Iraqi cleric calls off militias

(BBC)

Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has ordered his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities in an effort to end clashes with security forces.

He said in a statement that his movement wanted the Iraqi people to stop the bloodshed and maintain the nation's independence and stability.

The government, which had set a deadline to hand over weapons in return for cash, called the move "positive".

The fighting has claimed more than 240 lives across the country since Tuesday.
In Baghdad, the city's military command has extended a round-the-clock curfew for an indefinite period. The curfew had been due to end on Sunday morning.

'Not one of us'

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has given militias until 8 April to surrender their weapons in return for cash.

Moqtada Sadr's statement said: "Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed, and to maintain the unity of Iraq and to put an end to this sedition that the occupiers and their followers want to spread among the Iraqi people, we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces.

"Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us."
The cleric also demanded that the government apply the general amnesty law, release detainees and stop what he called illegal raids.

Moqtada Sadr also told his followers to "work with Iraqi government offices to achieve security and to file charges against those who have committed crimes".

A spokesman for Mr Maliki, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraq television the statement was positive.
"As the government of Iraq we welcome this statement. We believe this will support the government of Iraq's efforts to impose security."

Casualties

Officials had extended the Baghdad curfew after a day of skirmishes between security forces and Shia militiamen in the capital and Basra.

Coalition forces had become more involved with US air raids in the two cities in recent days.
Estimates vary of the number of deaths since the fighting broke out.

Fighting in Baghdad has left 117 people dead over the past three days, Iraqi police told the BBC.
In Basra, the British military has given a death toll of 50 but local medical sources report as many as 290 dead and the Iraqi army has reported killing 120 "enemy" fighters there.

Scores of people are believed to have been killed in other southern cities, according to Iraqi police or medical reports.

At least 44 people were killed in and around Kut, 15 in Nasiriya, 12 in Karbala and six in Hilla.

Sooooooo... tell me if I being crazy here: Does seem a little odd (dare I say, staged?) that Sadr would espouse resistance one day, and then only a week later, call for cooperation?

A couple days ago, the part of my brain that runs it's mouth at parties after an 8 oz. glass of nasty-ass raspberry vodka, (but wouldn't likely say such things sober) was thinking "You know, what if Al-Sadr was engaged in some kinda cahoots with the Iraqi government to stage something of an uprising in Basra... and then, at the crucial hour, the Medhi militia backed down, allowing the Iraqi government to take credit for re-establishing the peace, look all kinds of awesome, therefore contributing to a faster U.S. withdrawal."

Now, I didn't post something about this earlier in Reed's previous entry because I didn't want to look like I was wearing a tinfoil hat... but now, lo and behold, Sadr has today called for his follows to leave the streets, and cooperate with Iraqi security forces.

So... am I way out in left field here?

Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Iraq?

26, March 2008 , 13:15

by Mark Rowlands

With the possible exception of John McCain, pretty much everyone, whether on the right or left, agrees that getting out of Iraq is a good idea. Of course it is, at least in one sense of ‘good’. I don’t think anyone needs reminding that Iraq is the most serious foreign policy debacle in living memory. The war was based on a premise that was unfounded and its consequences – human, economic, and political – have been disastrous for us, and truly calamitous for the Iraqis. Of course it is a good idea to get out of Iraq. If you think this, then what must you think the word ‘good’ means? I suspect that you’re thinking about the word ‘good’ in the way that got us into this mess in the first place.

Iraq, of course, wasn’t a very nice place to live before the invasion: no country run by a psychopathic dictator whose hobby is starting wars with his neighbors ever is. But, by the standards of the region it was by no means exceptional. Indeed, many women had a freedom and access to higher education that they could only dream about in some of the neighboring countries. However, this didn’t stop us from going in and utterly destroying the country, transforming it from the merely unpleasant to the positively nightmarish – with every indication that it is going to get even worse if we should leave.

The decision turns out to be somewhat unfortunate for us too: costing over four thousand American lives, exacerbating an already weakened economy, and diverting our attention from areas – such as Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan where people who actually might want to kill us, or have tried to kill us, or have succeeded in killing us, are currently residing. We all know this.

So, naturally, we want to get out. But the terms in which our withdrawal is debated always turn on what is best for us: the good thing to do is the good thing for us. And this overlooks, of course, that we destroyed their country and made their lives s**t.

Suppose you suspect – groundlessly as it turns out – that your neighbor is throwing garbage into your yard. So, you do what seems to you to be the best thing: you invade his house and largely destroy it, rendering it uninhabitable. Realizing your mistake, you volunteer to stay on and help him or her rebuild it. But, you soon weary of this for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s hitting you financially because you can’t go to work. So, the best thing to do – you decided – is withdraw. If you decide this, then ‘best’ clearly means ‘best for you’.

We seem to have such a hard time thinking about the foreign policy in anything other than self-interested terms. I suspect that’s because today we have a hard time thinking about morality in anything other than self-interested terms. We have, more or less, forgotten what being moral means. This is a tendency that afflicts liberals as much as conservatives. If we at least suspect that there might be a problem with our self-interested behavior, we devote our energies to inventing laughably weak reasons to excuse it. ‘The Iraqis want us to leave’, they say. Yes, some do – perhaps the majority. But this is the same majority that is likely to come out on top after the ensuing bloodshed. Alternatively, as Bill Maher argued last week, whether we leave now or in ten years, they’re still going to kill each other anyway. So, we might as well leave now. I’m not sure what evidence this assertion is based on, but it is clearly the moral equivalent of ‘you’re f****d, so f**k you!’

The point is that when self-interest is at stake, you don’t need a good reason for pursuing it – a bad one will do.

