terror

What the Terrorists are Truly Afraid of

Sultan Knish – If the passengers of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 survived their flight to return home to their families, like veterans returning home from war they are a reminder of all those who did not survive, and all those who will not survive in a more successful attack.

The 9/11 hijackers, and Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab all managed to bypass airline security, bring weapons on board passenger jets and execute their attacks. The passengers on American Airlines 63 and Northwest Airlines Flight 253 survived not because of the gargantuan infrastructures of airline security or law enforcement, but because ordinary passengers and staff became suspicious and acted, and because the latter two plots relied on tricky detonations that were unsuccessful.

But their failures mean little in the bigger picture. Reid and Abdulmutallab are only two of the hundreds of thousands of Muslim men drawn from around the world to participate in one of its many Jihads against America, England, Russia, Israel or India.

To devout Muslims the entire world is a battlefield, a map dotted in red and green. And for every Abdulmutallab who fails, there is a Nidal Malik Hasan who succeeds in killing his targets. Because as long as we keep fighting a holding action against the tide of Jihadis swarming from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, the terrorists only need to be lucky once, we need to be lucky every time. And we know what we won’t be. That not every flight will land safely on the airfield. Not every group of passengers will disembark shaking with relief. The terrorists only need to be lucky once.

And while the TSA rushes to implement a new set of overreaching regulations that will accomplish nothing except to make passengers miserable, before quietly abolishing them after a month or two– Abdulmutallab’s success demonstrates the futility of airline security as we know it. The TSA, the CIA, the NSA did not stop Abdulmutallab even though his own father had given them advanced warning, and his profile should have tripped numerous switches. A passenger sitting next to him did that. Just as it was the passengers that saved the White House on 9/11.

If the security apparatus can’t even stop a terrorist traveling under his own name, whose own father turns him in, it can’t stop anyone. And indeed it can’t. A national security apparatus built to take on foreign intelligence agencies is ill matched against an international terrorist network based out of religious schools and universities, and funded by the oil Sheikh „best friends“ of their own bosses.

And airport security which can’t stop its own employees from stealing passenger’s luggage, has no real hope of stopping an actual terrorist. The very decentralization and creative planning of terrorist attacks means that the best hope of stopping them lies not in the bureaucracy, but in the ordinary citizen sitting next to the terrorist.

The government has pretended to be omnipotent while in reality the War on Terror has turned into a waiting game at home and a proxy war abroad. That is because while airline passengers are being strip-searched and soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, money continues flowing from oil rich Gulf states into the coffers of terrorists, who in turn recruit young men from the Muslim world eager to fight and send them off to a Third World war zone or to carry off a terrorist attack in the First World.

If the United States government really wanted to stop Islamic terrorism, it could better do so in Ridyah, Karachi and Dubai. Instead the religious, political and financial backers of the terrorist war against the West not only get a pass, but a bow from Obama, and we go on playing the waiting game, waiting until the terrorists get lucky, and a planet blows up in the air.

While Abdulmutallab may have failed to kill the passengers on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, he succeeded in becoming a front page story, in reminding Americans to be afraid of terrorists, in canceling flights and panicking the authorities into a response that is already producing a backlash from passengers.

The whole snarl of chaos that Abdulmutallab and his higher ups have tied will drive donations and recruits from the Muslim world to Al Queda, while making the case for backing away from military tactics and toward diplomatic ones.

While the Obama administration has not yet officially sat down at the negotiating table with Al Queda, attacks like Abdulmutallab’s make it more likely that back channel negotiations will be used to avoid any terrorist attacks during the politically critical period before the 2012 election. And if that seems farfetched, remember that left wing Israeli Prime Minister Peres in his time cut just such a deal with Arafat, and the United States has traded arms for hostages before. We have recruited the murderers of US soldiers to fight side by side with us in Iraq, and we’re hoping to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

Abdulmutallab’s attack demonstrates the ability of Islamic terrorists to spread terror, even when their actual attack fails. And there is no antidote to terror except an empowered citizenry. But an empowered citizenry is exactly what the government is afraid of. It is also exactly what the terrorists are afraid of. They know that they can get buy fake identifications, bypass airport security and get on board the plane. And if they can’t, another one of them will. And another. What they are afraid of is that when they rise for their climactic moment of homicidal martyrdom, it will not be a US Marshall coming for them, but the passengers around them.

The terrorists are not afraid of the United States government. They were never afraid of the United States government. And why should they, when the Saudi Lobby insures that Islamist groups have free run of the country, and the little man in the White House bows before the Saudi king. When Rules of Engagement favor the Taliban, and captured Al Queda terrorists are released into the wild, where they plot and carry out more terrorist attacks. Why in the world should they be afraid of a US government that bends over backward to reassure the Muslim world of its love for Islam?

Islamic terrorists are afraid of US soldiers, but not of the generals and politicians who give them their orders. And they are afraid of the ordinary Americans and Europeans they are surrounded by every day when they infiltrate their country. They are not afraid of governments, because a government is only as strong as its weakest politician, as its most terrorist sympathizing diplomat, as its most brown nosing general.

When the artillery comes down they can hide. When the bombs fall they can escape and wait. Because sooner or later governments get tired and go away. But people never go away. And the people can only be defeated through their government.

The purpose of terrorist attacks is to terrorize a population through its government, to destroy morale in order to force political concessions. Targeting airplanes disrupts travel and isolates countries making them easier targets for the Ummah to carve apart. Targeting planes, buses, bridges and all means of transportation teaches people to be afraid whenever they go anywhere… which in turn teaches them to be helpless in the face of government security measures and random violence, to detach themselves emotionally and submit. To be Muslims. Read all @ Muslims Against Sharia Blog

terror

Tiraden in Rom, Gewalt zu Hause – Simbabwes Präsident Mugabe im Vor-Wahlkampf

Dr. Alexander von Paleske 19.11. 2009 – Im nächsten Jahr sollen Wahlen in Simbabwe stattfinden.
Nach der gegenwärtigen Stimmungslage hat Mugabes Partei ZANU/PF gute Aussichten 10-20% der Stimmen zu bekommen.

