Showing posts with label Transnational Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transnational Terrorism. Show all posts

16 September 2012

This is what tyranny looks like

LATimes_Nakoula Photo Credit: LA Times Blog 15 SEP 2012

 

Picture of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula taken in for questioning by police.  In the middle of the night.

His crime?

Creating bad art that was used as an excuse by some rioters in Egypt.

Via AFP (h/t Weaselzippers):

AL-Qaeda said the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya was in revenge for the killing of the network’s number two Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi, SITE Intelligence Group reported.

“The killing of Sheikh Abu Yahya only increased the enthusiasm and determination of the sons of (Libyan independence hero) Omar al-Mokhtar to take revenge upon those who attack our Prophet,” said al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula said in a statement, quoted by the US-based monitoring group.

Thus those who murdered the US Ambassador to Libya did so with intent to kill from the outset.  It was meant as a punishment to the US and is thus not an act of murder but an act of war.  As the Libyan government has decried (Source: Independent, UK) such action and no government wishes to take credit, it is an act of war by a Private group against the US.  This is not murder because the US Ambassador was gay, because he was 'asking for it' or due to any other reason than being the US Ambassador to Libya.  The State Dept. had warning 48 hours in advance of the assassination that there would be mobs outside the Embassies and Consulate in Cairo and Benghazi (Source: Independent, UK) and according to sources in Libya (Source: Israelnationalnews.com), although the spokesman for the DNI denies this (Source: Politico).

Responsibility for protection of the Ambassador and all other State Dept. personnel overseas falls to the State Dept. (Source: Breitbart).  Do note that the State Dept. has security of all of its Embassies, other Consulates and missions under its authority for security.

A report from UPI on 11 SEP 2012 indicates otherwise:

CAIRO, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A radical group plans to launch terrorist attacks against the Israeli and U.S. embassies in Cairo, the Egyptian Intelligence Service is warning.

A top secret letter obtained by the news organization al-Masry al-Youm states that elements from the group Global Jihad have been planning attacks on the two embassies.

The letter addressed to a top Egyptian security official was forwarded to all security sectors across Egypt, al-Masry al-Youm reported Tuesday.

There was no word on when the attacks were supposed to take place.

Global Jihad has been accused by Israel of perpetrating the August 5th attack against Egyptian border guards in Sinai that left 16 dead.

Thus there was warning and as the reports were just getting to the press on 11 SEP 2012, they had to work through official releases and checking in the bureaucracy for days ahead of time.  Indeed  Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email credits the original date of the warning letter to 04 SEP 2012.

From the Glenn Reynolds posting on this we learn:

  • That is a scarf wrapped around his head, not a towel.
  • Probations are handled by officers of the court and law enforcement is not called in unless a suspected crime has been committed.  Probation violation can be due to multiple things that have no criminality attached to them, and if Mr. Nakoula was suspected of that while using his computer, then his computer can be seized and he can talk with his Probation Officer.

Mr. Nakoula has every right to make a blasphemous film as a citizen of the United States.

Mr. Nakoula has every right to make bad art as a citizen of the United States.

Mr. Nakoula has every right to express himself and not have literal knock on his door at midnight from the police asking him in for questioning and then taking him out through a gaggle of reporters.  There are a number of people who have called for the death of Mr. Nakoula in the Middle East and some of those are attached to the organizers of riots in the region.  These people are working with the most radical and barbaric terrorists in the world who think nothing of suicide bombing using children and the disabled, who feel no regret at chopping off heads of their opponents, and who incite to murder and chaos on a global scale.

The film of Mr. Nakoula had been on youtube for quite some time before these events, and the citation of it by those who have done the rioting and assassination is nothing more than pretext, excuse and yet another finger to point at the West not because we are inciting them but because they hate our liberties and freedom.  Like the freedom to speak one's mind about religion and to even criticize other religions and not be taken in and tried on blasphemy charges for such criticism.  The 'questioning' of Mr. Nakoula is done as a cover for the real reason: that he is inconvenient to the regime of current Administration and a handy scapegoat, a mere Goldstein to excuse tyrannical action.

First they came for the bad film makers and I said nothing as I did not make bad films...

Screw THAT.

I do protest.

Because I know that at the end of the long list, I will be included in that ever expanding enemy's list, just as normal people have been every time that the list of handy scapegoats had to be increased to excuse incompetence, lack of oversight or just plain old horror by those seeking tyranny.  This is about the freedom of each of us to say as we feel we must say to inform our fellow citizens, and if it is done with bad art then SO BE IT.  Censorship in the face of terrorism is appeasement and walking away from support of human rights AT HOME.  This must stop NOW or the result is a horror beyond imagining and rivers of blood under your feet and mine for not speaking out TODAY.

I do speak out as that is my job as a Citizen of the Republic of the United States of America.

12 September 2012

The return of 1979

In one of my very first posts I wrote was about the concept of Jus ad Bellum or 'Just War', which are the instances laid out in Law of Nations by de Vattel (1758) of when a Nation State may go to war.  This I expanded upon in Where Angels fear to tread, because in our modern age we have glossed over and completely excised the differences between Public and Private war and what responses are appropriate to each.  Law of Nations is descriptive law that attempts to encapsulate unwritten law which was differentiate by Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England (circa 1250) as the law leges, as opposed to the jus scriptum or written law.  In fact Bracton describes Law of Nations as jus gentium:

What the jus gentium is.

[017] 33The jus gentium is the law which men of all nations use, which falls short of
[018] natural law since that is common to all animate things born on the earth in the
[019] sea or in the air. From it comes the union of man and woman, entered into by the
[020] mutual consent of both, which is called marriage. Mere physical union is [in the
[021] realm] of fact and cannot properly be called jus since it is corporeal and may be
[022] seen;
34 all jura are incorporeal and cannot be seen. From that same law there
[023] also
35 comes the procreation and rearing of children. The jus gentium is common
[024] to men alone, as religion observed toward God, the duty of submission to parents
[025] and country, or the right to repel violence and injuria. For it is by virtue of this
[026] law that whatever a man does in defence of his own person he is held to do lawfully;
[027] since nature makes us all in a sense akin to one another it follows that for one to
[028] attack another is forbidden.
36

The Law of Nations, then, is universal to thinking beings  capable of having families and of defense of self and Nation, as Nation arrives from the union of thinking man and woman in families.  As the presence of families seeking to protect themselves and working with other families is universal in mankind, so are Nations, and yet the jus gentium does not come from Natural Law but from the application of reason and self-governance to our natural liberties and rights.  Thus law of nations is usually spoken of in the lower case, encompassing the entire unwritten part of mankind's activities that fall into it, and in the larger case when citing an individual work within it.  As de Vattel had worked with Blackstone prior to the colonies separating from the Great Britain, that work is predominant and guiding not just in the thought of those Founding the Nation and Framing the Constitution, but actually has direct, upper case citation in the latter.

What Law of Nations describes is the outcome of what many civilizations have formed in the way of rules between Nations and while it concentrates on mostly European Nations, the form of interaction described is one that can be seen globally between all Nations and the States running them.  It doesn't matter what period of history you search (ancient to modern) or where you look geographically (from Southern Africa to Northern Siberia to the Great Plains to the high coastal regions of South America, all of mankind works under law of nations.  de Vattel devotes an entire book (Book III) to warfare, which shows itself as a major part of the activities of mankind, but for the actions seen in Tehran in 1979 and today in Cairo and Benghazi, one must look to the norms and standards of diplomacy between Nations which comes in another book (Book IV).  Ideas presented in both books receive references earlier in the work, but their full fleshing out happens in them as these are major components of Nations.  To get an idea of how this works, here is paragraph 1 from Book IV:

§ l. What peace is.

PEACE is the reverse of war: it is that desirable state in which every one quietly enjoys his rights, or, if controverted, amicably discusses them by force of argument. Hobbes has had the boldness to assert, that war is the natural state of man. But if, by "the natural state of man," we understand (as reason requires that we should) that state to which he is destined and called by his nature, peace should rather be termed his natural state. For, it is the part of a rational being to terminate his differences by rational methods; whereas, it is the characteristic of the brute creation to decide theirs by force.1 Man, as we have already observed (Prelim. § 10), alone and destitute of succours, would necessarily be a very wretched creature. He stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his species, in order to enjoy the sweets of life, to develop his faculties, and live in a manner suitable to his nature. Now, it is in peace alone that all these advantages are to be found: it is in peace that men respect, assist, and love each other: nor would they ever depart from that happy state, if they were not hurried on by the impetuosity of their passions, and blinded by the gross deceptions of self-love. What little we have said of the effects will be sufficient to give some idea of its various calamities; and it is an unfortunate circumstance for the human race, that the injustice of unprincipled men should so often render it inevitable.

Peace, then, is amongst the civilized of the Earth and those Nations that wish to practice peace should have intercourse and discourse between them so as to iron out differences.  The brute man, the savage man, wishes no discourse and only force to be the way to settle things, to impose his will upon others without their consent.

You are, perhaps, seeing where this is going, no?  How discussions really weren't present in1979 or today?  Is what we are seeing and did see the actions of peaceful, rational man in his Nations, or irrational, brutish man that is uncivilized?  If one cannot distinguish between these things, then one cannot properly distinguish between war and peace as peace is not just the absence of war.  It is not with emotional fervor that I call these actions barbarous, brutish, savage and wholly contrary to civilized intercourse amongst Nations for that is exactly what these actions are stripped of all emotional content but with the ability to judge what is civil discourse and what is attack to get one's way and enforce one's will.

Now what is the source of these actions?  Not the immediate 'this anti-Islamic film inflamed individuals' for it is possible to have heated passion without running riot, without damaging property of another Nation and without inflicting physical and lethal harm to others.  Thus comes the second paragraph of Book IV and the object is still Peace:

§ 2. Obligation of cultivating it.

Nations who are really impressed with sentiments of humanity, — who seriously attend to their duty, and are acquainted with their true and substantial interests, — will never seek to promote their own advantage at the expense and detriment of other nations: however intent they may be on their own happiness, they will ever be careful to combine it with that of others, and with justice and equity. Thus disposed, they will necessarily cultivate peace. If they do not live together in peace, how can they perform those mutual and sacred duties which nature enjoins them? And this state is found to be no less necessary to their happiness than to the discharge of their duties. Thus, the law of nature every way obliges them to seek and cultivate peace. That divine law has no other end in view than the welfare of mankind: to that object all its rules and all its precepts lend: they are alt deducible from this principle, that men should seek their own felicity; and morality is no more than the art of acquiring happiness. As this is true of individuals, it is equally so of nations, as must appear evident to any one who will but take the trouble of reflecting on what we have said of their common and reciprocal duties, in the first chapter of the second book.

Note the last part I put in boldface, and that the individual and nation are part of a scale-free phenomena called 'peace'.  A moral people, seeking happiness, would criticize those who detract from their religion, perhaps seek to have some understanding of how such a thing could come to be made with it being so hurtful to them.  That is the realm of discourse, where passion can and must still play a part, but it also recognizes the rights of others to have their say and put such matters publicly for the benefit of all to hear and understand.  For such morality to be present it must, actually, manifest in peaceful activities that respect other individuals and nations.  Thus it can be said the activities taken in Tehran in 1979, Cairo and Benghazi in the last two days were not ones that were moral nor ones that respected the rights of other individuals or nations.

Of course as Nations have States to support them, those States fall under the sovereign power of the Nation.  There are responsibilities for those who are vested with such sovereign power and their activities are the ones in which nations interact with each other.  Responsibilities beget obligations and the sovereign has obligations as a manifestation of the power of the nation:

§ 3. The sovereign's obligation to it.

