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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (18448)	12/14/2002 8:47:26 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 23908

Europe Seeks Balance As Terror Fear Rises By GEIR MOULSON December 14, 2002, 5:40 AM EST BERLIN -- European officials agree that the threat of terrorism has grown with the likelihood of war against Iraq, but they are struggling with how to warn their citizens of potential dangers at home and when they travel abroad without spreading panic. France has doubled funding for precautions against terrorism, while in London police urge people to be extra vigilant. In Italy and Germany, however, authorities have issued no warnings of potential threats over the holiday season. With no central register of travel and terror warnings, most governments post such notice on their Web sites with little fanfare, and countries vary in their handling of domestic threats. Although nations share intelligence information, "there are differing priorities and there are different interests," said Alex Standish, the editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest. "There is no one-size-fits-all intelligence or terror warning." Experts say there are plenty of reasons for increased vigilance. A Dutch intelligence service report said Monday that dozens of young, disenchanted Muslims in the Netherlands likely are being recruited by radical groups for suicide missions worldwide. And a top German security official cautioned that the prospect of a war against Iraq is helping terrorist leaders motivate their followers. Still, "it is incredibly difficult for any Western intelligence organization to provide more than the most general advice and caution," Standish said. "We have not managed at any level or at any stage to put anyone inside one of the leading (terrorist) organizations." The jitters increased after recordings attributed to Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, singled out France, Germany and other U.S. allies -- among them Britain and Italy -- as potential targets. France's top intelligence agency says that the terrorist threat has been reinforced in the last few months. "We fear most the teams ready to act in Europe," Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, head of the Territorial Surveillance Directorate, told the daily Liberation last week. "We think of dispersed individuals who met in Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia or in the Caucasus, who could contact each other, regroup rapidly and assemble at the last moment the necessary products to make a bomb." The concern doesn't stop at Europe's borders. Governments in Berlin, Paris and London have posted "worldwide travel warnings" since October's deadly attack on Western tourists in Bali. "After the Bali attack, we realized that we weren't able to say with certainty if one country was better protected from terrorist attacks than another," a Foreign Ministry official said in Paris. The top anti-terror official at Germany's equivalent of the FBI, Manfred Klink, said that "crises in particular in Chechnya and the Middle East -- and now the Iraq conflict -- are making it possible for leaders to motivate mujahadeen fighters to prepare further attacks." But he echoed the government's view that while U.S. allies must be on guard against terrorism, there is no reason to issue specific warning if there is no "reliable knowledge about concrete targets for an attack, or places or times where one might take place." European officials say going overboard on such warnings would only play into the terrorists' hands. "The dilemma is reconciling warning people with alarming them; taking preventive measures without destroying normal life," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said last month. "If, on the basis of a general warning, we were to shut down all the places that al-Qaida might be considering for attack, we would be doing their job for them." Germany's interior minister, Otto Schily, said after the Nov. 28 attacks on Israeli tourists in Mombasa, Kenya that "we must ensure that high (security) standards are maintained internationally." But he stressed that, whatever precautions are taken, "it is absolutely impossible for police to protect every hotel in the world." newsday.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (18448)	12/15/2002 9:45:28 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 23908

Hi-tech arms 'would finish war in a week' By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 15 December 2002 The American weaponry likely to be deployed in any military strike against Iraq is so advanced and hi-tech that some was not even ready to be used in the operation in Afghanistan just 12 months ago. With an armoury including satellite imagery that can distinguish a tank from a bus, even through thick cloud, to microwave bombs that can destroy electrical and computer systems without hurting civilians, military planners preparing for war are confident that any strike would be completed in little more than a week. "The first Gulf War was fought like the Second World War, with air dominance – pounding their defences, softening up the forces and then going in," said Daniel Gouré, a military analyst with the Washington-based Lexington Institute think tank. "This will be speedier, more precise – an effects-based operation. It will be much more surgical, both in the use of explosive force and in the overall operation." While the present emphasis is on securing the evidence America would need to go to war – the UN wants a list of Iraqi scientists linked to arms programmes by the end of the month and is stepping up the pace of inspection, swooping on 11 sites yesterday – analysts agree that America's military dominance will ensure any assault on Iraq is brief. Among the weapons Mr Gouré and others highlight are satellite-guided smart bombs known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). While a number of these were used in Afghanistan, many more are likely to be deployed in Iraq. The smart bombs available have also been upgraded. The GBU-28 "bunker-busters" have been upgraded by the BLU-31. Designed to penetrate hardened underground facilities, these have also been equipped with a new device called the hard-target smart fuse, which allows the bomb to "count" how many floors it needs to penetrate before detonating. A new category of bomb is the thermobaric device – only one was used in Afghanistan, and missed its target – which can penetrate indoor or underground spaces and then set off a blast of heat and pressure strong enough to destroy biological agents such as anthrax or smallpox. One weapon that is completely untested in battle is the microwave bomb, which British and US experts have been working on for several years. Exploding in mid-air, these bombs release pulses of magnetic energy that seek out electrical systems and computers and burn them out – even if they are buried underground. These can also be used to create a fizzing sensation on a person's skin – something US law enforcement agencies have been testing for crowd control. Chris Hellman, a senior analyst with the Centre for Defence Studies, said: "If it's available and we get into a situation where we are looking at urban warfare, it will definitely be used. They may not be man-portable, but having them on the back of a truck would not be a problem." Other new or updated weapons include an improved battle tank, the Abrams MI A2, the Apache Longbow helicopter and a high-altitude version of the unmanned Pred- ator drone, which can be used to carry satellite surveillance equipment or Hellfire missiles. Another is the Stryker, an armoured fighting vehicle offering great manoeuvrability. Planners believe it could be so important that – unlike the recent campaigns in Kosovo and Afghanistan – ground forces could play as important a role as bombers. John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, another research group, believes the supremacy of US technology will mean any military operation will last little longer than a week. "I think when this war is written up it will emerge as the re-emergence of the importance of land power," he said. news.independent.co.uk

