The Italians are now contradicting the US version of events in relation to the killing of Nicola Calipari. The other agent in the car has said that the car did come to a halt, but the car was fired on anyway. The investigation into the incident could take up to 4 weeks.
Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category
Italy disputes US hostage account
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005U.S. presses Europe to shun Hezbollah
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2005Europeans did do as requested in relation to Hamas, but now the US is demanding the same treatment for Hezbollah. The European argument for not listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation:
…some European countries are questioning whether Hamas should remain listed now that some of its members have won elections in Gaza.
This argument, pressed by Britain and others, is that the best way to lure Hamas leaders into the political process and have them abandon their militancy and their policy of trying to eradicate Israel is to offer the carrot of removal from lists as terrorist organizations.
The Bush administration strenuously opposes any such action. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was said by U.S. and European officials to have pressed for listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in practically every stop in Europe last week.
The Europeans are fearful about the affect it might have on negotiations with Iran on nuclear energy/weapons. The report continues:
The United States has rebuffed European appeals to become more directly involved in discussions with Iran over its suspected nuclear program.
The Hezbollah dispute now gets added to a long list of matters that divide Europe and the United States despite the new campaign that they share broad values of freedom and liberty.
The other issues that should come to the fore on Bush’s visit are the negotiations with Iran over its suspected nuclear program and American opposition to Europe’s determination to lift an arms embargo imposed in 1989 on China.
Also dividing Europe and the United States is the the issue of European support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming and the International Criminal Court, both opposed by the United States, and American opposition to another term for Mohamed ElBaradei as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The ElBaradei case, like Hezbollah, is related to the situation in Iran, because European diplomats are arguing that ElBaradei, a Muslim, is best suited to press the Iranians to cooperate with steps to dismantle its disputed uranium enrichment and plutonium reactor programs.
Palestinian textbooks: Where is all that ‘incitement’?
Tuesday, January 4th, 2005Is this another urban myth?
At the political level, a U.S. Senate subcommittee on Palestinian education and the Political Committee of the European Parliament have both held hearings on the matter. No country’s textbooks have been subjected to as much close scrutiny as the Palestinian.
The findings? It turns out that the original allegations were based on Egyptian or Jordanian textbooks and incorrect translations. Time and again, independently of each other, researchers find no incitement to hatred in the Palestinian textbooks.
The European Union has issued a statement that the new textbooks are free of inciting content and the allegations were unfounded. The IPCRI 2003 report states that the overall orientation of the curriculum is peaceful and does not incite to hatred or violence against Israel and the Jews, and the 2004 report states that there are no signs of promoting hatred toward Israel, Judaism or Zionism, nor toward the Western Judeo-Christian tradition or values.
Yet Sharon now claims that the Palestinian textbooks are a greater threat than terrorism. If that is so, education for peace and conflict resolution has become the greatest threat to Israel. Maybe it is: What little independent research has been done on Israeli textbooks, together with the recent New Profile report on the militarization of the Israeli education system, gives grounds for serious concern about what is happening to future generations on that side of the wall. Peace might feel threatening to a war-ingrained identity.
If, as part of its policy of reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq, the White House is looking for a modern education founded in positive Islamic values and which promotes peace and conflict resolution, it should look at Palestinian textbooks for a model.
The first editions are not perfect: There are gaps in the presentation of both Palestinian and Israeli history, but they are a good starting point nonetheless.
As usual in national curriculum processes, criticism from extremists on either side is a sign that the process is probably on the right track. The biggest constraint, in the words of a Palestinian parent, is that Israeli tanks and soldiers are shooting in the streets outside while teachers are trying to promote peace in the classroom.
Shooting mortars into Israeli towns and suicide bombings are also not good models for children who are to learn in school that conflicts can and should be resolved through dialogue. That is a lesson which will only have meaning when both sides can live in freedom and peace.
Blair overstates the threat of terrorism
Tuesday, January 4th, 2005PARIS Tony Blair gave a major talk last Friday on terrorism and the intervention in Iraq that was a strange combination of apocalyptic warning and anodyne remedy, very different from what has been said on the same subjects by the George W. Bush administration in Washington.
The British prime minister declared that Islamic extremism constitutes a threat that could “engulf” the world. The scale of this threat, according to Blair, requires abandoning the framework of international law and interstate relations that has served society for the last three and a half centuries.
Blair told his parliamentary constituents in northern England that Islamic extremist collaboration with rogue states to obtain weapons of mass destruction warrants an aggressive new international legal standard justifying international or state intervention in other countries, overriding their sovereignty.
This superficially resembles the claim made by the Bush administration’s national security strategy statement of September 2002, that when circumstances make it seem necessary, Washington intends to take pre-emptive action “to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.”