Here’s one way to think morally, a way that has a lineage that runs from John Rawls, through Immanuel Kant, to, dare I say it, a certain Nazarene carpenter. Imagine you don’t know who you are. You don’t know whether you are American, or an Iraqi Sunni, an Iraqi Shia, or an Iraqi Kurd. Then ask yourself: what would I like to happen? I don’t know what answer you would come up with. And, to be quite honest, I’m not sure what answer I would arrive at either. My point here is not about what is the morally right thing to do but how to think about what’s the morally right thing to do. If you do this, then you are at least trying to think morally as opposed to self-interestedly. Of course, you can’t really imagine this. Neither can I. Morality is not an exact science. But we can do the best we can. And, (morally) the best we can is not always (self-interestedly) the best for us.

Original Article at Secular Philosophy (click here to be redirected)

US army deaths in Iraq hit 4,000

The number of United States military personnel killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion five years ago has passed the 4,000 mark.

The latest to die were four soldiers whose patrol vehicle was blown up by a bomb in southern Baghdad on Sunday.

The deaths bring the total to 4,000, according to the US military and independent monitoring groups.

In other violence, Baghdad's Green Zone came under fire, and a suicide bomber killed 13 Iraqi soldiers in Mosul.

In Baghdad, the heavily-fortified Green Zone suffered sustained mortar and rocket fire, which killed at least 15 civilians.

The US military said it killed 12 militants preparing suicide attacks in a house east of Baquba.

The bloodshed comes despite an overall reduction in violence since last June.

That was when the US deployed an extra 30,000 troops in violence-hit areas - the so-called "troop surge".

But Sunday's violence underlines the fragile, reversible nature of the apparent improvements in security, say correspondents.

Huge blast

At least 40 people were injured in Sunday's early-morning suicide strike in Mosul.

The suicide attacker ploughed an explosives-laden tanker into the army base, causing a massive blast.

Iraqi and US soldiers have been engaged in a major offensive in Mosul, which US commanders say is al-Qaeda's last urban stronghold in Iraq.

In another deadly attack, at least seven shoppers in a Baghdad market were killed when gunmen travelling in three cars opened fire.

Our correspondent says previous rocket attacks on the Green Zone have been blamed on rogue elements of Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, which is supposed to be observing a ceasefire.

Also on Sunday, the US military said it had killed 12 men in a raid east of Baquba city, in Diyala province.

Spokesman Major Winfield Danielson claimed six of the men killed were found to have shaved their bodies, which he said was "consistent with final preparation for suicide operations".

He added that a cache of weapons and ammunition had also been found in the raid and destroyed.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7310924.stm

Just thought we should think about this. 5 years on...800 deaths per year. Let's not forget the estimated 1 million Iraqi deaths (from the invasion) as well as the additional 1 to 1.5 million Iraqis that died of sanctions-related causes. We could add on the additional British troop loss as well as all of the crippled, maimed, disfigured, and emotionally/psychologically scarred US and allied troops...tragic.

Cheney in oil talks with Saudis

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has met Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah todiscuss ways of stabilising the oil market.

US officials said there was "a lot of commonality" in the talks in Riyadh on the way to move forward in the global energy market.

Oil prices have risen about 16% this year, but the oil producers' cartel, Opec, has declined to raise output.

On Thursday, Mr Cheney held talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul, urging greater Nato commitment.

Mr Cheney's Middle East tour also took him to the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, five years after the US-led invasion.

He will also visit Israel, the West Bank and Turkey before returning to Washington.

Market volatility

In meetings that also included Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, US officials said there was a "very thorough" discussion of short, medium and long-term goals for the oil market.

"There was I think a lot of commonality in their assessment about the structural problems confronted by the global energy market now and some discussion of probably the way forward," a senior US official said.

King Abdullah had earlier welcomed Mr Cheney to his al-Jenadriya horse farm.

"Mr vice-president, we've been friends a long time," the king said.

Oil prices have risen in recent weeks to record highs above $100 as investors have purchased commodities as the value of the dollar has fallen.

Mr Cheney's national security adviser John Hannah said before the talks that they would build on the discussions begun by President George W Bush on his visit to Saudi Arabia in January, when he called on Opec to increase oil exports and warned high energy prices were hurting US consumers.

At the time, Mr Naimi insisted the kingdom would boost production only if the market justified it.

Mr Bush said he hoped King Abdullah would "listen very carefully" to US concerns, while White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the president hoped to "see an increase in production".

Other issues on the agenda of the meetings in Saudi Arabia included concerns about the potential nuclear threat posed by Iran to the region, military and political progress in Iraq, as well as Syria and Lebanon, US officials said.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7308509.st

Any potential conflicts of interest here? Why would Cheney want to press OPEC to raise output and thus lower prices. As things are progressing the energy industry (in which Cheney is heavily invested), is making money hand over fist. Maybe the trip is all political, and the Bush admin wants voters think they are listening to them, but I am suspicious. I suppose it could just be that the rising cost of oil has inflated prices across the boards and that is harming the US economy to such an extent that Bush and Cheney have to do something to head off recession. Still....suspicious.

Obama's Speech on Race in America

Is Obama Wrong About Wright?

Among black Americans, Jeremiah Wright may not be that far out of the mainstream.

By Michael C. Dawson

TheRoot.com

Updated: 11:35 PM ET Mar 16, 2008

March 17, 2008 -- Senator Obama is mistaken. The problem with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago minister who is the Obama family's pastor and the subject of recent fierce attacks in the media, is not, as Obama has stated, that "he has a lot of the…baggage of those times," (those times being the 1960s).

The problem is also not, as one paper characterized Obama's position on his minister, that Wright is stuck in a "time warp," in a period defined by racial division.

No, the problem is that Wright's opinions are well within the mainstream of those of black America. As public opinion researchers know, the problem is that despite all the oratory about racial unity and transcending race, this country remains deeply racially divided, especially in the realm of politics.

Most white people and the mainstream media tend to be horrified (in a titillating voyeuristic type of way), when they 'look under the hood' to see what's really on blacks folks' mind. Two thirds of whites believe that blacks have achieved or will soon achieve racial equality. Nearly eighty percent of blacks believe that racial justice for blacks will not be achieved either in their lifetime or at all in the U.S. In March 2003, when polls were showing strong support among whites for an invasion of Iraq, a large majority of blacks were shown to oppose military intervention.

