deutchland. I asked the Sergeant I worked for if he wasn't scared that that worthless clown would be giving orders if the Russians rolled across the border. His only comment was, "Not really - I have a gun." It was obvious he wasn't talking about shooting the Russians.
Warmed my little cockles, it did. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/03/2007 23:49 Comments ||
Top||
Americans rightly admire our troops for their bravery, dedication and integrity. The Marines, for instance, are renowned for abiding by an honorable code--as warriors and as individuals in civilian life. They epitomize the rectitude of America's soldiers. But a recently disclosed Pentagon study--little noted in the media--has seemingly cast a shadow over our troops.
The study of U.S. combat troops in Iraq finds that less than half of the soldiers and Marines surveyed would report a team member for breaches of the military's ethics rules. Military and civilian observers have concluded from the study that more and stricter training in combat ethics is urgently needed.
But instead of reinforcing the military's ethics, we must challenge them. The Pentagon study provides evidence for a searing indictment not of our soldiers but of Washington's rules of engagement.
Consider the waking nightmare of being a U.S. combat troop in Iraq: imagine that you are thrust into a battlefield--but purposely hamstrung by absurd restrictions. Iraqis throw Molotov cocktails (i.e., gasoline-filled bottles) at your vehicle--but you are prohibited from responding with force. Iraqis, to quote the study, "drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses" as you drive by--but you are not allowed to respond. "Every group of Soldiers and Marines interviewed," the Pentagon study summarizes, "reported that they felt the existing ROE [rules of engagement] tied their hands, preventing them from doing what needed to be done to win the war."
And the soldiers are right. In Iraq, Washington's rules have systematically prevented our brave and capable troops from using all necessary force to win, to crush the insurgency--and even to protect themselves. As noted in news articles since the start of the war, American forces are ordered not to bomb key targets, such as power plants, and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest they offend Muslim sensibilities.
Having to follow such self-effacing rules of engagement while confronting sniper fire and ambushes and bombs from every direction, day in and day out, must be utterly demoralizing and unbearable. No one should be surprised at the newly reported willingness of combat troops to defy military ethics, because such defiance is understandable as the natural reaction of warriors made to follow suicidal rules.
When being "ethical" on Washington's terms means martyring yourself and your comrades for the sake of murderous Iraqis, it is understandable that troops are disinclined to report "unethical" behavior. It is understandable that troops should feel anger and anxiety (as many do), because it is horrifically unjust for America to send its personnel into combat, deliberately prevent them from achieving victory--and expect them to die for the sake of the enemy. It would be natural for an individual thrust into the line of fire as a sacrificial offering to rebel with indignation at such a fate.
How can we do this to our soldiers?
The death and misery caused by Washington's self-crippling rules of engagement--rules endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike--are part of the inevitable destruction flowing from a broader evil: the philosophy of "compassionate" war.
This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous. It was on this premise that U.S. troops were sent to Iraq: Washington's goal was not to defend America against whatever threat Hussein's hostile regime posed to us, as a first step toward defeating our enemies in the region--principally Iran, the arch sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism. Instead the troops were sent (as Bush explained) to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers"--spilling American blood and spending endless resources on the "compassionate" goal of lifting the hostile and primitive Iraqi people out of poverty, feeding their hungry, unclogging their sewers. The result of this "compassionate" war is thousands of unnecessary American deaths, and the preservation and emboldening of the enemies we most need to defeat: Iran and Saudi Arabia.
We must put an end to the barbarous sacrifice of American troops, now. It is past time to abandon Washington's self-sacrificial rules of engagement, and its broader policy of "compassionate," self-sacrificial warfare. Instead of subjecting troops to more intensive "ethics" training, we should unleash them from the suicidal militarily ethics of self-sacrifice.
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2007 06:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Iraqis throw Molotov cocktails (i.e., gasoline-filled bottles) at your vehicle--but you are prohibited from responding with force. Iraqis, to quote the study, 'drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses' as you drive by--but you are not allowed to respond."
I'm sure these restrictions apply equally to the British military. Whoever declares that our troops should not defend themselves from a potentially fatal attack - be it by a 25 yr old insurgent or a five year old - is guilty of an act of treason and aiding the enemy.
#2
The article is somewhat out of date. US troops are relying much more on local intelligence, and taking the battle to the enemy. Although the June casualties were high, few were from snipers and IEDs. I have never liked show-the-flag patrols, when search-and-destroy is not an option.
As for hair trigger use of force in Iraq, that is the product of suicide bombings and standing suppression fire orders, when under attack.
