SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/7/2005 7:56:13 PM
From: AuBug  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
The right winger on The McLaughlin Group and an editor of the Washington Times:
mclaughlin.com
washingtontimes.com

Sits between John and Pat on our right. Guess you don't watch what you've judged to be not balanced.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/8/2005 1:31:00 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
London Mayor Defended 'Theologian of Terror'
CNSNews.com ^ | July 07, 2005 | By Sherrie Gossett, CNSNews.com Staff Writer

Interesting.... This muslim Cleric visited london EXACTLY one year ago from the date of the attacks, July 7, 2004

CNSNews.com) - London Mayor Ken Livingstone's previous support of a Muslim cleric who advocates suicide bombings may cause him some embarrassment as he now must speak for the city in the wake of Thursday's terrorist bombings.

Livingstone condemned the Thursday attacks as "mass murder," and added that "this was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners."

Yet Livingstone has in the past labeled Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi a "man of peace" and a "moderate," despite the fact that Al-Qaradawi has supported suicide bombings and the targeting of American allies.

Livingstone welcomed Al-Qaradawi to London's City Hall last year as an honored guest, and the mayor appeared in a video shown at a solidarity conference for the sheikh on Feb. 17 of this year in Doha, Qatar. Livingstone has publicly defended the sheikh against critics in the media and various grassroots organizations.

The Anti-Defamation League has labeled Al-Qaradawi the "Theologian of Terror," while the website GayEgypt.com has dubbed him the "Dr. Goebbels of modern Egypt," for Al-Qaradawi's anti-homosexual rhetoric.

Al-Qaradawi is a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood and his fatwas, or theological rulings are said to influence millions of followers who consider him an authoritative scholar on Islamic issues.

Those fatwas are widely distributed through IslamOnline.net, a website for which Al-Qaradawi serves as an advisor, and via a popular weekly religious program on the Arab television network Al-Jazeera, which the sheikh co-hosts.

Al-Qaradawi's theological justification for suicide bombings is entitled, "Hamas Operations Are Jihad and Those Who [Carry it Out and] Are Killed are Considered Martyrs" and appears on a website linked to the Hamas terror organization.

The Middle East Research Institute has translated Al-Qaradawi's sermons directed at the U.S. and United Kingdom. During one sermon, on March 7, 2003, delivered at the Umar Bin-al-Khattab mosque in Doha, Al-Qaradawi stated: "O God, destroy the Zionist, the American, and the British aggressors. O God, shake the ground under them and protect us from them."

Following Al-Qaradawi's arrival in London on July 7, 2004, BBC TV2 aired an interview in which he said Islam justifies suicide bombings in Iraq against the U.S. military and in Israel against women and children. That interview first appeared on the Doha, Qatar Television Service, was translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) and reported by the Middle East Research Institute.

In his weekly television program on Al-Jazeera, titled "Religion and Life" (or "Sharia and Life"), Al-Qaradawi explained that there are two types of jihad, one that takes place when an Islamic state invades another country in order to "spread the word of Islam" and a second "repulsing jihad," which "takes place when your land is being invaded and conquered," according to the Middle East Research Institute.

"[In that case you must] repulse [the invader] to the best of your ability. If you kill him he will end up in hell, and if he kills you, you become a martyr (shahid)," Al-Qaradawi reportedly said. He elaborated by saying that a person committing such an act "is not a suicide [bomber]. He kills the enemy while taking self-risk ... He wants to scare his enemies, and the religious authorities have permitted this,"

At other times Al-Qaradawi has denounced terrorist attacks.

Islam Today reported that the cleric denounced al Qaeda's attack on a Jewish synagogue in Tunisia in April 2002, because "in Islam it is not permissible to attack places of worship such as churches and synagogues or attack men of religion, even in a state of war."

Al-Qaradawi was also quick to criticize the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but a month later stated, "You might arrest Bin Laden but a thousand Osama Bin Ladens will follow him. He is not a human being but a phenomenon of resistance of those oppressed by the stronger, by means they cannot even think about."

Reven Paz, a Meyerhoff fellow at The Washington Institute, speculated that the reason for Al-Qaradawi's "metamorphosing positions" relates to his desire to preserve his current status as an Islamic authority in the eyes of both radical Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and moderate Arab states.

