Suicide bombing by Hamas

Here is an article about a suicide bombing in Gaza acted out by Hamas. Hamas said that it was a step forward for those who are awaiting freedom. Hamas is attacking entry points in an attempt to start a humanitarian crisis that will force international actors to put pressure on Israel.

From what I understand, Hamas is claiming that their purpose is to help the Palestinian people regain their land. If this is their goal, then why are they killing those that bring aid into areas that contain Palestinian people? Even if it forces international actors to step in, is the cost in lives equal to the benefit? Will this have any effect on how much support Hamas later gains?

Jemaah Islamiah!

I recently came across this article which announces that the Indonesian government has endorsed a court decision to outlaw JI. One thing I found interesting with this article is that it mentions that JI was not previously outlawed because the government did not recognize it as an official organization. I think that this parallels our discussion about terrorism and "war." Personally, I don't think that the ban will have any substantive effect on the JI network, and that the ruling won't be enforced or binding. Does this move simply give JI more legitimacy and power? Singapore-based terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, who we read the other week, called the verdict "a huge victory against terrorist," but it is hard for me to see how this will affect JI.

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

Here is another article concerning Jimmy Carter and his venture to speak with the leaders of Hamas. This article focuses on whether or not his visit to the Middle East will be effective and worthwhile. As of right now it has been reported that Islamist militants have reported that they would respect a peace treaty ratified by Palestine.
However, many people are skeptical about whether or not Israel and Palestine will really respect and obey this treaty.
I am still confused as to what Jimmy Carter thinks will be accomplished by going over and meeting with the Hamas leader, I don't see any logical reason for this. In my mind it will not make things any better...if anything, I see it as making the situation worse.

Loss of support

Last week, we discussed the view that the Global War on Terror has lost support because of the Bush Administration's zealousness. This article supports that assumption. It describes the current predicament which 50-year-old Sami al-Arian finds himself in. This Palestinian professor who taught computer science and legally lived in the United States has been arrested and convicted on charges that he aided the US-recognized terrorist organization "Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

Apparently al-Arian and the US government made a deal were he would plead guilty and be deported in exchange for not having to testify in additional cases. However, the government says the latter part was not part of the deal as al-Arian is reporting it to be. His situation is doubly messy because his earlier sentencing to 57 months in prison has recently been fulfilled...but the government still wants to make him testify in additional cases, so Immigration and Customs Enforcement now has custody over him since he can't really be held in prison.

But the real issue that pertains to decreased support for fighting terrorism is the result of 17 accussations about his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. For six months he stood trial for different terrorism-related crimes, but the jury acquitted him on eight counts, and it couldn't reach a consensus on the other nine. Clearly, this didn't make the Administration look good. Instead, it just fed the fire that the Bush Administration is too aggressive and overreaching in its hunting of terrorists, and that it isn't cautious enough--sometimes attempting to convict people of crimes they can't be proven to have committed.

Pakistan: A Slippery Slope.

Earlier today, British foreign secretary David Milliband renewed Britain's pledge to help Pakistan in the latter's counter terrorism efforts, and also voiced support for reconciliation with those militants who are willing to renounce terrorism.
Both these steps are a part of a state's counter terrorism strategy as suggested by Paul Pillar and Heyman respectively, namely, countries should aid other countries in their fight against terrorism. However, evaluating Pakistan's situation, it is difficult to say whether this will help the country or not.
By helping America in its War on Terror,Pakistan faced a near definite possibility of a break-up after a relentless civil war between the Kemalist sections of the Pakistani army led by General-President Parvez Mussaraf against the Jihadist factions led by more fundamentalist groups. There is a lot of support for the fundamentalists from rogue armies like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. Pakistan continues to faces a dilemma: if it continues supporting the War on Terror, it will face a civil war in the near future, and if refuses to help America, there is a possibility that America will attack Pakistan in order to hunt down the Jihadists, or destroy Pakistan's nuclear plants before the Jihadists get to it.
Sometimes it is difficult to see what a country should do, I think that they should continue supporting the war on terror and "big brother" should come to their aid in case a civil war breaks out over this particular issue. What does everyone else think?

