Latest news with #Al-Qaeda
Memri
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Memri
Beware Sudan's Islamist Army Generals
It was the English writer Oscar Wilde who said that second marriages were like the "triumph of hope over experience." That we hope things work out better "the second time" could apply to the terrible civil war raging in Sudan and the role of the Sudanese Army (SAF), led by General (and interim Head of State) Abdel Fatah Al-Burhan. In 1989, the Sudanese Army overthrew a civilian government and imposed harsh Islamic rule. What was supposedly a regime run by a clever Islamist civilian, Dr. Hassan Al-Turabi, eventually became a regime run by SAF generals, led by General Omar Al-Bashir, committed to Islamist ideology. The Al-Bashir regime which ruled the country for almost 30 years until 2019 oversaw not one but two genocides – one in South Sudan and the other in Darfur – and promoted terrorism both regionally and internationally. Of course, Sudan harbored Osama bin Laden and what became Al-Qaeda in the early days. In those years in Sudan – 1992-1997 – Bin Laden had already forged an agreement with the terrorists of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) which became a key part of Al-Qaeda and provided bin Laden with his second in command, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Even today, Al-Qaeda's leadership sheltering in Iran is led by an Egyptian, Saif Al-Adel. It is while in Sudan and protected by SAF General and President Al-Bashir, or shortly thereafter, that Al-Qaeda tried to assassinate Egyptian President Mubarak in Addis Ababa in 1995 and bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The SAF-ruled regime in Sudan continued support for terrorism long after bin Laden departed and Hassan Al-Turabi was purged. The Khartoum regime later played a key role in supporting the so-called Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) terrorist group in Uganda.[1] Sudan served as a key smuggling partner for Iran in supplying missiles to Hamas in Gaza, a fact that would lead to Israeli airstrikes in Sudan in 2009, 2011, and 2012.[2] The Al-Bashir regime was overthrown in 2019, in the face of massive public demonstrations, by his own generals. Al-Burhan quickly moved to consolidate power and in 2021 overthrew a fragile interim civilian government under technocrat Dr. Abdullah Hamdok. In 2023, SAF and their longtime military allies-turned-rivals in the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) began fighting among themselves, plunging the country into a brutal civil war that still continues.[3] Like Al-Bashir in the early days of his rule, Al-Burhan is supposed to shine in comparison with others, supposedly being "the moderate" compared to the many extremists in his camp. In addition to Islamist senior army officers, a key part of the SAF formations fighting the RSF are now units made up of and led by Islamists.[4] Among them are the former Darfur rebels of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) led by Dr. Jibril Ibrahim, currently Sudan's minister of finance. JEM used to be adversaries of the Sudanese Army – now they are allies. Ibrahim played a key role in the egging on of the overthrow of the interim civilian government (of which he was a part) in 2021. Not surprisingly, he kept the finance minister job after the military coup. Also fighting alongside SAF are Islamist formations, such as the Al-Bara Bin Malik Brigade, the military wing of the Islamist Movement in Sudan and the Bunyan Al-Marsous Brigade.[5] According to the Lebanese research site Daraj, there are also thousands of other Islamists, including former members of the Al-Bashir regime's state security – NISS – that have flooded into the ranks of other SAF units.[6] At the beginning of the war, SAF was outnumbered by the RSF and the army has been able to at least partially remedy the situation by taking in as many of these extremist factions as they can, either individually or collectively.[7] Of course, most of the senior leadership of SAF as it existed in 2019 or 2021 or today is essentially the same force that Al-Bashir created through the years, purging secular or disloyal officers. Multiple reports say that Al-Burhan is empowering the Islamists rather than try to limit their sway.[8] Given that the war continues to rage and that propaganda is a key part of the battle, one would think that SAF would be on its best behavior, wanting to reassure the Sudanese people and the international community that it is very different from the army that ruled and brutalized Sudan from 1989 to 2019. But that is not the case. Not only has SAF been creditably accused (as has RSF) of numerous war crimes, it has also protected former senior officials of the Al-Bashir regime, including the former dictator himself. SAF has also behaved brutally against many Sudanese civilians after "liberating" them from RSF. And, as the Al-Bashir regime did more than a decade ago, SAF has forged ties with Iran, their old partner, in supplying them arms (including Iranian drones) for the SAF war machine.[9] Al-Burhan himself – the statesman, the "moderate" – has shown himself to be an intolerant and aggressive figure but surprisingly pliable and amenable to extremist penetration of the military and the bureaucracy.[10] While there are rumors of Islamist dissatisfaction with Al-Burhan, others say that he is either too weak to stop Islamist influence within SAF or that he agrees with the Islamist trend.[11] The concern is not that he is forced to deal with Islamists because of circumstances, but that he is in lockstep with them and intends to rule with them. An early July Cairo 2025 meeting between Al-Burhan and Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar, arranged by Egypt, seems to have gone disastrously wrong, with a fiery Al-Burhan making an already tense situation worse. Reportedly Egypt's President Al-Sisi, who sought to mediate and improve relations between Libya and Sudan, was not pleased.[12] If Al-Burhan is like this now, when he has not won the war yet, how will he be if he triumphs? *Yigal Carmon is President of MEMRI.
