How will "petroshekels" change the world?

The standing joke among Jews is, "If we're the Chosen People, why didn't God promise us some land with OIL under it?" As it turns out, He did.

Recent discoveries -- over the past several years -- put the amount of natural gas reserves in Israeli territorial waters at as much as 26 trillion cubic feet. That's roughly triple what Israel will consume over the next 20 years, meaning much of it can be exported. But compared to Egypt's 77 tcf of gas reserves, Israel's natural gas discoveries are not quite Earth-shaking.

Currently, Israel imports coal for domestic electricity, supplemented since 2004 by natural gas from the offshore Mari-B field twenty-five miles from the southern port of Ashdod. More gas comes from Egypt, arriving near Ashdod via an undersea pipeline. Indeed, despite the excitement over the Leviathan field, Israel signed a new twenty-year gas purchase agreement with Egypt earlier in December to supply several industrial entities, including the Dead Sea Works and the Haifa refinery.

If the riches of the Leviathan field are confirmed, production could begin by 2016. In that scenario, Israel could eventually become a net energy exporter despite still needing to import oil to refine into gasoline and other products. Apart from notional energy independence, using natural gas from its own fields would save Israel $4 billion in imports annually while boosting gross national product. Plentiful indigenous hydrocarbon supplies could also prompt the development of new industries. For the time being, though, Israel must resolve a variety of problems before it can begin reaping the full benefits of the new discovery.

However, Israel sits atop another energy resource: oil shale. Up until the end of 2010, it was believed that Israel had about 4 billion barrels of oil in extractable oil shale. Given that the Saudis produce just under 10 million bbl/day, those 4 billion bbl are equivalent to about 400 days of Saudi Arabia's production.

But new discoveries of oil shale in Israel and new techniques of extraction put the latest estimates of available oil from Israeli shale at 250 billion bbl - just shy of Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of 260 billion bbl.

What is less well-known, but even more dramatic, is the work being done on this country’s oil shale. The British-based World Energy Council reported in November 2010 that Israel had oil shale from which it is possible to extract the equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil. Yet these numbers are currently undergoing a major revision internationally.

A new assessment was released late last year by Dr. Yuval Bartov, chief geologist for Israel Energy Initiatives, at the yearly symposium of the prestigious Colorado School of Mines. He presented data that our oil shale reserves are actually the equivalent of 250 billion barrels (that compares with 260 billion barrels in the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).

Independent oil industry analysts have been carefully looking at the shale, and have not refuted these findings. As a consequence of these new estimates, we may emerge as the third largest deposit of oil shale, after the US and China.

Moreover, Israel is developing extraction techniques that take the oil out of the shale while the shale remains underground, at per-barrel costs of $20 or less.

What would it mean to the world if Israel were able to produce oil at rates similar to Saudi Arabia?

1) Lower oil prices overall. More supply would allow oil prices to fall to levels more consistent with historical patterns. Cheaper oil would help the world's industrialized economies to grow.

2) A loosening of OPEC's stranglehold on world oil markets. Any significant non-OPEC production reduces OPEC's leverage and provides a safety valve against production restrictions by one or more OPEC nations.

3) A flip in American foreign aid payments. Israel would no longer need aid from the USA and would be able to buy American military hardware for cash.

4) A revision in geopolitical and global military postures. Unlike oil from the Persian Gulf that has to transit the Suez Canal or circumnavigate Africa, Israeli oil can be delivered to tankers in the Mediterranean. Consider the way Europe reacted to the potential disruption of oil production in Libya, an unstable and hostile producer in the Mediterranean; the value of a politically stable and friendly oil source in the Mediterranean would cause the West to put more pressure on the Arab world to declare peace with Israel and cease threatening a valuable energy exporter. It would also change the calculus with respect to the threat Iran and its nuclear program pose to Israel.

5) A potential recession in global terrorism. If the West uses Israel's rise as an oil exporter as an impetus to stand up to Iran, the Iranian regime may find it too costly to continue exporting terrorism via Syria to Hezbollah, Hamas and other groups around the world. Without Iranian sponsorship, jihadist movements in many places would become too weak to stand up to more moderate movements. And to the extent that Israel's competition with Saudi Arabia in the oil markets and its new geopolitical importance made life harder on Saudi and other Gulf oil sheikhs and emirs, they would have less disposable income to spend on al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Not surprisingly, Hezbollah wants to throw a monkey wrench into Israel's plans by prodding Lebanon to claim part of Israel's territorial waters for its own. But Israel has plenty of gas for its own use in undisputed waters and has the technology to defend its claims against Hezbollah attacks by missiles or suicide boats. And Hezbollah can't make any claim over Israeli oil shale.

Let's hope this brave new world opens up soon. We will all benefit.

As luck would have it, luck saved NYC's subway commuters

The New York City subway bombing plot was just five days away from being consummated when it was discovered.

The suicide attack, planned to mark last year’s anniversary of the September 11 attacks was to be the biggest plot in the US since 2001.

Previous reports had suggested that the men were under surveillance by the FBI for some time before their planned attacks but sources now say the plot came close to success.

The plot was only foiled when one of the men emailed an al-Qaeda fixer in Pakistan to ask for advice on mixing chemicals, security sources on both sides of the Atlantic have told The Daily Telegraph.

Three men were allegedly planning to strap bombs to themselves and attack the underground with coordinated explosions planned to emulate those on London five years ago.

The lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of New York subway riders were saved by the faulty memory of a would-be jihadist and his failure to take notes.

The New York investigation began on September 6 2009 when an Afghan-born man brought up in Queen’s, New York also began emailing [the 'fixer'] Sohaib.

Najibullah Zazi was desperate to be reminded of his bomb-making instructions from a visit to Pakistan a year earlier.

He had already bought hydrogen peroxide and other bomb-making chemicals but wanted to know what proportions to use.

