Tag Archives: Islamic State

ISIL's latest act must intensify world scorn

The Islamic State well might have performed an act that finally — finally! — has produced a unity in resolve among Arab states to wage all-out war against the terrorist monsters.

ISIL burned a Jordanian pilot to death, causing Jordan’s King Abdullah to declare his nation will conduct a “relentless” pursuit of the terrorists.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/02/05/Horrific-act-The-Islamic-State-group-earns-the-world-s-hatred/stories/201502050140

As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette opined in an editorial: “The latest brutal execution by the Islamic State group, of Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh, may be hardening Middle East perceptions of the organization.”

The civilized world should hope that is the case.

President Obama today, at the National Prayer Breakfast, called ISIL a “cult of death.”

ISIL terrorists have beheaded prisoners and shown those brutal acts to the world. Now the immolation of the fighter pilot has occurred and it well might steel the Arab world to join the fight fully, along with the United States and other Western allies, in seeking the destruction of ISIL.

The beheading of those two Japanese journalists was appalling in the extreme as well, prompting an angry response from the Japanese government. As the Post-Gazette noted: “The reactions of Japan and Jordan were strong. The prime minister of Japan, with its post-World War II tradition of nonmilitarism, is talking about a new constitution that would permit a more robust Japanese military role.”

These acts of sheer brutality and barbarism have defined this new world war.

May the nations closest to the fight — those in the Middle East — now join the fight in earnest.

The civilized world needs their righteous anger on the side of human decency.

 

Condemnations pouring out over latest ISIL atrocity

President Obama called it “heinous.” Secretary of State John Kerry called it “barbaric.” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called it a “cruel and despicable act of terrorism.”

The object of this worldwide scorn once again is the Islamic State, which reportedly beheaded a captured Japanese journalist supposedly in “retaliation” for Japan’s assistance in the international fight against these terrorist monsters.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/231381-kerry-isis-killing-of-journalist-barbaric

Kenji Goto was murdered because Japan has been sending food and medical supplies to assist the international coalition and to lend aid to those who are suffering from the violence in Iraq and Syria, where ISIL is conducting its reign of terror and destruction.

Japan’s hands are tied in this fight, given that its government is sworn by the treaty it signed at the end of World War II that prohibits it from deploying armed forces overseas. Japan maintains a stout military for national defense purposes only. And that’s an understandable caveat that the Allies placed on Japan, given its own history of ruthlessness and, um, barbarism during WWII.

However, none of that excuses for an instant the fate that apparently befell Kenji Goto and Huruna Yakawa — who was beheaded earlier.

All of this insane ghoulishness only requires that we maintain the fight against these monstrous agents of evil.

ISIL’s appetite for barbarism stretches one’s ability to describe it in strong enough language. Heinous, despicable, barbaric, cruel? Yes, all of those are true, but they don’t go far enough. I’m at a loss to find the appropriate description to hang on these monsters.

They need to die. A painful and excruciating death would suit many of us just fine.

 

'Terrorist' requires a nuanced definition? No

The Taliban is a terrorist organization.

That’s my view and I’m sticking to it — no matter how finely the White House press flack tries to parse the definition of the term “terrorist.”

Press secretary Josh Earnest sought Thursday to say that the Taliban carries out “acts that are akin to terrorism,” but stopped short of calling the brutal killers and kidnappers “terrorists.” He said the Taliban falls into a “different category.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/taliban-terrorists-white-house/story?id=28588120

I guess Earnest, speaking on behalf of the president, is saying the Obama administration believes it’s OK to negotiate with the Taliban, whereas the White House refuses to negotiate with, say, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Hezbollah or Hamas.

I’m beginning to sense that the famed nuanced foreign policy apparatus that the Obama White House is conducting might be getting a little too cute.

The Taliban are taking credit almost weekly for attacks against civilians in Afghanistan. They’ve brought considerable havoc as well to innocent victims in neighboring Pakistan. Good grief! The Taliban send in suicide bombers, they set off explosive on roadways traveled by villagers going to market, they kidnap and disfigure girls and young women who have the gall to stand up for their rights.

You’re more than welcome to correct me on any of this, but doesn’t any of that fit the classic description of a terrorist organization?

Yep. That’s the Taliban.

 

Boko Haram is as dangerous as ever

While most of the world focuses on the Middle East brand of international terrorism — al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian mullahs — another group of goons needs our attention as well.