Seit die Regierung der nationalen Einheit im Amt ist, hat sich die Lage im Lande etwas gebessert. Der neue Finanzminister Tendai Biti beseitigte das finanzielle Chaos. Zuletzt kostete eine Cola 12 Milliarden Zimbabwe Dollar. Biti schaffte die lokale Währung erst einmal ab. Seitdem hat sich die Versorgungslage wieder gebessert, in den Geschäften sind wieder Waren vorhanden.

Die Bevölkerung weiss aber nur zu genau, dass Mugabe sich dies kaum auf seine Fahnen schreiben kann.


Robert Mugabe

Diese negative Beurteilung seiner Partei muss sich ändern, findet der Präsident, das finden auch seine Gefolgsleute im Regierungsapparat, Polizei und Armee.

Da wortreiche Ueberzeugungsarbeit und Tiraden im Ausland wie jetzt auf der Welternährungskonferenz in Rom, nicht ausreichen, soll mit bewährten Mitteln nachgeholfen werden: Mit Gewalt und Terror.


Willkommensschild, Plumtree (Zimbabwe), Grenze zu Botswana – Foto: Dr. v. Paleske

Dieses Vorgehen hatte sich schon im vergangenen Jahr bei der Präsidentschaftsstichwahl „gut bewährt“. Aber anders als letztes Jahr soll es diesmal offenbar von langer Hand vorbereitet werden.
Im Juni kreuzten die ersten „Unterrichtskommandos“ in den ländlichen Gebieten auf. Seitdem gibt es immer wieder Berichte über Gewalttätigkeiten gegen Oppositionsmitglieder.

Jetzt wurde auch der deutsche Jesuitenpater Wolfgang Thamm von Mugabes Schergen verprügelt und gedemütigt.
Aber das dürfte erfahrungsgemäss nur die Spitze des Eisbergs sein.

Jubelparteitag im Dezember
Im nächsten Monat findet der Parteitag von Mugabes ZANU/PF Partei statt. Ein Jubelparteitag ist zu erwarten.
Zwar gibt es innerhalb seiner Partei bereits einen Kampf um die Nachfolge, aber Mugabe denkt offensichtlich gar nicht an Abtritt. Er hält sich für erwählt und nicht nur (durch Wahlterror) für gewählt.
Und er hält sich vor allen Dingen für unersetzlich.

Simbabwe – Auferstehung aus den Ruinen?
Ein fauler Kompromiss wird Wirklichkeit</b
linkSimbabwe: Verlängerung des Terrors befürchtet – Stichwahl erst in drei Monaten
Simbabwe: Mugabes Terrorkampagne erreicht neuen Höhepunkt
Simbabwe – Der Wahlterror hat begonnen
Simbabwe – Mugabe plant Terrorwahlkampf
linkSimbabwe: Erfolg des Terrors, Mugabe bleibt Präsident
Simbabwe: Mugabes Terrorkampagne erreicht neuen Höhepunkt
linkSimbabwe: Prämien fuer Tötung von Oppositionsaktivisten
linkSimbabwe: Mugabes Umzug in Paradies<br /

terror

The way forward

Hamid Mir —- 29.10. 2009 — Many Pakistanis still remember the prediction of a US military advisor, David Kalcullin, in March this year. He claimed that Pakistan may collapse in the next six months and Taliban will take over Islamabad. Six months passed in September 2009.

Pakistan is not only intact but Pakistani security forces defeated Taliban in Swat. Now Pakistan Army has started a new operation in South Waziristan but misunderstandings about Pakistan are still visible in Washington. This time US policy makers fear a military coup against Zardari-led government in Pakistan.

They think that a successful operation in South Waziristan will give more credibility and popularity to Pakistan Army, which will further undermine the authority of Zardari government in Pakistan. Very few people in Washington realise that tension between Pakistan Army and President Zardari were actually created by Kerry-Lugar Bill.

US Congressman John F Tierney is the one who led the efforts to include several controversial provisions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in the US Congress. He tried his level best to defend the Kerry-Lugar Bill in a conference on US-Pakistan relations in Harvard University the other day. Harvard Extension International Relations Club organised the Conference.

The US ambassador of Pakistan, Mr Hussain Haqqani, PML-N secretary information Ahsan Iqbal, myself and some other experts were also invited to speak there. This conference provided an excellent opportunity to the students and academia of Harvard to listen the arguments from both sides but unfortunately there was no consensus that how to move forward jointly in the right direction. Ambassador Haqqani rightly said that the only way forward is democracy. US must support democracy in Pakistan. When I raised a question why the US is not listening to the voice of democracy in Pakistan coming through an elected parliament? There was no answer from US side.

No doubt that the US is the most controversial country in Pakistan and Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in the US. There is a huge mistrust on both sides but even then both countries need cooperation of each other because they are facing some common threats. Pakistan lies in one of the world’s most important geopolitical regions surrounded by Afghanistan, Iran, China and India.

One must admit that many international players want to turn Afghanistan into another Vietnam for US. These international players will take advantage of the mistrust created by Kerry-Lugar Bill between Pakistani military and US. I don’t doubt the intensions of Senator John Kerry because he really wanted to help Pakistan but weak public diplomacy of Obama administration became a big problem for Senator Kerry. US Congress tried to remove misunderstandings through an explanation but many questions are still there.

Many Pakistani legislatures felt that once again the US Congress ignored the concerns raised about the Kerry-Lugar Bill in their parliament. The Pakistani parliament has adopted unanimous resolution against US drone attacks in the past but US just ignored the voice of Pakistani parliament and increased the drone attacks. Increase in drone attacks has increased suicide bombings in Pakistan. Today US and Pakistan need a joint strategy to defeat terrorism. How can we form a joint strategy to defeat terrorism in the region?

