SHAFAQNA

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association)– Here is an interesting (to me, at least) exchange (originally published in The New York Jewish Week)  I had with my friend and sparring partner Yossi Klein Halevi, of the Shalom Hartman Institute, on the subject of President Obama's Iran policy. Yossi is one of those Israelis who is, to my mind, irrationally fearful of Obama, and Yossi wanted to test my sangfroid. 

Dear Jeff,

Like many Israelis, I don't trust President Obama's resolve on Iran. When he says that all options are on the table, I remain deeply skeptical about this President's willingness to order a military strike if all other options fail.

More than any journalist I know, you've been at once clear-eyed on the Islamist threat and also a strong advocate of trusting Obama on Iran. So, as someone who takes the Iranian nuclear threat as seriously as we do here, tell me what we Israelis are missing about Obama.
Yossi


Dear Yossi,

I think Obama takes the threat very seriously. I think he takes it just as seriously as Netanyahu takes it. More, maybe. It seems to me sometimes that Netanyahu, if he truly believed his rhetoric, would have acted already against the Iranian bomb threat. I know there are people in Washington who think he's not actually serious about striking Iran, should all else fail. And these are people who six months ago thought he would do it.

What you and other Israeli skeptics don't get about Obama is this: He is deadly serious about stopping nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It is a core belief of his. He has enunciated on many occasions compelling reasons why he believes it to be unacceptable for Iran to cross the nuclear threshold. He also knows that the reputation of his presidency is riding on this question. If Iran goes nuclear against his wishes, he looks like Jimmy Carter. He doesn't want to go down in history looking like Jimmy Carter.

He also knows that he has time before having to act, because of America's greater capabilities. He doesn't show Israel much love, it is true. He doesn't show any nation much love. That's not who he is. But if you read the interview I did with him on this subject, you'll see a clear path, a clear set of parameters and a clear intent to keep a bomb away from Iran. The flipside of this, of course, is that I believe Mitt Romney would be less likely to act, especially in 2013, which may be the year of decision. He'd be a new president, one with an inexperienced national security team. And he won't want to begin his presidency by plunging the U.S. into another Middle Eastern war. It is so much harder for a Republican to confront Iran than it would be for a Democrat, for so many reasons. Obama's drone war is a good example; he gets away with things George W. Bush couldn't even imagine doing. Such is the nature of politics in America. Here, by the way, is a compendium of Obama's statements on the subject. Identify for me, please, the wiggle room in these statements. I haven't found any.
Jeff


Dear Jeff,

You make an important point about the advantage of a Democratic president over a Republican president in waging war. A similar dynamic has been at work in Israel. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert fought two wars - against Hezbollah in 2006 and then against Hamas in 2009 - and yet is still widely considered a dove, while Netanyahu, who has never led a military campaign in either of his two terms in office, is widely regarded as belligerent. Only the Likud, the old adage goes, can make peace, because it can deliver the moderate right for an agreement. By the same measure, perhaps only the Israeli left (or a national unity government) can effectively wage war and for the same reason: It can bring consensus.

But the question regarding Obama and Iran, of course, is whether this Democratic president is capable - temperamentally, ideologically - of ordering a military strike against Iran. At issue isn't whether Obama wants to stop Iran but whether he has the determination to match his rhetoric.

Do you believe that the current level of sanctions, however economically painful, are enough to deter Iran? Do you believe the Iranians will agree to a negotiated solution? From reading you carefully over the last few years, I don't think you do. And so, Jeff: If Obama won't bring the sanctions to the point where they can truly stop Iran, then how can we trust him to use military force?

You write that failure to stop Iran will mean that Obama goes down in history as another Jimmy Carter. In fact he already looks like Jimmy Carter. As you recently wrote (don't you hate it when you get quoted against yourself?), Obama has failed to show resolve in Syria. Bringing down Assad - the Arab regime that is Iran's closest ally - should be one of the administration's top foreign policy goals. In hesitating on Syria, Obama is repeating his failure to support the anti-regime demonstrators in Teheran in 2009.

To forfeit two historic opportunities to undermine the Iranian regime hardly instills confidence that Obama can be trusted to act decisively against a nuclearizing Iran.