In July of last year, following public and media criticism of Al-Qaradawi in Great Britain, Livingstone apologized to the cleric on behalf of his constituents. "I want to apologize to the Sheikh for the outbreak of xenophobia and hysteria in some sections of the tabloid press, which demonstrated an underlying ignorance of Islam," the mayor said.

Livingstone then invited the sheikh to return to London in October of 2004 to participate in a three-day European Social Forum at Alexander Palace, adding that it would be an "honor" to host Al-Qaradawi.

One member of Parliament urged the government to deny Al-Qaradawi a visa. Homosexual and women's rights groups, as well as a coalition representing Sikhs, Hindus and Jews tried to pressure Livingstone to distance himself from Al-Qaradawi.

But the mayor insisted that a dialogue with this "man of peace" was essential for progress in Middle Eastern relations. "I believe that the only people who would be aided if I were to refuse a dialogue with so prominent a Muslim leader as Dr Al-Qaradawi would be those like al Qaeda who argue that a dialogue between the Muslim communities and the European Left is impossible."

Livingstone also released a dossier aimed at showing Al-Qaradawi was a respected scholar throughout the Muslim world and had previously condemned terrorist attacks. "Dr al-Qaradawi has shared platforms with, or met, such prominent figures as former-U.S. president Bill Clinton, the French foreign minister, the Italian foreign minister and the Spanish royal family to promote understanding between Islam and the West," the mayor stated.

In January of this year, Livingstone further defended Al-Qaradawi in an interview with the BBC. "When you get a progressive figure who [moves] that religion in the correct direction, you engage and you develop it," Livingstone said.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/8/2005 1:33:45 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
SICK NY TIMES take on London bombing:

Blair's Rising Star Runs Into a Treacherous Future
By ALAN COWELL NY TIMES July 8, 2005

LONDON, July 7 - It is said, usually as a kind of joke, that a day is a long time in politics. Rarely has that been so true - and so bloodily so - as in the past 24 hours of Prime Minister Tony's Blair's roller coaster ride from triumph to tragedy.
On Wednesday evening, as chairman of the Group of 8 major industrial nations summit meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, he led a gathering of the world's political, diplomatic and economic powers, bolstered by the victory he scored that morning, when London was awarded the 2012 Olympics. He had led the charge to turn the annual summit meeting into a pep rally to end poverty in Africa and address world climate change, buoyed by worldwide concerts and demonstrations.

Early Thursday morning, as the leaders there took up the thorny issue of climate change, he continued the diplomatic minuet, meeting with President Hu Jintao of China.

But, even as the politicians talked, aides were watching television images pouring in from London raising the first alarms. When he finished his meeting with Mr. Hu, his aides broke the news, but still there was some confusion, his spokesman said, speaking in return for customary anonymity. Then, toward midday, the doubts were over: London had been struck by terrorists. Mr. Blair flew back to London, somber and shaken.

Perhaps the crudest lesson to be drawn was that, in adopting the stance he took after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Blair had finally reaped the bitter harvest of the war on terrorism - so often forecast but never quite seeming real until the explosions boomed across London.

The war in Iraq has been increasingly unpopular here, with taunts that Mr. Blair had become President Bush's poodle. The anger about Iraq led to Mr. Blair's shaky showing in the May elections: a third term with a severely reduced majority. Now, as long predicted and feared, his support of the war appears to have cost British lives at home. Thursday was a day of rallying behind the leader, but there were indications that the bombing could take a political toll.

No mainstream politician would say so out loud, but George Galloway, the maverick, onetime Labor legislator who had met with Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war, had no hesitation. "We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain," he said. "Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings."

That was not the general political line, of course. The leaders of opposition parties expressed revulsion at the bombings. "This country is united as one in our determination to defeat terrorism and to deal with those who are responsible for the dreadful acts that have taken place in London," said Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservative Party.

There was no shortage of unity. The Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attacks. Sir Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi, called terrorism "an evil end to an evil means."

At Gleneagles, where Mr. Blair returned Thursday night to close the summit meeting, world leaders including President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia lined up to offer solidarity. But for Mr. Blair, the challenge now is how the solidarity can be maintained against arguments such as those advanced by Mr. Galloway. In other words, has Iraq and his alliance with President Bush returned yet again to haunt him, as it did in the elections?

Even on Wednesday, it seemed to some analysts that Mr. Blair had begun to remold the bellicose imagery that enfolded him after the Iraq invasion.

