Last week, a flight from New York's LaGuardia airport going to Louisville, Kentucky was grounded in Philadelphia when a Jewish passenger wrapping tefillin was suspected of being a terrorist. Jewcy spoke briefly with "Caleb," a man who had been seated near the tefillin-wrapper on the plane. Now that he is no longer being questioned by the FBI, he gave us a more extended account of what happened on the flight:

We landed with no announcement, so we assumed we were in Louisville, thinking "wow, that was fast." Then the plane was on the tarmac and was rushed and surrounded by SWAT cars. The plane door opens and three dudes come onboard, guns pointed. They are yelling to each other "which one, which one?!"

"Yamaka [sic]! Yamaka! The guy in the yamaka!" They point their guns that way, which is also my way. When they stormed in, it was "Everybody get your hands in the air! Get your hands in the air!" Then they grabbed the guy and he was escorted out. Then, everybody on the plane was individually interrogated by the FBI. Everybody. I was asked if I saw [the tefillin-wrapper] before the flight in the airport and if he said anything to me.

About 20 people were on the flight when it left LaGuardia, but only 9 of us went back on the same plane in Philadelphia to go to Kentucky. A few turned around and went right back to LaGuardia because they'd already missed their meetings.

The FBI guy on the plane goes and tells us, "OK, we're going to interview all of you." A guy raises his hand with a question: "What time are we getting to Kentucky?" He was one that went right back on a flight home.

Caleb did continue on to Louisville, where he was going to several business meetings, and returned home a few days later without incident. He says that no one who opted not to fly on to Louisville got a comped flight.

Another day, another purported terrorism scare at a New York City-area airport. Today, it's out of LaGuardia, where a flight to Louisville had to make an emergency landing in Philadelphia after a passenger's use of a religious item caused flight personnel to fear a bomb scare. What was that religious item, you may ask? Not a Koran, like you might guess. According to CBS, "a Jewish male removed a "tefillin" for prayer purposes after takeoff. The removal of the "religious item" prompted a bomb scare aboard the plane." (Please note that that is an exact quote, including all the scare quotes.) Yes, guys, it turns out that a tefillin box totally looks like a bomb. Thank goodness nobody tried to bring a tzedekah box on board with them.

The man in question was removed from the flight and is probably being questioned by the FBI. However, this is the second incident this month that makes it seem it's less safe to fly while obviously being Jewish. The first, of course, was comedienne Joan Rivers being denied access to a flight because her passport carried two names - her stage name (Rivers) and her much Jewier-sounding legal name (Rosenberg).

Through his brother, "Joseph," Jewcy spoke to "Caleb," a passenger who was sitting near the Jewish man on this flight. Speaking under condition of anonymity because he and several other passengers are still being questioned by the FBI, he said that "There was no problem with [the Jewish passenger] at all," and added that the flight attendant who reported the 'suspicious activity' was biased against the Jewish passenger because she was African-American and did not understand Judaism or the significance of tefillin. The flight attendant in question is based out of Charlotte, North Carolina. [Editor's note: I just want to point out we're not hating on Southern people or saying they're all racist. I mean, dude, I'm from Raleigh. We're just relaying how Caleb and Joseph described the situation to us, and Caleb drew his own conclusions about the situation. Jewcy does not necessarily share or endorse his opinion.]

Of course, Jews aren't being profiled in airports the way that Muslim or Arab-looking people are. At least not yet. But how likely do you think it would be for a Catholic passenger to get kicked off a plane and investigated by the Department of Homeland Security for deciding to pray a rosary before the beverage cart went around? I'd bet the person would be able to pray without incident. And that's something we should be concerned about.

Terrorist organizations have to spread their ideology somehow.

Enter the strange, fascinating world of... al-Qaeda's magazines.

For the past few years, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has published the magazines Sada al-Malahim (The Echo of Battle) and Sada al-Jihad (The Echo of Jihad).

Al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula is a branch of al-Qaeda that operates primarily in Saudi Arabia; they are the charming folks responsible for the kidnapping and murder of New Jersey helicopter engineer Paul Johnson in 2004. Johnson was executed live on camera as three men held him down and one jihadi beheaded him with a sword.

According to intelligence experts, the group was also responsible for the 2004 massacre of American, European, South African, Sri Lankan, Indian and Filipino expats in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. However, they are also perfectly happy to work outside of Saudi; the group engineered a bombing in Qatar in 2005.

Issue 11 of Sada al-Malahim started appearing on jihadi online forums a few days back in PDF form ready-to-print. A copy may be obtained here, complete with a charming cover showing a beaker and a hand grenade. It’s a dense little bastard of a magazine, clocking in at 73 pages of text, graphics and basic-Pagemaker design. As one might expect; al-Qaeda magazines don’t include such kuffar innovations as advertising.

 

Read the rest of this story on true/slant. 

Waking up to the news that the FBI foiled a plot to bomb two synagogues in Riverdale, New York was shocking not only to the local Jewish community but to all New Yorkers...and to our nation at large.

The would-be targets of this well-planned attack were synagogues - one Orthodox, the other Reform, located within walking distance of one another within this warm, close-knit and diverse Jewish community just north of Manhattan.

If we ever needed confirmation that our diverse and often divided religious community is indeed united --as one people with one heart -- the failed terrorists from Newburgh provided us with that reminder.

 As a native of Riverdale, I feel a unique connection to the news of the thwarted attack. I grew up down the street from the Riverdale Jewish Center and have attended numerous events, programs, bar mitzvahs, weddings and functions there as well in the various other local houses of worship, including the Conservative Synagogue of Riverdale where one of our own Rabbinical Assembly members, Rabbi Barry Dov Katz, is spiritual leader.

