The terrorist plot uncovered last month in which nine Pakistani Muslims living in Britain planned to kidnap, torture and behead a fellow British Muslim — a soldier who had served in Afghanistan — was gruesome and unprecedented. Unlike other recent terrorist activity, it targeted a specific individual; the terrorists hoped to bring the images of captivity and slaughter now associated with Iraq into the West.
The plot recalls a question that U.S. officials have been asking: Why hasn't the American Muslim community reached the same level of radicalism as Europe's Muslims? Al-Husein Madhany, an executive editor of Islamica Magazine, had been considering the same question. The beheading plot's announcement lent urgency to his thoughts because the scheme involved an extreme, rigid interpretation of Islam that can impel people to violence.
Mr. Madhany believes that one critical difference between the U.S. and European Muslim community is the level of civic engagement. A number of factors have kept European Muslims disengaged from their societies, ranging from ethnic enclaves to discrimination.
But civic engagement is a process, rather than a given. Since the terror plot's announcement, Mr. Madhany has approached officials in American Muslim organizations with a promising idea. It involves focusing a forthcoming conference of a major American Muslim organization on the theme of civic engagement. The conference's speeches would center on this theme, and at the end the organization would announce a contest for excellence in sermon writing that engages the issue of "how North American Muslims, individually or collectively, can take leadership roles in long-term civic engagement efforts."
Using theological sermons to spread this theme would be an important step because those who hold the pulpit are seen as authority figures in the Muslim community. There will be an immediate on-the-ground impact if the pulpit is used not to condemn those who participate in American democracy, but to encourage such participation.
Civic engagement, according to Mr. Madhany, occurs at many levels. Volunteerism, starting at a young age, is central. "We should promote children entering the Cub Scouts, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America," Mr. Madhany says. "It's also not dismissing your Muslim children's career goals if they include becoming fire chiefs, first responders, public servants within government, or policemen."
Mr. Madhany explains that aspects of this project would include involvement in education boards, parent-teacher associations, county boards and tax boards. What is critical is involvement in issues of importance to the community — not through advocacy organizations (of which there are plenty within the American Muslim community), but through groups focused on social services and the social good.
Civic engagement is one means to give American Muslims a greater stake in their local communities and to undercut the tendency to both ghettoization and isolation. "I love the idea of Muslims getting more civically engaged, especially if they are doing it in cooperation with others through activities like interfaith volunteering," says Eboo Patel, founder and executive director of the Chicago-based nonprofit Interfaith Youth Core. "Interfaith volunteering is powerful not only because it provides a space for Muslims to share how Islam inspires them to serve others, but also because it is an opportunity for Muslims to build relationships with and learn more about other communities."
Another benefit involves the way American Muslims will be seen. When Americans see Muslims engaged publicly in a volunteer capacity, it humanizes them — allowing their neighbors to think not just of terrorists upon hearing of Islam, but to think of their next-door neighbor who is a first responder to local fires or a volunteer representative on a neighborhood association.
Many Americans wonder why more Muslims do not speak out against extremism within their religion. But sometimes lasting changes come not from bold proclamations or manifestoes, but rather small, non-glamorous steps that can over time changes minds — and, perhaps eventually, change a community. If those of us who study Islam in America ignore these subtle shifts, we run the risk of misunderstanding the broad picture.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks by Nate Anderson
Skype yesterday petitioned the FCC to lay the smack down on wireless phone carriers who "limit subscribers' right to run software communications applications of their choosing" (read: Skype software). Skype wants the agency to more stringently apply the famous 1968 Carterfone decision that allowed consumers to hook any device up to the phone network, so long as it did not harm the network. In Skype's eyes, that means allowing any software or applications to run on any devices that access the network.
The reason for Skype's interest in the issue is obvious: they want to force network operators to allow Skype-enabled calling across their networks, something currently prohibited on wireless data plans. In its filing, Skype argues that this capability would offer "tremendous new sources of price competition provided by entities such as Skype," and that's exactly why wireless operators will fight the plan tooth and nail.
Something similar has happened before. In the early days of the wired telephone network, the phone company provided not only network service, but also the equipment, and routinely took firms to court if they sold products meant to be attached to consumer telephones (which were still owned by the phone company). In 1956, a court ruled that a device called the Hush-a-Phone was allowed to be fitted onto the telephone so long as it was "privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental."
In 1968, the FCC endorsed this principle in the Carterfone case. The Carterfone was an early attempt at building a wireless phone. It used a two-way radio and an acoustic coupler to patch a person's voice into the telephone network, and the FCC again ruled that this was allowed so long as the network itself was not harmed. The principle is still in place today, and wired phone networks now stop at a small termination box usually located on the outside of homes; anything past that point is the homeowner's responsibility, but phones, modems, and faxes can all be hooked up to the network without requiring phone company permission.