On Thursday, though, the language shifted once again, with Mr. Blair reaching for an elusive Churchillian grandeur in the face of attacks no less shocking for being so often foretold. This time, though, he needed to convince his own people of their own fortitude - and it is not yet clear whether he has succeeded.

"When they try to intimidate us, we will not be intimidated," he said in a recorded address to the nation from 10 Downing Street. "When they seek to change our country or our way of life by these methods, we will not be changed. When they try to divide our people or weaken our resolve, we will not be divided and our resolve will hold firm."

Indeed, that may have caught the national mood. The attacks provoked little evident panic beyond the tightly framed horror deep underground in the subway trains. Many Londoners responded impassively, allowing rehearsed emergency procedures to run their course. Mr. Blair praised their resilience and stoicism.

Mr. Blair said Thursday that "the vast majority" of Muslims opposed terrorism. Indeed, Musa Admani, a Muslim scholar at Metropolitan University in London, told the BBC that support for militant Islam among young British Muslims was "on the decline."




To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/8/2005 9:05:39 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Schools in Thailand Under Ethnic Siege (more from the religion of peace and compassion)
New York Times ^ | July 6, 2005 | Seth Mydans

YALA, Thailand - On the weekends now, the military firing range here is crowded with teachers - in shifts of 50 - trying out their pistols, an essential new accessory in a place where teaching school has become one of the most dangerous professions.
In an escalating campaign of violence here in the largely Muslim south of mostly Buddhist Thailand, government-run schools and the teachers who work in them have become particular targets of bombs and gunmen.
In the past year and a half, dozens of schools have been damaged or destroyed by arson. The local teachers union said 18 teachers had been killed in that period in the three most dangerous southern provinces, an average of one a month. Some give higher figures.
A long-simmering separatist movement in this former Malay sultanate lies at the heart of the violence, hand in hand with resentment at discrimination against Muslims and attempts at forced assimilation by the government.
In addition, military and police feuds, criminal syndicates, political vendettas, smugglers, drug runners and bandits all account for many killings in this untamed region.
A harsh, militarized approach by the government has generated its own spiraling dynamic of violence and revenge. Experts say that there is no evidence yet of direct involvement by foreign Islamist groups but that fertile ground is being created for them.
More than 700 people have died since the level of violence rose sharply in January 2004, including nearly 200 in two mass killings by the military that have caused widespread resentment here.
Teachers are the prize for gunmen, a symbol of the reach of the distant government in Thailand and the high-profile members of their communities.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/8/2005 9:40:19 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Terrorists and Appeasers: Will They Never Learn
The Tin Ear ^ | 6/07/2005 | Will Malven

Earlier today, terrorists from an unknown faction exploded four bombs in London, three in the underground and one on a bus.

In WWII, Hitler was certain that his bombing campaign of terror carried out against the people of Britain, and especially of London, would bring the British people to their knees.

Hitler's statement was “In three weeks, Britain will have her neck wrung like a chicken.” Winston Churchill responded in an address to the joint houses of Congress, “Some chicken! Some Neck!” It is almost incomprehensible that anyone could possibly believe that such a heinous act would have any result other than to steel the spine and stiffen the resolve of the British People, and the free people throughout the world.

The blame for the fact that terrorists don’t yet comprehend this can be laid directly at the feet of the fear-mongers and naysayers in Britain and our own country who have opposed the actions of our respective governments out of fear and hatred. Most people who are free intuitively understand exactly what they stand to lose by succumbing to the fear that this kind of terror campaign is intended to generate. The unfortunate reaction of the Spanish people to the attacks in Spain which occurred just prior to their national elections served only to encourage these kinds of attacks. It is only by fighting back, by refusing to yield to the temptations of fear that these enemies of freedom can be stopped.

In listening to C-Span this morning, I was astounded by the number of callers who suggested appeasement as the solution to this terrorist problem. The number of callers who believe that we in the West are responsible for these criminal acts of war against us are the promoters, either consciously or unconsciously, of these attacks. It is they toward whom the terrorist have directed their attacks. Terrorists know that if these fearful, spineless, faithless, people can gain ascendancy in our government, half of their battle will be won. The last caller I listened to before I turned my television off in disgust wanted to know what “these terrorists” wanted. He stated, “I really want these terrorists to let us know what they want, if they are against democracy, then tell us why.” This is an astounding reaction to an act of terror. It is this “if we could only understand them” attitude, exemplified in our country by the Left who are so anxious to pull out of Iraq and surrender to the terrorists, that is the greatest threat to our nation and our war on terror. Again I refer you to George Santayana’s statement.