Obama's mishandling of Egypt likewise reveals poor judgment in dealing with extremist threats. One can argue whether he jettisoned his former ally, Mubarak, too abruptly. One can argue too whether he could have helped slow the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.
What seems to me inarguable is that he has failed to effectively set limits to the Brotherhood, failed to challenge its growing domestic repression. Instead, he wants to increase foreign aid to Egypt. If this were not an election year, he would have likely met with Egypt's president, Mohamed Morsi, during the latter's recent visit to the UN. The result of that policy of accomodationism is that it is Morsi who is setting conditions on America for the relationship between Washington and Cairo (as he recently did in a New York Times interview).
Finally Obama showed misjudgment in repeatedly condemning the ludicrous YouTube anti-Muslim film. By taking out ads on Pakistani TV to condemn the film, the administration encouraged the perception that extremists had a legitimate grievance.

There's a pattern here of weakness against enemies, of appeasing extremists, of missing opportunities
.
All this is hardly surprising to you: You've written as much in recent weeks. "Obama's record in the Middle East," you wrote, "suggests that missed opportunities are becoming a White House specialty." True, you also wrote the following: "On the most important and urgent issue, the Iranian nuclear program, Obama is an activist president." But can you really fault Israelis for wondering whether, at the moment of truth, Obama will avoid the ultimate missed opportunity?
It's not only Israelis who don't trust Obama on Iran. Arab leaders, as you well know, are skeptical too. Worst of all, the Iranian regime doesn't believe him. That's why it responds to Obama's sanctions and threats by accelerating its nuclear program.

You may be right, and I am underestimating this President's resolve on an issue to which he has repeatedly committed himself.

If so, there's a deeper question here for Israelis: Can we trust anyone, even the most well-intentioned friend, with an issue of existential importance to us? As someone who knows us as well as any American Jew, this Israeli anxiety will come as no surprise to you.

For many of us the frame of reference is May 1967. At that time, Lyndon Johnson, as good a friend as Israel ever had in the White House, refused to honor President Eisenhower's commitment in 1957 to challenge an Egyptian blockade of Israeli shipping through the Straits of Tiran. Johnson, preoccupied with Vietnam, had good reason for wanting to avoid American involvement in another war. But the fact remains that, at the crucial moment, America violated its commitment to Israel.

Aside perhaps from May 1967, I can't think of a more excruciating time for Israel than now. Obama has repeatedly assured us that he understands our angst, that he supports our right to defend ourselves. And still we stubborn Israelis persist in our skepticism.

Maybe what I'm asking from you is unfair, Jeff. Because in the end, no amount of reassurance of Obama's resolve can convince us that the Johnson precedent won't return, and that we won't find ourselves alone again against existential threat.
Yossi


Dear Yossi,

There are two questions here (well, actually there are about 30) but let me grapple with the two most important ones: The first is this: Is President Obama actually prepared to use military force to stop Iran? The second question is, Is Romney prepared to use military force to stop Iran?

When I argue for the idea that Obama may eventually resort to force to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, I'm not judging him against some sort of impossible standard of interventionist muscularity. I'm judging him against the only other man who could be elected president next month. You're familiar with my argument that Romney is less likely (particularly early in his term) than Obama to use force, so I won't rehearse it here.

I would add this, however, and I haven't mentioned this before: If Romney wins, the anti-war movement will become extraordinarily energized in the U.S. Democrats who might have felt compelled to back Obama, or at least acquiesce to military action against Iran, will be on the barricades protesting the possibility of such a strike if it is Romney's doing. Fierce opposition certainly won't strengthen Romney's hand to act, and the consequences of the opposition that is sure to materialize could have profoundly negative effects on Israel's reputation in America. Israel is already in danger of becoming a partisan issue; the long-term consequences of this could be devastating. If Romney wins, and if Benjamin Netanyahu stays in power in Israel, I can almost guarantee you that you will see a melting away of whatever Democratic support there is for tough action against Iran, and a melting away of whatever liberal support there still remains for a strong America-Israel relationship. American support is a pillar of Israeli national security policy. Israel cannot thrive - and maybe it can't survive - in a Middle East dominated by a nuclear Iran. But it will also have difficulty surviving without American support, and I'm telling you, medium- to long-term, Israel could be in trouble in the U.S.
.
To answer some of your other questions, do I believe sanctions will work to bring Iran to a compromise? No, probably not. Do I believe that sanctions could work to destabilize, and possible bring an end to, the regime? Possibly yes. I'm not sure why you believe Obama is weak on sanctions; he's certainly stronger than his Republican predecessor was. And I think Netanyahu's people are being sincere when they say that there is at least the small possibility that sanctions will work.