This principle currently affects the wired telephone network, the cable TV network (any set-top box can be hooked up to any cable system, at least in theory, once the "integration ban" goes into effect later this year), and the data networks offered by both services (DSL and cable, which can be hooked up to any device inside the home). Wireless phone networks are a different story. Defenders of the status quo argue that this isn't a problem, since plenty of competition already exists in the market, and the invisible hand of the market will inevitably provide that which consumers want better than any government regulation can do.
Unfortunately, the "invisible hand" has been a little too invisble here, and no operator actually offers a wide-open network. Skype thinks a smidgen of government regulation could actually help out quite a bit, and they cite Dr. Tim Wu's recent paper on wireless network neutrality for support. Skype (and Wu's paper) point out the various ways that the wireless phone companies block consumer choice: crippling features on phones, locking handsets to operators, limiting consumers' ability to install third-party applications, and limiting the terms of service with bandwidth caps and restrictions on what content can be accessed through the network (Skype calls are forbidden, for instance).
Skype essentially wants to turn the wireless phone companies into just another network of the kind currently operated on the ground. This would require carriers to allow any phone to be used on their networks, and for any application. Users would simply purchase a voice or data plan (though these could easily converge into a data plan if VoIP calling is used) and then use the device of their choice to access the network of their choice. Verizon, Cingular, et al. hate this and would love to keep crippling WiFi and Bluetooth access on their phones in order to keep traffic flowing through their network, using their (high-priced) services.
Recognizing that its proposal would pose some thorny technical problems, Skype "approaches these issues with humility, recognizing that application-layer competition depends in part upon the 3G deployment efforts of wireless carriers." They suggest the creation of an FCC-guided forum to handle technical specifications, one that would operate transparently and would involve all stakeholders in the issue. The forum, in Skype's view, would ensure that "no entity can enforce techniques such as blocking, locking, or certification requirements that have the intention of preventing consumers from modifying or installing software unless it is reasonably proven that such software harms the network."
The wireless operators don't have any intention of being reduced to mere commodity providers of network services if they can help it, and this recent filing certainly won't raise Skype's reputation within the industry. Of course, since that industry already restricts Skype from running on its network, this is no big loss.
The reason for Skype's interest in the issue is obvious: they want to force network operators to allow Skype-enabled calling across their networks, something currently prohibited on wireless data plans. In its filing, Skype argues that this capability would offer "tremendous new sources of price competition provided by entities such as Skype," and that's exactly why wireless operators will fight the plan tooth and nail.
Something similar has happened before. In the early days of the wired telephone network, the phone company provided not only network service, but also the equipment, and routinely took firms to court if they sold products meant to be attached to consumer telephones (which were still owned by the phone company). In 1956, a court ruled that a device called the Hush-a-Phone was allowed to be fitted onto the telephone so long as it was "privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental."
In 1968, the FCC endorsed this principle in the Carterfone case. The Carterfone was an early attempt at building a wireless phone. It used a two-way radio and an acoustic coupler to patch a person's voice into the telephone network, and the FCC again ruled that this was allowed so long as the network itself was not harmed. The principle is still in place today, and wired phone networks now stop at a small termination box usually located on the outside of homes; anything past that point is the homeowner's responsibility, but phones, modems, and faxes can all be hooked up to the network without requiring phone company permission.
This principle currently affects the wired telephone network, the cable TV network (any set-top box can be hooked up to any cable system, at least in theory, once the "integration ban" goes into effect later this year), and the data networks offered by both services (DSL and cable, which can be hooked up to any device inside the home). Wireless phone networks are a different story. Defenders of the status quo argue that this isn't a problem, since plenty of competition already exists in the market, and the invisible hand of the market will inevitably provide that which consumers want better than any government regulation can do.
Unfortunately, the "invisible hand" has been a little too invisble here, and no operator actually offers a wide-open network. Skype thinks a smidgen of government regulation could actually help out quite a bit, and they cite Dr. Tim Wu's recent paper on wireless network neutrality for support. Skype (and Wu's paper) point out the various ways that the wireless phone companies block consumer choice: crippling features on phones, locking handsets to operators, limiting consumers' ability to install third-party applications, and limiting the terms of service with bandwidth caps and restrictions on what content can be accessed through the network (Skype calls are forbidden, for instance).
Skype essentially wants to turn the wireless phone companies into just another network of the kind currently operated on the ground. This would require carriers to allow any phone to be used on their networks, and for any application. Users would simply purchase a voice or data plan (though these could easily converge into a data plan if VoIP calling is used) and then use the device of their choice to access the network of their choice. Verizon, Cingular, et al. hate this and would love to keep crippling WiFi and Bluetooth access on their phones in order to keep traffic flowing through their network, using their (high-priced) services.
