Saturday, March 8, 2008
PKK
This article is about the recent increase in the Turkish offensive against the PKK. Basically, Turkey has invaded northern Iraq, but the Iraqi government is okay with it, as long as it only lasts a couple of weeks and they don't go deeper than 20 miles into the country. Turkey wants to eradicate the PKK from the northern Iraqi mountains once and for all. This seemed like a joke to me at first, but after reading the article, I feel the Turks will probably be more successful than I originally thought. Apparently, most Iraqi Kurds have stopped supplying the PKK with weapons and information. With the public tide turning against the PKK in Iraq and with Turkish soldiers supplied with western military equipment and intelligence, the Turks are on good ground relative to the PKK. This reminds me of the recent turning of the tide against the FARC in Colombia. It seems that these people want stability and are turning against terrorists who get in the way. Iraqi Kurds are more autonomous than perhaps ever before, and they don't want to lose their new position. Although some could argue they are informally losing the independence they have by allowing Turkey to violate Iraqi sovereignty, I think Kurdish cooperation is actually wise. They gain international status because the Turkish government is working with them--instead of in spite of them--and they can get rid of a terrorist organization which has--to many people--attached a negative connotation to their ethnicity.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Jet vs. Nuclear Reactor
We talked about this in class today, and it reminded me of a video I saw on the internet once. Enjoy.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
East Jerusalem Terrorist
In class we have had alot of discussion concerning the media's influence in terrorist groups activities. Particularly we discussed how media can influence how the general public views the attack. The focus of a news article can increase the incentive of terrorists to use violence to get in the media. These media biases can help generate support in the population. Today there was an attack by a single gunman in Jerusalem. I am including two links; one to a story in the Jerusalem Post, and the other from Al Jezeera English. Comparing the two different stories shows different biases in the two organizations.
The first link, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull , is tot he Jerusalem Post. This article focusses on the victims of the shooting. It talks of people crying, "Help Us, Help Us!" Further it describes students hiding under desks, a forceful police response that neutralized the terrorist. It also describes a small terrorist group in East Jerusalem, the Galilee Freedom Battalions - the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza. The focus of this report tries to downplay the capabilities of another attack and upplay the government response. The overall tone is condemning.
The second link, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D9C103A-8E02-45EF-A335-46DB5BAAF766.htm , contains a a very different perspective on the attack. Although the article starts by talking about the victims, a majority of the article seems to focus on the terrorist, his group and their motivations, as well as possible allies, or at least groups that agree with the tactics. This article even includes a section where they discuss the views of a faction of the population who blame Olmert for the attack, because of recent Israeli action in East Jerusalem. This article has a more understanding feel, and seems as though it would be a great propaganda tool for the group.
The first link, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull , is tot he Jerusalem Post. This article focusses on the victims of the shooting. It talks of people crying, "Help Us, Help Us!" Further it describes students hiding under desks, a forceful police response that neutralized the terrorist. It also describes a small terrorist group in East Jerusalem, the Galilee Freedom Battalions - the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza. The focus of this report tries to downplay the capabilities of another attack and upplay the government response. The overall tone is condemning.
