Target Centermass

Month: December 2004

  • Yemeni Youths Seeking Martyrdom in Iraq

    Looking for evidence of foreign involvement in Iraq’s troubles? There’s this pathetic tale.

    For weeks, Mohammed Ahmed Abdul-Rahman could only wonder where his son had gone. Then the mystery was solved in a will.

    “I am in Iraq, seeking martyrdom. I hope we are all forgiven,” Abdul-Rahman quoted his son’s will as reading, saying in a weekend interview that an unknown caller from Jordan had told him how to find the document three weeks after 20-year-old Hossam Abdul-Rahman vanished in September. He said he doesn’t know whether his son is dead.

    While only a few cases of Yemenis going to Iraq to fight have been documented, security officials say they are keeping a close eye on travelers leaving this country at the tip of the Arabian peninsula, where Islamic teaching is strong.

    Abdul-Rahman has taken the rare step of going public with his story, and is accusing Islamic extremists of brainwashing his university son.

    Although its government supports the U.S.-led war on terror, Yemen has long been a center of Islamic militancy, and has suffered several attacks and bombings in recent years. The security officials say they are trying to determine whether Yemeni individuals or groups were financing trips to Iraq or helping with travel logistics.

    A group of Yemeni clerics recently endorsed a call by 26 Saudi religious leaders to support the insurgency in Iraq, saying the attacks on U.S.-led forces are a legitimate form of resistance.

    An Islamic activist in the capital said that while he was not aware of any direct attempts by Islamic groups to recruit Yemeni fighters to go to Iraq, he was supportive of such travel.

    “I support it, because it is a duty. They are going to fight occupiers of Arab and Muslim land,” said Ali al-Kurdi. “Any Muslim who is hesitant in helping Iraqis is a sinner.”

    He said recent reports in the local media have encouraged others to make the trip.

    According to figures compiled by The Associated Press, there have been at least 12 cases of Yemeni men who have made their way into Iraq. The security officials said that three people suspected of trying to join the insurgency in Iraq were detained at the airport. Others are reported to have died in Iraq.

    Authorities watching for travelers to Iraq are focusing on those leaving for Syria and Jordan, security officials said. Yemenis don’t need visas to travel to either country, which both neighbor Iraq.

    Sadly, some could read this and still believe the war against radical Islamic terror should solely be about Osama bin Laden.

  • Israel to Boycott Blair’s Peace Conference

    As I read this story, I did not understand the usage of the word “boycott” and its negative connotations in the story’s headline.

    Tony Blair will take on the role of go-between for the Israelis and Palestinians as he tries to keep up the momentum of the Middle East peace process on a two-day visit to the region starting today.

    Meanwhile, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon announced yesterday that Israel would not attend the Middle East conference Mr Blair plans to host in London after next month’s Palestinian presidential election. The conference is due to discuss how the Palestinian Authority can meet its obligations under the internationally backed road map to peace.

    As Mr Blair prepared for a flying visit to Jerusalem and Ramallah, British diplomats received the news of Mr Sharon’s announcement with equanimity. It was seen as a logical outcome of preliminary talks last week between Israeli leaders and Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the Prime Minister’s senior foreign affairs adviser.

    “Mr Sharon’s decision neither surprises me nor disturbs me,” an official at the British embassy in Tel Aviv told The Independent. “It indicates an understanding on the part of the Israeli government of the purpose and scope of the London conference. It was always our intention that it should be a conference preparing the Palestinians for the day after Israel disengages from Gaza.”

    The summit will be attended by foreign ministers of donor countries and representatives of the quartet that drafted the road map – the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.

    Neither Israel nor Britain wanted to turn the road map into an alternative political initiative. They feared that Israeli participation would change the emphasis, which is meant to be on Palestinian democratisation, economic reform and reconstruction under a new leadership.

    A senior source in Mr Sharon’s office said that the Israeli decision had been co-ordinated with Downing Street in an extensive exchange of letters. “We support this conference,” he said, “but we see no purpose for us to participate. It’s between the Palestinians and the donor countries.” The Prime Minister will promise Israel that it will not be “bounced” into premature final-status negotiations before it is ready or before the emergence of a moderate Palestinian leadership committed to making political progress.

    At the same time, Mr Blair will offer to help the Palestinians to “fill the vacuum” when Israel implements Mr Sharon’s plan to withdraw more than 7,000 settlers from Gaza. His talks with the Palestinians will cover assistance on security, political reform and economic infrastructure. Mr Blair hopes these proposals will reassure Israel and the US that the Palestinians have a credible, non-militant leadership.

    The British say the Israelis aren’t needed. The Israelis agree, and even expressed support for the conference. So why call it a boycott?

    The press continues looking for a problem.