Our history is replete with misguided, goodwill, attempts to appease the ire of an aggressor. Britain’s Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, made a complete ass of himself in his negotiations with Adolph Hitler. His final ignominy occurred on the steps at #10 Downing Street with his much celebrated declaration that he had returned from his September, 1938 meeting with Herr Hitler in Munich secure in the knowledge that he had achieved “a peace for our times.” Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia less than six months later.

Chamberlain's efforts failed because he negotiated from a position of appeasement. The fault in this strategy lies in the absurd assumption that through understanding or generosity there is something you can give the terrorist that will in someway abate his hatred and cause him to rationally reexamine his actions and cease his hostility.

The terrorist “appeasers” are known during war time by another name, collaborators. Congress members such as John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jim McDermott, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Orca Kennedy, John Kerry, and the others calling for our early withdrawal from Iraq or impeachment of President Bush, are collaborating with our enemies. “Loyal” citizens like Michael Moore, George Soros, Al Franken, Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon and her puppy dog Tim Robbins, and their ilk who seek to obstruct our government and our military from achieving victory in Iraq and who encourage ending the war in Iraq are doing the work of our enemies. MSM reporters and pundits of the Left who misreport and misrepresent the actions occurring in Iraq, and fail to report all of the good that our troops in Iraq are accomplishing while engaged in this fight for freedom, are aiding and giving comfort to our enemies. All of these despicable actions are carried out by people who hate America.

They are the fifth columnists within our nation who need to be rooted out and exposed for the evil they represent.

snip



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/9/2005 10:35:02 PM
From: paret  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
We all know who was to blame for Thursday's murders... and it wasn't Bush and Blair
The Observer ^ | Sunday July 10, 2005 | Nick Cohen

The instinctive response of a significant portion of the rich world's intelligentsia to the murder of innocents on 11 September was anything but robust. A few, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen, were delighted. The destruction of the World Trade Centre was 'the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos,' declared the composer whose tin ear failed to catch the screams.

Others saw it as a blow for justice rather than art. They persuaded themselves that al-Qaeda was made up of anti-imperialist insurgents who were avenging the wrongs of the poor. 'The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?' asked Dario Fo. Rosie Boycott seemed to agree. 'The West should take the blame for pushing people in Third World countries to the end of their tether,' she wrote.

In these bleak days, it's worth remembering what was said after September 2001. A backward glance shows that before the war against the Taliban and long before the war against Saddam Hussein, there were many who had determined that 'we had it coming'. They had to convince themselves that Islamism was a Western creation: a comprehensible reaction to the International Monetary Fund or hanging chads in Florida or whatever else was agitating them, rather than an autonomous psychopathic force with reasons of its own. In the years since, this manic masochism has spread like bindweed and strangled leftish and much conservative thought.

All kinds of hypocrisy remained unchallenged. In my world of liberal London, social success at the dinner table belonged to the man who could simultaneously maintain that we've got it coming but that nothing was going to come; that indiscriminate murder would be Tony Blair's fault but there wouldn't be indiscriminate murder because 'the threat' was a phantom menace invented by Blair to scare the cowed electorate into supporting him.

I'd say the 'power of nightmares' side of that oxymoronic argument is too bloodied to be worth discussing this weekend and it's better to stick with the wider delusion.

On Thursday, before the police had made one arrest, before one terrorist group had claimed responsibility, before one body had been carried from the wreckage, let alone been identified and allowed to rest in peace, cocksure voices filled with righteousness were proclaiming that the real murderers weren't the real murderers but the Prime Minister. I'm not thinking of George Galloway and the other saluters of Saddam, but of upright men and women who sat down to write letters to respectable newspapers within minutes of hearing the news.

'Hang your head in shame, Mr Blair. Better still, resign - and whoever takes over immediately withdraw all our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan,' wrote the Rev Mike Ketley, who is a vicar, for God's sake, but has no qualms about leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda or Iraq to the Baath party and al-Qaeda. 'Let's stop this murder and put on trial those criminals who are within our jurisdiction,' began Patrick Daly of south London in an apparently promising letter to the Independent. But, inevitably, he didn't mean the bombers. 'Let's start with the British government.'