Luck is a good ally but a highly capricious one. Better to de-fang the Pakistani jihadi networks -- which may entail forcing their supporters in Pakistan's government and military to cut them off. As messy and difficult as that may be, it is likely a necessary precondition for stopping plots of this type at the source.

Barack Obama cares nothing for the safety of Americans

A harsh blanket statement, to be sure.

But what other conclusion can one draw when the President puts a premium on closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay -- and is willing to entrust the "rehabilitation" of its current residents to YEMEN?!?

Yemen 'to host Guantanamo rehab centre'
Yemen and Washington are in talks to set up a rehabilitation centre in the Arab state for Guantanamo detainees.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 12:23AM GMT 27 Jan 2010

The move would help President Barack Obama achieve his elusive goal of closing the controversial US prison.

The issue will be raised for the first time in an international setting on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting in London on Wednesday...

A source close to the Obama administration said the Yemenis had agreed in principle to the establishment of a Reintegration and Risk Reduction Initiative, which would be internationally funded and monitored.

Aimed at steering detainees back into society, it would be modeled on previous efforts in Northern Ireland, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Let's recall that the Christmas Pantybomber (the "Fruit of Kaboom Bomber," as Rush Limbaugh dubbed him) was dispatched to the USA by Yemeni handlers that included past graduates of the Saudi version of this rehabilitation program. So of course to the Obama Administration, it only makes sense to quintuple down on this approach: after all, the guy's underwear didn't actually detonate, so it's all cool, right?

I note that this stupidity has the tacit approval of Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State:

The project has support from within the US state department and is gaining ground among White House advisers, said the source, because it would help the president dig himself out of a large hole created by his pledge to close the prison while trying to avoid releasing terror suspects back into the militant fold. Having missed his Jan 22 deadline to close the detention centre, as things stand Guantanamo is unlikely to shut this year.

God protect us from idiots such as this:

"If Guantanamo was a recruitment tool before, it will be a super-recruitment tool once Yemenis are the majority there," said Sarah Mendelson, a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington that has helped draft the proposal.

"Obviously we don't want a situation where former detainees could just leave or where they simply faced indefinite detention in Yemen rather than in a US facility," she added. "But programmes that include job skills, family support and carefully watched re-integration have been shown to work."

If the Obama Administration goes forward with this suicidal insanity, it should at least condition the program on Ms. Mandelson going to Yemen to work directly with the "retrainees." After all, she should have nothing to fear from them, right?

The inevitable evolution of suicide bombing

There's been much mirth and merriment over the "butt bomb" used by a terrorist in an assassination (ass-ass-ination?) attempt on a Saudi prince.



However, as some have observed, this guy got past the checkpoints and security inspections meant to keep the prince safe.

And we have to recall the scene in The Dark Knight, in which the screenwriter suggested an even more nefarious hidden bomb.



So here is the question: how long before a woman undergoes a Caesarean section and has the baby and her uterus replaced with a fairly sizeable bomb, with a mechanical trigger (the kind she can set off by punching herself in the stomach)? With no electrical or electronic components and little or no metal in its construction, it would be undetectable, assuming that any airport screener would even think to check a pregnant woman that closely.

Is Paris burning? Not yet, but...

Two men in an Italian prison were overheard plotting to blow up Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris. Oh, and British targets, too.

Italian police on Tuesday arrested two alleged al-Qaeda terrorists suspected of planning attacks on Britain and France from inside prison as part of a Europe-wide network.

During wiretapped conversations the men discussed an attack on Charles De Gaulle airport outside Paris and spoke of the need to "strike at the British", Italian police said.

Bassam Ayachi, 62, a Syrian imam with French citizenship, and Raphael Frederic Gendron, 33, a Frenchman who converted to Islam, were allegedly part of an al-Qaeda cell operating in Europe.

They have been in prison in Bari, a port town in southern Italy, since November, when they were arrested on suspicion of smuggling five illegal immigrants into Italy aboard a camping trailer.

Ayachi is a well-known extremist preacher based in Belgium and mentor to Malika el-Aroud, a leading female figure in al-Qaeda whose first husband was killed in an attack against Ahmed Shah Massoud, then leader of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.

El-Aroud was arrested in Belgium a month after Ayachi and accused of planning a suicide attack while Prime Minister Gordon Brown was attending a meeting of European leaders in Brussels.

Italian officers placed a listening device in the cell shared by Ayachi and Gendron.

In one bugged conversation, the pair discussed "striking the British" and launching a Sept 11-style attack using an aircraft, although the target was not specified.

"They are key figures in al-Qaeda's European organisation," said Giorgio Manari, the chief of police in Bari. The wiretap evidence had enabled investigators to "nip the plot in the bud", he said.

The men were served warrants charging them with criminal association linked to international terrorism and will remain in custody.

They were also suspected of recruiting militants for suicide attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Police said the pair had for years lived in Belgium, where Bassam was an imam at an extremist Islamic centre and one of al-Qaeda's "spiritual guides", while Gendron, a computer expert, was the "media propaganda point man, via the internet, for the French-speaking community."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that these aren't the only two Islamic terror plotters in Europe. What with the totally botched raid on the Easter bombing plotters in Manchester, UK,, it seems that it's only a matter of time before the luck of European law enforcement runs out. It makes one wonder how much luck is left in the reservoir of American law enforcement....

Is this mass murderer now in custody?

On a day when at least 75 Iraqis were murdered in suicide bombings in Baghdad and at a Shia shrine in Diyala, the Iraqi security forces announced the arrest of the mastermind of the bombings, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, a leader of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq.



Great news, if true:

The Islamic State of Iraq is an umbrella group of militant Sunni factions which is said to be dominated by Baghdadi's al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is affiliated to "core" al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

His arrest, which could not be confirmed, and even his death have been reported before. Security experts have speculated in the past that Baghdadi was a character invented by some extremist groups rather than a real person.