Threat level

In the last day of class we discussed what we believe the terrorist threat level to be, and a recent suicide attack has made me think more about this. This suicide attack was in Iraq at a restaurant popular among Iraqi police officers. I heard on the radio that for this specific suicide attack at the restaurant a man walked into the restaurant, yelled "God is great" and tried to detonate his vest but it failed. The man was arrested by the police. About thirty minutes later, a different man walks into the same restaurant, yelled the same thing, but this time his vest did not fail. The amazing thing to me is that at least 10 people were killed in the blast (the radio said 15...). I figure that some of those casualties were employees but who in their right mind would stay at that restaurant after someone tried to blow it up? I definitely would not stay there to finish my sandwich, and I would probably not go back to that restaurant again soon. I tried to imagine what the people there were thinking... maybe they believe that there is always a high threat for a suicide attack in their area so they figured they managed to dodge a bullet, or maybe they really don't think that the threat is that great.

To the grader - sorry, this post is half an hour late. Please grade it for the week ending April 20th.

Pakistan

Recently a report was issued on the United States' anti-terrorism plan in Pakistan. The report, compiled by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (or GAO), was a scathing indictment of the Bush administration's efforts to rid Pakistan of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorist threats since 2002. The report specifically stated that the United States has had no continuous, comprehensive plan for anti-terrorism in Pakistan. I quote, “No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, recommended by the independent 9/11 Commission, and mandated by congressional legislation.”

Immediately, democrats latched onto the reports finding to blast the government, especially the Bush administration, for having diverted precious counterterrorist resources to fight in Iraq when the could have been searching for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Pakistan (he is believed to be in hiding in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA). The White House, without much elaboration, immediately dismissed the report as being a mischaracterization on the part of the Democrats and the reporting committee as a whole. However, partisan politics aside, I wanted to opine on the report’s findings, for I disagree with some of its assessments. And again, I want to do it constructively and as objectively as possible.

Contrary to the current reports findings, I think that the United States has a comprehensive counterinsurgency and counterterror plan for Pakistan in place. I believe that we have consciously chosen to stay low key in Pakistan due to our overwhelming unpopularity amongst the people as a whole. In general, we are on good terms with the Pakistani government, for they are willing to help us in our fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism. However, this good will is not harbored amongst many of the Pakistani people, especially the ones from the tribal areas and frontier territories. In other words, if we were to “invade” an area of Pakistan (like the FATA) as was proscribed by the leading critics of our current policy, the people of Pakistan may be brought down into a nasty civil war, and it is very likely that the current government may not win such a war. This is the last thing that the United States needs in its current war on terror. We do not need another failed Islamic state, especially one that has nuclear capabilities. For instance, one nightmarish scenario of a Pakistani civil war could be an Islamic faction gaining control of a nuclear facility and then launching a nuclear missile at an American base in Afghanistan or in Iraq or even at an American ally in the region; this would be devastating.

Therefore, I think it behooves the United States to continue to run its counterterror operations in Pakistan the way it has been doing it, i.e. by providing limited paramilitary support, logistics and by providing training to the Pakistani government and its military. If anyone has any better suggestions, I would love to hear them (and I am not being facetious).

Here is the Article link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080417/pl_nm/usa_pakistan_gao_dc

New anti-terrorism rules 'allow US to spy on British motorists'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/21/nspy121.xml
This is a very interesting article that I read. This article deals with the UK traffic systems and relying the information to other countries throughout the world, including the United States. The camera's take live video of cars and traffic in the Britan and the EU. These camera's then are able to record; registration, and images of the owners. This was hiden from the British parilament until just recently that the information was being allowed to be viewed by other countries. This deals with terrorism, because the information that is sent to the U.S. is placed in computer systems for there "data mining", which is used to try and predict patterns of terrorist. The article deals with are class the last week dealing with civil liberities. Is this crossing the line? Recording peoples images and sending there informations to other countries would that be a price of giving up liberities to possibly find patterns? I say yes. This is because its just camera video that people don't know they are being watched. It also can help data mining which can possibly stop a terrorist attack.
This is my last post! please let me know what everyone thinks about this article! I had a great year, I hope all of you did too!
And THank You Professor Payne for all the knowledge that you have taught me this year.
Austin Conners

lol yes i know another 1150pm sunday night post