THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

Search for:

• FEATURES
• THIS & THAT
• ARTS & IDEAS
• FICTION & POETRY
• LETTERS
• BLOG THIS
•  
• SUBSCRIBE
• BACK ISSUES
• SUPPORT THIS
•  
• ABOUT THIS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• CONTACT THIS
• ADVERTISE
• SITE MAP

Home » Blog This

December 05, 2008

Pirates

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:29 PM ET | Comments (0)

Piracy off the coast of Somali has become an issue since the hijacking of the Saudi Arabian oil-tanker, the Sirius Star, on November 15. Carrying a $110-million cargo of crude oil (enough to supply the New England region of the U.S. with fuel for 10 days), this is the most recent event in a string of destabalizing developments. Western states are justifiably worried about the spectre of piracy: the increased risks to oil tankers are raising insurance premiums; and the resultant rerouting and transport delays are increasing commodity prices. All this in a time of global economic recession.

The solution? According to John S. Burnett, author of Dangerous Waters: Modern Piracy and Terror on the High Seas, in today's New York Times, we must bring back the Islamic Courts Union, a collection of courts that once controlled much of Somalia with Shariah law, maintained loose links to Al Qaeda and consisted mostly of warlords. Since the ICU was replaced in 2006, Somalia has degenerated into lawlessness and rampant piracy. The ICU's restoration, Burnett argues, is the only hope the West has of returning safe routes to oil-tankers.

"If there is movement to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan, then there should be some effort to talk to the fundamentalists in Somalia. If the Islamists were permitted to form a viable, functioning and effective government, this shattered land might be able to return to the community of nations - and supertankers will be able to deliver oil to the United States without fear of getting hijacked."

Now, I can't help but read this as being extremely Western-centric. Burnett seems to care only about the safety of oil-tankers and the efficient delivery of goods to the United States. What about the proper governance of Somalia? Is the best option really giving Somalia to the ICU in return for cheap oil?

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

October 27, 2008

Soldiers and terrorists atwitter

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:33 PM ET | Comments (1)

The global War on Terror has a new front: Twitter! The American military has now taken up the idea of tracking the Twitter accounts of terrorists in the hopes they can intercept their moves and whereabouts. Of course, this tactic could just as easily backfire, proving to be counter-productive and a great waste of time. For one, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists hepfully points out that if the American military has the time and resources to track Twitter accounts, they probably aren't facing too much danger. Check out the three potential consequences of this move, with special attention to the last one (Scenario 3):

"Scenario 1: Terrorist operative "A" uses Twitter with... a cell phone camera/video function to send back messages, and to receive messages, from the rest of his [group]... Other members of his [group] receive near real time updates (similar to the movement updates that were sent by activists at the RNC) on how, where, and the number of troops that are moving in order to conduct an ambush.

Scenario 2: Terrorist operative "A" has a mobile phone for Tweet messaging and for taking images. Operative "A" also has a separate mobile phone that is actually an explosive device and/or a suicide vest for remote detonation. Terrorist operative "B" has the detonator and a mobile to view "A's" Tweets and images. This may allow "B" to select the precise moment of remote detonation based on near real time movement and imagery that is being sent by "A."

Scenario 3: Cyber Terrorist operative "A" finds U.S. [soldier] Smith's Twitter account. Operative "A" joins Smith's Tweets and begins to elicit information from Smith. This information is then used for... identity theft, hacking, and/or physical [attacks]. This scenario... has already been discussed for other social networking sites, such as My Space and/or Face Book."

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

October 23, 2008

The torture of three Muslim-Canadians

Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:59 PM ET | Comments (0)

The news has come out that Canadian officials indirectly contributed to the arrests and torture of three Muslim-Canadians. This revalation followed an inquiry by retired Supreme Court Judge, Frank Iacobucci into the separate, but thematically linked, cases of Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abdullah Almalki. The RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the department of Foreign Affairs, all did things that had the unintended consequence of having the three men imprisoned and tortured in Syria. The CSIS and the RCMP shared information, leading to Nureddin's torture. The RCMP, Iacobucci's inquiry reveals, received, from outside foreign agencies, information and accusations the men were "Islamic extremists". They then shared this information with Syria before checking the validity of the claims for themselves. It should be noted that they were never officially charged with any crimes.