Blair placed his argument concerning weapons of mass destruction in the context of “humanitarian” interventions into the affairs of other countries to remove despotic regimes, an idea that has been making its way since the Yugoslav wars of secession and the Rwanda genocide.
His references were all to Iraq and to radical Islam, however, and the purpose of his talk was to justify his decision to take Britain into the war in Iraq – where, unfortunately for his argument, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and until after the occupation began, there were no Islamic terrorists.
The difference between the British and American positions lies in the robust nationalism of the American statement. It concerns threats to U.S. security. It says that it was possible in the past for the United States to rely on deterrence based on the threat of retaliation. Nuclear weapons were then mutually “considered weapons of last resort” that risked the survival of those who used them.
Today, the statement went on, weapons of mass destruction are seen by America’s enemies “as weapons of choice” for aggression or to intimidate neighbors, and are considered usable in order to blackmail the United States and its allies so that they do not attack rogue regimes.
Established international law concerning pre-emptive defense must be modified, it said, to allow “anticipatory action,” to disarm threats to the United States. References to allies and global interests in the security statement were infrequent and perfunctory.
The American position was challenged for just that reason. Its claim to a right of unilateral American pre-emption in the national interest, against a unilaterally determined threat, was criticized internationally in the historical context of powerful or dominant nations who do what they please. The United States was accused of merely rationalizing its own self-interested conduct.
Blair, making his argument in terms of the common international interest, failed to suggest a standard of evidence or a forum for international decision that an armed “humanitarian” intervention is justified.
Who decides? The prime minister says of the United Nations that even now “it is strange that the United Nations is so reluctant” to enforce its own Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But as the United Nations acts in such a matter only when it is told to act by the Security Council, of which Britain is a permanent member, this would seem a reproach to Britain itself.
Blair says that the United Nations should be reformed, adding that “poverty in Africa” and “justice in Palestine” should also be addressed, and “our duty” should be acknowledged “to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan as stable and democratic nations.” This does not lend much weight to his case. Iraq and Afghanistan have yet to become conclusive arguments for the humanitarian benefits of overthrowing tyrannical regimes, with or without weapons of mass destruction.
Blair actually abandons his argument at just the point where it becomes interesting. Interventions to seize weapons of mass destruction and interventions meant to impose humanitarian standards of government are quite different things. Are we talking about North Korea, or Zimbabwe and Haiti?
Blair and Bush ultimately build their case on their personal intuitions, provoked by the Sept. 11 attacks, that something new had appeared in the world. They both concluded, as Bush was to put it, that they had to “rid the world of evil.” But their argument that Islamic extremism is a “global threat” is indefensible. The Islamists can make spectacular attacks on Britain or the United States, but neither country, nor any of the other democracies, is in the slightest danger of being “engulfed” by terrorism, or shaken from its democratic foundations.
The Islamists are a challenge to Islamic society itself, but a limited one. Their doctrine will run its course, and eventually be rejected by Muslims as a futile strategy for dealing with the modern world.
Yglesias continued the discussion here after mentioning Andrew Sulliva’ns views. I think Pfaff is right – they are a limited threat to both Islamic society and Western society.
Many die in Baghdad police ambush
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004This marks a new tactic by the insurge… terrorist murderers.
Insurgents lured Iraqi policemen to a house in west Baghdad and set off a huge amount of explosives, killing at least 29 people, seven of them police.
It’s estimated that 1 tonne of explosives were wired to the building. It does seem like alot of effort for the relatively small amount of casualties, especially since most of those killed were civilians. Are Iraqis not getting pissed off with this?
Britain’s Highest Court Overturns Anti-Terrorism Law
Thursday, December 16th, 2004What now for the detainess in ‘Britains Guantanamo’? These look like some pretty dangerous individuals, but is it really necessary to have this level of security?
Europe: Al Qaeda’s next target?
Sunday, December 5th, 2004Will Europe see more Madrid and Istanbul style attacks? Many analysts are saying that Europe is at greater risk than the US.
Ursula Mueller, a German diplomat with terror expertise, said that European-based terrorists were under pressure; terror operations have been averted in London, Paris and Madrid. “But they continue to focus on catastrophic attacks,” she said.
“There are indications,” Mueller said, “that Europe is at greater risk for terrorist attack than is the U.S.” – particularly U.S. allies with troops in Iraq, but also Germany, which has 2,200 troops in Afghanistan.
“The situation may become much more precarious,” said Greg Mascolo, Der Spiegel’s Washington bureau chief and author of “Inside 9-11.”
“Europe’s threat is growing from the inside,” Mascolo said.
