Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (1362)	12/29/2001 1:52:49 AM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

FULL-SCALE WAR THREATENS ASIA December 29, 2001 Newsmax.com reports: “The dangers of a full-scale India-Pakistan war are far greater than they have been in 30 years. And they are increased by the possible temptations on both sides to strike while the other is at a disadvantage. India is pushing ahead with developing a survivable second-strike nuclear capability by putting homemade cruise missiles on diesel-powered submarines. It still appears to be years away from achieving this capability. But if it does, it will regain the strategic edge over Pakistan. Both nations already have nuclear missile capabilities. But neither has hardened missile silos, and the main nuclear bases of each vast nation are well known to the other. If full-scale war breaks out between the two giant nations of South Asia, that consideration could tempt hard-line Pakistani army chiefs into considering going nuclear during the hostilities. The temptation on both sides is correspondingly greater to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike that could plausibly annihilate the entire nuclear strategic offensive capability of the other side and leave its cities defenseless. Pakistan is run by a direct military government. Therefore its decision- making processes are not subject to the same restraints, constraints and complex processes that India's are. This could increase the danger of a pre-emptive first strike from India as well as from Pakistan. In the terrifying logic of nuclear war theory, the very possibility that Pakistan may be thought more likely to launch first could also increase the nervousness of India's military and political leaders on their own nuclear buttons…” jvim.com

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (1362)	12/30/2001 8:19:40 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 32591

'Shoe bomber' explosive linked to Hamas By Douglas Davis LONDON (December 30) - The explosive packed into the black basketball sneakers of British "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was similar to that developed and used by Hamas in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, according to US investigators. Reid was overpowered by a stewardess and fellow passengers while attempting to detonate the explosives in midair on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami last Saturday. He is now being held without bail in Boston, where he is facing charges of intimidation or assault of the flight crew, which carries a potential 20-year jail term. More serious charges are expected to follow. Investigators were initially inclined to accept his claim that he had acted alone, but they now believe that the complexity of the operation indicates that he was part of a broader conspiracy. Israeli security sources, quoted by the Times yesterday, said that Hamas's two master bombmakers Jassar Samaru and Nassim Abu Rus developed the technique for manufacturing the explosive, known as TATP (triacetone triperoxide). They noted that the explosive, dubbed the "Mother of Satan" by its makers, is highly unstable, and that at least 40 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed while handling the substance. The Israeli sources were also quoted as saying that Hamas bombmakers have perfected a way to dry the explosive and mold it into belts worn by suicide bombers. Two Palestinian terrorists, currently serving 20-year jail terms for their part in 1994 attacks on the Israeli embassy and Jewish community offices in London, were found to possess TATP. Samar Alami, a chemical engineer who studied at London University's Imperial College, and her accomplice, Jawad Botmeh, who studied engineering at Leicester University, were found to have played a key role in the attacks. Meanwhile, investigators in Israel are reported to be continuing to attempt to reconstruct the activities of Reid during a 10-day visit to Israel and the Gaza Strip last July. Reid, a 28-year-old convert to Islam who was known as Abdel Rahim at the mosque he attended in Brixton, south London, arrived in Israel after visits to Egypt and Turkey. The following month he visited Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he is thought to have spent time at an al-Qaida training camp before returning to Europe. Subsequent trips took him France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Paris, where urgent investigations are now under way to reconstruct his movements, locate his contacts and determine the nature of his visits. Reid, who was traveling on a British passport, is believed to have acquired his customized "suicide shoes" - with the explosives molded into the heels - in Amsterdam earlier this month. In addition to possible meetings with Palestinian terrorists in Gaza, it is thought that Reid's visit to Israel and other countries in the months leading up to his abortive attack was designed to test airport and airline security systems. El Al spokesman Nachman Klieman was quoted here as saying that Reid had indeed raised suspicion during a routine security check. A thorough examination was made of his person, his luggage and his clothes, including his shoes, before security officials allowed him to board an El Al flight but seated him next to an armed sky marshal. An Israeli source said Israel had received no advance intelligence warnings about Reid. Meanwhile, amid reports that "hundreds of Richard Reids" may have been recruited in Britain, Scotland Yard is understood to have sent senior police officers to Israel to learn how to cope with the threat and aftermaths of suicide bomb attacks.

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (1362)	1/1/2002 8:02:24 PM
From: Scoobah	Respond to of 32591

