Signs of a turnaround in Western response to Islamo-facists?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

I am opening this new topic-thread in hopes of having one ever-growing topic-thread that will chronicle examples -- no matter how minor or shaky or mixed -- of a possible turnaround in Western society's reaction to the threat from Islamo-fascism. I am doing this in part because I sense, from various news sources over the last few months, that the Western glaciers may have stopped contracting and may actually be growing back a tiny bit.

I see this topic-thread as a log, a repository of stories. I would suggest readers start separate threads for discussions, but use this thread only as a record for the news events and later follow-ups of those news events. This is a place to come to when you need a respite from the steady stream of mostly bad news from both conservative bloggers and the mainstream media.

I would also like to suggest criteria. If you post a link to a story, then:

(1) Use a title, perhaps in bold or all caps, so that people browsing this topic can quickly identify the subject of each post. "Interesting Article" is not a suitable title. "Some Europeans Call for Courageous Resistance" is better.

(2) Try to link to a source that will be open indefinitely; BBC is an example. Your readers can search on their own for other articles on the same subject, from other sources.

(3) Identify the article by name of news source, title of the article, and a date; these steps will facilitate further research, especially if the link fails some day.

(4) Briefly state in your own words the elements of good news about a possible change in direction of Western cultures away from submission and toward resistance.

(5) Quote a brief passage from the article, a passage that captures the essence of the good news.

I will offer an example in the next post.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

"Fear of offending Islam spurs hot debate in Europe"

This Yahoo/Reuters article points up several cultural elements that might portend a larger turnaround in European culture's reaction to the threat from Islamo-fascism.

One element is the very fact that there is a heated debate. That, as far as I can tell from mainstream media, is new.

Another encouraging element is that we are seeing some names in the Western resistance come up again and again. That is good because it suggests they are strengthening their position and reputation. They are becoming recognized by media and even sought out for their view.

A third positive element is that Europeans who are both intellectuals and organized (as in the case of PEN members) are speaking out. They are not shouting alone in a wilderness. They have power -- by which I mean here the ability to make changes in the world despite opposition. Right now their power may be "only" the power of ideas, but ideas move history.

A fourth element is the fact that Reuters -- often accused by conservatives of selling out to the leftists and Islamo-fascists -- produced the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060927/ts_nm/arts_religion_dc

Fear of offending Islam spurs hot debate in Europe

By Mark Trevelyan and Mike Collett-White

Wed Sep 27, 12:17 PM ET

Four canceled performances of a Mozart opera have reignited an anxious and heated debate in Europe over free speech, self-censorship and Islam.

By canning its production of "Idomeneo," fearful of security threats because of a scene that might offend Muslims, Berlin's Deutsche Oper provoked front-page headlines across the continent and found itself fending off charges of cowardice.

The controversy centered on a scene in which King Idomeneo is shown on stage with the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad and the sea god Poseidon.

"Here we go again. It's like deja vu...This is exactly the kind of self-censorship I and my newspaper have been warning against," said Flemming Rose, culture editor of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten paper, which met a storm of Muslim protest after publishing satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad last year.

He said bowing to fears of a violent Muslim reaction would only worsen the problem: "You play into the hands of the radicals. You are telling them: your tactics are working. This is a victory for the radicals. It's weakening the moderate Muslims who are our allies in this battle of ideas."

The drawings, including one showing Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, triggered violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world but were defended by the newspaper as an expression of free speech and a challenge to religious taboos. [...]

GUNS AND BOMBS

The decision to cancel the production even before any protests had materialized was singled out for criticism.

"To do it in advance of any actual protest I think invokes the next protest, because the radicals in any community are aided and abetted by that," said Lisa Appignanesi, a novelist and deputy president of the writers' group PEN in England.

"We don't want to end up in a situation where we don't dare to speak up. What we do not want is a society where one is constantly fearful about what the people holding the bombs or the guns might say." [...]

Some analysts fear a climate is developing in which people are afraid to speak out publicly. In a speech to the annual conference of think-tank Oxford Analytica last week, its head, David Young, said political correctness posed a threat to free expression for journalists, politicians and academics alike. [...]

