18. august 2003

'BBC' So what is it with the BBC News and single quote marks? Currently, there is one story about the Sahara hostages being 'freed,' wherein a sub headline says that ransom has been 'paid.' On the frontpage, also, is the story about a new US 'sniper.' Before I had finished writing this, the BBC posted two new quote-mark headlines: The sniper inquiry yields '100 leads' and 'Taleban' stormed an Afghan security post. It appears the Beeb means the single quotes as a shorthand of writing "somebody claims that this is true, but it is not confirmed yet," but it looks like irony to me. And it is surely being 'overused.' 9:43:28 PM    comment []  trackback []

Happy happy joy joy! Normally emails from my ISP means they cannot see to have received etc, accompanied by threats to my kneecaps or, worse, a strangled lifeline to the Net. However, today I received a message that was very welcome. For no extra cost, they will upgrade my DSL line from 1024 to 1350 Kb/sec. Every little bit helps! 8:40:16 PM    comment []  trackback []

Study: US at risk of new 9/11 style attack London based World Markets Research Center has ranked the likelyhood of terror attacks on 186 countries within the next 12 months, and they rank the US as #4, with only Colombia, Israel and Pakistan ahead. Let's face it, the chance of a terror attack in those three countries is virtually a certainty. The research company has received very good publicity over its Global Terrorism Index 2003/4, but I am not too impressed with what I have seen about it in the press. "Another Sept. 11-style terrorist attack in the United States is highly likely," the report states. "Networks of militant Islamist groups are less extensive in the U.S. than they are in Western Europe, but U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has exacerbated anti-U.S. sentiment." Guy Dunn, a company director and the author of the report, described the following as criteria used for the rankings: motivation of terrorist groups, the presence of terror cells, the scale and frequency of past attacks, the ability of terror groups to organize and obtain weapons, and the ability of the government to prevent the attacks. Each of the five categories is weighted, he said, with the motivation of terrorist groups receiving the most emphasis. First, I wonder what happened to Russia. Certainly it has a higher terror risk than the US. Second, I don't see how the war in Iraq does anything to increase the likelyhood of an attack. "Anti-US sentiment" is grossly exaggarated as a cause for terror attacks. Radical leftists and Islamists have hated the US for decades. What it took to actually make a dangerous adversary was a combination of absolute fanatical zeal and the resources to organise large scale attacks. Bin Laden had money, fanaticism and organising talent, and thanks to the war in Afghanistan bringing together and training Islamic fighters from all over the world, it was possible to start building a superstructure of existing local extremist groups. Whatever anti-US sentiment exist elsewhere is rather irrelevant. The average angry arab is simply not in any position to launch any attack on the US more sophisticated than burning its flag. Al-Qaeda members already hate the US and the west with a vengeance, and you can't seriously argue the Iraq war made them more angry. Fact is, if al-Qaeda could, they would mount a 9/11 attack on the US every day. The only factor worth taking into account is their current ability to do so. The US-led war on terror has deprived them of a secure base from which to operate, of income, and of a lot of key leaders and operatives. How successful this war has been is really the only way to evaluate the risk for another terrorist attack being attempted. And how effective US homeland security has become will decide whether they will succeed. 3:49:14 PM    comment []  trackback []

Flying bargain For only £199,999.99 you can get your own airplane, a L39 Russian Air Force jet, and say goodbye to rushhour traffic forever. The L39 comes painted to your own specification (we advise against Iraqi military colours if flying around the home counties), and with western radios installed - so great for Dolly Parton fans. Any extra avionics would be fitted as extra and all military ordnance would be removed - so no guns, unfortunately. No guns? Nevermind, then. 3:18:35 PM    comment []  trackback []

Beeb down Josh Chafetz delivers a scathing attack on BBC in the Weekly Standard. Whatever the British press tries to make of the ongoing Hutton inquiry, it has become clear that the BBC's journalists have been engaging more in an anti-government and anti-US vendetta than trying to bring impartial news to the people who pay for its broadcasts (whether they want to or not). 4:34:08 AM    comment []  trackback []

"Shit, I think he was on our side" An alternative take on the meaning of military hand signals. Don't miss! 2:49:32 AM    comment []  trackback []

Iran claims to have foiled al-Qaeda plot Iranian officials claim to have "uncovered and foiled" an al-Qaeda plot against it, but no details or evidence have been provided. Earlier, Iran claimed to have arrested and detained several senior leaders of the terrorist organisation, but gave no names or evidence. Western intelligence is now placing little stock in many of these claims. Iranian President Mohammed Khatami (picture) is considered a moderate in the west, but we must remember who we are comparing him to. On security issues, and on the nuclear controversy, he appears to be well in line with his cleric counterparts. He said the following about al-Qaeda: "We will arrest all members of al-Qaeda members we find. Their animosity toward us is nothing compared with their animosity toward the United States," the president said. Did he mean the opposite of what he said? In context that appears likely, but from the evidence, it seems he got it right. There is, quite correctly, no love lost between Sunni extremists like al-Qaeda and Shiite extremists like the clerics in Tehran, but the main enemy of Bin Laden remains the US. These days, it will be important for Tehran to appear to be on the west's side against al-Qaeda, especially as Iran is drawing heat over its meddling in Iraq and especially its obvious attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. 2:26:27 AM    comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.09.2003; 14:09:02.