Suicide squad members of banned Islamist terror group Jamaatul Mujahedin Bangladesh (JMB) were arrested at Narayangang district with huge quantity of explosive gel, manufactured grenades, weapons and jihadist pamphlets. The news of a huge cache of explosives that law enforcers recovered from Islamist militants on Monday will be stacked atop a growing mound of evidence that Islamist militancy is alive and well in Bangladesh.
This development makes two crucial points. It gives lie to the claim made by the immediate-past government of the BNP-led alliance that last years arrests of the militants ideological kingpins broke the back of their outfits. There are reasons to believe the claim was made to avoid addressing the phenomenon of militancy, in favor of a series of arrests and arms recovery, as this was politically expedient for elements within their fold. Secondly, the recent haul proves that the militants continue to be well funded and are politically active.
It is important to note that these were not improvised explosive devices, but professionally manufactured grenades. Among the recovered items was also a booklet a Jihad training manual the contents of which have not been revealed to the press, but are nonetheless not difficult to surmise. In this respect, we unequivocally accuse the state of granting shelter to the militants, through the patronage of some powerful actors within the state machinery, as well as the willful myopia of those who choose to do nothing.
Although there have been periodic arrests of Islamist militants over the past year, both the immediate-past government and the present-day caretaker government are window-dressing the militancy issue as a law and order problem, when in fact it is a political problem that has been smoldering over the past decade and may at any time flare up into a movement that will challenge the legitimacy of the state itself.
We believe the government lacks the political will to investigate not only the causes of the rise of Islamist militancy in Bangladesh but also their sources of international funding, and their reach within the bureaucracy.
It is also alarming that the judicial process that was to see the six arrested militants including Siddiqul Islam aka Bangla Bhai and Shykh Abdur Rahman brought to justice still remains incomplete because of pending paperwork. We believe this inaction speaks clearly of the governments intransigence in striking the militancy issue at its heart.
This paper has from the very beginning warned that much of the fodder for Islamist militancy is created by the failure of the state to ensure fundamental rights and opportunities to its youth. The governments refusal to investigate the nature of foreign money coming into Bangladesh to fund Islamic schools and institutes is also a key failure that is facilitating the rise of these militants.
The blood spilled by the spate of suicide bombings and targeted assassinations by Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh is still fresh in the national psyche. We demand that the government act in the interest of the majority and not powerful lobby groups by cracking down on militancy through a wide array of political actions. We have already had a first taste of what the future holds for us, if we fail to act.
JMBs rise was initially patronized by several influential members of the former past government. Last year, there had been new alarming information on the list of patrons of Islamist militants. According to information, a judge in countrys lower judiciary with proven track of JMB connection is continuing to grant bails to notorious members of this group as well trying to create a legal window for the convicted JMB kingpins in getting legal benefit from the higher judiciary.
Momammed Momin Ullah, Metropolitan Session Judge in Dhaka openly denounces any existence of Islamist militancy in Bangladesh and says that, any such allegation is a creation of enemies of the country.
Salon interviews Chris Hedges, chronic BDS sufferer and author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. (The interviewer is similarly afflicted, having written the equally delusional Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism.) The result is hard to beat for concentrated essence of moonbattery. Some samples:
. . . The core of this movement is tiny, but you only need a tiny, disciplined, well-funded and well-organized group, and then you count on the sympathy of 80 million to 100 million evangelicals. And that's enough. Especially if you don't have countervailing forces, which we don't. . . .
"The New York Times, the LA Times, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the three major broadcast networks, the newsmagazines, Keith Olbermann, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, the UN, Richard Dawkins, Dan Brown, the gay Episcopal bishops, Andrew Sullivan, Rosie O'Donnell, the Dixie Chicks, Jerry Springer, Air America, the French and the EU, Ted Turner, George Soros--we're just too few and far between, and we don't have the money! We can't stop them."
. . . It takes time to acculturate a society to a radical agenda, but that acculturation has clearly begun here, and I don't see people standing up and trying to stop them. The Democratic policy of trying to reach out to a movement that attacks whole segments of the society as worthy only of conversion or eradication is frightening.
Doesn't it make sense for the Democrats to reach out to the huge number of evangelicals who aren't necessarily part of the religious right, but who may be sympathetic to some of its rhetoric? Couldn't those people be up for grabs?
I don't think they are up for grabs because they have been ushered into a non-reality-based belief system. . . .
. . . I don't know how much it's apparent, but it's an angry book.
Naw! Yer kiddin' aincha?