Int'l Business Times
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Int'l Business Times
German Court Rejects Yemenis' Claim Over US Strikes
Germany's highest court on Tuesday threw out a case brought by two Yemenis seeking to sue Berlin over the role of the US Ramstein airbase in a 2012 drone attack, ending a years-long legal saga. Plaintiffs Ahmed and Khalid bin Ali Jaber first brought their case to court in 2014 after losing members of their family in the strike on the village of Khashamir. The case has since been through several German courts. But the Constitutional Court on Tuesday ultimately ruled that Berlin is not required to take action against such attacks, which were not judged to be in breach of international law. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, an impoverished country that has been torn by fierce fighting between its beleaguered Saudi-backed government and Iran-backed rebels. The two Yemeni men, supported by the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), had argued that Germany was partly responsible for the attack because the strike was aided by signals relayed via the Ramstein base in western Germany. "Without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot fly its combat drones in Yemen," the group said. The ECCHR's Andreas Schueller argued that "the German government must put an end to the use of this base -- otherwise the government is making itself complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians". The court found that Germany "does have a general duty to protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law, even in cases involving foreign countries". However, in order for this duty to be binding, there must be "a serious risk of systematic violation of applicable international law". "Measured against these standards, the constitutional complaint is unfounded," the court said. The ECCHR said the ruling had "failed to send a strong signal" and meant that "instead, individual legal protection remains a theoretical possibility without practical consequences". However, Schueller said the verdict "leaves the door open for future cases". "Violations of international law can be subject to judicial review, even if the court imposes high hurdles. This is an important statement by the Constitutional Court in these times," he said. According to the ECCHR, the two Yemeni men were having dinner ahead of the wedding of a male family member in 2012 when they heard the buzz of a drone and then the boom of missile attacks that claimed multiple lives. Their case against Germany was initially thrown out, before the higher administrative court in Muenster ruled in their favour in 2019. However, the government appealed and a higher court overturned the decision in 2020, arguing that German diplomatic efforts were enough to ensure Washington was adhering to international law. In a statement shared by the ECCHR, the two men called the ruling "dangerous and disturbing". "(It) suggests countries that provide assistance to the US assassination programme bear no responsibility when civilians are killed. Our hearts are broken, and our faith in international law is shaken," they said. The German government welcomed the ruling, which it said showed that Berlin had "a wide margin of discretion in assessing whether the actions of third states comply with international law". "According to the ruling, the government has no fundamental duty to protect foreigners abroad who are affected by military action by third states if, in the government's assessment, these attacks are within the bounds of what is permissible under international law," the defence and foreign ministries said in a statement. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen AFP Two Yemeni men have lost their case against the German government over the role of the Ramstein airbase in US drone attacks on Yemen AFP
Al-Ahram Weekly
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
German court rejects Yemenis' claim over US strikes - Region
Germany's highest court on Tuesday threw out a case brought by two Yemenis seeking to sue Berlin over the role of the US Ramstein airbase in a 2012 drone attack, ending a years-long legal saga. Plaintiffs Ahmed and Khalid bin Ali Jaber first brought their case to court in 2014 after losing members of their family in the attack on the village of Khashamir. The case has since been through several German courts, with mixed results, but the Constitutional Court on Tuesday said that ultimately it could not be proven that the drone attack had broken international law. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, an impoverished country that has been torn by fierce fighting between its beleaguered Saudi-backed government and Iran-backed rebels. The two Yemeni men, supported by the Berlin-based European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), had argued that Germany was partly responsible for the attack because the strike was aided by signals relayed via the Ramstein base in western Germany. "Without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot fly its combat drones in Yemen," according to the ECCHR. The ECCHR's Andreas Schueller, programme director for international crimes, argued that "the German government must put an end to the use of this base -- otherwise the government is making itself complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians". 'Trusting dialogue' The court found that Germany "does have a general duty to protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law, even in cases involving foreign countries", according to the written verdict. However, for this duty to be binding, there must be "a serious risk of systematic violation of applicable international law". "Measured against these standards, the constitutional complaint is unfounded," the court said. According to the ECCHR, the two Yemeni men were having dinner ahead of the wedding of a male family member in 2012 when they heard the buzz of a drone and then the boom of missile attacks that claimed multiple lives. Their case against Germany was initially thrown out, before the higher administrative court in Muenster ruled in their favour in 2019. However, the government appealed and a higher court overturned the decision in 2020, arguing that German diplomatic efforts were enough to ensure Washington was adhering to international law. Ahead of the latest proceedings, which opened in December 2024, the German defence ministry said Berlin was "in an ongoing and trusting dialogue" with the United States about its activities at Ramstein. The government has repeatedly obtained assurances that drones are not launched, controlled or commanded from Germany and that US forces are acting lawfully, the ministry said. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Euractiv
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Euractiv
Germany's highest court on Tuesday threw out a case brought by two Yemenis seeking to sue Berlin over the role of the US Ramstein airbase in a 2012 drone attack, ending a years-long legal saga.