Posted by: Pearl Greaper5013 ||
07/03/2007 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"taking the battle to the enemy"? When the US routinely destroys mosques from which fire is received, preferably with massive artillery fire, I'll believe we are doing that. Not until then.
Posted by: Pearl Greaper5013 ||
07/03/2007 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
One thing that I didn't like was when the terrorturds would shoot IDF and when our counter battery computers would triangulate and prepare to counter fire, if the enemy's IDF originated from a populated area our lads had to get clearance from higher to shoot back. Sometimes they were denied. That drives me up a f*ckn wall.
I personally believe in disproportionate force and so do the arabs because they understand it. Our govt is still lost in the sauce when it comes to really understanding our enemy.
#7
Broadhead, I heard the same thing from my brother in Iraq. He said that, because of the surrounding civilian population, there was essentially no counterbattery defense of the green zone.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/03/2007 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Here is precisely what takes place nearly everyday at Balad Air Base ("Mortaritaville") Iraq. It's neat to hear it rip off in the middle of the night. I only wish it were 155mm pounding the surrounding neighborhood instead. Watching them bracket a C-12 on taxi with 3 rounds of 60mm is no fun:
Responding to an Israeli search (and offers of quick sales) for anti-rocket/ mortar systems, the company (Raytheon) that makes the Phalanx anti-ship missile system, has adapted a Phalanx to use a laser instead of a 20mm automatic cannon. The Phalanx radar can spot incoming object at up to 5,000 meters, and destroy them at up to 2,000 meters with its 20mm cannon. But by using an off-the-shelf solid state laser, Raytheon was able to detect and destroy a 60mm mortar shell (which is smaller than any current rocket) at a range of "over 500 meters".
#9
Military and civilian observers have concluded from the study that more and stricter training in combat ethics is urgently needed.
If the 'ethics' are based upon some spinhead with no comprehension of the real battlefield or some lawyer pushing his concept of what 'should be' then its junk and will remain junk. The fundamental reason real warriors fight is for their buddies. When you tell the troops that they're expendable for some metaphorical concept, they'll regress into self preservation which means in the end, they won't fight. Any ROE and ethics have to be realistic to the environment that the warrior inhabits, not one in some air conditioned group think tank thousands of miles away exists in. Today we use people not Skynet to fight our conflicts. They're not robots. And you'd better be damn well certain you want the heart removed from the warrior when you [yes, you the member of that unattached uninvested self proclaimed pontificating philosopher and or lawyer who knows better, but never been there crowd] decide you want robots to do your bidding. Robots are what power mongers and politicians want. It should be the first and last warning that anyone advocating such should be trashed canned immediately, for it reveals their souls far more than many other indicators.
#10
The death and misery caused by Washington's self-crippling rules of engagement--rules endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike
Odd. I don't endorse them. I don't think most people here endorse them.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/03/2007 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
There is a propoganda media aspect to consider. If we return fire you should have no doubt there will be civilian casualties reported in the media. They might have been the attackers, they might ahve been a family trapped in the home used to fire the mortors or they might have been neighbors but they will be portrayed as martyrs by the BBC and the NY Times without explaination.
The Jihadi want civilian casualties so they have been trying to reverse the suicide bomb thing and get us to create the civilian casualties but we haven't taken the bait.
The military has to deal with that and create ROE accordingly. It sucks but that's war.
#12
rjs has it exactly right, I do believe. The objective is to win the war, not the battles, and this war will be won or lost back home, in the media. Same as Vietnam. RoE are crafted to try to find a workable balance between losing too many of our guys while fighting the military battles and losing too many media battles from collateral damage.
"It sucks, but that's war."
#13
I think the key sentence is "This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous. " This crap has to stop. It leads us to fight battles for little strategic benefit (I include Afghanistan and Iraq among them) in a manner that requires more us to expend more blood and resources than required. Instead the west only nibbles on the margins and allows muslim fundamentalism to grow and Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan to grow stronger and bolder. That's a formula for perpetual war or defeat.
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2007 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Reactive fire which risks causing non-combatant casualties has other effects besides handing propaganda opportunities to the enemy: it makes the opportunistic rock/petrol bomb throwing youth think twice if he knows he can expect to be shot at in return, and the local populace will not voluntarily stand with those attacking our troops. They are not stupid - they will understand the consequences of associating with militants - but they are right to think that we are stupid if we demand that our personnel take any amount of abuse and disrespect.
The ROE should be relaxed to allow lethal force to be used against potentially lethal threats.