The second link, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D9C103A-8E02-45EF-A335-46DB5BAAF766.htm , contains a a very different perspective on the attack. Although the article starts by talking about the victims, a majority of the article seems to focus on the terrorist, his group and their motivations, as well as possible allies, or at least groups that agree with the tactics. This article even includes a section where they discuss the views of a faction of the population who blame Olmert for the attack, because of recent Israeli action in East Jerusalem. This article has a more understanding feel, and seems as though it would be a great propaganda tool for the group.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Violence Leaves Young Iraqis Doubting Clerics
I found this article to be absolutely fascinating. The youth of Iraq are seeing the consequences of Islamic extremism and they are becoming disillusioned with the ideology and religion as a whole. I think this general feeling can be seen in a statement by a moderate Sunni cleric when he says, "In the beginning, they [the youth] gave their eyes and minds to the clerics; they trusted them,”It’s painful to admit, but it’s changed. People have lost too much. They say to the clerics and the parties: You cost us this.” Because religious terrorism tends to kill more people than other types, the general public feels the effects of the terrorism much more heavily. And as shown in this quote, the youth of Iraq are tired of the attacks and killings and they are beginning to blame the religious ideology that provides the legitimacy for the terrorist organizations. This article suggests that in Iraq, the religious terrorist organizations are losing the support of their constituencies, especially in the younger generation-- the very people who are supposed to be the future supporters and members of the organization. So, as this article states, the terrorist organizations are changing their approach. Instead of offering an ideology, they're offering money to gain more recruits. Perhaps this suggests that in Iraq, efforts should be more focused on economic relief and fighting poverty, as well as promoting more moderate strains of Islam. Anyway, just interesting to think about. Let me know what you think...
Terrorist Group FARC and WMD's
The timing of this article in the New York Times today coincides perfectly with our class discussion on terrorist groups' efforts to obtain WMD's. The article describes how the Colombian government obtained information from a laptop captured in the raids in Ecuador that killed FARC leader Raúl Reyes. The group was in negotiation to purchase radioactive materials in order to build a "dirty bomb." The purchase would be financed by money obtained from drug smuggling. Colombia also alleges that money given by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to the group would have contributed to the purchase of the material.
Perhaps these developments shed some light on the class discussion we had regarding the feasibility of terrorist groups acquiring WMD's. Whether FARC is able or would have been able to acquire the necessary materials to build a dirty bomb remain to be seen, but the fact that they have gotten close to doing so lends credibility to Bett's argument and perhaps disproves Dolnik's rational that crazy groups like FARC can't get a hold of WMD's.
It seems like in light of these new developments, we should renew our class discussion on the possibility of terrorist use of WMD's. It seems to me that the risk is still small, but large enough that governments around the world should not let their guard down and should increase their preparations to protect their civilians in the event that some group like FARC does acquire WMD's.
Perhaps these developments shed some light on the class discussion we had regarding the feasibility of terrorist groups acquiring WMD's. Whether FARC is able or would have been able to acquire the necessary materials to build a dirty bomb remain to be seen, but the fact that they have gotten close to doing so lends credibility to Bett's argument and perhaps disproves Dolnik's rational that crazy groups like FARC can't get a hold of WMD's.
It seems like in light of these new developments, we should renew our class discussion on the possibility of terrorist use of WMD's. It seems to me that the risk is still small, but large enough that governments around the world should not let their guard down and should increase their preparations to protect their civilians in the event that some group like FARC does acquire WMD's.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Farc and Venezula
I found an interesting article here : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=524314&in_page_id=1811
The article discusses the current situation in South America. Specifically, the Colombian government recently killed a leader of the Farc who was hiding just across the border in Ecuador, without Ecuador's permission. This has angered Hugo Chavez and Venezuela; possibly because they fear similar action in Venezuela. From what I can gather, Chavez is a huge supporter of the organization and there seem to be fairly clear ties between the Farc and his country. Recently he has attempted to change the world view of his relationship with the the Farc to the of mediator instead of collaborator. He claims that the recent release of Farc hostages is a direct result of his requests from the organization. In response to the death of the Farc leader Chavez has moved a large portion of his military to the Colombian border threatening war.
This is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of state sponsored terrorism that I can recall. To my knowledge Iran has never deployed its own military in response to an attack against Hezbollah, though it has threaten to become involved when Israel chases the terrorists across the Lebanese border. This article claims that America supports the Colombian efforts. In the wake of shattering relations with Venezuela, the US-Colombian relationship has evidently strengthened. Currently the US has a small force in Colombia working to hinder the drug trade.