This obligation of cultivating peace binds the sovereign by a double tie. He owes this attention to his people, on whom war would pour a torrent of evils; and he owes it in the most strict and indispensable manner, since it is solely for the advantage and welfare of the nation that he is intrusted with the government. (Book I. § 39.) He owes the same attention to foreign nations, whose happiness likewise is disturbed by war. The nation's duty in this respect has been shown in the preceding chapter; and the sovereign, being invested with the public authority, is at the same time charged with all the duties of the society, or body of the nation. (Book I. § 41.)

If government is to have peace it must seek it not just for its people but for those nations it interacts with.  The obligation to peace is put in trust to a Nation's government, and it is a grant of responsibility, obligation and power (although that will vary from Nation to Nation, the Nation as a sovereign power is said to have the whole power) by those in the Nation to that government.  It may not be a grant by consent, and thusly any government that takes up the sovereign power without consent is doubly responsible for its activities.

In the case of 1979 that was (and remains) the government of Iran, in Cairo it is the government of Egypt, and for Benghazi it is the government of Libya.  The outcomes of such activities are the responsibilities of the governments of each nation and what happens determines the course of that nation: are they to put forward the rule of law and diplomatic discourse or are they to endorse such activities?  And what are the outcomes of these courses of action?  Depending on which course is taken, the destination is set, and that is not by emotions but by the actions of the sovereigns involved.  In Iran and Egypt the governments did not decry such activities, nor did they offer up to have a rule of law applied to the individuals doing such actions.  In Libya, as far as can be discerned, there is a willingness to seek out the miscreants involved in murder of the US Ambassador and bring the proper laws involved into play (whatever they are).

Taking the last case first, as it is the closest we have come to expect from responsible actors as nations, even though the activities are horrific.  Much later, starting in paragraph 80, are how Ambassadors are to be treated, and this is important in the Libyan case:

§ 82. Particular protection due to them.(197)

This safety is particularly due to the minister, from the sovereign to whom he is sent. To admit a minister, to acknowledge him in such character, is engaging to grant him the most particular protection, and that he shall enjoy all possible safety. It is true, indeed, that the sovereign is bound to protect every person within his dominions, whether native or foreigner, and to shelter him from violence: but this attention is in a higher degree due to a foreign minister. An act of violence done to a private person is an ordinary transgression, which, according to circumstances, the prince may pardon: but if done to a public minister, it is a crime of state, an offence against the law of nations; and the power of pardoning, in such case, does not rest with the prince in whose dominions the crime has been committed, but with him who has been offended in the person of his representative. However, if the minister has been insulted by persons who were ignorant of his character, the offence is wholly unconnected with the law of nations, and falls within the class of ordinary transgressions. A company of young rakes, in a town of Switzerland, having, in the night-time, insulted the British minister's house, without knowing who lived in it, the magistracy sent a message to the minister to know what satisfaction he required. He prudently answered, that it was the magistrates' concern to provide for the public safety by such means as they thought best; but that, as to his own part, he required nothing, not thinking himself affronted by persons who could have had no design against him, as not knowing his house. Another particular circumstance, in the protection due to foreign ministers, is this: — according to the destructive maxims introduced by a false point of honour, a sovereign is under a necessity of showing indulgence to a person wearing a sword, who instantly revenges an affront done to him by a private individual: but violent proceedings against a public minister can never be allowed or excused, unless where the latter has himself been the aggressor, and, by using violence in the first instance, has reduced his opponent to the necessity of self-defence.

Libya can try such people, but the place they can, nay must, reach trial is in the domain of the sovereign offended.  If you kill the US Ambassador clemency, guilt or innocence cannot be determined in Libya but only by the US.  That is the normal, ordinary course of affairs between nations that have regularized diplomatic intercourse via the exchange of diplomats.  If the US recognizes such a government then that government has the obligation to seek out those who do such crimes and hand them over.  There can be initial trial in Libya, yes, but any sentence is held in abeyance until they can be tried in the US.

No matter how piss-poor the current Libyan government is, they at least are acting by civilized norms and must be worked with and supported in their actions to bring those individuals in for trial.  If they act in bad faith, seek to shield such miscreants or otherwise dissemble their intentions by their activities, then there are other means to go through to ensure compliance with the responsibilities and obligations of the sovereign power in Libya.

That now leaves the similar cases of Tehran 1979 and Cairo, in which the US Embassy grounds were invaded (twice in Tehran, once in Cairo to-date).  This requires a look at the Embassy, which are part of where the Ambassador does his work:

§ 110. The ambassador is exempt from the civil jurisdiction of the country where he resides.

SOME authors will have an ambassador to be subject, in civil cases, to the jurisdiction of the country where he resides. — at least in such cases as have arisen during the time of his embassy; and, in support of their opinion, they allege that this subjection is by no means derogatory to the ambassadorial character: "for," say they, "however sacred a person may be, his inviolability is not affected by suing him in a civil action." But it is not on account of the sacredness of their person that ambassadors cannot be sued: it is because they are independent of the jurisdiction of the country to which they are sent; and the substantial reasons on which that independency is grounded may be seen in a preceding part of this work (§ 92). Let us here add, that it is in every respect highly proper, and even necessary, that an ambassador should be exempt from judicial prosecution even in civil causes, in order that he may be free from molestation in the exercise of his functions. For a similar reason, it was not allowed, among the Romans, to summon a priest while he was employed in his sacred offices:1 but at other times he was open to the law. The reason which we have here alleged for the exemption is also assigned in the Roman law: "Ideo enim non datur actio (adversus legatum) ne ab officio suscepto legationis avocetur,2 ne impediatur legatio."3 But there was an exception as to those transactions which had taken place during the embassy. This was reasonable with regard to those legati, or ministers, of whom the Roman law here speaks, who, being sent only by nations subject to the empire, could not lay claim to the independency enjoyed by a foreign minister. As they were subjects of the state, the legislature was at liberty to establish whatever regulations it thought most proper respecting them: but a sovereign has not the like power of obliging the minister of another sovereign to submit to his jurisdiction: and even if such power was vested in him by convention, or otherwise, the exercise of it would be highly improper: because, under that pretext, the ambassador might be often molested in his ministry, and the state involved in very disagreeable quarrels, for the trifling concerns of some private individuals, who might and ought to have taken better precautions for their own security. It is therefore, only in conformity to the mutual duties which states owe to each other, and in accordance with the grand principles of the law of nations, that an ambassador or public minister is at present, by the universal custom and consent of nations, independent of all jurisdiction in the country where he resides, either in civil or criminal cases. I know there have occurred some instances to the contrary: but a few facts do not establish a custom: on the contrary, those to which I allude, only contribute, by the censure passed on them, to prove the custom such as I have asserted it to be. In the year 1668, the Portuguese resident at the Hague was, by an order of the court of justice, arrested and imprisoned for debt. But an illustrious member of the same court4 very justly thinks that the procedure was unjustifiable, and contrary to the law of nations. In the year 1657, a resident of the elector of Brandenburg was also arrested for debt in England. But he was set at liberty, as having been illegally arrested; and even the creditors and officers of justice who had offered him that insult were punished.5

This is later reinforced in paragraph 113 and elsewhere in Law of Nations.  When the Embassy of another nation is broken into, that is not an act of civil invasions but one of law of nations contravention.  When it is private individuals doing such invasion, it is not civil trespass but a violation of the treaties between the nations involved which gives rise to an escalated tensions between the nations involved.  The government of those people doing the invasion is responsible for a response: is it the course of civil process by the course of law, or is it upholding the law breakers?  When it is the latter case it is giving backing to the action that then moves it from the realm of civil dispute to one of dispute between nations.  In other words it transforms from mere civil trespass, to be sorted out by diplomacy and civil proceedings, to one where an actual invasion is given backing which is a casus belli, a cause for war.

When the sacrosanct nature of agreements between Nations, in exchanging ambassadors or other public ministers in search of peace requires this as it is the civil, rational and natural movement of men to seek peace amongst themselves.  When that is transgressed and backed by the sovereign power of a Nation, peace can no longer be said to be the object of its desire.  There is always an opportunity for diplomacy, of course, but that must be taken by that nation backing the transgressors, not by those being invaded.

Those doing the invasion, not being in uniform, not adhering to the standards of law of nations or the rules of war, are now conducting a military operation outside of both.  This moves us back to Book III, the one on warfare and who gets to make it:

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.(137)

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.1 Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

That step of saying that the citizens have acted in accordance with the sovereign power is one that changes the activities of those citizens and gives them military legitimacy.  They are not legitimate military actors, however, by any standard and any future actions by such non-military actors is one that comes under law of nations as well:

§ 34. Na-

Nations that are always ready to take up arms on any prospect of advantage, are lawless robbers: but those who seem to delight in the ravages of war, who spread it on all sides, without reasons or pretexts, and even without any other motive than their own ferocity, are monsters, unworthy the name of men. They should be considered as enemies to the human race, in the same manner as, in civil society, professed assassins and incendiaries are guilty, not only towards the particular victims of their nefarious deeds, but also towards the state, which therefore proclaims them public enemies. All nations have a right to join in a confederacy for the purpose of punishing and even exterminating those savage nations. Such were several German tribes mentioned by Tacitus — such those barbarians who destroyed the Roman empire: nor was it till long after their conversion to Christianity that this ferocity wore off. Such have been the Turks and other Tartars — Genghis Khan, Timur Bec or Tamerlane, who, like Attila, were scourges employed by the wrath of Heaven, and who made war only for the pleasure of making it. Such are, in polished ages and among the most civilized nations, those supposed heroes, whose supreme delight is a battle, and who make war from inclination purely, and not from love to their country.

That is what such nations are, are they not?  The ones that incite their people to kill not to protect society, not to protect territory or property, not to any sane reason and without justification.  These are so-called 'rogue nations', although getting modern man to understand that civilization is at threat from such nations has been difficult, if not impossible to do.  When private individuals take to war with no sovereign grant or oversight, no sovereign accountability, that is unlawful war:

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.5 Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.6 Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,7 caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war.

We call these modern day actors: terrorists.  They are in the same class as pirates as the objective of war when done by private individuals without sovereign grant is not material: power, lust, greed, or just wanting to see the world burn are all one and the same in Private War which is illegitimate in all circumstances.  A Nation condoning and sponsoring such is an enemy of all mankind.

Unfortunately the State of Iran and Egypt are now in that category and are abusing their sovereign power meant to protect their people and using that power to inspire the activity of war to no lawful effect and no good end for mankind.

I have no hatred for the people of Iran or Egypt.

Their governments are monsters as their actions now tell you that.

It is civilized to wish that the people of these Nations had governments worthy of them to seek peace for them amongst their fellow nations of the Earth.  Such is not the case and the remedy has already been stated, if one can but read and reason.

14 June 2010

21st century gold rush

The following is cross-posted at The Jacksonian Party.

In the midst of the economic recession in the West and the deepening debt and banking problems leading to the insolvency of Nations, there is one, small, bright spot now coming to light.  It is not in the West nor Middle East but central Asia.  The place is the war torn Nation of Afghanistan.

The mineral riches, if reports are accurate, are phenomenal.

Although this is the NYT (13 JUN 2010, James Risen) reporting this, so take it with a grain of salt, but the DoD has confirmed the survey results and analysis:

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

Yes, all those Lithium Ion batteries for devices need good, old fashioned lithium.  Apparently Afghanistan has that in abundance.