#15
#9
Brilliant summary, P2K, brilliant. I try to espouse this, but not as well stated as you. Yes, after a while the grunts realize they are being sacrificed and refuse to fight or they take matters into their own hands, as in Nam. Lots of officers started to suffer from unfortunate incidents. Some of the fighting became more "basic". The problem is that now the troops are "volunteers". Bought and paid for. Basically adhere to the party line. Not like draftees who were independent thinkers. This was massively covered up in after action reports in Nam, but scared the living bejesus out of the command set. After that, they wanted ONLY a volunteer Army.
#18
My father was an MP with the 9th Marines during WWII. One night, during the fighting on Guam, he was guarding a wounded prisoner. The soldier had a leg wound and was tied to a stretcher. During the night he was relieved by another Marine and it had started to rain. The next day when my father went to relieve the guard, he found a very dead Japanese soldier and no guard. When my Dad found his fellow MP he asked him what had happened. The response, "he tried to get away." My father loved this story, not because of the death of the Japansese soldier but how it epitomized the dehumanizing nature of war. He knew as soon as he saw that dead prisoner that the other guard had simply wanted to get out of the rain.
Fast forward to Viet Nam. As an F-4 WSO we had a mind numbing array of ROEs but one of my favorites was the inability to engage an enemy aircraft until after it had left the ground. Didn't want any pesky collateral damage in the neighborhood near the fields WHERE THEY PARKED THEIR AIRCRAFT!! As an aside, Francis Gabreski, the top ace in the ETO in WWII, shot himself down when he hit his prop on the ground while straffing German aircraft. Interdiction helped win that one.
Slow forward to the ROE nightmare of today. My father would have been tried as an accessory to murder. Gabreski would have been tried for endangering civilians and, by the way, losing an aircraft, and I would be trying to get my criminal record expunged if I had simply hit the 'pickle' button a few times when I sorely wanted to.
Until we take the gloves off, we will maybe not lose but we certainly won't start winning. And that Jack is a fact not an opinion.
Posted by: Total War ||
07/03/2007 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Bulldog, I don't disagree. In the initial invasion of Somalia the Marines RoE were to shoot at anyone brandishing a weapon. A couple of Somali's brandished, were killed, and after that the Marines were rarely hassled. Compare that to the Army experience a year later when they were forbidden to shoot unless shot at.
But there is a middle ground. When the enemy is willing to take over a school and launch morter fire with the intent of drawing fire upon that school and the captive schoolchildren you have to take that into account when you write up RoE.
#21
All of the above is partially right. It boils down to leadership in the end. If the boss is willing to stand behind your judgement and back your tactical decision, then there will almost never ever be an unneccessary use of force. I can tell you most of those kids would rather cut off their right arm than needlessly hurt an innocent bystander. I can tell you I hurt a kid in Haiti by accident and you live with it forever, but what I don't live with is having to medavac the boys (or face their families) from my unit I was moving to rescue when I hurt that child. Arabs understand brute force, they will not like it but they will respect it and that is where the big heads are not understanding the fight. Tearing up a neighborhood with counterfire will make bad press but would cure the locals from allowing the bad guys to come back. The battle would be won but the war would be lost to more "bad" press. We almost had to go to the Pope for permission to raid mosques or cemetaries where we had proof positive the bad guys were working, and normally got shot down...that's why we sent the Iraqis...and watched from a distance. You take care of your troopers, they will take care of business like professionals.
#23
The problem is that now the troops are "volunteers". Bought and paid for. Basically adhere to the party line. Not like draftees who were independent thinkers. This was massively covered up in after action reports in Nam, but scared the living bejesus out of the command set. After that, they wanted ONLY a volunteer Army.
I don't buy that, Woozle. My Marines are a hell of a lot higher caliber than they were 30 years ago. How many of your so-called independent thinkers had college degrees? How many of them were high-school graduates? Didn't have criminal records?
'Independent thinkers'? Crap. They didn't want to be there. Their leadership was screwed-up, their morale was shot, and their discipline was lax. That's a given. Times have changed somewhat, old man. Only the armchair genrals remain the same. And where did you find these so-called after-action reports. 'Winter Soldier' testimony?
Frankly, I'm glad the draft is over. The last thing I want is my NCOs having to babysit a bunch of snot-nose smartasses who don't want to be there.
I'm surprised you didn't use 'mercenary', 'mind-numbed robots' or a half dozen other labels that Markos Zuniga could've thought up while picking his nose.
'Bought and paid' for, my ass. And you can kiss that as well.