In a survey I took during the week that the U.S. went to war, blacks not only opposed the war in large numbers, but a very large majority also thought that protest against the war was one's patriotic duty. A majority of whites thought protesting the war was unpatriotic.

The same type of divides, as I noted in an earlier essay, have appeared in evaluations of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, of evaluations of President Bush during the first six years of his administration, during most of the Clinton administration, and for the entire Reagan presidency.

More specifically, Reverend Wright's blend of leftism and Afro-Centrism remains one of the classic patterns of black political ideology. His philosophy is very similar to a number of honored black theologians, including the esteemed Reverend James Cone of Union Theological Seminary.

Indeed, one could argue that Reverend Wright's criticism of racial dynamics in the U.S. and American foreign policy is milder than the biting criticism of American capitalism and imperialism found in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the last years of his life. During the 1990s, seventy percent of black Americans believed the country was racially, economically, and socially unfair toward blacks and the poor (See my 2001 book Black Visions for statistical details and the question wording for these three separate questions).

The black community is angry about race relations in this country. The black community is angry about the bankrupt foreign policy that this nation has pursued since before 9/11. Blacks are angry about what is perceived as the political and moral blindness of white Americans. This anger is spread across the black ideological spectrum (with the exception, perhaps, of within the ranks of black conservatives).

Black nationalists, black leftists, black feminists and black liberals may differ on their solutions for what America's ills, but they all generally agree on the overarching problems Not surprisingly, the last time a scientific survey of black political ideologies was conducted, a large segment of the black population fell into the category of those who believed in the principles of liberalism, yet they held no hope, the survey indicated, that this country would ever live up to its democratic and liberal creed.

So Barack Obama is wrong. Reverend Wright does not represent outdated thinking. The critical views he expresses are all too rooted in the present. The racial divisions that Obama seeks to transcend with his message of hope and unity are not a feature of the past, but a deep structural fixture in this nation's present.

Obama will be continually called upon by the mainstream media to prove that he's not a nationalist like Minister Farrakhan, or an Afrocentric leftist like Reverend Wright. The suspicion will always be that he holds opinions closer to those expressed by Rev. Wright than those he is voicing in the campaign.

Consequently, if the Obama campaign wishes to bring this campaign to a successful conclusion, it will have to realize that it cannot run away from the issue of race and racial division, but will have to find a language that both addresses our hopes for the future while recognizing the difficulties and divisions of the present. The nation's in real trouble if its politicians and pundits continue to believe that that the only road to racial harmony is through denying the past and refusing to discuss the injustices of the present.

Michael C. Dawson is the John D. MacArthur professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

URL: http://www.theroot.com/id/45302

I meant to post something about Obama's pastor's recent comments and elicit some feedback. I personally don't find his comments so outrageous--at least not so much as people are making it out to be. Wright is not calling for violence or racial intolerance. It seemed to me that he was calling out leaders that ignore persistent racial inequality and condemning the blatant hypocrisy that exists among the leadership of the country (on both sides). I can see why he raised some ire with his "Goddamn America" quote...but I don't disagree entirely, at least with the context. My understanding was that he was condemning much of America's recent behavior (in the world and at home) and pointing out the fallacy in trying to claim that the US is somehow blessed by God--rather, he argues in particularly inflammatory way, that God would condemn the US. Regardless, I can see why this is such a hamstringing for Obama's campaign.

Slate's Delegate Counter

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

Thought some of you might find this interesting.

China 'holds Tibetan dissidents'

Security forces in the Tibetan city of Lhasa are rounding up dissidents, exiled Tibetans say, as a deadline approaches for protesters to surrender.

China has given demonstrators in the city until midnight (1600 GMT) to give themselves up or face punishment.

Dozens are feared dead after days of rioting in Lhasa, with each side accusing the other of excessive force.

Other parts of China also saw rallies on the weekend, while Tibetans in Nepal and India are continuing to protest.

Qiangba Puncog, the Tibetan regional governor, said 13 "innocent civilians" had been killed by mobs in Lhasa.

He blamed the unrest on outside forces including Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, who heads the Tibetan government-in-exile from India.

TIBET DIVIDE China says Tibet was always part of its territory Tibet enjoyed long periods of autonomy before 20th century 1950: China launched a military assault Opposition to Chinese rule led to a bloody uprising in 1959 Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama fled to India

"The Dalai group and some other people in Western countries look at the beating, burning and smashing activities in the riots in Lhasa as peaceful demonstrations," he said.

"No democratic country in the world will tolerate this kind of crime."

The exiled Tibetan government says at least 80 protesters died in the Chinese crackdown.

Spokesman Tenzin Takhla said the security forces had regained control of the city and it was impossible for anyone to hold a rally there at the moment.

He said there were house-to-house searches going on and a number of former political prisoners were reported to have been detained again.

One Lhasa resident told the BBC late on Sunday that there was a heavy police presence in the city - but signs of normal life had returned.

"The schools are now open and children are going to school but shops are still closed as lots have been damaged and burned," he said.

Rocks hurled

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Sichuan province, rights groups say seven people were killed when security forces opened fire on Tibetan protesters in the city of Aba on Sunday.

And in Machu, Gansu province, a protester told the BBC a crowd of people set government buildings on fire on Sunday.

Groups of people also took down the Chinese flag and set it on fire, replacing it with the Tibetan flag, he said.

Smaller protests were reported elsewhere in Gansu and Tibet.

China has given Tibetans involved in the Lhasa protests a deadline of midnight on Monday local time to surrender to police.

The Dalai Lama has called for an international inquiry into China's crackdown, while Western leaders have called for restraint.

Anti-China rallies began on 10 March - the anniversary of a Tibetan uprising - and gradually intensified.

On Friday, demonstrators in Lhasa set fire to Chinese-owned shops and hurled rocks at local police, triggering a crackdown.