To: Brumar89 who wrote (18448)	12/15/2002 2:24:14 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Criticism of Isra'El is anti-semitism [sic]? HIGHER ED Israel on Campus How did American colleges get so anti-Semitic? opinionjournal.com BY RUTH WISSE Sunday, December 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The claim of universities to be fostering diversity and preventing discrimination against vulnerable minorities is oddly compromised by a surge of anti-Semitism. With the recent addition of Columbia and Yale, over 50 campuses are currently circulating faculty petitions to divest from Israel and from American firms selling arms to Israel. Faculty at Georgetown, Michigan and Harvard have gone out of their way to invite speakers best known for their defamation of Israel and the Jews. To be sure, hundreds of university presidents have either spoken out publicly or signed a statement deploring the presence of anti-Semitism on campus. But none have tried to explain the phenomenon, much less undertaken to do anything about it. So questions abound. How does one know, for example, that the divestment petition is anti-Semitic? Why should Jews have become a target in a campus atmosphere of such advertised sensitivity? And what can universities do to remedy the situation without stifling healthy debate? Like many such initiatives since the 1960s, the petition campaign against Israel is promoted by relatively small numbers of faculty with interlocking interests. Its driving force are Arabs, Arabists and their sympathizers, who help prosecute the war against Israel as a way of diverting attention away from Arab regimes. They are joined by leftists--including Jews--who see in Jewish particularism the chief hindrance to their internationalist faith, by radicals who consider Israel and America to be colonial powers and who promote their reactionary or revolutionary alternatives, and by antiwar enthusiasts who blame Israel for inviting Arab aggression against it. The call for divestment sets up an implicit comparison between Israel and South Africa, whose apartheid policy once inspired a campaign of divestment aimed at forcing democratic change. In South Africa, a minority of whites had established a government based on racial criteria. But not only is Israel a vigorous democracy; it is, with Turkey, the only democracy in the Middle East. Arab autocrats and despots attack the Jewish state precisely because it embodies the democracy they are determined to resist. Arab rulers see in Israel's free and open society a threat to Muslim hegemony and to autocratic rule. Most university professors and students who support divestment do so in the misguided belief that it will force Israel to improve its human-rights record in the West Bank and Gaza. What they fail to recognize is that, far from championing human rights, the divestment petition is a springboard for the spread of anti-Semitic hostility to American campuses. The economic boycott has been part of the Arab arsenal in the war against Israel for the past 50 years. Last month, the Arab League formally reactivated its boycott at a meeting in Damascus, Syria. Saudi Arabia recently blacklisted some 200 European, American and other companies for importing Israeli products or product parts under other labels; and its Chamber of Commerce and Industry called on citizens to report the presence of any Israeli product exported through a third country. The divestment petitioners are asking their universities to join the Arab boycott that has the destruction of Israel as its larger goal. The divestment campaign did not just happen, and speakers assaulting Israel do not appear of themselves. This antipathy toward Israel grows from a campus culture that is selectively repressive. All the while that students, in the spirit of diversity, are actively discouraged from making pejorative comments about other vulnerable minorities, some Arab and Muslim students have been actively fomenting hatred of Israel as an expression of their "identity." On campuses with a large Arab presence, such as Wayne State in Detroit, this has resulted in a palpable threat to Jewish students, and outbreaks of physical violence have actually occurred at San Francisco State and Concordia University in Montreal. Since Arab and Muslim students are currently the only ones who exuberantly defame another group, and who blame that group rather than Arab and Muslim governments for the failings of their own antidemocratic societies, it is hardly surprising that they should be joined by others looking for a villain or scapegoat. Anti-Semitism thrives because slandering Israel is the only aggression against a minority that is encouraged by the rules of political correctness. Along similar lines, universities have allowed Middle East departments to disseminate anti-Israel propaganda to an extent unimaginable a generation ago, representing violations of intellectual honesty and academic impartiality that may be unique in our academic life. Martin Kramer's book on Middle East Studies in America, "Ivory Towers on Sand," points out the conditions that encourage this abuse. Instead of scrutinizing the obsession with Israel that has retarded the development of Arab societies, many professors of Arab and Muslim civilization have themselves become obsessed with the obsession. Here the damage to America is at least as great as to Israel, for had these scholars been submitting Arab regimes to honest scrutiny, they would have long since have been investigating the connections between anti-Semitism, opposition to democracy and hostility to the U.S. Why has it been left to private think tanks to inform us about the rise and nature of terrorism in the Middle East? The last thing university authorities ought to do in addressing this latest outbreak of what has been called "the longest hatred" is to enforce the kind of speech codes that have been invoked to protect other sensitive minorities. What is wanted is more honest debate, not less--but honest debate on both sides of the issue. Anti-Semitism works by making Jews the defendants of a political charge. Its hostile agenda invites counterscrutiny. The more the Arab world and its defenders try to blame Israel, the more critically we should be studying the Arab world to see how it uses anti-Semitism to divert attention from its problems, and where the responsibility for those problems really lies. Anti-Semitism perverts the ideal of a mutually tolerant campus. The faculty and administration, and students who wish to uphold that ideal, will have to exercise their free speech to address the function and the roots of this virulent phenomenon. Ms. Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard, is the author of "If I Am Not for Myself: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews" (Free Press, 2001).