Iraq War Movies

this article below that you can click on the link to read further. The article shows that so far the movies that have covered the Iraq war and other parts of the War on Terror have not done well at the box office. The reason, according to the article, is that they have been all from an anti-American point of view and challenges Hollywood to make a less anti-American movie and see what the results would be. I hope you find this interesting.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/9c931de8-51ae-4b73-96d2-e3e9c35d8f35
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Americans Generally Support Their Military, And Not Movies That Don'tPosted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:10 AM
From the WaPo this week:
A spate of Iraq-themed movies and TV shows haven't just failed at the box office. They've usually failed spectacularly, despite big stars, big budgets and serious intentions. The underwhelming reception from the public raises a question: Are audiences turned off by the war, or are they simply voting against the way filmmakers have depicted it? It would require a movie depicting the heroism and nobility of the mission in Afghanistan and Iraq to get a real answer to that question, and none have been made. The story focuses on the half-dozen anti-war films that have been spectacular box office flops. Only Hollywood couldn't figure this out.

Debt - Whose fault?

this article that describes some of the coverage you get about this topic in the news, and you can click on the links if you want for further info. This is an emotional topic and everyone has opinions. Anyway, let me know what you think of this article.

DEBTWho’$ responsible?
Networks blame business, not borrowers,for America’s spendthrift ways
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A joint study from the Business & Media Institute and Culture & Media InstituteBy Kristen Fyfe and Julia A. Seymour
See Full Report PDF Version
More than 600,000 homes are currently in foreclosure; both houses of Congress and the president have proposed different bailout plans for the mortgage “crisis;” and Americans are drowning in $2.4 trillion worth of red ink. But the problems of consumer debt are made worse because the liberal media ignore personal responsibility and instead use the issue to beat up on businesses that lend money to people who want to borrow. Two divisions of the Media Research Center analyzed evening news reporting on debt from Nov. 28, 2006, (shopping’s Black Friday) through Aug. 31, 2007. The Business & Media Institute and Culture and Media Institute examined 156 stories and found that ABC, CBS and NBC overwhelmingly blamed business for “luring” consumers to make bad decisions. At the same time, the three networks ignored personal responsibility and portrayed borrowers as helpless victims who had no hand in their own financial failures. These are some of the findings:
Irresponsible Borrowers off the Hook: Sixty-two percent of the stories on the three networks ignored the consumer’s responsibility for debt. - Just as many portrayed borrowers as victims, such as the North Carolina family “living off peanut butter and jelly” just to make the mortgage payment.
Business Gets a Black Eye: Lenders and related companies were blamed for borrowers’ debt troubles six times as often as borrowers. ABC and NBC even blamed the National Football League for retired players’ financial woes.
A Penny Saved or Spent: While network reporters occasionally complained about Americans’ negative savings rate, the ideas of savings and thrift were virtually ignored throughout the nine-month period. Only 14 percent of debt-related stories mentioned a savings or thrift theme.
Scary Words about the Economy: Exaggerated descriptions were often used to describe the economy. The terms “economic tsunami,” “chaos,” “crisis” and “meltdown” painted a bleak scenario that could undermine consumer confidence. Networks included doom-and-gloom remarks from ordinary people and experts 88 times, and the term “recession” was mentioned 10 times.
NBC the Worst: “Nightly News” blamed business nine times as often as borrowers (19 to 2), and tied with “World News with Charles Gibson” in ignoring the issue of personal responsibility. Both networks omitted it in 66 percent of the stories but NBC outdid itself with its poor coverage.
CBS the Best: CBS was the network most likely to address or promote personal responsibility and also had eight stories promoting savings. The “Evening News” also portrayed fewer people as victims than the other networks. To improve coverage, BMI and CMI recommend:
Include business perspective: The media should include the business side more often by interviewing lenders, brokers, bankers, etc. This would help balance reports and educate viewers about how businesses assess risk and make other important decisions. When businessmen are unavailable or unwilling to talk, reporters should interview industry associations and think tanks to ensure a balanced report.
Personal responsibility is a vital component of the debt story: No one forces anyone to take out a loan or get a credit card. The inclusion of personal responsibility in stories related to debt and finances is important because it tells a more comprehensive and honest story. Journalists who use profile pieces to humanize their stories should include the personal responsibility angle.
Borrowers aren’t automatically victims: Journalists shouldn’t simply take the side of borrowers and depict them as victims. The media need to remember that every financial agreement includes at least two parties taking risks and desiring the same outcome – to pay off the loan. Don’t save all the hard questions for businesspeople. It is reasonable to ask borrowers tough questions about the assumptions and financial decisions they made.
Savings and thrift are important stories, too: One of the most responsible things any American can do is to save money for a rainy day. Rather than reporting doom and gloom on issues related to finance, the networks can report on how Americans are saving and securing their own financial futures.
Take a cue from the morning shows: Networks utilize financial consultants and experts who give good financial advice to viewers of their morning shows. Evening newscasts would be well served by employing these same experts in their coverage of finance.
Read the Full Report

Sarkozy's New French Strategy

this article below because it does give an interesting take on Mr. Sarkozy's new foreign policy. Some of the items are now similar to the stated U.S. foreign policy and the article gives some analysis of that. Anyway, I hope you find this article timely and interesting.