Recognizing that its proposal would pose some thorny technical problems, Skype "approaches these issues with humility, recognizing that application-layer competition depends in part upon the 3G deployment efforts of wireless carriers." They suggest the creation of an FCC-guided forum to handle technical specifications, one that would operate transparently and would involve all stakeholders in the issue. The forum, in Skype's view, would ensure that "no entity can enforce techniques such as blocking, locking, or certification requirements that have the intention of preventing consumers from modifying or installing software unless it is reasonably proven that such software harms the network."
The wireless operators don't have any intention of being reduced to mere commodity providers of network services if they can help it, and this recent filing certainly won't raise Skype's reputation within the industry. Of course, since that industry already restricts Skype from running on its network, this is no big loss.
Today's talker: Dutch government proposes knee lock to stop parolees from escaping by Toby Sterling
Dutch guards overseeing prisoners on supervised parole may soon have a new tool at their disposal: a robotic knee brace that sends an electrical impulse cramping prisoners' leg muscles if they try to slip away.
The Justice Ministry said Tuesday it planned to test the system later this year if parliament approves it. Ministry spokesman Wim van der Weegen said the system could be compared with wheel clamps put on illegally parked cars.
"If the prisoner sticks to the rules, he won't notice it," van der Weegen said. "But if he disobeys, then he can't run away."
Under the country's furlough program, some people convicted of serious crimes are seen as having a sizable risk of re-offending, so they are gradually reintroduced into society to test whether they are ready. First they are allowed only guarded visits to relatives. Then supervision is gradually relaxed until the prisoner is deemed ready for unsupervised parole.
After several prisoners on furlough slipped their guards and committed crimes including rape and murder, parliament in 2005 ordered the ministry to examine new ways of stopping them.
The system under development consists of a robust metal brace equipped with electronics. If a prisoner gets too far away from his or her guard, a wireless transmitter prompts the brace to send an electrical impulse.
The idea is to slow prisoners down in the first moments when they may use a distraction to try to bolt away from their guards.
Tracing chips also were considered, but van der Weegen said they were not as good as the knee brace for situations where the primary goal was to prevent prisoners from escaping, rather than tracking them after they had gone.
Van der Weegen said he expected the government to approve testing.
"There was a strong will within parliament to reform the furlough system" after the escapes, he said.
He added that other measures, including cutting back the numbers of prison leaves granted and increasing the amount of time that prisoners are kept under guard, already have been put into effect.
The Justice Ministry said Tuesday it planned to test the system later this year if parliament approves it. Ministry spokesman Wim van der Weegen said the system could be compared with wheel clamps put on illegally parked cars.
"If the prisoner sticks to the rules, he won't notice it," van der Weegen said. "But if he disobeys, then he can't run away."
Under the country's furlough program, some people convicted of serious crimes are seen as having a sizable risk of re-offending, so they are gradually reintroduced into society to test whether they are ready. First they are allowed only guarded visits to relatives. Then supervision is gradually relaxed until the prisoner is deemed ready for unsupervised parole.
After several prisoners on furlough slipped their guards and committed crimes including rape and murder, parliament in 2005 ordered the ministry to examine new ways of stopping them.
The system under development consists of a robust metal brace equipped with electronics. If a prisoner gets too far away from his or her guard, a wireless transmitter prompts the brace to send an electrical impulse.
The idea is to slow prisoners down in the first moments when they may use a distraction to try to bolt away from their guards.
Tracing chips also were considered, but van der Weegen said they were not as good as the knee brace for situations where the primary goal was to prevent prisoners from escaping, rather than tracking them after they had gone.
Van der Weegen said he expected the government to approve testing.
"There was a strong will within parliament to reform the furlough system" after the escapes, he said.
He added that other measures, including cutting back the numbers of prison leaves granted and increasing the amount of time that prisoners are kept under guard, already have been put into effect.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
US Army to test UAVs armed with ultra-bright strobe to work as crowd control weapon by Peter La Franchi
The US Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) plans to demonstrate the use of a 7.5 million candlepower (7.3 million candela) strobe floodlight system mounted on board an unmanned air vehicle as a non-lethal crowd-control system.
The project will see a Peak Beam Systems Maxa Beam searchlight adapted to operate as a strobe capable of inducing physical effects, such as short-term paralysis, in humans.
AATD plans to award contacts to the Edgemont, Pennsylvania-based Peak Systems for the modified searchlight in March, with demonstrations within 12 months.
US government acquisition records released on 9 February say the sole source contract calls for Peak Systems to "design and fabricate a light-based immobilisation system/deterrent device and integrate it with an unmanned aerial system. This will include any necessary medical research on frequency and amplitude modulation of high-intensity light that will cause immobilisation to all those within the beam."
The system uses a xenon-based searchlight that "can be pulsed with a unique modulation [strobe] effect that results in immobilisation to those within the beam. This effort will transition the lamp from a handheld/vehicle mounted system to an airborne platform."