The Boston Globe points out in an editorial that Boko Haram, the kidnappers of those young girls and the murderers recently of as many as 2,000 innocent victims, needs as much of the world’s attention as we can muster.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/01/15/boko-haram-atrocities-must-not-forgotten/a9W6xuRQqQZz54sbVPjAhI/story.html

The murder of journalists and others in Paris in recent days has sucked much of the attention away from Boko Haram is doing in Nigeria, the Globe writes. The Paris shootings are “leaving little media attention for equally detestable atrocities by Boko Haram in Nigeria this month. The world ignores the Islamic extremist group at great risk both to Nigeria and the broader region. Boko Haram must be stopped in its tracks before it engages in mass murder again.”

When those girls and young women were kidnapped this past year, first lady Michelle Obama sought to lead an international outcry against atrocities against women. It had resonance for, what, perhaps a month or two? Then the world’s attention was pulled away to another international crisis. I cannot even remember which one it was, but we’ve stopped talking collectively about the fate of those girls.

The Boston Globe editorialized: “In a horrific new low, the militants have reportedly been using little girls as human bombs to inflict terror.”

And the world isn’t rising up in massive outrage over this?

President Obama once declared mistakenly — perhaps even foolishly — that the “war on terror is over.”

It is not, Mr. President. Even if we set aside the murderers running rampant in the Middle East — and we cannot do that — the Islamist monsters rampaging through Nigeria are causing untold grief and misery on thousands of innocent victims.

Once again, it is fair to ask: What about those girls?

 

 

Terrorists compared to American patriots

You shouldn’t have gone there, Dr. Ben Carson.

No sir. You should not have compared the Islamic State terrorists — the monstrous demons who behead people in public — to the brave warriors who fought against British tyranny to create the United States of America.

That’s what you did, Doc, when you said: “They got the wrong philosophy, but they’re willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ben-carson-likens-islamic-state-to-american-patriots/ar-AA8dMf7

That statement might have stood on its own, Dr. Carson, but you had prefaced it by saying American revolutionary patriots also were willing to die for their cause.

Perhaps a better comparison, Doc, would have been that kamikaze pilots flying for the Japanese Empire were willing to “die for their beliefs” as they flew their aircraft into American warships during World War II.

What you’ve done, sir, is juxtapose a cherished American ideal — the fight for liberty, freedom and individual dignity — with monstrous acts, crimes against humanity.

I understand, Dr.Carson, that you are pondering a run for the presidency in 2016. Conservatives adore your ideology and they hang on your words. I appreciate as well your intelligence and obvious brilliance as a leading neurosurgeon and medical scholar.

But just as that goofy Texas congressman, Randy Weber, erred in comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler in a tweet — for which he later sort of apologized — you have mixed two radically different examples of why people lay down their lives for causes in which they believe.

 

 

CNN anchor crosses another line

What in the world is up with Don Lemon?

The Columbia Journalism Review rated Lemon as one of this past year’s worst journalists. Now the CNN anchor has cemented that crummy rating with a seriously bone-headed question posed to an American Muslim.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/01/08/do-you-support-isis-watch-cnns-don-lemon-ask-a/202056

The link is attached. Take a look.

I watched the interview in which Lemon asked Arsalan Iftikhar, a human rights attorney, if he supported ISIS, aka the Islamic State or ISIL, the monstrous Islamic cult that has beheaded captives.

What’s remarkable about the question was Iftikhar’s response, which was that he seemed unsure whether Lemon actually posed that question. He then answered it calmly and rationally.

Lemon has made a bit of an infamous name for himself lately by suggesting that Malaysian Air 370 might have been swallowed by a black hole and then suggesting to a sexual abuse victim that there are graphic methods to avoid being forced to perform oral sex on a man.

The discussion about radical Islam needs to remain focused on what I believe is the core issue: Do the terrorists’ actions represent Islam or are they the acts of religious perverts?

To ask an an intelligent, reasonable, scholarly man who happens to be Muslim whether supports the actions of ISIL becomes an immediate distraction. It focuses attention on a dimwitted question.

 

Yes, Dr. Dean, they're 'Muslim terrorists'

Howard Dean is a smart guy: a physician, former Vermont governor, former Democratic National Committee chairman and former presidential candidate.

I do not think, though, he’s entirely correct in declaring that the terrorists who commit heinous acts in the name of Islam are not Muslims. They are.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/07/howard_dean_on_paris_attack_i_stopped_calling_these_people_muslim_terrorists.html

He was talking this morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” talk show and said the monsters who killed those 12 people in Paris this week are “as Muslim as I am.”

I get his point, though. He’s trying to separate the madmen who commit these acts from the mainstream members of one of the world’s great religions. And yes, Islam is a great religion, with more than 1 billion adherents around the world.

Not for a single second do I equate terrorism with mainstream Muslims. The Muslims I have known over many years are as decent, kind, compassionate, caring and “normal” as anyone else I’ve ever known.