Posted by: Mike ||
01/11/2007 12:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Sounds like the guy is confusing Evangelicals with general religious conservatism: The 30% sounds high, and probably lumps in Pentacostals and Charismatics. Some church leaders, not all necessarily Evangelical, use regular church attendance figures to arrive at an estimate of 20%.
The core of this movement is tiny, but you only need a tiny, disciplined, well-funded and well-organized group, and then you count on the sympathy of 80 million to 100 million evangelicals.
Ahem, let's swap a few nouns here:
The core of the Islamist terrorists is small, but they only need a tiny, disciplined, well-funded, and well organized group, and then you count on the sympathy of one billion fellow Muslims.
Especially if you have ankle biting liberals like these assholes that make sure you don't hit back.
It takes time to acculturate a society to a radical agenda, but that acculturation has clearly begun here, and I don't see people standing up and trying to stop them.
Ahem, swapping a few adjective some more:
It takes time to acculturate a society to a radical agenda, but that acculturation has clearly been taking place for 1400 years, and I don't see people standing up and trying to stop them.
Instead, we see THESE idiots standing up and trying to stop all efforts to stop the Islamists.
Doesn't it make sense for the Democrats to reach out to the huge number of evangelicals who aren't necessarily part of the religious right, but who may be sympathetic to some of its rhetoric? Couldn't those people be up for grabs?
A bit more noun swapping here:
Doesn't it make sense for the West to reach out to the huge number of Muslims who aren't necessarily part of the Islamist movement, but who may be sympathetic to some of its rhetoric? Couldn't those people be up for grabs?
I don't think they are up for grabs because they have been ushered into a non-reality-based belief system. . . .
#3
One last note I forgot to mention. All the Libs are aware that they did not as much win the last election as much as that the Republicans lost: I saw a lot of books and articles attempting to suppress the voter turnout from the religous right. If the dems pull off a big boner between now and the next election, the religious right will be back, and they'll lose the house and senate given the razor-thin majority they won.
They're probably reacting to a recent novel in which a small group of government leaders below the presidency leads some sort of revolution that ideologically cleanses a significant number of states in the union. Remember, the more realistic a nightmare appears, the scarier it is as a dream. Of course its still just a dream, but the body reacts all the same.
#4
Evangelicals are gonna take our business away from us?
Posted by: ZOG ||
01/11/2007 21:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Non-reality-based belief" > whom decides what is reality - the Failed-Angry Left who want America to adopt the Socialism that can't care or feed itself, andor OWG without having to explain why, etc. to the Amer people/voter??? REALITY WITHOUT TRUTH-HONOR IS JUST A LIE, AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN SO. In any case, CLINTONISM > FASCISM IS THE "NEW COMMUNISM", at least until the day something(s) weirdly and mysteriously but only PC/Deniably Co-incidentally occurs in Socialist Amerika to change Fascist Authoritarianism to Commie Totalitarianism, from Western DemoSocie to Eastern/Asian Communism. "REALITY" = NATIONAL-GLOBAL ANARCHY/MAFIA/NEPOTIST STATE??? Unless Hollyweird + University Liberalists have lied to America, MAFIOSI [or BULK OF THEM] DOESN'T MAKE $$$ UNDER TOTALITARIANISM.
(Stephen Pollard blog)
A BBC mole has sent me this briefing for BBC staff from the BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, on what lies ahead this year.
Its all too predictable. The "fragmentation" of Palestinian society has, in Mr Bowens view, nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with Israel (the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government). Indeed, Israel is to blame for almost everything. The Palestinians are not responsible for anything; Israel is the culpable party.
He has contempt for every Israeli politician he mentions; Ehud Barak, for instance, is described as having killed "various Palestinians", written as if he did so for the sake of it.
If this is what passes for high-level analysis at the BBC, is it any wonder its reporting is so poisonous?
From: Jeremy Bowen
To: Editorial Board; Newsg World-Bureaux-Eds; Newsg World Asseds; News Leadership Group; Mark Byford & PA; Simon Wilson-NEWS; Jerusalem Bureau;
Newsg World-Affairs-Unit
Sent: Fri Jan 05 15:16:16 2007
Subject: FW: Mini briefing on the Israeli and Palestinians
2007 has started as unpromisingly as 2006 ended. The outlook is bleak because of fundamental instabilities and weaknesses on both sides.
Israel's major military incursion into Ramallah on Thursday, killing four Palestinians after a botched arrest operation, was a reminder of the non stop pressures of the Israeli occupation.