The importance of iron and copper, which is in so much of our equipment, buildings, electronics, vehicles... indeed the industrial revolution was built on iron then steel, and the electronics industry built on copper... that vast resources of minerals bearing these two in abundance could spur a major change in pricing downwards for much of daily life over a decade or two.  What happens if the bottom falls out from the lithium, iron and copper markets?  We just might find out.

How big is this discovery?  It is truly phenomenal:

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.

“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. “There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”

The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistan’s existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.

“This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

Will every investment work out?  No, of course not.

Will the net influx of mining capital transform Afghanistan in profound ways?  Yes.

Mind you that $12 billion figure for GDP may not count the drug trade for another billion or two.  Even with that, no amount of opium traffic can equal what happens when modern mining concerns roll into action, and the money that will flow through Afghanistan will be tremendous.  Even with no local firms, the country will make money on a transactional basis and most likely have some minor amount put into the Nation's coffers.  That is a double edged sword, as the government may think of that as government money while it is, in actuality, the money of the people who have the sovereignty over their land via government.

Afghanistan had, at one time before the Soviet invasion, a relatively ethical government.  Reading Michael Yon and others, there was even some evidence of that going through to today: that government functionaries at the low levels understood that they must do their job.  Thus the question of how far and how deep the corruption of the current government is worrying:

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

The question on the replacement is: was this done only because of US power or done due to US complaint.  The first is no safe harbor for the Afghan people, the latter is a demonstration that some accountability exists within the system to deal with corruption.

China, of course, is involved seeking mineral deposits to fuel their economy, which has such structural bad debt that anything that can be grasped as helping to mitigate that is seen as essential.  The mineral deposits, however, will take a decade or two to see full utilization and that is of no help to China in the present.

And Afghanistan is not ready for the 'big league's of being a top international player in anything, especially vital mineral ore:

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”

This started with a USGS and Afghan Geological Survey group that pulled out the old British and Soviet era maps for the country and then stage an initial fly-over of promising sites.  That led to indications of much larger than expected deposits and a wider and more comprehensive survey in those areas in 2007.  The results sat in files until recently as US officials were looking for some way, any way, of getting Afghanistan on its feet economically.  When they got a better look at the results and compiled them, the extent of what was there became apparent, and the need for skilled hands to help in this was paramount:

The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.

Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

Yes, experience in Iraq counts and now offers an asymmetrical way to approach the Afghanistan conflict.

Asymmetrical?  In what way?

Whenever you find mineral deposits in strata there is a very good likelihood that much of the surrounding strata has similar deposits as they may have been put down by similar environments.  Over time with folding, thrusting and erosion the exact linear extent of such deposits may be warped, but the wider they were to start with means that it is unlikely that the resources sit just within the original finding areas.  That means that in the NWFP of Pakistan and other 'tribal' border regions, there may be mineral wealth beyond what has been found there to-date... which is nothing.  But then no one was looking that hard, were they, what with all the tribal and Islamic unpleasantness going on there.  So into the middle of an active, ethnic war zone comes some of the largest mineral discoveries seen in modern times.

Pakistan now has a great and deep incentive to push hard for surveys in its territory from the air based on the nearby deposits in Afghanistan and see what it can find.  I don't expect such finds to actually make things 'better' for Afghanistan or Pakistan, but then we are in the age where the lone prospector with a shotgun to defend himself has been replaced by multi-ton trucks the size of houses. 

And those will come, war or no war.

If there was any wisdom going into this, an amenable peace could be arranged for the final turning in of private war groups and a multi-ethnic, multi-Nation agreement to end hostilities and allow the local people to go to work which would enrich both Nations and all peoples of those Nations.  That would take a master statesman to do.

We are out of those, at present.  So is the rest of the world.

If you thought the fight for natural resources by the old Great Empires prior to WWI was a nasty business, then you ain't seen nothing yet.  That was orderly exploitation that built up local infrastructure which, though meager, has been lost after decolonialization in many Nations.  There are no high-minded, grand visionaries to see that giving people a job and a leg up in the world is a path to freedom and liberty for those involved.

America has a chance to help and do it right.

I am deeply afraid that we are about to screw things up royally for the next few decades and a resource that could lead to ending current hostilities and enriching the poor through hard work will, instead, plunge that region into chaos.  The last time that happened we got 9/11.  That was done on a shoestring.  Now imagine tens of millions of dollars going into Islamic terrorism not per year, but per month over the next decade.  Say an extended al Qaeda and Hezb-i-Islami doing about ten times their current income from narcotics, gem and gold smuggling and antiquities looting... every month perhaps every week.  As things stand they will get their terrorist 'share' of the pie and impoverish the people around them unless something is done very, very soon to end them.

You tell me what that looks like to you.

Because I do not like the look of it at all.

15 June 2009

Connecting dots with Ahmed Zuhair

What, no Monzer al-Kassar?  Hey, the guy is in the Federal Pen and only able to run his international concerns via his lawyer and outside contacts, meaning he is still in business, just setting up shop in jail.  Good deal, huh?

But this time it is not him that is the case in point but recent Gitmo releasee Ahmed Zuhair.  The LA Times goes over his release, but the sole interesting part is this:

The detainees were sent back to Saudi Arabia, their home country, where officials will review their cases before sending them to a rehabilitation program. One of them was identified as Ahmed Zuhair, a relatively high profile detainee who, has been protesting his detention since 2005 through a hunger strike and has been force-fed liquid nutrients.

During a hearing in Guantanamo in October 2004, Zuhair was accused of involvement in the 1995 killing in Bosnia-Herzegovina of William Jefferson, a U.S. official with the United Nations. At the tribunal, U.S. officials said Jefferson’s watch was found on Zuhair.

Zuhair also was convicted in absentia by a Bosnian court in a 1997 car bombing in the town of Mostar. He also allegedly told another detainee he was involved in the bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole in 2000, according to evidence presented at a Guantanamo proceeding.

Ah, Bosnia, the ill-fated venture of President Clinton.  Now instead of going all Bosniak, I'm going to work out the standard FOAF network deal with Zuhair... what is a FOAF network?

As I've examined voluminously (via the Red Mafia, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Monzer al-Kassar and others individuals and organizations) the FOAF network is a trust based network.  It is a Friend Of A Friend network, in which someone knows someone who knows someone, until you get everyone in the US within 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.  In the underworld, here more broadly including Transnational Terrorism along with organized crime, a FOAF network is one based on high degrees of trust between individuals within the network.  What this does is draws a very tight web of interconnections amongst disparate organizations and individuals that have a few individuals and organizations serving as a distributed set of nexus points: there is no one, key nexus point in the web, but a distributed set of highly interconnected actors.

With 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, any individual is not likely to be at the 6 degrees apart, and very few are at 0 degrees apart, since those are the direct friends, families and co-workers of Mr. Bacon.  In between are most everyone else in the country, but what shows up is that in the web of indirect contacts there are individuals that show up multiple times and become a 'nexus' as they know a lot of people.  Similarly in terrorism and organized crime there are nexus points that are individuals and well integrated groups of individuals who share contacts within the group, thus creating a group-based nexus point.

So Zuhair's affiliation with a local terrorist affiliate of al Qaeda puts him in direct contact with al Qaeda as a whole.  Further in the raid that picked him up there were papers linking the group outwards to other groups and individuals called the Golden Chain Document.  In examining another individual (here and here) the outward links from those documents to multiple individuals and groups comes up, and one of the individuals is part of the al-Bakri holding company, a family owned company.  That company owns Petronas, a Malaysian petroleum firm.

That firm was looking for oil in Kenya, of all places, and needed to do some exploration of the Lamu Peninsula while Raila Odinga was Oil Minister.  Now what happened is to Red Mafia types (the Artur Brothers) show up to chase a local drug kingpin in the peninsula to the Netherlands and kills him there... you know if they just wanted to take over part of the trade they could have just worked a deal... but the Red Mafia doesn't tend to do that at any level.  So Odinga invests heavily in the local National Oil firm plus a few others and Petronas comes in and the Artur Brothers set up a narcotics syndicate in Kenya.

Now during one of the nastier bits of Kenya's recent past, a newspaper was going to publish some very damaging bits on the ODM Party of Raila Odinga, about its connections to al-Bakri.  Strangely enough the Artur Brothers show up leading a police raid on the paper to destroy the information, and then have a lawyer put up for them by the al-Bakri subsidiary.

With me so far?

Ahmed Zuhair to al Qaeda.

al Qaeda to Abdulkader al-Bakri.

al-Bakri to Petronas, a subsidiary in a family held company so thus a zero degree separation internally to the al-Bakri organization which is cited as the one helping al Qaeda.

al-Bakri/Petronas to Raila Odinga.

The last connection is, of course, that Barack Obama's father came from the Luo tribe and Barack Obama, by his own account, was contacting Raila Odinga nightly while on the campaign trail.

 

Zuhair to al Qaeda.

al Qaeda to al-Bakri and, thus, Petronas.

al-Bakri/Petronas to Raila Odinga.

Raila Odinga to President Barack Obama.

Three degrees of separation between Ahmed Zuhair and President Barack Obama.

When you are looking for who has pull, you look at who they know.

No need to follow the money.

The relationships speak for themselves.

14 May 2008

The FARC Contacts

This is a follow-up to my recent article on FARC.

The dirty little secret of Private War is that it is supported by a wide array of organizations, groups, criminal syndicates and sympathizers on a global basis. Without these and their unpaid (as well as paid) spokesmen willingly taking up their propaganda and attempting to cast these brazen killers in a 'kinder, gentler' light, they would be seen as the petty tyrants and mobsters that they are. One of the older groups, though by no means as old as the PLO for example, is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC. At the start FARC started up as any other Communist/Leftist terror organization that made the hearts of those western-liberals go pit-a-pat in Marxist glee (Source: translation by Fausta) : "To create a great revolutionary Army with the support of the masses in order to destroy the capitalist system and install socialism."

Terrorism of the late 1960's was not the awful monster it is today, save to those who got to experience some form of 'liberation' via AK-47 or pipebomb first-hand. Through the 1970's FARC remained relatively Marxist and while insular it was nowhere close to being as insular as Shining Path in Peru. As these hodge-podge of organizations lived, however, their disparate goals coalesced along the forms of violence they inflicted and that led to a commonality of means amongst all 'terrorist organizations'. The one common factor across FARC, IRA, ETA, PLO, HAMAS, Shining Path, and, indeed, all terrorist organizations is: violence, gunplay, explosives, kidnapping and funding. Add those to intimidation for local support and no matter what the terrorist organization espouses it comes to practice warfare on people to enforce its will upon them. The West, in general, embroiled in the Cold War, did not want to stir up any minor conflicts that might get a sudden, nuclear tipped nightmare for humanity, and across the board from Europe to the US to Japan and Australia, no one would pay any attention to this problem. Indeed, it would be seen as a way to pull down the Western form of Nation State practiced by both the West and Soviet Union. The USSR would be so unwise as to support those trying to bring this form of state down, however, not realizing that the violence would not stop against the West once Nations began to crumble. Thus one of their clients would be one of the first, and by no means last, to support terrorism of all stripes.