Let's cross our fingers and hope that this mass murderer is now out of commission. The early indications, though, aren't bright: Suicide bombers killed 60 people in an attack at a Shia Muslim shrine in Baghdad, the deadliest single terrorist strike in Iraq in almost a year.

The bombing brought the toll from suicide attacks in the country to almost 150 deaths in just 24 hours.

Two terrorists wearing vests packed with explosives approached separate entrances to the Imam Moussa al-Kadhim shrine in the Shia district of Kadhimiya. One blew himself up at the gates, while the second entered a courtyard before detonating his explosives.

Police said that at least 20 of those killed at the shrine - a frequent target of Sunni Muslim insurgents - were Iranian pilgrims.

A further 125 people were reported to have been injured in the attack.

It was the bloodiest terrorist operation in Iraq since 63 people died in a truck bombing in Baghdad on June 17 last year.

The shrine attack came a day after 89 people were killed in two suicide bombings, which targeted police and civilians in a square in central Baghdad and Shia pilgrims from Iran at a restaurant in Diyala province, north of the capital.

They followed the arrest on Thursday of a man who police in Baghdad claimed was the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"OK, we'll report the good news, but you can't make us like it"

Here's a bit of good news from Northern Iraq: U.S. military: al-Qaida in Iraq emir, 2 foreign militants killed in Mosul.

MOSUL, Iraq: Iraqi soldiers killed a top al-Qaida in Iraq leader along with two militants from Saudi Arabia and Libya in a gunbattle in western Mosul, the U.S. military said Sunday.

Residents contacted Iraqi police to report activity by suspected al-Qaida operatives in the area, and U.S. and Iraqi forces launched the raid around noon Saturday, said. Lt. Col. Eric Welsh, commander of the U.S. Army's 2nd battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division.

The suspected militants had pulled their cars up alongside one another and were meeting at an intersection on the city's west side, Welsh said. When about 100 Iraqi soldiers arrived, the suspects fled into a neighboring residential area, he said.

Going after them, Iraqi soldiers stopped two suspicious vehicles. The driver of one of the cars got out and tried to approach the soldiers, then detonated an explosives vest hidden under his clothes — killing himself but no one else, Welsh said.

Iraqi soldiers then engaged the three occupants of the second car, and a gunbattle ensued, he said. All three passengers were killed, and there were no Iraqi casualties, Welsh added.

The victims ["Victims"?!?] were later identified as the al-Qaida in Iraq emir of western Mosul, and two other al-Qaida fighters — one Libyan and one Saudi Arabian, he said.

You can find this Associated Press story at the International Herald Tribune, the Jerusalem Post, and a few other places. But one place you won't find it is at the AP.org website. Lots of other Iraq stories are available there, though:

Blackwater Guards Accused of Past Deaths

NEW YORK (AP) -- In the past year, employees of the Blackwater USA security firm have been involved in other incidents in which they were accused of killing civilians and security forces in Iraq....


Contractor Shooting Incidents on Iraqis

A look at some of the incidents involving private contractors firing on Iraqi civilians:...


U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,780

As of Sunday, Sept. 16, 2007, at least 3,780 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 3,086 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers....


Progress Slow As Iraqi Politics in Flux

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to withdraw from the Shiite bloc is the most dramatic sign of the transformation in Iraqi politics. Old alliances are fraying, new ones are forming....


Thousands March in D.C. War Protest


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Several thousand anti-war demonstrators marched through downtown Washington on Saturday, clashing with police at the foot of the Capitol steps where more than 190 protesters were arrested....


U.S. Expands Anbar Model to Iraq Shiites


KUT, Iraq (AP) -- American commanders in southern Iraq say Shiite sheiks are showing interest in joining forces with the U.S. military against extremists, in much the same way that Sunni clansmen in the western part of the country have worked with American forces against al-Qaida....


WHO: Cholera Cases in Iraq Keep Rising

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The number of suspected cholera cases in northern Iraq continues to rise, with 16,000 people now showing symptoms, the World Health Organization said Friday....


Few See an End in Sight to Iraq War


Outside a Brooklyn art gallery, Kristy Knight threw her arms in the air in exasperation when she was asked about the war in Iraq, which has her angry, frustrated and flatly disbelieving President Bush....


Alcohol Business Dangerous in Baghdad


BAGHDAD (AP) -- The three men glanced left and right before cautiously entering a liquor store on Saadoun Street, one of two areas where alcohol is publicly sold in the Iraqi capital. Inside, they pointed to a bottle of champagne....


Report: Iraqis Losing Religious Freedom


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Religious freedom has sharply deteriorated in Iraq over the past year because of the insurgency and violence targeting people of specific faiths, despite the U.S. military buildup intended to improve security, a State Department report said Friday....

Notice a pattern there? (Here's a hint: how many of these stories tell of positive developments or hope, and how many paint a bleak picture of disease, despair, destruction and death?)

Does the AP hire these guys on purpose?

An Associated Press writer named Omar Sinan analyzes a message from Abu Yahia al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaida leader who escaped from U.S. custody in Afghanistan. Note the incredible statement about the resurgence of the Taliban since the 2001 U.S. invasion:

Al-Libi, wearing a white traditional Arab robe and a black turban, also ridiculed the U.S. for its troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming the country's power and prestige was in decline.

"America, which is one of the major evil spirits of the age, was only a few years ago bragging about its power and boasting of its army and materiel, at a time when everyone was subordinate to it and submissive to its resolutions," said al-Libi, whose nom de guerre means "the Libyan" in Arabic.

"But today, where is America? Where is the vanity and arrogance of the American army and its policymakers?" he added. "And moreover, where is the value of the American soldier whose killing used to make headlines in all the media but who today is dragged in the streets of Baghdad, hung on the bridges of Fallujah, rolled on the rocks of Afghanistan and burned to coals in the middle of its capital, Kabul."