On a related subject, I'm not sure why you conflate Obama's passivity on Syria with his tough actions, and tough words, on Iran. He was never going to go into the regime-change business. He didn't get elected to go into the regime business. He ran for office in order to get America out of the regime-change business. He is, in this sense, a foreign policy realist. But he did run for office on the promise of stopping nuclear proliferation. He is deeply and sincerely committed, I believe, to a rather too grand vision of a world without nuclear weapons. But the unreality of the ultimate goal serves the needs of those who want Iran permanently denuclearized. He knows, I assume, that he can't achieve global Nuclear Zero. But he also knows that stopping a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is within his power. I always try to explain to Israelis that Obama isn't committed to this issue merely because he promised Jewish voters that he would not allow Israel to be endangered. Non-proliferation is a cornerstone of his worldview, and Iran represents the single-biggest challenge to that worldview.

But maybe you're right - maybe this is going to be Johnson redux. But you have to consider something else: By extracting himself from Iraq, by drawing down in Afghanistan, by staying out of the Syrian civil war, maybe what Obama is doing is preparing for the day when he has to go to the American people and say that he is taking military action against Iran. He's clearing the decks, in other words. From the Israeli standpoint, maybe you should be glad that he's taking a pause in the Middle East intervention business. This way, when the Iran issue reaches a boiling point, he won't be in Johnson's position - overextended, and unpopular, and therefore not willing to, among other things, come to Israel's aid.
Jeff


Dear Jeff,

That's a crucial insight you raise about the anti-war movement and a President Romney. A reenergized anti-war movement could dangerously erode the already-shaky nature of bipartisan support for Israel, which is the only long-term guarantee for maintaining the special relationship. Missiles on Tel Aviv, a multi-front war with Hezbollah, Hamas, what's left of Syria and of course Iran, the unleashing of global terror against Jewish communities, rising oil prices and eonomic dislocation - Israelis take a deep breath and prepare themselves for those disasters. Risking our relationship with blue-state America is almost one blow too many.

And yet if Israeli skepticism about Obama is right, then I'm ready to take that risk, too. I see a nuclear Iran as a literal apocalyptic threat, and I sense that you do too. The difference between us remains: Can we trust this guy at the moment of truth?

You sat with the President, looked him in the eye and was convinced of his determination. In your place I may well have reached the same conclusion.

But from where I'm sitting, it seems to me unthinkable that Obama, for all his commitment to non-proliferation, will order the bombing of Iran. This is after all the man who thought he was atoning for the abuse of American power by abandoning anti-regime demonstrators in Tehran in 2009.

As for Obama and sanctions: Yes, he's imposed far stronger measures than his predecessor, but that is, unfortunately, a meaningless comparison. Four years ago, Obama's sanctions would have been significant. Now, the only question that matters is whether those sanctions are enough to stop Tehran. I don't believe they are.

I fear that Obama still believes he's dealing with essentially rational people in the Iranian regime. And now there are reports of secret negotiations between Tehran and Washington. In the end my deepest fear is that Obama will be outmaneuvered by the Iranians, that his longing for a diplomatic solution will be played by the Iranian regime to reach the point of breakout.
But Jeff: If Obama is reelected, all I can do is pray for that moment when you will say to me, I told you so.

Yossi

www.shafaqna.com/English

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — The cost of the London 2012 Games has come in at £377 million under budget, according to Government figures released today.

The overall cost of the Games is forecast at £8,921 billion from a budget of £9,298 billion.With some contracts still to be wound up after the end of the Games, ministers are describing the underspend as a "prudent" estimate.

Sports minister Hugh Robertson described the feat of managing the complex programme within budget as "a tremendous success":

"The work of the construction and delivery teams, from the ODA and Locog, has set a very high standard and I have no doubt that London 2012 has set a new benchmark for the management of Olympic and Paralympic Games in future."

www.shafaqna.com/English

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — As athletes from different world countries compete for medals at the Olympics, another competition is taking place outside London stadiums for people’s souls between groups representing different faiths.