My elderly father still lives in Riverdale, numerous faculty members of the Jewish Theological Seminary and leaders of the Conservative movement are residents and the community is renowned for its vibrant Jewish life.

Riverdale is a model of diversity, similar in many ways to the White Plains community where I live. It is one of the main arteries of my life, not only because I drive through it twice daily on my way to and from my home in Westchester to my Morningside Heights office.

Riverdale is central to my life because it is the place where I drop my children off every morning to attend the warm and loving Jewish day school they attend, located within walking distance of the targeted synagogues.

On behalf of the Rabbinical Assembly, I commend the FBI, the New York State Police, the anti-terrorist investigative team and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all of whom performed a stellar job in preventing what might have been a tragedy of enormous proportions.

Let us take this opportunity to transcend our differences and come together as a community of Jewish New Yorkers. We will not give in to fear or bend to terror. Let us not wait for hatred to remind us of our common bond.

If fifty million Frenchmen can be dead wrong, as the saying goes, so can four very senior statesmen. Over the last two years, George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn--all veterans of the Cold War--have popularized the idea that the best way to protect the world from nuclear weapons is for the United States and Russia to move towards reducing their nuclear stockpiles to zero. The group--variously referred to as "the Quad," the "gang of four," and "the four horsemen of the non-apocalypse"--has gained support for this position from many of the brightest and best minds in the foreign policy business, including Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, and some from the Obama foreign policy shop ("Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy"). And now, the highly regarded Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has called on the next president to negotiate with Russia, along the lines the Quad calls for.

If one is not blown away by all this eminence, and refuses to shut down one's critical mind, one soon notes that this approach sets the wrong priorities both in dealing with deproliferation and in dealing with Russia. The most serious threat to our security, that of our allies, and to world peace, is very widely agreed to be that of terrorists getting their hands on a ready-made nuclear weapon. (Making new ones is much more of a challenge for them, although making radiological bombs is not nearly as taxing.) The most likely place terrorists could steal, bribe their way to, or otherwise commandeer nuclear weapons, is a country not even mentioned in either of the Quad's main statements (January 4, 2007; January 15, 2008), nor in many of the admiring accolades that followed: Pakistan. 

The notion that if the United States and Russia will live up to their commitments under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires them to eliminate their nuclear arms, other nations will follow, has no foot to stand on. Take, for instance, Pakistan, which keeps some arms in part as a deterrent to the much larger Indian conventional forces, which it cannot match. Hence, even if India gave up its nuclear bombs (a very unlikely event) Pakistan feels it could not follow. The same holds for Israel's stockpile and Iran's plans to build some such bombs. All these nations have strong reasons of their own to hold such arms. They serve as a valuable deterrent, keeping their perceived enemies at bay. This and other reasons will not be modified by whatever the United States and Russia do or do not do regarding their own stockpiles.

When I mentioned this observation to a supporter of the Quad's agenda, an expert on nuclear deproliferation, she responded that at least such superpower disarmament will stop the critics of the West from "whining." Indeed, representatives of several nations, especially India, often argue that because the big powers have not abided by their NPT commitments, they should not be expected to do better. However, the argument that if the United States and Russia behaved better, the rest would follow suit, is akin to suggesting that to deal with a student who routinely fails to bring his homework to class, "because my dog ate it," all that is needed is to take away the dog. Doing so will not make the student fulfill his duty, but merely force him to come up with another excuse.

In dealing with Russia, the greatest priority for the United States is to encourage Russia to further improve its controls over the fissile material from which nukes can be made and of the thousands of tactical nuclear arms Russia possesses. Reducing the Cold War instruments, the long range missiles and strategic nuclear weapons--on which the Quad focuses--are much less of an issue. They are already relatively well-controlled and, moreover, are not well suited for terrorists equipped with speed boats, shipping containers, and trunks, thus dismantling them is much less urgent. Even if these strategic Cold War arms are granted top priority, years will pass before new treaties are negotiated, and even then they will require the approval of the U.S. Senate, which in the past has not been very receptive to new treaties. Next, the United States is keen to gain Russia's cooperation in stopping Iran's nuclear militarization. Neither mission is affected by the extent to which the two powers deal with the Cold War weapons.

In short, one hopes that the new president will not be swayed by that which is popular for now, but will do first that which must be done first: Prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nukes and rogue states from developing or stock-piling these most dangerous of all weapons of mass destruction.

While Americans were doing their Thanksgiving thing and the citizens of the rest of the world did whatever it is that they do on any given day, India was rocked by what may end up being their 9/11. At least 138 are dead, with sources putting the death toll as high as 172 as of Monday morning, and hundreds more have been injured in a series coordinated attacks on locations across Mumbai, the world’s most-populous city. The attackers have been called terrorists by the Indian and most international governments, and are believed to be Muslims primarily of Kashmiri origin.Some of the attack locations (Wikipedia)

The attackers opened fire with a combination of machine guns, car bombs, and other explosives in a vast array of public locations, including a train stations, hotels, docks and a movie theatre. E-mails sent to various news outlets by a group calling itself “Deccan Mujahideen” claimed responsibility for the attacks, but international authorities are unsure of what to make of these claims, as their was little record of the group's existence prior to the attacks on Mumbai. An investigation is obvious ongoing, with much information being obtained via Azam Amir Kasav, a Pakistani man apprehended while reportedly attempting to escape one of the attack sites who is now cooperating with authorities. Kasav claims that the various attacks around Mumbai were in fact related, and that the goal of the attacks was to replicate other international terror acts, including the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the infamous bombings in Islamabad, Pakistan and Jakarta, Indonesia. The casualties of the attacks include citizens of at least 16 countries other than India, including America, Australia, Canada, Germany, Australia, China, Israel, Japan, and Mexico. Kasav claims that foreigners, particularly Jews, were targeted in the attacks.