The article discusses the current situation in South America. Specifically, the Colombian government recently killed a leader of the Farc who was hiding just across the border in Ecuador, without Ecuador's permission. This has angered Hugo Chavez and Venezuela; possibly because they fear similar action in Venezuela. From what I can gather, Chavez is a huge supporter of the organization and there seem to be fairly clear ties between the Farc and his country. Recently he has attempted to change the world view of his relationship with the the Farc to the of mediator instead of collaborator. He claims that the recent release of Farc hostages is a direct result of his requests from the organization. In response to the death of the Farc leader Chavez has moved a large portion of his military to the Colombian border threatening war.
This is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of state sponsored terrorism that I can recall. To my knowledge Iran has never deployed its own military in response to an attack against Hezbollah, though it has threaten to become involved when Israel chases the terrorists across the Lebanese border. This article claims that America supports the Colombian efforts. In the wake of shattering relations with Venezuela, the US-Colombian relationship has evidently strengthened. Currently the US has a small force in Colombia working to hinder the drug trade.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Chavez & Correa amass troops on the Colombian border
In response to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe's military assault on a FARC camp in Ecuador, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa amassed troops on the Colombian border. Chavez and Correa are incensed because they say Uribe violated Ecuador's sovereignty. Chavez announced that if Uribe tried to take similar actions on the Venezuelan border, then Venezuela would go to war.
The Colombians claim they were attacked from across the Ecuadorian border by FARC rebels and acted in self-defense. Furthermore, Colombian Police Commander Gen. Oscar Naranjo says that Colombian forces found electronic documents in FARC's camp that tie President Correa to Raul Reyes, the FARC's former leader. If Naranjo is telling the truth, then this is likely a case of a state's (i.e., Ecuador's) active support for terrorism as a foreign policy tool.
By using a terrorist group as the unofficial arm of the state, a government can launch attacks against an adversarial state while maintaining its own irreproachability. For example, this is a tactic being used by Iran in the current Iraqi conflict. By clandestinely sponsoring a terrorist organization that has common objectives with the state, a government may attack an enemy state indirectly.
The victimized state then would have a few options: it could choose to attack the sponsoring state directly, in which case it would need conclusive evidence of the connection between the terrorists and their sponsor state--the absence of which would cause the victim-state to appear to be the aggressor (like in the current situation in which Colombia will be perceived as the aggressor unless it can prove that Ecuador knowingly allowed FARC to attack Colombians from its border).
A second option for the victim-state could be to attack the terrorist organization, but if the terrorists are hiding across the state's border, then it would have to justify violating the other (sponsoring) state's sovereignty by providing some type of evidence that it was, indeed, acting in self-dense (e.g. Colombia's "self-defense" argument).
Finally, the victim-state could choose to do nothing except wait for the terrorists to strike again; however, this approach would make the victim-state appear weak not only in the eyes of the terrorists and those of the sponsoring state but also in the eyes of the victim-state's own citizens.
Thus, if one state is confident that it could attack another state indirectly via a clandestinely-sponsored terrorist organization, and if the sponsoring-state is confident that any connections between it and the terrorists would either not be revealed or be nebulous, at best; then the sponsoring-state may, in fact, allow such an attack to take place--knowing that the victimized state would likely be incapable of gathering enough hard evidence to sufficiently justify a proportional retaliatory strike against the sponsor-state.
This may be what is occurring in South America right now with Ecuador (and maybe Venezuela) as the sponsoring state(s), FARC as the proxy, and Colombia as the victim. Then again, this whole line of reasoning could be complete rubbish. What do you think?
The Colombians claim they were attacked from across the Ecuadorian border by FARC rebels and acted in self-defense. Furthermore, Colombian Police Commander Gen. Oscar Naranjo says that Colombian forces found electronic documents in FARC's camp that tie President Correa to Raul Reyes, the FARC's former leader. If Naranjo is telling the truth, then this is likely a case of a state's (i.e., Ecuador's) active support for terrorism as a foreign policy tool.