In parallel, the US Air Force UAV Battlelab is studying a project to adapt Raytheon's microwave-based Active Denial System (ADS) to a UAV, also for use in crowd control and battlefield shaping roles. However, this is dependent upon maturing existing ADS development efforts by Raytheon and the USAF Research Laboratory's Directed Energy (AFRL DE) Battlelab, says UAV Battlelab director Greg Pierce.
Speaking at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International's (AUVSI) annual US government programmes update conference earlier this month, Pierce said: "We don't have any initiatives on this, because to be an initiative it has to have reached technology readiness level 5. But we are looking at directed-energy capabilities. We are looking at high-power microwave capabilities. We are looking at what I like to call the 'annoyance ray', which came out of AFRL DE."
Existing USAF ADS demonstrator efforts have focused on a vehicle-mounted system that emits radio frequency energy at 95GHz. The bulk of that energy is absorbed within the first 0.39mm (0.016in) of the human skin, creating an intense burning sensation.
Vehicle-mounted versions are undergoing evaluation at Moody AFB in Georgia.
The project will see a Peak Beam Systems Maxa Beam searchlight adapted to operate as a strobe capable of inducing physical effects, such as short-term paralysis, in humans.
AATD plans to award contacts to the Edgemont, Pennsylvania-based Peak Systems for the modified searchlight in March, with demonstrations within 12 months.
US government acquisition records released on 9 February say the sole source contract calls for Peak Systems to "design and fabricate a light-based immobilisation system/deterrent device and integrate it with an unmanned aerial system. This will include any necessary medical research on frequency and amplitude modulation of high-intensity light that will cause immobilisation to all those within the beam."
The system uses a xenon-based searchlight that "can be pulsed with a unique modulation [strobe] effect that results in immobilisation to those within the beam. This effort will transition the lamp from a handheld/vehicle mounted system to an airborne platform."
In parallel, the US Air Force UAV Battlelab is studying a project to adapt Raytheon's microwave-based Active Denial System (ADS) to a UAV, also for use in crowd control and battlefield shaping roles. However, this is dependent upon maturing existing ADS development efforts by Raytheon and the USAF Research Laboratory's Directed Energy (AFRL DE) Battlelab, says UAV Battlelab director Greg Pierce.
Speaking at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International's (AUVSI) annual US government programmes update conference earlier this month, Pierce said: "We don't have any initiatives on this, because to be an initiative it has to have reached technology readiness level 5. But we are looking at directed-energy capabilities. We are looking at high-power microwave capabilities. We are looking at what I like to call the 'annoyance ray', which came out of AFRL DE."
Existing USAF ADS demonstrator efforts have focused on a vehicle-mounted system that emits radio frequency energy at 95GHz. The bulk of that energy is absorbed within the first 0.39mm (0.016in) of the human skin, creating an intense burning sensation.
Vehicle-mounted versions are undergoing evaluation at Moody AFB in Georgia.
Monday, February 19, 2007
The War Within Islam by Christopher Hitchens
"See how the Christians love each other!" This used to be the secular response to the fratricide between Catholics and Protestants, let alone the schisms within the Catholic Church and the vicious quarrels between different schools of Calvinism. (When the Baptists of Danbury, Conn., wrote to Thomas Jefferson, asking for his assurance against persecution and generating his famous "wall of separation" response, it was the Congregationalists of Connecticut of whose intolerance they were apprehensive.)
Within Islam, these lines of division are many times more acute. Ahmadi Muslims are considered impossibly heretical by most other followers of the Prophet, and Ismaili Muslims are looked upon askance in many quarters as well, but the rivalry between Sunnis and Shiites (which also conceals numerous poisonous rifts between different interpretations and leaderships in both camps) has become one of the most toxic phenomena in the world today. On Web sites that offer advice to the devout, Sunnis and Shiites ask their imams and ayatollahs whether it is permitted to take the life of a member of the other sect. On American campuses, Muslim student groups now shun one another on a confessional basis. Throughout the Arab and Persian media, moods of excommunication and denunciation are vocally expressed. Almost every day in Iraq, as has been well-reported, a mosque is blown up or a religious procession shredded by other Muslims. As is less well-reported, the same thing happens in Pakistan almost every week. And it is waiting to happen in other countries, too, as the Alawite sect that runs Syria (Alawism being a splinter of Shiism) gets ready for another confrontation with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, and as Sunni minorities in Iran become restive at the increasingly sectarian character of the Shiite dictatorship.