"It's mostly the same everywhere you go - just like it was when Jesus preached," Kevin Williams, the pastor of Grace Fellowship Man­chester, who was there with a team of 12, told Church Times on Friday, August 10.

"Some believe; some mock; some get angry; but it's been quite mild today. We leave the results in God's hands."

Hosting thousands of athletes and fans, London Olympics started on July 27 to August 12.

With tens of thousands of people entering the Olympic Park every day, it was perhaps only natural that various religions, philosophies and causes would jump at the chance to win some of them over.

And so just outside Stratford Bus Station -- which many sports fans must walk past on their way to the park -- there was a collection of Christians, Muslims, vegans and others eager to spread the word.

Christian groups like Amana Trust were seen regularly outside the main stadium in London handing out Bibles and spreading the Christian word of God.

“You could use that expression,” Robin Fenwick, a volunteer from Canada at Amana Trust Christian group, told Voice of America on Thursday, August 9.

“We're coming to find the lost souls and for Christians who would like to know more about this Bible.”

The scene was very much the same outside different exits for Stratford station.

Men were seen handing out Games-inspired tracts such as "What if your thought life was broadcast at this year's games?"

Another man was reminding the crowds, through a placard, of the Sixth Com­mandment.

A few feet away, Solomon Nagalla, of Stratford Zion Christian Fel­lowship, was giving out leaflets ("Why did Jesus Christ come to the world?").

"This is a way to reach different nationalities of people, to share the peace that changes their heart . . . peace, joy, happiness," he said.

Muslims Too

Though Christian missionaries have long been dominant in Great Britain, this year at the Olympics a group of Muslims were hoping to change the status quo.

"We're trying to make people realize there are many teams in life -- Team America, Team GB [Great Britain], France, China -- but they are never going to win anything meaningful," one of Team Islam group, Muhammad Alamqir, told NBC news.

“If you want something meaningful, you need to be part of Team Islam.

Team Islam was strongly represented, with perhaps 10 men wearing blue T-shirts with the Team Islam logo or yellow ones that asked "Is life just a game?"

"Nearly every day we've had people … embracing Islam," he added, saying that the T-shirts had gone down well with passersby. "They like the idea of Team Islam, a lot of people have been taking pictures with us."

Most of the members of Team Islam were young, some of them, perhaps, on their school holidays.

Many of those young men tried to attract the crowd by showing them that fact that science and the Qur'an are compatible.

Co-existing peacefully outside the Olympic park, Muslims and Christians were giving out literature and trying to convert Olympic fans as they enter the stadium denying any sort of competition.

“No, we are not competing with anyone. Just out here sharing the love of God, giving out the word of the God to those who would like to receive it,” Fenwick said.

Alamqir conveyed a similar message, saying there had been some theological debates, but everything had been "very friendly … very pleasant."—www.shafaqna.com/english

Source: On Islam

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — During his visit to Afghanistan less than two weeks before the London 2012 Olympic Games, British Prime Minister David Cameron told UK occupying forces in the country that a British-run officer academy in Afghanistan would be established to train Afghan security forces.

Olympic Games are held in London and in Afghanistan 9,500 British troops roam across the country making Britain the second-largest contributor to US-led foreign forces in the war-torn country.

This comes as in ancient times, the Olympic Truce stated that during the Truce period, which lasted up to three months, wars should be suspended, armies should be prohibited from threatening the Games, legal disputes should be stopped, and even death penalties should be forbidden.

Was it not the British government that placed pressure on the British Olympic Association in 1980 not to attend the Olympic Games in Moscow hoping to take sporting sanctions against the Soviet Union because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979?

Irrespective of the fact that the UK government failed to prevent the country’s athletes from attending the games in 1980, Britain’s double standards and contradictory policies come to a surface when you see Britain boasting of being the first ever country to get all 193 United Nations member states to sign the Olympic Truce with nearly 10,000 British occupying troops in Afghanistan.