What is new in the last year, and will be one of the big stories in the coming twelve months, is the way that Palestinian society, which used to draw strength from resistance to the occupation, is now fragmenting.
The reason is the death of hope, caused by a cocktail of Israel's military activities, land expropriation and settlement building and the financial sanctions imposed on the Hamas led government which are destroying Palestinian institutions that were anyway flawed and fragile.
The result is that internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah is getting worse. On Thursday six people were killed in clashes between them in Gaza. The death of a major figure on either side would spark something much more serious.
In Israel the political turmoil that followed the inconclusive war with Hezbollah last summer continues unabated.
There are signs that PM Ehud Olmert is trying to set up his coalition partner Amir Peretz as a scapegoat for Israel's problems during the war and since, by ousting him from the defence ministry. Olmert may be hoping he'll get away with it because Peretz's position as Labour leader is already under attack from within his own party. Peretz's people say that if Olmert tries it, the government will fall.
Even if does manage to demote Peretz, he probably won't improve his parlous position in the polls. It is exactly a year since Ariel Sharon's stroke, so Israelis are comparing their lost leader with the one they have now, and finding him wanting. An air of incompetence hangs around Olmert when it comes to military matters. Typical was the timing of the raid in Ramallah, which ruined yesterday's summit with Mubarak which was supposed to bring closer the release of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Olmert wants to replace Peretz at the defence ministry with Ehud Barak, the former Prime Minister. Barak is a retired general, former head of the Israeli army and its most decorated soldier. (Among his many exploits was disguising himself as a woman during a raid in Beirut to kill various Palestinians). The feeling in Israel is that 2007 will be a year of wars, so aside from coalition politics Olmert wants to have a warrior next to him when they make the tough decisions. The intray could include whether or not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
Another serious problem for Olmert is that yet another corruption scandal is lapping close to him. This time the head of the PM's office in Jerusalem is under house arrest for her alleged role in corruption in Israel's tax authority. Olmert is not yet implicated, though he's already been under investigation over separate allegations.
The political crises in Israel - and violent political disintegration among the Palestinians - are not just internal matters. They make it impossible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to engage in a meaningful political dialogue, assuming that their protestations that they want one are true. (The one meeting that Olmert has had with Mahmoud Abbas can hardly be called a process.)
Only strong Israeli and Palestinian leaders would be able to make the tough choices necessary to relieve the serious pressures that are building up in the holy land. To persuade their people to make the necessary concessions, they would need a strong political base, which neither Olmert nor Abbas possess.
Because they are weak - many would say lame ducks - don't expect any progress. And since an uneasy status quo cannot hold, no political progress will equal more violence.
UPDATE: One of the commenters points out that, as the subject line starts 'FW:', Mr Bowen might not have written this. That's a good point, but I have seen the original and the subject line on my version has been altered to protect the identity of the source. (Nothing else has been changed.) It is indeed written by Jeremy Bowen.
#2
abso-frikkin-lutely amazing. So the "internecine violence between Hamas and Fatah" is Israel's fault.
This is another clear example of the racism of diminished expectations. Apparently Arabs are incapable of self-organizing and resolving conflicts, and Israel should understand this. Jews should be ashamed of how they treat these inferior beings. After all, Jews are held to a higher standard of civility and intelligence.
Where Arab violence is a direct result of Jewish oppression (primitive and understandable, if you will), Jewish violence against them is part of a more diabolical, calculated plan. Because we expect more from the smarter, more civilized Jews. After all, they're western, where Arabs are well, Arab. Apparently.
Weve renewed the great debate on Iraq, and as usual the central issue the regional nature of the war is not addressed. Still, one is grateful to Eliot Cohen and Bing West for some long-needed suggestions in their excellent article in the Wall Street Journal. Above all, they raise the question of Iraqi justice, one of the central requirements if the Iraqi people are going to have any confidence in the future.
West and Cohen say that 80 percent of all arrested people are released without a sentence, and they point out that many of those people were originally arrested by American forces. If you want to understand the frustration of our troops, this is probably the best place to start. Americans are killed, we investigate, find the people we believe are guilty, and arrest them. We then turn them over to local authorities for processing. But the justice system is totally centralized in Baghdad; there are no local judges to pronounce sentences, and all cases go to Baghdad. Baghdadi courts are not a model of efficiency, thus alleged killers walk. Not just once, but many times. They kill again, are arrested again, and walk again. Thats the sort of thing that sometimes drives some soldiers to go on vigilante rampages when they see men walking around who are believed to have killed GIs or Marines.
