Culture and Life

by Rob Gowland

Of terrorists and terrorists

As I am writing this the TV news has reported that a US task force has 
headed off to the Middle East to start a war with enemies unspecified. 
Although events are clearly being hurriedly propelled towards Armageddon, I 
think it's still worthwhile to consider some aspects of the back 
ground.

We were all struck by how exceedingly quick the US authorities were to 
blame Afghan-based Osama bin Laden for the September 11 terror outrages. 
However, the US has a number of strategically located countries it would 
like to place securely under its heel, including Egypt and Iraq.

Britain, the USA's ally in its regular bombing of Iraq (the two allies 
bombed Iraq twice in the week preceding the attacks on the World Trade 
Centre) seems very interested in ensuring that Iraq and to a lesser extent 
Egypt is targeted in Bush's "war without borders".

The authoritative Jane's Defence Weekly, which is produced from 
London, is particularly close to the British defence establishment. Ten 
days after the attacks on New York and Washington, Jane's reported 
that "Israel's military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that Iraq is 
the state that sponsored the suicide attacks on the New York Trade Centre 
and the Pentagon in Washington".

According to Jane's, "Aman officers believe" the operation was 
directed by "the Lebanese Imad Mughniyeh, head of the special overseas 
operations for Hizbullah, and the Egyptian Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri, senior 
member of [Bin Laden's group] Al-Qaeda and possible successor of the ailing 
Osama Bin Laden". He's ailing? I haven't seen that reported elsewhere.

The fingering of these two men seems to be based on nothing more 
substantial than supposition. But that hasn't bothered Bush so why should 
it bother the Israelis or the British?

However, Jane's is keen to ensure that Iraq is also dragged in: The 
Israeli sources claim that for the past two years Iraqi intelligence 
officers were shuttling between Baghdad and Afghanistan, meeting with Ayman 
Al Zawahiri.

"Zawahiri is thought to be based in Egypt. He could be Bin Laden's chief 
representative outside Afghanistan." He could be anything.

"The Iraqis are also reported to have established strong ties with Imad 
Mughniyeh. ... We believe that the operational brains behind the New-York 
attack were Mughniyeh and Zawahiri, who were probably financed and got some 
logistical support from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (SSO)."

In case that is not enough to convince you, Jane's trots out some 
unspecified "experts on Iraq and Saddam Hussein" whom it claims "also 
believe that Iraq was the state behind the two terror masterminds.

"Our sources believe the chief of the Iraqi SSO is Qusai Hussein, the 
dictator's son, and his organisation is the most likely to have been 
involved." Well, there's simply no arguing with that, is there?

So there's the scenario: two of the world's "worst terrorists" neatly 
linked to Iraq. Send in the Marines! Send in the US Special Forces 
(uniformed terrorists)! Send in the missiles!

So who is Mughniyeh? Jane's quotes an anonymous Israeli who it 
says "knows Mughniyeh":

"Bin Laden is a schoolboy in comparison with Mughniyeh. The guy is a 
genius, someone who refined the art of terrorism to its utmost level.

"We studied him and reached the conclusion that he is a clinical psychopath 
motivated by uncontrollable psychological reasons, which we have given up 
trying to understand. The killing of his two brothers by the Americans only 
inflamed his strong motivation."

[Well, it would hardly have mollified him, now would it? Interesting to 
note that the Israeli blames "the Americans" for the killing of Mughniyeh's 
brothers. In fact, their deaths were the result of joint actions between 
the US and ... Israel.]

It was allegedly Mughniyeh who kidnapped and killed the head of the CIA 
station in Beirut, William Buckley, in March 1984.

"Jane's takes up the story: "A year later, in a combined CIA/Mossad 
operation, a powerful car bomb went off at the entrance to the house of 
Hizbullah's spiritual leader, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah. Seventy-
five people were killed. One of them was his [Mughniyeh's] brother."

A car bomb? Seventy-five people dead? Isn't that what's called terrorism?

Back to Jane's: "In February 1992, Israeli helicopter gunships 
attacked the convoy of the then head of Hizbullah, Sheikh Abas Musawi, in 
South Lebanon. Musawi, his wife and children were killed." Sounds like more 
terrorism to me.

A month later the Israeli embassy in Argentina was blown up. "The building 
was demolished and 92 were killed." Mughniyeh was blamed, but it was not 
until last year that Argentina issued a warrant for his arrest.

In the meantime, "in reprisal for the attack in Argentina", Israeli 
Intelligence exploded a car bomb in a southern Shiite suburb of Beirut in 
December 1994. Jane's next couple of sentences are quite explicit:

"Four people were killed. One of them was called Mughniyeh, but to the deep 
disappointment of those Israelis who planted the bomb it was the wrong one. 
Mughniyeh's life was saved, but his other brother Fuad was killed."

So Mughniyeh is a terrorist, and Mossad and the CIA are defending freedom. 
"How to counter this kind [ie, the New York kind] of terrorism?" asks 
Jane's unctuously.

Their answer will definitely advance human civilisation: "'To fight these 
bastards you don't need a military attack', said an experienced Israeli 
commando officer. 'You only need to adopt Israel's assassination policy.'" 
Yeah, right.