Target Centermass

Category: War on Terror

  • Lawyer Convicted of Supporting Terrorists

    I had wanted to post on today’s conviction of Lynne Stewart, a lawyer and so-called activist who apparently thought little of relaying messages from a convicted terrorist to his followers. I found the published news stories to be rather bland or pathetically slanted. However, after finding Ace of Spade‘s work on the matter here, I’ll just step aside.

    And yet there are those who maintain there’s no Fifth Column of anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing traitors in this country. Everyone is free to form their own “allegiances of conscience.”

    The hell with that. Lock this ugly whore away for the maximum. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    I’ll let it rest with Ace’s words, as I try to keep this site somewhat family-friendly, despite my high rank on a Google search for “Islamist bastards.”

    EDIT: I called the ABC News/Reuters piece as pathetically slanted without explaining. Eric took that and explains why I feel justified in my call.

  • The Dream’s Charity Nightmare

    I’ll happily argue with anyone that he is the greatest center basketball has seen to date.

    I’ll staunchly defend the man for his dedication, both to his team and his religion, after watching him play at the professional level while fasting for Ramadan.

    I’ll have to sit aside meekly, however, if anybody wants to question the wisdom of the charitable contributions of Hakeem Olajuwon.

    A mosque established and funded by Hakeem Olajuwon gave more than $80,000 to charities the government later determined to be fronts for the terror groups al-Qaida and Hamas, according to financial records obtained by The Associated Press.

    Olajuwon told AP he had not known of any links to terrorism when the donations were made, before the government’s crackdown on the groups, and would not have given the money if he had known.

    “There is no way you can go back in time,” Olajuwon said by telephone from Jordan, where he is studying Arabic. “After the fact, now they have the list of organizations that are banned by the government.”

    A U.S. Treasury Department spokeswoman, Molly Millerwise, declined to discuss Olajuwon’s contributions but said, “In many cases, donors are being unwittingly misled by the charities.”

    Federal law enforcement officials said they were not probing Olajuwon, a 7-foot center born in Nigeria who played 17 seasons for the Houston Rockets before retiring in 2002. Olajuwon became a U.S. citizen in 1993.

    The Olajuwon-founded Islamic Da’Wah Center in Houston gave more than $60,000 in 2000 and $20,000 in 2002 to the Islamic African Relief Agency, the center’s tax records show. The government shut down the relief agency in October, saying it gave money and other support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

    But the agency and its possible ties to terrorism had been in news stories years earlier, before Olajuwon’s contributions

    Olajuwon also participated in a 1999 celebrity bowling tournament for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which the U.S. government shut down in 2001, accusing it of sending money to Hamas.

    Call me biased because I lived in the Houston area for the bulk of the Dream’s NBA career and the loving local press that entailed, but I have no doubt about Olajuwon’s innocence in this matter. That said, he should look more carefully into the causes where his time and money go. He also should’ve blocked out better in the closing moments against the Wolfpack.

  • Bush to Seek $100 Million in Military Aid for Poland

    I’ve stated before that Poland, steadfast ally that they have been in our efforts against radical Islamic terror, needed to be rewarded. It seems that is about to come to pass.

    President Bush told President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland on Wednesday that he would ask Congress for $100 million to modernize the Polish military, part of a program of support for a new NATO ally that has more than 2,000 soldiers in Iraq.

    In an interview shortly after his meeting with Mr. Bush, the Polish president said he had no intention of withdrawing Poland’s troops from Iraq this year, unless the new government asked them to leave. “I’m almost sure that if it will be necessary, they will be there,” said Mr. Kwasniewski, who has been under pressure at home to bring the troops back. “The question is how to organize it.”

    That indication of support is critical to Mr. Bush, who is struggling to maintain a broad international presence in Iraq, where the United States and to a lesser extent Britain have provided the great majority of the troops.

    Mr. Kwasniewski has been among the strongest supporters of Mr. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, and there are 2,400 Polish soldiers in Iraq, leading a 5,000-strong multinational division in the central and southern parts of the country. About 800 Polish soldiers are to leave this month.

    […]

    The $100 million for military modernization was hinted at by the new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, during a brief stopover in Warsaw a week ago. “I don’t get to write the checks in the American system,” Mr. Bush cautioned. “The government – the Congress does that. But I get to put out requests.”