And so it went on. At no point did they grasp that Islamism was a reactionary movement as great as fascism, which had claimed millions of mainly Muslim lives in the Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Afghanistan and is claiming thousands in Iraq. As with fascism, it takes a resolute dunderheadedness to put all the responsibility on democratic governments for its existence.

I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them.

But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot. The unavoidable consequence is that you must refuse to support democrats, liberals, feminists and socialists in the Arab world and Iran who are the victims of Islamism in its Sunni and Shia guises because you are too compromised to condemn their persecutors.

Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC.

Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows.

The only plausible excuse for 11 September was that it was a protest against America's support for Israel. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden's statements revealed that he was obsessed with the American troops defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein and had barely said a word about Palestine.

After the Bali bombings, the conventional wisdom was that the Australians had been blown to pieces as a punishment for their government's support for Bush. No one thought for a moment about the Australian forces which stopped Indonesian militias rampaging through East Timor, a small country Indonesia had invaded in 1975 with the backing of the US. Yet when bin Laden spoke, he said it was Australia's anti-imperialist intervention to free a largely Catholic population from a largely Muslim occupying power which had bugged him.

East Timor was a great cause of the left until the Australians made it an embarrassment. So, too, was the suffering of the victims of Saddam, until the tyrant made the mistake of invading Kuwait and becoming America's enemy. In the past two years in Iraq, UN and Red Cross workers have been massacred, trade unionists assassinated, school children and aid workers kidnapped and decapitated and countless people who happened to be on the wrong bus or on the wrong street at the wrong time paid for their mistake with their lives.

What can the survivors do? Not a lot according to a Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He told bin Laden that the northern Kurds may be Sunni but 'Islam's voice has died out among them' and they'd been infiltrated by Jews. The southern Shia were 'a sect of treachery' while any Arab, Kurd, Shia or Sunni who believed in a democratic Iraq was a heretic.

Our options are as limited When Abu Bakr Bashir was arrested for the Bali bombings, he was asked how the families of the dead could avoid the fate of their relatives. 'Please convert to Islam,' he replied. But as the past 40 years have shown, Islamism is mainly concerned with killing and oppressing Muslims.

In his intervention before last year's American presidential election, bin Laden praised Robert Fisk of the Independent whose journalism he admired. 'I consider him to be neutral,' he said, so I suppose we could all resolve not to take the tube unless we can sit next to Mr Fisk. But as the killings are indiscriminate, I can't see how that would help and, in any case, who wants to be stuck on a train with an Independent reporter?

There are many tasks in the coming days. Staying calm, helping the police and protecting Muslim communities from neo-Nazi attack are high among them. But the greatest is to resolve to see the world for what it is and remove the twin vices of wilful myopia and bad faith which have disfigured too much liberal thought for too long.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/10/2005 8:17:19 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
And these are the people the liberals side with and whose prison treatment they fret about.

_____________________________________________________

How best to blow up people on a bus - the chilling video circulating on terrorist websites
News Telegraph ^ | 7/10/2005 | Colin Freeman

A DIY video showing how to make a "suicide-belt" bomb for use on a crowded bus is being circulated among terrorist websites.

The 26-minute tape gives a detailed, step-by-step guide on how to pack the belt with shrapnel and high explosive, and then detonate it on board for maximum loss of life.

In a grim reminder of the blast that devastated the Number 30 in London's Tavistock Place on Thursday, the film's final section shows the device being blown up in a specially arranged "test site", with rows of metal targets designed to simulate passengers on a bus. A voice-over explains exactly where the would-be bomber should sit on the vehicle in order to maximise the blast. A second test-bombing shows how the same bomb will impact on a crowd of people in a street.

The film, a copy of which has been obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, is among a wide range of terrorism training manuals available on internet message boards dedicated to supporting Islamic terrorism.

Little is known about the film's origins, although it is thought to have been shot in the Palestinian territories, where Arab militants have frequently used suicide belts in attacks on Israeli citizens.

It has slick production values that give it the feeling of a corporate video.

As music plays in the background, a voice in Arabic explains, Blue Peter-style, how to manufacture the belt with the help of household items such as glue and Scotch tape.

The video's availability on the internet was disclosed by the Washington-based Search for International Terrorist Entities (Site) Institute, a research establishment which monitors and analyses terrorist websites. It acts as a consultant to several Western intelligence agencies.