The schism may not appear to be doctrinal, since it arises from a dynastic squabble of the seventh century over the disposition of the Prophet Mohammed's inheritance. (Christianity spared itself this kind of earthly split by making it impossible for anyone but Dan Brown to believe that Jesus had a sexual nature, let alone any offspring. It went on to split about matters like the Trinity, which raised the awkward question of monotheism.) But Sunni and Shiite disagreements, in effect, do the same thing. Those who worship at the shrines of any of the 12 imams or who foresee the return of the "occluded" 12th one are idolators in Sunni eyes. While those who do not recognize the martyrdom of the prophet's grandson Hussein, according to Shiites, are following worldly caliphs whose rule is destined to pass away. This might seem quaint if it did not involve the quailing of many Sunni-dominated states at the prospect of an Iranian thermonuclear capacity.
Thus, the extreme forces of Sunni Wahhabism and the takfir school that form the hard core of al-Qaida may have been brilliant in the short term in their declaration of war against Shiism. They have certainly made Iraqi life very nearly unlivable and helped to wreck the prospects of a federal democracy there. But there is evidence that even Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri told their late brother Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to rein it in a bit. Delicious though it is to send heretics to hell, they murmured, the long-term cost of inter-Islamic bloodshed might be a trifle high. It is too late for that afterthought now; the war is on in earnest. After the savage demolition of the golden dome in Samarra, only a very few Shiite demagogues tried to blame the atrocity on the Jews. They knew very well who had done this terrible thing, and they acted, and continue to act, accordingly.
I have met a few very hard-line right-wingers who say: So what? If one lot of Islamists wants to slaughter another, who cares? It's very important to repudiate this kind of "thinking." Religious warfare is the worst thing that can happen to any society, and it now has the potential to spread to societies that are not directly involved. For the most part, official U.S. policy in Iraq has been sound in this respect, always working for a compromise and recently losing American lives to rescue the moderate Shiite leadership from a murder plot hatched by a messianic Shiite militia. Even where this policy fell short—as in the appalling execution of Saddam Hussein—the American Embassy urged the Maliki government not to conduct the hanging on the day of the Eid ul-Adha holiday that would most humiliate the Sunnis. We cannot flirt, either morally or politically, with divide and rule.
However, the self-generated Islamic civil war does have significance in the wider cultural struggle. All over the non-Muslim world, we hear incessant demands that those who believe in the literal truth of the Quran be granted "respect." We are supposed to watch what we say about Islam, lest by any chance we be considered "offensive." A fair number of authors and academics in the West now have to live under police protection or endure prosecution in the courts for not observing this taboo with sufficient care. A stupid term—Islamophobia—has been put into circulation to try and suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam's infallible "message."
Well, this idiotic masochism has to be dropped. There may have been a handful of ugly incidents, provoked by lumpen elements, after certain episodes of Muslim terrorism. But no true secularist or even Christian has been involved in anything like the torching of a mosque. (The last time that such a thing did happen on any scale—in Bosnia—the United States and Britain intervened militarily to put a stop to it. We also overthrew the Taliban, which was slaughtering the Hazara Shiite minority in Afghanistan.) But where are the denunciations from centers of Sunni and Shiite authority of the daily murder and torture of Islamic co-religionists? Of the regular desecration of holy sites and holy books? Of the paranoid insults thrown so carelessly and callously by one Muslim group at another? This mounting ghastliness is a bit more worthy of condemnation, surely, than a few Danish cartoons or a false rumor about a profaned copy of the Quran in Guantanamo. The civilized world—yes I do mean to say that—should find its own voice and state firmly to Muslim leaders and citizens that respect is something to be earned and not demanded with menace. A short way of phrasing this would be to say, "See how the Muslims respect each other!"
Within Islam, these lines of division are many times more acute. Ahmadi Muslims are considered impossibly heretical by most other followers of the Prophet, and Ismaili Muslims are looked upon askance in many quarters as well, but the rivalry between Sunnis and Shiites (which also conceals numerous poisonous rifts between different interpretations and leaderships in both camps) has become one of the most toxic phenomena in the world today. On Web sites that offer advice to the devout, Sunnis and Shiites ask their imams and ayatollahs whether it is permitted to take the life of a member of the other sect. On American campuses, Muslim student groups now shun one another on a confessional basis. Throughout the Arab and Persian media, moods of excommunication and denunciation are vocally expressed. Almost every day in Iraq, as has been well-reported, a mosque is blown up or a religious procession shredded by other Muslims. As is less well-reported, the same thing happens in Pakistan almost every week. And it is waiting to happen in other countries, too, as the Alawite sect that runs Syria (Alawism being a splinter of Shiism) gets ready for another confrontation with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, and as Sunni minorities in Iran become restive at the increasingly sectarian character of the Shiite dictatorship.