"You can't be afraid of constantly watching your back in the arts," PEN's Appignanesi said. "One is in the business of provoking response. Otherwise there is no art."

[Stephen Speicher 0]

"Norwegian TV Channel TV 2 will show Mohammad cartoons."

This headline is proudly proclaimed on the blog News From Norway. It has been one year since the Danish newspaper publication of the cartoons that sparked Muslim violence and threats and, unfortunately, prompted continued capitulation throughout Europe, and to a lesser extent throughout the United States, of those who should have stood up for freedom.

I see the courage of this Norwegian TV station to air the cartoons for the first time to be a positive sign for free speech in Western civilization. I only wish an American TV station would show the courage to do the same.

Here is the blog entry.

(VG Nett) This coming Monday the controversial Mohammad cartoons will be shown on Norwegian TV screens for the very first time.

Yesterday it was exactly one year ago since the controversial cartoons was published in Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, an act that caused outrage in the Muslim world.

When TV 2 air the documentary “threatened to silence” this coming Monday the controversial cartoons will once again be shown according to Nettavisen.

Will strengthen freedom of speech.

The journalist behind the documentary, Per Christian Magnus, believes that showing the cartoons will help strengthen freedom of speech.

- I believe this is a very important act in the fight for freedom of speech. I can personally vouch for the finished product, and I guarantee that only journalistic considerations has been taken into account when considering what’s going to be shown and what’s not.

At the same time Magnus stress that not showing the cartoons will only censor the story behind the Mohammad cartoons itself.

The reason why we made “threatened to silence” in the first place was to illustrate what the conflict was all about.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This story from Sweden contains a small but interesting stance taken against Islam in the name of law.

Youth and diversity sets new government apart

Published: 6th October 2006 16:46 CET

[...]

The appointment of Liberal Nyamko Sabuni as integration minister is proving to be one of Fredrik Reinfeldt's most controversial choices. Sabuni, who moved to Sweden from Burundi at the age of 12, is the first black person to be appointed a minister in Sweden.

Her suggestion that all girls should undergo compulsory checks for genital mutilation (otherwise known as female circumcision) led to controversy. Sabuni was also attacked by Muslim groups for proposing a ban on headscarves for girls under 15 and the introduction of a specific mention of honour crimes in the criminal code.

Muslim commentator and author Kurdo Baksi slammed Sabuni's appointment:

"I am very disappointed that a person whom I consider to be an Islamaphobe has been appointed integration minister. It is a very poor start to a centre-right government's integration policy," he said.

[tommyedison 0]

This poll was taken nearly two months ago. It is the last poll I recall on the issue of Iran.

Americans growing nervous about role of Iran in terror

And Americans are now most aware of the Iranian role in promoting fascism: 58 percent in the poll think Iran is now the "main promoter of Islamic fascism in the Middle East," and 76 percent believe Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons "at any cost."

[bold mine]

Although I doubt the actual number actually is that high, here's hoping that this signals a long term change in attitude towards the Islamofascists.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

This is an interesting report from the New York Times. What I find most interesting is that the shift in position being noted is in Europe, not the United States.

Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center

By DAN BILEFSKY and IAN FISHER

Published: October 11, 2006

BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

“You saw what happened with the pope,” said Patrick Gonman, 43, the owner of Raga, a funky wine bar in downtown Antwerp, 25 miles from here. “He said Islam is an aggressive religion. And the next day they kill a nun somewhere and make his point.

“Rationality is gone.”

Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.

His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.

For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

[...]

Perhaps most wrenching has been the issue of free speech and expression, and the growing fear that any criticism of Islam could provoke violence.

In France last month, a high school teacher went into hiding after receiving death threats for writing an article calling the Prophet Muhammad “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass murderer of Jews and a polygamist.” In Germany a Mozart opera with a scene of Muhammad’s severed head was canceled because of security fears.

With each incident, mainstream leaders are speaking more plainly. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam,” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said in criticizing the opera’s cancellation. “It makes no sense to retreat.”