"The quality of the video is unbelievable," said Rita Katz, Site's director. "It is more like a production from National Geographic. We think it is the work of Hizbollah from some years ago, but it is being circulated on message boards."

Scotland Yard has tried to play down speculation that Thursday's explosion on the London bus, in which 13 people died, was the work of a suicide bomber. However, detectives say they are keeping an open mind until a forensic analysis of the bus's wreckage is complete.

Even if the inquiry rules it out, the fact that al-Qaeda has used such devices in the past means that it could be a tactic in any further attacks in Britain. The video gives a detailed demonstration of how to make the belt from start to finish, and has a single-minded emphasis to how to kill and maim as many victims as possible.

The voice-over notes: "When the person who will be wearing this explosive vest goes on the bus, and wants to blow himself up, he must be facing the front with his back toward the back.

"There is a possibility that the two seats on his right and his left might not be hit with the shrapnel. However, the explosion will surely kill the passengers in those seats." The video is among dozens of terrorist self-teaching aids circulating on jihadi message boards and websites, alongside manuals on the manufacture of poisonous chemicals and bacteria, urban guerrilla warfare tactics, and the use of rocket-propelled grenades and missiles.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/11/2005 2:56:42 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
From Russia With Gas; 2,100 Stations in U.S. Set to Carry a New Name
Red Nova ^ | 10 July 2005

PHILADELPHIA -- Lukoil, Russia's largest oil company, has launched a marketing offensive to put its name on gas stations across the United States and become as well-known here as it is at home.

Over the past five years, OAO Lukoil pronounced luke-oil has entered the U.S. market by acquiring about 1,300 Getty gas stations and 800 Mobil locations in the Northeast.

It is converting them to its brand and recently launched advertising to introduce itself to consumers in 13 states.

The company plans to keep acquiring assets in the United States, the world's biggest consumer of oil.

The Moscow-based conglomerate is the largest oil producer, refiner and distributor in Russia and second in the world in proven oil and natural gas reserves behind ExxonMobil.

"It is our hope that other major acquisitions will become available as the petroleum sector continues its consolidation," said Vadim Gluzman, president and chief executive of Lukoil Americas Holding Ltd., the oil giant's U.S. arm in East Meadow, N.Y.

"There are numerous opportunities to acquire new businesses in a variety of marketing channels and as a result we are more inclined to acquire existing sites than we are to construct 'new to business' units," said Gluzman. He added that the company is interested in the West Coast and other U.S. regions.

Motorists in the Northeast are increasingly seeing Lukoil's red- and-white gas stations pop up. The company is morphing its Mobil stations at a rate of about 10 a week, up to 78 by the end of June.

"They want to establish their brand name. Everyone knows BP. Why not Lukoil?" said John Connor, portfolio manager of the Third Millennium Russia Fund, where Lukoil represents one of its largest holdings.

"They have a lot of pride in getting the Russian name out and about in the world," Connor said.

That may explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the ribbon-cutting of a Lukoil gas station opening in Manhattan two years ago, shaking hands with employees and strolling through its Kwik Farms convenience store.

Elsewhere, Putin's government is investigating a subsidiary of Lukoil for evading $1.5 million in taxes. The company is disputing the charges, according to spokesman Dmitri Dolgov.

Lukoil's revenue went up by 53 percent to $34 billion in 2004 over the prior year and net income rose by 15 percent to $4.2 billion, thanks to a company restructuring and higher oil prices.

Lukoil has 5,000 gas stations in more than 15 countries, about half of them in the United States.

The company has interests in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, Maine, Delaware, West Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maryland.

Lukoil plunged into the U.S. market with its $70 million purchase of Getty Petroleum Marketing, a marketer of gasoline and petroleum products, and the $270 million acquisition of Mobil stations from ConocoPhillips. In January, ConocoPhillips disclosed that it raised its stake in Lukoil to 10 percent from 7.6 percent.

Unlike the $18.5 billion bid by Chinese oil conglomerate CNOOC Ltd. for California oil company Unocal Corp., Lukoil's purchase didn't raise national security concerns, since it took over gas stations and not control of petroleum assets, Connor said.

$30 million ad budget

To introduce consumers to the brand, Lukoil hired Arnold Worldwide, the ad agency responsible for Volkswagen's successful "Drivers Wanted" TV commercials, to handle its $30 million marketing budget.