The schism may not appear to be doctrinal, since it arises from a dynastic squabble of the seventh century over the disposition of the Prophet Mohammed's inheritance. (Christianity spared itself this kind of earthly split by making it impossible for anyone but Dan Brown to believe that Jesus had a sexual nature, let alone any offspring. It went on to split about matters like the Trinity, which raised the awkward question of monotheism.) But Sunni and Shiite disagreements, in effect, do the same thing. Those who worship at the shrines of any of the 12 imams or who foresee the return of the "occluded" 12th one are idolators in Sunni eyes. While those who do not recognize the martyrdom of the prophet's grandson Hussein, according to Shiites, are following worldly caliphs whose rule is destined to pass away. This might seem quaint if it did not involve the quailing of many Sunni-dominated states at the prospect of an Iranian thermonuclear capacity.
Thus, the extreme forces of Sunni Wahhabism and the takfir school that form the hard core of al-Qaida may have been brilliant in the short term in their declaration of war against Shiism. They have certainly made Iraqi life very nearly unlivable and helped to wreck the prospects of a federal democracy there. But there is evidence that even Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri told their late brother Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to rein it in a bit. Delicious though it is to send heretics to hell, they murmured, the long-term cost of inter-Islamic bloodshed might be a trifle high. It is too late for that afterthought now; the war is on in earnest. After the savage demolition of the golden dome in Samarra, only a very few Shiite demagogues tried to blame the atrocity on the Jews. They knew very well who had done this terrible thing, and they acted, and continue to act, accordingly.
I have met a few very hard-line right-wingers who say: So what? If one lot of Islamists wants to slaughter another, who cares? It's very important to repudiate this kind of "thinking." Religious warfare is the worst thing that can happen to any society, and it now has the potential to spread to societies that are not directly involved. For the most part, official U.S. policy in Iraq has been sound in this respect, always working for a compromise and recently losing American lives to rescue the moderate Shiite leadership from a murder plot hatched by a messianic Shiite militia. Even where this policy fell short—as in the appalling execution of Saddam Hussein—the American Embassy urged the Maliki government not to conduct the hanging on the day of the Eid ul-Adha holiday that would most humiliate the Sunnis. We cannot flirt, either morally or politically, with divide and rule.
However, the self-generated Islamic civil war does have significance in the wider cultural struggle. All over the non-Muslim world, we hear incessant demands that those who believe in the literal truth of the Quran be granted "respect." We are supposed to watch what we say about Islam, lest by any chance we be considered "offensive." A fair number of authors and academics in the West now have to live under police protection or endure prosecution in the courts for not observing this taboo with sufficient care. A stupid term—Islamophobia—has been put into circulation to try and suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam's infallible "message."
Well, this idiotic masochism has to be dropped. There may have been a handful of ugly incidents, provoked by lumpen elements, after certain episodes of Muslim terrorism. But no true secularist or even Christian has been involved in anything like the torching of a mosque. (The last time that such a thing did happen on any scale—in Bosnia—the United States and Britain intervened militarily to put a stop to it. We also overthrew the Taliban, which was slaughtering the Hazara Shiite minority in Afghanistan.) But where are the denunciations from centers of Sunni and Shiite authority of the daily murder and torture of Islamic co-religionists? Of the regular desecration of holy sites and holy books? Of the paranoid insults thrown so carelessly and callously by one Muslim group at another? This mounting ghastliness is a bit more worthy of condemnation, surely, than a few Danish cartoons or a false rumor about a profaned copy of the Quran in Guantanamo. The civilized world—yes I do mean to say that—should find its own voice and state firmly to Muslim leaders and citizens that respect is something to be earned and not demanded with menace. A short way of phrasing this would be to say, "See how the Muslims respect each other!"
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Intelligence VS. Politics (Madrid Redux VIA French Presidential Elections)
French intelligence reports leaked to Le Monde and Al Hayat are pointing to possible attacks during April 2007 to May 2007 or during the French Presidential Elections.
For the time being, the French do not have any information on concrete preparations of attacks. Recent reports testify to the constant attention paid to Al Qaeda. Two threats are mentioned. First threats appeared in December 2005, relates to threats of attacks. Second threats appeared during autumn 2006 and relates to planning a wave of suicide attacks against a European country. Threats would not come from active cells or a sleeper cells, rather supporting cells would be turned into active cells via Internet. The French, however, have recently noticed a frequent diffusion of satellite views obtained through Google Earth of France.
Al Qaeda related websites is calling for the attacks in order to change French intelligence and politics in the same manner that the Madrid attacks changed Spanish intelligence and politics.
For the time being, the French do not have any information on concrete preparations of attacks. Recent reports testify to the constant attention paid to Al Qaeda. Two threats are mentioned. First threats appeared in December 2005, relates to threats of attacks. Second threats appeared during autumn 2006 and relates to planning a wave of suicide attacks against a European country. Threats would not come from active cells or a sleeper cells, rather supporting cells would be turned into active cells via Internet. The French, however, have recently noticed a frequent diffusion of satellite views obtained through Google Earth of France.