In today's Globe and Mail, Wesley Wark, a security specialist, would not let us forget the importance of intelligence sharing. Although we must be careful to protect the civil rights of citizens, intelligence sharing is a critical step on the road to global security, he argues. The last line of his piece:

"Judicially inspired degrees of caution about the sharing of intelligence might save some Canadians from harm; it might also expose many Canadians to harm."

This sounds very callous. It amounts to justifying the mistreatment of the three men because such acts are essential aspects of a system (intelligence sharing) that will prevent potential harm. But can't we have both: intelligence sharing with rigorous fact-checking and oversight, thus maintaining our status as a part of the global network without indirectly throwing your own citizens under the bus?

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

May 12, 2007

Free Alan Johnston, Toronto journalists say

Posted by mason at 12:14 PM ET | Comments (2)

On Thursday afternoon, I attended a rally outside the CBC building in Toronto in support of the BBC’s Gaza correspondent, Alan Johnston, who has been held by a militant group in the region since they abducted him some 62 days ago.

A few CBC personalities and other journalists said a few words each to the lunchtime crowd of about 250 media workers, and their message was simple: No journalist should be placed in danger and prevented from doing the important work of freely telling stories. In Johnston’s case, the problem is acute because he is one of the only journalists getting news from the Palestinian people out to the West.

The cries for Johnston’s freedom cut across political lines; one of the speakers at the Toronto event noted that there were simultaneous “Free Alan” rallies by Palestinian and Israeli journalists on either side of the wall in Jerusalem recently.

I signed a petition calling for Johnston’s immediate release, and you can too.

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

February 04, 2007

Guerilla Marketing and Boston Common Sense

Posted by calvin at 09:52 AM ET | Comments (0)

The cult cartoon tv series "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" had a bit of recent trouble with their latest promotional campaign. But only in Boston. After attaching the 1 foot tall promotional blinking lite-brite displays throughout 10 major US cities, including post 9-11 New York City, almost 2-3 weeks prior, no municipality was flustered except Boston. Boston's city officials deployed an estimated $750,000 in police resources to lock down the city. With 0% of that $750,000 put into threat analysis. And while it's reassuring that Boston officials were paying attention, its more than a little disconcerting that they weren't paying thorough attention. Don't these cities talk to one another? Doesn't Boston have an overpopulation of cartoon watching M.I.T. nerds to recorgnize these cartoon "Mooninite" characters? And how do 9 other cities "get it" or dismiss it as irritant at best and Boston doesn't? Of course, the City of Boston is on the attack, calling poor judgement, corporate greed (?) and and invoking 9-11, but really, how come only Boston freaked out? Is Boston the only one on the ball or the only one off the mark? If a stupid little cartoon show promotional gimmick has enough "wires and blinking lights" to screech an entire city to a halt, who really is winning the war on terror? Mooninite videos after the jump.

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

August 11, 2006

battle for hearts and minds update

Posted by john_d at 12:14 PM ET | Comments (1)

In a story today on the very terrifying liquid explosive terror plot, The New York Times talks to Simon Reeve, author of a 1999 book on Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Reeve said that while traveling recently in Indonesia he heard of many baby boys being named Osama in honor of Mr. bin Laden.

In part because of the Iraq war, he said, "We're seeing a radicalization of the ummah, the larger Muslim community around the world."

Now, before someone on either the left or right accuses me of excusing terrorism with a root-cause ideology, I just want to point out that winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim street was for awhile there the hyped justification for specific US foreign policy adventures in recent years.

I'm just wondering if the US government has an update for us on how all that is going. I think the past five years have educated the west on Islam and given the wider, non-radicalized Muslim community greater prominence in geo-political discussion, and that's all good. But if experts can point to US policy decisions and say they are partly responsible for increasing radicalization of Muslim populations, isn't it time to re-examine?