The Terror Infrastructure

Libya

Moahammar Kadaffy (your spelling may vary!) of Libya set up one of the first government based institutions to facilitate that cross pollination in 1982. Going by the name Al Mathaba (or Center), Kadaffy would put it together as an 'Anti-Imperialism Center' while, in fact, entertaining dictators, tyrants and terrorists from around the globe and helping them to interact with each other. The Globalsecurity site has this in its thumbnail sketch of Al Mathaba:

Al Mathaba (meaning center) is the Libyan center for anti-imperialist propaganda which has funded third world guerilla groups. The Anti-Imperialism Center (AIC) - also known as Mathaba - is used by the Libyan Government to support terrorist networks and thus plays an important role in Qadhafi's terrorism strategy. Established in 1982 to support "liberation and revolutionary groups”, the AIC has sponsored a number of stridently anti-Western conferences in Tripoli. At the same time, the AIC's mission is to identify and recruit revolutionaries for ideological and military training in Libya. During their training at AIC camps, individuals are selected for advanced training, including in weapons and explosives, and indoctrination. With representatives in many Libyan embassies worldwide, the AIC runs its own independent clandestine operations and disburses payments to terrorist, insurgent, and subversive groups.

It had better be clandestine with those as its goals! The 30 year anniversary of this butcher's workshop included the following:

Many heads of state were present: Sam Nujoma (Namibia), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Yoweri Kaguta Musaveni (Uganda), Blaise Campraore (Burkina Faso), Alpha Oumar Konare (Mali), Yahya Jammeh (Gambia), Idris Deby (Chad), Abdou Diouf (Senegal), and the President of Guinea Bissao. Progressive political forces, communists and revolutionaries were there as well: the Cuban CP, Shaffik Handal (FMLN, San Salvador), the Guatamalan URNG, Tomas Borge and Daniel Ortega of the FSLN (Nicaragua), Raul Reyes (FARC, Columbia), a personal representative of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Lula, of the Brazilian Labour Party, Gladys Marin, General Secretary of the Chilian CP, Marina Arismendi, General Secretary of the Uruguayan CP. From Europe there was a very varied Italian delegation, with the Refoundation Communist Party in particular, and a Spanish delegation from the United Left (José Cabo) and from OSPAAAL.

FARC is a case in point in this confab, although the actors outside Latin America demonstrate just how far Kadaffy has reached over more than three decades with his terror spreading organization and support. Notice that those from Latin America make up an axis of support of which FARC is not out of place: Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay each sent supporting representatives of their 'progressive' groups to show solidarity and have a lovely anniversary with Kadaffy.

This 'anti-imperialist' outlook would continue on and spawn numerous organizations to support the 'revolutionary' concepts touted by Kadaffy and others. What is interesting is that the organization, by being 'anti-imperialist' would easily support any kind of thug or dictator around, thus ensuring that 'revolutionary' language would be put to the beck and call of tyrants and despots. One such incident was from the Spanish Campaign for Lifting Sanctions on Iraq held on 02-03 MAY 2001:

The Spanish Campaign for Lifting Sanctions on Iraq (SCLSI), which has been working since 1991 in the Spanish State for the end to the genocide against the Iraqi people and of US military intervention against Iraq, in co-operation with the Review Resumen Latinoamericano organised the ANTI-IMPERIALIST SOLIDARITY MEETING OF LATINAMERICAN ORGANIZATIONS IN BAGHDAD on 2 and 3 May, 2001, under the slogans 'For solidarity between peoples', 'Against US interventionism against Third World countries', 'For ending the embargo and the war against Iraq', 'No to the 'Plan Colombia'.

As in previous delegations promoted by our organisation to Iraq, the SCLSI has previewed for the Latin-American delegates several meetings and visits in order to let them know the sanctions impact over the Iraqi people and the regional situation. All the delegates will participate as well in the meeting of BAGHDAD CONFERENCE that will be held next May 5th and 6th.

Delegates, General secretaries, Presidents and MP of 16 political, social, Indians, and peasants organisations from all over the American continent have confirmed their presence.

  • Argentina: Patria Libre Movement. Support of CORREPI and Madres de Plaza de Mayo.
  • Bolivia: Federación de Campesinos del Trópico and Confederación Única de Trabajadores Campesinos. Support of Communist Party.
  • Brasil: Without Land Movement (Movimiento de los Sin Tierra, MST) & Work Party
  • Chile: Communist Party of Chile.
  • Colombia: Communist Party of Colombia. Support of FARC-EP).
  • Cuba: Communist Party of Cuba and OSPAAAL.
  • Ecuador: Popular Front. Support of CONAIE and CMS).
  • El Salvador: National Liberation Front Farabundo Martí (FMLN).
  • Guatemala: Gutemala National Revolutionaty Union (Unión Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, URNG).
  • Honduras: Democratic Unificated Party (Partiido de Unificación Democrática).
  • Perú: Mariateguista Unificated Party (Partido Unificado Mariateguista) and Comunist Party of Perú.
  • Puerto Rico: New Independentist Movement. Support of CPRDV from Vieques.
  • República Dominicana: Revolution Force (Popular, Caamañist and Communist)
  • Venezuela: Fith Republic Movement (Movimiento Quinta República).
  • Here, again, the compendium of 'radical' terror groups and it is interesting that taking up 'solidarity between peoples' means supporting such a genocidal killer as Saddam Hussein. As with the Libyan main movement, this organization features many of the same groups, with the same goal of 'solidarity'. The one interesting thing to be noted is that 'Plan Colombia' is a wide-ranging COIN initiative that goes a bit further than just Colombia, but is centered there due to cocaine and heroin production. As COIN, of necessity, also targets organized crime and connections with other groups, slowly pulling apart one group that is connected to many others is a threat to *all of them*.

    The PLO

    The Heritage Foundation published a backgrounder on 02 AUG 1983 by Victoria Scully on The PLO's Growing Latin American Base, which looked at the establishment of the PLO sympathizer organizations in the region. Some choice excerpts from it (all spelling and punctuation errors in the original):

    Yet another external force is escalating its interference in this Hemisphere--the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO works closely with Nicaragua's radical Sandinista regime and is helping those who are trying to overthrow El Salvador's democratically elected government. At camps in Cuba and the Middle East, the PLO trains cadres of terrorists, which head back to Latin America to undermine established regimes. While the PLO is not the cause of Latin America's most basic problems, it is exploiting them.

    In turn, the PLO increasingly uses its growing Latin American base to reinforce its international terrorist campaign against the United States and Israel FORGING PLO-CUBAN-SOVIET LINKS Since its establishment by the Arab League in 1964, the PLO has grown from an irredentist militia into what has been described as IIa multinational business corporation, with an amalgam of terrorism and diplomacy as its end product.'I1 objective was the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a l'secular democratic state In broader terms, the PLO has been Its original conducting a two-pronged offensive against what it calls "American Christopher Dobson and Ronald Payne Leaders and Tactics (New York: Facts The Terrorists: Their Weapons on File, 1982 p. 90 2 imperialism, Western colonialism, and world Zionism.1' One prong is a political campaign against Israel and its allies-the U.S in particular--waged in every international forum since the late 1960s. The second prong is a transnational terrorist network to attack the allies and supporters of Israel and the United States international, regional, and civil conflicts the anti-Jewish and anti-American rubric of its own hostilities. In this, the PLO has found in Latin America particularly fertile ground. Latin American support was decisive when the United Nations sponsored establishment of Israel in 1947 and from 1947 to 1972, Latin American nations provided more than half of the United Nations votes in support of Israel In both cases, the PLO's objective has been to impose upon The PLO's penetration of Latin American nationalist and democratic movements has been gradual It made its international debut, in fact, inrCuba at the 1966 First Conference of the Organization of Solidarity of the Peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America (OSPAAL). As a result of contacts established there, PLO-Cuban cooperation began on a limited and individual basis In 1968, for instance, Cuban intelligence and military persorinel assisted the PLO in North Africa and Iraq In 1969 PLO and Cuban officers were jointly trained in the Soviet Union.

    The list of PLO contacts from that report is staggering, including:

    • Sandinistas being trained by the PLO and Cuba in Lebanon, Sandinistas receiving direct funding from Libya, Algeria supplying Soviet arms to the Sandinistas;
    • PLO support for the Farabundo Marti including Shafik Handal of the Salvadoran Communist Party meeting regularly with Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine;
    • Anti-Jewish activities sponsored via the PLO through offices in the Brasilian Arab League Office, Vangarde Popular Revolutionera terrorist organization sponsored by the Brazilian Communist Party and PLO with training in Lebanon, VPR working with Fatah and the PFLP, forming Junta de Coordinacion Revolucionaria between VPR and PFLP to sponsor terror organizations in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and Uruguay;
    • JCR included Chile's Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria, Argentina's Peoples Revolutionary Army, Bolivia's National Liberation Army, Uruguay's Tupamaros - all having links to PLO and PFLP with training in Cuba and Lebanon;
    • PLO links with the Peronist-Marxist Movimiento Peronista Montonero in Argentina;
    • PLO representative Issam Besseiso in Peru established contacts with the Student Federation, UNIDAD the Peruvian Communist Party, Expreso and El Comercio;
    • PLO worked to establish ties with FARC, PLO/PFLP established ties with M-19;
    • opening PLO offices in Panama with the blessing of Panamanian President Aristedes Royo;
    • working to destabilize Costa Rica via at least 20 terrorist cells supported by PLO and Libya;
    • Mexican offices established PLO contacts with Social Workers Party, Unified Party of Mexico, Revolutionary Workers Party;

    The presence of PLO contacts across Latin America with Cuban, Libyan and Soviet sponsorship cannot be underestimated in the ability of these organizations to contact each other. Even as regimes rose and fell, many of the background connections would continue on, although some few were put to rest in places like El Salvador, others in Colombia, Brazil and Chile would remain over the decades.

    The IRA

    FARC was far more than a passive connection organization, however, and would establish its own ties with organizations like the IRA. At the Center for Defense Information a 05 JUN 2002 paper on FARC-IRA connectivity brings this into the light, examining the types and variety of contacts this cooperation would establish:

    As this indicates, reports that foreign terrorists have been operating within Colombia are neither entirely new nor particularly surprising. Colombian groups such as FARC have long been known to contract military experts and terrorists from overseas, with European terrorist organizations reported to have often brokered such deals. The Red Army Faction is believed to have been especially active in such activities, using mostly Middle Eastern contracted trainers. Former British, Israeli, and U.S. military personnel are also reputed to have been involved in such training in the past. According to Gen. Fernando Tapias, chairman of the Columbian Joint Chiefs of Staff, nationals from Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, Venezuela, Israel and Germany have been identified by FARC informants and deserters as carrying out recent training for the Columbian terrorist group.

    Such statements tally with that made in March by the acting commander in chief of U.S. Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Gary D. Speer, who stated that links existed between Latin America and transnational terrorist organizations including the IRA, Hezbullah, Hamas, Islamyya al Gama’at (IG), and the Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA). Speer also said that Southern Command had long been monitoring terrorist activities in the region, including such incidents as the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and the Jewish-Argentine Cultural Center in Argentina in 1994 (attributed to Hezbullah), the capture of the Japanese ambassador’s residence in Peru by the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movements (MRTA) in 1996, and the pattern of narco-terrorism in Colombia generally. However, The IRA training of FARC members represents an alarming development, not least as the Irish group is widely held to be among the most proficient practitioners of terrorism in the world. Moreover, if claims that such training has occurred are believed, it may cost the IRA heavily in terms of the support it has traditionally enjoyed in the United States, and lead to the organization being viewed as having a global reach.

    Allegations of a FARC-IRA connection arose after the arrest of three Irishmen in Bogotá in August 11, 2001. The men, James Monaghan, Martin McCauley, and Neil Connolly, were traveling using false passports, and found to have traces of explosive on their belongings. All three were subsequently charged with training FARC members in the use of explosives. Security sources in both the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic say the men are IRA members. Monaghan is believed to have designed the IRA homemade mortar. Originally developed with Libyan help in the early 1970s, the primitive Mark I prototype has evolved into the much more sophisticated Mark 18 "barracks buster," named for its effectiveness in targeting security force bases in Northern Ireland. Monaghan’s skill in making this weapon has earned him the nickname "Mortar Monaghan." Similarly, MaCauley and Connolly are reported to be among the IRA’s best explosive experts.