Are there Muslims who pervert the religion’s holy word as written in the Quran? Of course they do. The perverts flew those planes into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon on 9/11. They’ve blown themselves up along with innocent civilians in the years since that terrible day. They’ve committed atrocities and they’ve beheaded journalists and aid workers.

They are Muslims.

Some have argued, as Dr. Dean has done, that the terrorist monsters have forsaken their religion. Thus, they do not deserve to be called Muslim. I’ll choose to differ — if only a little.

I’ll continue to refer to the Islamic State terrorists as belonging to a cult. Their roots, though, come from Islam. They’ve just gone far past what their holy book preaches to them.

I hope Dr. Dean’s words aren’t used to confuse the nature of this conflict in which we are engaged. I have no confusion at all. We’re fighting Muslims who now believe in some distorted view of their religion.

 

3 ISIL leaders killed; keep killing more of them

The news today that U.S. air strikes have killed three key Islamic State leaders cheered me a little.

Then reality set in almost immediately: There will be others to step in to replace these murderous monsters.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/18/politics/u-s-air-strikes-kill-3-high-level-isis-leaders/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The White House and the Pentagon couldn’t confirm until recently that the three ISIL leaders had been killed by American pilots. The news is good, to be sure. Pentagon officials say the deaths of these three individuals has “degraded” ISIL’s command and control capability. “We believe that the loss of these key leaders degrades ISIL’s ability to command and control current operations against Iraqi Security Forces, including Kurdish and other local forces in Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said.

OK, so what now?

Well, we keep launching air strikes and we keep killing the leaders of this terrorist cabal.

As we’ve learned in the fight against al-Qaeda, killing key leaders doesn’t mean the end of a group’s ability to function. We killed Osama bin Laden, but al-Qaeda lives on.

ISIL won’t die a quick death. It will require continued vigilance and diligence on our part to ensure that the terrorists remain “degraded.” Then we must destroy them.

 

Where have you gone, Sgt. Bergdahl?

Bowe Bergdahl has disappeared, more or less, from the public’s sights.

You might remember the name. He is the U.S. Army sergeant who had been held captive for a couple of years by the Taliban. Then he got released in exchange for five prisoners who were being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — or more specifically, at the U.S. Navy detention center set up there.

Some of the former prisoners reportedly returned to the war against the United States and one of them is believed to be a leader in the Islamic State terrorist group that has been beheading captives.

Bergdahl’s release became the subject of much discussion by Americans. Why were we negotiating with terrorists? Was the price too great to pay for a single U.S. soldier? Did Bergdahl give away too many secrets to his captors? Did he abandon his post and, in effect, desert the Army?

It’s the final question that seemed to cause the most angst among Americans who thought the government paid too much to gain the release of a soldier who they believe wasn’t worth bringing home.

Well, he was returned to U.S. hands, went into seclusion, then went home to Idaho to be with his friends and family and has returned to active duty.

The Army brass said it would investigate the entire sequence of events and determine whether Bergdahl did what the critics said he did.

I’m still waiting.

Meanwhile, the nation’s attention has been pulled in so many directions, I cannot keep track.

Crises erupt here, there — and everywhere.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s story still hasn’t been told. If it meant so much at the time of his release to learn all the details of his captivity and his return to freedom, then it still ought to matter.

We're fighting a 'third world war'

Jordanian King Abdullah II is an educated man. He speaks English like an American and as the monarch of a nation friendly to the United States, his words carry some weight around, oh, the White House.

The king told President Obama that we’re engaging in a “third world war” against the Islamic State.

http://news.yahoo.com/jordan-king-warns-fight-third-world-war-204843708.html

Is it the kind of world war fought in the 20th century twice? No. In King Abdullah’s mind, the world war is of a different — still to be defined — nature.

I agree with him to a point.

World wars may not be fought the way we’ve known them before. Nations won’t line up against other nations, as was the case from 1914 to 1918 and again from 1939 to 1945. Indeed, it well might be said that the latest world war commenced the day those jets flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon — and when President Bush told the crowd at Ground Zero that “the people who knocked these building down will hear all of us soon.”

The world war cannot be defined as World War III. But it appears to be a world war, with civilized nation banding together to take on the ISIL monsters who’ve vowed to carry their fight against the West to our doorstep.

The king told CBS News:

“We really have to have a pan-regional approach to this issue. This is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. It’s clearly a fight between good and evil. I think this is a third world war by other means.”

Other means? Yes.

We’re hunting down terrorist leaders wherever they are hiding. It might be in the Middle East. It could be in South America. Or in Southeast Asia. On the Indian subcontinent.

It could be in the United States of America.

Wherever they hide and plot their next dastardly deed, they become targets.

Is that a world war, as stated by the Jordanian monarch? Looks like it to me.