But, what about the invasion of Iraq and Libya? And tortures and abuse at the hands of British occupying forces? In 2003, the UK and the US led an invasion on Iraq and almost one month before the Olympic Games begin in London, explosive revelations showed British occupying forces had tortured Iraqi civilians who were hooded, strip-naked, and assaulted in secret black jails.

It emerged that the blatant violations of the Geneva conventions on rights of victims of war occurred under direct authority of Britain’s Ministry of Defence.

Nearly one year before the Olympic Games in London, Britain played a leading role in invading oil-rich Libya and securing British oil companies lucrative contracts while the country’s construction companies took up the responsibility to rebuild the country which was torn apart by the very same governments now struggling to fill their pockets.

“Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and, indeed, other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya”, said British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond.

John Pilger, a London-based investigative journalist and documentary film maker, said the invasion of Libya secured Britain and other western countries another client as “Libya is the source of more oil than any other country in Africa, including Nigeria”.

“We bomb, we destroy, and then we get the contracts to rebuild afterwards”, said John Hilary, executive director at the London-based War on Want anti-poverty charity.

And now the UK capital is hosting what is supposed to be an international peaceful event. But, London itself is militarized like a city preparing for war. Latest figures show 18,200 military soldiers are tasked with providing Olympic security, being deployed in London during the peaceful sporting events. It seems as if London has to be either preparing for war or waging war. —www.shafaqna.com/english

Source: Press TV

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — During his visit to Afghanistan less than two weeks before the London 2012 Olympic Games, British Prime Minister David Cameron told UK occupying forces in the country that a British-run officer academy in Afghanistan would be established to train Afghan security forces.

Olympic Games are held in London and in Afghanistan 9,500 British troops roam across the country making Britain the second-largest contributor to US-led foreign forces in the war-torn country.

This comes as in ancient times, the Olympic Truce stated that during the Truce period, which lasted up to three months, wars should be suspended, armies should be prohibited from threatening the Games, legal disputes should be stopped, and even death penalties should be forbidden.

Was it not the British government that placed pressure on the British Olympic Association in 1980 not to attend the Olympic Games in Moscow hoping to take sporting sanctions against the Soviet Union because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979?

Irrespective of the fact that the UK government failed to prevent the country’s athletes from attending the games in 1980, Britain’s double standards and contradictory policies come to a surface when you see Britain boasting of being the first ever country to get all 193 United Nations member states to sign the Olympic Truce with nearly 10,000 British occupying troops in Afghanistan.

But, what about the invasion of Iraq and Libya? And tortures and abuse at the hands of British occupying forces? In 2003, the UK and the US led an invasion on Iraq and almost one month before the Olympic Games begin in London, explosive revelations showed British occupying forces had tortured Iraqi civilians who were hooded, strip-naked, and assaulted in secret black jails.

It emerged that the blatant violations of the Geneva conventions on rights of victims of war occurred under direct authority of Britain’s Ministry of Defence.

Nearly one year before the Olympic Games in London, Britain played a leading role in invading oil-rich Libya and securing British oil companies lucrative contracts while the country’s construction companies took up the responsibility to rebuild the country which was torn apart by the very same governments now struggling to fill their pockets.

“Libya is a relatively wealthy country with oil reserves, and I expect there will be opportunities for British and, indeed, other companies to get involved in the reconstruction of Libya”, said British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond.

John Pilger, a London-based investigative journalist and documentary film maker, said the invasion of Libya secured Britain and other western countries another client as “Libya is the source of more oil than any other country in Africa, including Nigeria”.

“We bomb, we destroy, and then we get the contracts to rebuild afterwards”, said John Hilary, executive director at the London-based War on Want anti-poverty charity.

And now the UK capital is hosting what is supposed to be an international peaceful event. But, London itself is militarized like a city preparing for war. Latest figures show 18,200 military soldiers are tasked with providing Olympic security, being deployed in London during the peaceful sporting events. It seems as if London has to be either preparing for war or waging war. —www.shafaqna.com/english

Source: Press TV

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — Forget London. Much of the 2012 Summer Olympics action is happening on Twitter. Athletes have used the social network to share photos and status updates that take their followers inside the Games. Fans have used it to revel in Olympic drama and — in the U.S. — tweet result spoilers for viewers stuck waiting for NBC’s tape-delayed primetime coverage.

