Falconry: the art of desert survival

Arabian Destiny, originally uploaded by BidWiya.

Images from Iran

I'm Iranian, a Hand Block Printed cloths producer, originally uploaded by HORIZON.

Images from Iran

I'm IRANIAN...........and wish you a great weekend, originally uploaded by HORIZON.

Images from Iran

Isfahan/ Jame Mosque/ Tile works, originally uploaded by HORIZON.

More images from Iran

Isfahan/ Imam(Shah) mosque, originally uploaded by HORIZON.

Images from Iran

Isfahan/ Chahar Bagh Theological School/ tile works, originally uploaded by HORIZON.

Check out more images from Isfahan by "Horizon" on Flickr.

Isn't it time we stopped using the word insurgency?

Courtesy of MSNBC

To describe these kinds of attacks? AS MSNBC reports:

Insurgents killed 112 Shiite pilgrims streaming to the holy city of Kerbala in attacks across Iraq on Tuesday, including more than 70 after suicide bombers blew themselves up in a street lined with tents.

"Insurgents" by most traditional definitions are supposed to confine themselves to attacking military and government installations. Attacking Shiite pilgrims just doesn't meet that standard.

"Radical" Gerry Spence grandstands on the Patriot Act

Watch this video where "radical" attorney Gerry Spence uses his recent victory in the Brandon Mayfield case to grandstand on the Patriot Act.

Recall that Brandon Mayfield was the Portland, Oregon attorney whose fingerprints the FBI believed were on a detonator package used in the March 11, 2004 commuter train bombings in Madrid, Spain. Mayfield was arrested on May 6, 2004 as a material witness and then released two weeks later when the FBI realized that its fingerprint analysis was in error.

Though Spence would have the audience believe that it was the "unconstitutional" (as he says) Patriot Act that led to Mayfield's mistaken arrest, the reality is that he was detained as a material witness under another legal statute. A Department of Justice investigation into the case concluded that "contrary to public speculation after Mayfield's arrest, the FBI did not use certain provisions of the Patriot Act in the Mayfield case."

What the Patriot Act did make possible was the sharing of information between the intelligence and law enforcement communities.

Recall that prior to the Patriot Act, the FBI and CIA were prevented from sharing information that some have suggested might have enabled authorities to intercept the 9/11 attacks at the planning stage.

Spence seems to think that Americans are prone to believing that the FBI is "infallible." He casts the apology his client received from the FBI as a first-time-ever victory though in fact, there are many cases in which the FBI has had to ap0logize.

Apologizing in the Mayfield case must have been far easier for the FBI than the apology it had to issue in another recent case of mistaken fingerprints. In 2005, the FBI had to apologize for failing to identify the fingerprints of one Jeremy B. Jones, a mistake that freed Jones and enabled him to go on to murder three women and a young girl.

Mayfield obtained a settlement from the U.S. government of $2 million for having endured two weeks of detention where he was neither tortured nor even mistreated. I wonder what the families of the murdered women and girls got from the U.S. government in the Jones case. That they got nothing doesn't seem exactly fair, does it?

And while I'm asking this type of indelicate question, what do you suppose Spence's take was in the Mayfield settlement? I wonder if Spence would care to share that information.

In case you missed "60 Minutes" last night

On jihadists' use of the Internet as a recruitment vehicle. Some excerpts from CBS's website where you can find the video:

"Without a doubt, the Internet is the single most important venue for the radicalization of Islamic youth," says Army Brigadier General John Custer, who is the is head of intelligence at central command, responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan. Custer says he knows where the enemy finds an inexhaustible supply of suicide warriors. "I see 16, 17-year-olds who have been indoctrinated on the Internet turn up on the battlefield. We capture 'em, we kill 'em every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan," he says.

Custer goes on to explain exactly how the jihadists use the Internet.

"You start off with a site that looks like current news in Iraq. With a single click, you're at a active jihad attack site. The real meat of the jihad Web site, Jihad Internet. Beheadings, bombings, and blood. You can see humvees blown up. You can see American bodies drug through the street. You can see small arms attacks. Anything you might want in an attack video. Next link will take you to a motivational site, where mortar operatives, suicide bombers, are pictured in heaven. You can you see their farewell speeches. Another click and you're at a site where you can download scripted talking points that validate you have religious justification for mass murder," he explains. "It's ironic, isn't it, this whole idea of martyrs living forever. Turns out to be true," Pelley remarks. "It is," Custer remarks. "Every martyr craves immortality. And on the Internet, they can have it."