A New French Strategy



March 25, 2008

Related Special Topic Page
Europe’s Return to Power PoliticsBy George FriedmanFrench President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the week of March 16 that France is cutting its nuclear arsenal to less than 300 warheads, which he said was less than half the number France had during the Cold War. Meanwhile, plans are under way in Paris to return to full membership in NATO; Sarkozy will travel to London the week of March 23 to discuss reintegration. Sarkozy spoke while attending the launch of France’s newest nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine in Cherbourg. During his speech, he added that, at present, none of France’s nuclear weapons is aimed at anyone. During the same appearance he said, “All those who threaten to attack our vital interests expose themselves to a severe riposte by France.” This was said in the context of discussions of Iran, which he said was among those countries in the process of developing nuclear weapons. France is simultaneously calling attention to its nuclear capability and adopting an increasingly hostile posture toward Iran. While the media focus is on Sarkozy, it seems to us that this issue goes deeper than personalities. Processes are under way that are shifting French foreign policy.The shift is not a dramatic one yet; there is more continuity than discontinuity in French foreign policy. Like all French leaders for the last half-century, Sarkozy is focusing on his country’s strategic independence, particularly on its nuclear capability. At the same time, France is aligning itself more closely with the U.S. view of Iran, and, to some extent, with the U.S. view of the Middle East. In doing so, France is creating stresses within the European Union and reshaping its relationship with Germany. These small changes have broad implications that need to be understood.
Foreign Policy Since 1871Since 1871, France has had two foreign policies. The year 1871 saw German unification. Prior to 1871, the fragmentation of Germany into numerous ministates secured France’s eastern frontier; France concerned itself with the rest of Atlantic Europe, particularly Spain and England. German unification redefined French geopolitics by creating a major power to its east. This major power was insecure because it was caught between France, Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. German insecurity made it a threat to France. A united Germany had to deal with the causes of that insecurity, and France was one of those causes. German unification effectively coincided with the defeat of France by Prussia, and drove home the significance of a unified Germany.From German unification and the Franco-Prussian war until 1945, the essence of French foreign policy consisted of managing Germany. That meant France had to change its relationship with its historic rival, the United Kingdom, and keep Russia aligned with the Anglo-French alliance. For more than 80 years, French foreign policy could be boiled down to containing Germany. The strategy proved successful, assuming one accepts the losses incurred in World War I and five years of occupation during World War II. In the end, France survived.This set in place France’s second post-1871 strategy, which evolved over the 1950s until its institutionalization by Charles de Gaulle. This postwar strategy consisted of two parts. The first part involved embedding France into multinational institutions, particularly the European Economic Community (EEC) — which evolved into the European Union — and NATO. The second part involved using these institutions to preserve French sovereignty and independence. Put differently, France’s strategy was to participate in multinational structures while using them for its own ends, or at least defining a limited relationship with the structures.France’s overriding concern was to avoid getting caught in a third world war after having been devastated by the first two world wars. Preventing this outcome meant exploiting German disunification, effectively ending France’s primordial fear of Germany. It did this in two ways. The first involved drawing close to West Germany economically, creating a system of relationships that would make Franco-German conflict impossible. The second involved blocking the Soviet threat by participating in NATO. France’s problem was that the deeper that it went into European institutions and NATO, the more tenuous its sovereignty became. It needed the economic and military relationship with Germany, but it had to retain its room for maneuver. More precisely, it wanted to draw closer to Germany and take advantage of a collective security scheme, but not become a client state of the United States. It therefore belonged to NATO, but pulled out of the alliance’s integrated military command structure in 1966. NATO’s military structure made certain responses to a Soviet invasion automatic. France refused to allow its response to be automatic, but remained committed to collective defense. France was concerned with maximizing its autonomy, but it had a deeper fear as well. The defense of Western Europe was predicated on U.S. intervention. The doctrine of massive response held that, in the event of a Soviet invasion that could not be contained conventionally, the United States would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. The U.S. position was thus to initiate a nuclear war that would potentially see America’s cities decimated, all in order to protect Europe.The French problem, however, was that Paris would not know whether Washington would honor this commitment until after the initiation of hostilities. From the French point of view, it would be irrational for the United States to invite its own devastation to protect Europe. Therefore, the American commitment was at best untestable. At worst, it was an implausible and transparent attempt to jeopardize Europe so as to deter a Soviet attack without the United States risking anything fundamental.
An Independent DeterrentThe need to protect French sovereignty intersected with what Paris saw as a genuine requirement to maintain a military capability outside the framework of NATO, all the while remaining part of NATO and the EEC. France wanted NATO to function. It wanted to be close to Germany. And it wanted a set of options outside the context of NATO that would guarantee that France would not be reoccupied, this time by the Soviets.The decision to construct an independent French nuclear deterrent was based on this reasoning. As de Gaulle put it, France wanted to retain the ability to tear off an arm if the Soviets attacked France through Germany. It was unsure whether the United States would act to deter the Soviet Union, but even a small nuclear force in the hands of a power likely to suffer occupation — and thus a force very likely to be used — would deter the Soviets. Therefore, the French developed (and retain) the nuclear force that Sarkozy decided to cut but not eliminate.This issue remained at the heart of U.S.-French tensions both during and after the Cold War. The American view was that the United States and all of Western Europe (plus some Mediterranean countries) had a vested interest in resisting the Soviets, and they could do so most effectively by joining in multilateral economic and military organizations allowing them to operate in concert. The Americans viewed the French reluctance to follow suit as France seeking a free ride. From the American point of view, the U.S. bore the brunt of the cost of defending Europe, as well as underwriting Europe’s economic recovery in the early years. France benefited from both, and would benefit as long as the United States defended Germany. Paris wanted the benefits of the American presence without committing itself to burden-sharing. Put another way, how could the Americans be certain that, in the event of war, France would protect Germany, Italy or Turkey? Perhaps Paris would remain alo of unless France were attacked. The French mistrust of the credibility of U.S. commitment to Europe collided with American mistrust of French reasons for being part of NATO without committing itself to collaborate automatically in NATO’s response to the Soviets. France was comfortable with this ambiguity. It needed it. It needed to integrate economically with the Germans, to be part of NATO, but to retain its own options for national defense. If this meant increasing American distrust, and even a sense of betrayal, this was something France must tolerate to achieve its strategic goals. With the fall of the Soviet Union, France entered a new strategic phase. The French responded to the Soviet collapse and to German reunification by maintaining and extending its core policy. It remained ambiguously part of NATO, participating as it saw fit. It really concentrated on transforming the European Union into a multinational federation, with its own integrated foreign policy and defense policy. This position appears paradoxical. On the one hand, France wanted to maintain its national sovereignty and freedom of action. On the other, it wanted to be a counterbalance to the United States and to draw ever closer to Germany — permanently eliminating the historic danger from its eastern neighbor, however distant the German threat might appear under current circumstances. France could not resist the United States alone. It could do so only in the context of a European federation, which would of course include the critical French relationship with Germany.
Independence vs. EuropeFrance therefore had to choose between a wholly independent foreign policy and federation with Europe. It tried to have its cake and eat it too. It supported the principle of federation, and within this federation it sought a particularly close relationship with Germany. But its view of this new federation was that while, in a formal sense, France would abandon a degree of sovereignty, in practical terms — so long as France could be the senior partner to Germany — the French would dominate a European federation. In effect, federation would open the door to a Europe directed, if not dominated, by Paris.This is why Central Europe revolted against French President Jacques Chirac on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Central Europeans were not particularly enthusiastic about the war, but they were far less enthusiastic about Chirac’s actions. From their point of view, he was using the Iraq issue to create a European bloc, led by France in opposition to the United States. For a country such as Poland that had relied on French (and British) guarantees prior to World War II, the idea that France should lead a Europe in opposition to the United States was unacceptable. Chirac gave a famous press conference in which he condemned the Central European rejection of French opposition to the invasion as representing nations that were “not well brought up.” This was the moment in which French frustration welled over.France was not going to get the federation it hoped for. Too many countries of Europe wanted to retain their freedom of action, this time from France. They were not opposed to economic union, but the creation of a federation with a joint foreign and defense policy was not enthusiastically greeted by smaller European countries (and some not-so-small countries such as Britain, Spain and Italy). As anti-federationism grew, it swept forward to include France as well, which rejected the European constitution in a plebiscite. This moment was the existential crisis that created the Sarkozy presidency. Sarkozy has raised two questions that have been fundamental to France. The first is France’s relationship to Germany. France has been obsessed with Germany since 1871, at first hostile, later nearly married, but always obsessed. The second question relates to France’s relationship to the United States. Chirac represented postwar Gaullism’s view in its most extreme form: Convert European institutions into a French-dominated multinational force to balance U.S. power. This attempt collapsed, so Sarkozy had to define the relationship France might have with the United States if France could not counterbalance the United States.
The Mediterranean UnionThe questions of Germany and of the United States were addressed in the French idea of a Mediterranean Union. Since German unification in 1871, France has obsessed about the north German plain. But France is also a Mediterranean power, with long-term interests in North Africa and the Middle East in such countries as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Syria. Where Germany is entirely a northern European power, France is not. Therefore, Chirac proposed that, in addition to being a member of the European Union, France should create a separate and distinct Mediterranean Europe. The latter grouping would include the rest of th e Mediterranean basin, extending as far as Turkey and Israel. It would exclude non-Mediterranean powers such as Germany and Britain, however.France had no intention of withdrawing from the European Union, but saw the Mediterranean Union as a supplemental relationship, and argued that it would allow EU expansion without actually admitting new EU members. The Germans saw this as a French attempt to become Europe’s strategic pivot, leading both unions and serving as the only member that was both a northern European and a Mediterranean power. The Germans did not like this scenario one bit. The French then backed off, but did not abandon the idea.If the French are going to be a Mediterranean power, they must also be a Middle Eastern power. If they are playing in the Middle East, they must redefine their relationship with the United States. Sarkozy has done that by drawing systematically closer to American views on Iran, Syria and Lebanon. In other words, to pursue this new course, the French have drawn away from the Germans and closer to the Americans.This is all very early in the game, and the moves so far are very small. But the French have slightly backed off from their German obsession and their fear of the United States. The collapse of European federationism has set off a reconsideration of France’s global role, a reconsideration that will — if continued — radically redefine France’s core relationships. What the French are doing is what they have done for years: They are looking for maximum freedom of action for France without undue risk. Though France has long pursued its interests with consistency, its current moves are different. It appears to be pulling away from Germany and seeking power in the Mediterranean. And that means working with the Americans.Tell George what you think

Dollar & Oil

I wanted to send this article that might be interesting because it does give a different point of view from what a lot of people are saying. I know this article is somewhat technical and you might have to read it more than once, but try and read this article with an open mind and let me know where you think he is wrong if you do think he is.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/22/are-media-right-about-lower-dollar-causing-higher-oil-prices
Are Media Right About a Lower Dollar Causing Higher Oil Prices?