How did all the Twitter chatter stack up over the event’s first 10 days? Mass Relevance, Twitter’s official social curation and integration partner, tracked the tweets to produce the infographic below, which shows just that.

Through 10 days, there were more than 28.4 million Olympic-themed tweets, according to Mass Relevance, and users worldwide sent an average of 2,000 tweets per minute. Swimming led the charge as the most talked-about sport, followed by gymnastics, basketball, soccer and volleyball.

American swimmer Michael Phelps was the most-discussed athlete, with 574,000 mentions. He was followed by American basketball star LeBron James, British diver Tom Daley, Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt and American hooper Kevin Durant. But look for Bolt and other runners to surge up the rankings over the second half of the Games, when much of the Olympic attention turns from swimming and gymnastics to track and field.

Interesting to note is that Daley was at the center of one of the Olympics’ biggest Twitter-centered stories so far. After a disappointing medal-less performance in the men’s synchronized diving championships, he used Twitter to out a troll who sent a hateful message referencing his late father. The interaction gained widespread attention and the troll was later arrested on suspicion of malicious communications.—www.shafaqna.com/englis

Source: Mashable Entertainment

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — Three suspected al Qaeda terrorists arrested last week in Spain appear to have been interested in targeting a Gibraltar-area shopping mall in a strike that was likely intended to coincide with the London Olympic Games, an analyst says.

Police deduced this from the declaration of a paragliding instructor who had dealings with the group and the contents of a video they recovered from the suspects, according to Fernando Reinares, a senior international terrorism analyst who was briefed by Spanish security services on the investigation.

"Attacking in or near Gibraltar during the Olympic Games apparently was for them a feasible alternative to what they, and their corresponding organizational leadership, perceived as a much more difficult operation, that of attempting an act of terrorism in London," Reinares told CNN.

While the planned execution date of their alleged plot is still not clear, any attack on or near British soil during the Olympic Games would have generated intense global publicity.

Spanish police believe that one of the targets of the alleged cell could have been a commercial complex named "Puerta de Europa" in Algeciras, just across the strait of Gibraltar from the British overseas territory, Reinares told CNN.

Spanish security services suspect their plan may have been to attack the area around the British territory on the southernmost tip of Spain from the air, Reinares said.

A paragliding instructor told police Saturday that Cengiz Yalcin, the alleged cell's Turkish facilitator, asked to be able to take pictures of a Gibraltar shopping mall "at all cost," said Reinares.

Spanish security suspect the cell was testing a remote-controlled plane as a potential bomber. Spanish investigators found a video in which Yalcin was flying a remote-controlled airplane, according to Reinares.

The footage showed the plane, which was about three meters long, being maneuvered into a descent. Two packets were then seen dropping from either wing of the plane following his command.

"In the images he can't help expressing his joy for the successful try," Reinares told CNN. "Terrorists innovate and adapt to security measures, we have to always keep this in mind," he added.

Read more: London's Olympic security headache

It is not the first time that terrorists have sought to use remote controlled aircraft in terrorist plots. In July, Rezwan Ferdaus, a Massachusetts resident inspired by al Qaeda's ideology, pleaded guilty to a September 2011 plot to fly a remote-controlled plane into the Pentagon and U.S. capitol with high explosives.

Two Chechen-Russians -- Eldar Magomedov, also known as Ahmad Avar, and Muhammad Adamov -- whom Spanish security services suspect had been tasked with carrying out an attack, were arrested on a bus traveling toward France.

Investigating Judge Pablo Ruz ruled Sunday there was sufficient evidence to unconditionally detain both men. They were charged with membership in a terrorist group and possession or storage of explosives. Yalcin stands accused of possession of explosives substances.

According to a statement released Sunday from Ruz, the Chechens hid their true identity after they were arrested, but Spanish authorities were able to establish their real names after help from Russian authorities. The judge noted that U.S. authorities and Gibraltar law enforcement also assisted the Spanish investigation.

The arrests were announced Thursday. Experts say the men appear to have constituted one of the most skilled and experienced terrorist cells seen in recent times, and appear to have been dispatched by al Qaeda to carry out an ambitious attack in Europe.