#24
I'm about as civilian as it's possible for a little, Midwestern, suburban housewife to be, Woozle Elmeter2970, and even I know better than that nonsense. The kids I know who've volunteered for the military post-9/11, the elder siblings and school friends of the trailing daughters, they've gone in because that's what's needed right now. Every one of them has given up the possibility of a lucrative career in the private sector (not to mention the kind of full ride scholarships National Merit Scholars are prone to) in order to join tip of the spear units. You'll know those from the movies: the Marines, the Navy Seals, Army Rangers, that kind of thing.
And they do it so that you remain safe here at home typing the most chin-droolingly imbecilic thing you can think up from the semi-anonymous safety of your keyboard. I mean imbecilic in the technical sense of course. You'll find the definition in your old college Psych 101 textbook -- the one for non-majors.
#25
Weaselwhatever, my brother is "bought and paid for" and I can guarantee that if you tied one of his hands behind his back, he could still "independently" think of a way kick your ass for that comment.
I suspect that holds true for all the other bought and paid for soldiers as well.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/03/2007 21:33 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Pappy -- there's really somethin' good about any man that goes ape about his Misguided Children!
Seems, I remember reading, early in Petraeus taking over, that the first message he sent down, and I hope I'm remembering this right, "and your command will stand behind you." (I'll search for that later... )
Maybe I'm dis-remembering, but I took that as meaning "you commanders, step up or ship out.... and trust your guys on the front. They know what to do and when to do it." And it seems, we got lots and lots of bad guys being captured and killed. Even, commanders using and stating that word "kill." Didn't hear that word much, before.
Reading between the lines, we are beginning to give terrorists' counts, seems lot more are being killed. Leads me to believe, the ROE has changed some.
Another observation.... I read, as Petraeus was taking over, that Casey really wasn't much for the camera. He didn't like it, and thus, commanders under him, followed his lead..... and our fighting force got silent. Hummm, I said, when I read that. "Cause us old timers here at Rantburg, had followed a few commanders, who just disappeared. I once asked why, and got an answer, "he talked too much."
And now, man, Petraeus is live all over the place! Any talk show, TV show wants him, he's there. But the biggest difference I've notice, since I read about maybe there might be a change, his commanders are doing what he is doing. They are before cameras, they are writing articles for papers, they are being interviewed, and they are speaking from their hearts about their guys, and they use that word kill, and don't apologize for it.
Reading "Lone Survivor" -- and you must, if you haven't.... it's a rainy 4th of July day (if you live in Central Texas) of reading.... but I had to stretch it out, so I could savor every word, to get the visual picture of what was happening, to process and attempt to understand that mental strength that was happening throughout this story. The reason I mention this book? These incredible men, the best of the best...... when making a life or death decision, had to consider, what will the media do to us? And we will end up, a lifetime in Leverworth. What a sad thought process for our guys to have to process.
There weren't enough tears to let me fully understand, the decision they were making. Even more, that they had to include that piece (our press) as a part, a piece of the puzzle, that had to be included, in a rapid, life or death decision. Did they chose correctly? I only wish, that that part of the puzzle of that decision, shouldn't had to be included. But, it was
Don't go belittling Pappy's Misguided Children, or any of their friends...... I'm never been there, and most of you here, prolly haven't either. The decision is not yours. It's their. On 9-11 and afterwards, working pretty close with some 18-24 years old, and reading what I'm reading about them and their peers now? I trust them in their decisions.
Someone back me up.... Petraeus said, "and your command will stand behind you."
God bless them all, with their strengths, their blemishes, their thoughts of right and wrong, and their souls.... We got to do what is right for them..... They deserve only our purest thoughts for them. They hold our souls in their hands.
I prolly should read this again, before posting, but what the hell? I lived with my friends, my high school buddies, my first love, even later, boyfriends back from the Nam Days, and it still hurts me deep down inside what they faced.
Lucky for me, on Memorial Day weekend, I got to be back in the home town.... for "Old Days" that started with the colors being presented, the Pledge of Allegiance, and then, as the songs of each of the services were played, vets and friends and family, stood, fists pumping into the air.... proud of all who had served. It was that day, I came to realize, more of my high school graduating class had been deeper involved in the Nam, than I had ever known..... and there were only 32 of us.
I know, that lots of that top command structure is from my class. And I smile, each time, I read or see something, that these 18-35 year old, are smilingly, putting us in our place. They are, truly... living up to that Greatest Generation. And there will be, a new title for them, that history will give to them, that is worthy of what they are doing.