Al-Libi praised the resurgence of Taliban militants in Afghanistan, who have made a comeback following a U.S.-led invasion in 2001 that ousted them from power.

It might have been worth noting that at the start of 2007, the Taliban were promising a spring offensive to drive the infidels from Afghan soil, and at the end of summer 2007, the Taliban have suffered massive losses and inflicted only minor damage on Coalition forces and the Afghan government. al-Libi, al-Zawahiri and bin Laden can make grandiose claims in Webcasts from undisclosed locations, but they don't seem to be able to match their words with deeds.

Victory in Lebanon

For the past three months, the Lebanese Army has been battling an al-Qaida-affiliated militant group holed up in a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon. The Lebanese Army has finally achieved victory -- at a cost of 158 troops in those three months. Proportionate to their relative national populations, 158 Lebanese troops represent the same percentage loss as 11,850 troops would be to the USA.

Camp falls & the Lebanese are celebrating victory at last
Sunday, 2 September, 2007 @ 5:06 PM



Beirut - Eyewitnesses have reported that the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon has fallen and the army appears in complete control and is now chasing the fleeing militants.

There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of Shaker el-Absi the leader of the militant Fatah al-Islam terrorist organization. One eyewitness reported that he was captured by the army, but other eyewitnesses reported that he was able to escape.

Salim Taha, the last known spokesman of Fatah al-Islam has already surrendered to the Lebanese army according to army sources. Many other militants were captured according to the same sources.

The latest reports revealed that the army today killed 32 militants , but lost five soldiers to sniper fire, raising to 158 the total number of troops killed in the conflict.

Currently there is a huge traffic jam north of the camp. The Lebanese troops have set up road blocks for checking the vehicles for fleeing Fatah al-Islam militants.

Even in the Lebanese capital Beirut, over an hour's drive to the south, officials searched vehicles at military checkpoints set up on major streets. Other checkpoints went up along the coastal highway linking the north with Beirut, causing traffic jams.

State television reported that Lebanese residents of nearby villages, armed with guns and sticks, fanned out to protect their houses and prevent militants from melting into the local population. Smoke billowed from a field near the camp where residents said the army set fire to bushes to deny militants a hiding place.

The Lebanese residents in north Lebanon are celebrating the victory of the army. Fireworks are everywhere in north Lebanon in celebration. Troops were showered with roses and rice , in appreciation of their courage and sacrifices.

As we publish this article Lebanese are firing celebration shots in the air at news that the army finished off Fatah al-Islam, while others are waving the Lebanese flags and chanting as convoys of cars honk their horns.

The army was not ready yet to formally declare an end to fighting in the camp, large parts of which have been destroyed by army bombardments in the siege.

Fighting between the army and Fatah al- Islam militants broke out on May 20 and the Lebanese have been anxiously waiting for this day to celebrate victory.

Update - 6:00 PM Beirut time:
Army sources have reported that the troops were able to capture additional 24 militants of Fatah al Islam this afternoon. This raises the number of militants that were captured today to 40.

Update - 6:10PM Beirut time:
The Lebanese army has issued an appeal to the Lebanese citizens urging them not to fire any shots( in celebration of the victory ) to show respect to the Lebanese army troops that fell victim during the fight.

The army has also called on the Palestinians to stay away from the Nahr el Bared camp and not totry to return to it under any condition, since it is totally destroyed and will be rebuilt by the Lebanese government as soon as possible . Similar appeals were made by the Palestinian leadership in Lebanon.

Update - 6:25PM Beirut time:
The National News Agency has reported that the army has captured Shaker el-Absi the fugitive leader of the militant Fatah al-Islam terrorist organization. There were many conflicting reports about the whereabouts of Absi and many have reported that he was able to escape.

Picture: Lebanese soldiers flash the "V" for victory signs as they patrol an area near the besieged Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared in northern Lebanon. The Lebanese army has taken full control of the refugee camp where it has besieged Islamist militants for the past three months

Criminals or combatants?

From James Taranto's Best of the Web on OpinionJournal.com, a scathing analysis of a stupid op-ed by Wesley Clark and Kal Raustiala of the Burkle Center.

Here is their argument:

Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as "unlawful combatants" rather than treat them as criminals. . . .

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. . . .

Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians.

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state's responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status. . . .

The more appropriate designation for terrorists is not "unlawful combatant" but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

This is so vapid, it does not even rise to the level of sophistry. The authors argue that the U.S. should "designate" terrorists as "criminals" rather than "unlawful combatants" for purely rhetorical reasons: because calling someone a "criminal" implies less "respect" and does not "dignify" him.

Clark and Raustiala assert, “Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state's responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens.” This is false: from Al Qaeda’s point of view, they are the official government of the Caliphate-to-be, a state that currently exists in exile from its claimed national territory of the area between al-Andalus, occupied by the Spanish, to those Sultanates currently occupied by the Philippines. It is akin to the Free French and Free Dutch of World War II, claiming to represent the legitimate national governments of their occupied lands. They have declared war as a state on the nations of the West and on the occupation governments of Muslim lands (e.g., the House of Saud), but they refuse to abide by the internationally-agreed conventions and laws of warfare.

Taranto continues:

The criminal justice system is fundamentally punitive, not preventive. The purpose of declaring someone a combatant is to keep him off the battlefield, thereby weakening the enemy's ability to attack in the future. The justice system can do nothing about a ‘crime’ that has not yet been [committed].

His latter two sentences are spot on, but I take issue with the sentiment of the first. In my view, the criminal justice system uses punitive measures as preventive deterrents. The operation of the criminal justice system is based on the fact that most members of a civilized society are willing to stay within the limits of the law and need only the occasional reminder that transgressors face punishment to be deterred from wrongdoing.