    Connolly is believed to have initiated contact with FARC through the Spanish terrorist group ETA five years ago, and known to be the official representative in Cuba of the Sinn Fein, IRA’s political wing. The appointment was initially denied but later admitted by the party. Sinn Fein’s President Gerry Adams claimed that Connolly was appointed without his knowledge or that of the international department of Sinn Fein, while confirming that "one of our [Sinn Fein’s] senior members asked Niall Connolly to represent the party in Cuba." When asked by Columbian authorities, Monaghan, MaCauley, and Connelly had initially insisted that they were in FARC’s semi-autonomous safe-haven as eco-tourists, but later claimed to be in Columbia to view the peace process and exchange experiences on this and the one in Northern Ireland.

    Adams denied that any training had taken place and refused to attend an April hearing into any FARC-IRA connection, saying he did not want to prejudice the trial of the three captive Irishmen. U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said at the hearing that there had been a "quantum leap in the FARC’s terrorist proficiency on the ground and in urban warfare, which the Columbian authorities believe is attributable to IRA training." This improvement in FARC’s capabilities is apparent from the huge expansion in attacks in the past 18 months that has left 400 Columbian Army and police personnel dead. The attacks saw a shift to economic and urban targets as well as the increased use of car bombs — a development that has caused the death of 10 percent of the country’s bomb disposal experts since January. Columbian forces have also been increasingly targeted by ‘secondary devices’ — explosive devices used to ambush anyone responding to other, more apparent bomb threats. Longer range mobile mortars such as those pioneered by Monaghan have also recently become a new weapon in the FARC arsenal. Such strategy, tactics, and equipment bear remarkable similarities to those used by the IRA, greatly heightening the suspicion that Monaghan, McCauley, and Connolly were in Columbia for reasons other than eco-tourism or an exchange of experience on peace negotiations. Moreover, indications that the IRA retains international links with other terrorist groups do not stop in Columbia.

    FARC, ETA, IRA, Cuba - that is not an axis the left in the US likes to look at, but it is one that gets hundreds killed in Latin America and further as IRA training spreads outwards via the cross-training that happens with other groups like the PLO and Red Factions. The report goes on to link the IRA and PLO via bomb type and training necessary to utilize such weapons effectively:

    Moreover, Sinn Fein has weathered the risk of damaging it levels of support in the United States before, such as when Adams visited Cuba last December. British intelligence claim that the IRA may have earned as much as $2 million for training FARC, perhaps a conservative estimate as the Columbian terrorist group’s annual income from illicit drugs sales is estimated at $1 billion. Such financial incentive may have convinced the IRA that training FARC was worth the risk, especially if reports from Russia’s intelligence services that the Irish group has recently purchased a shipment of the new AN-94 assault rifle prove true. Such armaments do not come cheap, especially if undertaken while decommissioning selected stockpiles of existing weapons. Moreover, the FARC-held region of Columbia offers the IRA an unsurpassed training area to perfect its own weapons and tactics. This is more vital than ever now that the political expediencies of the Northern Ireland peace process effectively put the IRA's historical training areas in the Irish Republic out of bounds. The risk of the Irish authorities discovering that the IRA are engaged in terrorist training while ostensibly observing a ceasefire outweigh the benefits of the organization's engaging in such activities. Using Columbia as a testing ground carries far less risk. It is also possible that the IRA may simply have become overconfident that the support they enjoyed in America was something they could depend on whatever the case may be. Sept. 11 may have changed that forever.

    Even as the IRA found itself having to cope with peace accords, it had assumed a general posture of being ready to start up again. Those last few years before 9/11 allowed the organization to utilize its contact web and cross-train with other organizations even as some of its main funding sources would start to dry up in the US after 9/11. The IRA may fade, but its skills and tactics will live on in other organizations, of which FARC is just one.

    Cuba

    As seen in the PLO section, they could not have made all of the contacts they did make without the help of Cuba. Revolutionary Cuba would be a center of instability for Latin America as Fidel Castro would seek to export revolution and terrorism across the region and into places like the Angolan civil war for the USSR. This has been long standing policy of Cuba since early on as seen in the article Monster by Humberto Fontova in the 15 JUL 2005 FrontPageMag:

    Castro had only been in power two months when he started sending armed guerrillas to attempt the overthrow of neighboring nations. The Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela were the early targets. In fact Castro's very first trip abroad as head of state was to Caracas where on January 25th, 1959 he implored then Venezuelan President Romulo Betancourt to join his "master plan against the gringos!" Basically this involved massive loans, financial aid and shipments of free oil to Castro from Venezuela. Betancourt balked and no sooner had Castro returned home empty handed than he was planning subversion in Venezuela, including assassination attempts against Betancourt.

    It took Hugo Chavez to finally enlist with Castro's plan. In 2004 Cuba got 1.3 billion in essentially free oil from Venezuela. By mid 2005, 160,000 barrels of oil were flowing from Venezuela to Cuba daily. This is much more oil than Cuba's refineries can process, because most of this oil is resold to Central American nations by Cuba, who pockets the handsome profit. Here's the second half of the "master plan against the gringo's." that Castro had originally proposed to Romulo Betancourt.

    Castro's subversion, not just of his neighbors, but throughout Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, reached a point where a U.S. defense Department estimates that 42,000 foreign guerrillas and terrorists have received their training in Cuba. Not that Castro's own home-grown terrorists have been exactly idle.

    [..]

    In 1966 Havana hosted the Tri-Continental Conference, a worldwide convention for guerrillas and terrorists; the first of its kind, where Castro vowed to aid any group anywhere who were fighting "colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism."

    Among other initiatives at the Conference, Cuba formed OSPAAAL (Organization of Solidarity with the People from Africa, Asia and Latin America.) and the DLN (National Liberation Directorate.) This later was under the direction of KGB Col. Vadim Kotchergine and set up massive terrorist training camps in western Cuba. These were soon filled with guerrillas and terrorists from Al Fatah, to the Sandinistas, to El Salvador's FMLF, to the Tupamaros to the Weather Underground to the IRA and Spain's ETA. In 1968 Castro sent military instructors into Palestinian bases in Jordan to train Palestinian Fedayeen. In November 1974 Castro personally decorated his brother-in-arms, Yasir Arafat, with Cuba's highest honor, the Bay of Pigs Medal. The Egyptian newspaper Ahar Sa'ah reported in September 13, 1978 that 500 Palestinian fighters were training in Cuba.

    Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the infamous "Carlos The Jackal" known as the world's most notorious terrorist throughout the 1970's received his training in Cuba and lived in Cuba for years. Everyone from America's Black Liberation Army to Puerto Rico's Macheteros, to South Yemen's NLF, to Argentina's Monteneros, to Colombia's ELN , to Namibia's SWAPO, to the Black Panthers, To Western Sahara's Polisaro to the IRA have received training and funding from Castro. "Thanks to Castro" boasted Colombia's FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) commander Tiro-Fijo in a 2001 interview, "we are now a powerful army, not a hit and run band."

    Scholar Walter Laquer sums it up in his work, The Age of Terrorism. "Multinational terrorism reached a first climax in the early 1970s. It involved close co-operation between small terrorist groups in many countries with the Libyans, Algerians, Syrians, North Koreans and Cubans acting as the paymasters and suppliers of weapons and equipment."

    The U.S. State department still lists Cuba prominently among its, "State Sponsors of Terrorism."

    As of mid 2005 Cuba provides haven for 77 fugitives from U.S. law including several on the FBI's most wanted listed. Among these are cop-killers Michael Finney, Charlie Hill and Joanne Chesimard along with Victor Gerena, responsible for a $7 million heist of a Wells Fargo truck in Connecticut in 1983 as a member of the Puerto Rican terrorist group Los Macheteros. All requests for their extradition had been repeatedly ignored or rebuffed.

    By 1976 Castro's intervention abroad became more blatant when he sent tens of thousands of troops to Africa. Most, 50,000, went to fight Jonas Savimbi's UNITA forces in Angola. Thousands more went to prop up the Marxist Mengistu regime in Ethiopia. And others were scattered throughout the continent from Guinea Bissau to Bourkina Fasso to Sierra Leone to Mozambique to Zimbabwe. All told, by 1983, Cuban troops were stationed in 20 sub-Saharan African nations. In 1988 Dr. Aubin Heyndrickx, the senior United Nations consultant on chemical warfare, documented that : "There is no doubt anymore that the Cubans are using nerve gases (Sarin) against the troops of Mr. Jonas Savimbi."

    [..]

    "Together Iran and Cuba can bring America to her knees!" raved Castro to a thunderous ovation at Tehran University in August 2001.

    "Iran is strengthening her economic and political relations with Cuba, and there exist other areas for cooperation." Declared Iranian Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel in a meeting with the visiting Cuban Vice President, Jose Ramon Fernandez, on January 16, 2005.

    For those who don't remember the Cold War or want to forget it, there were points when it appeared that the Cuba sponsorship of terrorism on a global basis seemed to be wagging the Soviet dog: Fidel Castro got involved in nearly any conflict so long as it met his less than stringent guidelines and the USSR could do little to stop him. Even today, as seen by the testimony of Nancy Menges, Luis Fleischman and Nicole Ferrand submitted to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on 05 MAR 2008, Raul Castro has evidenced little in the way of external change even as his brother Fidel is ailing. That lifeline provided by Hugo Chavez is about the only thing keeping Cuba's regime afloat these days. That and any income they garner through terrorist training.

    FARC was one of many groups to Castro, as it was to the IRA, PLO and Libya: as long as it was 'anti-imperialist' or 'marxist' it got a free pass in the world of leftist terrorism and continues to get support from the left end of the spectrum even after it has turned into little more than a mafia organization with slogans of glamour.

    And it is that narcotics part that fuels FARC, according to the House International Relations Committee (Source: WND 07 MAY 2002 article by Toby Westerman), to the tune of $2 million.

    A day.

    In 2002.

    And that is most likely on the conservative/low-side, as $1 billion annually comes out to a bit more than that, about $2.7 million/day.

    Tri-Border Area of South America

    The TBA is one of the most problematical of areas in South America as it is generally regarded as lawless and ungovernable between Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. The TBA has seen activity all through the 1970's and early 1980's, but by the late 1980's the regime of Carlos Menem in Argentina would change the amount of activity and type of it. This would be due to the interest by Syria in supporting the Menem regime to get long range missile technology and a nuclear power plant from Argentina (Source: Limits to Governability, Corruption and Transnational Terrorism by Carlos Escude and Beatriz Gurevich in ESTUDIOS INTERDISCIPLINARIOS DE AMERICA, LATINA Y EL CARIBE, VOLUMEN 14 - No.2, JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2003) , and their agent would be a man well used to dealing with such things: Monzer al-Kassar. Known as a dealer in illegal arms, Monzer al-Kassar's family has been involved of the Bekaa Valley heroin trade and with the Assad family which has nominal control over the Bekaa valley drug trad via Rifat Assad. That as seen by Anthony LoBaido in a WND piece in 30 JUL 2000 traveling through the Baalbeck valley, Monzer al-Kassar serves as an interface between the drug syndicates run by Syria and multiple operations, including ones linked to the US DEA. The Bekaa is central to the Hezbollah training operations not only for itself but for diverse terrorist organizations like the Japanese Red Army, Aum Shinrikyo, PKK and Ganesh. This points to not only tolerance but open acceptance of non-Islamic terrorist organizations on a global scale. Additionally al-Kassar is a distant cousin to Carlos Menem, so family and power ties, along with contacts made during the Iran/Contra arms deals served to give al-Kassar a ready entree into S. America (Source: translated open letter to Dr. Kirchner by Christian Sanz and Fernando Paolella). An Insight on the News article by Ydidya Atlas on 30 AUG 1993 documents that al-Kassar was already well established with multiple terrorist organizations:

    The Schumet report notes that three-quarters of the 40,000 Syrian military, intelligence and security personnel in Lebanon are stationed in the Bekaa Valley. Their "peacekeeping" duties appear to include extortion of protection payments from drug growers and processors, collecting bribes at Syrian army roadblocks and ports, and providing transportation of drugs on army trucks, helicopters and even naval vessels to dealers who pay off top Syrian officials.

