The hypothesis that Germanwings Flight 9525 was intentionally crashed by its allegedly suicidal co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, has dominated the headlines to such an extent that it has taken on the aura of established fact. Numerous aviation experts and professional associations have condemned this rush to judgment and the role of French authorities in fueling it. What the aviation experts and professional associations know, but the broader public in general does not, is that a known malfunction in a cockpit computer on the A320 family of planes could initiate a controlled descent like that Lubitz is accused of having intentionally brought about and, furthermore, that so long as the computer is running, the pilot or pilots would not be able to override it.
For the details, including critical commentary on the Germanwings investigation from French pilots, see my new article on Geopolitical Monitor here.
As reported by the Austrian daily Der Standard, some fifty Bosnian soccer fans broke into a chant of “Kill, kill the Jews!” during a pro-Palestinian rally in Vienna’s central Saint Stephan’s Square last week. For details and video, see my new post at the Weekly Standard here.
The question as to why Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 would intentionally bring about the crash of the plane is at the source of much of the perplexity surrounding the Germanwings tragedy. Even if we suppose that Lubitz was suicidal, it is obviously one thing to commit suicide and another to do so in such a way as to cause the death of 149 other people as well. This perplexity undoubtedly fueled the unfounded rumors that Lubitz was Muslim, since if the co-pilot was an Islamic radical conducting a suicide operation, then the mystery would be resolved. But there is also another way of resolving the mystery: maybe Lubitz did not intentionally crash the plane.
Although the international media has shown little interest in any other storyline, French investigators have not ruled out other hypotheses, including that of a mechanical failure. For details, see my new post at the Weekly Standard here.
Blogs and social media has been abuzz with talk of a supposed “German news report” indicating that Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525, was a Muslim convert. In fact, there is no such report. On how the rumor got started, see my new post at the Weekly Standard here.
On Sunday, following the first round of voting in France’s departmental elections, Prime Minister Manuel Valls took time to congratulate himself on having halted the rise of Marine Le Pen’s National Front. But a closer look at the election results reveals that the prime minister’s personal triumph is an illusion. Reports to the contrary notwithstanding, the National Front remains the “first party of France.”
For the details, see my new post at World Affairs here.
On February 9, the US State Department designated German citizen Dennis Cuspert as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. Formerly known as “Deso Dogg,” during his days as one of Germany’s most well-known gangster rappers, Cuspert more recently adopted the nom de guerre Abu Talha al-Almani (the German). The State Department designation comes after Germany itself submitted Cuspert’s name to be included on the UN Security Council’s list of designated terrorists and terrorist entities. There is no doubt that since arriving in Syria in summer 2013, Cuspert had become a very significant recruiter of foreign and, above all, German-speaking jihadists. There is, however, significant doubt whether Cuspert is today even still alive.
For the details, see my new report at Geopolitical Monitor here.
The recent controversy over a Fox News segment on “no-go zones” in France, culminating in Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo’s threat to sue the American channel, will undoubtedly have been a surreal experience for many French-speakers, connoisseurs of France, and, above all, French people themselves. For while the original remarks by Fox interviewee Nolan Peterson contained some fuzziness and error, the existence of such zones has been universally acknowledged in France for years: by members of all political parties, including Hidalgo’s own Socialists, and all media, including the leftist media. Of course, the French do not use the expression “no-go zones,” because the French speak French. Their expression is zones de non-droit, literally “lawless zones,” so described because the police are incapable of maintaining a regular enough presence in them to enforce the law.
For the details, see my new article in the Weekly Standard here.
The Islamic terror attack on the offices of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo has prompted spirited defenses of freedom of expression from the French government and its Western allies. The Western defense of freedom of expression in the face of attacks by Islamic fundamentalists has not always been so unequivocal, however. Indeed, from the start of the Mohammed cartoon controversy, the support of some Western governments – including the French – for Charlie Hebdo and other “offenders” has been tepid at best. Moreover, by allying with Islamist forces in places like Libya and Syria, the West has strengthened some of the most radical currents in the Muslim world: some of the very currents that had taken the West violently to task over the Mohammed cartoons. A brief review of the pre-history of the 2011 Libyan rebellion will make this clear…
See my new article on Geopolitical Monitor here.
News that the suspected perpetrator of the Brussels Jewish Museum shooting is a French jihadist veteran of the Syrian war has added to what were already growing concerns about the dangers posed by European fighters returning from Syria. But closer consideration of the Brussels attack and its precedents shows that threats in Europe are not necessarily threats to Europe per se: Jews (civilians) and Americans (military personnel) remain the preferred targets of Islamic terrorists who strike on the European continent.
On the path that took the suspect, Mehdi Nemmouche, from a juvenile career of petty delinquency in France to jihadist militancy in Syria and ultimately, it seems, anti-Jewish terror in Brussels, see my new article at The Federalist here.
President Obama is reputed to be the president who “ends wars.” But Ignacio Rupérez, the former Spanish ambassador to Iraq, sees things differently. In an article in the Spanish daily ABC on the rise of ISIS in Iraq, Rupérez is quoted as follows:
Barack Obama wanted to go down in history as the president of the United States who ended wars. But in fact he should do so as the president who pulled his troops from wars without finishing.