Magomedov, the suspected leader, was a former member of Spetsnaz, the Russian special forces, according to Spain's Interior Ministry. He had training as a sniper and was an expert in poisons, the ministry said.

Reinares, of Madrid's Elcano Royal Institute, said that according to information passed to Spain by several Western intelligence agencies, Magomedov joined training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including camps run by Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, after leaving the Russian special forces outfits.

According to this intelligence, between 2008 and 2011, Magomedov operated in the southwestern Russian republic of Dagestan and the Pakistani tribal districts of North and South Waziristan, transiting between them, Reinares said.

Adamov, the other Chechen, had received explosives training in Afghanistan, where he become an expert in managing explosives and may have participated in a recent bomb attack in Moscow, according to Spanish authorities.

According to Reinares, the French described the Chechens to their Spanish counterparts as "really dangerous." He said British intelligence services were also involved in tracking the suspected terrorist cell.

Also found in Yalcin's home was equipment for three motorized paragliding machines. Yalcin told a Spanish investigating judge Friday that he was an enthusiast of motorized paragliding and wished to teach his two Chechen associates how to fly them.

Reinares said Spanish security services have established that both Chechens received motor-paragliding lessons near La Linea and may have had some instruction before arriving in Spain. A paragliding hand book in Russian was found in their possession, Reinares said.

French security services tipped off their Spanish counterparts about the probable arrival of the two Chechen suspected terrorists in May, according to Reinares. The French had been tracking the duo and monitoring their phone calls. At one point, they intercepted a phone call in which the Chechens described Spain as a "more easy country to get explosives," Reinares said.

Investigators moved to arrest all three men after the two Chechens appeared to be heading back to France by bus, concerned that France may be their target. One of them violently resisted arrest, the Spanish Interior Ministry reported.—www.shafaqna.com/english

source: CNN

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) - Behdad Salimi added the Olympic crown to his reigning world and Asian titles as he triumphed in the men's +105kg and brought the curtain down on weightlifting at the 2012 Games.

Salimi, from Iran, was the red-hot favourite for victory and the super heavyweight rose to the occasion to confirm his title as the 'strongest lifter in the world'.

The 22-year-old managed a total of 455kg, which was not enough to eclipse the mammoth 472kg world and Olympic record managed by legendary compatriot Hossein Rezazadeh in 2000, but it did clinch Iran's first weightlifting gold since 2004.

And the vast numbers of Iranian fans inside ExCeL were afforded further delight after Sajjad Anoushiravani (449kg) took silver, with Russia's Ruslan Albegov (448kg) going home with bronze.

Beijing gold medallist Matthias Steiner was cruelly denied the chance to defend his crown after he was forced to withdraw following the most worrying injury seen on the lifting stage at these Games.

Making his second snatch attempt of 196kg, Steiner was unable to raise the weights fully and, falling back, could not help but drop the bar down on to his head and then shoulder.

Steiner, a former lifter for his homeland of Austria before switching to represent Germany, fortunately managed to walk off stage but forfeited his third attempt to receive treatment, and it was later announced he would not be able to continue and headed to hospital for a routine assessment.

It was a disappointing end for Steiner, who captured hearts in Beijing having claimed gold after his wife had been killed in a car crash the previous year.

The focus returned to the lifting following Steiner's injury and it was Salimi, as expected, who was central to proceedings although he found himself pushed into second place on bodyweight at the halfway stage.

Salimi's best lift of 208kg - six kilos adrift of his world record set last November - was matched by Russia's Albegov, who was ahead due to the considerable 21kg in bodyweight he was conceding to the Iranian.

But Salimi's first clean and jerk of 247kg effectively clinched matters, with Albegov only managing 240kg and Anoushiravani, third after the snatch, moving up into second place overall having lifted 245kg.

Salimi had the chance to add the clean and jerk world record to his snatch record but did not get close to raising 264kg in his second attempt and, with gold in the bag, passed on his final lift to start the celebrations early.

www.shafaqna.com

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — Iranian Greco-Roman wrestler Omid Norouzi has won the gold medal in the men’s 60-kg category following a convincing win over his Georgian opponent in the London 2012 Olympics.

Norouzi defeated Revaz Lashkhi from Georgia 1-0 in both the first and second 2 minutes of the match held at the London’s ExCeL to claim the gold.