The unrest comes as preparations for this year's Olympic Games in Beijing are well advanced.

China has already faced calls for boycotts over its policies in Africa, and Olympic chief Jacques Rogge said he was "very concerned" about the situation in Tibet.

China says Tibet has always been part of its territory. But Tibet enjoyed long periods of autonomy before the 20th Century and many Tibetans remain loyal to the Dalai Lama, who fled in 1959.

From BBC.co.uk

Thoughts? I am rather surprised at China's relatively tame response (at least compared to the 1989 Tianamen crackdown). I suppose that world attention brought in part by the Olympic games is restraining them to a large degree. Interestingly, it seems that these protests are more about economics than independence. Tibetans are upset by the flood of Chinese immigrants taking up jobs; the independence issue seems to be hyped up by Tibetans living in exile that still want Tibet's sovereignty restored--and likely they see Kosovo as a window of opportunity.

US Mid-East commander steps down

The commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral William Fallon, is to retire from his post early.

He cited the "embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy" as the reason for retiring.

He was the subject of a recent article by Esquire magazine, which said he was opposed to the use of force against Iran over its nuclear programme.

The 63-year-old admiral became head of the US Central Command a year ago.

'No policy differences'

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to take early retirement was entirely Adm Fallon's, added that he agreed it was the right thing to do.

"I have approved Admiral Fallon's request to retire with reluctance and regret," he told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that he would be sorely missed.

I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Adm William Fallon

President George W Bush said the admiral deserved "considerable credit for progress that has been made... in Iraq and Afghanistan".

The Esquire article suggested Adm Fallon was standing up to a president supposedly contemplating war with Iran.

He is described in the article as "the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran".

Mr Gates said the idea that Adm Fallon's departure indicated that the US was planning to go to war with Iran was "ridiculous".

He said "there is a misperception" that the admiral disagreed with the Bush administration's policies towards Iran. "I don't think there were differences at all," Mr Gates said.

The Bush administration's official policy towards Iran is to use diplomatic and economic pressures to resolve differences while retaining the possibility of military options.

The US and other Western nations suspect Iran is using its nuclear programme to develop atomic weapons - a charge Tehran denies.

In a statement released through Central Command's Florida headquarters, Adm Fallon said: "I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command.

"The simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there."

Central Command covers an area from the Horn of Africa into Central Asia and includes responsibility for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From the BBC.

Not sure what to make of this, but it is concerning to me. I have thought that the Bush admin might try to use military force in Iran during the last days in office as a means to "lock in" the neo-con vision of US military presence in the Middle East, and this might sadly support this fear...but let's hope not.

Fewer confessions and new sins

By David Willey
BBC News, Rome

The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

Those newly risking eternal punishment include drug pushers, the obscenely wealthy, and scientists who manipulate human genes. So "thou shalt not carry out morally dubious scientific experiments" or "thou shalt not pollute the earth" might one day be added to the Ten Commandments.

MODERN EVILS Environmental pollution Genetic manipulation Accumulating excessive wealth Inflicting poverty Drug trafficking and consumption Morally debatable experiments Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell".

The new mortal sins were listed by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a week-long training seminar in Rome for priests, aimed at encouraging a revival of the practice of confession - or the Sacrament of Penance in Church jargon.

According to a survey carried out here 10 years ago by the Catholic University, 60% of Italians have stopped going to confession altogether. The situation has certainly not improved during the past decade.

Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest at least once a year. The priest absolves them in God's name.

Talking to course members at the end of the seminar organised by the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican department in charge of fixing the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners, Pope Benedict added his own personal voice of disquiet.

"We are losing the notion of sin," he said. "If people do not confess regularly, they risk slowing their spiritual rhythm," he added. The Pope confesses his sins regularly once a week.

Greatest sins of our times

In an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Archbishop Girotti said he thought the most dangerous areas for committing new types of sins lay in the fields of bio-ethics and ecology.

He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as "exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church".

ORIGINAL DEADLY SINS Pride Envy Gluttony Lust Anger Greed Sloth

Father Gerald O'Collins, former professor of moral theology at the Papal University in Rome, and teacher of many of the Catholic Church's current top Cardinals and Bishops, welcomed the new catalogue of modern sins.

"I think the major point is that priests who are hearing confessions are not sufficiently attuned to some of the real evils in our world," he told the BBC News website. "They need to be more aware today of the social face of sin - the inequalities at the social level. They think of sin too much on an individual level.

"I think priests who hear confession should have a deeper sense of the violence and injustice of such problems - and the fact that people collaborate simply by doing nothing. One of the original deadly sins is sloth - disengagement and not getting involved," Father O'Collins said. The Jesuit professor now teaches at St Mary's University in Twickenham.

"It was interesting that these remarks came from the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary," he said. "I can't remember a time when it was so concerned about issues such as environmental pollution and social injustice. It's a new way of thinking."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7287071.stm

Published: 2008/03/10 16:06:51 GMT

Seems spot on for this site. Fortunately I did not see 'though shalt not blog' on the list.

FBI Interrogator Discusses Torture

The Gaza Bombshell

After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.

Some sources call the scheme “Iran-contra 2.0,” recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.’s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.

Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.

Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.

The botched plan has rendered the dream of Middle East peace more remote than ever, but what really galls neocons such as Wurmser is the hypocrisy it exposed. “There is a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy,” he says. “It directly contradicts it.”

Excerpted from: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

Iran Contra 2.0? An interesting story that illustrates the dangers of trying to manipulate an internal struggle in someone else's country. But I guess the US doesn't learn. It toppled the Guatemala government in the 50s and touched off a 30 year civil war, ousted an elected Iranian leader and set the stage for the Islamic revolution, and tried on multiple occasions to remove Castro's regime, only to make it stronger. Looks like the same type of strategy and the same type of outcome.

D & D creator dies

Dungeons and Dragons creator dies

Gary Gygax, co-creator of the first role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons, has died at the age of 69.