Mumbai is the world's most populous city and fifth-largest metropolitan area, with a population of over 13 million within the city limits and over 19 million in the total metropolitan area. The city has experienced at least six other terrorist attacks since 2002.

Hello everyone,

I usually like to write about funny moments in life or the importance of putting humor to the not-so-funny moments.

However, today is a day of mourning in Mumbai, India, and around the world. We must realize that in 2008 we are still "under fire" as a people. Whether you are chabad"nik", secular, reformed, conservative, it means nothing at times like this.

We are all Jews and we need to come together because I can guarantee you that the terrorists who killed the innocent Chabad rabbi and his wife in India yesterday, while leaving their son orphaned, see no difference. A Jew is a Jew to them, and they want us all dead. The only "weapons" the rabbi and his wife were "armed" with were their love of Judaism, people, and education and their dedication to Torah and to Chesed.

We have to pray, be stronger than ever, not judge each other and be positive that justice will come to those who are evil.

Good will continue and Chabad will step up its efforts even more now, in light of this terrible tragedy.

I have had the good fortune of being involved with Chabad for many years now, whether it was to help my friend bury her uncle when he had no family nearby and lived alone in the most remote part of Maine or introducing my father to Chabad of Kings Highway in Brooklyn so he wouldnt be alone on Shabbat, to the "word of mouth" promoting of Chabad that I do whenever I see someone unaffiliated or lost.

Chabad helped me when I was going through a very difficult time in my life a few years ago. At this time of great anxiety when much was piled upon me (loss of a close aunt, losing my job and still not having that significant other I dreamed of)  I felt continuous anxiety and fraility. A Chabad rabbi said to me, "it was not my BODY which was in anxiety, it was my SOUL.' Something was missing and I needed to find out what it was so that I could go back to being the happy productive person I was. I learned how to take soul-filled small steps in order to regain my stability.

Chabad is everywhere and always there: from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, to Raleigh, North Carolina, to Mumbai, India. Many who do not understand Chabad question their need to go to such remote and often unsafe regions of the world. This is their mission, and they will continue to carry out this mission in the glorious way which they do each day. Let us all do at least one mitzvah today and women please light a shabbos candle(s).

May Rabbi and Rebbetzen Holtzberg's memory be a blessing, may their work continue through others and one day through their beautiful baby boy, Moshe...

Al-Qaeda is funny. Well, not usually, but the jihadist group's announcement on Wednesday morning that it is endorsing John McCain in the 2008 United States presidential election is undeniably comical. A posting on al-Hesbah, an extremist web site that has been tied to al-Qaeda, declared: "Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," because he is likely to continue the "failing march of his predecessor."

Wavering between complete obliviousness and self-awareness in its most absolute form, al-Qaeda is in a position that must be making a bunch of people pretty uncomfortable. No American politician wants to be linked to the organization responsible for September 11, and there is no doubt that the terrorist group knows that. With al-Qeada's announcement comes a barrage of attempts at rationalization:

Is al-Qaeda endorsing McCain because they actually want him to win, or are they using reverse psychology in hopes of disparaging McCain and driving voters into Barack Obama's court? If that is the case, what would they have to gain from an Obama presidency? Or what if al-Qaeda is actually not aware of the horrible connotations that come with any mention of their name and believe themselves to be making a serious endorsement? What's going on with these guys, anyway; does a, al-Qaeda central governing body even exist anymore?

The al-Hesbah post continues with what has become standard-issue anti-America terrorist punditry, claiming that the group is considering launching an attack on America at some point in the weeks leading up to the election, believing:

"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."

The whole situation is great; it's like that episode of The Simpsons where Homer attempts to be nice to Ned Flanders but ends up destroying his life. Killing through kindness...classic.

If You're Not a Terrorist: then who is? The British spy agency MI5 has a behavioral science unit which was apparently asked to draw up a profile of a violent extremist. While noting that these days the extremists resorting to violence do so 'in defence of Islam' they went on to conclude that they couldn't offer any specific pointers that would be useful in profiling who is more or less likely to become a terrorist. The Guardian has obtained the internal MI5 document.

Its findings show that an extremist can come from among British nationals, both born and naturalized, or from among asylum seekers, or illegal immigrants. An extremist can come from a non-practicing milieu, or can be a religious novice or he can be a zealous convert. They can be Pakistani, Caucasian, or Middle Eastern; male or female; younger or older; single or married with children. In other words terrorists "are a diverse collection of individuals, fitting no single demographic profile, nor do they all follow a typical pathway to violent extremism."

In essence, then, the MI5 doesn't know what external markers identify a person who has become obsessed with killing in the name of Islam, just that there are these days some people who kill in the name of Islam.

Thanks MI5.

Standardized test: A plaque commemorating victims of terrorism Jerusalem has suffered so many terrorist attacks that the city council at some point seems to have decided to standardize the plaques commemorating the victims. A number of morose remarks could be made about this, but I'll make an effort and try to shut up. I remember being here in 2002, when a record number of 60 Palestinians blew themselves up in various parts of the Holy Land. Riding on city buses in Jerusalem was like playing Russian roulette. The falafel joint around the corner from where I lived at the time seemed like the ideal target: no guard, always crowded, situated in a small shop whose cramped dimensions would maximize the damage of the acetone peroxide explosives, along with the proverbial nuts and bolts. A 16-year old Palestinian kid blew himself up there on a sunny afternoon in July as I was at home, listening to Counting Crows:

"...So we slide inside of someone's mouth
and someone's eyes
until
there's a sound of something intimate exploding..."