By Noel Sheppard March 22, 2008 - 13:18 ET
A fairly common media meme during the past year or so has been that the continually declining value of the dollar is driving up oil and gas prices (image courtesy Slate).In the past three months alone, there have been over 100 stories involving this very subject, including this March 10 piece from U.S. News & World Report entitled "Why Gas Prices Rise as the Dollar Falls (emphasis added):
Here's one of those complex economic truisms the financial press assumes everybody understands: A big reason oil and gas prices are hitting record highs is that the dollar is hitting record lows. The beauty of this "truism" is that it allows media outlets to blame oil and gas price rises on the Bush administration, as everybody knows that the lower dollar is all their fault (wink, wink...nudge, nudge).Of course, an examination of oil and Dollar Index charts does show an inverse correlation, meaning that as oil prices rise, the dollar drops and vice versa (charts provided by TradingCharts.com):
Story Continues Below Ad
Looks like a pretty strong correlation, correct? Yet, if you recall from your high school chemistry and/or statistics, correlation does not mean causality.Sadly, akin to how media members and Al Gore believe a correlation between rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past 150 years and rising global temperatures means the former is causing the latter, they also believe that this inverse correlation between a falling dollar and rising oil prices is similarly conclusive.From that previously cited U.S. News article, here's one explanation from Kristin Forbes, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and former member of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers:
Oil is priced in dollars on the world market. When the dollar is weaker, foreign currencies are stronger, by definition. That means people in other countries can buy more oil for the same amount of money. So let's assume oil is $100 per barrel, and $100 is equal to 70 euros. If the euro appreciates against the dollar by 10 percent, then instead of 70 euros it will take only 63 euros to buy one barrel of oil. So that oil becomes cheaper to foreigners, and they can buy more.Well, this would be the case if the value of the euro was rising as oil prices remained stable. However, that's not been the case. In fact, although the euro has risen against the dollar in the past seven years, the percentage movement in oil's rise is significantly greater:
So, as can be plainly seen, the euro has less than doubled in value against the dollar in the past seven years. At the same time, oil has gone up fivefold.
As such, despite the dollar's fall, oil prices in Europe in real terms (meaning including currency translation) have still risen dramatically thereby refuting the contention that the dollar's decline in recent years has made oil cheaper abroad resulting in higher demand.
To make this clearer, in 2001, when oil was at $20/bbl, and the euro was worth $0.90, that meant a barrel of oil cost about 22 euros. Today, with oil at let's say $100/bbl, and the euro at let's say $1.50, this means oil costs almost 67 euros, or three times what it did in 2001.
Think this rise is what's responsible for Europe's increased demand for oil and gas in Europe? Or, is it more likely being caused by a growing economy?
In the end, I think most liberal media members and some economists have this all wrong, and that it is increasing oil prices that is adding to the dollar's decline. Since oil is traded around the world in dollars, and America imports such a huge amount of oil, as oil prices rise, America is exporting more and more of its currency abroad.
Consider what's happened to the Canadian dollar in the past seven years, and that this is the country America imports the highest amount of oil from:

Pretty big move, yes? How much of it might be due to Canadian oil producers converting U.S. dollars into Canadian dollars on a regular basis?
After all, since oil is traded in dollars, when we buy oil from Canada, we do it in U.S. dollars. That forces the Canadian oil producer to convert those U.S. dollars to Canadian dollars, correct? And, how do they do that? By selling U.S. dollars and buying Canadian dollars.
This drives down the value of the U.S. dollar, and up the value of the Canadian. Make sense?
To be sure, there are many other factors in determining currency translations, primary amongst them being interest rates. As money is always chasing yield, countries with higher interest rates typically have stronger currencies.
Consider that after the Federal Reserve's interest rate cuts last week, our Fed Funds rate is currently 2.25 percent. Compare this to the 4.00 percent rate of the European Central Bank, and you can imagine that international investors are much more interested in fixed income vehicles based in euros over those denominated in dollars.
Sadly, such logic and economic reality eludes most media members looking to blame everything on George W. Bush.
Speaking of last week's Fed action, one would have expected such a huge reduction in interest rates to cause a further weakening of the dollar unless coordinated with interest rate cuts by central banks around the world. Yet, that's not what happened.
In fact, the dollar staged a huge rally in the final three days of trading last week after the Fed cut the Funds rate by 75 bps:

At the same time, oil plummeted:

Frankly, I think what we saw last week proved that media have this all backwards, and that higher oil prices are negatively impacting the dollar rather than vice versa. Why?
Well, because given the Fed's cut in interest rates Tuesday, if oil is trading off of the dollar, the dollar should have declined after the Fed's announcement, and oil risen.
Instead, I believe the precipitous decline in oil last week trumped the Fed's interest rate cuts as far as currency traders were concerned, and the dollar rallied on lower oil prices.
Who's right? Well, if oil continues lower as do U.S. interest rates, and the dollar continues to rally, one would have to conclude that the dollar is trading off of oil prices and not the other way around.
Does that mean media will change their tune? Of course they will -- once a Democrat, heaven forbid, is back in the White House. —Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Iraq Vs Gaza

this article which describes the difference between the U.S. in Iraq and Israel in Gaza. It is an interesting comparison.

Bush's Speech
Key graph:
“The surge has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around -- it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. For the terrorists, Iraq was supposed to be the place where al Qaeda rallied Arab masses to drive America out. Instead, Iraq has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al Qaeda out. In Iraq, we are witnessing the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden, his grim ideology, and his murderous network. And the significance of this development cannot be overstated. The terrorist movement feeds on a sense of inevitability, and claims to rise on the tide of history. The accomplishments of the surge in Iraq are exposing this myth and discrediting the extremists. When Iraqi and American forces finish the job, the effects will reverberate far beyond Iraq's borders. Osama bin Laden once said: 'When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.' By defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we will show the world that al Qaeda is the weak horse.It's true that the Awakening in Anbar represented the first time that Muslims violently rejected the totalitarian ideology of al Qaeda. One can debate endlessly whether the success of the surge created room for the Awakening or whether the success of the Awakening created room for the surge, but the result is the same. And we have routed al Qaeda from most of the country--the final blow is likely to come soon in Mosul. The Israeli experience of the last few years offers a real lesson here. They pulled out of Lebanon--unilaterally and not out of military necessity--and Hezbollah claimed victory. More than that, Hezbollah became the vanguard of global jihad. Likewise in Gaza. The Israelis withdrew--unilaterally and not out of military necessity--and Hamas claimed victory. More than that, they overthrew Fatah and radicalized the Palestinian population (really, they are more radical). If we pull out of Iraq, al Qaeda will claim victory--that much is certain. It will also grow stronger--who would stop it? This is an intolerable outcome. Five years after the initial invasion, nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have died, thousands more have been injured, and much work remains to be done. But it is foolish to think that things couldn't get worse if U.S. troops were to leave, and there is every reason to believe that U.S. troops are finally on the path to victory.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/bushs_speech.asp

End of Secular Turkey -UCG Post

I wanted to send you this article below about Turkey from our church's web site in Europe. If you look at a world map, you can see how close Turkey is to Kosovo another place I've sent some articles about. Anyway, let me know if you have any comments.


Start of last round for a secular Turkey?
Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan faces a legal challenge that may mean the end ofTurkey's "Kemalist doctrine". The Turkish attorney general wants to ban Erdogan's party.by Paul KiefferMarch 18, 2008
Turkish leader Recept Erdogan with his wife. Mrs. Erdogan is wearing a Muslim head scarf.