Don't touch any of Pappy's Misguided Children, or any of their friends. And that comes from, a long time widow of a Marine that is now guarding for the blessed, the corner that has the best steaks and bourbon to be found, anywhere!
God Bless -- and rain or not... my flag is flying early on the morning of July 4th (my neighbor with a young Marine in the Anbar, already has his up.)
#27
I personally believe in disproportionate force and so do the arabs because they understand it. Our govt is still lost in the sauce when it comes to really understanding our enemy.
Bingo.
"This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous. "
Sounds like Dr. John David Lewis:
Altruism leads to the same conclusion. To fight for our own benefitto elevate our lives over those of our enemiesis almost universally condemned today as selfish and thus immoral. A moral war, according to altruism, is a war fought self-sacrificially, for the good of others, especially for the weak. It is only by a continuous policy of aiding others that we can rise to moral goodness. Even restrained, limited military action is wrong, if taken for our own benefit. In this view, a strong power is good only when it recognizes the moral claims of those in needeven enemies and their supporters. The route to peace is not through victory, since altruism (otherism) cannot abide the defeat of others. The path to tomorrow is through the sacrifice of our own wealth, values, and lives to the needs of otherseven those who threaten us. Again, their freedom must be our goaltheir prosperity must be our missionif we wish to be good.
ending:
The problem is, therefore, much bigger than British authorities think, and much bigger than they are even now willing to admit. Until they are willing to face the fact that attackers such as those we have seen in Britain over the last few days couldnt just as well have been Buddhists, but rather arise from the Islamic community and base their actions upon Islamic principles, they will not be dealing with the root of this problem realistically, and we are going to see many more attacks. I believe, said Butt, that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. Do Brown, Livingstone, Salmond and the rest have the courage to do this?
Posted by: ed ||
07/03/2007 06:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Britain
#1
BBC news have just been reporting the bombing attempts (all in a tone of near jolly excitement lest viewers take these attempts at mass murder too seriously) and interviewed Muslims in East London. According the the Beeb 'all interviewed condemned the attacks) yet all those interviewed made mealy-mouthed apologies for the psychopathic physicians, blaming British foreign policy. It washes weaker every time.
#3
Ideas that fuel terrorism: Jihad, Sharia, Taqqiya, much of the Hadith, martyrdom operations, death for apostasy/blasphemy, idolization of the Koran, etc. etc.
Posted by: Pearl Greaper5013 ||
07/03/2007 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
British BBC: American New York Times
The New York Times circulation and profits are both trending strongly downward, and have been for some years now, Bright Pebbles dear. I hope that helps.
#5
Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain, meanwhile, expressed exasperation at the fact that non-Muslims expected Muslims to be active in opposing terror activities within the Islamic community: We are seething with anger about this, he said that is, about the idea that jihad plots should be seen as a challenge to the larger Islamic community to do more against terrorism, not about the jihad plots themselves. As a community, he said, not only are we just as likely to be victims as anyone else, but we are also looked to in order to provide direction and in some respects take responsibility for this. We are sick of being defined as a community by terrorism and having to answer for it.
This, from someone named "Osama". Guess what, sport? Muslims define themselves through Islam and Islam defines itself through the Koran. The Koran is definitive about committing violence against all non-believers and that's where the trail ends: Smack in the heart of the Muslim community. Until Muslims begin a vigorous campaign of ousting the jihadists within their midst, they will be regarded as being in agreement with them. The Muslim community's deafening silence no longer signifies consent, it has become a lie.
As the plots continued to be investigated over the weekend, no British officials were saying anything at all about the need for Muslims in Britain to redouble their efforts to teach against the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism, to formulate new understandings of the Quran and Sunnah, rejecting the literal and mainstream legal interpretations of a large number of passages, to renounce any intention to impose Sharia in Britain at any time in the future, and to work much more closely with British authorities in order to root out jihadists from their ranks. In Britain, only the ex-jihadist Hassan Butt, who now calls himself a moderate Muslim, spoke more realistically about what needs to be done: It isnt enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.
The modern world is increasingly immune to Muslim attempts at blaming external factors for those tensions. Islam it the "root cause" of terrorism and until that changes it will be viewed as the enemy by all sane people. No amount of economic improvement, regime change or education can alter the Koran's exhortations to violence and global domination. If, as it has for centuries, Islam refuses to modify its doctrine, it will be ground under the bootheel of a world grown weary of constant terrorist predation. Many other unsuccessful adaptations have perished from their inability to coexist at large and Islam will join their ranks if it too cannot reform.