First of all US must stop its drone attacks in Pakistan. US is using drone with a justification that Taliban and Al Qaeda militants are using Pakistani tribal areas as a base to attack NATO forces in Afghanistan. If this is the case then why is the US not interested in securing the 2,500-kilometres-long border between Pakistan and Afghanistan? Why is there no fencing and no proper border check posts? There are more than 350 illegal entry points on the Pak-Afghan border. Every day more than 20,000 vehicles and 45,000 people cross the border without proper documents. How can we stop the cross-border movement of militants if the border is not properly secured?

Secondly the US must give a roadmap for the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan. Remember that US President Obama won his election in the name of peace. He opposed the adventurous policies of Bush administration but today he is just following the policies of Bush by sending more and more troops to Afghanistan.

Does Obama have any substitute of US troops in Afghanistan? Yes, Obama can give a strong role to UN in Afghanistan. UN peacekeeping forces from countries like Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt should replace US and NATO troops. People of Afghanistan and Pakistan will have more trust in the neutral peacekeeping forces of UN.

Replacement of Western troops with Asian troops will weaken Taliban and Al Qaeda. They will lose justification that they are fighting against crusaders.

Thirdly, international community must start immediate efforts to turn Afghanistan into a neutral country like Switzerland. All the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan are interfering there. They are fighting their proxy wars in Afghanistan. A contact group of countries like Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, India, US, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Japan should be created under UN umbrella.

This group must chalk out a plan to stop foreign interference not only in Afghanistan but also in the whole region. US must realise that its presence in the region is the root cause of the problem. Nobody can deny the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan have become unsafe after the arrival of US troops in the region.

Many people ask the question why there was no insurgency in FATA and Balochistan province before 2002? Many people rightly or wrongly say that the Baloch insurgents are getting training and arms from Afghanistan, which is actually controlled by the US. The US is always concerned by the alleged presence of Taliban in Quetta, but why has the US administration not expressed any concern about the terrorist activities of Baloch insurgents around Quetta?

Congressman Tierney told his audience in Harvard that „I am a friend of Pakistan and I will always be honest with Pakistan. I expect the same thing from my counterpart.“ Honesty demands that US administration must listen to the majority of Pakistanis and answer their valid questions. Honesty demands that if the Supreme Court of Pakistan has given a verdict against a dictator on July 31, 2009, the dictator must be tried in Pakistan and if someone is claiming that Musharraf could not be tried because some „foreign powers“ don’t want his trail then the US must clarify that at least Washington is not trying to protect the dictator.

It is a fact that the Bush administration brokered a deal between some political players and Pervez Musharraf through infamous „National Reconciliation Ordinance“ in 2007. This NRO legitimised corruption in Pakistan. Zardari government has tabled NRO in the parliament. Majority of Pakistanis want their parliament to reject NRO. Honesty demands that Obama administration should stay away from protecting NRO. Majority of Pakistanis believe in democracy but they want a neat and clean democracy. They hate corrupt democracy.

They hate any Pakistani Karzai who is more powerful than the elected parliament. Only a powerful parliament, independent judiciary and free media can stop a military coup in Pakistan. No, Karzai can stop a military coup because Karzai always lacks support from his own public. People like David Kalcullin have always created misconceived panic in Washington about Pakistan. Washington needs to understand and respect the will of the common man in Pakistan. They want to become friends but not slave of US. This is the only way forward.

sendenHamid Mir, the author of this article, is a top Pakistani reporter, head of the Geo TV Bureau in Islamabad. He has won a world-wide acclaim for his interviews with Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, before and following 9/11. His new book about OBL is due to appear in Britain, later this year.

terror

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead Says Asif Ali Zardari

onlineredaktion – According to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, the al-Qaida chief, Osama bin Laden, is no more. But he has requested for more international help as those areas, which the Americans feel Osama is hiding, can be explored.

Stressing that Pakistan government was fighting against the militants, he added that their efforts were being hampered due to lack in resources.

In an interview to BBC to mark his first year in office as President, Zardari had maintained his emphasis on Pakistan’s ailing economy and has sought more assistance from Western countries.

„If the world’s armies and the world’s budgets cannot look after (the Afghan) side of the border, give me more time and give me the resources that I need and we will deliver,“ he said.

He was answering the questions where he was asked about Pakistan’s response, if Taliban militants indulge in cross-border attacks.

Even though Zardari has disclosed that Osama is no more, he has not given any evidence to support the claim. The Washington has denied accepting Zardari’s claims they still believe that the al-Qaida chief is alive and is hiding in agitated tribal areas of Pakistan.

terror

Lockerbie-Terrorist: Krebs oder doch Öl?

Stephan Fuchs – Der libysche Geheimdienstler und Lockerbie Attentäter Megrahi wurde mit grossem Fest in Libyen willkommen geheissen. Er, der Geheimdienstmann, der Terrorist, der Verurteilte, der Krebskranke, er, der mutmasslich mitgeholfen hat, dass 270 Menschen in den Tod gerissen wurden. Vielleicht war der im Vereinigten Königreich inhaftierte Terrorist doch nicht nur so krank, wie die Öffentlichkeit gerne glauben gemacht wurde. Wie britische Quellen aus dem Justizministerium behaupten, ging es bei der Freilassung viel mehr um wirtschaftliche Interessen.


Geheimdienstler Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi : Schwer krank, oder schweres ÖL?

Sunday Times stellt unter Berufung auf zwei ihr zugespielte Briefe des britischen Justizministers Jack Straw an seinen schottischen Kollegen Kenny MacAskill aus dem Jahr 2007 einen Zusammenhang her mit einem Ölgeschäft zwischen dem britischen BP-Konzern und Libyen. Demnach soll Straw zunächst gegen die Einbeziehung des Lockerbie-Attentäters Abdel Basset al Megrahi in ein geplantes Abkommen mit Libyen über einen Gefangenentransfer gewesen sein. Nur fünf Monate später, als das Millionen-Geschäft zwischen BP und Libyen ins Stocken geraten sei, habe Straw seine Meinung geändert. In einem zweiten Brief an MacAskill habe Straw unter Hinweis auf „überwältigende Interessen Grossbritanniens“ der Einbeziehung Al Megrahis in die Vereinbarung über den Gefangenentransfer zugestimmt.