By using a terrorist group as the unofficial arm of the state, a government can launch attacks against an adversarial state while maintaining its own irreproachability. For example, this is a tactic being used by Iran in the current Iraqi conflict. By clandestinely sponsoring a terrorist organization that has common objectives with the state, a government may attack an enemy state indirectly.
The victimized state then would have a few options: it could choose to attack the sponsoring state directly, in which case it would need conclusive evidence of the connection between the terrorists and their sponsor state--the absence of which would cause the victim-state to appear to be the aggressor (like in the current situation in which Colombia will be perceived as the aggressor unless it can prove that Ecuador knowingly allowed FARC to attack Colombians from its border).
A second option for the victim-state could be to attack the terrorist organization, but if the terrorists are hiding across the state's border, then it would have to justify violating the other (sponsoring) state's sovereignty by providing some type of evidence that it was, indeed, acting in self-dense (e.g. Colombia's "self-defense" argument).
Finally, the victim-state could choose to do nothing except wait for the terrorists to strike again; however, this approach would make the victim-state appear weak not only in the eyes of the terrorists and those of the sponsoring state but also in the eyes of the victim-state's own citizens.
Thus, if one state is confident that it could attack another state indirectly via a clandestinely-sponsored terrorist organization, and if the sponsoring-state is confident that any connections between it and the terrorists would either not be revealed or be nebulous, at best; then the sponsoring-state may, in fact, allow such an attack to take place--knowing that the victimized state would likely be incapable of gathering enough hard evidence to sufficiently justify a proportional retaliatory strike against the sponsor-state.
This may be what is occurring in South America right now with Ecuador (and maybe Venezuela) as the sponsoring state(s), FARC as the proxy, and Colombia as the victim. Then again, this whole line of reasoning could be complete rubbish. What do you think?
Iran-Iraq relations???
http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5666601/Iran-leader-accuses-US-of-terrorism
I read this article on Radio Netherlands Worldwide about the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Iraq. In the article it said that it was the first time that a Irani president has visited Iraq since Saddam Hussein launched an eight-year war with Iran that by 1988 had claimed a million victims. During his visit President Mahmoud called the United States a terroriest. He said that the U.S. brought terrorism to the Middle East in 2003 when they invaded Iraq. However, since the U.S. has removed Saddam from power it allows Iran to have contact with Iraq now. This makes me wonder about a few things. One is that since Iran and Iraq have there majority of thre population being Shiite, I wonder if this will increase the friendlyness of the two countries. I think that this could cause a problem for the U.S. since Iran is calling them terrorist. I also wonder how this new relationship would effect the rest of the middle east. I am also wondering what the U.S. thinks about this and if there going to try and do anything to stop it. Well Tell me what you think.
Thanks
Austin Conners
I read this article on Radio Netherlands Worldwide about the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Iraq. In the article it said that it was the first time that a Irani president has visited Iraq since Saddam Hussein launched an eight-year war with Iran that by 1988 had claimed a million victims. During his visit President Mahmoud called the United States a terroriest. He said that the U.S. brought terrorism to the Middle East in 2003 when they invaded Iraq. However, since the U.S. has removed Saddam from power it allows Iran to have contact with Iraq now. This makes me wonder about a few things. One is that since Iran and Iraq have there majority of thre population being Shiite, I wonder if this will increase the friendlyness of the two countries. I think that this could cause a problem for the U.S. since Iran is calling them terrorist. I also wonder how this new relationship would effect the rest of the middle east. I am also wondering what the U.S. thinks about this and if there going to try and do anything to stop it. Well Tell me what you think.
Thanks
Austin Conners
U.S. behind Pakistan terrorism
I found this interesting article thats recounts something that was said by a Pakistani politician recently. This person believes that the United States, Afghanistan, and India are responsible for terrorism inside Pakistan
According to Caretaker interior minister, Lieutenant General (Retd) Hamid Nawaz Khan, the United States is attempting to annihilate Muslims worldwide, the Afghan government is apparently just another extension of the US military, and India is just out to get them.