Paul Krugman: A culture of cover-ups
Saturday, November 6th, 2004Krugman’s pre-election thoughts on the lost munitions at al-Qaqaa, and provides yet more food for thought:
The story of the looted explosives has overshadowed another report that Bush officials tried to suppress – this one about how the Bush administration let Abu Musab al-Zarqawi get away. An article in Monday’s Wall Street Journal confirmed and expanded on an “NBC Nightly News” report from March that asserted that before the Iraq war, administration officials called off a planned attack that might have killed Zarqawi, the terrorist now blamed for much of the mayhem in that country, in his camp.
Citing “military officials,” the original NBC report explained that the failure to go after Zarqawi was based on domestic politics: “The administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq” – a part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein – “could undermine its case for war against Saddam.” The Journal doesn’t comment on this explanation, but it does say that when NBC reported, correctly, that Zarqawi had been targeted before the war, administration officials denied it.
What other mistakes did the administration make? If partisan appointees like Goss continue to control the intelligence agencies, we may never know.
This isn’t speculation: Goss is already involved in a new cover-up. Last week Robert Scheer of The Los Angeles Times revealed the existence of a devastating but suppressed report by the CIA’s inspector general on 9/11 intelligence failures. Newsweek has now confirmed the gist of Scheer’s column.
The report, the magazine says, “identifies a host of current and former officials who could be candidates for possible disciplinary procedures.” But although the report was completed in June, Goss has refused to release it to Congress. “Everyone feels it will be better if this hits the fan after the election,” an official told the magazine. Better for whom?
What really happened on 9/11, or in Iraq? Next week’s election may determine whether we ever find out
.
Rumsfeld weakens a pillar of war
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004Don Rumsfeld with something surprising today:
The actual words Mr Rumsfeld used in his comments on Monday to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York were: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”
He also said he had seen the intelligence “migrate in amazing ways”, without explaining what that meant.
His statement was in marked contrast to what he said in September 2002 when he described the evidence of a link as “bullet-proof.”
This comes at the same time as Paul Bremer saying that there were not enough troops on the ground after the invasion. Rummy seems to be getting tongue tied here, he was so certain 2 years ago, he stated as “fact”. His words. Now he is not sure. Does all this constitute a lie?
Jack Hensley
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004Came across this website on Blogs of War also, please go and donate –
While everyone who knew Jack grieves at such a senseless loss of life, it is with his daughter Sara our thoughts reside. The loss of a father can never truly be healed, but it is possible to help make sure her academic future is secure.
If you would like to give to the Sara Hensley Trust you can mail a check to the following address:
Sara Hensley Trust
C/O First Citizens Bank
2880 Hwy 160 West
Fort Mill, SC 29708
Beheading Video Of American Hostage Eugene Armstrong
Monday, September 20th, 2004The video (WMV) of Eugene Armstrong has been posted. If you wish to see the video I urge extreme caution, while I have not watched it myself, it contains graphic and horrific scenes. Do not go to ogrish.com, if you do not wish to see it.
The ins and outs of publishing this type of information have been argued before, but I still believe people have a right to choose, should they wish to watch these videos. And the demand out there is enormous.
Update:
The vast majority of people leaving comments are expressing their heartfealt horror, and sympathy, with those who are being murdered. I wholeheartedly agree. Some readers have previously expressed opinions on the issue of whether linking to a site that holds a copy of the video is in fact aiding the murderers aims, and promoting their ideas. The discussions can be found below. Previous criticism has come from regular readers. The discussion continued here. It again arose in relation to the the Paul Johnson murder. And here too.
It should also be noted that several of the bigger blogs on the Internet do link to blogs linking to sites that show the video, or link directly to sites that show the video. For example, Blogs of War.
Many people have expressed to me that they want to see exactly what is happening.
I watched the Nick Berg video with disgust – and will never again watch one of these videos. The release today of “Dr. Germ” may just quell al-Zaraqawi, and hopefully we will see the release of the British hostage.
As many other bloggers have noted – I am horrified by these events and condemn them without question. My sincere sympathies go to the families of these men, along with the sympathies of most people commenting below.
For a very lengthy debate, and dozens of links to debate about the issue of linking please read Jay Rosen and Jeff Marshall. Jay Rosen is a Professor at NYU.
If anyone wants to express their views in a non public space then please email – gavin at gavinsblog dot com.
Update: Relatives of Jack Hensley, also killed in Iraq, have posted a page where you can donate money to his family. Money can be sent in a number of ways. Almost all of the people leaving comments are expressing profound sympathy – do something practical and go here.
Fears growing for British hostage
Monday, September 20th, 2004An Islamist website claiming to be linked to the group holding Ken Bigley and two Americans says one of the Americans has been killed.
The website carries a nine-minute video purporting to show the man being beheaded.
Earlier, Tony Blair said Britain would not give in to the hostage takers.
The Reuters news agency reports a US official has confirmed the body of one of the American hostages has been recovered.
A statement on the website said: “The group will next behead the others”.