The number of Internet sites has exploded since 9/11. It’s estimated there are 5,000 today. Custer says anyone watching them could actually believe the U.S. is on the run. "It's a war of perceptions. They understand the power of the Internet. They don't have to win in the tactical battlefield. They never will. No platoon has ever been defeated in Afghanistan or Iraq. But, it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant," Custersays.

Even more ominous is the fact that General Custer "sees this as one of those moments in history where innovation changes warfare, like tanks in the First World War and atom bombs in the second." As he asks:

"Can you imagine thousands of tanks on a battlefield now? I can't. It's a battlefield now of asymmetric. There is no front line of troops. Civilians are targets. The press has no credentials here. Kidnap them. Put a gun to their head and put 'em on the evening news," he says. "It's a different type of warfare. It's a battle of perceptions. And al Qaeda understands it. And America needs to understand it."

Live from Baghdad

Iraqi bloggers and brothers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil (Iraq the Model) write in today's Wall Street Journal about the encouraging signs they are beginnning to see in Baghdad as a result of the new Iraq security plan.

They talks about the militants who have fled Baghdad and the increased security measures, including the presence of more troops and checkpoints, the new resolve on the part of the Iraqi government and the Bush administration, and the increased involvement of ordinary Iraqis themselves in securing their own safety.

In their view:

One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work. Another important point is the insistence of the Iraqi government that political factions not interfere with the progress of military action. The commanders and the prime minister have made it clear that no one will be above the law, and that even places of worship and the offices of politicians will be subject to searches and raids if evidence of involvement in violence is found...

The Iraqi people themselves are playing their role in the plan. Recent figures from U.S. officers in Baghdad show that the joint forces have been receiving an average of 250 security tips from civilians since the beginning of the operation, about twice previous figures. With help from a government-appointed committee, people in some Baghdad neighborhoods are returning occupied mosques to their original keepers and worshippers, and holding joint prayers between the two sects in mixed neighborhoods.

They write that many families who had fled the earlier chaos in Baghdad are now returning.

One sign of progress, they say, are the liquor stores that have reopened. As the Fadhils write, "This is a sign that extremists no longer can intimidate people and hold the city hostage."

Doubts grow about Lancet study on Iraq War deaths

The (London) Times is reporting that skepticism is increasing regarding the number of Iraqi deaths related to the U.S.-led invasion that were reported by the British medical journal, The Lancet, in October.

Recall that The Lancet study placed the number of Iraqi dead at more than 650,000, a number that would have represented one in 40 Iraqis. This compares to 50,000 the number of deaths that were estimated by Iraq Body Count, an organization that the Times describes as "an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources." This lower figure was essentially corroborated by the United Nations Development Agency.

Lancet claimed that it arrived at its estimate by asking Iraqi doctors to knock on doors in Iraq in order to inquire about the number of deaths that had occured in a given household.

According to the Times:

Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts. Iraq Body Count says there is “considerable cause for scepticism” and has complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet as supporting evidence.

One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, a statistician from Royal Holloway College, University of London...Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the
"three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports. “The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.”

The Times suggests that politics may have been involved:

One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton, editor of the The Lancet is also antiwar.

Ethnic cleansing in Iran?

Ethnoreligious distribution of population in Iran

Map courtesy of the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at the University of Texas, Austin

In today's Wall Street Journal Online, American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen says that the U.S. doesn't need to invade Iran to effect regime change, rather it only needs to support the Iranians' longing for freedom after almost three decades under the country's unique form of Islamic totalitarianism. According to Ledeen:

The mullahs know their doom will come from their own people, which is why they have embarked on a new wave of mass repression, with a spate of public hangings in the Kurdish, Balouch and Ahwaz areas, a wave of arrests of pro-democracy leaders in Tehran and Isfahan (the most famous face of the Iranian resistance, Ahmad Batebi, reportedly suffered a stroke in the mullahs' torture chambers, and is now in a coma).

In Khuzestan -- the oil region in the south -- there are plans for a massive program of ethnic cleansing, moving more than a million Arabs to other regions. It brings back memories of Stalin's efforts to destroy Soviet "nationalities." All these actions bespeak a profound insecurity in Tehran, just waiting for the free world to exploit.

I think Ledeen makes a dramatic case here, but in doing so I think he actually risks undermining himself. This is because as far as I can tell, in characterizing what is going on in Khuzestan as a "massive program of ethnic cleansing" he goes beyond any of the publicly available evidence.