    Most U.S. officials still deny knowledge of any involvement by Syria in the drug trade and appear hesitant to act on solid evidence of such involvement. The matter of Monser al-Kassar is a case in point. The subcommittee report relates that the Kassar family has been affiliated with the Assad regime since the Syrian dictator took power in 1970. Moreover, the Kassars "control one of the world's largest arms and narcotics networks.... [They) provide governments with access to arms and equipment through irregular channels, [which] allows them to do business with high-level government officials who wish to deal off-the-record' with terrorists or other politically-sensitive groups."

    Monser al-Kassar seems to be untouchable, even though he is "one of the most-watched individuals by the DEA and CIA" and was linked in a 1987 State Department report to the Palestine Liberation Army, terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal, George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Ahmed Jibril's PFLP-General Command, Nayef Hawatmeh's Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Palestinian Liberation Front's Abu Abbas (who organized the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro), to name just a few.

    Kassar, listed among the DEA's most-wanted criminals, was arrested at the Madrid airport on June 4, 1992, and charged with involvement in international terrorism, illegal possession of weapons and falsification of documents.

    In the mid-1980s, Kassar was involved in shipping arms to the Nicaraguan Contras and to Iran on behalf of independent elements in the National Security Council, then headed by Adm. John Poindexter. During the congressional Iran-Contra hearings, Poindexter explained his dealings with Kassar by saying, "When you're buying arms on the world market ... you often have to deal with people you might not want to go to dinner with."

    [..]

    Western intelligence sources estimate that Syria's combined direct and indirect income from drug dealing is as much as $1 billion, or 10 percent of Syria's annual gross domestic product. This figure includes only government income, and doesn't include what could be billions raked in privately by Syria's ruling elite.

    [..]

    So, taking advantage of American policy illusions similar to those during the Brezhnev era, Syria continues to sponsor and control international terrorist groups operating from Syria and Syrian-controlled Lebanon. These include a variety of Palestinian organizations, from Abu Musa's Fatah Revolutionary Movement to Jibril's PFLP-GC; Lebanese factions; the Kurdish separatist group PKK, or Kurdish Workers Party; the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia; the separatist Basque Land and Liberty, or ETA; and others.

    (ETA terrorist experts were dispatched by Syria from the Talbaya and al-Marj camps in the Bekaa Valley to South America to teach terrorist tactics as part of the agreements Syria made with the drug cartel. This came after a meeting in Larnaca, Cyprus, in 1988 between senior Syrian military and intelligence figures and Pablo Escobar of the Medellin drug cartel. Western intelligence agents filmed Escobar meeting with an employee of Assad's nephew on a hotel veranda.)

    Monzer al-Kassar, then, in Argentina was establishing far more than just commercial contacts with the Menem regime: he was also making connections between the Syrian narcotics syndicates and the Medellin (and later Cali) drug cartels to start exchanging heroin for cocaine for market diversification in Europe. In a MAY 2002 Library of Congress report A Global Overview of Narcotics Funded Terrorist and Other Extremist Groups examined the role of Monzer al-Kassar in the Israeli Embassy and AMIA Jewish Cultural Center bombings in Argentina:

    In the first half of the 1990s, Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the Triborder Region carried out two major terrorist operations against the Jewish community in Buenos Aires. Islamic terrorists operating out of the Triborder Region leveled the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires with a powerful bomb on March 17, 1992, killing 29 people and wounding 252. The bombing was allegedly carried out by Hizballah and coordinated by terrorist mastermind Imad Mughanniyah (hereafter, Mugniyah) (alias ‘Hajji’), the official in charge of Hizballah foreign operations. Using false Brazilian documents (in the name of Muce Sagy), a Syrian arms trafficker named Monzer Al Kassar was in Foz do Iguaçu to deliver explosives to the group headed by Lebanese Imad Mugniyah.41 (In 1985 Monzer Al Kassar had pretended to be a Rio de Janeiro resident selling arms to Iranian militias on the island of Cyprus.)

    On July 18, 1994, a car-bomb exploded at a Jewish cultural center, the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA), in Buenos Aires, demolishing the seven-story building and killing 84 and wounding 300 people. Mugniyah’s Islamic Jihad, one of the armed branches of the pro-Iranian Lebanese Hizballah party, is also accused of having perpetrated the attack against the AMIA. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility shortly after the attack. The Buenos Aires police gathered clues indicating that the explosives or detonators used in the 1994 AMIA bombing were taken from Foz do Iguaçu. Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency held a Hizballah cell responsible for both attacks, saying they were orchestrated by Mugniyah, in cooperation with the Iranian intelligence service (see also Venezuela). The Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires formally accused Mugniyah of providing the explosives used in the AMIA bombing. According to alleged U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources cited by

    Insight on the News magazine, Mugniyah was involved in the planning of the AMIA attack and may have parachuted into Argentina at the last minute to activate sleeper networks and handle logistics for the operation, subsequently escaping with the help of an Iranian diplomatic passport.

    Looking at a report by Alessia De Caro from Online Gnosis of JAN 2006 some of the ties between Syria, Hezbollah, Argentina and the attacks can be seen and the long term fallout for S. America examined:

    In both the attacks of Buenos Aires, the targets of Hizbollah were Israel and the Jewish community in Argentina ( circa 300.000 people), the second, in order of importance on the American continent, after that of the United States. In the case of the attack on AMIA, the investigations officially led also to Iran, allied to the Party of God, which, according to analyses by specialists in the field, had wanted to take revenge against Argentina for their unconditional adherence to North American politics.

    Other unofficial clues lead, instead, to Syria, another of Hizbollah's allies, country of origin of the then president of Argentina, Menem and of the Yoma, relatives of his wife, all very close to the family of the Syrian President, and of the known trafficker, Monzer al-Kassar. If this is the right track, besides the first Hizbollah motive of revenge, we have to consider another line of reasoning, i.e. a possible vendetta against President Menem for his failed commitment to deliver to Syria and other Middle East countries, nuclear and missile technology, in exchange for 'under the counter' funds for the electoral campaign.

    In addition, such funds seem to come not only from the Syrian government, but also from Egypt and from the Libya of Quaddhafi. The only certain information is that the authors of the Buenos Aires attacks passed through the Triple Frontier, where a numerous Islamic community of Lebanese immigrants, connected with Hizbollah, has been residing for very many years.

    The Triple frontier, zone of the borders of three countries, (Paraguay Brazil and Argentina) is the kingdom of illegality. The destination of tourists making for the Falls of the Iguazú River, is situated in a zone surrounded by forests and hosts illicit traffic of every possible denomination. The three main towns, Foz do Iguazú for Brazil, Ciudad del Este for Paraguay and Puerto Iguazú for Argentina are linked by a system of bridges. In Ciudad del Est, anything can be smuggled, from electric appliances to stolen cars, from stereos to computers.

    [..]

    Although the Party of God is strenuously employed in Lebanon in the organization of agricultural formation courses, in an attempt to face the re-conversion of the hashish and poppy plantations, prohibited by the Lebanese State, in 1992, Hizbollah has never concerned itself with the illegal ways in which its members have procured the funds to sustain the organization. On the contrary, the drug trafficking profits, which arrive from Latin America, have always been used to solve the social problems of the Lebanese people, in order to win consensus in the country.

    Affiliates and cells of Hizbollah are also active in Colombia and Venezuela; the weak governments of these areas and the loose and often uncontrolled borders, have favoured such a phenomenon.

    Furthermore, the diffused narcoterrorism in that region is due to the liaison between Hizbollah and the local opposition terrorist groups such as, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

    In the wake of the Hizbollah-Columbian example, links with the 'Sendero Luminoso', in Peru, have also been created.

    The anti-American ideology, common to these organizations and, above all, the interest in smuggling and other illegal activities to accumulate funds have, substantially, united these different groups.

    The level of cooperation between Hizbollah and these groups is still not clear even though it is important to note that in January of 2004, on the occasion of an exchange of prisoners between the Israeli authorities and Hizbollah, Ali Biro was freed: he was a Hizbollah militant and one of the most renowned Middle East drug traffickers connected with FARC.

    With regard to the implications of Hizbollah in drug trafficking, one of the most recent arrests in this field, was made by the Paraguayan police in May, 2003. The man arrested was Hassan Dayub, while he was trying to send to Syria, an electric pianola, filled with cocaine. Dayub is a relative of the already mentioned Assad Barakat.

    [..]

    In Latin America, Hizbollah could supply ever increasing logistic and financial support, not only to Al Qaeda, but also to local groups and extend the terrorist targets from the national interests to western and American interests within and outside of South America.

    Furthermore, the question of financing could become increasingly difficult to extricate: now that Hizbollah is a majority party in Lebanon, many people – and not only the Arabs – would see nothing wrong in financing a party that has done and does so much good "for the needy people of Lebanon". It will always be more difficult to discern which financing is legal and which is not.

    This hypothesis is not advanced haphazardly. With the support of Iran, Hizbollah could start, through local groups, if it hasn't already, to set up in Latin America, the same strategy used in Lebanon to gain popular consensus, by providing for the citizens those things that a weak government has not been able to provide. There are numerous people in Latin America who describe Hizbollah as a "provider of welfare to the needy citizens and defender of the Lebanese rights against Israeli aggression".

    Realizing the danger and in an attempt to stem the swelling consensus for the Party of God, the Spanish Government, in the wake of what had been done in France, closed down, at the end of June this year, the Hizbollah television channel al-Manar, which was transmitted to Latin America. The satellite TV company, Hispasat, through which Al Manar was transmitted is, in fact, controlled by the Spanish Government.

    The previous government in Colombia, in an attempt to open a series of negotiations with FARC, had ceded to them the formal control of a strip of territory, permitting, in addition, foreign governments to furnish economic assistance to the area in question. Iran, the principle financier of Hizbollah was included in the list of foreign countries permitted to operate in the FARC controlled area and, therefore, it naturally supported the Hizbollah organization.

    In the Summer of 2001, the Colombian magistracy determined a scenario of international terrorist link-ups, among which was not only a stable cooperation between FARC, ETA, IRA and a foreign legion of more than 200 terrorists of 18 different nationalities, but also Hizbollah.

    At a summit meeting at Cartagena de Indias in Columbia, in October 2003, the news of a regular alliance between FARC and Al Qaeda was announced by Gordon Thomas, Irish expert of terrorism and the secret services.

    Thomas spoke again on the theme, in the Columbian weekly, El Espectador, referring to the possible cooperation between Islamic extremist groups and local groups, and after the Madrid massacre of the 11th March, 2004, he accused Al Qaeda. According to Thomas, the ETA did not have the capacity to realize attacks of this nature, unless they had been helped, organized and financed by the Bin Laden organization.

