Tag Archives: terrorist


3 terrorist attacks map

From BBC WORLD NEWS, Friday June 26th

“Today has seen three major terrorist attacks all by jihadists and spread across three continents.

“In Kuwait the attack was sectarian – Sunni extremists from Islamic State targeting a Shia mosque. They are hoping to turn these two sects of Islam against each other.  It follows similar mosque bombings by IS across Saudi Arabia.  In France assailants went for a double target.  The chemical factory was owned by a US company but also targeted was the French state and an individual businessman.  IS is at war with France and has often called for opportunist attacks by its followers there.  And in Tunisia western tourists have once again been hit for the second time this year.  Here, too, though, the jihadists are hoping to hurt the country itself, trying to stop Tunisia from becoming a peaceful secular democracy.  But why now?  Is there any reason why all three attacks are taking place during this month of Ramadan? “ – Frank Gardiner, Security Correspondent, BBC

There followed a brief interview with Maajid Nawaz, Chairman of the Quilliam Foundation: “For ISIS, Ramadan is a month of war.  They believe it to be the month of jihad.”

“I’m afraid we’re in for more days like this . . . Ramadan should be a time of calamity for the infidels. They include the Shia as well.”   James Woolsey, Former Director of Central Intelligence.

Ramadan continues until July 17th.



Jake Bilardi was a white Australian teenager who became a suicide bomber with ISIS.   Jake left Australia for Syria at the age of 16 after he became a “self-radicalized” Muslim, over the internet.   He is one of an estimated ninety Australian citizens fighting with ISIS.

A couple of weeks ago, a great deal of attention was given to three British teenage girls who disappeared, traced eventually to Istanbul and then Syria.   A month or so ago, teenage girls from Denver attempted to join ISIS in Syria.

Meanwhile, the BBC World News tonight showed British veterans in Syria fighting against ISIS.   According to the report, at least two have died in fighting in recent weeks.   All of these men volunteered to go and fight ISIS after hearing of the atrocities committed by the terrorist group.   The report also showed other foreign nationals, including an American veteran.

This means that people with British passports are fighting on two sides in the Syrian conflict.   As there are more than two sides, it is possible that some are fighting with other groups.   The First Lady of Syria is a British born Syrian, married to President Assad, who spent years working in London before returning to Syria to take over as president.

It was also revealed today that South African mercenaries are fighting against Boko Haram in Nigeria.   Boko Haram recently pledged its allegiance to ISIS.   Both groups are fighting for the self-proclaimed Caliphate under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

The above facts show the increasing internationalization of the ISIS/anti-ISIS conflict.

A particularly disturbing report, also on the BBC this evening, was from the Iraqi town of Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein.   The city is currently a battleground between ISIS forces and anti-ISIS troops of the Iraqi and Iranian governments and Shi-ite militias.   The report showed that serious atrocities are being committed by these groups, as bad as anything we’ve seen from ISIS members.

These atrocities should be of great concern to Washington, which is sending more arms to help the Iraqi government.   The arms will be accompanied by 3,000 US military personnel who will be giving further training to the Iraqi military.

The presence of Iranian troops is also awkward for the United States.   While America and its allies may be grateful in the short term for help against ISIS, long-term the end result is likely to be a stronger and greater Iran.   A nuclear Iran will only complicate things further.

The growing internationalization of the conflict is clear and is likely to worsen.


Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela was not imprisoned for his opposition to apartheid!

This has been repeatedly mentioned on television news programs during Mr. Mandela’s current stay in the hospital.

If people were imprisoned for opposing apartheid, millions of South Africans of all races would have spent decades in prison.  Apartheid institutionalized “separate development” (or segregation), which separated the various races of South Africa under white rule from 1948-1994.

A significant percentage of white voters were against apartheid.  While the ruling National Party had enough seats in the all-white parliament to enforce apartheid, they were opposed by the United Party, led by Sir de Villiers Graaff.  From 1977 the more liberal Progressive Federal Party was a constant thorn in the flesh for the government.   Helen Suzman of the PFP was the most vocal critic of apartheid in parliament.   Throughout the apartheid years, the freedom to speak out against the system, without the fear of imprisonment, was a constant.  The English language press was against apartheid during this time.

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for committing terrorist acts that killed people during a period when he felt that the only way forward was through violence.  Wikipedia says this of Mandela:

“Although initially committed to non-violent protest, in association with the South African Communist Party he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961, leading a bombing campaign against government targets.  In 1962 he was arrested, convicted of sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the government, and sentenced to life imprisonment.”  In other African countries, he would have received the death penalty.”

Mr. Mandela was to spend 27 years in prison.  While people in the West are appalled at this, people across Africa marvel that anybody could walk out of an African prison alive after such a long time.  It’s almost certain it would not have happened elsewhere on the continent.

Having set the record straight, it should be noted that Mandela is a great man and South Africans of all races are thankful that he was the first post-apartheid president and remains a major influence in the country.  All races will mourn his loss when the time comes.

The reason for this is the widely held belief that, without Mandela, there would have been no peaceful transition from apartheid (white rule) to African majority rule.  The country could have easily gone through a civil war, leaving nobody as the clear victor.

And that remains the constant fear – a bloodbath, which might be triggered off by Mandela’s death.  Nelson Mandela is still seen as a restraining influence.

Although it has been almost twenty years since the end of apartheid, the average black South African is no better off now than he was under white rule.  Those high up in government have done extremely well, as evidenced by the high number of Mercedes Benz vehicles being driven around the country and the many newly built mansions in gated communities.

The whites are still seen as the wealthiest members of society, although there are many whites begging at intersections and on street corners in cities across the country.

White farmers are fearful of another Rhodesia/Zimbabwe taking place after Mandela’s death.  Rhodesian farmers had their land taken off them two decades after independence, an executive act that devastated the economy.  Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) was able to import food from South Africa.  What will South Africans do if the whites lose their farms?  The white farmers are commercial farmers like their British and American cousins – Africans are subsistence farmers, only growing what they need for the coming months.  Forcibly taking land off the white farmers would cause famine and a collapse of the economy.

Certainly, South Africa has a burgeoning black middle class that has a vested interest in maintaining the financial status quo.  The country remains the most developed and best run nation in Africa.  But, like many other nations, it has a major problem to address – the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.

How South Africa manages this problem will determine its future more than anything else.

Nelson Mandela certainly helped in the transition from white domination to African rule but his successors must deliver on the promises made to voters two decades ago – they have waited long enough to see improvements in their lives and are now increasingly impatient.