People were obviously reluctant to frequent cafes and restaurants during that period, which forced almost every single food venue to post a guard at the entrance. Sidewalk cafes were fenced in, but even then there were occasional smart terrorists that would bring along guns with their bomb belts and shoot the guard before entering and blowing themselves up. Hence the question, "Yesh neshek?" ("Do you have a gun?") was posed to every patron wishing to enjoy a latte in those days. It was one of the first expressions that I learned in Hebrew.

Now, to be fair, the last suicide bombing in Jerusalem was perpetrated on September 22, 2004, but if you are the owner of a cafe, how many bomb-free months do you count before you decide to expand your establishment unto the abutting sidewalk? There might be a secret algorithm here that I am unaware of, not entirely dissimilar to the one that prompted the standardization of commemorative plaques. Or there just comes a day when nothing else could make more sense.

Well, that day might have arrived already, without fanfare. Sidewalk cafes withoutCafe Betzalel: A peaceful place for now fences or guards are popping up here and there in the center of town as a result of this definitive lull in the Second Intifada (or whatever we choose to call this period of low-frequency warfare). Last Friday afternoon I enjoyed a live performance by a local band as I sipped on a cold Goldstar beer at one such place, Café Betzalel, named after Betzalel ben Uri, the ancient Hebrew building contractor who won the tender for the construction of the Tabernacle, way back when. The name means "in the shadow of God," aptly capturing the ambiguity of life in Jerusalem: the imminence of the Divine, and the darkness it sometimes entails.

Just one successful bomb attack will of course destroy not only the chosen target, but every expanding business in town owned by someone who thought that the violence had actually ended. But during the lull we live.

(Photography by Paul Widen)

The Fraunces Tavern Bombing The FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation in English) was a Puerto Rican separatist group active between 1974 and 1983 that attempted to win independence from the United States through terrorism. Their favorite tactic was to firebomb densely populated civilian locations, most famously the Fraunces Tavern in New York on January 24, 1975, in an attack that killed four people and injured sixty others. The final tally of their bomb attacks was 146.

Thanks to diligent, painstaking work by the FBI and federal prosecutors, the FALN's cells were slowly rolled up and its members imprisoned in the late 70s and early 80s. Until the very end, the group had the materiél, the logistical capabilities, and the intent to murder and maim innocent people:

FBI agents obtained a warrant and entered the [group's headquarters], surreptitiously disarming the bombs whose components bore the unmistakable FALN signature. They found 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, disguises, false IDs and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Continue reading...

Is It Me: or is that falafel looking at me funny? Here's the deal. A reporter named Jeff Stein wrote an article about how "the FBI sifted through customer data collected by San Francisco-area grocery stores in 2005 and 2006, hoping that sales records of Middle Eastern food would lead to Iranian terrorists." He claimed that he got his information from "well-informed sources." Well, those sources must have been looking to make a fool or Mr. Stein and/or the FBI, because after a month of shock and awe that such a project would be green-lit, it's been revealed that the entire article was completely false.

Let's see if the pesky fact that all of this reporting was wrong will make as much news. Here's the FBI press release from yesterday:

We at the FBI were surprised to read about a supposed FBI program to monitor the sales of Middle Eastern food products in the San Francisco Bay area in support of counterterrorism intelligence gathering (“FBI Hoped to Follow Falafel Trail to Iranian Terrorists Here,” November 2, 2007).

Having never heard of this, I spoke to the counterterrorism managers, who in the story were identified as having hatched the plan, as well as everyone else who would have had any knowledge of it. Nobody did. At one point in the story, writer Jeff Stein opines “as ridiculous as it sounds,” in reference to the alleged food monitoring plan, which reportedly was described to Mr. Stein by “well-informed sources.”

In this case, too ridiculous to be true.

While the story may have been the source of some amusement, I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight on something that touches on something so important as national security and civil liberties.

John Miller
Assistant Director, Office of Public Affairs
Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

What a relief. We can all now resume Falafel eating sans paranoia.  Extra tahini, please.

In 2002, Tony Blair’s wife caused controversy by expressing some sympathy for the ‘plight’ of Palestinian suicide bombers, just hours after a bus bomb in Jerusalem killed 19 and injured over 40. (Whatever happened to suicide attacks in Israel, anyway? It’s like someone built a wall around the country.) “As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up,” Cherie Blair said, “you are never going to make progress.”

Despite the fury at her remarks, she was doing no more than expressing the sort of view that is common in polite society in this country. Even among those genuinely and utterly opposed to the use of violence as a tactic in the Palestinians’ struggle for statehood, there is a widespread view that suicide bombing is the inevitable last resort of the poor, the dispossessed, and the hopeless. Though no moderate himself, London mayor Ken Livingstone echoed the thoughts of many when he said in July 2005 that while Israel has fighter jets and planes, Palestinians “only have their bodies” and “no other way to fight back” - this from a man whose city had just suffered its first suicide bombing three weeks previously. 

The idea that Palestinians do not have access to weapons is not one that need detain us long. But the belief that terrorism generally, and suicide bombing specifically, grow almost organically out of the nexus of political frustration and - crucially - economic deprivation, has become a commonplace, to the extent that even George Bush now enlists the war on terror as justification for signing up to ambitious foreign aid and poverty relief programs. Raise educational standards and give young people opportunities, the argument goes, and fewer of them will be tempted into the arms of the jihadists.