Gygax, who developed the game in 1974 with Dave Arneson, had been suffering from health problems for several years.

Famous for its mythical creatures and odd-shaped dice, Dungeons and Dragons was an instant success that spawned a slew of video games, books and films.

Gygax was also an author who wrote numerous fantasy books, including the Greyhawk series of adventure novels.

He died on Tuesday at his home in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, leaving a wife and six children.

http://xkcd.com/393/

Not political news, but the death of an important world figure nonetheless. Check out the comic. Gary, thanks for all the laughs.

Israel attack threatens wide fallout

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC diplomatic correspondent

The target of the Palestinian gunman's attack in Jerusalem was highly significant.

The Merkaz Herav Yeshiva - a Jewish religious seminary - is the place from where the religious-inspired Jewish settlement movement in the West Bank sprang.

It is the very centre of religious Jewish nationalism and its symbolic importance may well not have been lost on the organisation which ordered this attack.

The Israeli authorities already know the identity of the gunman - a resident of Jabel Mukaber in East Jerusalem. This is especially worrying for security chiefs given the fact that East Jerusalem residents have much greater freedom of movement than Palestinians from the West Bank.

The attack on the Yeshiva is a grim development in the litany of violence

If there is an active Palestinian militant group operating out of East Jerusalem this also underlines one of the limitations of Israel's security barrier in the West Bank.

There will also be questions about why the Israeli intelligence services had no apparent warning of this attack.

But what matters most is who gave the gunman his orders.

Wider consequences

According to Hezbollah television in Lebanon, a so far unknown organisation has said it carried out the attack. The group was named after a prominent Hezbollah leader, Imad Mughniyeh, who was blown-up by a car bomb in Damascus in mid-February.

Hezbollah held Israel responsible. Israel believes that Hezbollah has significant links with Palestinian groups in the West Bank, especially with the militant wing of the Fatah organisation - the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

This is a plausible connection. But claims of responsibility may amount to little.

Assuming that the attacker was not just an enraged individual, Israel's first goal will be to roll up the specific cell and network from which the gunman came.

But depending upon whose fingerprints are on the operation, the wider consequences could be considerable.

'We will fight extremists'

In the short-term there will be stepped-up security in Jerusalem and more checkpoints in the West Bank.

Talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are likely to survive this incident.

After all they also survived Israel's recent large-scale incursion into the Gaza Strip, though a flying visit by the US secretary of state was needed to patch up the diplomatic battle damage.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev signalled as much when he sought to distinguish between the reaction of Hamas and the mainstream Fatah movement.

"The Palestinian leadership under President Abbas, condemned last night's atrocity, last night's massacre," he told the BBC.

"It was Hamas in Gaza that was celebrating, and I think we have to distinguish between these two different views on the Palestinian side. One side says it wants to negotiate with us - it wants peace, it wants reconciliation. Of course we have to try to reach a historic agreement with them."

"The other side," he went on, "the extremists - those hard-core Jihadist elements who oppose peace - who oppose reconciliation - we have to fight them."

Hezbollah connections

Quite where these talks will lead given the divisions between Hamas and Fatah and given Israel and Washington's insistence that Hamas must be isolated, is far from clear.

The deadline for progress of the end of this year, when President George W Bush prepares to leave office looks more and more unattainable.

Whoever ordered this gun attack, the emotions raised by this incident will inevitably influence Israel's response to continuing rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.

A potential Hezbollah connection could raise tensions on the northern border as well. And if there is a connection with militants in Fatah on the West Bank, then that could greatly complicate Mr Abbas's position.

There could be domestic political implications in Israel too.

If talks with the Palestinians continue there will be strong pressure from within orthodox religious circles for the Shas party to leave the government.

It is ambivalent about the talks with Mr Abbas to say the least and it has set itself firmly against any discussion of the future division of Jerusalem.

It will have to weigh up the benefits of being inside the coalition, in terms of patronage and power, with the demands of the broader religious community.

The attack on the Yeshiva is a grim development in the litany of violence.

Anyone counting on progress on the peace front this year looks to be betting against the prevailing trend.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7283416.stm

I anticipated something like this. Given the more than 100 Palestinians killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza in the last week there was bound to be a significant backlash. What I think is really troubling (in addition to the misery of the entire situation) is that the attacker was an Arab Israeli living in East Jerusalem. So the likely response from Israel will be to crack down on this group and restrict freedom of movement, curtail the rights of Arab Israelis, etc. Abbas has condemned the attack, but it is likely that this will press Israel to move away from an negotiations with his government, let alone active support of it. This is especially likely if Shas and the other threaten to pull out of the government if talks go forward. This was really an attack on their voters specifically. The school is center of Zionist thought and is closely attached to the settler movement to the more radical parties like Shas. So, as I said in an earlier post, this is all likely to get a lot worse. Blame whomever you like, but that won't keep people from dying. If there is an Israeli backlash that kills more Palestinians in Gaza and alienates Abbas, that will play right into the hands of Hamas. Without a significant response by Israel radical parties may walk out and cause the Olmert government to collapse, potentially bringing in a more conservative party with even less interest in settling the conflict. If Israel responds with a particularly heavy hand, and particularly if this response hits the West Bank, Abbas may be forced to move closer to Hamas in order stay in power and maintain any support from among the population. It's a mess. Hopefully Israel will act with restraint and Abbas can play his cards right and come out on top. But I doubt it. It's more likely that widespread violence erupts like it did in 2000. I hope I am wrong.

Florida and Michigan...

Well, it appears the Democrats are in a bit of a democratic pickle. The Democratic parties of Florida and Michigan, both delegate rich states, opted to defy the rules established by the DNC (rules they agreed to, and signed off on, mind you), and held their primaries early.... as a result of this rather boneheaded move, the DNC said "suckit, jerks!" and stripped these two states of their delegates.

Afterall, if you break the rules, you should suffer the consequences, right? Right.

