Ivo Skoric digest / 01 - 04

Tue Nov 27 00:32:35 CET 2001

following messages:

01 - Subject: Superpowers legacy in Afghanistan
02 - Subject: Re: Fuel destroyed by air strikes in desert swoop
03 - Subject: Re: How smart was this bomb?
04 - Subject: Internet under burquah in Saudi Arabia - with the US help
____________________________________________________________

01 -

Subject: Superpowers legacy in Afghanistan
Reply-to: ivo at balkansnet.org

Russian legacy in Afghanistan had been 10 million landmines. American 
legacy will be - cluster bombs.
ivo

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

Deminers unable to defuse US cluster bombs

http://www.khilafah.com/1421/category.php?DocumentID=2690&TagID=2

HERAT Nov 21: With the Taliban gone, US bombs no longer fall on the
northwestern Afghan city of Herat, but they are still claiming victims.

Twelve-year-old Mohibollah was out collecting firewood in a shabby
neighbourhood on the edge of Herat on Wednesday.

Minutes later he was running down the street screaming, his face
splattered in blood and a stump of flesh, smashed bones and mangled
fingers dangling from his left arm. He had touched an unexploded bomblet
of a US cluster bomb dropped from a plane a month ago.

Their target was a nearby Taliban military base, but while many of the
bomblets hit assembled vehicles, tanks and troops, dozens were scattered
across the poor neighbourhood of Qali-e Shater about two km (1.25 miles)
away.

Nine people were killed, more than 30 wounded and 38 houses damaged.

"At first we were very happy when the Americans started dropping bombs,
we thought it would be the end of the Taliban," said local resident
Abdolahad. Eight bomblets landed on his house, peppering the walls with
shrapnel and killing his brother inside. But four of the bomblets failed
to explode, leaving a deadly legacy inside the family home and forcing
them to move in with neighbours. More than 30 people now sleep in one
house. "The Americans should do something, they have to pay for this,"
said Abdolahad.

DUSTY CRATER: De-mining teams started to detonate the small yellow
devices about the size of a drinks can after the Taliban fled the city
last week. "At first I didn't know what to do, I have never seen this
kind of bomb before," said Haji Seddiqi, regional coordinator for the
OMAR mine-clearing organisation.

"I contacted our headquarters in Islamabad and they didn't know what to
do. They said they would contact the Americans, but we have had no
answer and I decided to do something myself. The longer we leave it, the
more people will get hurt."

With an added sense of urgency after administering first aid to
Mohibollah before he was rushed to hospital, his men begin work to make
another bomblet safe.

Sandbags are piled round the bomblet, which lies in a garden of okra and
aubergines surrounded by a courtyard of mud-brick walls. A small charge
of plastic explosives is placed nearby and a wire trailed to the street
outside.

"Explosion, explosion," one of the men shouts through a loud-hailer. A
button is pressed and a loud bang heard. Inside, the sand-bags
disintegrates, leaving a small crater in the dusty vegetable patch.

Seddiqi says he is working flat-out to clear dozens of deadly yellow
packages still lying unexploded in the area.

The United States has taken criticism from human rights groups for using
cluster bombs.

Human Rights group Amnesty International has said about five percent of
the explosive bomblets fail to explode on impact, exposing civilians to
a high risk of indiscriminate attack for years to come. But US Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said the United States has every right to
use cluster bombs after the September 11 hijack attacks on New York's
World Trade Center and the Pentagon outside Washington.

Source: Reuters

------------------------------------------------------------
02 -

Subject: Re: Fuel destroyed by air strikes in desert swoop
Reply-to: ivo at balkansnet.org

I guess they should hire a lawyer and sue US military for
destroying their property. Still, this is an interesting operation.
First, because the Special Forces protected their lives. It becomes
more and more difficult for the US to conduct war. Not only their
forces aren't allowed to die in battle any more, but now they also
can't kill anybody.
And second - because they called in air strikes against oil trucks.
Couldn't they just destroy the trucks with a cigarette lighter, for
crying out loud? I mean there was gasoline inside - it doesn't take
a million dollar cruise missile to destroy an oil truck? Isn't that a
waste of resources?
ivo
Date sent: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 15:21:56 +1100
Send reply to: International Justice Watch Discussion List
<JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From: jon cina <jon_cina at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Fuel destroyed by air strikes in desert swoop
To: JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
Today's Guardian carries this story of what is either evidence of the
US/coalition's desire to avoid civilian casualties, or a broad definition of
what constitutes a legitimate target. US ground forces apparently discovered
tanker trucks thought to be carrying "oil for terrorists". After detaining
the drivers and moving them to a safe place, the US troops requested air
strikes to destroy the tankers. They then returned the drivers to the
wreckage of their trucks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,602849,00.html