Incredible interview: 23:53 Jan-01-02, 17 Tevet 5762 Interview: Hadash MK Issam Makhoul: Palestinians Can Kill Armed Settlers (IsraelNationalNews.com) Background: The following is the text of Proposed Law 4794B presented by Hadash MK Issam Makhoul, Mohammad Barakeh and Tamar Gozansky presented to the Knesset on December 31, 2001: 3215/P Proposed Law to Amend the Order for Preventing Terror (Struggle Against Occupation, 2001 Amendment to Paragraph 1:1. In the Order for Preventing Terror 1948, at the end of the definition of "terror organization" will come: Excepting a group of people who struggle against the occupation that do not carry out one of the following: (1) Acts of violence that may cause the death or wounding of a person directed towards someone who is not among the security forces'. (2) Threatening the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. +++ IMRA interviewed Hadash MK Issam Makhoul, in Hebrew, on 1 January 2002: IMRA: I had a question about your proposed law. I see in the text the line "someone who is not among the security forces". What is the status of settlers in this law? Are they considered as being among the security forces? Makhoul: These are things that should be clarified more when we make preparations in committee for the first and second reading. The proposed law does not say that there should or should not be opposition to the occupation, and things that are a part of the occupation such as the opening of a bypass road, confiscation of land, settlements. The proposed law addresses the question as to whether opposition to the occupation is terror. From that standpoint it is not terror. IMRA: There is a subparagraph and I will read it to you: "Acts of violence that may cause the death or wounding of a person directed towards someone who is not among the security forces". Are settlers considered as a group that is "among the security forces"? Makhoul: Armed settlers who carry out hostile acts - yes. IMRA: A settler who drives in his car and carries a weapon. Makhoul: What can I tell you? I will be more concrete: from my standpoint blowing up a bus in Haifa or Jerusalem or blowing up the Sbarro restaurant is considered terror and the action at Alei Sinai was an act of war within occupied territory that was not terror. IMRA: I am relating to what is written here. Subparagraph 1. According to the text you proposed are settlers considered "among the security forces"? A settler how caries a weapon in his car is considered "among the security forces"? Makhoul: Look, armed people are part of the occupation forces. The basic matter in this proposed law that should be taken into account is that there is considerable hypocrisy in the reaction to it after the proposed law by Yisrael Katz that a party list that supports a terror organization cannot run for the Knesset. We are, after all, trying to have the law be in accordance with international law. Everyone is going wild on this. IMRA: A bus of settler children. . . Makhoul: Look, for me this is something that is unforgivable. But I am talking about people who are carrying out activities that are part of the occupation. IMRA: Are you aware of any Palestinian group that would qualify via this amendment for removal from the terrorist classification? The moment you say that an action against children who are settlers is an act of terror . . . Makhoul: It is not part of the rules of the game. IMRA: Then is there any Palestinian organization that would qualify to be removed from the terrorist classification? Makhoul: Of course. Almost all the elements of the PLO that first of all are for peace and the struggle for the end of the occupation. As long as their activities are within this framework then it is not to be considered terror. It may be considered an act of violence and it could be considered something not to be done but it is not an act of terror. IMRA: I get it. Someone who wipes out a bus of children would be engaged in something considered an act of violence but not an act of terror. Makhoul: No a bus of children is an act of terror. IMRA: So you are not thinking of Fatah Tanzim but some other group inside Fatah? I am trying to think of the subgroups of Fatah, which subgroup would have that description? Makhoul: I think that Tanzim. Tanzim doesn't advocate it and do not do it. Ben-Eliezer and Mofaz can claim what they want all day but in practice they attack soldiers in the struggle. . . IMRA: Only soldiers? Makhoul: Soldiers. IMRA: When I saw subparagraph (1) "Acts of violence that may cause the death or wounding of a person" does this mean that someone who throws a rock or a firebomb at a car that may cause death or injury would be engaged in terror? Makhoul: But that is not an act of terror. It is an act of violence, rebellion. It cannot be compared to terror. IMRA: I get it. Throwing rocks and firebombs in order to kill someone is not an act of terror. Makhoul: It is a popular act. Around the world you see it - blocking roads, burning tires. . . IMRA: And throwing rocks and fire bombs? Makhoul: It is not terror. The strong claim that rock throwing is an act of terror. IMRA: Was Arafat's letter of September 1993 in which Arafat promised not to use violence but instead to negotiate a forfeiting of what you see as an international right to use force to liberate the occupied territories. Makhoul: It is not naive to make such a claim. This was a promise made within peacemaking - not to continue the occupation. IMRA: So it was conditional. Makhoul: I am not saying that. When you continue the war against the Palestinians you cannot expect this to be honored. IMRA: You are saying that the Israelis started it? Makhoul: That's not the point. I am saying who decided that Oslo is dead? Arafat gave this promise within that framework. IMRA: The Fatah declaration that the Intifada should continue along with he negotiations is just rhetoric. Makhoul: No. I think that if the Israelis with the help of President Clinton tried to impose a final agreement that was not just on the Palestinian People - that left some occupied Palestinian land under occupation - that should be freed according to UN decisions, and left other issues unresolved, then this is not acceptable. IMRA: I do not want to take you time. Am I to understand from what you are saying that Arafat's commitment in the letter only applies if all the demands of the Palestinians are met? Makhoul: All the commitments of the US and the international community. IMRA: Let's put it this way: as long as Israel does not offer complete withdrawal to the 1967 line and the removal of the settlements in the final agreement then Arafat has the right to go out of his promise not to use violence. Makhoul: That is my position - that the withdrawal must be to the 1967 lines. As long as the Israeli government continues with the position that they seek a military rather than diplomatic resolution of the conflict then Arafat's commitment does not hold.