Well, maybe. But this conventional wisdom is challenged by a new book, What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism, by Princeton's Alan Krueger. In this month's American magazine Krueger, er, explodes the myth of suicide bomber as undereducated and materially deprived victim of circumstances. On the contrary:

The available evidence is nearly unanimous in rejecting either material deprivation or inadequate educa­tion as important causes of support for terrorism or participation in terrorist activities. Such explana­tions have been embraced almost entirely on faith, not scientific evidence.

Krueger’s thesis is based on a wide variety of sources. Prior to writing this book, he had studied hate crimes in the Germany of the 1990s and found no link between socioeconomic background and the incidence of violent attacks against foreigners. Drawing on this experience, Krueger turned first to global opinion surveys on support for terrorism, and then to those who actually participated in it – Palestinian suicide bombers and Hezbollah militants, and even members of Al-Qaeda.

In all cases, the research pointed the same way. Suicide bombers are far more likely to be from relatively well-to-do backgrounds than the average citizen, more likely to have a high school education, or even college educated. There’s a lot more in Krueger’s article that repays further reading but, as an economist, his thesis is clear; in the fight against terrorism, it is pointless to focus on the supply side. There will always be those who are willing to die for a cause, whether it’s because of nationalism, fanaticism or their personal circumstances. 

If we address one motivation and thus reduce one source on the supply side, there remain other motivations that will incite other people to terror.

That suggests to me that it makes sense to focus on the demand side, such as by degrading terrorist organizations’ financial and technical capabili­ties, and by vigorously protecting and promoting peaceful means of protest, so there is less demand for pursuing grievances through violent means. Policies intended to dampen the flow of people willing to join terrorist organizations, by contrast, strike me as less likely to succeed.

Perhaps it’s the phraseology that tempts so many people to think of the suicide bomber as dispossessed victim, using his own body as a last resort when all else has failed. The idea of honourable suicide, while it certainly exists in Western culture, has never been particularly deeply embedded in our psyche.

Catastrophic professional failures might in times past have been 'resolved' with a pearl-handled revolver in a locked room; nowadays such people won’t even resign without being dragged kicking and screaming towards the exit.  In the modern material world, suicide is, almost by definition, an act of hopelessness, carried out by those who are deeply miserable with their lives. We feel an instinctive sympathy for the suicide; horror at the forces that must have driven them to an act of such shuddering finality. As Karol Sheinin correctly points out elsewhere on these pages, when we look at the plight of ordinary Gazans, it is a hard-hearted observer indeed who does not feel the most profound despair and sympathy for their wretched plight. The idea that suicide can be born not of hopelessness and deprivation but of fanaticism and hatred is such an alien one to our way of thinking that we clutch at familiar tropes instead.

I think the time for such lazy thinking is past. I don’t imagine that the phrase “suicide bomber” began life as a euphemism, but it certainly reads as one nowadays. Far better, I think, Christopher Hitchens’ favoured formulation, “suicide murderers”. The suicide may be central to their ideology, but it’s the murder that’s the principal sin in mine. Sure, it’s a heavily loaded term, but if we can’t use pointed language to describe people willing to immolate themselves and innocent civilians in the name of religion, then we all have bigger problems anyway.

At least Osama bin-Laden, despite being a psychotic mass murderer, knows who his friends are.

While the exact date of the taping cannot be determined by bin Laden's words, he suggests it was made in August by saying, "... just a few days ago, the Japanese observed the 62nd anniversary of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by your nuclear weapons." The anniversary was on Aug. 6. He goes on to call Noam Chomsky "among one of the most capable of those from your own side," and mentions global warming and "the Kyoto accord."

One could call this humorous if it weren't so obviously true, in the sense that Chomsky is indeed one of those most capable of accomplishing binLaden's goals of driving the West to surrender and destruction. Of course, they are both psychopaths with a Sadean fetish for mass murder, tyranny and death. Great minds, such as they are, apparently think alike.

A post in Foreign Policy’s blog this week entitled “Here come the blonde, blue-eyed terrorists?” makes much of the “Aryan”-looking German converts to Islam making it into the terrorists’ ranks. I don’t know that it’s such a new phenomenon (plenty of Caucasian-like terrorists in the past, and indeed if you look beyond Islamic terrorism, plenty of Caucasian terrorists), but I must say that for this anti-racist atheist, this new focus heralds a hope that attention will be shifted from ethnicity (e.g.: “Arabs”) to religion (e.g.: “Islam”) as the excuse for terrorism. Not that I think like some of the anti-religious crowd that religion necessarily breeds violence -I actually get on better with many religious moderates than with a number of fellow atheists; and I’m only too aware that I must be compensating for the lacking irrationality of religion in many ways- but I do think that it’s a bad excuse, since its premises are wholly mistaken.

Angry Blog:

Christopher Hitchens: “Of the suicide bombing population, 100% are faith-based.” (at 52 min)

"Wrong. Prior to 2003, the leading suicide bombing organization was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lankda, a secular, Marxist-influenced separatist group."

 Robert Pape, the leading American scholar on suicide bombings, shows in an absurdly illuminating article that the origins of terrorism are not in Islamic fundamentalism but rather in firsthand experience of foreign—particularly US—occupation. He writes:

 “The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism. If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran. Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan. I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990. Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.”

Tim Lee at The American Scene adds:

"It’s fascinating how close the correlation is between the 9/11 hijackers and US deployments. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, which hosted thousands of American troops at the time of the 9/11 attack. Two more were from the United Arab Emirates, which is currently host to about 1100 American troops. Another is from Egypt, which has 384 American troops as part of a peacekeeping force on the Sinai Peninsula, and also carried a Saudi passport. And the final hijacker was from Lebanon, a country that doesn’t currently have any American troops, but he was seven when Israel invaded Lebanon and eight at the time of the barracks bombing, two events that could easily have made a big impression on him.Among the hijackers there were no Iranians, Syrians, Sudanese, or residents of other countries where radical Islam flourish but the United States did not have a troop presence. No Iraqis either."