    […]

    Mr. Bush also announced that he would ask Congress for $400 million in additional funds “to strengthen the capabilities of our partners to advance democracy and stability around the world.” Poland would receive a significant portion of those funds as well, officials said.

    Mr. Kwasniewski said the money was not a quid pro quo for Poland’s troop presence in Iraq. But clearly, returning home with financial commitments from Mr. Bush will help him in a parliamentary debate about how long to remain in Iraq, at a time when opinion polls show that a clear majority of Poles want an end to the troops presence.

    Military assistance is entirely appropriate for a country with a backbone and a willingness to stand along side its allies. Certainly, Poland and other coalition nations, particularly those whose militaries were shaped and equipped during the days of the Warsaw Pact, could stand to have some martial modernization.

    I entirely endorse this move, though I’m certain that some will deride it as a payoff, as little more than a twenty left on the dresser on the way out the door. I hope those who take this view, those who sided with Sen. John Kerry when he derided our allies as the “coalition of the bribed and coerced,” will recall that Kerry himself called for rewarding Poland after he essentially insulted our staunch ally.

  • Rafsanjani: Iran, U.S. Share Interests in Iraq

    It’s difficult to tell whether this is meant to smooth over American-Iranian relations or just serve as a little diplomatic trash talk.

    Iran and the United States have a common enemy in the al-Qaida terrorist network and shared interests in Iraq, former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said in an interview published Monday.

    Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s most powerful leaders, said in the interview with USA Today in Tehran on Sunday that Iraq’s Jan 30 national elections went “well” and that al-Qaida terrorists “are our enemies, too. You are aware of what al-Qaida has done to our fellow Shiites in Iraq.”

    He characterized as “nonsense” statements by U.S. President George W Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Iran’s “cleric-run government” and human rights record. “We say the United States wouldn’t dare to attack us, and they have tested it once (the failed hostage rescue in 1980),” he added.

    “The United States is a big country, but unfortunately it seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness of the country,” Rafsanjani said.

    I especially enjoy the bluster about the abortion that was the Operation Eagle Claw rescue attempt. I assure you that Rafsanjani understands that today’s American military is not the charlie foxtrot of the post-Viet Nam hangover.

  • Debate Starts on Boosting Mil Death Benefit

    A move by the Bush administration to greatly enhance cash payouts to those lost in the campaign against Islamic terror has led to a counter-proposal asking for even more.

    Democrats argued today that President George W. Bush’s proposal to boost government payments to families of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and future war zones should extend to all military personnel who die on active duty.

    Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said that while he agreed with Bush’s plan to give those families an extra $250,000, the money also should “apply to all service members on active duty” who die and not just those who die in Pentagon-designated combat zones.

    Officials with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines told the committee that the Department of Defense should not give benefits to surviving spouses and children simply based on the geography of where a death occurs.

    “They can’t make a distinction. I don’t think we should either,” said Adm. John Nathman, vice chief of naval operations for the Navy. Added Gen. Michael Moseley, the Air Force’s vice chief of staff: “I believe a death is a death, and I believe this should be treated that way.”

    Under questioning from Levin, David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the administration would work with Congress to determine the exact objective of the increased benefits.

    Look, folks, the objective is simple — reduce the possibilities or strength of a virtual parade of embittered widows, widowers and orphans on our TV sets, being used as a knife in the back against our efforts to conduct the needed war for our children’s sake. Sound melodramatic? The media and the left have turned victory into defeat before (see the Tet offensive) and emotionalism is a powerful tool.

    The proposal, the subject of the panel’s hearing, includes retroactive payments to the spouses or surviving relatives of the more than 1,500 who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since October 2001. It will be in the fiscal 2006 budget proposal that Bush submits to Congress next week, a Pentagon official said.

    A tax-free “death gratuity,” now $12,420, would grow to $100,000. The government also would pay for $150,000 in life insurance for troops. Veterans groups and many in Congress have been pushing for such increases.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is sponsoring a bill with the same provisions, said yesterday that the first-year cost of the increased benefits would be $459 million, including more than $280 million in retroactive payments of the higher gratuity and the extra life insurance payouts. “The American people want to be generous to the families of service people who give their lives for their country,” he said.

    I actually back Sen. Levin’s proposed increase here, though I would go it one further. Why limit it to only deaths on active-duty service? Is a death on a National Guardman’s weekend duty less important? Put it at any deaths occurring while serving a duty period (i.e. reservist has an accident in his private vehicle during the week = no benefit beyond insurance; reservist dies in Humvee wreck on weekend drill = benefit).