Well, that was all well and good until we found out that the Democratic primaries were still going on this late in the game without a clear winner. Obama may be ahead, but at the end of the day, if Michigan and Florida could have resulted in a different nominee, it's going to undoubtedly turn into a political shit storm of embarassing proportions.

Now Michigan and Florida want a "do-over"... essentially a day to say "Haha! We kid! Now we will hold teh real electionz!"

The Pickle Part: This could cost somewhere in the range of $20 million dollars, and these two states don't want to pay for it; Or more accurately, don't want to ask their tax payers to pay for it... because you can bet your bottom dollar that if they do, their asses will get shit-canned the next time THEIR names appear on a ballet. And frankly, the taxpayers SHOULDN'T be asked to foot the bill for another caucus day. So naturally, they ask the DNC to help them out.

But Howard Dean says "ho there, little bear, this is your problem, not ours. We're not footing the bill for your asshattery. Besides, we can't afford it. 20 million means a LOT of TV/Radio spots for the Presidential Election"

If the democratic parties of Florida and Michigan can't afford to hold a re-do, and the DNC can't afford to help them out, that means several million voters are suddenly hung out to dry, and completely disenfranchised from the process.... which wasn't a big deal when we didn't think it was going to matter.

But now it just might, and I'm not really sure what the solution is.

1. Allowing a Re-Do is fine and dandy, and I think is perfectly reasonable.
2. Asking the state taxpayers to pay for it is out of the question
3. Asking the DNC to pay for it also seems to be out of the question
4. Saying "fuggit" and just not counting Florida and Michigan is increasingly looking like an option that is out of the question, given how close Obama and Clinton are in the running.

So what now? Seek private funding and donations? Whatever the case, it needs to be resolved, or it could potentially be a huge shadow over the rest of the election process.

Your thoughts?

Air tanker deal provokes US row

Boeing's loss of a $40bn contract to build a new in-flight refuelling aircraft for the US military has drawn angry protests in Congress.

Lawmakers from Washington state and Kansas, which have big Boeing plants, voiced "outrage" that it had gone to a consortium including Europe's Airbus.

The planes will be assembled in Alabama but constructed largely in Europe.

Boeing has said it is awaiting an explanation from the military before deciding whether or not to appeal.

We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military Statement by congressional lawmakers from the Seattle area

The new aircraft, named the KC-45A by the US Air Force, is based on the Airbus A330 and will be manufactured in partnership with US defence firm Northrop Grumman.

Its job will be to refuel the vast array of US warplanes and the contract is worth in the region of $40bn over 15 years.

It is a huge blow for Boeing, the BBC's Vincent Dowd reports from Washington.

America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.

'Outsourcing'

Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

In Everett, Washington state, a few dozen Boeing workers protested outside a Machinists Union hall holding up signs saying "American workers equal best tankers" and "Our military deserves the best".

Congressional lawmakers from the state's Seattle area issued a joint statement condemning the "outsourcing" of the contract.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," they said.

Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Wichita, Kansas, called for "an American tanker built by an American company with American workers".

"I hope the Air Force reverses its decision," he added.

But the news was a boon for Alabama Republican congressman Jo Bonner.

"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refuelling tanker - a tanker assembled in America by Americans," he said.

The deal will also safeguard thousands of British aviation jobs, the BBC's Andy Moore says. Wings will be made at factories in Bristol and in North Wales.

Breaking through

For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.

Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.

In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.

But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.

Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.

Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.

Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

The free market versus national interest? In this I sort of see one of the key problems with the American politicians support for free trade. I have followed this discussion a little, and I hear a lot of hypocrisy. Politicians that love to rant about the virtues of the free market are howling because in a free market Airbus offers the better deal. Should US government office and the military be required to buy US-made goods or should they get to benefit from the market in the same way as all other consumers even it doesn't benefit the US economy?

Gaza situation 'worst since 1967'

Gaza's humanitarian situation is the worst since 1967 when Israel occupied it, says a coalition of UK-based human rights and development groups.

They include Amnesty International, Save the Children, Cafod, Care International and Christian Aid.

They criticise Israel's blockade on Gaza as illegal collective punishment which fails to deliver security.

Israel says its military action and other measures are lawful and needed to stop rocket attacks from Gaza.

The groups' report, Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion, says the blockade has dramatically worsened levels of poverty and unemployment, and has led to deterioration in education and health services.

'Disaster'

More than 1.1 million Gazans are dependent on food aid and of 110,000 workers previously employed in the private sector, 75,000 have now lost their jobs, the report says.

"Unless the blockade ends now, it will be impossible to pull Gaza back from the brink of this disaster and any hopes for peace in the region will be dashed," said Geoffrey Dennis, of Care International UK.

Gaza cannot become a partner for peace unless Israel, Fatah and the Quartet engage with Hamas and give the people of Gaza a future Daleep Mukarji, Christian Aid

Israel tightened its blockade on the strip, controlled by the Hamas militant group, in January.

Last week Israeli forces launched a bloody and destructive raid in northern Gaza, in which more than 120 Palestinians - including many civilians - were killed.

Israel says the measures are designed to stamp out frequent rocket fire by Palestinian militants.

Recent rocket attacks have hit deeper into southern Israel, reaching Ashkelon, the closest large Israeli city to the Gaza Strip.

Occupying power

The UK-based groups agree that Israel has the right and obligation to protect its citizens, urging both sides to cease unlawful attacks on civilians.

But they call upon Israel to comply with its obligations, as the occupying power in Gaza, to ensure its inhabitants have access to food, clean water, electricity and medical care, which have been in short supply in the strip.

"Punishing the entire Gazan population by denying them these basic human rights is utterly indefensible," said Amnesty UK Director Kate Allen.

"The current situation is man-made and must be reversed."

Other recommendations from the groups include international engagement with the Hamas movement, which rejects Israel's legitimacy and has been shunned by Israel's allies, and the Fatah party of Palestinian West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas.