Now it's easy to demonstrate that the situation for Arabs is indeed grim in Khuzestan. There are many independent organizations who have reported on what is going on, for example, this May 2006 Amnesty International:

Much of the Arab minority in Iran lives in the strategically-important oil-producing Khuzestan province in southern Iran (known as Ahwaz by the Arab community)which adjoins Iraq and this Arab minority is believed to constitute between 3 and 8 per cent of the total population of Iran. Historically, the Arab community has been marginalized and discriminated against in various ways including through restrictions on access to employment, to adequate housing, social services, and education, and denials of their right to equal participation in cultural activities.
Expropriation of land belonging to or occupied by members of the Arab minority is reportedly so widespread that it appears to amount to an unofficial policy aimed at dispossessing Arabs of their lands.

But to call what is happening a "massive program of ethnic cleansing" - and by that I assume Ledeen means to imply that there is some kind of official sanction - one has to take into account that there is an official denial that this is the case.

News of this ethnic cleansing program first surfaced in 1999 when a letter purportedly written by a presidential advisor was widely disseminated. The English translation of this letter can be found here. But this letter cannot be offered as evidence without also including the alleged author's denial that he ever wrote such a letter - which can be found here.

Again, not to minimize what is happening in Khuzestan. The situation is grim, and again, I quote from the AI report:

Since [April 2005], the cycle of violence has intensified in the province. Scores of Arabs were arrested following four pre-election bomb blasts in Ahvaz and two others in Tehran which killed up to 10 and injured at least 90 people. Other bombs in October 2005 and January 2006 killed at least 12 people and were followed by waves of arrests. Arrests have also followed demonstrations on significant occasions such as the Muslim festivals of ‘Id al-Fitr and ‘Id al-Adha. Amnesty International has received the names of around 500 Iranian Arabs detained since April 2005, some repeatedly, although the true number of detainees is likely to be much higher. Two men, Mehdi Nawaseri and Ali Awdeh Afrawi, were executed in public on 2 March 2006 after they were convicted of involvement in the October bombings. Their executions followed unfair trials before a Revolutionary Court during which they are believed to have been denied access to lawyers, and their "confessions" were broadcast on television. Others are also feared to be at risk of execution.

What I'm trying to say here is that I think it is actually counterproductive for Ledeen to use a term like "ethnic cleansing" in this situation. Because of the legal and political ramifications, "ethnic cleansing" is narrowly defined. And I'm afraid that by using this label without total precision -as the evidence would seem to suggest he did - Ledeen may have actually hurt his cause by providing the perpetrators a way out on a technicality. In this case semantics - or specifically, the official denial that there ever was such a plan.

Be sure and watch "60 Minutes" this Sunday

So you can see Jamestown Foundation's Stephen Ulph discuss the jihadis' use of the Internet. Link here for more information on the program. From the Jamestown promotional email:

Ulph is considered one of the leading specialists in the world on jihadi internet radicalization, and on Sunday will discuss the threat posed by this culture. Ulph describes this threat as "the real bomb" that the West is going to have to deal with. Ulph believes that the indoctrination into jihadi ideology taking place under the horizon on the internet is creating an alternative culture to which an entire generation of Muslim youth is exposed. Ulph asserts that this culture is unopposed and that there is a pressing need for the United States to manage this ideology via education and training.

Stephen Ulph is in the process of writing a new book, Jihad on the Internet: The Virtual Battlefield, which is scheduled for publication in late 2007 and will be available on the Jamestown website. Fluent in Arabic and Farsi, Ulph conducts daily analysis of jihadi websites and has produced significant studies that have been internationally recognized for their indigenous sources and in-depth investigation.

For what it's worth, he's one of my favorite experts too. And the Jamestown Foundation is a "reliable source" as far as this blog is concerned.

Those Israelis: Damned if they do, damned if they don't

The always-funny James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal's Best of the Web asks the question du jour:

What's Arabic for 'Chutzpah'?"

[Abu] Abir [spokesman for a 'Palestinian militant group'] blamed the Jewish state for the desecration of the Gaza synagogues by Palestinian Arabs, claiming the decision to leave the structures intact was part of an Israeli conspiracy. Israel 'left the synagogues behind so the world would see the Palestinians destroying them,' Mr. Abir said."--New York Sun, Feb. 27

If you don't subscribe to this daily feature of the Wall Street Journal, you should. And it's free.

Progress Report on Iraq

Let's hope you didn't have to hear this good news here first. Yesterday, the Associated Press reported:

Since the Baghdad security crackdown was formally launched on Feb. 14, there has been a sharp drop in the number of victims of sectarian death squads. The number of bodies found has dropped by nearly 50 percent - to 494 last month as of Feb. 26, compared with 954 in January and 1,222 in December.