He admits that he has no proof of this, but that his people had a feeling about it. He explained that ever since the Taliban offensive in Afghanistan has gone down, the number of terrorist incidents in Pakistan has gone up. I don't really see that connection, but even if it is there, I don't see how the United States, Afghanistan, and India can be blamed for that. His explanation is that the kind of attacks that are occurring in Pakistan (mostly suicide bombings) need funding from larger countries, and countries which are unfriendly towards Pakistan are more likely to fund terrorism within the country.
I knew we weren't best of friends with Pakistan, but it's interesting how this particular politician is convinced that we must be sponsoring terrorism to destroy them.
According to Caretaker interior minister, Lieutenant General (Retd) Hamid Nawaz Khan, the United States is attempting to annihilate Muslims worldwide, the Afghan government is apparently just another extension of the US military, and India is just out to get them.
He admits that he has no proof of this, but that his people had a feeling about it. He explained that ever since the Taliban offensive in Afghanistan has gone down, the number of terrorist incidents in Pakistan has gone up. I don't really see that connection, but even if it is there, I don't see how the United States, Afghanistan, and India can be blamed for that. His explanation is that the kind of attacks that are occurring in Pakistan (mostly suicide bombings) need funding from larger countries, and countries which are unfriendly towards Pakistan are more likely to fund terrorism within the country.
I knew we weren't best of friends with Pakistan, but it's interesting how this particular politician is convinced that we must be sponsoring terrorism to destroy them.
Peace Talks Halted
In a recent round of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has halted negotiations in light of retaliatory Israeli bombings which have already taken dozens of Palestinian lives. Casualties of the violence numbered 70 on Sunday alone. Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel though I wonder if the average Palestinian feels as strongly about the issue as the Hamas leadership.
While the majority of those slain have been Palestinians, Israeli civilians like those in the border city of Sderot are also suffering from the violence. Thirteen Israelis have been killed so far by the recent rocket fire from Palestinian militants. The BBC reports, "People think twice about walking the streets, shopping for food and clothes, and letting their children play outdoors. Businesses have few customers, house prices have dropped dramatically, and more than 3,000 of the town's 24,000 residents have upped and left." If the goal of the terrorists is to coerce Israelis by inspiring paralyzing fear, it seems like they've done a good job, at least in some parts of Israel.
I found this quote by Ahmed Abdullah particularly interesting. He said of Hamas, "they need to be given a chance, they need to breathe--if you give Hamas a political opportunity then it will only moderate the movement." Many in Gaza view the bombings from Israel as punishment for supporting Hamas.
Although democratically elected by the Palestinians to represent them, could this be an example where democracy is something that the United States should not support, or is Abdullah correct in thinking that increased political power for Hamas will lessen the need it feels to resort to violence?
BBC News: Cat and Mouse, Abbas Breaks Contact
While the majority of those slain have been Palestinians, Israeli civilians like those in the border city of Sderot are also suffering from the violence. Thirteen Israelis have been killed so far by the recent rocket fire from Palestinian militants. The BBC reports, "People think twice about walking the streets, shopping for food and clothes, and letting their children play outdoors. Businesses have few customers, house prices have dropped dramatically, and more than 3,000 of the town's 24,000 residents have upped and left." If the goal of the terrorists is to coerce Israelis by inspiring paralyzing fear, it seems like they've done a good job, at least in some parts of Israel.
I found this quote by Ahmed Abdullah particularly interesting. He said of Hamas, "they need to be given a chance, they need to breathe--if you give Hamas a political opportunity then it will only moderate the movement." Many in Gaza view the bombings from Israel as punishment for supporting Hamas.
Although democratically elected by the Palestinians to represent them, could this be an example where democracy is something that the United States should not support, or is Abdullah correct in thinking that increased political power for Hamas will lessen the need it feels to resort to violence?
BBC News: Cat and Mouse, Abbas Breaks Contact
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)