Der schottische Justizminister MacAskill hatte die vorzeitige Freilassung des unheilbar an Krebs erkrankten Lockerbie-Attentäters mit humanitären Erwägungen begründet. Bei dem Bombenanschlag auf eine Pan-Am-Maschine über der schottischen Ortschaft Lockerbie im Dezember 1988 waren 270 Menschen ums Leben gekommen.

Da haben die Britten und die Schweizer doch wieder eine Gemeinsamkeit: Der eine kniet vor dem Diktator, die anderen bespucken ihre Opfer – beide sind sie billige Nutten eines Diktators mit Geld.

terror

Heimkehr eines Attentäters, Libyens Staatschef Gaddafi und das deutsche Auswärtige Amt

Dr. Alexander von Paleske – 28.8. 2009 — Vor einer Woche kehrte einer der Lockerbie Attentäter, Abdelbasset Ali Mohammed al-Megrahi, zurück nach Libyen. Er war wegen des Bombenanschlags auf den PanAm Flug 103 am 21.12. 1988 von einem schottischen Gericht am 31.1.2001 zu einer lebenslangen Haftstrafe verurteilt worden. 270 Menschen starben als Folge des Attentats.

Al- Megrahi wurde bei seiner Rückkehr von Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, dem zweitältesten Sohn von Libyens Herrscher Muammar al-Gaddafi, im Flugzeug begrüsst.
Eine begeisterte Menge erwartete ihn dann auf dem Flughafen Tripolis.

Libyens Staatschef Gaddafi empfing ihn am nächsten Tag.

Der Jubel ist verständlich, denn man darf getrost davon ausgehen, dass der Attentäter im Auftrag Gaddafis eine Bombe in das Flugzeug geschleust hatte und nicht auf eigene Faust. Er hat daher nicht nur für sich allein, sondern auch stellvertretend sozusagen für Gaddafi mitverbüsst.


Gaddafi

Gaddaffi hatte ihn im Jahre 1999 ausgeliefert, später die Angehörigen der Attentatsopfer entschädigt und damit das Ende der gegen Libyen verhängten Sanktionen erreicht.

Ausserdem gab er die Entwicklung von Massenvernichtungswaffen auf.

Nun wurde al-Megrahi vorzeitig von einem schottischen Gericht entlassen, weil er terminal an Prostatakrebs erkrankt ist.
Seine Memoiren will er nun noch schreiben. Man darf gespannt sein, ob er wirklich Neues zu berichten weiss.

Ein Blick zurück auf eine Spirale von Gewalt und Terror
Das Lockerbie-Attentat war offenbar die Rache Gaddafis für den Angriff einer am 15. April 1986 in Grossbritannien gestarteten US- Luftflotte auf Libyen, der 34 libysche Zivilisten zum Opfer fielen.

Dieser Bombenangriff war wiederum die Vergeltung der US- Regierung für den Bombenanschlag auf die Diskothek La Belle in Berlin am 4.April 1986, eine Diskothek, die vorwiegend von US- Soldaten frequentiert wurde.

Der Bombenanschlag auf die Diskothek war offenbar wiederum Libyens Vergeltung für die Versenkung von zwei libyschen Schnellbooten durch die Mittelmeer stationierte 6. US-Flotte zuvor, die angeblich in „bedrohliche Nähe“ gekommen waren.

So drehte sich damals die Eskalationsschraube.

Vergessene Opfer eines weiteren Anschlags
Was hat das deutsche Auswärtige Amt damit zu tun?
Bei dieser Sequenz von Gewalt und Gegengewalt wird vergessen, dass am 18. März 1987 ein von Gaddafi offenbar angeordneter weiterer Bombenanschlag in Djibouti am Horn von Afrika vier deutschen Nachwuchswissenschaftlern das Leben kostete: Annette Barthelt, Daniel Reinschmidt, Hans -Wilhelm Halbeisen und Marco Buchalla.

Vier weitere Wissenschaftler der Universität Kiel, nämlich Dr. Klaus von Bröckel , Annegret Stuhr, Ilka Peeken und Dr. Uwe Piatkowski wurden bei dem Anschlag schwer verletzt.


Die Opfer von Djibouti: Annette Barthelt, Hans-Wilhelm Halbeisen, Marco Buchalla & Daniel Reinschmidt

Die Deutschen waren nicht das Ziel des Angriffs, das waren vielmehr französische Soldaten. Die Deutschen hatten sich unglücklicherweise zur falschen Zeit und am falschen Ort aufgehalten.

Gadaffi wollte offenbar Rache dafür nehmen, dass französische Soldaten zusammen mit Soldaten des Tschad seinen in den Tschad einmarschierten libyschen Truppen eine empfindliche Niederlage bereitet hatten.

Zu diesem Rachefeldzug gehörte auch das Attentat auf das UTA Flugzeug, das am 19.9.1989 über Niger mit 170 Passagieren in seinem Auftrag durch eine an Bord geschleuste Bombe zum Absturz gebracht wurde.

Das Auswärtige Amt, damals noch unter Aussenminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, hatte nichts Besseres zu tun, als die ganze Angelegenheit unter den Teppich zu kehren, obgleich der angebliche Kopf der Attentäter ein Libyer namens Taher Chaabane war, und die Attentäter mit libyschen Traveller-Schecks in Djibouti bezahlten, wir berichteten darüber.

Aber auch Genschers Nachfolger Kinkel und Fischer unternahmen nichts.

Die guten Exportgeschäfte mit Libyen sollten offenbar nicht gefährdet werden. und ausserdem hatte das Bundeskriminalamt Libyens Diktator bereits seit dem Jahre 1979 in Sachen Personenschutz unterstützt, wie die FAZ am 14. April 2008 zu berichten wusste.