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

What if they're innocent?

Posted by mason at 11:53 AM ET | Comments (0)

Yesterday’s arrests of terrorists—whoops, alleged terrorists—in a foiled bomb plot is the latest piece of evidence that police and intelligence officials are totally infallable in the eyes of the commercial media. I’m not saying there was no plan to blow up several planes over the Atlantic, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Doesn’t the news media have a responsibility to question what the authorities present as facts? If (because of investigator error or some other reason) any of the arrested suspects turn out to be innocent, their lives will be totally ruined. But I guess we’re in a war, and every war needs an enemy.

Anyway… just had to get that off my chest.

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

August 10, 2006

Stunning 9/11 photos you've never seen

Posted by mason at 02:13 PM ET | Comments (0)

Before Bill Biggart was killed by the collapse of the second World Trade Center tower, he was able to take some amazing photos of the chaos at the disaster site and the destruction caused by the first tower’s collapse. Biggart, a New York photographer working for a picture agency, did not survive, but incredibly the compact flash card in his digital camera was unharmed. Chip East, a friend of Biggart and a fellow photographer, rescued the photos and has made them available on The Digital Journalist.

The most incredible photo is Biggart’s last (shown here). At bottom right are the familiar metal remains of the first tower, while dominating the photo is the carved-out shell of a massive hotel. See the gallery of photos here.

IMAGE: COPYRIGHT BILL BIGGART/SIPA 2001

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

July 17, 2006

War is not the answer

Posted by mason at 11:51 AM ET | Comments (1)

I find myself completely appalled by today's front-page column by George Jonas in the National Post. Normally I try not to let Post columnists provoke me into posting about them, since it just draws attention to their views. But in this case...

Jonas is an apologist for the Israeli military, and practically the first words out of his mouth are that Israel "didn't mean to harm" the eight Canadian citizens it killed in an air strike on Lebanon yesterday. He goes on to put Israel on the moral high ground: while Hezbollah and other terrorists target civilians in their operations, Israel targets its terrorist enemies in the name of protecting civilians, and any civilians deaths that result are "sad, but unavoidable."

That comment alone is so infuriating I should just stop right here. Nothing is gained by painting one side in a war as "good guys" and the other as "bad," as Jonas does. It gets us no closer to peace, understanding or a diplomatic solution to this conflict, and completely ignores the multiple motivations either side might have for an attack.

When eight Israeli civilians are killed, this is rightly portrayed as a tragedy by columnists such as Jonas and papers like the Post. When eight Arab civilians are killed, how can anyone feel good about letting their killers off the hook, just like that? And if we go along with the dubious suggestion that Israel is targetting only terrorists, why is having terrible aim any better than launching a missile over a border? Killing is killing. War is not going to make it stop, nor is it "unavoidable." If that's the world Jonas lives in, I want no part of it.

More entries on: Human rights | Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind) | War and peace

June 05, 2006

Untitled

Posted by annette at 11:32 AM ET | Comments (8)

I must admit, I was caught off-guard by this weekend's "terror-takedowns" in Toronto. Despite all of the terrorism fear mongering these past few years, I've been of the (apparently naive) mindset that Canada wouldn't be a target.

The Toronto Star and CBC's The Current have had some good coverage exploring what prompted seemingly normal, happy, popular high school kids to turn into alleged terrorist wannabes.

Tarek Fatah, communications director for the Muslim Canadian Congress, raised an interesting point on The Current this morning, wondering aloud why community leaders like Toronto police chief Bill Blair tend to meet only with Muslim religious leaders as opposed to "regular," working community members to get more diverse perspectives about issues in the community.

Any thoughts? Was I the only one surprised by this weekend's takedown?

More entries on: Terrorism (not the state-sponsored kind)

---

 Subscribe to the feed

---

Blog This Must-Reads

---

---

---

Blog This Archives

December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
March 2000

---