I hope that this will be the beginning of the end for all those that find comfort—and an excuse not to seriously confront the issue—in the generalization that Islam, the religion, is the source of today’s evils. It might be of use to novelists, too, who'll have to go beyond the Wikipedia page on Islam in order to create the believable psychology of a suicide bomber.  

What's in a Name?: The Riviera Scarf, by AlloyNot too long ago, Cameron Diaz stumbled from her shining path with a fashion faux pas that took the form of a messenger bag. The olive green accessory bore a red star and declared "Serve the People" in Chinese lettering. Sounds nice enough, but oops. Unfortunately for Cameron, that was one of Mao Zedong's most famous political slogans, and the tote turned an innocent jaunt through Peru into a fashion (and PR) disaster. After all, most of us are familiar with the classic lyric from the Beatles song, "Revolution": But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow. Here's a general rule of thumb for public figures: If you don't know what it says, don't wear it. I have a good amount of sympathy for Cameron Diaz. I mean, shoot--I don't speak Chinese, either, and could easily have made the same mistake.

It's different when the same "mistake" is repeated again and again by large corporations who should (and do) know better. I realize that at this point, the ongoing popularity of the keffiyeh in fashion forward, alternateen circles is old hat--or old scarf, as it were--but that doesn't diminish my overwhelming sense of incredulity that yet another retailer is marketing this "breezy, global-chic" symbol of hatred and terror to tweens, teens, college students, and "young independents." Back in January, Urban Outfitters briefly offered and quickly assassinated what they called an "anti-war woven scarf." In March it was Ark Clothing with their "Arafat Scarf" (way to be upfront, guys!). Then we had Delia's who first called it a "Peace Scarf," but later changed its name to "Euro Scarf" in response to complaints and protest.

If You Like That: ...You'll Love These!Delia's, as it happens, is where this trend turns from annoying to disturbing. See, I realize that "radical chic" is nothing new. From Berkeley college students to British hipsters, the keffiyeh has been around the necks of wannabe-revolutionaries and misguided-mutineers for decades.

What's creepy is that the most recent marketer of the keffiyeh is Alloy. Why creepy? Because Alloy owns Delia's.

Now, I'm not really the paranoid, conspiracy-theorist type, but this is no mere coincidence. Having already gone through this with their Delia's brand, Alloy can't plead ignorance about the symbolism of said scarf. Alloy, a multi-faceted advertising, clothing, publishing, film, and television company, bills itself as "a widely recognized pioneer in nontraditional marketing." Nontraditional marketing, eh? I'll say. The company is calling its unique brand of keffiyeh the "Riviera Scarf," because, um, that's where all the terrorists go on holiday?

Oh, and by the way, Cameron: you got a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for the Mao thing, but sporting a keffiyeh is not gonna fly.

Who said underdeveloped countries had a monopoly over the oft-heard (bad) excuse of poverty leading to terrorism? The situation in tremendously impoverished Southern France is dire enough to cause local wine growers to commit suicide or, for the braver of them, terrorism. The latest threats of the group calling itself “CRAV,” or “Regional Viticultural Action Committee,” are anything but empty. If their “actions” -i.e., attacks, ranging from wrecking supermarkets accused of selling foreign wines on the cheap to bombing buildings, railroads and vehicles- are under-reported, this is merely an indicator of the ‘background violence’ in France, which may help in justifying terrorism elsewhere. Recall, for instance, the riots of 2005 that started in the French suburbs. Thousands of cars were burnt every night; but when were the riots officially declared to be over? When just under a hundred cars a night were burnt -this marked, according to the authorities, a ‘normal average’.

Likewise, the French strategy about their home-grown terrorism (and sometimes about their not-so-homegrown one too) is to minimize its impact in the media. Incidentally, this has also long been the French (conjointly held by the public authorities and the Jewish leadership) strategy regarding anti-Semitic attacks. Obviously, though, not talking about it doesn’t make it go away. Rather, it creates a culture of violence, which, ironically, is exactly what the French accuse the Americans of having.

This past weekend at a book expo, Naomi Klein plagiarized Gandhi a bit when she said of the war with Islamic fundamentalism :

I’m not against fighting for civilization and all that,” Klein said, “It’s just that I’m still not sure where ‘civilization’ is… I’m still looking.

Post-colonial and subaltern studies have rightfully made us suspicious of using the term 'civilization' without great care. From what privileged vantage point is anyone allowed to say what is and isn't 'civilization?' This is a familiar enough argument even to those unfamiliar with the hotshot philosophers that made this worldview popular. While it didn't originate with 20th century French thinkers, the most recent vintage of this thought was almost certainly fermented in the casks of existentialism.

In a nutshell, existentialists believed that the Ultimate and Divine, and the revealed capital 'T' Truth are falsehoods (or in some cases, the Divine did exist but was unknowable due to its Divinity and all). The Klein principle translates to 'civilization' insofar as it emphasizes that there isn't a perfect arbiter to flawlessly reveal what is 'civilized,' and so one is forced into an agnostic position. But existentialists made a big deal out of responsibility--i.e., 'if God isn't responsible for me and the truth, then I am.' Definitions are more grey, more difficult and less comforting because they are always up for debate and redefinition, however we must take the leap--do something and say something in spite of the fear that uncertainty brings, in spite of the near certainty that somebody will come along at some point with something better. The one who refuses (or who is incapable) of taking that leap is the tragic figure--not the principled hero--of the existentialist world.