Special forces strike in the night - and oil tanker owners lose livelihoods
Fuel destroyed by air strikes in desert swoop
Jonathan Steele in Kandahar province
Wednesday November 21, 2001
The Guardian
It was a quiet night in the desert and the group of tanker drivers were
sleeping by their vehicles after another long day's driving from the Iranian
border.
Suddenly they heard the sound of vehicles crossing the sand in the dark.
"About seven or eight armed men surrounded us. They were talking English,
and all had military uniforms," Shahzada recalled yesterday in Spin Boldak,
about six hours' drive away from where the incident happened.
Some of the intruders had sophisticated night-vision equipment or, as he put
it graphically, "big goggles".
"They grabbed us and tied our hands behind our backs with very tough
plastic," he said.
The men, presumably US special forces, put the drivers in four small
armoured vehicles and took them to a bleak spot in the desert.
Shahzada judged they went about four miles away from their tankers. He and
his friends had no idea what was going to happen next. It was some time
before dawn on November 18.
One of the strangers could speak a few words in Persian. Many Afghans speak
a variety of Persian, known as Dari.
"He accused us of taking oil for terrorists, but we said it wasn't true. The
oil is just for ordinary people," Shahzada explained. "I have been doing
this work for 15 years. We pick the oil up at the border with Iran near
Zahedan, and deliver it here. It's my job.
"We saw one of the men making a telephone call. We didn't know what they
were planning to do," he went on.
As the drivers sat fearfully in the dark wondering what their fate would be,
they heard the sound of aircraft. A huge ball of fire lit up the desert. In
horror the men realised what was going on. All five tankers had been hit by
missiles or bombs.
The attack over, the armed kidnappers took the men back to the wrecks of
their tankers and untied them. Then they disappeared. In its way the whole
episode was remarkably efficient.
Mohammed Akhtar, one of the tanker owners, who was listening as Shahzada
recounted the incident yesterday, admitted his drivers take a route through
the desert to avoid paying tax at various checkpoints they might encounter
on the roads. He had clubbed together with two people to buy his tanker.
Most tankers had three joint owners, because it was too expensive to buy one
on your own.
Shahzada acknowledged that the Americans had gone out of their way to save
their lives by taking them off into the desert before sending in the strike
aircraft to destroy their vehicles.
But he did not see much reason for gratitude. "In a way they were protecting
our lives," he said.
"But they took away our livelihoods." And as far as he was concerned, they
had done nothing to deserve it.

---------------------------------------------------------
03 -

Subject: Re: How smart was this bomb?
Reply-to: ivo at reporters.net

The dual-use targets, I think, still need to be more thoroughly
defined under the international law. The building of RTS in
Belgrade, unlike the Prishtina transmission anthena, for example
did not have any military use at all - yet it was hit by the NATO
missile as well. It is simply an unformulated truth that TV today
can be used as a tool of war, just like film, radio and posters were
in WW II. Milosevic relied on the TV that he controlled to maintain
morale of his military and to rally support of the population. In a
sense the RTS served his government the same purpose that the
Psy-Ops serve the US government. But it was done under the
cover of being a civillian institution. This is why I think the 'dual-use'
principle needs far more explaining, than it was so far done on the
issue. I am not sure whether the Al Jazeera outpost in Kabul can
be judged under any of those two premises, though: unlike the
mast in Prishtina, it was not used for military communication, and,
unlike the RTS, it was not the mouth-piece of one side, i.e. it was
not the Al Qaeda's tool of psychological warfare. It looks to me as
if the US, obviously intercepting the communication between Al
Jazeera headquarters in Qatar and the office in Kabul, got under
impression that Al Jazeera would abandon the Kabul office - and
decided it would be better to blast it than have it taken over by
Taliban, Al Qaeda or Northern Alliance, for that matter. I think the
US made a mistake and needs to apologize and reimburse Al
Jazeera for the loss of transmitter in Kabul, now that Kabul is
"under control".
ivo
Date sent: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:47:44 -0500
Send reply to: International Justice Watch Discussion List
<JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From: Andras Riedlmayer <riedlmay at FAS.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: Re: How smart was this bomb?
To: JUSTWATCH-L at LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
Tim Abbott wrote:
 > How, legally, does a building housing a transmission mast which is
 > broadcasting anti-one side propaganda differ from a building housing
 > journalists doing the same thing?
As I understand, transmission masts are considered legitimate targets
when they serve military communications or are dual-use facilities.
It's questionable whether broadcasting propaganda legally counts as
military use. But transmission of military communications certainly does.
One example of such a facility targeted during the 1999 Kosovo war
was the central PTT building in downtown Prishtina, which served both
military and civilian telecommunications in Kosovo. It was hit by a
NATO missile and destroyed in April 1999. Although the destruction
of the Prishtina post office is listed as a "NATO war crime" in the
Yugoslav government's white book, I think a case can be made that
as a dual-use facility it was a legitimate target.
Andras