"Gaza cannot become a partner for peace unless Israel, Fatah and the Quartet [the US and UN, Europe and Russia] engage with Hamas and give the people of Gaza a future," said Daleep Mukarji of Christian Aid.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7280026.stm

I think the last quote sums it up. I don't think anyone involved in this conflict "wants" to engage Hamas. But face it, that's who's there...and they have weapons. So the only choices are to make an effort to negotiate or to accept that 1000s of people will die. Israel has been, it seems, fine with choosing the latter and will likely continue to do the same. Hamas is ok with that too because the leadership is made up of extremists zealots and because they often gain from Israel's heavy-handed responses. But in this case Israel (and the US) have more of a capacity to alter the status quo and better the lives of the people than any other group. Even if all the rockets stopped tomorrow 1 million people would still live in abject poverty (almost all of the Strip) and 110,000 would still be out of work. Even if Hamas were gone these conditions would drive people to violence. Blaming Hamas (recall that before that the blame was on the PLO) won't ever lead to improvements. A few Israelis will continue to die every year and so will 100s if not 1000s of Palestinians. It will only get worse.

McCain = religious nutjob?

First he is buddy-buddy with Jerry Falwell, now this:



Ugh... ugh.

Kucinich fends off challenger

Race among toughest congressional contests in Ohio, Texas

The Associated Press

updated 1:24 a.m. ET, Wed., March. 5, 2008

CLEVELAND - Dennis Kucinich, the liberal Ohio politician who has made two failed White House campaigns, won the Democratic primary in his battle to keep his seat.

Although the presidential primary commanded most of the nation's attention, Kucinich's race was the best known congressional contest on ballots in Ohio and Texas.

Other races included three veterans of the Iraq war seeking congressional nominations in Ohio and a battle for the nomination to challenge Sen. John Cornyn in Texas. Voters in one Vermont community approved a measure calling for the arrest of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

For years, the 61-year-old Kucinich has won re-election by margins of up to 75 percent in a reliably Democratic district.

But after sensing early that Joe Cimperman was a formidable opponent, Kucinich abandoned his presidential campaign on Jan. 25, months earlier in the race than he did in 2004, when he also was polling in low one-digit numbers.

Joe Cimperman, a Cleveland City Council member and former Kucinich admirer, raised nearly $500,000 and landed high-profile endorsements from the mayor and the city's daily newspaper.

Ron Paul also won the primary election for his congressional seat. I wanted to post a similar story about his win, but it was hard finding anything. Any way, way to go guys. Oh yeah, and Clinton won 3 out of 4 states in the primary last night. So the fight goes on.

As Israelis Pull Out of Gaza, Hamas Celebrates Its Rocketry

By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ISABEL KERSHNER

GAZA — As Israel withdrew its forces from the northern Gaza Strip on Monday after a two-day assault on Hamas militants, and as Palestinians emerged from their houses to inspect the damage, Hamas leaders seemed to be following the playbook of their Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, in its 2006 war with Israel.

Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, said that like Hezbollah, Hamas had “gone from the stone to the rocket.”

“What we learned from Hezbollah,” he said, “is that resistance is a choice that can work.”

The clearest example of echoing Hezbollah came Monday when thousands attended a so-called victory rally, and Mahmoud Zahar, an influential Hamas leader, briefly came out of hiding to tell the rallygoers that his organization would rebuild any house that had been damaged by the Israeli strikes.

Holding up his group as the source of reconstruction as well as resistance is precisely the message that brought local and regional acclaim to Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, when his organization faced down Israeli attacks in the summer of 2006 through rocket barrages on Israel.

The latest surge in hostilities between Israel and militants in the Gaza Strip left 116 Palestinians dead, according to Dr. Moawiya Hassanain of the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza, making it the deadliest fighting in Gaza in a year. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting in northern Gaza on Saturday, and one Israeli civilian was killed last Wednesday by rocket fire in the border town of Sderot.

But more than 200 rockets have been fired at Israel since Wednesday, according to Israeli military officials, including at least 21 longer-range Katyusha-style rockets, which are manufactured outside Gaza and brought into the strip. Palestinians and Israelis see the use of those rockets as another illustration of the growing similarity between Hezbollah and Hamas, the militant Islamic organization that controls Gaza.

“We are very concerned that the role model for Hamas in Gaza is the Lebanese Hezbollah,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, when asked about parallels between this conflict and the one with Hezbollah.

“I have no doubt that the people who built Hezbollah’s military machine are now building the military machine of Hamas,” Mr. Regev added. He cited Iran, where Israeli security officials say the longer-range rockets used by both Hezbollah and Hamas were made.

Israeli officials say Hezbollah also provides Hamas with training and logistical support. They add that Hamas has also adopted other Hezbollah tactics, operating in civilian areas and in some cases storing weapons in homes, creating similar quandaries for the army that it faced in its war in Lebanon in 2006.

Soon after the forces left northern Gaza on Monday, two more of the imported rockets struck Ashkelon, an Israeli coastal city of 120,000 people about 10 miles north of the strip. One rocket hit an apartment block, causing damage but no serious injuries.

Hamas has claimed responsibility for most of the rocket fire. Hamas took over Gaza last June after routing forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah.

Mr. Abbas, who is based in the West Bank, suspended peace talks with Israel as the death toll rose in Gaza, and on Monday he called on all sides to agree to a cease-fire and to allow him to act as a mediator, a day before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was expected to arrive in the region for talks.

There was a second day of unrest in the West Bank on Monday, with Palestinians protesting the Israeli actions in Gaza and throwing stones at soldiers and Israeli cars in various locations. An Israeli settler shot and killed a 17-year-old Palestinian on a road west of Ramallah. According to Israel Radio, the settler said he had gone out for a walk and was confronted by a group of Palestinians, some masked, who threw stones.

In what was apparently a bid to remain relevant in Gaza, and in an echo of the actions of the Lebanese government in southern Beirut after the war in 2006, Mr. Abbas also instructed his government to allocate $5 million to compensate Gaza residents whose properties were damaged in the Israeli campaign.