The legal arm of the Turkish state has decided to take on the Islamic fundamentalist "Justice and Development Party" (AKP) of Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan. On Friday Turkish attorney general Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya placed a request to ban the AKP before the Turkish constitutional court, a measure which would remove Erdogan from office. Yalcinkaya charges that the AKP has become a focal point for activities directed against Turkey's secular state, reflecting the "Kemalist doctrine" of strict separation of church and state, a pillar of the modern Turkish Republic. Yalcinkaya also wants to prohibit Erdogan, Turkish state president Abdullah Gül and 69 other AKP leaders from any further political activity for at least five years, regardless of what party they might be affiliated with.According to media reports, Turkey's top state lawyer presented 162 pages of evidence and video material to the constitutional court. Among the examples cited are 61 individual charges against Erdogan, including a 2006 quote in which Erdogan claims never to have changed his views. In the 1990s Erdogan voiced support for using the Islamic sharia code of law and said that democracy was only a means to an end. In a 2004 election campaign a local AKP candidate based his campaign on the pledge that the AKP would put an end to Turkey's 80 year misfortune (the Turkish Republic with its Kemalist doctrine).Erdogan and other AKP leaders reacted to Yalcinkayas legal move with language that amounts to a political "declaration of war" on the Kemalist camp. Erdogan even quoted from the Koran: "They have ears, but do not hear; they have eyes, but do not see" – from a passage about spirits created for hell. Erdogan add that those responsible for requesting the ban on his party will bear the consequences for their actions. One of his political allies even appeared to issue a threat: "Death is the greatest truth. The attorney general has to know that."Erdogan believes that the attempt to ban his party will backfire: "This will only make us stronger." Three mass demonstrations organized since Friday gave the Turkish prime minister an opportunity to take his case to the people. His party won 47 percent of the popular vote in the last national election and controls the Turkish parliament. In fact, Erdogan has already announced his intention to initiate a change in Turkey's constitution that would require the constitutional court to make a unanimous decision in his case. A majority of the court's judges are Kemalists, but requiring a unanimous decision would mean that the request for a ban would fail to gain court approval. Erdogan's party already changed the constitution earlier this year to allow Muslim students to wear a traditional head scarf during university attendance. That move prompted the attorney general to seek legal action against the AKP.If the constitutional court decides to initiate proceedings against the AKP and its leaders, the result will be months of legal wrangling that will effectively paralyze the Turkish government. Negotiations on Turkish membership in the European Union will also be delayed.On the other hand, if the judges reject the attorney general's request, Erdogan will be proven right. His party will be strengthened, and the Kemalists will have lost a major battle in their effort to preserve Turkey as a non-religious state with a predominantly Muslim population. The AKP has already shown that it will make use of its dominant position to change the Turkish constitution to its liking. In fact, a legal defeat may mean that it will be nearly impossible to stop any movement toward greater Islamic influence in Turkish society – unless the Turkish military intervenes.A decision was expected today. However, in a move seen as a concession to popular opinion, Turkey's constitutional court announced that it would need the full ten days allowed by law to examine the evidence present by attorney general Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya before announcing its decision.• Paul Kieffer, March 17, 2008
[ Top ] [ Back ] [ Home ] [ Print ] [ Email article ]

China & Al Qaida

I sent a previous article http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/chinese-olympics-tibet.html about the Tibet strikes disrupting the Chinese Olympics. The article below is a follow up discussing whether there really is a terrorist threat in China. On the one hand is the totalitarian regime of Communist China and on the other is a group heavily inspired by Al-Qaida. If you look on a world map, you'll see that this region of China is very close to northern Pakistan where many believe OBL is still hiding. This is an interesting "South" vs "East" skirmish. Anyway, let me know if you have any comments.


China: An Outside-the-Box Terrorist Plot?
March 19, 2008
By Fred Burton and Scott StewartChinese authorities reported March 18 that an incident earlier in the month aboard a domestic flight was an attempted militant attack orchestrated by separatists living abroad. The incident in question occurred March 7 on China Southern Airlines flight CZ6901, which was flying from Urumqi in Xinjiang province to Beijing. Some 40 minutes into the flight, a woman reportedly was confronted by the crew, who discovered her in a restroom with two gasoline-filled soft drink cans she had managed to smuggle onboard. Apparently, she intended to ignite the fuel while in the restroom, which was located near the wing of the Boeing 757. The woman was restrained and the pilot made an emergency landing in Lanzhou, capital of northwestern Gansu province.The reaction to this incident has been mixed in the West. Many analysts have eyed Beijing’s report with skepticism, noting that it appeared in the midst of repeated government warnings concerning a Uighur militant threat. Others have called the incident an atypical, amateurish and impractical plot that could not possibly have been the work of a sophisticated terrorist group.This plot, however, was potentially more devastating than some would believe. Fire is incredibly dangerous aboard an aircraft, and using fire accelerated by something like gasoline could provide the outside-the-box type of attack that militants could turn to in the face of security restrictions aimed at preventing explosives and other weapons from being smuggled aboard aircraft.
Claims and ReactionsChina has invoked the specter of the Uighur militant threat quite frequently in recent months. Indeed, China has warned for several years now that the biggest security threat to its 2008 Olympic Games comes from Xinjiang’s Uighur militants, especially the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) and other East Turkistan militant groups. Many suspect that these warnings are intended to provide political cover for a crackdown on China’s minority Uighurs, a majority of whom are Muslims, before the Beijing Olympics begins in August. It is widely understood that China’s government wants to prevent any incident that could cause it international embarrassment during its spotlight moment as the Olympic host. It also is believed that the Chinese government has played on Western fears of Islamist militants in order to avoid criticism for the aggressive security measures it is instituting for the Olympics. In fact, the security measures are designed to cover any eventuality — to prevent embarrassing political incidents as well as to counter legitimate security threats. The sense that the Chinese are “crying Uighur,” however, has damaged their credibility abroad, so the claim that they have thwarted a militant attack has met with a large degree of skepticism.Uighur dissidents and human rights activists deny Beijing’s charges, saying the claims are politically motivated. It should be noted, however, that Uighur militant groups have conducted attacks in the past, and there are Uighur groups and individuals who seek to commit such attacks today. In several attacks during the 1990s, Uighur militants targeted transportation targets such as buses, bridges and trains in an effort to cause mass casualties. In some instances they succeeded. In February 1998, for example, an improvised explosive device exploded under a bridge in Wuhan, killing 50 people, many of whom were riding a bus. Uighur militants have conducted attacks in Beijing and other parts of China outside of Xinjiang.Some observers and human rights activists believe the paltry evidence Beijing has released to support its claim suggests it manufactured the incident in order to meet its political objectives. If the Chinese government really thwarted a major attack, it would have been more forthcoming with proof, some skeptics have said. The skepticism was further heightened when the government twice amended its earlier report that a group of Uighurs was behind the plot. Beijing later said the plot involved only one woman. Most recently, the government has said the woman was