The ad campaign's goal is to make consumers warm up to Lukoil as an oil company, said Fran Kelly, president and chief operating officer of the Boston-based ad agency.

"There are only five or six major (gasoline) brands. I don't know if any of them is a particularly likeable brand," he said. "Lukoil has a chance to become a likeable retailer."

Realizing that most American consumers don't have any impressions about the Lukoil brand, the company decided to home in on drivers' love of their automobiles, instead of pumping up the qualities of its gasoline, as many oil companies do.

Arnold came up with what it believes is a consumer-friendly slogan for Lukoil: "We (heart) cars." Advertising proclaims that Lukoil has "car people from head to toe. The kind that drive from the garage to the mailbox."

Lukoil has dispatched interns to gas stations to talk up the company and pass out application forms for its credit card.

It also sponsors sports teams in the Philadelphia area.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/11/2005 2:57:50 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
How a city became the crossroads of terrorism
The Age ^ | July 11, 2005 | Elaine Sciolino and Don Van Natta

Long before bombings ripped through London on Thursday, Britain had become a breeding ground for hate, fed by a militant version of Islam.

For two years, extremists such as Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, 47, a Syrian-born cleric, have played to ever-larger crowds, calling for holy war against Britain and exhorting young Muslim men to join the insurgency in Iraq. In a newspaper interview last April, he warned that "a very well-organised" London-based group, al-Qaeda Europe, was "on the verge of launching a big operation" here.

In a sermon attended by more than 500 people in a central London meeting hall last December, Mohammed vowed that if Western governments did not change their policies, Muslims would give them "a 9/11, day after day after day". If London became a magnet for fiery preachers, it also became a destination for men willing to carry out their threats. For a decade, the city has been a crossroads for would-be terrorists who used it as a home base, where they could raise money, recruit members and draw inspiration from militant messages.

Among them were terrorists involved in attacks in Madrid, Casablanca, Saudi Arabia, Israel and in the September 11 plot. Zacarias Moussaoui, the only man charged in the US in connection with the attacks there, and Richard Reid, the convicted shoe-bomber, both prayed at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London. The mosque's former leader, Abu Hamza al-Masri, openly preached violence for years before the authorities arrested him in April 2004.

Advertisement AdvertisementAlthough Britain has passed anti-terrorist and immigration laws and made nearly 800 arrests since September 11, 2001, critics have charged that its tradition of civil liberties and protection of political activists have made the country a haven for terrorists. The British Government has drawn particular criticism from other countries over its refusal to extradite terrorism suspects, including one man who was convicted for his role in the deadly Casablanca terrorist attacks in 2003.

For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain's tolerance helped stave off Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London's militant clerics turned on Britain after it offered support for the American-led invasion of Iraq. On Thursday morning, an attack long foreseen by worried counter-terrorism officials became a reality.

"The terrorists have come home," said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who works often with British officials. "It is payback time for a policy that was, in my opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British Government to allow these networks to flourish inside Britain."

The terror attacks have heightened the debate here over whether the country needs tougher counter-terrorism laws. So far, the British Government has resisted the temptation to rush through emergency measures that could curb personal freedoms. British Home Secretary Charles Clarke, for example, is resisting calls for new legislative measures and on Friday argued that the imposition of a personal identity card system would not have prevented the attacks.

Investigators examining the London attack are pursuing a theory that the bombers were part of a home-grown sleeper cell, which may or may not have had foreign support for the bomb-making phase of the operation.

If that theory is true, it would reflect the evolution of terror groups around Europe. With many members of al-Qaeda's hierarchy having been captured and killed, a new, more nimble terrorist threat has emerged across Europe, mostly through semi-autonomous, al-Qaeda-inspired local groups that are believed to be operating in France, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and other countries.

"Terrorists are not strangers, foreigners," said Bruno Lemaire, councillor to Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin of France. "They're insiders, well integrated inside the country."

Another Europe-based senior intelligence official said the fear was that there would be additional attacks in other European cities by home-grown sleeper cells inspired by al-Qaeda and by attacks in Casablanca, Madrid and now London.

"This is exactly what we are going to witness in Europe: most of the attacks will be carried out by local groups, the people who have been here for a long time, well integrated into the fabric of society," the official said.