There must be local courts, otherwise the increase in the prison population for which West and Cohen call will be politicized, ethnicized, or tribalized, depending on whats happening in Baghdad.
#1
The pop-left's script for this will be based on the leftist response to the 1970 invasion of Cambodia. In what passes for their minds, this is an analogous situation---- the defeated imperialists lashing out in a last desperate attempt to retrieve the situation.
Actual campus riots, as opposed to choreographed hate-festivals, are less likely now that the ex-hippies run the campuses but the urge to follow a counterculture meme is very powerful among the conformist masses, roughly equivalent to a rodent mating impulse.
If acted upon faithfully enough, this script might even lead to a twenty-first century version of Kent State, hundreds of them with any luck.
#2
The problem here is one of terms and of public relations. What Bush proposes sounds like (and in fact is) a military offensive. Surge sounds an awful lot like hurl to me with all the charms attributed thereto.
The surge terms gives Bush's snooty political enemies ( AKA The American Left ) a chance to trivialize this critical moment in the Iraq War, and thus to ignore it in favor of agenda. These folks live for verbal slip ups from their enemies jsut so they can trivialize it and advance their own barbaric ideas.
For me on a very, very personal level, I do not believe we have properly instructed the masses that in a war the only acceptable casualties are the enemy's and that when your representative supports a war it must be until victory is achieved, or that representative must vote against the war; that turning against the war for humanitarian reasons just makes your representative sound like a huckster, unworthy to participate in a republic.
Another thing Bush has failed to do is to simplify the requirement of the Iraq war. Allow me:
Our presense in Iraq is a strategic block against the ambitions of a hostile armed foreign power, if nothing else, and that by leaving we are conceding the field to that enemy, and that those who insist we do so value agenda rather than our nation's interests and those people who value agenda over all must be removed from power.
My first reaction was....DAMN! He put everyone on notice to either put up, put out, or get out of the way. I especially like the part where he put the Donks on notice to explain how their "plan" is better. I didn't listen to Turbin Drbin because he never has anything of value to add. So whats the take here in Rantburgan?
#4
I particularly liked the hints that if the Iraqi Gov does not produce there will be a new one. My second favorite was telling Syria and Iran that 'we will break' the terrorist supply lines!
#5
Iran got mentioned twice, Syria once. Methinks it means that Iran is on double notice.
It was beautiful the way he told the donks to be of some kind of help or STFU. And finally he got rid of those stupid ass no go zones in Bagdad.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/11/2007 1:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Disrupt ... Syrian and Iran" > sounds like Dubya and Generals wanna relive IRAN-CONTRA, i.e. "Hunter-Killer" Covert SPECOPS teams INSIDE = OUTSIDE IRAQ to destroy Radical Islamist cells or networks on-sight, plus destabilization efforts directed at Moud-Mullahs in Tehran. FIND, VERIFY, DESTROY WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. Hope it works - O'REILLY said that iff the new "troop surge" doesn't succeed in quelling the insurgents, the Amer people will begin to demand that Dubya bring the troops home.
2) Maliki get the fuc& out of the way and we actually take advantage of the opportunity to put some serious hurt on the bad guys. The hearts and minds will follow the strong horse.
#8
My reaction: nice speech, I suppose; but I want to see some action and most of all, I want to see results-- unmistakably positive results that will counteract the relentless drumbeat of negativism coming from the Democratic Party and its henchmen in the MSM.
We keep hearing from the Bush team that this is going to be a "long war", the "defining conflict of the 21st century", a "generational conflict", and so on. But public support for the war will soon evaporate unless we start to show real results, and if it does this "generational conflict" will come to an abrupt end on January 20, 2009 if not earlier.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/11/2007 7:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The generational conflict will not end at Jan. 20, 2009: it takes two parties to stop a war, and one side will not be quitting.
Count on the next atrocity on American soil under a democratic president to unleash the full power of the American military: ever since FDR, the Donks have believed it to be a perpetual right that all wars be conducted by Democratic presidents, and to hell with the country if it is at war with a non-democrat at the helm...
#10
"The generational conflict will not end at Jan. 20, 2009: it takes two parties to stop a war, and one side will not be quitting."
Obviously the enemy is not going to quit; I hope you didn't actually think that's what I meant.