    That’s just my view. Those in a combat theater deserve supplemental pay, a death is a death, the families suffer equally and the sacrifices of all should be recognized.

  • Iraq Insurgents’ Failure Raises Questions

    The Associated Press, in this piece on Yahoo! News, takes a look at the failure of the insurgents in Iraq to live up to their threats. The piece is authored by one Sally Buzbee, credited as an AP writer but actually apparently the AP’s chief of Middle East News. Let’s take a look at her look.

    They sent nine suicide bombers, killed more than 40 people, claimed to have shot down a British military plane and threatened to wash the streets with blood.

    Insurgents’ threats against Iraq’s historic election appeared to have some impact, keeping Sunni Arab turnout low in certain areas when Iraqis voted Sunday. Yet the rebels did not stop the balloting altogether, raising questions of just how much ability and influence they have.

    Yes, it does raise questions. However, the article will go on later to effectively not pursue those questions in any significant depth.

    “There will still be some acts of violence,” Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Monday, claiming the elections had dealt the insurgency a major blow. “But the terrorists now know that they cannot win.”

    The elections were hailed as a success around the world, including in Sunni Arab countries like Jordan.

    The elections may have been hailed world-wide as a success, but this article will instead turn it’s aim to undermining this assessment, as I will show later.

    British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw suggested the elections dealt a psychological setback to the insurgents because it demonstrated Iraqis were committed to democracy.

    “Yesterday’s elections represent a real blow to this disgusting campaign of violence and intimidation,” Straw said in London. “These elections were a moving demonstration that democracy and freedom are universal values, to which people everywhere aspire.”

    […]

    Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s militant group also pledged Monday to continue its attacks in Iraq despite the election. In a statement published on the Internet, the al-Qaida group in Iraq said the elections “will increase our strength and intention to get rid of injustice.”

    “Let Bush, Blair … know that we are the enemies of democracy,” the group said of the American president and British prime minister.

    Taking the focus off the article, let’s look at al-Zarqawi’s spin. His insurgency, the self-acclaimed enemies of rule by the people, finds itself facing the overwhelming desire of the people and thinks that its strength will increase? Who believes that, especially immediately after the elections themselves show al-Zarqawi to be a lying braggart? Yes, they are still dangerous and, yes, they still have some internal and much external support. However, they failed to show the world, especially the Arab and Iraqi world, that they had the strength to affect the tide of history when the spotlight on them was never brighter.

    Nevertheless, the insurgents’ failure to launch a catastrophic attack on election day may be a sign their power “has been more localized than thought previously,” said Paul Sullivan, an Iraq expert at the U.S.-funded National Defense University in Washington.

    Question to Buzbee: why does this seem surprising? I seem to recall a great many statements by the president, members of his administration and representatives of the DoD pointing out repeatedly that the terrorist activities have been generally focused in a very limited number of provinces.

    It’s possible insurgency leaders will lay low for a while. Or they may try for a quick, big attack to prove they are still potent, Sullivan said.

    Another quick question: this is worth including? The terrorists may do nothing soon or they may do something soon. Are you trying to reach a word count for a class assignment?

    Quick, let’s look for excuses for the terrorists’ impotence and try to find reasons it may be an aberration.

    A higher-than-usual U.S. troop presence and extremely tight security may have helped tamp down the violence.

    But many of the most extreme security measures — like a ban on most private driving and the closing of the country’s borders and airport — are only temporary, said Jeremy Binnie, a London-based analyst for Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center.

    The number of U.S. troops, now at 150,000 because of rotation overlap, already is scheduled to drop soon to 138,000.

    C’mon, one more reason. Please.

    It’s also possible the insurgents simply chose not to strike, worried they would get caught, Binnie said.

    Look, you cannot excuse a failure to live up to a promise to make the streets run with blood simply because the terrorists chose not to do so. You can say they couldn’t. You can say they were cowards. But you can’t imply that they chose to order a pizza and kick back with the PlayStation2.

    They threatened. They failed. There is simply no “choosing not to strike” in this game if the terrorists want to maintain a substantial air of fear among the now-jubilant populace.

    Now, I said earlier that the piece will try to cut into the success of the election. Let’s see how it does so over the final roughly one-fifth of the story.