#6
You could be right about that, Zen,. If the west can break the financial backs of the indoctrination centers colled mosques and schools, your prediction could easily be expected as the eventual outcome. If a person isn't indoctrinated from the time they are as long as my forearm, that is very reasonable to assume. If a people get a fair chance at seeing all of the worlds religions, it's plain as day that Islam is mostly garbage.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
07/03/2007 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
We haven't had a poll recently of what the Brits really think. I would guess that the staff of the BBC, the cabinet of the Mayor of London, some union leadership, the faculty lounge at a few Universities, still believes Islam is a religion of peace but the population as a whole is getting the picture.
Senator Maulana Samiul Haq, head of the powerful seminary Haqqaniya in the NWFP, has been refused a visa to go to the United Kingdom. He can appeal against the refusal after three years, or he can put pressure on the government in Islamabad to get the UK to respect Pakistani leaders. (He was ousted from Europe not long ago.) That he has done; but there is little the Foreign Office can do, given the maulanas uncontrolled Islamic anger.
"Uncontrolled Islamic anger" With that kind of condition, he really ought to stop making those faces and rolling his eyes. His face could freeze that way.
The Maulana recently advised the government to create a system of knighthood on the British pattern and then award the title to Osama bin Laden, making him Sir Osama. He was angry at the award of knighthood to British novelist Salman Rushdie, but forgot that our history condemns the knighthood as an award of no importance linked to our colonial past. During the freedom struggle, knighted Muslims tended to surrender their sir prefix as a mark of slavery. In the case of Maulana Samiul Haqs comment, he has offended both Pakistan and the UK. When Britain is faced with the spectre of car-bombings, it cant be blamed for being scared of him.
I don't think we in the West are "scared" of him, except in the sense we're scared of mad dogs or vipers. But neither are we under any obligation to open our borders to one of the leading lights of unreason in the world.
This article starring:
MAULANA SAMIUL HAQ
Jamaat-e-Ulema Islami-Sami
Posted by: Fred ||
07/03/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
#1
This is "Maulana Sandwich" who given this moniker after being caught by the Karachi vice squad in a brothel in the "Lucky Pierre" position - between two other people, only one of whom was a woman.
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/03/2007 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
Eight terrorists belonging to the much-metamorphosed jihadi militia Jaish-e Muhammad have been arrested in Lahore. The police have confined their list of offences which range from the killing of Christians in Pakistan to carrying out terrorist acts in Afghanistan for the Taliban against the international NATO-ISAF forces. The group was located in Quetta and one can speculate that the lead on the terrorists with half a decade old Pakistani charges against them must have come from Afghanistan.
The eight men are believed to have been behind an attack on a missionary school near Murree in 2002, killing six; and a grenade attack on a church in Taxila four days later, in which four nurses were killed a poor mans answer to the invasion of Afghanistan. One of the terrorists had a bounty on his head of one million rupees. The group had in their possession material for making bombs and large quantities of arms and ammunition. The group confessed to being members of Khudam al-Furqan, the name a splinter from Jaish assumed after Jaish was banned in 2002.
Pakistan is now in the process of dismantling and eliminating at times under duress the proxies it had launched in the name of freedom wars. The jihadi underworld developed under several names, the most well known being Jamiatul Ansar which emerged as the most blood-thirsty terrorist group in Indian-occupied Kashmir in the 1990s. When the world woke up to its indiscriminate savagery targeting people not directly connected with the freedom struggle, it splintered and assumed different identities, one of them being Harkatul Mujahideen, led from the Deobandi seminaries in Pakistan.
Harkat came to be a close associate of Osama bin Laden and accompanied him to Sudan when he took his Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan because of mujahideen infighting. One leader of Jaish, Maulana Masood Azhar, rose as an agent of Al Qaeda with the ability to raise funds all over the world. In 1993, Al Qaeda was involved in the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in Somalia while performing duties under UN auspices, about which Osama bin Laden was to boast later. While in disguise in India, Masood was captured and imprisoned. Another operative of Al Qaeda, Umar Sheikh, was also captured in New Delhi.
In 1999, an Indian civilian aircraft was hijacked after take-off from Nepal by a group of terrorists led by Masoods brother, Ibrahim. The plane was taken to Afghanistan where the Taliban, recognised by Pakistan as a regime, arranged for a swap of Indian passengers with the two Al Qaeda terrorists, Umar and Masood. After their release, both came to Pakistan and began operating freely. Umar came to Lahore and Masood went to the most powerful seminary in Pakistan, Jamia Banuria, from where he later started issuing threatening statements against President Pervez Musharraf when the jihad was bottled up after 2003.