Plaintiffs Ahmed and Khalid bin Ali Jaber first brought their case to court in 2014 after losing members of their family in the attack on the Yemeni village of Khashamir. The case has since been through several German courts, with mixed results, but the constitutional court on Tuesday said that ultimately it could not be proven that the drone attack had broken international law. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, an impoverished country that has been torn by fierce fighting between its beleaguered Saudi-backed government and Iran-backed rebels. The two Yemeni men, supported by the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), had argued that Germany was partly responsible for the attack because the strike was aided by signals relayed via the Ramstein base in western Germany. "Without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot fly its combat drones in Yemen," according to the ECCHR. The ECCHR's Andreas Schueller, programme director for international crimes, argued that "the German government must put an end to the use of this base – otherwise the government is making itself complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians". 'Trusting dialogue' The court found that Germany "does have a general duty to protect fundamental human rights and the core norms of international humanitarian law, even in cases involving foreign countries", according to the written verdict. However, in order for this duty to be binding, there must be "a serious risk of systematic violation of applicable international law". "Measured against these standards, the constitutional complaint is unfounded," the court said. According to the ECCHR, the two Yemeni men were having dinner ahead of the wedding of a male family member in 2012 when they heard the buzz of a drone and then the boom of missile attacks that claimed multiple lives. Their case against Germany was initially thrown out, before the higher administrative court in Münster ruled in their favour in 2019. However, the government appealed and a higher court overturned the decision in 2020, arguing that German diplomatic efforts were enough to ensure Washington was adhering to international law. Ahead of the latest proceedings, which opened in December 2024, the German defence ministry said Berlin was "in an ongoing and trusting dialogue" with the United States about its activities at Ramstein. The government has repeatedly obtained assurances that drones are not launched, controlled or commanded from Germany and that US forces are acting lawfully, the ministry said. (vib)
Local Germany
a day ago
- Politics
- Local Germany
German court to rule on claim over US strikes in Yemen
The case is being brought by two Yemeni men, Ahmed and Khalid bin Ali Jaber, who lost members of their family in a US drone strike on the village of Khashamir in 2012. The survivors say they were there for a wedding of a male family member and eating dinner when they heard the buzz of a drone and then the boom of missile attacks that claimed multiple lives. A ruling in favour of the plaintiffs could have ground breaking implications regarding Germany's responsibility towards third countries in international conflicts. The two men, supported by the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), argue that Germany is partly responsible for the attack because the strike was aided by signals relayed from the Ramstein base in the west of the country. "Without the data that flows through Ramstein, the US cannot fly its combat drones in Yemen," according to the ECCHR. "The German government must put an end to the use of this base -- otherwise the government is making itself complicit in the deaths of innocent civilians," said Andreas Schueller, programme director for international crimes at the NGO. The plaintiffs first took their case to court in 2014, arguing that Germany had a responsibility to ensure the US military was respecting international law in using the Ramstein base. 'Trusting dialogue' The case was initially thrown out, before the higher administrative court in Muenster ruled in favour of the plaintiffs in 2019. However, the government appealed and a higher court overturned the decision in 2020, arguing that German diplomatic efforts were enough to ensure Washington was adhering to international law. Advertisement In a hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning, the constitutional court must now decide what conditions are necessary for those affected abroad to sue the German state for the protection of their right to life, according to the ECCHR. This includes whether data transmission alone is enough of a connection to German territory for Germany to be held responsible. Ahead of the latest proceedings, which opened in December 2024, the German defence ministry said Berlin was "in an ongoing and trusting dialogue" with the United States about its activities at Ramstein. The government has repeatedly obtained assurances that drones are not launched, controlled or commanded from Germany and that US forces are acting lawfully, the ministry said. Washington has for years launched drone strikes targeting suspected Al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, an impoverished country that has been torn by fierce fighting between its beleaguered Saudi-backed government and Iran-backed rebels. READ ALSO: German military leaders re-examine reliance on US-made weapons