Al Qaeda related websites is calling for the attacks in order to change French intelligence and politics in the same manner that the Madrid attacks changed Spanish intelligence and politics.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad threatens Secretary Rice and the US by Olivier Guitta
After the 5 million dollars reward offered by the U.S. State Department for the capture of Abdallah Ramadane Challah, Secretary General of Palestinian Islamic Jihad , the radical movement threatens to attack some American leaders: “Rice for Challah”. In an interview to the site Elaph.com, Abu Dajana, one of the military commanders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad “Al-Quds Brigades”, affirmed that “orders were given to the active cells abroad, in particular in the Arab and Islamic countries, to put American personalities under surveillance and to be ready to respond to any hostile action from the U.S.”. Abu Dajana affirms that “the answer of Palestinian Islamic Jihad to the remarks of the State Department should occur in the next few days”. He denounced “the reward for the head of Abdallah Challah, and threatens to attack Americans and their interests, including on American soil”. He went on “if the Americans were to target Challah, the response will aim at Condoleezaa Rice, which is right now under surveillance”.
Terrorist Official Admits: IDF Policy Works by I.N.N.
Top Islamic Jihad official Abu Ahmed was interviewed recently by local Arab reporters. The interview was published online and quickly removed. Intelligence investigators managed to find and translate the interview, which reveals the factors that go into the terrorist leadership’s decision-making process.
Among other things, Abu Ahmed admitted in the interview that the security fence built by Israel has made it more difficult for terrorists to carry out attacks. Even more effective, he said, is the Israeli strategy of targeting terrorist leaders. He also said that Islamic Jihad often refrains from firing rockets due to fear of the possible Israeli response.
Abu Ahmed’s words provide aid to Israel’s diplomatic efforts. Israel’s critics often argue that fighting terrorism is ineffective, and that Israel must make concessions in an attempt to appease terrorists instead. The interview with Abu Ahmed shows that terrorists are discouraged by IDF operations, and that terror can be defeated using military means.
Among other things, Abu Ahmed admitted in the interview that the security fence built by Israel has made it more difficult for terrorists to carry out attacks. Even more effective, he said, is the Israeli strategy of targeting terrorist leaders. He also said that Islamic Jihad often refrains from firing rockets due to fear of the possible Israeli response.
Abu Ahmed’s words provide aid to Israel’s diplomatic efforts. Israel’s critics often argue that fighting terrorism is ineffective, and that Israel must make concessions in an attempt to appease terrorists instead. The interview with Abu Ahmed shows that terrorists are discouraged by IDF operations, and that terror can be defeated using military means.
FBI defends against 'kitchen sink bombs' by Lara Jakes Jordan
Kirk Yeager makes bombs from the stuff found under kitchen sinks. He does it to help the FBI defend against what officials say is the next frontier for terrorists in the United States.
Ten years ago, peroxide-based bombs were mostly the work of young pranksters. But the easy-to-make yet deadly chemical cocktails were embraced in the late 1990s by Palestinian militants and suicide bombers bent on killing large groups of people.
Now, Yeager says, the "Mother of Satan" explosives are considered the most likely weapon that terrorists will use against the U.S., more so than a nuclear or radiological "dirty" bomb.
"Every serious terrorist group knows about them and knows how to make them," Yeager said. The forensic scientist heads the explosives unit at the FBI's laboratory in Quantico, Va., about 35 miles south of Washington.
"Bad guys are bombers. You don't have to have the level of sophistication to make a bomb that you need to get nuclear materials," Yeager said.
The bombs are made by mixing chemicals that are used in common household items, including hydrogen peroxide and paint thinner, and easily found at drug stores or hardware stores. Experts know them as TATP, short for triacetone triperoxide, and HMTD, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine.
Recent cases of explosions or thwarted attacks with TATP or HMTD in the U.S. include:
_Millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam. He was carrying HMTD among the 124 pounds of explosives in the trunk of his car when he was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999.
_Richard Reid. The would-be British shoe bomber tried unsuccessfully to detonate 8 ounces of TATP hidden in his high-top sneaker during a Paris-to-Miami flight in 2001.
_University of Oklahoma suicide bomber Joel Henry Hinrichs III. He used TATP to blow himself up near a packed football stadium in October 2005.
_College student Matthew Rugo in Texas City, Texas. He was killed last July when a plastic storage container of TATP that was mixed in his apartment exploded. The FBI has not found any connection in the case to international terrorist groups, but the investigation continues.
Additionally, counterterrorist authorities say terrorists planned to mix a solution similar to TATP in last summer's thwarted attacks on as many as 10 London-to-U.S. flights — leading to the crackdown on bringing liquids aboard airlines.
Also, ecoterrorists and animal rights extremist groups such as Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front are believed by authorities to use peroxide-based explosives.
Yeager, 41, who helps the FBI solve bombing cases by investigating the crime scene debris, is the only U.S. official who makes TATP and similar explosives in mass quantities.