More images from the Islamic Republic of Iran

Since there's so much debate going on now about what to do about Iran, I thought I'd begin a series of reports about what life is like in the Islamic Republic. Not that I would know, but perhaps we can glean something from these images, courtesy of the Iranian state-run FARS News Agency. As they say, one picture is worth a thousand words.



The accompanying FARS News Agency caption reads: "Iranian Shiites mourn the anniversary of martyrdom of their Imam Ali (PBUH) and pray during Ghadr Nights when they believe Koran was inspired to their prophet Mohammad (PBUH) by Allah." So what do you suppose she's doing with the cellphone?


The FARS News Agency caption reads: "Lawmakers at the Iranian Parliament gathered today to hold a normal session." I wonder if anyone would ever use the word normal to describe a session of U.S. Congress. I have to say, he looks like he doesn't mind in the least being the only guy sitting among the ladies.

All Farsi readers:

Check out coauthor Jalil Roshandel's interview in Farsi at Washington Prism about Jihad and International Security (Palgrave, 2007). Look for my name in Farsi, شارون شادها, too!

Accountability in Kashmir?

Perhaps this New York Times report means the Indian government is cleaning up its act in Kashmir:

Seven policemen in Indian-administered Kashmir were charged with killing a Kashmiri carpenter, Abdul Rehman Paddar, and claiming that he was an Islamic militant, the police said. The charges were the first in an alleged plot by officers to kill civilians in staged clashes and earn rewards and promotions.

The accusations have rocked Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim territory, where people have for years complained that civilians were being killed by security forces.

While I'm sure it must be disheartening to have to admit that the good guys are really the bad guys, it's certainly good news to recognize that the bad guy was only ever a carpenter.

Note to good guys: Please don't turn into bad guys just to get promoted. If you want more money, the honorable thing to do would be to, well, quit the police force and sell shawls or something. Surely you've developed some good contacts up there by now, right?

George Soros: War profiteer?

Foreign Policy editor Mike Boyer reports:

Normally, I'm willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the liberal elite. If Al Gore and his Hollywood cronies want to fly around on gas-guzzling, atmosphere-polluting private jets while railing against global climate change, I'm willing to overlook it.

But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of ... hold your breath ... Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros' total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.

Shiite Mufti of "Hizbulland" (aka South Lebanon) condemns Hizbullah's "military" allegiance to Iran

This is something that certainly hasn't been widely disseminated. As Middle East Transparent's Peter Akel reports:

While Lebanon’s ongoing crisis has enjoyed prominent media coverage all over the world, no one seemed to notice that Hizbullah, which received up to 3 billion US dollars from Teheran, in the aftermath of its July war against Israel, had never enjoyed the allegiance of Lebanon’s important Shiite Intelligensia. Rather, the most outspoken opponents of Hizbullah’s adventurism had come from the heart of Lebanese Shiism. Even when the Shiite party started its own daily journal, it had to put it into the hands of a Christian editor, seconded by an ex communist Shiite journalist.* However, the liberal Shiite mufti [Sheikh el Amin] of South Lebanon (so-called Hizbulland land) is a case apart. Not only as a holder of a prominent position in the Shiite establishment, but also as one who had been at the heart of the religious movement that gave birth to Lebanon’s fundamentalist party...

Sheikh el Amin confirmed that he had been very close to Hizbullah’s three successive leaders: Abbas el Moussawi (assassinated by Israel), Sobhi Toufaili and Hassan Nasrallah. (Sheikh Sobhi Toufaili claims he had lost his position as leader of Hizbullah when he stood up against Iranian hegemony on the party and because he did not adhere to Khomeini’s Wilayati Faqih theory.)

As Akel goes on to report:

[He] firmly condemned Hizbullah’s transformation from a «cultural » to a «military» movement vowing allegiance to Iran...

On Iran’s attempts to mobilize Arab Shiites to support Teheran’s policies, Sheikh el Amin had the following to say: « we would like to see Iran victorious in its war on ignorance, poverty, aggression and underdevelopment. But, in every country, confessional allegiances should not be at the expense of national loyalties. To tell you the truth, we have nothing to do with Iran’s political strategies ».

Adding: « The Iranians would never enjoy the allegiance of all Lebanese shias, but even if they did, would it serve Iran’s interests to win them over only to lose the trust of the whole Islamic world? Does it really serve Iran’s interests to be viewed by awe and distrust by Muslims all over the world?»