The backlash is revealing itself in other ways. Last month the British home secretary, John Reid, called on Muslim parents to keep a close watch on their children. “There’s no nice way of saying this,” he told a Muslim group in East London. “These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombing, grooming them to kill themselves to murder others.”

[...]

[Guest Michelle F. Cohen]

I received the following piece circulating widely in the USA about the American position:

Please take the time to read the attached essay by Dr. Chong. It is without a doubt the most articulate and convincing writing I have read regarding the War in Iraq. If you have any doubts please open your mind to his essay and give a fair evaluation.

I had no idea who Dr. Chong is or the source of these thoughts... so when I received them, I almost deleted them - as well-written as they are. But then I did a "Google search" on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force Surgeon of all things and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs in California, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about! (the same Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)

If you would like to see who this fellow is go to this Air Force web sight and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000

Subject: Muslims, terrorist and the USA. A different spin on Iraq war.

This WAR is for REAL! Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired Tuesday, July 12, 2005.

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;

* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;

* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;

* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;

* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;

* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;

* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;

* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;

* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;

* New York World Trade Center 2001;

* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful. But, under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them. We seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the U.S., but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win they are finished too because they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United State, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this our nation as we know it will not survive and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over whom will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world. Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world, we must act as ONE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE, share our concerns and hold the blind accountable for misleading the masses!

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Some Germans are Learning That Islamofascists are a Threat to Them Too

The following news article points out an instance of learning. In general, the people of Germany don't have objective principles that would help them recognize or predict certain kinds of threats. Instead they must struggle their way up the cognitive ladder one tiny step at a time, always while carrying a heavy load of multiculturalism and egalitarianism (to say nothing of more fundamental philosophical problems) on their backs.

But they are learning.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...L&type=politics

Germans feel the clutch of terrorist threat ?

61% surveyed believe Islamic extremists are targeting nation

Eric Geiger, San Francisco Chronicle Foreign Service

Thursday, October 26, 2006

(10-26) 04:00 PDT Munich, Germany -- Early this month, Ibrahim R, an Iraqi who has lived in Germany since 1996, became the first person to be arrested for allegedly disseminating propaganda over the Internet for a foreign terrorist group.

The 36-year-old immigrant posted videos and tape recordings of Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri threatening the West in an online chat room. German officials have pledged to monitor more Islamic Web sites and make more arrests.

In years past, the harsh response by officials in Lower Saxony state might have spurred criticism of state violation of privacy laws. But many Germans no longer see the war on terror as a British-American problem over Iraq.

"The case of that Iraqi suspect just proves we are not living in a safe island anymore," said Heinz Bruckmoser, a retired mechanical engineer from Duesseldorf. "It ties in with that failed train attack."

In July, Islamic extremists tried but failed to blow up two trains in northern Germany. If successful, they could have killed hundreds of people. The plot not only triggered a heated debate on national security but also sparked an upsurge of fear in a nation with some 3.5 million Muslims residents [...]

P. S. -- To anyone considering posting to this topic-thread: Be sure to read post 1 for instructions.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Justice may yet be done in a 12 year old case against Iranian terrorism.

From the French News Service AFP

Argentina charges Iran, Hezbollah in 1994 Jewish center bombing

Wed Oct 25, 6:09 PM ET

BUENOS AIRES (AFP) - Argentine prosecutors charged Iran and the Shiite militia Hezbollah with the 1994 bombing of a Jewish charities office in Argentina that killed 85 people and injured 300.

Prosecutors demanded an international arrest warrant for then-Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and six other top Iranian officials at the time of the attack, and a former Hezbollah foreign security service chief, Imad Fayez Moughnieh.

In a country with a murky record in pursuing the 12-year-old case, relatives and friends of the victims called on President Nestor Kirchner to take swift and strong action to bring it to trial.

In a statement, Argentine chief prosecutor Alberto Nisman declared: "We deem it proven that the decision to carry out an attack July 18, 1994 on the AMIA (the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association, a Jewish charities association headquarters in Buenos Aires) was made by the highest authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran which directed Hezbollah to carry out the attack."