Auch hatte Gaddafi bei einem Besuch des damaligen Innenministers Baum erklärt, man halte die Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) für geisteskrank.
Das verfehlte seine Wirkung nicht. Gaddafi wurde gebeten, Druck auf die PLO auszuüben damit diese den RAF-Leuten keine materielle oder logistische Unterstützung mehr gewähren. Gaddafi kam offenbar dieser Bitte nach. Die PLO gehorchte, sie war von den finanziellen Unterstützungen aus Libyen abhängig.

Eine Hand wäscht die andere, oder im Englischen „“Scratch my back and I scratch yours“.

Vergeblich haben die Angehörigen der Djibouti-Opfer über mehr als 20 Jahre versucht, etwas zu erreichen, was eigentlich selbstverständlich sein sollte: Gerechtigkeit und für die überlebenden Opfer Schadensersatz.

Gerechtigkeit wurde immerhin im Falle des Lockerbie-Anschlags, des Anschlags auf La Belle und des UTA-Flugzeugattentats teilweise erreicht.

Im Falle des Djibouti- Anschlags wurde hingegen nichts unternommen. Offenbar getreu der Devise: Nicht auf deutschem Boden passiert und nicht gegen Deutschland gerichtet. Pech gehabt.

Schweigen um die Morde an vier Deutschen in Djibouti
Prozess in Suedafrika und Banditen im Nuklearbereich
Hannibal aus Tripolis oder: Ein schweizer Bundespräsident auf Canossa-Reise

terror

Is Baitullah really dead?

Hamid Mir – US drone attacks are not popular in Pakistan but it is the first time that a big number of Pakistanis are happy over a news report that the head of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed in a drone attack on Aug 5 in South Waziristan. Baitullah Mehsud was the most wanted and the most ruthless man in Pakistan who was responsible for dozens of suicide attacks across the country. Government of Pakistan has not officially confirmed his death yet. (The Taliban have denied his killing.)

News of his death first came through American media sources on Aug 7. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi also confirmed his death by quoting intelligence sources but Interior Minister Rehman Malik is careful. A senator from South Wazirastan told him in the morning of Aug 8 that Baitullah is not dead and that was why Rehman Malik never confirmed the death of the most wanted man to media.

Many Pakistanis think that if Baitullah is dead just few days before the 62nd independence day of Pakistan then it is a great gift from a US drone but common Pakistanis are also raising some questions.

Pakistani security establishment started saying last year that Baitullah was actually working for Americans and Indians and that was why US drones never attacked him. The reason behind this conspiracy theory was the rising suicide attacks against Pakistani security forces. ISI requested CIA many times in 2007 to target Baitullah Mehsud but CIA never obliged ISI. CIA was under the impression that ISI is not helping it in hunting down the militant leaders like Maulvi Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadar and Sirajuddin Haqqani who are attacking US troops in Afghanistan. Pakistani government made peace agreements with these militants who were only fighting in Afghanistan while Baitullah was fighting against Pakistani security forces. Situation started changing after the removal of Musharraf from the top Army command.

Well coordinated joint efforts to defeat Taliban and Al Qaeda were started just few months back.

US announced 5 million dollars and Pakistan announced 50 million rupees as a head money for Baitullah. Some problems were still there. Few weeks ago a rebel militant from South Wazirastan Qari Zainuddin Mehsud gave interviews to Pakistani media and claimed that Baitullah was working for Americans and Indians. This rebel militant was backed by the security establishment and his claim created lot of misunderstandings. Within few days of these interviews, Baitullah killed Qari Zinuddin on June 23, 2009, in Dera Ismail Khan and gave a message that he can target his enemies anytime and anywhere in Pakistan.

Just few weeks after the death of Qari Zainuddin, Pakistani intelligence sources are now claiming that Baitullah have been killed in a US drone attack. Question is that will the Pakistani government pay Rs50 Million to CIA for eliminating the most wanted man in the country? US drones cannot target anyone in Pakistani territory until someone from Pakistan is not ready to share intelligence with CIA. Now who will get 5 million US dollars from CIA in Pakistan? Will our president and prime minister say openly „Thank You America?“ or they will again condemn the US drone attack in Pakistan?

It is now proved that despite some trust deficit in the past, currently US and Pakistani intelligence agencies are working closely with each other.

Pakistani security forces encircled Baitullah Mehsud from three sides in South Wazirastan and someone provided information of his movement to CIA and that was how the head of Pakistani Taliban was targeted by a US drone. There is no doubt now. US drones are attacking targets in Pakistan with the secret cooperation from some Pakistanis but our government always condemned these drone attacks. Pakistan today needs a transparent and bold policy for fighting terrorism. If we are coordinating US drone attacks in our own country then our government should not condemn drone attacks in Pakistan publicly. It is only creating misunderstandings. Common Pakistanis cannot be fooled. It is the Pakistani government which is losing credibility. A government without credibility cannot defeat terrorism. If Baitullah is really dead and our government is happy then US drone attacks in Pakistan will be legitimised and we will not be in a position to condemn these attacks in the future. May be that is the reason Interior Minister Rehman Malik told me that „even if Baitullah Mehsud is killed I condemn US drone attacks in Pakistan.“

We must learn lessons from our past mistakes.

We must admit that Baitullah Mehsud was actually created by our own establishment. We used Brig (R) Qayyum Sher in January 2005 to win the support of Baitullah Mehsud against Abdullah Mehsud. Lt Gen Safdar Hussain approved the first peace agreement with Baitullah Mehsud in February 2005 and Pakistan Army agreed to withdraw its troops from the areas under Baitullah control. After the withdrawal of the Army from his areas, Baitullah broke the peace agreement in July 2005. He kidnapped 243 Pakistani soldiers from his area in August 2007 and Musharraf was forced to release these soldiers again through another secret deal with Baitullah on Nov 4, 2007. Pakistani establishment again struck a deal with him in January 2008 but it was broken in a few weeks. All these deals were secret. We don’t need secret deals with militants anymore. If we need peace deals then discuss these deals first in the parliament.

And the most important lesson. We should not form any private militias against other private militias to fight in our own country. Read Article 256 of the Constitution of Pakistan which says „no private organisation capable of functioning as a military organization shall be formed, and any such organisation shall be illegal.“ Unfortunately we are again forming private militias in Swat, Buner and Dir. These militias may produce some more Baitullah Mehsuds.