It may be true that none of us can or should be so arrogant as to say we know about Civilization and everybody else had best get on board with it. But today, the most well-meaning people think this position excuses them from the hard work of trying to define what is civil, what civilization is, and then fighting to make sure it survives. They seem almost too disappointed in the lower-case 'c' to put any force of will behind the struggle.

Then again, Klein may not be mired in a philosophical conundrum. In her case it's probably just idealism gone haywire. Since the current state of things doesn't meet her standard, she won't be pinned down saying anything definitive about civilization. This is a cop-out and its dangerous--it makes the best the enemy of the good. Besides, existence is a clear-cut issue. Either one exists or one does not, which means that there can be no agnosticism-- no matter how idealistic--in an existential struggle.

As for Klein's confusion, somebody should tell her to take a glimpse at the Islamic civilization that is wrecked on a daily basis by Islamic fundamentalists. A picture of Kandahar 100 years ago compared with today maybe? Or how about Bamiyan? Might Ms. Klein agree that the gargantuan stone statues represented a great many hours when people were carving rock instead of killing or maiming one another? More importantly, the Afghan peoples' reverence for them as historic and cultural landmarks was testament to their pride in the accomplishments of humanity. It was a very pluralist respect for others--a respect for art, religious difference, and shared history that the Taliban blew apart. Irresponsible is too mild a way to characterize those who won't come right out and say that the fight against people who do this is a fight for civilization.

You may have thought that after September 11, terrorism wouldn’t have such a “human face” in Europe anymore. The Irish had good reasons to abate their attacks (Americans are notably involved in the support to the IRA, and this may have not been so palatable anymore after having been the victims of large-scale terrorism on their own soil). Corsican terrorism remains as an item of local French folklore little appreciated outside of the hexagon. One should not forget, however, that all those organizations are tied together in what has been described as an “Internationale terrorist.”

You might have thought, too, that after the March 11 attacks in Madrid, ETA (initially accused of the massacre) would have had good reasons to remain quieter. This was not the case, of course, as ETA killed two people in a bomb blast at Madrid’s airport in December ’06. In the true fashion of the terrorist rhetoric so lucidly analyzed by media critic Daniel Dayan, who coined the term "hermeneutic terrorism," ETA then maintained that the “permanent cease-fire” it had declared in March of 06 was “still in vigor.”

We have just received word, however, that ETA declared an end to its cease-fire. Is this just a publicity stunt in a final attempt to deny its redundancy? El País says that recent reports from the security agencies warned that ETA was actively preparing new attacks. According to the editorialist, ETA’s distinguishing characteristic is “its pretension to legitimacy.” This is indeed a hallmark of all forms of terrorism. But we must be careful not to fall into the trap described by Dayan: “hermeneutic terrorism,” by leaving blank the “justification” tab, lets the victims fill it themselves in utter confusion, ending with the self-accusations typical of a certain intellectual trend. Chickens coming home to roost, anyone?

Now, ETA is not properly speaking practicing this “hermeneutic terrorism" since the liberation of the Basque country has always been its declared goal.  But in the European context, where the legitimacy of terrorism overseas has often been vindicated by public opinion, there are larger reasons to worry about renewed ETA terrorism continuing its bloody trend. Given the group's more localized political grievances, might justifications for Basque violence also translate into a more dangerous, if only latent, sympathy for al-Qaeda?

In a climate where the “war on terror” is increasingly frowned upon by the Western public, it may well be that Europeans will tolerate some form of terrorism at home by blaming an external agent, and request that anti-terrorist measures, which could be too reminiscent of the distant wars they see on television, be remitted. What is needed now more than ever is a stronger alliance between people sharing the same basic values, such as a respect for human rights.

An Islamist terrorist-turned reformer, Tawfik Hamid confronts the charge of Islamophobia:

For 20 years, I have preached a reformed interpretation of Islam that teaches peace and respects human rights. I have consistently spoken out--with dozens of other Muslim and Arab reformers--against the mistreatment of women, gays and religious minorities in the Islamic world. We have pointed out the violent teachings of Salafism and the imperative of Westerners to protect themselves against it.

Yet according to CAIR's Michigan spokeswoman, Zeinab Chami, I am "the latest weapon in the Islamophobe arsenal.

Is there any better example today of progressives frustrating progress than the negligent and malignant misapplication of the term Islamophobia? Hamid again:

Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.

It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of "Islamophobia" as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against suspicious passengers and against those who rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings.

 

He's right. Isn't it odd how easy it is to get slapped with the charge of Muslim-hating for supporting peace activists in the Islamic world? But understand and sympathize with extremists who randomly and brutally murder other Muslims? --yer practically in the running for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Not sure whether this is the real McCoy Mickey or Hamas's own mouse Farfur, but there you go. I call this West Banksy chic.  

Either Hamas's political leadership values its hold on parliamentary power, or it does not. Bet on the latter proposition since Haniyah, et al. have made it clear that they preferred life as oppositionists to Fatah, where responsibility for political failures could not be shoulded by them. If Hamas doesn't rein in its action squad, a la Sadr in Iraq, then it will become just another terrorist group again. The Nasrallah model doesn't work when you're in power:

Hamas’s military wing claimed to have fired 30 rockets and 70 mortar shells at Israel today. An Israeli Army spokesman said six rockets and eight mortars were launched over a period of about three hours in the early morning.

The army spokesman said that according to security assessments, Hamas had intended to carry out what he termed “a much larger terrorist attack” under the cover of the rocket fire, but was thwarted by the army’s quick response. Israeli forces fired from the air into open areas from where the rockets had been fired.

