RAF Hercules downed by AA fire in Iraq

The Telegraph is reporting that the RAF Hercules which crashed January 30, 2005 – the day of the Iraqi elections – was downed by an AA weapon.

An interim Ministry of Defence report has ruled out almost everything apart from enemy fire and it was suggested that a missile or rocket-propelled grenade could have brought down the aircraft.

But an official told The Daily Telegraph yesterday that the report concluded that the Hercules had been shot down by anti-aircraft artillery, as it flew at a low altitude, possibly 150ft.

“It was shredded by a multi-barrelled 20mm canon,” the official said. “They have worked out that’s what caused the crash.”

The gun is believed to have been a 1960s twin-barrel Zu-23, made in China or the Soviet Union, left over from the Saddam Hussein regime.

It has an effective range of 2,000 yards and can be mounted on a lorry or set on wheels.

It is not known why the Hercules, which was equipped with sophisticated defensive measures, was flying at low altitude for the 40-minute trip.

Lucas draws Iraq/Vietnam parallel

George Lucas conceived Star Wars in part as a criticism of Nixonian America and the Vietnam War (the Endor battle scenes in Return of the Jedi are intended partly as a Vietnam sequence). Now, at the premier of Revenge of the Sith, he says “When I wrote it, Iraq (the U.S.-led war) didn’t exist… but the parallels of what we did in Vietnam and Iraq are unbelievable.”
Although shrewd businessman Lucas wants to downplay any overt political implications of his new movie, there is an obvious critique of Bush and the War on Terror. Near the end of the picture, after Anakin has embraced the Dark Side and become Darth Vader, he confronts his best friend Obi-Wan Kenobi. Vader says “You are either with me — or you are my enemy.” Bush said something very similar after 9/11: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” In the novelization and I hope, the movie, Kenobi responds “Only Sith deal in absolutes, Anakin. The truth is never black and white.”

Surprise! You’ve been Nuked!

A radical shift in US war planning towards preemptive surprise attacks of a purely technological nature (bombing, space weapons) is the subject of a new article by William M. Arkin in the Washington Post. It seems that Washington is moving towards conflict resolution without the messy US casualties that usually force an end to wars. Since the US public seems much more willing to accept unfortunate non-US civilian casualties than it is American Soldier casualites, this strikes me as sound market-based war planning. Would there be much concern in the US if everyone woke up tomorrow to read that Pyongyang had been nuked in a surprise attack? I wonder…
Arkin calls for a public debate on the issue;

though CONPLAN 8022 suggests a clean, short-duration strike intended to protect American security, a preemptive surprise attack (let alone one involving a nuclear weapon option) would unleash a multitude of additional and unanticipated consequences. So, on both counts, why aren’t we talking about it?

Kamal Nawash Republican Campaign Rally

All right, what’s the deal with this weird rally? Glenn Reynolds is flogging it, so there’s a clue. The other vector appears to be Horowitz.

Hussein Ibish, pointing out the absurd list of “sponsors” (Like Free Republic’s RighTalk, a dress shop in Arizona and a couple of obscure right-wing blogs, for example) says it’s a campaign rally for outcast Republican Kamal Nawash.

On Saturday, May 14, “Free Muslims Against Terrorism,” the group set up to stop criticism of Kamal Nawash by right-wing Zionists like Daniel Pipes and bolster his failed career as a Republican party candidate for local office in Virginia, is holding a “March against Terror” rally in Washington, DC (for more background on Nawash and “Free Muslims” see this). Representatives of most major Arab American and American Muslim groups in Washington received invitations to participate in the March, but all declined given Kamal’s unsavory background and activities, and his close association with and open courting of those most hostile to these communities such as the professional bigot Daniel Pipes and others. Indeed, one of the purposes of the March may be to force the mainstream groups to choose between having to join this unsavory figure and give his appalling efforts undeserved credibility, or decline and face future accusations from the likes of Pipes that their failure to join Kamal’s March indicates some sort of secret support for terrorism against the United States.

Nonetheless, Kamal has been vigorously promoting, with the help of his patrons Pipes, David Horowitz and other enemies of the community, the March and a growing list of “endorsers.” In an effort to inform the public, and to examine more closely who is willing to get into bed with whom, I have assembled the following notes on the organizations he says endorse his “March.” To call it a bunch of strange bedfellows does not really do this list justice. We are looking at everything from clothes shops in Arizona, Moonies, right-wing Zionists, and Christian fundamentalists, to Iranian monarchists, Iraqi supporters of the occupation, Darfurian exiles and Lebanese Phalangists. A few are legitimate organizations, many are fakes and some are certifiable. Some are blogs, some are empty websites, and many are individuals or small groups listed twice or thrice. At least one, the Muslim Canadian Congress, has repeatedly demanded to be removed from the list, but, true to form, Kamal persists in listing them. Almost all are tiny and on some fringe or other especially a grab-bag of ultra-right crackpots, and many are openly hostile to Islam and Muslims. Stranger than fiction, these are the groups that will be rallying in Washington against terrorism on May 14 under the banner “Free Muslims against Terrorism.”

Whatever it was, the Muslim-bashers are gleefully proclaiming that the sparse turnout means Muslims really are all terrorists.

More on the “Free Muslims” here. Ibish:

It looks like an effort to force people into choosing to give Kamal completely undeserved credibility by joining him, or face possible denunciation as agents of terror by declining the poisoned offer. It’s a typically crude ploy, and nobody should be fooled for a second by it.

The only remaining question is: who is giving Kamal the money to allow him to turn himself out like this, complete with office and staff? Since he still has yet to file his 990 financial disclosure forms, we’ll just have to wait to discover who is the Mac Daddy pimping Kamal, if indeed we ever really find out. If we do, I doubt we’ll be too surprised.

Sounds about right.