I still believe that we must not celebrate the reported death of Baitullah Mehsud. His network is still intact. If he is dead then his network will organise brutal attacks in our cities soon. His physical elimination is not a victory. I think that the real victory will be establishing the writ of Pakistani state in the whole of South Wazirastan. Unfortunately we don’t have control in that area. We are not sure that Baitullah is dead or alive. For me he is still alive. I will consider him dead when the national flag of Pakistan will be hoisted on the buildings of all the schools in South Wazirastan and students will celebrate Aug 14 without any fear.

sendenHamid Mir, the author of this article, is a top Pakistani reporter, head of the Geo TV Bureau in Islamabad. He has won a world-wide acclaim for his interviews with Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, before and following 9/11. His new book about OBL is due to appear in Britain, later this year.

terror

Terrorismus: Irakischer Pass für 1500 Dollar

Stephan Fuchs – Auf einem irakischen Generalkonsulat sollen angeblich original – falsche Pässe an x-beliebige Personen verkauft worden sein. Kostenpunkt 1500 Dollar. Die Konsequenz daraus: Tod und Verderben.

Drei algerische Asylbewerber haben in einem europäischen Land (wohl zurecht) einen negativen Asylentscheid bekommen, sie mussten das Land verlassen. Zurück nach Algerien wollten sie nicht. Die Aussicht in einem anderen europäischen Land Asyl zu erlangen war verschwindend klein, das Schengen Abkommen verhindert solche Zweitasyl Gesuche. Das Trio wurde bei einem irakischen Generalkonsulat vorstellig. Ob das Trio dabei extern unterstützt worden war, das ist unklar. Quellen sagen, dass sie über eine Moschee auf diese Idee gekommen seien und über diese auch die finanziellen Ressourcen akkumuliert hätten.

Wie auch immer, das algerische Trio geht auf das irakische Generalkonsulat, erzählt dort, sie hätten ihren irakische Pass verloren und erhalten, für je 1500 Dollar, umgehend auf ihre Namen ausgestellte irakische Reisedokumente. Mit den neuen Identitäten buchen sie einen Flug nach Bagdad. Ihr Leben scheint gerettet, eine neue Zukunft zeichnet sich ab.

In Bagdad angekommen besuchen sie eine Moschee, welche jener in Europe freundlich gesonnen ist. Nach einigen Besuchen erhalten sie Rucksäcke, die sie auf dem lokalen Markt in Bagdad abgeben sollen. Ein kleiner Gefallen, welches das Trio kaum ablehnen kann, nachdem die Freunde der Moschee soviel getan haben. Sie gehen zum Markt, suchen den vorbestimmten Marktstand und – BUMM – der Rucksack explodiert. Von einem Mobiltelefon ferngesteuert. Die Odyssee der drei algerischen Asylbewerber hat ein jähes Ende. Bagdad ist um ein schreckliches Attentat reicher – viele, auf dem dichtgedrängten Markt haben dabei ihr Leben verloren. Das involvierte Personal auf dem irakischen Generalkonsulat wurde mitterweile ausgetauscht.

terror

Söldnerchef Spicer sucht neues Geschäftsfeld: Piratenbekämpfung vor Somalia

Dr. Alexander von Paleske — 26.4. 2009 — Am gestrigen Tage wurde von somalischen Piraten ein italienisches Kreuzfahrtschiff angegriffen, die MS Melody. An Bord waren auch Deutsche. Der Angriff wurde von Sicherheitsleuten mit Schusswaffen abgewehrt. Die Piraten wurden in die Flucht geschlagen.

Wenn es nach den Vorstellungen des britischen Obersöldners Tim Spicer ginge, der zur Zeit noch der Chef aller Söldnertruppen im Irak ist, dann sollen derartige Tätigkeiten in Zukunft von Söldnern seiner Fiirma Aegis übernommen werden.

Shoot to kill
In Zukunft würden dann wohl keine Gefangenen mehr gemacht und nach Kenia gebracht, was immer auf kleinen Booten sich vor der Küste Somalias bewegt, würde einfach unter Feuer genommen.

Bereits im Irak war die Söldnerfirma Aegis durch skupelloses Beschiessen von Autos aufgefallen, in einem Video festgehalten.


Auf Verlangen von Aegis wurde es entfernt.

Das Video ist aber hier noch einsehbar:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/fallujah/contract/

Über die Vergangenheit dieses Chefsöldners, der einstmals Oberst in der britischen Armee war, und dann zum Söldner in Afrika mutierte, haben wir mehrfach berichtet.

Seine Geschäftstätigkeit im Irak dürfte sich in absehbarer Zeit dem Ende nähern mit dem Abzug der US Truppen, von US Präsident Obama in Aussicht gestellt. Zeit also, sich nach neuen Geschäftsfeldern umzuschauen.

Im Irak operieren seine Söldner in einem rechtsfreien Raum, da sie nicht der irakischen Gerichtsbarkeit unterfallen, und ebenfalls keiner Militärgerichtsbarkeit, sie gehören ja keiner regulären Armee an. Die Folgen sind bekannt.

Vom Irak auf die Schiffe
In den Gewässern um Somalia soll die Chose genau so laufen: Seine Söldner sollen nach den Plänen Spicers dann von den Reedereien angeheuert werden, gehen in Aden oder anderswo an Bord der zu schützenden Schiffe und werden weiter südlich wieder ausgeladen. Und die hohe See ist gleichsam ein rechtsfreier Raum,wie der Irak. Wie schön. Also: Feuer frei!

Um um die Lage noch zu verschlimmern, hat die britische Regierung offenbar Pläne aufgegeben, eine wie auch immer geartetete Aufsicht über diese Söldnerfirmen und ihr Treiben zu übernehmen. Aufsicht über diese Firmen soll von den Söldnerfirmen selbst übernommen werden. Man kann nur staunen.