In warfare, the combatants are by definition unconcerned with the societal norms of the people they are attacking. However, lawful warfare draws a line at targeting civilians and torturing or summarily executing captives. Combatants on one side may be deterred from violating the laws of war, attacking certain classes of targets, or using certain types of weapons for fear of retaliation in kind.

Fanatical terrorists do not recognize any such limits in their conduct of warfare. As a consequence, punitive measures drawn from the criminal justice system’s model of deterrence are useless in that context. Even retaliation in kind is ineffective against terrorist combatants who do not fear consequences in the temporal world because they are supremely confident of rewards in the next world. Thus the only means to prevent their evil acts are to detain them or to kill them.

Clark and Raustiala can't even get their argument straight, however. In a segment not quoted by Taranto:

The federal court held that while the government can arrest and convict civilians, under current law the military cannot seize and detain Mr. Marri. Nor would it necessarily be constitutional to do so, even if Congress expressly authorized the military detention of civilians. At the core of the court’s reasoning is the belief that civilians and combatants are distinct. Had Ali al-Marri fought for an enemy nation, military detention would clearly be proper. But because he is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, and is a citizen of a friendly nation, he should not be treated as a warrior.

Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts. At the extreme, yes, military force may be required. But the terrorists themselves are not “combatants.” They are merely criminals, albeit criminals of an especially heinous type, and that label suggests the appropriate venue for dealing with the threats they pose.

Which is it, gentlemen? Are al-Qaeda terrorists civilian criminals, against whom it is improper to deploy military forces? Or are they soldiers of a non-territorial nation in exile, and therefore just targets of military action? The Clark-Raustiala position would seem to make NATO's operations in Afghanistan illegal, given that neither al-Qaeda nor the Taliban are legally-constituted armies. We should send the FBI and Interpol to round them up, not NATO troops in APCs and aircraft.

And we will close with this gem of wanton stupidity from Clark & Raustiala:

Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon.

"Allowed"? Well, yes, in that those attacks would be deemed to be within the legitimate scope of military targeting. However, this overlooks two important details. First, even though al-Qaeda did issue a formal declaration of war against Western governments (even though it wasn't taken seriously by those Western governments), this doesn't make their attacks on the USS Cole or the Pentagon "allowable" from the perspective of the United States: the U.S. Armed Forces would have been well within their rights to kill all of the attackers before the attacks succeeded. And the reason that the sailors on the USS Cole and the U.S. forces in and around the Pentagon did not in fact repel those attacks brings up the second point: al-Qaeda does not conduct its warfare according to international conventions and the laws of war. Its soldiers do not wear distinguishing uniforms, they do not recognize the rights of civilians not to be targeted, they do not accord captives the rights of prisoners of war. Perhaps the best way to describe them is that they are more than ordinary criminals, they are war criminals.

Gandhi's grandson: my Granddad would have stood up to Bin Laden

Mahatma Gandhi's grandson says that the Great Soul would have stood up to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the Islamofascist movement.

Rajmohan Gandhi told the BBC his grandfather would also have tried to organise "something dramatic" - perhaps a mass fast - to show how unhappy most Muslims were that their religion was being linked to terrorism.

Asked what he would have made of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the Islamist Taliban militia in Afghanistan, Rajmohan said: "He would have stood up to them."

"The Muslim and non-Muslim issue was a very important issue in his life in India, and he was killed because many Hindus thought he was friendlier to the Muslims than was necessary," the former Indian parliamentarian said.

"So today, he would never agree with the idea that there's something connected between Islam and violence or Islam and terrorism. He would totally oppose that idea."

Rajmohan added that his grandfather "might have recommended to the Muslims of the world who were unhappy being hijacked by the terrorists to say how about demonstrating your dissociation with violence through a fast if need be".

One wonders whether moderate Muslims could have been shamed by the Mahatma into such a grand demonstration, or whether he would even have lived long enough to carry out the effort. It's fairly certain that the Islamofascists would have had no qualms about murdering him.

The lighter side of Osama bin Laden

The Daily Telegraph interviews Osama Bin Laden's erstwhile cook. Mmmm, mutton korma -- something Bin Laden and I can agree on.

"If he was here today, then of course I would prepare him a mutton korma," said Akhtar, sitting under one of the apple trees in his Kabul orchard. "It was his absolute favourite, with a pilau full of almonds, orange peel and raisins."

Akhtar claimed that his Saudi employer, who often grumbled about his health and was a picky eater, rarely let anyone else prepare his food, mainly due to worries about being poisoned.

Life in bin Laden's cave close to the Pakistan border was predictably austere, dominated by prayer and talk of jihad. Bin Laden slept little, rising at midnight to fit in an extra set of prayers on top of Islam's standard five cycles.

Akhtar claimed he shared a room with bin Laden and Abu Maz, his Palestinian assistant. There was only one bed and bin Laden gave this to Akhtar because he was the oldest.

Every afternoon bin Laden delivered lengthy lectures to his followers offering Koranic justification for holy war. But he had a lighter side to him.

"He was always making so many jokes," claimed Akhtar. "He was always happy before he went home to Saudi Arabia and would say 'Uncle, I have four wives waiting for me. It's time for some fun'.

"We Afghans do not talk about our wives in this way."

Scandalous!

Why moderate Muslims might be reluctant to speak up about terrorism

Interesting which stories the AP doesn't think Americans need to hear about. Like, for instance, this one, about a Muslim man who thought it was his duty to tell authorities about al-Qaeda affiliates in his neighborhood -- and got cut up into little pieces for his trouble.

ZAMBOANGA, Philippines - A Muslim missionary who tipped off authorities about the activities and whereabouts of al-Qaida-linked militants on a southern Philippine island has been found dead and his body mutilated, a military official said Thursday.