--------------------------------------------------
04 -

Subject: Internet under burquah in Saudi Arabia - with the US help
Reply-to: ivo at reporters.net

As this war progressed, I was often wondering whether the US
bombs the wrong country. Maybe the CIA had old maps again. I do
not remember any Afghan among the terrorists identified so far.
While Taliban, short on resources, simply ban all modernity, their
Wahabbist brothers in Saudi Arabia deal with the modernity, in,
well, modern way: hiring American engineers to do the job for them.
ivo

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/technology/19SAUD.html
November 19, 2001
Companies Compete to Provide Saudi Internet Veil
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
Nearly a dozen software companies, most of them American, are competing for
a contract to help Saudi Arabia block access to Web sites the Saudi
government deems inappropriate for that nation's half-million Internet users.
For the companies, the Saudi account would be important not only for the
direct revenue — which analysts say could be worth several million dollars
— but also for its value as a flagship that could help win similar contracts
from other governments.
Pornographic sites, the biggest Internet business in other countries, make
up the overwhelming majority of the sites blocked in Saudi Arabia,
distantly followed by sites that may be sensitive for political or religious
reasons.
To critics of the sale of content filters, software company executives say
that they are only providing politically neutral tools. "Once we sell them the
product, we can't enforce how they use it," said Matthew Holt, a sales
executive for Secure Computing, of San Jose, Calif., that currently
provides Internet-filtering software to the Saudi government under a
contract that expires in 2003.
Secure Computing hopes to renew that contract but has competition from
at least 10 other companies from the United States, Britain, Germany and
the Netherlands.
"This would be a terrific deal to win — an important deal to win," said
Geoff Haggart, a vice president at Websense, a San Diego company that has
begun a software trial with the Saudi government and is considered a top
contender for its contact.
Websense's current clients include more than half of the Fortune 500
companies, the United States Army and Saudi Aramco, the large Saudi oil
company. Other software that Saudi Arabia has considered includes
products from Surf Control, a London company; N2H2, of Seattle; and
Symantec, a Cupertino, Calif., company.
Within the Islamic world, religious sensitivities and security-conscious
regimes can combine to create a technophobic atmosphere. Governments
in Muslim nations, among them Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates,
have made overtures to Internet filtering companies. But no Muslim nation
has been as active a user of the software as has Saudi Arabia. By royal
decree, virtually all public Internet traffic to and from Saudi Arabia has
been funneled through a single control center outside Riyadh since the
Internet was introduced in the kingdom nearly three years ago.
If the Riyadh center blocks a site, a warning screen pops up warning the
user, in English and Arabic, "Access to the requested URL is not allowed!"
"The Internet is a frightening place to some people," said Mr. Holt, who
oversees sales operations in the Middle East for Secure Computing. "The
government feels the need to intervene."
In Saudi Arabia, the government spent two years designing a centralized
control system before gingerly opening the spigot to the Internet in
February 1999. At the time, the government selected Secure Computing's
SmartFilter software from four competing products from the United States,
in part because the company offered a discount. The company and Saudi
officials declined to disclose the contract terms.
SmartFilter came with ready-made categories like pornography and
gambling and was customized to include specific sites the Saudis perceived
as defaming Islam or the royal family.
With the Secure Computing contract set to expire in little more than a year,
rivals are actively courting Saudi technology officials. The companies are
promoting their expanded Arabic-language capabilities. They are selling
their ease of customization for sites considered anti-Islam or anti-royal
family. They are donating engineers to support trials, while steeply
discounting their list prices. One German company even offered the service
for free, according to an executive involved in the competition.
Corporate customers and the United States Army generally use filtering
software to prevent their users from viewing pornography, gambling or
otherwise frittering away time on the job. But Saudi Arabia is one of the
countries with the most centralized control of Internet content of various
types, according to a report by the advocacy group Reporters Without
Borders.
Another country highlighted in the report is China, whose government
