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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (39782)	8/25/2002 11:45:35 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>The terrorist I knew Christopher Hitchens sheds no tears for Abu Nidal, but admits to a small twinge of nostalgia. Christopher Hitchens Sunday August 25, 2002 The Observer I wasn't exactly sad to see the paunchy cadaver of Abu Nidal, photographed so callously undraped in a Baghdad hospital bed. Presumably his torso was exposed so as to belie the unworthy suspicion that he had been machine-gunned by his hosts. The official story - that he had shot himself several times in the head - seems just as acceptable. But I did feel a twinge of nostalgia. I met the man in Iraq in 1975, before he achieved celebrity and notoriety, and for years afterwards, as one of the few hacks to have interviewed him, I was guaranteed a moment of TV or a swathe of ink every time he mounted an atrocity. (This is partly how I learned the useful lesson that the world of the 'terrorism expert' is made up of the most incompetent amateurs.) When we met, he raved briefly about how he was the true leader of the Palestinians and then inquired if I knew Said Hammami. Mr Hammami was at that time the PLO envoy in London and had written a fine series of articles in the Times, exploring the possibility of mutual recognition with the Israelis. I replied that I did know him, and Abu Nidal told me to warn Hammami against the consequences of treason to the revolution. I passed on the threat, and not long afterwards Abu Nidal had him shot down in his office. This was the beginning of an orgiastic campaign of murder, extending through the airports of Rome and Vienna to Egypt and back to London, where the attempted killing of the Israeli ambassador in 1982 was the trigger for the Begin-Sharon invasion of Lebanon. The PLO leadership always maintained that Abu Nidal was a double-agent, and he certainly killed a lot of their people (Patrick Seale wrote a very interesting book on this hypothesis). What's interesting for now is that, though he pimped in his time for a number of regimes from Syria to Libya, and was a mercenary as well as a psychopathic killer, it was invariably to Baghdad that he returned. He was spattered with the blood of civilians in innumerable countries, and with the blood of many Palestinian patriots, but Saddam's people were always glad to see him again. Currently the Bush administration is rather flailing in its double-barrelled allegation that Hussein (a) possesses weapons of mass destruction, and (b) incubates and encourages international terrorism. Well, without 'smoking gun' proof - which I wouldn't much care to see, if you phrase it like that - it might still be argued that Saddam must like the idea of WMDs very much, since he is willing to risk so much rather than disown them. I think so, don't you? As for the 'terror' factor, the evidence of a direct Al-Qaeda connection is decidedly slim, but Abu Nidal was wanted everywhere for crimes hardly less vile, and the Ba'athists gave him a villa and a secure base as a matter of course. That must tell us something. observer.co.uk Smart man, Hitchens. Wonder if he lives in New York? The New York Times aside, my impression is that post 9/11, New Yorkers have a decidedly different take on WMD and terrorism than they used to. Sort of along the lines of "a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet." It would be interesting to see a poll.

To: Ilaine who wrote (39782)	8/25/2002 11:53:35 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Embracing Pakistans dictator By MARCUS GEE Saturday, August 24, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A15 He hasn't yet made himself president for life, as Idi Amin did, or crowned himself emperor à la Napoleon, but Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf made it clear this week that he is in charge and intends to stay that way for as long as he likes. In a televised address, he confirmed his intention to stay on for at least another five years and announced that he had amended the country's constitution to increase his powers. The general, who took power in a bloodless coup in 1999, is already president, chief executive, defence minister and chief of staff of the army. Earlier decrees empowered him to dismiss the cabinet, declare a state of emergency, fire elected premiers and (through them) shut down provincial assemblies. Now he will also head a new National Security Council that will babysit Pakistan's elected politicians and make sure they don't get out of hand. Among his many powers will be the right to choose the heads of the navy and air force and dismiss the country's parliament. In case that were not enough to ensure his dominance, Gen. Musharraf earlier passed a law that banned the country's two most popular political figures, former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, from another term in office. All of this makes the election scheduled for Oct. 10 look like a bit of a farce. The general has painted the vote as the fulfillment of his promise to return the country to full democracy, but the new parliament's powers will be strictly limited. Even if it could muster the two-thirds majority necessary to overturn the general's self-serving constitutional amendments -- introduced under a "legal framework order" and never approved by parliament -- he could use his new powers as NSC chief to send the parliamentarians packing. In a different time, Gen. Musharraf's power play might have drawn hot words and tough sanctions from Washington. But in 2002, in the midst of the anti-terrorist fight, the State Department had only a mild statement calling for the restoration of "full democratic civilian rule" in Pakistan. And even that was undermined by George W. Bush, who praised Gen. Musharraf a few hours later for his help against the terrorist threat. "He's still tight with us in the war against terror, and that's what I appreciate." In other words, he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. It is understandable that Washington should be grateful to Gen. Musharraf. He gave badly needed logistical support to the Americans when they attacked the al-Qaeda terrorist network in neighbouring Afghanistan, and he cut Pakistan's ties to the Taliban regime there. He has also taken steps to crack down on Islamic extremists in Pakistan. But the United States is doing Pakistan no favours by holding its tongue as the general stomps on Pakistani democracy. And it is not helping its own cause. One of the reasons that extremism thrives in some Islamic countries is that autocracies such as Gen. Musharraf's leave no outlet for peaceful dissent. With no way to express themselves democratically, frustrated people often turn to violence. Yes, terrorism must be fought, by military means if necessary. But if the United States wants to win over the long haul, it must show people in the Islamic world that there is an alternative to futile lashing out. In the war against terrorism, democracy is the best weapon. When power-hungry despots such as Gen. Musharraf stand in the way, the United States and its allies should let them know it, no matter how helpful they may have been. FYI - KC