acting on behalf of a group from abroad. However, the slow release of information about this incident and the fact that it was labeled a militant plot well after the fact suggest that the plot was genuine. It seems the Chinese themselves are only slowly coming to understand the implications of the incident and the details of what occurred seem to be supported by accounts that have appeared on various blogs from people who were onboard the plane. Chinese security sources have informed Stratfor that the woman involved in the incident claimed she had recently married a member of the ETIM, who took her on two practice flights prior to the attempted attack. The sources advise that the woman was discovered when the crew noticed she took too long in the bathroom and they became concerned she might have experienced a health-related problem. When crew members entered the bathroom, they smelled the gasoline fumes and restrained her after they saw her hurriedly place the cans in a trash bin, according to the sources. The woman reportedly would have had more than enough time to light the gasoline and it is believed the plot failed only because she got cold feet and chose not to go ahead. The man who trained the woman and allegedly orchestrated the attempted attack was not on the plane the day of the incident and has reportedly left the country. Some have claimed this incident is an attempt by the Chinese government to frame the Uighurs — especially given that Beijing has long invoked the Uighur threat. Although the Chinese government is sophisticated in its propaganda operations — and it certainly is capable of orchestrating such an event — this incident appears to have too many ragged edges to have been a professionally spun frame-up. In such a fabricated case, the Chinese authorities would have had everything neatly tied up and packaged for world media consumption. Everything would be crisp, clear and readily evident; it certainly would not be as murky as this case. Furthermore, if a Chinese government employee had been assigned with manufacturing such an incident, he or she would have conjured up a more menacing substance than gasoline. For example, the government could have claimed that the woman planned to detonate two 12-ounce cans of PLX or Astrolite liquid explosives. The authorities could then have said the claim had been verified by a government laboratory — and nobody outside of China would ever have been the wiser. In other words, a fabricated scenario could have made the plot appear much more threatening. Also lending credence to the Chinese government’s claim is the reaction to the incident by Chinese civil aviation authorities. On March 13, China’s General Administration of Civil Aviation (CAAC) implemented tighter security measures designed to guarantee passenger safety. The measures include a ban on liquids in carry-on items, increased hand luggage inspections and body checks. CAAC also ended express check-in services for frequent flyers. The woman involved in the March 7 incident reportedly used one of these inspection points to board the aircraft with soft drink cans that had been emptied of their contents and refilled with gasoline using a syringe. The tiny access holes in the cans were then patched. China’s new security measures are similar to those implemented in the United Kingdom in August 2006 — and then across the West — immediately after the disruption of a plot to destroy airliners using liquid explosives. International security measures were later relaxed to current regulations that allow travelers to carry small bottles of liquids that can fit inside a clear one-liter plastic bag. It is interesting to note that the restrictions just imposed on travelers in China clearly seem to be a natural knee-jerk reaction by aviation security authorities to a real threat. They do not appear to be what one would expect to see in a calculated response to a ruse.
Tactical AspectsIn addition to citing the political environment surrounding this incident, some security analysts doubt this plot was the real thing because of the method of attack. They argue that using an accelerant to start a fire is an unusual and impractical weapon.It is important to understand that fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft. This not only is because of the oxygen-rich environment aboard a plane, the sensitive nature of avionic controls and the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel, but also because of the toxic smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make up an aircraft. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the September 1998 incident involving Swiss Air Flight 111, in which all 229 people aboard were killed after the crew members were overcome by smoke, and the May 1996 Value Jet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke inhalation. In fact, because of the danger presented by fire and smoke on aircraft, an arson attack aboard a commercial flight could prove even more deadly than an attack involving a small improvised explosive device (IED). Many small IED attacks on airliners have not resulted in catastrophic failures of the aircraft. On the contrary, several have produced only a few casualties. Cases in point include the bombing of TWA flight 840 in April 1986, which killed four people, and the bombings of Pan Am flight 830 in August 1982 and Philippines Airlines flight 434 in December 1994, both of which killed one person. An aircraft lavatory is an ideal place to start a fire because paper products that can be used as secondary fuel for the fire are in abundance. It also allows the perpetrator to lock the door, thus impeding the crew’s ability to extinguish the blaze quickly. Additionally, if a fire could be established behind the plane’s plastic wall panels, it could spread quickly and be very difficult to extinguish. A fire created by 24 ounces of gasoline and fed by large quantities of paper towels and toilet paper could prove to be catastrophic to an aircraft. Had the March 7 attack succeeded — and it very well could have had the woman not backed out at the last minute — it could have been the deadliest terrorist attack in recent Chinese history, given the plane was carrying more than 200 passengers and crew. Although some have said that using gasoline or other accelerants is not in the jihadist playbook, the explosive-actuated incendiary devices employed in London and Glasgow, Scotland in June 2007 suggest otherwise. Jihadists also have attempted to use timed incendiary devices in Germany and have successfully used incendiary devices to conduct a deadly attack against a train in India. Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed, they also have the advantage over explosive devices of involving readily available materials such as gasoline and kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound like thermite can be easily obtained, or even produced at home.Others have suggested that “genuine terrorists” would not take down a plane in the middle of nowhere — as the March 7 plot likely would have done. A historical review of attacks against aircraft, however, shows that most of them have been brought down in the middle of nowhere and not over cities. Certainly the airliners hijacked on 9/11 were flown to attack targets in cities, but in other bombing cases — such as Pan Am 103, Air India 182 and the dual August 2004 suicide bombings involving airliners in Russia — there was no effort to destroy the aircraft over populated areas. Even Richard Reid’s December 2001 attempted bombing of American Airline flight 63 occurred over the Atlantic Ocean. Clearly, militants repeatedly have taken down airliners over sparsely populated areas, so not aiming for an urban area does not in and of itself suggest the plotters were incapable of causing great destruction.
A Sign of Things to Come?Jihadists, lone wolves as well as those associated with al Qaeda, its regional affiliates and other groups have long demonstrated a fixation with destroying commercial aircraft in flight — and they have been quite creative in their efforts. Before 9/11, few people thought jihadists could commandeer planes armed with only box cutters and then use those planes to destroy the World Trade Center towers and attack the Pentagon. Their past plots involving improvised explosives hidden in dolls, shoes and even liquid explosive mixtures also highlight their outside-the-box thinking.Given the vulnerability of aircraft to the dangers posed by fire and smoke, it is important that this threat not be dismissed. This is precisely the type of unconventional attack that one can expect from jihadist planners, and we anticipate that as security measures make it more difficult to obtain explosives and smuggle them aboard aircraft, we will see more attempts to attack aircraft with flammable liquids or, in the face of bans on liquids, with highly flammable solids or powders. Tell Fred and Scott what you think