His interest in bomb-making began at Cornell University, where he earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry. He honed his skills at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, one of the nation's top centers for explosives research and testing.
Yeager's brews are used for testing and training police officers and bomb-sniffing dogs. Until recently, authorities knew little about peroxide-based bombs because they are too volatile to handle casually. Moreover, TATP in particular is hard for dogs to detect.
Over the past year, the FBI and Transportation Security Administration have trained dog teams to sniff out the chemical cocktails at 75 airports and on subway, train and bus systems in 13 cities. The government pays up to $50,000 to train each of the 420 teams currently in action.
"It's a threat that's not here right now, but we see it coming," said Dave Kontny, director of TSA's national explosives detection canine teams. "So we're better off to have these teams."
John Rollins, a counterterrorism expert at Congressional Research Service and former U.S. intelligence official, said TATP and other varieties of peroxide-based bombs are most likely to show up in the hands of homegrown extremists and other splinter sympathizers of international terrorist groups.
The larger and centrally organized groups, such as al-Qaida, are more interested in "big bang" weapons that he said would cause widespread deaths and economic losses.
But aspiring terrorists, Rollins said, "would lean toward this because it's so readily available, it's so hard to detect."
"It certainly would be enough of a bang to draw attention to their cause, and shake the foundations in the short term of society's belief that the government can protect the United States," Rollins said.
Ten years ago, peroxide-based bombs were mostly the work of young pranksters. But the easy-to-make yet deadly chemical cocktails were embraced in the late 1990s by Palestinian militants and suicide bombers bent on killing large groups of people.
Now, Yeager says, the "Mother of Satan" explosives are considered the most likely weapon that terrorists will use against the U.S., more so than a nuclear or radiological "dirty" bomb.
"Every serious terrorist group knows about them and knows how to make them," Yeager said. The forensic scientist heads the explosives unit at the FBI's laboratory in Quantico, Va., about 35 miles south of Washington.
"Bad guys are bombers. You don't have to have the level of sophistication to make a bomb that you need to get nuclear materials," Yeager said.
The bombs are made by mixing chemicals that are used in common household items, including hydrogen peroxide and paint thinner, and easily found at drug stores or hardware stores. Experts know them as TATP, short for triacetone triperoxide, and HMTD, or hexamethylene triperoxide diamine.
Recent cases of explosions or thwarted attacks with TATP or HMTD in the U.S. include:
_Millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam. He was carrying HMTD among the 124 pounds of explosives in the trunk of his car when he was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border in December 1999.
_Richard Reid. The would-be British shoe bomber tried unsuccessfully to detonate 8 ounces of TATP hidden in his high-top sneaker during a Paris-to-Miami flight in 2001.
_University of Oklahoma suicide bomber Joel Henry Hinrichs III. He used TATP to blow himself up near a packed football stadium in October 2005.
_College student Matthew Rugo in Texas City, Texas. He was killed last July when a plastic storage container of TATP that was mixed in his apartment exploded. The FBI has not found any connection in the case to international terrorist groups, but the investigation continues.
Additionally, counterterrorist authorities say terrorists planned to mix a solution similar to TATP in last summer's thwarted attacks on as many as 10 London-to-U.S. flights — leading to the crackdown on bringing liquids aboard airlines.
Also, ecoterrorists and animal rights extremist groups such as Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front are believed by authorities to use peroxide-based explosives.
Yeager, 41, who helps the FBI solve bombing cases by investigating the crime scene debris, is the only U.S. official who makes TATP and similar explosives in mass quantities.
His interest in bomb-making began at Cornell University, where he earned his Ph.D. in organic chemistry. He honed his skills at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, one of the nation's top centers for explosives research and testing.
Yeager's brews are used for testing and training police officers and bomb-sniffing dogs. Until recently, authorities knew little about peroxide-based bombs because they are too volatile to handle casually. Moreover, TATP in particular is hard for dogs to detect.
Over the past year, the FBI and Transportation Security Administration have trained dog teams to sniff out the chemical cocktails at 75 airports and on subway, train and bus systems in 13 cities. The government pays up to $50,000 to train each of the 420 teams currently in action.
"It's a threat that's not here right now, but we see it coming," said Dave Kontny, director of TSA's national explosives detection canine teams. "So we're better off to have these teams."
John Rollins, a counterterrorism expert at Congressional Research Service and former U.S. intelligence official, said TATP and other varieties of peroxide-based bombs are most likely to show up in the hands of homegrown extremists and other splinter sympathizers of international terrorist groups.
The larger and centrally organized groups, such as al-Qaida, are more interested in "big bang" weapons that he said would cause widespread deaths and economic losses.
But aspiring terrorists, Rollins said, "would lean toward this because it's so readily available, it's so hard to detect."
"It certainly would be enough of a bang to draw attention to their cause, and shake the foundations in the short term of society's belief that the government can protect the United States," Rollins said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)