In the pre-9/11 days the Pakistani establishment was still upbeat about its proxy wars and did nothing to catch the terrorists, which aroused suspicion in many quarters about the 1999 hijack. Both the terrorists then struck targets that hurt Pakistans national interests in the post-9/11 period. Umar Sheikh arranged to kill an American journalist Daniel Pearl and is today in prison in Pakistan appealing against his death sentence.
He's not dead yet, but the heat's not off, either. So he's being kept safe from the Americans and the Indos in jail.
But Masoods career has continued to be turbulent. After 2001, he not only took on General Musharraf but also the Harkat leadership. He split with the other leader Fazlur Rehman Khalil and set up another militia which he called Jaish-e Muhammad. In this he was supported by Jamia Banurias chief Mufti Shamzai killed in 2004 who prized him as his pupil. At that point Lahore had a number of self-financed centres based on extortion on the basis of fatwas run by youths plying double-cabin vehicles gifted by Osama bin Laden. From the published information available in Pakistan, it is quite clear that the Harkat-Jaish split caused the vehicles to be disabled, but the vehicles were replaced again by Osama bin Laden.
Masood damaged General Musharraf more effectively in 2001 when he attacked the Indian parliament and caused a military standoff between Pakistan and India that lasted almost a year. He was put under house arrest in his hometown Bahawalpur from where he has a way of vanishing from time to time. No one knows where he is today. The Harkat leader Fazlur Rehman Khalil is also at large, probably living in Islamabad, and has only recently stopped giving interviews to foreigners which have proved embarrassing to Islamabad.
Another actor in this lethal dramatis personae of terror was Qari Saifullah Akhtar, let off from the 1995 abortive military coup and then sent off to Dubai in 2001 to escape being killed by the invasion of Afghanistan, only to be recalled when his boys nearly succeeded in killing President Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. No one knows where he is now. Pakistan is revisiting the nightmare of its past. Its posturings will remain dubious till it decides to purge its conscience and starts with a clean slate.
This article starring:
Daniel Pearl
FAZLUR REHMAN KHALIL
Harkatul Mujahideen
MAULANA MASUD AZHAR
Jaish-e Muhammad
Mufti Shamzai
OMAR SHEIKH
al-Qaeda
QARI SAIFULLAH AKHTAR
Harkat al-Jihad al-Islami
Harkatul Mujahideen
Jaish-e Muhammad
Jamia Banuria
Jamiatul Ansar
Khudam al-Furqan
Posted by: Fred ||
07/03/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Jaish-e-Mohammad
Military insurrections cost money. To take over the Gaza Strip last month, Hamas had to pay salaries, procure weapons, manufacture rockets, buy help from local crime families, bribe opponents, print leaflets and banners, produce media propaganda and even order up Hamas hats and bandanas.
How did Hamas fund this Gaza coup? What of the international "economic siege" that Hamas complained of against its government? Wasn't Hamas so strapped for funds that its leaders resorted to smuggling suitcases of Iranian cash into Gaza across the border with Egypt?
Part of the answer lies in -- or rather under -- the city of Rafah, on the Egyptian border. Smuggling tunnels, operated primarily by Gaza clans more interested in profit than ideology, run between houses on either side of the border. Egyptian and Israeli authorities have discovered tunnels dug as deep as 98 feet below ground in an effort to avoid sonar detection. Some tunnels include air ducts, electricity and lighting, and even rails and wagons to help smuggle heavy objects. Even when the mouths to the tunnels are found and sealed, the midsections remain intact and new openings are dug to reconnect them.
For a few thousand dollars, groups like Hamas rent tunnels for a night or more to smuggle in weapons and other material, according to Israeli and Egyptian officials and press reports. Hamas was able to smuggle and pay for the weapons, despite the international sanctions regime, through a variety of means -- in a textbook example of the seamless cooperation between its military, political and charitable wings.
The Hamas political bureau, headquartered in Damascus under the leadership of Khalid Mishal and Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, has long raised funds to arm militants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, according to declassified U.S. intelligence. The bureau has smuggled weapons overland into the West Bank from Jordan, by sea in waterproof barrels dropped off the Gaza shore by ships launched from Syria and Lebanon and underground through the Rafah tunnels. In recent months, Iran has been funding these operations.
According to Israeli authorities, Izzidin Sheikh Khalil, a senior Hamas operative, ran the Rafah weapons smuggling operations out of Damascus until he was killed in an explosion there in 2004. (Israel is presumed to have been behind the assassination but has never claimed responsibility.)