Iraq: Five years later

Since this has been a topic that has dominated the news for the past several years I wanted to send you as objective of an analysis as I could find. The analysis discusses the motives and likelihood of success of the various parties involved. I hope you find this to be an informative take on a major condition in today's world. Let me know if you have any comments.

Stratfor's War: Five Years Later
March 18, 2008
By George FriedmanFive years have now passed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney, in Iraq with Sen. John McCain — the presumptive Republican nominee for president — summarized the five years by saying, “If you reflect back on those five years, it’s been a difficult, challenging, but nonetheless successful endeavor. We’ve come a long way in five years, and it’s been well worth the effort.” Democratic presidential aspirant Sen. Hillary Clinton called the war a failure.
Related Links
Iraq: New Strategies
Break Point
Related Special Topic Pages
U.S.-Iran Negotiations
Iraq, Iran and the Shia
U.S. Military Involvement in IraqIt is the role of political leaders to make such declarations, not ours. Nevertheless, after five years, it is a moment to reflect less on where we are and more on where we are going. As we have argued in the past, the actual distinctions between McCain’s position at one end (reduce forces in Iraq only as conditions permit) and Barack Obama’s position (reduce them over 16 months unless al Qaeda is shown to be in Iraq) are in practice much less distinct than either believes. Rhetoric aside — and this is a political season — there is in fact a general, but hardly universal, belief that goes as follows: The invasion of Iraq probably was a mistake, and certainly its execution was disastrous. But a unilateral and precipitous withdrawal by the United States at this point would not be in anyone’s interest. The debate is over whether the invasion was a mistake in the first place, while the divisions over ongoing policy are much less real than apparent.Stratfor tries not to get involved in this sort of debate. Our role is to try to predict what nations and leaders will do, and to explain their reasoning and the forces that impel them to behave as they do. Many times, this analysis gets confused with advocacy. But our goal actually is to try to understand what is happening, why it is happening and what will happen next. We note the consensus. We neither approve nor disapprove of it as a company. As individuals, we all have opinions. Opinions are cheap and everyone gets to have one for free. But we ask that our staff check them — along with their personal ideologies — at the door. Our opinions focus not on what ought to happen, but rather on what we think will happen — and here we are passionate.
Public Justifications and Private MotivationsWe have lived with the Iraq war for more than five years. It was our view in early 2002 that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was inevitable. We did not believe the invasion had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — which with others we believed were under development in Iraq. The motivation for the war, as we wrote, had to do with forcing Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative in the fight against al Qaeda by demonstrating that the United States actually was prepared to go to extreme measures. The United States invaded to change the psychology of the region, which had a low regard for American power. It also invaded to occupy the most strategic country in the Middle East, one that bordered seven other key countries.Our view was that the Bush administration would go to war in Iraq not because it saw it as a great idea, but because its options were to go on the defensive against al Qaeda and wait for the next attack or take the best of a bad lot of offensive actions. The second option consisted of trying to create what we called the “coalition of the coerced,” Islamic countries prepared to cooperate in the covert war against al Qaeda. Fighting in Afghanistan was merely a holding action that alone would solve nothing. So lacking good options, the administration chose the best of a bad lot.The administration certainly lied about its reasons for going into Iraq. But then FDR certainly lied about planning for involvement in World War II, John Kennedy lied about whether he had traded missiles in Turkey for missiles in Cuba and so on. Leaders cannot conduct foreign policy without deception, and frequently the people they deceive are their own publics. This is simply the way things are. We believed at the time of the invasion that it might prove to be much more difficult and dangerous than proponents expected. Our concern was not about a guerrilla war. Instead, it was about how Saddam Hussein would make a stand in Baghdad, a city of 5 million, forcing the United States into a Stalingrad-style urban meat grinder. That didn’t happen. We underestimated Iraqi thinking. Knowing they could not fight a conventional war against the Americans, they opted instead to decline conventional combat and move to guerrilla warfare instead. We did not expect that.
A Bigger Challenge Than ExpectedThat this was planned is obvious to us. On April 13, 2003, we noted what appeared to be an organized resistance group carrying out bombings. Organizing such attacks so quickly indicated to us that the operations were planned. Explosives and weapons had been hidden, command and control established, attacks and publicity coordinated. These things don’t just happen. Soon after the war, we recognized that the Sunnis in fact had planned a protracted war — just not a conventional one. Our focus then turned to Washington. Washington had come into the war with a clear expectation that the destruction of the Iraqi army would give the United States a clean slate on which to redraw Iraqi society. Before the war was fought, comparisons were being drawn with the occupation of Japan. The beginnings of the guerrilla operation did not fit into these expectations, so U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the guerrillas as merely the remnants of the Iraqi army — criminals and “dead-enders” — in their last throes. We noted the gap between Washington’s perception of Iraq and what we thought was actually going on.A perfect storm arose in this gulf. First, no WMD were found. We were as surprised by this as anybody. But for us, this was an intellectual exercise; for the administration, it meant the justification for the war — albeit not the real motive — was very publicly negated. Then, resistance in Iraq to the United States increased after the U.S. president declared final victory. And finally, attempts at redrawing Iraqi society as a symbol of American power in the Islamic world came apart, a combination of the guerrilla war and lack of preparation plus purging the Baathists. In sum, reshaping a society proved more daunting than expected just as the administration’s credibility cracked over the WMD issue.
A More Complex GameBy 2004, the United States had entered a new phase. Rather than simply allowing the Shia to create a national government, the United States began playing a complex and not always clear game of trying to bring the Sunnis into the political process while simultaneously waging war against them. The Iranians used their influence among the Shia to further destabilize the U.S. position. Having encouraged the United States to depose its enemy, Saddam Hussein, Tehran now wanted Washington to leave and allow Iran to dominate Iraq.The United States couldn’t leave Iraq but had no strategy for staying. Stratfor’s view from 2004 was that the military option in Iraq had failed. The United States did not have the force to impose its will on the various parties in Iraq. The only solution was a political accommodation with Iran. We noted a range of conversations with Iran, but also noted that the Iranians were not convinced that they had to deal with the Americans. Given the military circumstance, the Americans would leave anyway and Iran would inherit Iraq. Stratfor became more and more pessimistic about the American position in 2006, believing that no military solution was possible, and that a political solution — particularly following the Democratic victory in 2006 congressional elections — would further convince the Iranians to be intransigent. The deal that we had seen emerging over the summer of 2006 after the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, was collapsing.
The SurgeWe were taken by surprise by U.S. President George W. Bush’s response to the elections. Rather than beginning a withdrawal, he initiated the surge. While the number of troops committed to Iraq was relatively small, and its military impact minimal, the psychological shock was enormous. The Iranian assumption about the withdrawal of U.S. forces collapsed, forcing Tehran to reconsider its position. An essential part of the surge — not fully visible at the beginning — was that it was more a political plan than a military one. While increased operations took place, the Americans reached out to the Sunni leadership, splitting them off from foreign jihadists and strengthening them against the Shia.Coupled with increasingly bellicose threats against Iran, this created a sense of increasing concern in Tehran. The Iranians responded by taking Muqtada al-Sadr to Iran and fragmenting his army. This led to a dramatic decline in the civil war between Shia and Sunni and in turn led to the current decline in violence.The war — or at least Stratfor’s view of it — thus went through four phases:
Winter 2002-March 2003: The period that began with the run-up to invasion, in which the administration chose the best of a bad set of choices and then became overly optimistic about the war’s outcome.
April 2003-Summer 2003: The period in which the insurgency developed and the administration failed to respond.
Fall 2003-late 2006: The period in which the United States fought a multisided war with insufficient forces and a parallel political process that didn’t match the reality on the ground.
Late 2006 to the present: The period known as the surge, in which military operations and political processes were aligned, leading to a working alliance with the Sunnis and the fragmentation of the Shia. This period included the Iranians restraining their Shiite supporters and the United States removing the threat of war against Iran through the National Intelligence Estimate.The key moment in the war occurred between May 2003 and July 2003. This consisted of the U.S. failure to recognize that an insurgency in the Sunni community had begun and its delay in developing a rapid and effective response, creating the third phase — namely, the long, grueling period in which combat operations were launched, casualties were incurred and imposed, but the ability to move toward a resolution was completely absent. It is unclear whether a more prompt response by the Bush administration during the second period could have avoided the third period, but the second period certainly was the only point during which the war could have been brought under control. The operation carried out under Gen. David Petraeus, combining military and political processes, has been a surprise, at least to us. Meanwhile, the U.S. rapprochement with the Sunnis that began quietly in Anbar province spiraled into something far more effective than we had imagined. It has been much more successful than we had imagined in part because we did not believe Washington was prepared for such a systematic and complex operation that was primarily political in nature. It is also unclear if the operation will succeed. Its future still depends on the actions of the Iraqi Shia, and these actions in turn depend on Iran.
The EndgameWe have been focused on the U.S.-Iranian talks for quite awhile. We continue to believe this is a critical piece in any endgame. The United States is now providing an alternative scenario designed to be utterly frightening to the Iranians. They are arming and training the Iranians’ mortal enemies: the Sunnis who led the war against Iran from 1980 to 1988. That rearming is getting very serious indeed. Sunni units outside the aegis of the Iraqi military are now some of the most heavily armed Iraqis in Anbar, thanks to the Sunni relationship with U.S. forces there. It should be remembered that the Sunnis ruled Iraq because the Iraqi Shia were fragmented, fighting among themselves and therefore weak. That underlying reality remains true. A cohesive Sunni community armed and backed by the American s will be a formidable force. That threat is the best way to bring the Iranians to the table.The irony is that the war is now focused on empowering the very people the war was fought against: the Iraqi Sunnis. In a sense, it is at least a partial return to the status quo ante bellum. In that sense, one could argue the war was a massive mistake. At the same time, we constantly return to this question: We know what everyone would not have done in 2003; we are curious about what everyone would have done then. Afghanistan was an illusory option. The real choices were to try to block al Qaeda defensively or to coerce Islamic intelligence services to provide the United States with needed intelligence. By appearing to be a dangerous and uncontrolled power rampaging in the most strategic country in the region, the United States reshaped the political decisions countries like Saudi Arabia were making.This all came at a price that few of us would have imagined five years ago. Cheney is saying it was worth it. Clinton is saying it was not. Stratfor’s view is that what happened had to happen given the lack of choices. But Rumsfeld’s unwillingness to recognize that a guerrilla war had broken out and provide more and appropriate forces to wage that war did not have to happen. There alone we think history might have changed. Perhaps.Tell George what you think

Kosovo Clash

I sent previous articles about the crisis in Kosovo here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/world-news-and-prophecy-kosovo.html and here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/kosovo-serbs-villian-or-victim.html pointing out that this place was where World War I began and where the Turks used as a springboard to begin conquering into Europe during their Jihad. The first article above was from our church's website itself, pointing out the relevence of it to us. Anyway, I wanted to send a short article about what is happening in that region as of now and as things continue so we can remember that peace can only come when the Prince of Peace returns.

Kosovo: 70 Injured In Northern Kosovo Clash
March 17, 2008 1508 GMT
About 70 people are hospitalized in Mitrovica, Kosovo, on March 17 after ethnic Serbs clashed with police in the country’s north, RIA Novosti reported, citing Serbian media. Fifteen of the victims are in serious condition, and two with severe injuries were transported to Belgrade. Former U.N. court employees, who lost their jobs when Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate in 1999, occupied the court building March 14. The March 17 clashes occurred when U.N. police and troops from NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) stormed the building. Eight French KFOR soldiers, 13 Ukrainian officers from the U.N. police, and 23 Polish policemen were injured in the clash.

Chinese Olympics & Tibet

As you might know, the Olympics are scheduled for China this year. China is trying to show itself as a great modern humanitarian country. They started cracking down on their Muslim minority in the name of preventing terrorism, but now they are cracking down on Tibet, a favorite place of some people like in the movie Seven Years in Tibet, and are beginning to get some backlash. Anyway, here is an article describing this situation.