Immerhin war nach der „Arms to Africa Affair“, in die Spicer mit der Firma Sandline verwickelt war, und nach den Ermittlungen eines Untersuchungsausschusses des britischen Parlaments im Jahre 2002 eine strenge Aufsicht seitens der britischen Regierung über diese Söldnerfirmen in einen sogenannten „Green Paper“ gefordert worden – Schnee von gestern.

Vorgeschichte der Piraterie
Es wird gerne vergessen, dass die unerquickliche Piraterie vor der Küste Somalias eine Vorgeschichte hat: Das Leerfischen der Küste durch fremde Fischtrawler, auch aus Europa, die sich das Fehlen jeglicher Küstenwacht zu Nutze machten, auch das eine Form der Piraterie. Den lokalen Fischern blieb nichts.

Und nicht zu vergessen: Abfallbeseitigungsfirmen luden vor der Küste Somalias in grossen Mengen Abfälle ab, einschliesslich Sondermülls, also toxische Stoffe, die dann an Land geschwemmt wurden.Angeblich auch Atommüll.
Abfallbeseitigungspiraterie ein anderes Wort dafür.

Es gab also eine Piraterie vor der Piraterie

Craig Murray: Ein Autor ohne Verlag. Rakesh Saxena: Ein Mann ohne Strafe
Chefsöldner Tim Spicer erhält Pentagon-Vertragsverlängerung im Irak
Irak: Wenn die regulären Truppen gehen, kommen die Söldner
Blair drängt auf Söldnernachschub aus Südafrika
On The Road Again – Blackwater-Söldner dürfen weiter töten
Söldner, Gauner, Waffen und Rohstoffe

terror

Tracking Bin Laden

Ryan Mauro – Where is Osama Bin Laden? Conventional wisdom holds that the world’s most-wanted terrorist is hiding in Pakistan. While this may be true, several eyewitness reports and unverified intelligence point to a different location: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Despite its Shiite radicalism, Iran has harbored the Sunni Bin Laden in the past and may even harbor him today.

The idea that Bin Laden could have taken refuge in Iran is controversial, but al-Qaeda’s presence inside the country is well-documented. On January 16, the Treasury Department placed sanctions on several high-level al-Qaeda operatives in Iran. The Department indictment clearly states that some of these operatives helped bring members of Ayman al-Zawahiri’s and Bin Laden’s families to Iran. Bin Laden’s oldest son, for example, was in Iran until September 2008 when he left for Pakistan. If the family of Bin Laden feels safe on Iranian soil, then there is the possibility that Bin Laden himself would also turn to Afghanistan’s western neighbor as a hideout. If the intelligence sources of John Loftus are correct, this is precisely the case, with Bin Laden spending four to six months per year in Iran.

Two former Iranian intelligence officers provided the first eyewitness report of Bin Laden in Iran available to the public when they were interviewed by Richard Miniter for his 2004 book, Shadow War. The one officer even gave his name, Malak Reza, and the other went by the name of „Choopan,“ who claimed he was responsible for coordinating Ayatollah Khamenei’s personal intelligence office. Miniter believes they are credible, as they provided the names of two covert Iranian operatives in Europe that had never been publicly identified, and „Choopan“ showed photos of him with Iranian-backed terrorists in the 1980s. Miniter also reported on Pentagon documents confirming that Choopan’s intelligence was used to stop an attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Neither officer asked for money in return for their information.

Bin Laden left Afghanistan in December, a fact that is now commonly accepted. From that point, however, Bin Laden’s travel becomes unclear. According to the Iranians, Bin Laden then went to Pakistani Kashmir in January 2002, a claim supported by a Telegraph report from February 23, 2002 that British special forces had begun hunting for him there after Indian intelligence told the CIA that Bin Laden was in the Himalayan Mountains in Kashmir under the protection of the Harkat-ul-Mujhaideen terrorist group.

According to this account, by June of 2002 Bin Laden had traveled again and was in the Baluchistan province of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan and Iran. Mullah Omar, the former head of the Taliban, has been accused by Afghanistan of hiding in Quetta, the capital of this mostly lawless region, a claim substantiated by a captured Taliban spokesperson. This location seems likely, as many members of al-Qaeda have an ethnic Baluch background.

In July 2002, the Pakistani military launched an offensive into the tribal areas where the remnants of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their allies had taken refuge. Afraid of being cornered, Bin Laden dispatched a messenger to Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, with an audio tape requesting safe harbor and funding. In return, Bin Laden offered to allow his networks to be used by the Iranian regime and even promised to tell his followers to follow Khamenei in the event of his demise.

If the story is indeed true, the audiotape seems to have worked. Bin Laden’s four wives and his oldest son, Saad, went to Iran, followed by Bin Laden himself, who crossed on July 26, 2002, near Zabol, a city that sits on the border between Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bin Laden then traveled north to Mashhad, a location originally identified a transit point for al-Qaeda members traveling via Iran as far back as October 2001, which is still reportedly being used today. After arriving, Bin Laden went west, where he was shuffled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards between Qazvin and Karaj. The Iranian intelligence officers said that Bin Laden traveled with Ayman al-Zawahiri, who required medical treatment from wounds. Their stay in Iran was not permanent, as they were permitted to cross into Afghanistan through Zabol, their original path of arrival.

This shocking claim that Bin Laden went to Iran in the summer of 2002 is corroborated by Hamid Mir, one of Pakistan’s top journalists, and the only man to interview Bin Laden after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Mir is currently writing a biography of Bin Laden using his vast contacts among al-Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorist operatives. Mir has said that in July 2002, members of al-Qaeda approached him offering to arrange another interview with Bin Laden. „They said that if you are ready to go to Iran without [a] passport we can arrange your meeting,“ Mir says.

Bin Laden’s personal chef, Haji Mohamad Akram, has likewise claimed, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor, that Bin Laden was offered safe haven by Iran. Akram believes that Bin Laden went to Iran after finding refuge in Iran because other al-Qaeda leaders he spoke to said that was where they were headed. According to the Monitor, the „detailed picture he offers of bin Laden’s last days in Tora Bora, and his possible escape to Iran, correspond with accounts from previous Monitor interviews with other bin Laden associates.“ Michael Ledeen in his book The Iranian Time Bomb says that in December 2001, he was told „by usually well-informed Iranians that Bin Laden would go to Iran and ‚be disappeared,'“ ending his frequent public appearances.