    But a U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Iraqi troops’ success on election day doesn’t necessarily mean they can defeat the insurgency going forward. The official predicted some insurgents may decide to ratchet up attacks.

    He also noted that “anecdotal evidence” indicates Sunni participation was “considerably lower” than other groups.

    That means the insurgents may have largely succeeded at their main election day goal — suppressing Sunni turnout, said Ken Katzman, an Iraq expert at the Congressional Research Service in Washington.

    The main Shiite faction is likely to win the most votes and take the biggest role in the new government. Because of that, Sunnis “now feel certain that they are at the mercy of the Shiites,” who comprise 60 percent of the population, Katzman said.

    And that means the election, despite relatively low violence, probably will not “produce the factional reconciliation” hoped for, he said.

    Get that? Despite the terrorists’ failed threats, despite the fact that, at worst, the elections went as thought in some Sunni areas and better than could be imagined everywhere else, despite the hope and self-determination the overwhelming bulk of Iraq is embracing, the terrorists “may have largely succeeded.”

    My ass they may have, Sally Buzbee. That is, unless you and you like-minded colleagues get your way, unless y’all can dim the shining city on the hill that is being built in the Arab world.

  • Iraqi Elections: Some Notes and Quotes

    Looking through a collection of anecdotal stories from the Associated Press, the following statements from Iraqi voters jump out at me:

    “Am I scared? Or course I’m not scared. This is my country,” said 50-year-old Fathiya Mohammed, heading to a nearby polling station alone, but moving quickly.

    In the “triangle of death,” where voting is a life-threatening experience, Karfia Abbasi held up her ink-stained finger, elated that for the first time she has been able to cast a ballot for someone besides Saddam Hussein.

    “This is democracy,” Abbasi said. “This is the first day I feel freedom.”

    Crowds burst into impromptu demonstrations, shouting, “No to dictatorship. Yes to democracy,” and “Long live freedom.”

    Abed Hunni, a stooped, whiskered man walked an hour with his wife to reach a polling site in Musayyib. “God is generous to give us this day,” he said.

    Well, maybe God, but most assuredly the militaries of the Americans and their allies. And, of course, the Iraqis’ own security forces, slowly growing in size, proficiency and confidence.

    Speaking of those Iraqi forces, repeatedly slammed in the media for their unwillingness to fight, what was their performance?

    “It has been a long and hard assignment for me,” said policeman Abbas Saedi, a veteran of 23 years in the force who earns $190 a month.

    “We fought terrorists who took shelter in a cemetery behind the polling center, we captured some and found weapons hidden in graves. It was all worth it. This is great.”

    Eight suicide bombers unleashed blasts throughout the day, killing themselves and at least 19 other people. An Iraqi policeman who spotted one of the attackers approaching a polling site leapt on the man as the blast ripped them both apart.

    Please realize that the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam (ARVN) carried the same reputation of cowardice and low regard. Thanks to the media, this reputation lasted until the end of the ARVN and the fall of South Viet Nam, despite the fact that ARVN units had become equal to or superior to their North Vietnamese counterparts for years (with the exception of external support, which disappointedly shriveled to nothingness for the ARVN in the post-Watergate days). Hopefully, history and the leftists’ propaganda success will not repeat for the improving Iraqi forces.

    What does this election mean going forward? Eric at Eric’s Random Musings muses at length about this, examining the impact on the American Left and the future of Iraq and American involvement.

    It’s too late to go back. The Left in the United States is focused on what was, which can’t be changed. Regardless of the reality of Iraqi nuclear weapons programs, chemical weapons stockpiles, support for terrorism or lack thereof what’s done is done. It’s time to go forward the best way possible. And abandoning the Iraqis (the Left’s cherished “exit strategy” [From Gunner: I’ve blogged in the past about my view on this pathetic phrase]) is absolutely the wrong path forward. What we need is a strategy to win. Winning means defeating the Ba’athist insurgents, marginalizing the al-Qaeda terrorists (and yes, they are two different groups, although they have similar goals and appear to work together), giving the Iraqi’s some room to establish a workable government and then slowly transitioning the security of the country to the Iraqi government.