    Moreover, arms supplies continue to arrive in the Latin American continent. The US are very worried by the news of the signing, in March of this year in Caracas, of about 20 cooperation treaties between Iran and the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez regime, together with an agreement, ratified with Russia at the beginning of April, regarding the supply of 100 thousand Kalashnikov AK-47.

    In addition, there is ever increasing talk about dormant cells of Islamic terrorist groups in other Latin American countries like, for example, the Venezuelan Island, Margarita, at Trinidad and Tobago.

    Over the last months, in Haiti, members of an Islamic group, which appears to have ties with Al Qaeda, have provided instruction in the use of arms and explosives to a pro-Aristide gang, at the same time trying to convert the gang members to Islam.

    In the Dominican Republic, two radical groups seeking technical and financial support, seem to have established contacts with Islamic radicals. Al Qaeda appears to have had ties in the country of Nicaragua for some time, and it is believed that it is now pushing groups to undertake terrorist attacks against the government.

    According to what the German newspaper, "Der Spiegel" published in June of this year, in the south of Mexico, a veritable conversion to Islam activity is underway, conducted by many Moslems of "doubtful origins", who have carried out an activity of proselytism and have already recruited hundreds of Maya natives.

    This brings up the importance of not only the FARC controlled area of Colombia, but the ability of multiple terrorist organizations to operate out of the TBA. The connections to FARC, being the dominant S. American terrorist organization, becomes an operational necessity not only so as not to cross them, but to actually get in on the narcotics and other illegal trades going on in the region (such as the emerald gangs). Not only was the PLO active in the early to mid 1980's, but so was the Syrian agent al-Kassar in his contacts with Menem and that would extend into the early 1990's as he introduced more active cells of Hezbollah into the region. These connections were firmed up in the Limits of Governability article above, to establish an official Menem cover-up with regards to al-Kassar and, in particular, his agents at the International Airport and his contacts in the Argentinean military and armaments companies. In an article on Politics, Arms and the drugs trade at SudNord News, the Menem-Pinochet connection would be examined and the necessity to remove those traces so as not to implicate the Menem regime in the expansion of Hezbollah in the region. This would also implicate Citibank of New York and Republica Bank in money laundering operations surrounding the events of 1992 and 1994. A later report at the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, Vol. 2 No. 3 would also indicate the direct linkages between al-Kassar and the bombings, as being reported on in 2000.

    FARC operating in this environment garners international connections to Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the extended narcotics and money laundering networks of the Syrians to support far-flung operations. Additionally the experience available from the al-Kassar family gives FARC the ability to cultivate and refine opium, thus creating an indigenous supply system for their own narcotics network.

    Hezbollah

    The Iranian support for the export of Hezbollah operations and training areas has multiple venues, most are relatively indirect but there is one direct venue that Iran utilizes on the commercial side: meat packing. Iran tends to ship out entire meat packing organizations wherever it is standing up Hezbollah operations and that has given pause to some governments when such a thing is proposed. In this case it is Colombia that started to realize something was going awry, as seen in this RFE/RL 1999 report at the Globalsecurity document archive:

    IRANIANS OUT OF COLOMBIA. The Iranian embassy in Bogota announced on 22 December that Tehran has suspended construction of a meat-packing plant and slaughterhouse in Colombia's Demilitarized Zone, according to Spain's official EFE press agency. The embassy explained what is behind this decision: "incorrect interpretations of some authorities of the Government of Colombia" which "have created conditions in which there could not be any guarantees for the security of the investment." The Iranian Embassy would not be more specific about these "incorrect interpretations."

    Colombian Defense Minister Luis Fernando Ramirez had expressed concern at the end of November that Iranian military advisers were part of the group installing the slaughterhouse, and these Iranians were somehow connected with the leftist and anti-U.S. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which controls the DMZ. The Iranians' refusal to permit inspection of their personal effects had raised suspicions among Colombian authorities, AFP reported on 27 November. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi had dismissed Ramirez's comments, IRNA reported on 30 November.

    [..]

    Visbal also wondered why there was such a rush to conclude an agreement, when other negotiations had lasted for two years. According to Ambassador Hussein Sheikh Zein-ed-Din, that area was chosen because Iran wants to contribute to the Colombian peace process.

    Iranian interest in that immediate region may be linked with the narcotics trade and the FARC. The FARC has extensive ties to narcotics traffickers, "principally through the provision of armed protection for coca and poppy cultivation and narcotics production facilities, as well as through attacks on government narcotics eradication efforts," according to the U.S. State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism." There also may a connection between the FARC and Hizballah groups that allegedly operate in the region between Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay.

    The timing of the Iranian announcement that it is withdrawing from the Colombian meat-packing project is suspicious. On 22 December, the same day that Iran said it was pulling out of the project, security officials in Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina were visiting people they believe are linked with Hizballah and Hamas. The authorities suspected that terrorist acts were planned in Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; Foz de Yguazu, Brazil; and Puerto Yguazu, Argentina; according to Asuncion's ABC Color. Among the people the authorities visited was a suspected member of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. (Bill Samii)

    That is the TBA for those locations, so having Iranians visiting folks there when pulling out of a commercial project linked to FARC is not what one would call 'auspicious'. It was in this same time period that Colombia was closing in on Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel. Steven Monblatt writing for the OAS ezine in Vol. IV, No.2 - FEB/MAR 2004 on Terrorism and Drugs in the Americas, examines the fall of the Medellin Drug Cartel and the rise of FARC to encompass the entire drug operation from farming to distribution. From that he looks at the Hezbollah based drug operations as they have been seen in S. America:

    Hezbollah’s drug connections are also not widely discussed, and probably not well known. Officials in several countries have documented complicated trade patterns involving illicit shipments of coca paste through the Tri-border region to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, the center of Hezbollah’s influence. For example, in May 2003 Paraguayan police arrested Hassan Dayoub while he was preparing to ship an electric piano containing more than five pounds of cocaine to Syria.

    A brief aside: Dayoub is a relative of Assad Barakat, a well known Hezbollah fund-raiser, currently in jail in Paraguay for tax evasion. It is important to note that Paraguay does not yet have a law outlawing terrorist fund-raising. When Paraguayan police raided Barakat’s electronics store in Ciudad del Este, they seized a pile of documents, including a letter from Hezbollah acknowledging receipt of $3,535,149 from him in 2000. In later raids, the police found a letter to Barakat from Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, thanking him for contributions to a project helping the children of Hezbollah men killed fighting Israel. Police claimed they found dozens of receipts for donations to what “appeared” to be Hezbollah’s military wing. Carlos Altenburger, head of the Paraguayan police’s anti-terrorist unit, told reporters: “We believe he has sent some $50 million to Hezbollah since 1995.” Other officials have said Barakat traveled at least once a year to Lebanon, where he met Nasrallah and other senior Hezbollah officials, and hosted Hezbollah visitors in the tri-border area.

    Finally, in January of this year, Israeli authorities negotiated a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah. One of the freed Hezbollah militants was Ali Biro, one of biggest drug dealers in the mid-east, who is alleged to maintain ties with the FARC. Which completes the drug/terrorism circle. The former Government of Colombia, in its attempt to bring the FARC to negotiations, ceded to the FARC formal control of a wide swath of territory, and allowed foreign governments to provide economic assistance to the region. Iran – Hezbollah’s principal financial supporter – was included in the mix of foreign entities operating in FARC-controlled areas and supporting the FARC movement. Today, Colombia exports not only cocaine but heroin from opium poppies, and poppies are not indigenous to South America, though they are found widely throughout the Middle East.

    This starts to close up the operational parts of FARC and Hezbollah, particularly on the shipping and distribution side of things via the release of Ali Biro. Hezbollah's operation, itself, while nowhere near the size of FARC, is significant in the amount of funding that is *extra* that can be sent back to Lebanon, beyond the narcotics themselves. On the other side of the equation the Free Lebanon site takes a look at the incoming drug traffic from South America circa the mid-1980's when the Cartels were the main source of narcotics and FARC worked:

    With its multiple international ramifications from Lebanon to Switzerland passing through Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Italy, and the United States, the Lebanese connection encompasses a large number of drug networks throughout the world, such as the Colombian cocaine mafia. The South-Americans, particularly Colombia, Bolivia, and Brazil, are also implicated in the Lebanese drug traffic. One of the simplest methods is the use of embassies located in Damascus. The Lebanese drug is dispatched to Damascus, delivered to highly qualified people in the concerned country's embassy and dispatched to that country by diplomatic mail.

    Some Lebanese implicated in the Lebanese connection the brothers Jean and Barghev Magharian, were arrested in Switzerland July 7, 1987. The two Lebanese were staying at Hotel Nova in Zurich and were known as moneychangers. The working permit of both had expired in 1985. Moreover, on November 27, 1986, three suitcases containing some 3 million dollars were discovered at the Los Angeles airport. The American investigators established that this money came from the Colombian drug traffic and was destined for the Magharian brothers. The DEA and the FBI had discovered that considerable sums of money had been transferred several times from the United States to Zurich for the two brothers. The sums dispatched amounted to one billion dollars. Part of this money formed the object of Bank transactions, while several hundreds of millions of Swiss francs were dispatched clandestinely from Turkey via Bulgaria. From Sofia, these funds reached Switzerland by airplane. It was likewise established that 30 million dollars from the sale of Colombian cocaine wound up in the hands of the Magharian brothers via California. The accrued narco-dollars were then placed into numerous bank accounts, especially in Geneva and in Tessin. The investigation brought out as well that enormous sums of money originating in Bulgaria or arriving directly from Lebanon were destined for societies located in Switzerland. On August 30, 1987, the Italian navy seized, near the coast of Bari, an old armed cargo ship carrying a Lebanese flag, the "Boustany One". On board, they discovered an anti-tank rocket launcher, a Soviet RPG, an American missile, 2kgs of heroin and 15kgs of hashish. The Italian police arrested 32 people. Among them: the directors of an import-export company, an intermediary of Canadian origin and two Italian mafiosi.

    The weapons were destined for a terrorist network operating in Europe that financed its activities thanks to the drug traffic. The boat, whose proprietor was a Greek ship-owner, could fly a Lebanese flag under the name of "Boustany One", but also an Honduras flag under the name of "Good Luck". When leaving Italy, the ship transported in its hold to Iran via Syria, anti-personal mines destined officially for Spain or Nigeria. The mines were fabricated by a company in Brescia, La Valsella Meccanoteonica, whose co-owner with FIAT was Count Ferdinando Borletti, one of the most well-known Italian industrialist.

    There are times when the simplicity of how such goods get out of close scrutiny is really flooring: just have a ship dual registered and what is illegal under one flag becomes legal under another! Still, this serves as a recognition of early contacts made in Colombia soon after the arrival of al-Kassar with Menem during the run-up to the Presidential elections in Argentina. Most sources have placed his trips to Syria in this timeframe, and al-Kassar had already made in-roads via Iran/Contra to the region, plus his utilization of a false Brazilian identity indicates some knowledge of the region.