    Asked whether the timing of Mr Sharon’s announcement – during a meeting yesterday with the Czech Foreign Minister, Cyril Svoboda, might be seen as a snub to Mr Blair, he replied: “We decided to publicise the content of the letters in order to dispel all the rumours and misconceptions circulating about the purpose and scope of the conference.”

    Still no problem. So, why the headline? Well, there is this bit.

    No one, however, seems to have told the Palestinians. Saeb Erakat, their chief negotiator, denounced Mr Sharon’s decision as “very unfortunate”. The Palestinians, he said, believed a conference was the best way to restart peace talks. “We want to focus on reviving the peace process and resuming permanent status negotiations,” he said.

    So, it’s an Israeli boycott, as the press decides to shun the British and Israeli stances and view the matter through the eyes of the Palestinians. Very telling but not very surprising.

  • 50 Held for Iraq Blasts

    In a fast reaction to yesterday’s bombings, Iraqi authorities have rounded up 50 suspects, including some said to be rather unusual.

    Iraqi authorities detained 50 suspects in connection with an explosion in the Shia holy city of Najaf that killed at least 54 people and wounded 142, and thousands of mourners attended funerals for the victims on Monday.

    Najaf police chief Ghalib al-Jazaari said those arrested included “elements” who had allegedly confessed to having links with the intelligence services of neighbouring Syria and Iran.

    This is no proof positive of the oft-denied involvement of Iraq’s neighbors in the country’s struggles. However, the circumstantial evidence mounts, providing more and more support to the obvious conclusion.

  • The Gift of the Season, 2004 Edition

    We’ve had Cabbage Patch Kids and Tickle-Me Elmos. What is the gift of the 2004 Christmas shopping season?

    Apparently, it’s poker.

    Is there any freakin’ kind of store out there that isn’t carrying casino-style chips and Texas Hold’em sets? Heck, even Bed, Bath & Beyond has a selection. Cool game, but this craze really needs to tone down already.

    No offense intended to the Fat Guy and his obsession.

  • 62 Die in Iraq Car Bomb Blasts

    It was a bloodier-than-usual day in Iraq as the terrorists desperately work to stave off the pending elections.

    Suicide car bombers struck Iraq’s two main Shi’ite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala yesterday, killing at least 62 people and wounding nearly 130, six weeks before a historic election.

    Both bombs, which went off about two hours apart, exploded near crowded bus stations in a seemingly co-ordinated attempt to cause as much bloodshed as possible among Shi’ites, a long-oppressed majority expected to dominate the January 30 vote.

    Earlier in Baghdad, gunmen killed three Electoral Commission employees after hauling them from a car on a busy street.

    In Najaf, the suicide bomber detonated his vehicle about 300 metres from the Imam Ali shrine, near crowds of people queuing for buses and taxis and not far from busy offices.

    Medical officials said there were at least 48 dead and 90 wounded in the blast. Police imposed a curfew in Najaf’s old city.

    In Karbala, where a suicide bomber stuck about two hours earlier, the main hospital said 14 people were killed and 39 wounded. A hospital official said all appeared to be civilians with many women and children among them.

    In an unrelated occurrence, I’ve just about finished my Christmas shopping.

  • Target Centermass: On the Move Again

    A little over a week ago, I announced the problem I was facing with the pending closing of my hosting service and lack of control of the domain targetcentermass.com. Because of the positive feedback to that post, along with the fact that I’m not yet tired of telling y’all what I think, I’ve decided to move to a new host and a somewhat new domain.

    I’d like to announce the new site targetcentermass.net is going live starting … now. Yeah, there’s still some problems to be worked out and more issues are expected, but time is running out on me. I will continue to face these issues as they arise and as I am able, but all posts from now on will be cross-posted on both sites until targetcentermass.com goes away (expected to be Jan. 1, 2005).

    I would ask that any who have done me the honor of linking or blogrolling me be so kind as to update my listing to targetcentermass.net. I would also like to thank my new hosting service, Total Choice Hosting, for their receptiveness and responsiveness to date.

  • Spirit of America Wrap-Up

    Well, the Fighting Fusileers for Freedom raised over $6,500 for the Spirit of America charity. Overall, bloggers and their readers were able to amass contributions exceeding $90,000 in the Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge. A hearty congrats to all involved.