Perhaps most disturbingly overt is the funding Hamas continues to receive through its charitable and social welfare wing. Despite being designated a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union, Hamas, in the face of international sanctions, has successfully transferred funds into the West Bank and Gaza Strip through its charity committees and social service organizations. Mixing funds across its political, charitable and militant wings, Hamas supports its Executive Force militia and Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade terror cells under a veil of political and humanitarian legitimacy.
For example, last month Israeli authorities indicted four members of the A-Ram Charity Committee north of Jerusalem on charges of funding Hamas. According to the indictment, about $237,000 was transferred to the A-Ram Committee in the last year by the Charity Coalition (also known as the Union of Good), described as a Saudi Arabian-based umbrella organization for groups funding Hamas. Funded and spear-headed by quaradawi-the-moderate IIRC.
Now that Hamas controls Gaza, it is even more critical to close the two loopholes that enabled the movement to supply and fund its Gaza coup -- the Rafah tunnel smuggling and the funding through the Hamas social service network.
Only Egypt can effectively seal its border with Gaza. Cairo has sidelined Hamas diplomatically and announced its opposition to the emergence of "Islamic warlords" in Gaza. It needs to follow up on this rhetoric with a serious border patrol initiative, focused primarily on the 8-mile-long border with Gaza. It also must police the much longer border between the Sinai and Negev deserts, across which smugglers move weapons for the West Bank.
The United States and the European Union must work to avert a humanitarian crisis by helping reliable and transparent international organizations aid the Palestinians. They also should expand their designation of terrorist entities to include the long list of Hamas-controlled entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that receive foreign charity. Designating charity committees tied to Hamas would prompt international banks to block such transactions.
As long as its political and social wings are allowed to operate unhindered, Hamas will be able to fully fund all of its activities, including its terrorist attacks against Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Matthew Levitt is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute. Previously, he served as deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Treasury Department. He is the author of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad.
#1
To take over the Gaza Strip last month, Hamas had to pay salaries, procure weapons, manufacture rockets, buy help from local crime families, bribe opponents, print leaflets and banners, produce media propaganda and even order up Hamas hats and bandanas.
It's a wonder that they have any time left for killing Jews.
In the debate that preceded the collapse of the [immigration reform] bill in the Senate, the rallying cry of opponents was enforcement first. Keeping new illegal immigrants from being employed is far and away the best strategy for deterring them from entering the country, easily trumping border guards and fences. The Social Security database, combined with laws already on the books, provides a way to catch unauthorized workers almost as soon as they are hired. {This editorial spotlights} the hostility of the coalition of immigrant advocates and employers that favor lax enforcement [of immigration laws]. Political pressure from this coalition has for years prevented the government from deploying the enforcement system that is already in place. Social Security administrators assert, erroneously, that they are not permitted to aid immigration law enforcement or to share data with the Department of Homeland Security. The real reason for their reticence is their fear that more aggressive electronic enforcement might invite political outrage. In 2002, the Social Security Administration chose merely to inform employers of Social Security number discrepancies by sending 950,000 mismatch letters. That action so angered businesses and immigration advocates that a year later the modest bureaucratic effort was largely ended.
I've cherry-picked the statements to fairly alter the gist of the editorial. The US government's non-enforcement of its immigration laws is indeed cynical, as was the whole attempt at the mis-named "immigration reform."
Posted by: Pearl Greaper5013 ||
07/03/2007 09:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
employers that favor lax enforcement
a.k.a. slavers
Quit using the immigration enforcement acts and penalties and start using RICO. When they see all their assets and property seized and have to fight to get them back, you'll see a whole new attitude.
#2
Another interesting development: "Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona signed a bill yesterday providing what are thought to be the toughest state sanctions in the country against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Ms. Napolitano, a Democrat, called the bill flawed and suggested that the Arizona Legislature reconvene to repair problems with it, but she nevertheless moved forward because Congress has failed miserably,
Posted by: Pearl Greaper5013 ||
07/03/2007 22:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Social Security database, combined with laws already on the books, provides a way to catch unauthorized workers almost as soon as they are hired.
Sounds like a good idea but I read the other day that illegals are "borrowing" the identity of legals to get hired and work. What's to keep such bogus illegals from voting?
#4
"Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona signed a bill yesterday providing what are thought to be the toughest state sanctions in the country against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants."
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.
Catholocism is but one sect of Christianity. 
Senator 
By Matthew Levitt