    Hugo Chavez

    Beyond FARC there are the Hezbollah ties to the other backer of FARC: Hugo Chavez. In a Venezuela Today article of 02 SEP 2006 by Gustavo Coronel (Google Cache, will disappear), the connections between Chavez and Hezbollah are examined as he helps Hezbollah to establish a new group on the border with Colombia:

    On the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula, a territory shared with Colombia, the members of the tribe of the Wayuu walk across political boundaries without restrain. They were there before Venezuela and Colombia existed and they think of themselves as a nation. Recently a disturbing group has appeared, as alien visitors, in their desert landscape: Hezbollah. The Islamic fanatics of Hezbollah are rapidly infiltrating the tribe of the Wayuu. They are indoctrinating the members of this tribe, to convert them into Islamic fanatics in charge of disseminating the terrorist message that has already created chaos, death and misery in the Middle East. The Hezbollah group invading Venezuela is doing its work openly in the Venezuelan side of the Guajira Peninsula. They are disseminating, via Internet, a strategy "to change Venezuela," including:

    • Total destruction "of the sex industry" (whatever that means),

    • Attacking the upper classes, "who are the most corrupt," all white-collar criminals and continuing the cleaning downwards,

    • Attacking corruption in government (not such a bad idea) and in the masses, both civilians and military,

    • Attacking false idols and satanic cults, as defined by them.

    The logo adorning the main page and document is an AK-47 rifle. The propaganda appearing on the Web presence of the Venezuelan subsidiary of Hezbollah talks about installing the kingdom of God in Venezuela by imposing a military-theocratic type of government, an explosive mixture similar to what already exists in Iran. It claims: "The brief enjoyment of life on earth is selfish. The other life is better for those who follow Allah." Where have we heard this before? In the leaflets that encourage the suicide missions of children and teenagers in Palestine.

    Is the Venezuelan Hezbollah for real or is just the product of pranksters with a macabre sense of humor? Available photographs suggest they are for real. This ghoulish presence in Venezuelan territory certainly deserves an immediate investigation and decisive action but the problem is that Chávez is supporting Hezbollah in the Middle East and will most probably support their criminal work in Venezuela. Would the U.N. or the OAS take note?

    There is a difference between home-grown terror groups in Colombia, like the ELN, showing up, and ones started by outside organizations finding their way into the country. The indigenous start-ups would pose a threat, but understandable from a national perspective, but an external one would need to have some kind of understanding so as not to cause friction, so the presence of a new Hezbollah franchise and getting no response from FARC indicates that high-level agreement is in place.

    Hugo Chavez is also cited as giving direct aid to FARC in The Jamestown Foundation Eurasia Daily Monitor report of 17 FEB 2005:

    There can be no doubt of Chavez's support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) or the blind eye he has turned to terrorists who seek to use Venezuela as a transit point or as a sanctuary. Indeed, he has given them Venezuelan passports so that they can travel freely around the world. Chavez also is a protege of Fidel Castro and talks regularly of organizing a Latin American counter-bloc to Washington, which he accuses, quite fantastically, of seeking to invade Venezuela.

    Chavez turned to Moscow for 40 Mi-35 helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov rifles. Other reports state that Chavez wants to buy 50 MiG-29s, anti-tank weapons, and air defense weapons as well. While Venezuela's arsenals may be obsolete, purchases of this magnitude, plus a reputed desire to buy $5 billion in weapons from Russia, China, Ukraine, and planes from Brazil by 2010, suggest that Chavez is prey to a megalomania borne of enormous oil revenues and a desire to emulate his mentor Castro. While he certainly has grounds to fear U.S. policy, he and everyone else knows that no invasion is even remotely in the cards. Moreover, there is probably no way Venezuela could even begin to maintain -- or even operate -- this arsenal.

    Therefore both Washington and Bogota have good reason to fear that these weapons will be given to the FARC or to other terrorists operating in South America, notably Bolivia. The arms purchase is all part of Chavez's plan to create a populist or neo-Castroite counter-bloc to Washington. Such a bloc would seek to destabilize the pro-American government in Colombia and use FARC as a preferred method of doing so, no doubt with Castro's blessing and support. Indeed, Venezuela has virtually subcontracted its intelligence and domestic security forces to Cuba.

    Russia's motives are clear. Moscow aspires to dominate the Latin American arms market, register its anger with Washington, and show that it is a power to be reckoned with even if it directly supports terrorists. Nor would this be the first time that Russian-made weapons might end up with the FARC. It has never been explained how a Kilo-class submarine wound up in Colombia in 2000.

    I am pretty sure that Russian submarines just don't navigate themselves to foreign ports. As the USSR went through front-nations, such as Algeria in the 1980's, so, too, does it use reliable intermediaries today, such as Belarus. An an article in Democratic Belarus from 12 MAY 2008 shows the type of deal that Chavez was trying to work for FARC:

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez allegedly tried to arm Colombian rebels with help from Belarus, the El Pais newspaper reported Saturday, citing documents from the computer of a slain rebel leader.

    The Spanish daily quoted a February 8 e-mail from Ivan Marquez, leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), saying Chavez had considered with Belarussian authorities the possibility of providing weapons to FARC.

    The e-mail was alleged to have been found in the seized computer of FARC second-in-command Raul Reyes, who was killed in March, El Pais said.

    The partially coded message mentioned someone identified only as "friend of Belarus," who El Pais identified as Victor Sheiman, secretary of the Belarus Security Council and a close associate of Alexander Lukashenko, the hardline president of the former Soviet republic.

    El Pais added that other possible arms sources for FARC, particularly ground-to-air missiles, were mentioned in computer messages, including contacts with "Australian traffickers".

    FARC Unravelling

    What is fascinating about this is that Monzer al-Kassar was caught in a sting operation last year by the US and Spain via having their agents appear to be coming from FARC. On 08 JUN 2007 the DEA put out a press release looking at the operation:

    DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy and Michael J. Garcia, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced today the arrest of Monzer al Kassar, a/k/a “Abu Munawar,” a/k/a “El Taous,” an international arms dealer charged with conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) -- a designated foreign terrorist organization -- to be used to kill Americans in Colombia.

    Kassar, along with co-defendants Tareq Mousa al Ghazi and Luis Felipe Moreno-Godoy were arrested yesterday as they prepared to finalize the multimillion-dollar transaction to pay for the weapons. Kassar was arrested on the U.S. charges by Spanish authorities in Madrid; simultaneously Ghazi and Moreno-Godoy were arrested in Romania.

    [..]

    Between February 2006 and May 2007, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy agreed to sell to the FARC millions of dollars worth of weapons + - including thousands of machine guns, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenade launchers (RPGs), and surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs). During a series of recorded telephone calls, emails, and in-person meetings, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy agreed to sell the weapons to two confidential sources (CS) working with the DEA, who represented that they were acquiring these weapons for the FARC, with the specific understanding that the weapons were to be used to attack United States helicopters in Colombia.

    During their consensually recorded meetings, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy provided the CSs with, among other things: (1) a schematic of the vessel to be used to transport the weapons; (2) specifications for the SAMs they agreed to sell to the FARC; and (3) bank accounts in Spain and Lebanon that were ultimately used to conceal more than $400,000 from DEA undercover accounts that the CSs represented, and Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy believed, were FARC drug proceeds for the weapons deal. During their meetings with the CSs, Kassar, Ghazi, and Moreno-Godoy reviewed Nicaraguan end-user certificates that were used to make the weapons deal appear legitimate. Kassar also promised to provide the FARC with ton-quantities of C4 explosives, as well as expert trainers from Lebanon to teach the FARC how to effectively use C4 and improvised explosive devices (commonly referred to as "IEDs"). In addition, Kassar offered to send a thousand men to fight with the FARC against United States military officers in Colombia.

    Part of Counter-Insurgency operations is to penetrate insurgent networks and utilize them to further erode the support of the insurgents. This is normally done in a direct fashion, against the insurgents themselves, but going after their direct supporters is also a good way to erode operational capability and morale of insurgents. In this case a relatively high level operative was either compromised or identified via other means and reasonable substitute put in his place. One doesn't gain entry to such organizations as al-Kassar's without some positive validation from known sources as the organized crime and terrorist networks are inherently trust-based. For the US and Spain to operate such a high level sting operation requires just such a compromise of the trust network between FARC and one of its suppliers.

    Another FARC arms supplier, Victor Bout, went down in a similar operation in Thailand, as reported by Polonia Today on 20 MAR 2008:

    "Officially, Bout fell into a trap arranged by American special services. But, in fact, he had been ‘pointed for a shot’ in Thailand by the FSB (the Russian Security Service). At the same time, FSB agents were hurriedly liquidating his base in Bulgaria." [From another source, AIA: "The old ties have come into the limelight this week for another reason: Russian arms trader Victor Bout, who supposedly had excellent contacts to the Soviet and later to the Russian secret service, had delivered a load of weapons worth several hundred million dollars to Bulgaria just before he was arrested on March 6."] "According to the official version, Bout, looked for in the whole world, fell into the hands of the Thai special services and was arrested with his accomplice, Andrew Smulian, when he tried to strike a deal to sell weapons to the Colombian FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia]. But there is also another, closer to the truth version of Major Bout’s giveaway. Somebody in the Kremlin has decided to wind up a protective umbrella over the most wanted international criminals. Mogilevich and Bout, used before in many actions, became useless ballast to the new ‘tsarevich’— Medvedev [Putin’s successor]."

    [..]

    Later on, Bout fled to Moscow because the FBI, the Interpol and many Western secret services were hunting him everywhere. Why would he allow himself take a great risk and go to Thailand to make a deal with the (alleged) Colombian FARC guerillas?

    The answer could be found in a most recent report, published by Bruce Falconer on March 18, 2008, and entitled "Victor Bout’s Last Deal": "The decision to use the FARC to target Bout’s operation was not without precedent. In 2006, the same DEA unit nabbed Syrian arms dealer Monzer al-Kassar, the so-called ‘Prince of Marbella,’ at Madrid’s international airport after ensnaring him in a bogus multimillion-dollar deal to supply weapons and explosives to the FARC. Al-Kassar remains in a Spanish jail, awaiting extradition to the United States. The sting that put him there was almost identical to the one that would later snag Bout. How could the Russian, renowned for the care he took in ensuring his own security, have fallen for the same trick? In Bout’s case, another factor may have come into play, namely that the FARC really was trying to acquire the types of weapons and equipment he was known to provide."

    But even if Bout had some good reasons to sell Bulgarian IGLA missiles and other weapons to the FARC, "immediately available" at his stores in Burgas and Plovdiv, why his Russian intelligence protectors (and business partners) did not avert him from a possible trap in Bangkok? The only logical answer is the following: his high Kremlin protectors wanted to "dump" him. And they really did that with the help of the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

    Again, the DEA is at least actively utilizing its knowledge base even if the motivator was forces in Moscow needing to have Bout taken out of circulation. Either way you cut it, Bout had either grown lazy or over-confident and was picked up by a *second* sting operation to get the exact, same type of weapons that al-Kassar was supposed to get.

    Today FARC is at the pointed end of Plan Colombia, which is a COIN operation between the US and Colombia, along with other S. American countries, to slowly shut down FARC's capabilities and dissolve its operational base out from under it. In many ways this is near classical COIN on the '8-10 year half-life' as FARC (unlike al Qaeda or JaM in Iraq) is horrifically well financed and supported by multiple external organizations. That said having Raul Reyes go down in a way that yielded up significant operational data to law enforcement is a hard blow to take, along with the ability of the DEA to utilize some form of knowledge base to undermine FARC supporters overseas. With al-Kassar and Bout taken out, however, the ability to use whatever information they have on FARC will probably diminish as other suppliers look to get direct assurances from FARC leadership on any deals. That does, of course, leave them exposed if those communication channels are compromised...

    I will wrap this portion of the FARC Connections at that. There is much more material to present on FARC's influence outside of Colombia, but this covers the major external supporters from early on in FARC's history to the present.