Well before Thursday's bombings, British officials predicted a terrorist attack in their country. In a speech in October 2003, MI5 director-general Eliza Manningham-Buller said she saw "no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from Islamist terrorism over the next five years, and I fear for a considerable number of years thereafter".

Britain's challenge to detect militants on its soil is particularly difficult.

Counter-terrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain support al-Qaeda. Among them, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in camps connected with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

British investigators say that identifying Islamic militants among the 2 million Muslims living here, about 4 per cent of the population, is especially hard. They constitute the most diverse Muslim community in Europe in terms of ethnic origins, culture, history, language, politics and class.



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (35574)7/11/2005 3:03:33 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Jihad Is Knocking
Another Episode in the War between Christendom and Islam
by Bruce Thornton July 9, 2005
Private Papers
victorhanson.com

The slaughter in London is another grisly wake-up call that likely will go as unheeded as earlier ones. Already the standard narrative is being trotted out: evildoers created by what the New York Times predictably called the “root causes of terrorism”: autocracy, or economic stagnation, or Palestinian suffering, or globalization's dislocations, or Western historical sins, or the war in Iraq (the cause will depend on the political prejudices of the pundit) have “hijacked” Islam and distorted its peaceful message. And now they are using Islam to justify murder in order to further their own ambitions or dysfunctional psychic needs. Given this explanation, so the story goes, we must be careful not to demonize all Muslims and assure them that we respect their religion and culture. The tale is then wrapped up with fierce threats against the terrorists and protestations of admiration for Islam.

Believing this delusion requires that one ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic jihad against the West, a war of conquest and colonization ratified by centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called “moderates” — those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights — who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam.

Listen to one of the most respected and influential of Muslim clerics, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, on the legitimacy of jihad: “It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property." (See Andrew Bostom:).This interpretation is entirely consistent with fourteen centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, which in turn is based on the Koran's injunction to “slay them [infidels] wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter . . . . Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” And this jihad is to continue “until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.”

Islam's divinely sanctioned entitlement to global domination explains the symbolic value of the London attacks: one day after London was chosen to host the 2012 Olympics, and right in the middle of the G8 summit in Scotland. For both the Olympics and the G8 represent a global order that rivals Islam, one based on Western ideals and institutions, a social and political order in which Islam has no exalted position but is simply one religion among many. And, we should add, a global order whose notions of individual rights and secular government are incompatible with Islamic law.

So much is obvious — facts of the historical record. Yet listen to a respected historian in a conservative magazine: “Muslim holy wars (“jihads”), as taught in the Koran, were first and foremost a personal inner struggle for moral purity” and only secondarily a war against infidels. So all those Muslim armies that conquered the Christian Near East, North Africa, Egypt, Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, all that plunder, slaughter, rape, enslavement, kidnapping, and destruction were only the “secondary” jihad. How could such blindness to the obvious, masquerading as sophisticated “tolerance,” not arouse contempt in the minds of our adversaries? They tell us over and over that they are waging jihad in order to establish the global hegemony of Islam, and we tell ourselves that these Muslims don't understand their own religion. Millions and millions of Muslims all over the world cheer for the jihadists and support them materially and psychologically, millions idolize bin Laden and celebrate the murder of Westerners, but we tell ourselves that they are a minority of confused souls whose minds have been addled by poverty or autocracy or anger over the Palestinians.

In any conflict it's a good idea to take seriously the motives the enemy professes and not rationalize or explain them away in terms of your own cultural assumptions. The murderers we call terrorists are traditional jihadists, as much as were the first Islamic armies that swept away the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman civilizations of the Mediterranean. They are not going to be bought off with votes, a free press, more cable channels, Wal-Mart, or any other material good that to us constitutes the good life. They are fighting for a spiritual cause, the establishment of Islam as a global order in fulfillment of the will of Allah, and the reduction of all those who will not become Muslims to dhimmi, inferiors who acknowledge the superiority of Islam and the rightness of their subjection to it.

The next few weeks will show whether the British have advanced as far down the road of dhimmitude as have the Spaniards, who responded to the murder of their citizens not with the force and resistance their ancestors showed for seven centuries, but with fear and appeasement. As for us, we'd better discard our illusions that the jihadists, as Thomas Freidman put it, are “a cancer within the [Islamic] body politic” and accept instead that jihad just may be a vital organ. Then maybe we can see this war for what it is: one more episode in the long struggle between what used to be called Christendom and a religion of aggressive conquest and colonization.