Israel says its ground and air forces have been aiming only at rocket squads and weapons storage and production facilities in Gaza. Israel’s army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, and its chief of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, described 90 percent of those killed in Gaza in the last few days as terrorists.

But that figure is challenged by medical officials in Gaza, who say about half of those killed were civilians, including several young children. The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem also issued a statement on Monday saying that by its count, at least 54 of the dead had not taken part in the hostilities.

Mr. Olmert was quoted as telling Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of Parliament that the recent military campaign, which started with concerted airstrikes on Wednesday and continued with the ground incursion early Saturday, was “not a one-time event.”

“We are in the midst of a combat action,” he said, adding that “the objective is reducing the rocket fire and weakening Hamas.”

On Monday evening, the Israeli Air Force struck another rocket-launching squad and the wagon in which they were transporting rockets in northern Gaza, an army spokeswoman said. Palestinian officials said one militant was killed.

Israel is mulling a much broader and longer ground operation in Gaza, the defense minister, Ehud Barak, has said in recent days. But Israeli government and military officials say they are wary of such a campaign because of the inevitably high cost in lives on the two sides and uncertainty about what might be achieved.

In terms of strength, Hamas is still far from Hezbollah. But if Israel does not act, said Mr. Regev, the spokesman for Mr. Olmert, it will wake up one day to a much more dangerous situation in the south with a large part of the Israeli population within range of Hamas rocket fire.

In the Gaza town of Jabaliya, the focus of the Israeli ground operation, residents emerged from their houses to inspect the destruction left by the Israeli tanks and to bury more of the dead.

Ahmad Darabeh, 37, a teacher and father of six, described how soldiers blew open the door of his house without warning before dawn on Saturday and took up sniper positions inside. The family was confined to one room, allowed out only to the bathroom once every 10 hours, Mr. Darabeh said.

He said one of his female relatives, Nihad Daher, 22, who lived nearby, was killed Saturday by shrapnel when an Israeli Apache helicopter fired a missile at an armed group outside the house.

Mr. Darabeh said he was impressed by the organization of the members of the Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. “It was striking to see their performance this time,” he said, adding that if the Israeli ground forces had not been backed up from the air, “Hamas could have beaten them.”

The Qassam Brigades say that 37 of its members have been killed since Wednesday, and other militant groups say they lost 15.

Many Palestinians in Gaza also expressed reservations about the Hamas celebrations, given the number of people who had died.

Sitting outside her partly destroyed house in Jabaliya, Aisha Abd Rabbo, 85, said she did not care about the offer of compensation from Mr. Zahar, the Hamas leader who addressed the rally on Monday.

“All I want is the return of those who were killed,” she said.

An interesting article that addresses some of the issues of a project I just started working on--how insurgent groups "learn" from one another's strategies of violence against a state. Hamas, it appears, has just taken a page from the Hezbollah's play book. Arguably, Hamas saw that the Israeli incursions into Lebanon benefited Hezbollah, so Hamas has been using the same tactics in the hope of producing similar results. The Israeli incursion into Lebanon was claimed as a win by Hezbollah, who claim they repelled the Israeli invasion. While that is not really true in any case, the world's reaction to the Israeli war discredited the Olmert government and in many ways strengthened Hezbollah.

Fears of Internet predators unfounded, study finds

WASHINGTON — A lot of parental worries about Internet sex predators are unjustified, according to new research by a leading center that studies crimes against children.

"There's been some overreaction to the new technology, especially when it comes to the danger that strangers represent," said Janis Wolak, a sociologist at the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire in Durham.

"Actually, Internet-related sex crimes are a pretty small proportion of sex crimes that adolescents suffer," Wolak added, based on three nationwide surveys conducted by the center.

Two of the surveys contacted 3,000 Internet users aged 10-17 in 2000 and again in 2005. The third sums up findings from 612 interviews with investigators at a nationally representative sample of agencies that deal with Internet sex crimes involving children.

In an article titled "Online 'Predators' and Their Victims," which appears Tuesday in American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association, Wolak and co-researchers examined several fears that they concluded are myths:

• Internet predators are driving up child sex crime rates.

Finding: Sex assaults on teens fell 52 percent from 1993 to 2005, according to the Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey, the best measure of U.S. crime trends. "The Internet may not be as risky as a lot of other things that parents do without concern, such as driving kids to the mall and leaving them there for two hours," Wolak said.

• Internet predators are pedophiles.

Finding: Internet predators don't hit on the prepubescent children whom pedophiles target. They target adolescents, who have more access to computers, more privacy and more interest in sex and romance, Wolak's team determined from interviews with investigators.

• Internet predators represent a new dimension of child sexual abuse.

Finding: The means of communication is new, according to Wolak, but most Internet-linked offenses are essentially statutory rape: nonforcible sex crimes against minors too young to consent to sexual relationships with adults.

• Internet predators trick or abduct their victims.

Finding: Most victims meet online offenders face-to-face and go to those meetings expecting to engage in sex. Nearly three-quarters have sex with partners they met on the Internet more than once.

• Internet predators meet their victims by posing online as other teens.

Finding: Only 5 percent of predators did that, according to the survey of investigators.

• Online interactions with strangers are risky.

Finding: Many teens interact online all the time with people they don't know. What's risky, according to Wolak, is giving out names, phone numbers and pictures to strangers and talking online with them about sex.

• Internet predators go after any child.

Finding: Usually their targets are adolescent girls or adolescent boys of uncertain sexual orientation, according to Wolak. Youths with histories of sexual abuse, sexual orientation concerns and patterns of off- and online risk-taking are especially at risk.

ON THE WEB

For more research by the University of New Hampshire's Crimes against Children Research Center, go to www.unh.edu/ccrc/

For tips for parents, go to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at www.missingkids.com

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Just some interesting results from a recent study. Not to diminish the dangers of internet predators at all, but some of these results should probably make people think a bit. It's not the internet that leads to more child sex abuse; more likely it's poor parenting.