blocks various foreign media and human rights Web sites by using
domestic software. The United States government recently introduced a
plan to establish a computer network to help Chinese residents circumvent
their government's fire wall. But so far, Washington has not taken similar
steps in Saudi Arabia, which brooks little political dissent but is one of the
United States' closest allies among Middle Eastern Muslim nations.
"We have a really serious problem in terms of the American free speech
idea," said Jack Balkin, a professor at the Yale Law School who studies
the politics of Internet filtering. "But it is very American to make money.
Between anticensorship and the desire to make money, the desire to make
money will win out."
Saudi security agencies identify the political Web sites that are considered
for inclusion on the blacklist. Among the banned sites are the Committee
for the Defense of Human Rights in the Arabian Peninsula
(www.cdrhap.com) and the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia
(www.islah.org). Even some less politically charged sites, including ones
that recount the history of Saudi Arabia, are blocked.
In response to Internet filtering, many Saudis either dial up foreign Internet
service providers, use Web sites that protect the user's identity or engage
in a cat-and-mouse game with Web sites that frequently change their
addresses to elude filters. (For such sites, like the one operated by
Islah.org, would-be visitors send e-mail to a fixed address and receive the
new Web address.)
It is because filtering for an entire country is a logistically tricky task
that
the Saudi government is looking for new software. "It's not that we are
unhappy with the product, we're just looking for a better solution," said
Eyas S. al-Hajery, who plays a major role in the selection process and has
evaluated various software filters.
The competition is up in the air, said Dr. Hajery, who directs the
Information Security Center at King Abdulaziz City for Science and
Technology, the institution that serves as Saudi Arabia's Internet control
valve. "We are very open to try other choices," he said.
The marketing pitches pour in weekly through e-mails, phone calls and
in-person presentations. But the decision will have less to do with
marketing than customer service after the sale, Dr. Hajery said.
Customer service is important because Saudi Arabia's filtering effort is so
large in scope and so highly customized. The Saudi Internet staff says it
tries to be reasonable within the guidelines, and it provides Web forms for
users to request additions or removals from the blacklists.
Dr. Hajery says his staff of a dozen employees receives more than 500
suggestions a day from the public to block sites that the authorities have
missed. The requests are reviewed by the staff and about half of them are
ultimately added to the blacklist — up to 7,000 URL's monthly. Many of
the sites forbidden on religious grounds are gleaned through this process,
since the staff members are primarily focused on ferreting out pornography
sites, Dr. Hajery said. The center also receives more than 100 requests a
day to remove specific sites from the blacklist — many because they have
been wrongfully characterized by the SmartFilter software, he said.
Secure Computing disputes this, saying that all of its sites are reviewed by
people after being screened by the software.
Some sites become incidental victims to the government's broad snare. In
August 2000, the Saudi government decided to block access to all Yahoo
online clubs because many clubs were popular for pornography. After the
move elicited protest from people who use various Yahoo clubs to
communicate about everything from engineering to cooking, the center began
selectively unblocking nonpornographic Yahoo sites at users' requests.
Many Saudis support the government's ban on pornography. But sites
banned for political reasons incite protests. A 28-year- old claims assistant
at Royal and SunAlliance Insurance, who is a member of the Shiite
minority in Saudi Arabia, where the majority of Muslims are Sunni, said in
an e- mail interview that a Web site containing basic information about his
village near the town of Qatif had been blocked.
He compared Internet filtering to the Saudi national emblem, two crossed
swords below a date palm.
"You can look straight and eat from that palm tree as much as you want,"
he said, "but if you ever try to look to your right or left side, there'll 
be a
sword waiting to chop off your head."

Bombs aren't working? Drop turkeys instead!
Shebar Windstone <shebar at inch.com>
Lavender Links http://www.lavenderlinks.com/
CHMOD http://www.inch.com/~shebar/
At-Home with Joan Nestle http://www.JoanNestle.com/
GLOW Tibet Archives http://www.tibet.org/glow/
Chushi Gangdruk http://www.chushigangdruk.org/
TibetanIssues.org http://www.tibetanissues.org/
(Un)Covering Tibet: Journalists & activists discuss news/media
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/roundtables/tibet_intro.shtml