The remains, chopped into pieces and put inside a sack, were found Wednesday in the village of Balagtasan in Lamitan township on Basilan island, more than a week after 14 marines were killed and 10 of them beheaded in an ambush blamed on Muslim rebels.

Marine Col. Ramiro Alivio, the island's military chief, said the slain missionary, who was not identified, had provided information to the military about Abu Sayyaf militants and other "lawless elements" on Basilan.

So what part of this story makes it unsuitable for US consumption: the fact that al-Qaeda terrorists murder their fellow Muslims in gruesome and barbaric ways, or that a devout Muslim had the guts and the humanity to do the right thing and tell the authorities about those terrorists to try to stop them from doing to others what they ended up doing to him?

UN Security Council: Killing civilians is bad

Wow. Who knew?

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council called Tuesday on forces in Afghanistan to take all possible precautions to avoid civilians deaths and urged foreign troops to enhance their understanding of local culture by cooperating with Afghan authorities.

The council also condemned Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents for killing innocent Afghans in suicide bombings and using civilians as "human shields." The statement came a week after a suicide attack killed 17 people, including 12 children, in a crowded market in southern Afghanistan.

"The Security Council expresses its concern about all civilian casualties and reiterates its call for all feasible steps to be taken to ensure the protection of civilian life," the 15-member council said in a statement adopted by consensus after closed consultations.

How about if NATO forces annihilate the Taliban and al-Qaeda? There may be some civilian casualties as a consequence of those operations, but the end result will be the cessation of murders by the extremists and no more need for NATO operations.

A silver lining in a horribly dark cloud?

Potentially this is the best news in the terror war to come along for some time.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) -- Militants in northwest Pakistan disavowed a peace pact with the government and launched two days of suicide attacks and bombings that killed at least 70 people, dramatically escalating the violence in the al-Qaida infiltrated region.

The attacks Sunday and Saturday followed strident calls by extremists to avenge the government's bloody storming of Islamabad's Red Mosque and a declaration of jihad, or holy war, by at least one pro-Taliban cleric.

The terrorist murders of 70 people as good news? Well, consider this.

A document announcing the end of the peace pact in North Waziristan was passed around in the bazaar in Miran Shah. The signatories referred to themselves as the Taliban, a term commonly used by militants in northwest Pakistan, though their links with the Taliban fighting in neighboring Afghanistan are murky.

Under the Sept. 5, 2006, truce, the Pakistan army pulled back to barracks tens of thousands of troops that had been involved in bloody operations against suspected Taliban and al-Qaida hideouts, and militants agreed to halt attacks in Pakistan and over the border against foreign troops in Afghanistan. Tribal elders were supposed to police the deal.

Musharraf had clung to the agreement and similar pacts in neighboring areas, arguing that, by empowering tribal leaders to police their own fiefdoms in return for development aid, they offered the only chance of bringing long-term stability.

However, critics have argued that Musharraf's decision to cut a deal effectively handed the Taliban and al-Qaida a safe haven from which to plot attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and in the West.

If this represents a real shift in Pakistani government policy -- if President Musharraf really has decided to stop trying to appease both the Islamofascists and the West and chosen the side of good, and if he can convince his military that their dependence on Islamic fundamentalist groups no longer serves its interest -- then this attack will help reinforce their resolve by proving that the radicals are interested only in jihad.

On the other hand, if these attacks cause Musharraf to lose his nerve, or if the Islamicists in his military convince their fellow officers once again to compromise with evil, it will be a black day for Pakistan and the world.

US Senate flexes its super-powers

The U.S. Senate leaps into action! Since the bounty of $25 million on Osama Bin Laden's head has had zero effect in leading to his capture, the Senate votes to double it. Hey, twice the dollars, twice the success, right?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday voted to double the bounty on Osama bin Laden to $50 million and require President George W. Bush to refocus on capturing him after reports al Qaeda is gaining strength.

By a vote of 87-1, the Senate set the reward for the killing or capture, or information leading to the capture, of the mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Critics of Bush's "global war on terror" have accused him of putting too much emphasis on Iraq, which had no known connection to the September 11 attacks, at the expense of efforts to get bin Laden and dismantle al Qaeda.

Right. Killing hundreds of al-Qaeda members in Iraq has nothing to do with dismantling al-Qaeda. And the thousands of NATO troops in Afghanistan have been ignoring the hunt for Bin Laden.

But the added money, and more importantly, reports to Congress, will do the trick -- this time, for sure!

Sen. Byron Dorgan, also a North Dakota Democrat, said more important than the bounty was the legislation's requirement that the administration give Congress classified reports on the hunt for al Qaeda leaders every 90 days....

Citing reports that bin Laden could be in a secure hideaway in Pakistan, Dorgan said, "There should not be one square inch on this planet" that is safe for bin Laden.

Sen. Jim Bunning, the Kentucky Republican who cast the only vote against raising the bounty, said catching al Qaeda leaders already was a "top priority." In a slap at Democrats, he added, "If Senator Dorgan truly supported our efforts to fight al Qaeda he would not support withdrawing from Iraq, a key battleground against al Qaeda and in the war on terror."

Of course, Congress could declare war on Pakistan and give the President the green light to invade the Northwest Frontier and Tribal Areas of that country to hunt down Bin Laden. The Pakistanis might, however, take exception -- and they do have nuclear weapons.

It's worth noting that at long last, Pakistan's President Musharraf has been forced into taking action against Islamic radicals in his country. That may lead to the Pakistani military pushing Bin Laden out of his safe haven in Pakistan's northwest and into the waiting arms of the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Better to promote this strategy than pretend that money will somehow solve the problem.

Of course, if Bin Laden is truly imaginative (as he always has proven to be), he might see this new reward level as a fundraising opportunity. He could allow a sympathizer to turn him in, knowing that the end result will be the US Congress giving al-Qaeda a $50 million cash injection.