We still don’t get it: Mark Steyn
Sunday, September 12th, 2004He is at it again. Reading the latest article I have one question to ask that seems to stand out in his line of reasoning. Well actually I have a few questions.
Overall, this latest article is about Islam, and Islamo-fascism. He believes that the war on terror is in essence, not a war on a tactic, but a war on, essentially, a people. For instance:
As I’ve said here before, by 2030 Europe will be Eurabia — at least semi-Islamified, with Muslim lobby groups transformed into Muslim political parties, with their own representatives serving in coalitions with bewildered Continental multiculturalists. (The recent by-elections in the Midlands, with the Friends of al-Aqsa Committee summoning the candidates to a tribunal in order to see who could outpander the others, is only an interim phase.) In the last three decades, Europe has taken in (officially) some 20 million Muslims (officially) — or the equivalent of the populations of three EU countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark). Once you look at it like that, why should they have less say in the corridors of Euro-power than Ben Bot or Bertie Ahern? Imagine France with a 20 per cent Muslim bloc and then consider the likelihood of French forces fighting alongside the US ever again.
And he is probably right, When Turkey join the European Union we will see a huge increase in the percentage of Muslims in Europe. But what has this got to do with Islamic terrorism exactly? He uses Holland as an example:
Last year a senior Dutch cabinet minister talked me through some very interesting findings apropos his own country’s Islamic population. The grandchildren of Muslims who arrived in Holland in the Seventies are often more militantly Islamist and unassimilated than their grandparents.
So his point seems to be, correct me if I am wrong here, that more Muslims in Europe equals more terrorists? One could also point out that the UK and Germany both seen massive influxes of Muslims into their countries, and this has not really led to any “Ukabia” or “Gerabia”. And why does he mix the words Europe with Arab anyway?
Furthermore he says:
Three years after September 11, the Islamist death cult is the love whose name no one dare speak. And, if you can’t even bring yourself to identify your enemy, are you likely to defeat him? Can you even know him? He seems to know us pretty well.
Islamist death cult? He seems to keep getting mixed up between Muslims, the vast majority of whom are pretty nice people, who happen to believe in a non-Christian viewpoint, and Islamist murderers – who go and kill anyone they want in the name of the more extreme forms of Islamic belief. He attempts to strengthen his point in relation to the new war with this little gem:
Between 1970 and 2000, the developed world declined from just under 30 per cent of the world’s population to just over 20 per cent, and the population of Muslim nations increased from about 15 per cent to 20 per cent. 1970 isn’t that long ago.
Mr. Steyn, is the war you talk about a war on Islamist death cults? Or Islam itself? If it’s just the death cults then why quote figures about the increase in numbers of one particular form of religious belief? Why, in the article does one paragraph concern Islamic terrorism, followed by a paragraph about the growth of Islamic populations? Is what you are really saying some kind of Huntington-esque clash of civilizations, and what we really have to do is stop the growth of Islam, and stop them coming into Europe? Just wondering.
Sept. 11 and Beslan: a battle for civilization
Sunday, September 12th, 2004Victor Erofeyev sounds alot like John Waters in the Irish Times last week, and Mark Steyn in the Spectator last Thursday.
Where does Basayev end and Al Qaeda begin? A separatist and a fundamentalist are two very different things. The first demands political separation; the second declares holy war against us. But the separatist Basayev no longer exists. A massacre of children worthy of Herod is not a coded invitation to peace negotiations. Basayev’s message can no longer be reduced to vengeance, an idea that presumes we call it quits when all the scores have been settled.
The military dispute over Chechen sovereignty, morally impossible for Russia to win from the very beginning, has mutated, leaving none of the old certainties in place. Like Osama bin Laden’s attack on the United States, Basayev’s attack on the school signifies the start here of the Third World War of which the whole of Western civilization is so rightly afraid, which it tries with all its might to postpone, which it even tries to ignore.
There is no such thing as a war on terrorism: Javier Marías
Sunday, September 12th, 2004Javier Marías is the author of “Dark Back of Time.”, and makes an interesting argument right at the end of the piece, I am inclined to agree with him.
Here in Spain, we don’t feel as if we are at war because we aren’t. And neither are the inhabitants of the United States, however vociferously many Americans may insist that they are.
War is something else entirely. No semi-normal life can be led while a war is going on. The residents of Madrid who lived through the siege of their city between 1936 and 1939 know that very well. The survivors of the daily bombardments of London during World War II know it, too. And those Americans who participated in that war know it, also.
There is no war against terrorism. There can be no such thing against an enemy that remains dormant most of the time and is almost never visible. It’s simply another of life’s inevitable troubles, and all we can do as we continue to combat it is repeat Cervantes’s famous phrase “Paciencia y barajar”: “Have patience, and keep shuffling the cards.”