AMIA, supported by Israel and the United States, had long accused Iran of organizing the attack and getting Hezbollah to carry it out.

Those accusations, based on intelligence gathered by the secret services of Argentina, Israel and the US, have been consistently rejected by the Iranian government and Hezbollah.

In Beirut, a Hezbollah source said she had not yet heard that the Shiite militia had been formally charged but that it came as no surprise.

"I have not yet heard that but it is not new," she told AFP. "The Zionists want that (the two parties be charged)."

The Jewish community in Argentina, some 300,000 strong and the largest in South America, had marked the July 18 bombing annually with a demand that justice be served for the attack, the worst on Argentina's soil, and another 1992 attack against the Israeli embassy, which claimed 22 lives.

No one has been tried in Argentina or in any other country for the 1994 attack and the police have not identified the perpetrators of the earlier Israeli embassy attack.

On Wednesday, the Delegation of Israeli Associations of Argentina (DAIA) welcomed the charges as a vindication.

"That is what the DAIA has been saying for approximately 12 years, and validates all of our activities in the matter," Jorge Kirszenbaum, the DAIA president, told the Jewish News Agency.

The AMIA's group of families and friends of the victims called on the president to proceed with the international arrest warrants sought by prosecutors.

"We ask that the executive power take all possible actions -- diplomatic, pursuit and international capture -- with regard to the suspects, with the vehemency and intensity that the situation merits," they said in a statement.

Investigation of the bombing has been a festering issue in Argentina, as Argentine Jews and international rights groups have criticized Argentine leaders for their inability or unwillingness to find those behind the bombing.

On September 2, 2004, an Argentine court acquitted 21 former police officers and a trafficker of stolen cars who were charged with aiding the attackers. The same court then ordered former top government officials investigated for botching the case.

The court found that important evidence against the men had been "irregularly" obtained, and ordered an investigation of Judge Juan Jose Galeano, who presided over the case for nine years, as well as two prosecutors.

Galeano was accused of having paid 400,000 dollars to a key witness to testify against four police officers accused of having provided logistical support in the plot.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

One important Frenchman reconsiders.

French FM changes his opinion on Israeli separation barrier

By Shirli Sitbon Updated: 25/Oct/2006 17:28

PARIS (EJP)--- French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy declared last week he has changed his opinion on Israel's controversial separation barrier in light of its drastic effect on terror, forcing French authorities to clarify their position on the issue.

The barrier, which separates the West Bank from the rest of Israel, has garnered much criticism for creating a ghetto-style situation for the Palestinians and for allegedly appropriating Palestinian land on the Israeli side.

But although the French government has been critical of it since the start of its construction four years ago, Douste-Blazy has now reversed the feeling.

“I have significantly evolved on the matter of the separation fence” said Douste-Blazy on French Jewish television TFJ on Thursday. “Although the wall was a moral and ethical problem for me, when I realised terror attacks were reduced by 80 percent in the areas where the wall was erected, I understood I didn’t have the right to think that way.”

Douste-Blazy is the first high ranking French official to openly state his support for the security fence.

UN resolution

France welcomed in July 2004 the UN General Assembly resolution demanding that Israel dismantled the fence as suggested by the International Court of Justice.

Douste-Blazy’s unexpected comments induced the government to clarify its position on the wall.

“The question, for us, concerns the route of the fence rather than its mere existence,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei on Friday. “We recognise, of course, Israel’s right to defend itself from terror, but the route of the separation fence must not overlap Palestinian territory and prejudge the final solution.”

“We are keeping a wary eye on the situation,” added Mattei.

French government spokesman Jean-François Cope confirmed the statement on Sunday in an interview on Radio J.

“The route itself is not in question,” said Cope “it would be stupid to question Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Hamas vigorously criticised the French FM after his statement:

“It is the Palestinian nation which is suffering from the separation fence, not the French nation,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum. “Our nation is paying a high price for the separation and he [Douste-Blazy] must understand that the wall is the symbol of racial segregation and isolation.”