"Count on the next atrocity on American soil under a democratic president to unleash the full power of the American military:"
I have a real tough time even imagining any Democratic president-- at least, any from the present generation-- doing any such thing, much less would I be willing to count on it. The best model we have for predicting any Democrat's response to any future terrorist attack would appear to be Bill Clinton's response to the 1993 WTC bombing: the "law-enforcement approach." The notion that terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a problem to be solved with the military, was IIRC a major point in John Kerry's presidential campaign; and I recall other Democrats echoing that view as well.
"...ever since FDR, the Donks have believed it to be a perpetual right that all wars be conducted by Democratic presidents..."
Any evidence this is what they actually believe? Or is that just a guess?
"...and to hell with the country if it is at war with a non-democrat at the helm..."
I'll grant you that; that's for sure.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/11/2007 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#11
My reaction?
Bush needs to be kicked in the ass for not doing these things three years ago, when he had Congressional majorities and they could have done some good.
Posted by: E. Brown ||
01/11/2007 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Our last, best hope may be Hillary Rodham or whatever her name is. Say what you like, she is a tough bitch and will want to make some history. A Thatcherite mantle that distances her from her husband's legacy (and the legacy of a Republican House more interested in his away games than in national security) may be enough to finally unleash the dogs of war.
Or some limp-wristed, ineffectual and purely symbolic airstrikes designed to draw out enough of the fascist "left" in protest to make her look reasonable. Time will tell. But then it is not as though the supposedly hawkish President Bush has been even vanishingly Rantburgian.
#13
#11: My reaction? Bush needs to be kicked in the ass for NOT FIRING RUMSFELD not doing these things three years ago, AND NOT GAINING AND MAINTAINING SITUATIONAL AWARENESS OF THE WAR when he had Congressional majorities and they could have done some good. STAYED OUT OF THE WAY!
Posted by: E. Brown|| 2007-01-11 09:26 ||Comments Top||
#14
"Count on the next atrocity on American soil under a democratic president to unleash the full power of the American military"? I doubt it. If 9/11 didn't unify the country on a long-term basis, nothing will [besides the passage of enough time for the LLL's to die off]. If Hillary happened to be Prez and a Beslan-type atrocity took place on American soil, she might "unleash the full power of the American military" -- on the American people, in order to "protect the children." She's more like Janet Reno than Maggie Thatcher.
#15
I'm afraid Anguper is right. Beslan in the USA under a Democrat executive+legislative would precipitate a Leviathan-grab to disarm the American people and insert federal agents monitoring all parts of the country. You think TSA is bad -- think what would happen in schools, malls, public transports, etc.
#18
I retract the middle part of my comment, it being clearly the product of wishful thinking. I did not think of the "let the islamics create a crisis that we will exploit to create a Nazi state" angle: that's what the Libs were saying what Bush was doing, so classifying it as projection makes sense. However, Dave D's option #7 needs to be modified: Islamists will not be targeted as much as the entries in Hillary's shit list.
I think there are two problems with the plan, both interrelated: troop numbers and the border. 50,000 was a better number IF you were going to include sealing the borders and preventing import of IEDs and money. I don't think 20,000 concentrated in Baghdad is going to do it.
I lean toward the belief that the man is sincere, but has a problem with "borders, defending", either ours or Iraq's.
Good move picking and choosing from the Baker commission: he ignored baker's insistence on applying all the recommendations (like a good lib would), cherry picked what suited him (like the democrats do), and ignored what was patently unworkable. Nice move using the report to point out that losing in Iraq is unacceptable, AND that Iran and Syria are involved.
. . . The rule of thumb for a free society should be that it infringes liberties rarely, but when it does so it is for important reasons. Today, that thumb has been cast down, Caesar-like, pointing in the opposite direction. We have democratized the small assaults on freedom so that everyone must endure them, while we caterwaul about the tyranny of any real inconvenience that might fall disproportionately on the few. We ban using trans fats for millions but flinch at the idea that some kid might have to endure the Pledge of Allegiance or a moment of silence in school if it conflicts with his conscience. Everyone must surrender his shoes, his regular-sized toothpaste and shampoo at the airport, but we man the barricades to protect a few young Muslim men from being inconvenienced for an extra five minutes at the airport.
Free speech is most restricted where it is most important in political contests near Election Day while it is maximized to an absurd level at the fringes of culture and decency. Banning hate speech from everybodys lips is a progressive priority, but electronic eavesdropping on a few terrorists is an impermissible leap down the slippery slope to the police state. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
01/11/2007 06:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
CW-II; coming soon to a place near you.
Posted by: mac ||
01/11/2007 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