Geopolitical Diary: Beijing's Tibetan Dilemma
March 17, 2008 0224 GMT
Each March, there are demonstrations in Tibet commemorating a 1959 uprising against the Chinese occupation. This year, the normally small and easily contained demonstration progressed from marches to shouting, to rock-throwing, to burning things and attacking ethnic Chinese stores and businesses. The Han Chinese represent the economic elite in Tibet — as well as the political, military and security elite. The outburst was clearly focused on the economic dominance of the Chinese but wasn’t confined to it.What was extraordinary about the rioting was that it happened at all. The Chinese have confronted and contained Tibetan unrest with relative ease for years. Their normal approach would have been to seal off the area of unrest, arrest as many of the participants as possible and later release those deemed not to represent a particular threat. This time, the Chinese failed to contain events. Indeed, the protests turned into an international media spectacle, with China appearing to be simultaneously repressive and helpless — the worst of both worlds.The reason the Chinese pulled their punches this time around is undoubtedly the upcoming Olympics in Beijing. China has tried to portray a dual image in the months leading up to the games. On the one hand, the government has tried to appear extremely vigilant on terrorism, hoping to allay tourist concerns. The Chinese, for example, went out of their way to showcase a foiled March 7 hijacking of a flight to Beijing from Urumqi in Xinjiang province. The Chinese claimed that the hijackers intended to crash the plane. At the same time, Beijing released new information on a January capture of a Xinjiang Islamist cell that allegedly was plotting attacks against the Olympics.The Tibetan situation is another matter. The Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet in India, is extraordinarily respected and popular in the West. The question of Tibetan autonomy has been taken up by public figures in the West, and some companies have indicated they would not participate in sponsoring the Olympics because of the Tibetan issue. Tibet is not a shared concern, like terrorism, but rather an issue that puts China and the West at odds. Therefore, the Chinese didn’t want to be seen as conducting another Tiananmen Square in Tibet. They were hoping that it would die down on its own, leaving them time later to deal with the instigators. Instead it got out of hand, in a way very visible to the international media.Tibet matters to the Chinese geopolitically because it provides a buffer with India and allows Chinese military power to be anchored in the Himalayas. So long as that boundary is maintained, the Chinese are secure in the Southwest. Tibetan independence would shatter that security. Should an independent Tibet — obviously hostile to China after years of occupation — fall into an alliance with India, the regional balance would shift. There is, therefore, no way that the Chinese are going to give Tibet independence and they are unlikely to increase its autonomy. In fact, they have built a new rail line into Tibet that was intended to allow Han Chinese to move there more easily — an attempt to change Tibet’s demographics and tie it even closer to China. The Chinese are sensitive about their international image. They are even more concerned with their long-term geopolitical interests and with threats to those interests. The Chinese government has attempted to portray the uprising as a conspiracy undertaken by the Dalai Lama, rather than as a spontaneous rising. The Chinese have not mentioned this, but they undoubtedly remember the “color” revolutions in the former Soviet Union. During those uprisings, the Russian government accused the United States of fomenting unrest in countries such as Ukraine in order to weaken Russia geopolitically. The Chinese government is not big on the concept of “spontaneous demonstrations” and undoubtedly is searching for explanations. Having identified the source of the trouble with the Dalai Lama, it is a short step to accusing India — or the United States — of having sparked the rising. Both have been official or unofficial allies of the Dalai Lama.This is not the way the Chinese wanted the run-up to the Olympics to go. Their intention was to showcase the new China. But the international spotlight they have invited encourages everyone with a grievance — and there are plenty such in China — to step forward at a time when the government has to be unusually restrained in its response. Undoubtedly the Tibetan situation is being watched carefully in Beijing. Xinjiang militants are one thing — Tibetan riots are another. But should this unrest move into China proper, the Olympics will have posed a problem that the Chinese government didn’t anticipate when it came up with the idea.Click Here to Send Stratfor Your Comments

New York Times Square & Black Blocs

Since there have been a lot of anti-American protests scheduled for the next several days, this article describes how the tenor of some of the protests could be changing based on a terror attack last week in New York's Times Square. Anyway, let me know if you have any comments.




Black Blocs: Upping the Ante at Protests
March 12, 2008
By Fred BurtonA small bomb exploded outside a military recruiting station in New York City’s Times Square in the early morning hours of March 6, causing minor property damage but no injuries. The New York Police Department said surveillance videos of the area show a single person arriving at the scene riding a bicycle and wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt. Police say the blast was caused by a crude device made from a small, green ammunition container filled with black powder. In the video, the attacker appears to be acting alone, suggesting the person who planted the device was also the bombmaker. There have been no credible claims of responsibility for the attack, though police have lifted latent fingerprints off of what they believe to be the bicycle used by the perpetrator. Although bombings are uncommon in Manhattan, several unsolved incidents have occurred that could be related to the March 6 attack:
Oct. 26, 2007: Two crude improvised explosive devices made of training grenades stuffed with black powder explode outside of the Mexican Consulate in New York City around 3:40 a.m. local time, causing some damage to the building but injuring no one. A person riding a bicycle and wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt is seen at the scene of the attack.
May 5, 2005: A small device is thrown at a Manhattan building about 3:55 a.m., causing small-scale property damage. The device used is a training grenade stuffed with black powder. Although the building houses the British Consulate, corporate offices of Caterpillar also are located there. Witnesses report that a person wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the attack site on a bicycle.
Feb. 11, 2000: An improvised explosive device constructed using a green metal ammunition can filled with black powder explodes at the entrance to the Barclays Bank building on Wall Street at about 4:40 a.m. The blast causes damage in the immediate vicinity, but no injuries.
Dec. 15, 1997: A coffee can filled with black powder explodes about 6:30 a.m. outside the Planet Hollywood restaurant in Manhattan. The blast, which had been placed outside of a window of the restaurant’s retail store, causes damage to the surrounding area, but no injuries.
Nov. 9, 1997: A coffee can filled with black powder explodes just before 6 a.m. outside a window at the offices of Barclays Bank, located in a building owned by Merrill Lynch. The explosion causes minor damage to the building, but no injuries.These incidents all bear striking similarities. They all caused small-scale damage, and they all occurred early in the morning when few people were around. This suggests the attacks were aimed not at taking casualties but rather at sending messages to the targeted businesses and government offices and gaining media attention. The devices used in each of the incidents involved readily available materials, and they were designed rather simply, although they did demonstrate a small degree of skill, given there is no evidence that any of the devices malfunctioned. Also, no known claims of responsibility were made or lists of demands issued in any of the cases. Moreover, each attack appears to have been carried out by an individual acting alone. If a more established group had been involved, the attacks likely would have been more spectacular.At first glance, the targets appear to have been randomly selected and unconnected. However, on closer inspection, the choice of targets reveals that a specific ideology seemed to have guided the attacker or attackers. In addition, the bicycles and the attackers’ dark hooded sweatshirt in at least three of these cases might indicate a connection to certain protest groups. The tactics and target selection of the latest New York City attacks bear some similarities to the actions of black bloc groups in past protest activities.
The Black BlocA black bloc is a nebulous entity that has no centralized command and control structure, similar to organizations such as the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. Instead, activists who join black bloc groups usually also participate in other more benign activist organizations and affinity groups. Because a black bloc is not a formal organization, there is no clear definition of its ideology. However, individuals who participate in black bloc actions are typically anti-capitalism, anti-globalization and anti-war and often identify themselves as anarchists. Overall, they oppose “authoritarianism,” which they believe is present throughout modern society. Black blocs often are organized on an ad hoc basis to participate in larger protest activities, such as those at the 2003 G-7 meeting in Washington and the 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle. The black bloc activists participate in large protests and often serve as a tactical brigade — adding conflict to a given protest event. While there may be a large group of individuals participating in one black bloc, there also are smaller autonomous cells within the group that carry out unilateral action. These groups have engaged in a number of violent activities over the years, mostly involving the destruction of property, and they claim that engaging in small-scale violence and destruction is a legitimate political statement.Members of black bloc groups often dress in dark clothing and wear masks and scarves to conceal their identity, making it difficult for law enforcement to track them down. During some protest activities, groups have been known to send out scouts on bicycles to conduct reconnaissance on police in the area. Using handheld radios, the scouts then alert others in the group to areas where the police presence is less robust or where security measures can be more easily breached. Black blocs rose to prominence as a movement during the 1999 Seattle WTO meetings. During the protests, groups mostly of young men began burning trash cans in the streets and smashing windows of retail stores and restaurants, including Old Navy, Gap, Planet Hollywood and McDonald’s.
The New York AttacksAlthough there are no definitive connections between black blocs and the series of New York City attacks, the targets reflect the elements of society that black blocs most oppose. Large and influential banks are a frequent target of anti-capitalist actors, and these same individuals would likely cite Planet Hollywood as an example of crass culture and globalization. The October 2007 attack against the Mexican Consulate was likely related to the first anniversary of the death of journalist Brad Will, who was shot to death in Oaxaca, Mexico, allegedly by domestic law enforcement, while reporting on protests in the city. At the time of his death, Will was working as a reporter for Indymedia, a media outlet for radical activist causes. Following Will’s death, many activists called for blockades and other black bloc-style direct actions against Mexican consulates around the world. Similarly, the May 2005 attack against the offices of Caterpillar is likely related to the death of Rachel Corrie, a member of the International Solidarity Movement who was killed in the Gaza Strip in March 2003. Corrie died during an incident that involved a Caterpillar-made armored bulldozer operated by members of the Israel Defense Forces. The recent attack against the military recruiting station follows the same pattern as seen in earlier attacks. Times Square is one of the ultimate symbols of American capitalism and popular culture, making it an attractive target for individuals involved with the black bloc movement. Additionally, many affinity groups and other more mainstream activist organizations have adopted an anti-war message, making the Times Square recruitment center a frequent location of protest activities. However, this incident also could have been connected to events in Berkeley, Calif., where activists affiliated with the anti-war group Code Pink are protesting the presence of a U.S. Marine recruiting facility in the town. The conflict has received widespread media attention, peaking Jan. 29 when the Berkeley City Council adopted a resolution that called the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders.” It also is possible the attack was meant to coincide with the verdict in the ca se of Oakland, Calif., activist Briana Waters, who was convicted on two charges of arson in connection with a fire at the University of Washington. Waters is an alleged member of the Earth Liberation Front.There is not enough evidence to suggest these unsolved attacks in New York are connected to one black bloc group, although that could be the case. At the very least, the person involved in the latest attack took a page from the black bloc playbook.Tell Fred what you think