The 26-year-old Iranian athlete had overcome his Chinese, Bulgarian, Kazakh and Japanese rivals in his march to the final bout on Monday.

Norouzi’s victory came after another Iranian Greco-Roman wrestler Hamid Sourian won the gold medal in the men’s 55-kg category following victory over Rovshan Bayramov, his Azerbaijani opponent on Sunday.

Sourian’s gold medal marked the first after 40 years of the national Iranian Greco-Roman team’s participation in the Olympic Games.

Iran has dispatched a team of 54 athletes to London’s 2012 Olympics contesting in a variety of fields, including archery, table tennis, wrestling, weightlifting, rowing, boxing, track and field, swimming and taekwondo.

More than 10,000 athletes from over 200 nations are participating in London’s 2012 summer Olympic Games.  —www.shafaqna.com/english

Source: Press TV

SHAFAQNA (Shia International News Association) — The show explores human enhancement of all types, with an eye toward what the future of biological augmentation might bring. It’s artsy, occasionally whimsical and very forward-thinking — and on point with regard to Pistorius’ competing in these Olympics and a sign of how future Games may change.

We’ve heard all about Pistorius, the South African sprinter born without fibulas, who wears prosthetics called Flex-Foot Cheetahs that allow him to compete not just with disabled runners, but with the best able-bodied sprinters on the planet.

His presence at the Games has sparked considerable debate. Do his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage, as some still argue, or do their limitations — not to mention his incomplete lower-body musculature, which forces him to compensate with muscle groupings elsewhere — level the competitive balance? For an example of how divergent opinions are, look no further than the team that helped overturn the 2007 ban laid down on Pistorius by the International Association of Athletic Federations, which had prevented him from competing at the Olympic level.

Pistorius is physiologically the same as other athletes, they argued in a paper published in the Journal of Applied Physiology (.pdf), even if he’s mechanically different. The Court of Arbitration in Sport agreed, and the IAAF relented; in 2008, his ban was overturned, although he did not meet the Olympic qualifying time for Beijing and ran in the Paralympics instead.

It appears that the paper’s authors have traveled divergent paths from that point.

“The lightness of Pistorius’ limbs make him 15 to 20 percent, or more, faster than he would otherwise be,” the paper’s lead author, Peter Weyand, an associate professor of applied physiology and biomechanics at Southern Methodist University, told Wired. “He can reposition his limbs” — in other words, stride — “20 to 25 percent faster than intact-limb runners who have the same top speed … and 16 percent faster than five world record-holders in the 100 meters.” Weyand says that Pistorius’ blades can augment his 400 time by as much as eight seconds.

But another of the paper’s authors, Rodger Kram, went on to claim that any benefit conferred by the lightness of Pistorius’ legs is counteracted by their inefficiency in transferring force to the ground, meaning that the runner gets less energy returned with every stride he takes. (Ossur, the company that makes Pistorius’ Cheetahs, claims that its blades return 90 percent of the energy accumulated during each stride, as compared to a 249 percent return with an able-bodied foot and leg.)

“Peter’s claim that Oscar Pistorius can swing his legs back and forth faster than any other athlete is decidedly false,” a third of the paper’s authors, Hugh Herr, director of the Biomechatronics Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media Laboratory, told Wired. “If an Oscar Pistorius wants to participate [in the Olympics], he should be allowed. We should have the technology that would allow a fairness of sport, that would allow him freedom.”

Herr is right. We should have technology that allows Paralympians the freedom to compete on an Olympic-caliber playing field — but currently we either don’t, or can’t agree on the fact that we do.

(It should be noted that for devices like the Cheetahs to make a difference of Olympic proportions, they have to be worn by double-amputees. People who have lost only one leg face significant challenges getting their biological and prosthetic limbs to sync with elite-athlete perfection with regard to things like the distribution of weight and energy.)

Suffice it to say that there are no easy answers. But forget Pistorius for a moment: No matter how he does in the 400-meter preliminaries Saturday, his is today’s problem, featuring today’s technology — and in some cases, yesterday’s. The Cheetahs he uses are very similar to the Cheetahs introduced in 1997; the science behind them seems to have plateaued, but that almost certainly won’t be the case much longer.—www.shafaqna.com/english

Source: Wired