    Please visit all the blogs who joined Castle Argghhh!!! on the Fighting Fusileers team:

    A Black and White World
    A Texan Abroad
    AFSister
    Argghhh! The Home of Two of Jonah’s Military Guys
    Army of One
    As I See Things
    Baboon Pirates
    Barb
    Ben’s World
    Blackfive
    Boudicca’s Voice
    Brain Shavings
    CPTHAM
    CandyUniverse
    CatHouse Chat
    Chapomatic
    Cowboy Blob’s
    Dean’s World
    Dog Snot Diaries
    Drink this…
    Inside Allan’s Mind
    Instapilot
    Intelligent Intercourse
    Jason’s Blog
    Mind of Mog
    Mossback Culture
    Neutral
    Not Exactly Rocket Science
    OkieMinnie Me
    Pedophiles for Kim Jong-Il
    Quality Weenie
    Random Fate
    RedNeck Ramblings
    Right Wing Nut Jobs Unite
    SMASH
    Secure Liberty
    Seven Inches of Sense
    Sgt Hook
    She Who Will Be Obeyed!
    Southern By Blog!!
    Target Centermass
    Technicalities
    The BLOG
    The Last Amazon
    The Patriette
    The Razor
    The Tiger in Winter
    University Blog
    Wizblog
    baldilocks
    dustmybroom.com

    Now, off to some Christmas shopping. More later.

  • In U.S., 44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims

    The libertarian in me was initially dismayed when I saw the above headline. Then I read the story.

    Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

    The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims’ civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.

    Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.

    “It’s sad news. It’s disturbing news. But it’s not unpredictable,” said Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society. “The nation is at war, even if it’s not a traditional war. We just have to remain vigilant and continue to interface.”

    The survey found 44 percent favored at least some restrictions on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans. Forty-eight percent said liberties should not be restricted in any way.

    ….

    Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. The margin of error was 3.6 percentage points.

    As with most surveys, the key lies in the questions and how the answers are interpreted. According to this story, the polling consisted of only four questions.

    The survey asked respondents about four specific restrictions, all of which have been seriously suggested, noted Shanahan.

    Specifically, the survey found:

    • 27 percent of respondents said all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government.
    • 26 percent said mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies.
    • 29 percent agreed undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund raising.
    • 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage.

    Apparently a “yes” response to any one of these four questions lumps would lump a respondent into the 44% favoring restrictions, while a “no” to all would go into the 48% opposing restrictions.

    Well, lump me in with those 44% bastards. I’d go no to the first question, but feel that, to a certain degree, the other three should be considered and pursued given the nature of our current enemy. Welcome to the realities of this war, folks.

    I wonder about the unmentioned 8% whose answers apparently consisted of some combination of “no” or “beats the hell outta me, fella” or “what’s a Muslim?”

  • San Antonio Requires Strippers to Wear Permits

    We’d better be talking about some unobtrusive permits here.

    The City Council today approved a measure that will require strippers to wear permits while they are on stage.

    City Councilman Chip Haass pushed the amended human display ordinance as making it easier for police to identify dancers.

    But a lawyer representing several strip clubs in the city said it would also create a physical danger by making it easier for an obsessed customer to find out a dancer’s real name and where she lives.

    Attorney Jim Deegear has said he will file a lawsuit challenging the measure, which the 11-member council passed unanimously early Friday during a marathon meeting that began Thursday afternoon.

    Deegear says the city’s strict rules are part of an effort to drive his clients out of business.

    The strip clubs’ attorney makes a very valid objection about the publication of a dancer’s personal information. This is a rather poor idea.

    There is one lingering question, though: is some sort of test needed to obtain such a permit and, if so, how is it scored?

  • Taiwan Says China Creating Legal Basis to Attack

    Always at least simmering on the back burner, relations heated up a bit between China and Taiwan as a Taiwanese official called proposed Chinese legislation a potential legal foundation for attack.

    Taiwan condemned China’s proposed anti-secession law on Saturday, calling it a move to establish a legal basis to attack the island.

    Chinese state media said on Friday that Beijing planned to send the draft law for deliberation during a parliament session on Dec. 25-29. It was seen as a move to head off a formal declaration of Taiwan independence from the mainland.

    “They are looking for a legal basis to invade Taiwan,” said Chiu Tai-san, vice chairman and spokesman for the Mainland Affairs Council, which sets policy toward Taiwan’s arch-rival.

    “If they want to punish or invade Taiwan they must have some legal basis to make it okay to attack,” Chiu said.

    China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and has threatened war if the self-governing, democratic island declares statehood.

    The official Xinhua news agency did not say why China was enacting an anti-secession law instead of the tougher reunification law it had floated earlier. That law would have bound a Chinese leader to order an attack on Taiwan if the island formally declared nationhood.

    China should be very careful with this legislation, as they may be codifying a means by which Taiwan could maneuver them into a war, if only for the Chinese to save face. Though they are working to upgrade and enhance their forces, it is doubtful that China currently has the air and naval capabilities to attack and bring about a successful conclusion before the impact of U.S. assistance to Taiwan is felt. A failed assault by China could possibly serve to strengthen Taiwan’s position in international circles while weakening China’s at home.