Madrid Memorial

I wanted to send a link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_bombing about a nation that was at one time standing with the United States, but after a terrorist attack , their 9/11, decided to throw in with some of the anti-American forces around the world. Spain, the land of the reconquista against the Moors, decided to cave in and stop standing up to them themselves. We can only hope for the peace that the return of our Messiah will bring.

Gaza-Israel and Links

An article about the Gaza-Israeli fighting and wanted to send you this well linked article as a follow-up. Let me know if you have any comments. A previous article on this topic is here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/previous-article-here-httpbrianleesblog.html

Who Will Stand Against Terrorism?
By Steven Emerson


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com Eight young men, unarmed and in the relative security of their Jerusalem yeshiva, are gunned down in cold blood. In Gaza, thousands take to the streets to celebrate. Their government encourages them to do so.How toxic is a society when the governing party suggests celebrating a massacre of teenaged boys?The brutality of Thursday's massacre at the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva exposes some ugly truths about the blood lust that has been fostered by leaders in Palestinian society and the unwillingness of most American Muslim political organizations and the mainstream media to confront it.When the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) is accused of raising money for Hamas terrorism, the defendants and their allies say they merely sought to relieve Palestinian suffering. But the silence from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and others shows their unwillingness to condemn the terrorist act and its glorification.The best hope to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians is to stand against the cycle of violence, not to be complicit in its continuation. That requires a loud and persistent call from American Muslims for Hamas to stop deliberately inciting Israel. That incitement is not the biased perspective of those of us who oppose terrorism, but of former Hamas foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar:Rockets against Sderot will cause mass migration, greatly disrupt daily lives and government administration and can make a much huger impact on the government.No country would accept showers of incoming rocket fire without responding. Israel did just that Feb. 27, in an operation targeting Hamas terrorists that killed 120 people. Sadly, dozens of civilians also were killed.This triggered no celebration in Israel and the operation ended within days.Every life lost is a tragedy. But to pretend there's a moral equivalence between the attacks which set out to kill innocents versus those in which civilians are caught in the crossfire is a cruel joke that serves only to perpetuate the violence and keep any hope of peace a distant fantasy. In its rocket barrages and in the yeshiva attack, civilians are the target.In an editorial, the Jerusalem Post points out the distinction.
Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, "The presence of a protected person [a civilian] may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." In other words, the idea that Israel must fight Hamas without endangering civilians is contrary to the letter and spirit of international law.But the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) tries to blur the vastly different motivations, describing Thursday's attack as "the recent situation in Jerusalem" and using the opportunity to condemn "all forms of violence regardless of the background of the culprits or the victims." Its statement continued:
Experts in the region are asserting that what happened in Jerusalem today was retaliation for the killing of over 120 (Palestinians) in Gaza last week. Whether true or not, it is the U.S. government's responsibility to assert its leadership role in ending the violence now.What "experts" are these, beyond MPAC officials and Hamas sympathizers? The Action Alert urged people to call their congressmen, "to demand that Israel halt its brutal round of violence against the citizens of Gaza."It made no call for anyone to demand Hamas cease firing Qassam rockets into Israel. According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "1,018 rockets and 937 mortar bombs have been fired at Sderot and the western Negev" since Hamas took control of Gaza in June.CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial, has been silent on the attack. MAS issued no statement, but did postpone a planned rally outside the Israeli embassy in Washington. It wasn't out of deference for the murder victims, rather, a release said "It has come to our attention that heavy rains are expected throughout the afternoon and the rush hour."CAIR has been exposed by evidence at the HLF trial as part of a "Palestine Committee" operating in America on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. The committee's objective is to advance the Hamas agenda in the United States. Hamas' stated goal is the elimination of the state of Israel. It accepts no negotiated settlement in which the Jewish state survives.When American Muslim organizations refuse to condemn Hamas, they sign on to a charter that sees violence as the only "solution" to the conflict.Give credit, however, to MAS civil and human rights director Ibrahim Ramey. He posted a column about the yeshiva attack Friday, asking:
Should Muslims in the United States also feel a sense of joy and vindication? No. We must recognize the attack for what it was: an act of murder. And we must now ask ourselves the difficult question of how we, as activists in support of the people of Gaza and Palestine, can go forward in the wake of an act of senseless brutality that could threaten to derail some significant support for the cause of ending the occupation and respecting the human rights of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.While Ramey is concerned about the reaction, he seems equally worried about public relations damage "by opponents who are all too anxious to equate the Palestinian cause with savagery and terrorism."Also encouraging was MAS President Esam Omeish, who previously praised Palestinians for learning "the jihad way is the way to liberate your land." He posted a statement on his blog Thursday condemning "in the highest manner the violence the slaughter of the 15 & 16 year old students that took place in Jerusalem. Sadistic violence like this has no place in our religion and is certainly not 'heroic.'"Apparently, it wasn't a terrorist attack either. At least not according to major American newspapers. In its story on the yeshiva massacre, the New York Times used the word terrorist only when quoting an Israeli government official and referred to the killer as a "gunman" four times, not including the headline.The Washington Post also decided a Hamas-claimed attack on eight Jewish students was not a terrorist attack, but the work of a "gunman." The Post, however, did note the glee the indiscriminate murder generated in Gaza:
Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that controls Gaza, praised the Jerusalem attack. "It was a natural response to Israeli crimes in Gaza," the organization said in a statement. "We bless this act. It won't be the last one." Thousands of Palestinians in Gaza City celebrated in the streets, firing guns into the air in jubilation, as word began to spread.This is the Hamas that CAIR, MPAC, MAS and virtually every other national Muslim political group refuse to condemn. Until they do, nothing will change.The same is true for the poison spewed forth daily on Palestinian media, teaching toddlers to strive for "martyrdom" while spewing vile toward Israel. Where are these self-appointed leaders of the Muslim American community speaking out against the Palestinian culture that fosters such a blood lust? Where is a program teaching the next generation the benefits of peace?Hamas-controlled television has introduced a series of death-glorifying, bloodthirsty children's characters on "Tomorrow's Pioneers." They include Farfour, a Mickey Mouse look-alike who CNN described as dancing "with an imaginary gun in his gloved hands and encourages kids to drink milk, study hard -- and engage in violent acts of 'resistance' against their Israeli neighbors and America."Farfour was "martyred" last June after trying to liberate the land "from the filth of the criminal, plundering Jews," only to be replaced by Nahoul, a bee who wants to follow Farfour's path "of heroism, of martyrdom, and of the muijahideen." Nahoul's death was shown to Palestinian children last month, a result of the blockade on Gaza.He was replaced by a rabbit named Assud, who tells children "I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing. And I will eat them up, Allah willing, right?"Then there's "The Gifted," a back-to-school program that showed a small boy, identified as a 2-year-old, skulking around in military garb and aiming an assault weapon "at the occupying terrorists.""We'll wear the battle-vest of self sacrifice and follow the path of the Shahids," a child narrator says as the younger boy, his face hooded, stoops down with his weapon.Showcasing these indoctrinations of hate and death, the duplicity of groups like CAIR in standing by Hamas, often brings back accusations of bigotry. And the death toll climbs.An Israeli was injured by yet another rocket attack Thursday night. Who will demand it all stop?

Comment by clicking here.