    Are matters settled in Iraq? Of course not. From this vote, a slate of representatives will step forth to help shape a future Iraqi government, a government that will have a long row to hoe. However, two things must be noted. First, the so-called insurgency of terrorists and Saddamists does not have the strength it claimed. Second, and perhaps most important for the nation of Iraq, is that the Iraqi people can embrace the following feeling:

    And in heavily Shiite areas in the far south and mostly Kurdish regions in the north, some saw the vote as settling a score with the former dictator, Saddam.

    “Now I feel that Saddam is really gone,” said Fatima Ibrahim, smiling as she headed home after voting in Irbil. She was 14 and a bride of just three months when her husband, father and brother were rounded up in a campaign of ethnic cleansing under Saddam. None have ever been found.

    Closure. And a new beginning.

  • History in the Making

    The Iraqis are voting.

    Interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer holds up an ink-stained finger as evidence that he voted.

    Iraqis, mostly women, wait to vote in Shiite Sadr City.

    Another Baghdad voter casts his first free ballot.

    As for the bloodbath promised by the terrorists? Well, it has yet to develop. At this time, it is almost noon in Iraq and the news is of three suicide bombings and a small handful of mortar attacks. With over 5,000 pollings sites, that’s pretty meek compared to the threats, though the day is young.

  • Damned If You Do (Vote), Damned If You Don’t

    I’ve blogged many times about the attempts to block the pending elections by the terrorists in Iraq. Election officials have been offed, polling places threatened, potential voters warned of death or religious condemnation. The USA Today has a story of some campaign literature meant to add to the intimidation.

    It’s just a scrap of white paper, a piece of a poor-quality photocopy slipped under the gates of homes in the al-Salam area of western Baghdad. But it and thousands of others like it could have a profound effect on Sunday’s elections.

    “God’s curse on this comedy named elections, this dirty game that serves the occupier and his bastards,” the note says, echoing the threats of the Sunni Muslim militants who lead the anti-American insurgency. “Be away from them and save your life. Being part in the dirty elections is considered a crime against religion, Iraq and the Iraqi people. Don’t participate in elections. All polls will be hit.”

    Okay, we already knew where the terrorists, Saddamists and many Sunnis, who fear the loss of decades-long power because of their status as a minority, stand on the election. Well, there’s a little twist to this story.

    The notes slipped under doors and threats scrawled on walls send a chilling message. Most are intended to scare people away from the polls, which is the aim of the Sunni-led insurgency. But Shiites may have also entered the fray. A note that was distributed in a Baghdad neighborhood recently threatens people if they don’t vote.

    “In order for you to avoid doomed death and the hell for a while, we have decided to give you the last chance for forgiveness for your children’s sake,” the note says. “You must raise a white flag on the roof of your houses and must go on polling day to the polling center to vote for anybody.”

    And you thought the Americans had a problem with negative campaigning.

  • Suspected Islamists held in Paris

    The French have detained several apparent Islamist terrorist wannabes before they could make their way to Iraq.

    A total of 11 suspected Islamic militants have been detained in Paris this week by intelligence agents who believe they have foiled an operation to send volunteers to fight against the US army in Iraq, officials said.

    Four young men arrested early yesterday were being held at the headquarters of the domestic intelligence service DST, along with six of the seven people detained on Monday in an high-immigration neighborhood in the northeast of the capital.

    One of two women detained on Monday was released yesterday morning, police said.

    The identities of the detainees were not disclosed, but officials said that eight of the nine men — all aged between 20 and 24 — were of north African, mainly Algerian, origin with French nationality and all born in Paris. The other was a French convert to Islam.

    They were arrested as part of an anti-terrorist investigation launched last September after evidence emerged of a so-called “Iraqi network” recruiting Islamic militants to fight US forces there.

    One of those held is considered by police to be a recruiter of young men willing to fight in Iraq. He was described as the brother-in-law of a a member of a terrorist group which was dismantled on the eve of the 1998 football World Cup which France hosted.

    Two of his charges were said to be on the point of leaving for Iraq.

    […]

    “At the moment it would be wrong to speak of organised networks like there were with Afghanistan,” said a senior official.

    “But we are determined to stop young people going to make jihad in Iraq because if they come back they will have greatly enhanced prestige, and be in a position to recruit more people to the cause — or even mount terrorist operations,” he said on condition of anonymity.

    Couple this with the recent bust in Germany of two suspected al-Qaida members and tell me Europe doesn’t have a problem. It seems, however, that the Euros are only willing to treat the symptoms rather than actually tackling the disease.