We may despise the methods employed by Al Qaeda and other takfiri Islamists, but we cannot be surprised that they fight us. From the day Napolean Bonaparte landed on Egyptian shores in 1798, the West has unceasingly occupied Muslim land, immiserated its peoples, emasculated its culture, and pilfered its resources. Is it any surprise that a revolutionary movement has emerged which seeks to liberate Muslims from the bungling brutality of the West? Because make no mistake about it: this is a liberation movement. And though we are repulsed by the reactionary aspects of their ideology, we would be fools to deny that Islamists are justified in seeking the liberation of their peoples from the West.

If the above codswallop still sounds at all reasonable to you, I draw your attention attention to yesterday's atrocity in Algiers.

The death toll from al-Qaida-claimed suicide bombings in Algeria rose Thursday to 33, the government said, and police rolled out in force in the shaken capital, establishing highway checkpoints to reinforce security. The group that claimed responsibility for Wednesday’s attacks, al-Qaida in Islamic North Africa, has carried out a series of recent bombings jeopardizing Algeria’s tentative peace. The country, a staunch U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, has been trying to turn the page on a 15-year insurgency that killed 200,000 people.

This is not just another massacre by an Al Qaeda satellite group. It may in fact be the most pathological expression of Islamist nihilism that we’ve seen in the 21st century.

The Algerian Civil War of the 1990s was not so much a war as a Kurtzian descent into the horrors of human bestiality. What began as a conflict between the military and Islamists devolved into a succession of increasingly surreal massacres in which the takfirists of The Armed Islamic Group extended takfir to an ever-larger portion of the Algerian population. Ultimately, anyone who did not support the GIA was proclaimed worthy of death, and entire villages were massacred in joyous all-night orgies in which women were raped or captured as sexual chattel, pregnant women disemboweled, children beheaded, and all the rest. The GIA proudly claimed responsibility and that the massacres were an “offering to God.” Unlike in today’s Iraq, there were not even confessional differences to justify the bloodshed.

The madness ended only when the GIA began consuming itself, with members proclaiming takfir on one another or defecting out of horror at the violence.

Al-Qaeda in Islamic North Africa—the group responsible for the recent bombing—is composed partly by remnants of the GIA. The group was moribund, and Al Qaida’s sponsorship is enabling its resurgence. If there is a purer expression of Islamism's loathing of the Muslim people, I can't imagine it. And if this isn’t the Kronstadt moment for sympathizers of Islamism, then their Kronstadt will never come.

Have a heart, HALReading about the EU's proposed "non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalisation"—that is, "list of weasel words for avoiding offense to terrorist vermin"—I couldn't help thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I saw for the first time (please, no snickers from the hipster gallery) several days ago. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the "non-emotive lexicon." Here's a peek, courtesy of the Telegraph: "European governments should shun the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' in favour of 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam', say guidelines from EU officials."

What's 2001 got to do with it? You probably remember HAL 9000, the onboard AI who speaks in the self-possessed, patient (thus utterly debasing) voice of a schoolteacher or hospice nurse: "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave." Governments of the future will sound an awful lot like HAL, as the EU already does, gently "enlightening" us even as they undertake our infantilization—our destruction by other means.

There is no need for a "non-emotive lexicon." According to the Telegraph, "The basic idea behind it is to avoid the use of improper words that would cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of radicalisation." But if you can be "radicalized" by an errant phrase, were you ever "mainstream" to begin with? (Interesting, too, that "radicalized," like "weaponized," suggests a process completely divorced from personal choice.)

"Non-emotive" cuts right to the heart of the matter. Who could avoid emoting about a subject like terrorism? Only a computer, of course. Strategies like the EU's don't placate violent fanatics, but, insofar as they're adopted by ordinary people, they do widen the moral and behavioral gulf between the West and the Rest, the Elois and the Morlocks, the soft machines and the barbarians at the gate. What such a schism is meant to prove, or to solve, is anybody's guess.

The Subway blogger had a slightly tense commute into work this morning:

An older gentleman gets on the train. Looks normal enough. Wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase. He has a fedora hat on and a big, white beard. Normal, right?

Well, he walks into the center of the train car and we start to pull out of the sation.

Very casually he says, “I have a question. Does anyone here think they can bomb Iran?”

Ummm what?

Everyone sort of looks around at each other and ignores him. He didn’t just say what I though he said…did he?

Then I take another look at his briefcase. Large (like extra wide), matte back, and sorta beat up. I’m thinking, boy I hope he doesn’t think HE can bomb Iran via this train car.

Continue reading...

So asserts Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly:

So this is yet more fodder for the fire: is 24 an inherently conservative show because of its message that torture is necessary, torture works, and only weak-kneed liberals object to it? Jane Mayer reignited the debate last month with a piece in the New Yorker that investigated 24's conservative roots.

At a broad level it's hard to argue with this, though not, I think, specifically because of 24's routine dramatization of torture -- which has become more a crutch for weary writers than anything else in recent seasons. It's more general: 24 is a tough-guy cop show, and tough-guy cop shows have appealed to conservatives for decades. Jack Bauer is basically an updated version of Dirty Harry, the poster boy for conservative backlash against urban crime in the early 70s.

So sure: 24 is a conservative Disneyland. But there's another side to the 24 story that's surprisingly liberal: its politics. There are, after all, really two stars in 24: Jack Bauer (when the action is on the ground) and the president of the United States (when the action shifts to politics). In Jack's world, being a tough guy works. In the president's world, it's exactly the opposite.

Continue reading...