In 2003, another Iranian source began providing information on Bin Laden’s location in Iran that substantiates the timeline provided by the two Iranian intelligence officers and the other sources. Congressman Curt Weldon, then-vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and House Homeland Security Committee, had been receiving intelligence from „Ali,“ an Iranian exile who was a former minister in the government of the Shah and had contacts deep inside Iran. This information provided advance warning of Iranian operations and even of terrorist attacks that ultimately proved accurate.

According to „Ali,“ in 2003 Bin Laden and Zawahiri were in a „five-building settlement, a few miles from Ladiz in Baluchistan“ in Iran, 80 kilometers southeast of Zahedan, where he was receiving medical treatment. It should be noted that on January 16, 2009, the Treasury Department blacklisted an al-Qaeda operative who they claim ran a network in Zahedan. On March 21, „Ali“ received information that the two had moved from Ladiz to Kerman to Saltanabad, a northern suburb of Tehran. Ali also said that Iran agreed to harbor Bin Laden in return for his assistance in „on-going projects.“

In May 2003, Ali informed Weldon that Ayatollah Khamenei had again met with Bin Laden and that they were discussing moving Bin Laden out of Tehran. On August 25, 2003, Ali confirmed to Weldon that Bin Laden had left Tehran but he did not know where he currently was. Then, on September 4, 2003, Ali said there was a 50 percent chance that Bin Laden had left Iran. This constant moving around in Iran and Afghanistan is similar to the description of Bin Laden’s travel provided by the two officers who talked to Miniter.

In June 2003, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty supplied additional evidence for Bin Laden being in Iran at this precise time. „A confidential Italian intelligence report submitted in early June asserts the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was in Iran in May, Milan’s Corriere della Serra reported on June. In early May, bin Laden and seven Arab extremists met in Tehran to plan attacks in Italy, Pakistan, and Turkey,“ RFE/RL reported.

The two Iranian intelligence officers told Miniter that on October 23, 2003, they personally saw Bin Laden, which Miniter described as „the first recent eyewitness account of Bin Laden ever reported“ when his book was published in 2004. The two officers were in Najmabad, less than an hour from Tehran. The two officers provided a detailed description of the briefing room where they were with officers from the Revolutionary Guards. Suddenly, an officer entered and ordered the occupants on the room to leave to make room for „foreign visitors.“ The two officers looked outside and claimed that they saw Osama Bin Laden, Zawahiri, their bodyguards and other al-Qaeda operatives step out of a three-car convoy. They reported that Bin Laden had trimmed his beard and was wearing a black turban to look like an Iranian cleric. If true, this may explain why Bin Laden has decided to stick to releasing audiotapes instead of videotapes.

On December 23, 2003, WorldNetDaily.com reported that a „respected Islamic leader,“ who wished to remain anonymous, said that Bin Laden was in Iran. The leader said that „a group of Arabs who recently spent time in the desert area shared by Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, are claiming the most wanted man in the world is ‚definitely in Iran.'“

On May 3, 2004, Ali told Weldon that „the last information we have about Bin Laden is that four months ago [January 2004] he was in a villa near Karadj. We don’t know where he has moved.“ According to Kenneth Timmerman’s 2005 book, Countdown to Crisis, Ali sent Weldon information on Bin Laden’s location in June 2004 so specific that he even planned to travel alongside a former CIA contractor into Iran to get him until CIA Director Tenet told him not to upon learning of Weldon’s plan.

In late 2004, Zawahiri, again dressed like an Iranian cleric, held meetings with Iranian government officials including a top aide to Ayatollah Khamenei and two Revolutionary Guards generals. Citing „sources with direct knowledge of these meetings,“ Timmerman writes that Bin Laden arrived during the second day, again dressed like an Iranian cleric and with an IV inserted into his hand, looking „frail and old.“ The meeting concluded with plans for Bin Laden to meet with former President Rafsanjani in the spring of 2005.

The last pieces of information publicly available about Bin Laden’s possible presence in Iran came in 2006. Michael Ledeen, well-known friend of the Iranian democracy movement, wrote in National Review Online on January 9, „according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December.

The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The Iranians who reported this note that this year’s message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.“ Two months later, Rep. Weldon said that „Ali“ told him that Bin Laden had died in Iran, indicating this may have been a case of circular reporting. When Bin Laden released audiotapes soon after this claim, Rep. Weldon admitted that Ali may have been deliberately misled.

This error, though, should not discredit all of Ali’s past information, especially considering the corroboration described here and the accuracy of his past reports. The fact that none of the timeframes for Bin Laden’s location in the above information is contradictory, despite being from various sources, lends credence to these reports.

However, the U.S. intelligence community seems certain that Bin Laden is in Pakistan, and they have reasons for believing so. There is no recent public confirmation of Bin Laden’s presence in Iran. In addition, scientists from the UCLA recently made headlines when they finished a groundbreaking study, billed as „the first scientific approach to establishing his [Bin Laden] current location,“ which concluded that Bin Laden was in one of three walled compounds in Parachinar, the capital of Pakistan’s Kurram Agency in the lawless tribal areas. They have good reason to believe he is there today, and indeed he may be. Gary Berntsen, the commander of the CIA unit hunting Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 9/11, says that on December 16, 2001, Bin Laden is believed to have fled to this location. It is quite possible that they are right, and Bin Laden has moved out of Iran to this area or that he frequently moves between Iran and Pakistan.

„We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority,“ President Obama said during his presidential debate with Senator John McCain on October 7, 2009. Whether Bin Laden is in Iran, or Parachinar, or some other area of Pakistan, the Obama Administration must follow every lead to locate him.

This article was first published at FrontPageMagazine.com


Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the Assistant-Director of Intelligence at C2I. He’s also the National Security Researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author.