On the other hand, I don't understand why the Democrats in Congress don't simply pass a law making it illegal for Bin Laden to remain in hiding. While they're at it, they could pass another law requiring al-Qaeda to redeploy from Iraq within 120 days. I'm sure that in their minds, it's just that simple.

Leahy: Al-Qaeda terrorists = Japanese-Americans

Senility is not an attractive quality in United States Senators.

Two top US Senators on Tuesday urged lawmakers to back their drive to restore basic legal rights to inmates of the US "war on terror" camp at Guantanamo Bay.

The bill, an amendment to a defense funding measure being debated in the Senate, would restore the writ of Habeas Corpus to camp inmates -- which would allow the accused to challenge their detention in a US court.

"Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear, and it was a stain on America's reputation in the world," said Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee.

Several hundred inmates at the notorious camp in Cuba were deprived of the right, which legal and human rights activists say is a fundamental underpinning of justice, by a bill passed when Congress was in Republican hands last year.

Senator Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, is co-sponsoring the move, which is expected to face a challenge from a dueling amendment, also from the Republican side.

"If we lose the basic fundamental rights to require evidence before somebody is held in detention, if we lose the right of habeas corpus, it is a very sad day in America," Specter said.

So Senator Leahy is equating al-Qaeda terrorists with Japanese-American internees? How interesting. Perhaps someone should point out to the good Senator that the detainees at Guantanamo are accused of something more than merely being of a certain race or national origin. Whereas the Japanese-American internees were rounded up based on a fear of what they might do because of who they were, the Guantanamo detainees are in custody for what they have already done.

Senator Specter is equally demented. "We" haven't lost the right of habeas corpus. Guantanamo was selected for the purpose of detaining enemy combatants precisely because it isn't in America. And if we have to start treating enemy combatants as criminal defendants, perhaps we had better require our troops in the field to Mirandize the enemy before shooting them.

There is one other interesting point. Despite what the U.S. government did to Japanese-Americans by interning them in relocation camps, a fair number of young men in those camps responded by volunteering for service in the U.S. Army in the Fighting 442nd Nisei brigade, fighting with valor in Europe. Sen. Leahy can ask his colleague Daniel Inouye of Hawaii about his experience in the Nisei Brigade. And then they can ponder, along with Sen. Specter and all of the other Senators so tenderly concerned for the detainees at Guantanamo, why it is that Muslim-Americans did not volunteer in droves in the aftermath of 9/11 to form an Islamic version of the Fighting 442nd.

Summer of (something other than) love

Forty years ago, it was flower power. In 2007, we hope it isn't flour power (chapati flour, that is). US officials are very nervous about the coming summer season, knowing how much al-Qaeda loves its summer avocation of blowing people up.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. counterterror officials are warning of an increased risk of an attack this summer, given al-Qaida's apparent interest in summertime strikes and increased al-Qaida training in the Afghan-Pakistani border region.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the editorial board of The Chicago Tribune that he had a "gut feeling" about a new period of increased risk.

He based his assessment on earlier patterns of terrorists in Europe and intelligence he would not disclose.

"Summertime seems to be appealing to them," Chertoff said in his discussion with the newspaper about terrorists. "We worry that they are rebuilding their activities."

Other U.S. counterterrorism officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, shared Chertoff's concern and said that al-Qaida and like-minded groups have been able to plot and train more freely in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistani border in recent months. Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, are believed to be hiding in the rugged region.

One hopes (probably in vain) that the Lal Masjid takedown in Islamabad has opened the door to more counterterrorism operations on the Pakistani side of the Pak-Afghan border.

One also hopes (probably also in vain) that the al-Qaeda cells operating in the USA at present are as inept as the 7/21 bombers in Britain, who couldn't get their recipe right.

Four men who were given sanctuary in Britain after leaving their war-torn countries were yesterday found guilty of a plot that would have killed hundreds of people on the London transport system two years ago.

Muktar Ibrahim, 29, the leader of the suicide gang, was seen by officers on at least four occasions before the bombings, Woolwich Crown Court had heard and was on bail after being arrested on suspicion of extremism.

London was saved only by Ibrahim's lack of basic arithmetic. A scribbled note found at the bomb factory showed that Ibrahim, who had failed maths GCSE, had wrongly calculated the ratio of ingredients, rendering the bombs harmless.

Despite having a criminal record, he was given British citizenship even as he plotted the potentially murderous attacks.

And certanly one hopes -- perhaps with a bit more realism -- that the police in the USA are currently doing a better job of tracking suspected terror cells than the British were doing prior to the 7/21 plot, even after the successful 7/7 bombings.

The fact that they came so close to causing carnage when they had been known to the police will raise fresh questions over the value of the intelligence available to the security services and whether it was properly acted upon.

In January and August 2003 Ibrahim was seen with Mohammed on police surveillance video at Finsbury Park Mosque, where Omar and Osman also attended regularly.

In May 2004, police watched all four bombers on a camping trip at a farm in Langdale in the Lake District running up and down carrying rucksacks. In October the same year, Ibrahim was arrested by police for breach of the peace while handing out extremist literature in Oxford Street.

He jumped bail and a letter was sent to his flat saying: "Come to us before we come to you."

In December, Ibrahim was stopped by Special Branch officers at Heathrow airport before boarding a flight to Pakistan. They found his luggage included cold weather clothing, a sleeping bag and a video camera along with £2,000 in cash. One of his companions had £2,200, a military first aid kit and a manual on how to deal with ballistic injuries.

A Port Stop Request form recording the incident was filled in but the three men were allowed to go on their way.

Ibrahim flew to Pakistan, where he is said to have learned his bomb-making skills alongside Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shezhad Tanweer.

And, of course, closing the circle, San Francisco certainly has to be on the short list of potential targets for al-Qaeda in the USA. Not only is it the city whose mores are most likely to offend Muslim funadmentalist values, but its political leadership is all but dismissive of the threat of Islamofascist terror.

The New York Times: We love genocide (shhh! Don't tell anyone)

On July 7, The New York Times ran an editorial that, in part, called for China to do more to stop the genocide in Darfur:

Washington needs to have what diplomats call a frank discussion with Beijing about its irresponsible export of poisonous toothpaste, dog food and toys and its piracy of American-produced software, movies and other goods. And Washington needs to encourage China to become a more constructive international player on issues from global warming to ending genocide in Darfur.

Of course, the main thrust of the editorial was to plead that China not be improperly pressured to revalue its currency. However, one might be tempted to take heart, just a tiny bit, from The New York Times opposing genocide.

One might, that is, until one reads the July 8 editorial calling for an immediate and abrupt pullout of American forces from Iraq.

When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.

Keeping American troops in Iraq is in fact the only hope the world has of preventing the "even bloodier and more chaotic" outcomes that include ethnic cleansing and genocide. Apparently the Times opposes genocide so long as nothing concrete is done to stop genocide, and opposes concrete actions to prevent genocide so long as preventing genocide also prevents chaos in the Middle East from causing the collapse of the capitalist economies of the West.

Why leave Iraq?

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

Huh?

Any argument that America should pull its forces out of Iraq and leave that nation to its fate applies ten-fold to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is on the periphery of the Middle East. It is not near to the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. If its people slide back into Salafist repression, it makes no short-term difference to Western interests -- so long as it is isolated, its opium fields burnt, its Taliban preachers prevented from communicating to the outside world.

But, of course, the fate of Afghanistan is of vital long-term strategic importance to the West. Showing that there is a democratic, forward-looking alternative to Islamofascism is important to the West's efforts to combat al-Qaeda's philosophy globally. Developing economic alternatives to opium is vital to collapsing the world's narcotics industry. And keeping US and NATO forces in Afghanistan is vital to keeping the pressure not only on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but on their allies within Pakistan's tribal regions, Islamic fundamentalist community, military and government. Despite the desperate assertion of the Times' editorialist, US and NATO forces had no chance to hunt down al-Qaeda's top leadership so long as Pakistan refused to fight Taliban influence within its own borders -- a development that has only now come to pass with the Musharraf regime's willingness to take on the Lal Masjid militants.

The US and NATO going to Afghanistan pushed al-Qaeda out of its bases in that country and forced them to find new fronts for their war with the West. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have decamped out of Afghanistan and into the Northwest Territories and Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where American and NATO forces cannot follow and from which they can issue directives to existing and would=be al-Qaeda cells worldwide. Had the US-led coalition not entered Iraq to overthrow Saddam's regime, and only focused on the Afghan campaign, the same terror attacks in London, Spain, Glasgow and elsewhere would have happened, and many more -- for Western intelligence agencies would never have come into possession of the operational and tactical intelligence the US has intercepted in Iraq. Saddam would remain in power, continuing plots to defeat Western sanctions on his regime, and having the means (through the vast fraud in the UN Oil-for-Food program, for example) to bankroll al-Qaeda terrorism throughout the globe.

Of course, The New York Times isn't in that cut-and-run crowd -- oh, no, far from it.

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

In other words, the USA should choose between having inadequate forces and rules of engagement while keeping its troops in Iraq, or having inadequate forces and rules of engagement while basing its troops in Gulf Arab states that would then become the prime focus of Iranian terror and military intimidation. In the Times' view, the USA should remain involved in Iraq, but only on a level that guarantees that al-Qaeda will never be pushed out of Iraq and that Iran and Syria will always have the means and motivation to terrorize and murder Iraqis on a grand scale.

Plainly and simply, the editorial board of The New York Times love genocide, they adore it -- so long as it lets them look good by making disapproving noises and makes the USA and the capitalist West look weak, impotent and heartless. Strong, resolute action to stop genocide, punish its perpetrators and prevent its resumption will always drive it to distraction, for it threatens the charade on which rely their progressive reputation -- and their subscription revenues.

Our God is f**kin' LOVE, and He'll f**kin' KILL anyone who says different!

Ayman al-Zawahiri seems to be a bit tense these days:

Al-Qaida's deputy chief called on all Muslims to join the holy war against the West.

"May Allah pluck out your eye if you haven't yet seen that jihad is an individual duty," the transcript quoted al-Zawahri as saying.

Could be a reaction to the public relations reversals al-Qaida has been suffering in recent weeks, with Sunni leaders in Iraq turning against them (actually, that's been going on for over a year -- American news outlets had to wait until after the 2006 elections to break the story) and the Muslims in Britain feeling pressured to distance themselves from jihad.

In a strongly worded statement Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), condemned the barbarity of the London and Glasgow car bomb attempts.

"Let us be absolutely clear," he said. "Those who seek to deliberately kill or main innocent people are the enemies of us all."

He pledged on behalf of the MCB "all the necessary support" to prevent "such murderous actions". He said: "When the house is on fire our responsibility is not to blame each other, it is to extinguish the flames...."

Dr Abdul Bari said: "It is our Islamic duty not only to utterly and totally condemn such evil actions, but to provide all the necessary support to prevent such atrocities taking place". He added that the events of the past few days had been "very disturbing and challenging".

Well, okay, Dr. Abdul Bari was referring specifically to terror in the UK.

"It looks sadly as if the terror threat currently facing our country will be with us for some time to come," he said at a press conference called in response to the bomb plots.

"There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity. Those who engage in such murderous actions and those that provide support for them are the enemies of all, Muslims and non-Muslims, and they stand against our shared values in the UK."

One may hope that the good Doctor and his coreligionists may someday extend their outrage at and opposition to terrorist murder to those places and times when the victims are, say, Iraqis, or (dare one dream?) Americans and Israelis.