Tag Archives: terrorism

No Muslim, no terrorist

crime-scene-tape

Crises have this way of turning normally rational people into jittery jive talkers.

Americans were reeling this past weekend from the news out of Orlando, Fla., where someone opened fire in a nightclub and killed 49 people in the worst mass murder in U.S. history.

The police killed the gunman.

It turns out the monster who did this deed was an American, born in New York state. He was a Muslim. His parents were Afghan immigrants. He supposedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before committing his horrendous act.

Two days later, a guy walks into an Amarillo Walmart store, takes a couple of hostages, fires a gun into the ceiling and then is shot to death by Amarillo Police Department SWAT officers.

How did the hair-trigger rumor mill handle this? It went wild.

The gunman was “identified” — by whom remains unclear, I guess — as a Somali Muslim immigrant. I would bet anyone some real American money that a lot of Amarillo residents suspected the guy had terrorist leanings.

He didn’t. It turns out he wasn’t from Somalia. He was from Iran. He wasn’t even a Muslim. He was a Baha’i, which is one of the most peaceful religions on the planet.

Mohammad Sadegh Moghaddam left Iran in 2003. He came to the United States to start a new life. He fled the repression and terror of his homeland. He was married; he had children. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

This man worked at Walmart. But he got into a dispute with a store manager. Something snapped.

http://m.amarillo.com/obituaries/2016-06-17/walmart-hostage-taker-neither-muslim-nor-terrorist#gsc.tab=0

The tragedy in Orlando won’t wash away anytime soon. Americans are fearful of what might happen in their communities, no matter where they live.

Amarillo is not immune from that fear, as we learned from the incident at Walmart and the reaction in its immediate aftermath.

That fear, though, mustn’t consume us and lead us toward erroneous conclusions about those who react badly to circumstances that lead to violence.

 

Mr. President, it’s ‘radical Islamic terrorism’

obama

The debate has flared anew.

Why doesn’t President Obama use terminology that many Americans — most notably his critics — wish he’d use to describe the evil acts of a certain brand of terrorists?

I’ve been thinking about this over the course of the past good bit of time and have concluded that the president is making a mistake by refusing to refer to these acts — committed by those who pervert a great religion — as “radical Islamic terrorists.”

I say this as a supporter of the president, as one who voted twice for his election and as someone who bristles outwardly at the criticism of those who allege that Barack Obama harbors some sick “sympathy” toward those who commit these evil deeds.

Omar Mateen decided over the weekend to open fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. He was as American as you and me, man. His parents came here from Afghanistan. Then he decided to call the 9-1-1 dispatch center in Orlando and proclaimed that he had pledged fealty to the Islamic State.

Mateen went about his dastardly deed before being killed by police. Before the cops killed him, Mateen managed to commit the worst massacre in U.S. history.

I understand that the president doesn’t want to use language that suggests we are “at war with Islam.” President Bush made that very same case in the days immediately after 9/11 and he was faithful to that notion during the two terms he served in the White House.

Indeed, President Obama’s refusal to recognize openly what the rest of the country already realizes suggests, as conservative thinker John Podhoretz has written, a certain disconnect from reality.

As Podhoretz writes in the New York Post: “He called it ‘terror,’ which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease ‘cancer’ without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.”

Here’s the entire essay:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/

I do not intend to belabor the point. I do want to suggest that the definition of “radical Islam” immediately exempts Muslims who do not commit these acts, who live their lives just like every other decent human being, who are peaceful and only want the best for their families and their communities.

There. I’ve made my case the best way I know how.

I continue to support Barack Obama’s efforts to fight these perverted villains.

However, Mr. President, call them what they are: radical Islamic terrorists.

Was it a terror attack … or something else?

egypt air

I’m puzzled.

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump bellowed that he is absolutely certain it was a terrorist attack.

Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton said in more restrained tones that it appears to be an act of terror.

Greek aviation officials said mechanical failure likely wasn’t the cause.

FBI director James Comey has dispatched the finest investigators in the world to the scene of the tragedy.

Everyone seems to think the downing of EgyptAir 804 was the act of the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or some other nefarious, evil group.

Where, though, are the claims of responsibility?

History tells us that ISIS is quick to take “credit” for these evil acts. Al-Qaeda is a little slower to do so, but not this slow.

Indeed, terrorist groups want the world to know they have succeeded in committing these terrible deeds. In the case of this tragedy, 66 people have died. The jetliner was en route from Paris to Cairo when it veered 90 degrees and then spun in a circle before apparently plummeting into the Mediterranean Sea near the Greek island of Karpathos.

So, the question must be asked: Was it an act of terror?

The latest news is that sensors reportedly detected smoke inside the plane moments before it plunged into the sea.

Was it mechanical or electrical failure after all?

Let’s turn for just a moment to the politics of it all.

Perhaps you heard Trump say immediately that terrorists did this, that anything less than an all-out retaliatory strike against ISIS would be a sign of weakness.

Clinton didn’t want to be left on the sidelines, as she, too, sought to lay blame, although not with the bellicosity that Trump exhibited.

There remains a good chance that search teams will find the flight data recorders on the sea bottom. Absent any declaration of responsibility from terrorists, it would be wise in the extreme to see what’s contained in those recorders.

 

 

Time for careful analysis, not fear

trump

A jetliner has crashed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Aviation experts and some defense brass have speculated that it’s likely to be the result of a terrorist attack. However, what do we know with absolute certainty? Only that the plane crashed. That’s it.

The White House is staying mum for the moment. The FBI is sending its experts to the eastern Med to look for answers.

What, though, is the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee saying? It’s a terror attack, said Donald J. Trump. No question. “When will we become vigilant?” he asked in a tweet.

EgyptAir Flight 804 went into the sea just east of the Greek island of Crete. It was en route from Paris to Cairo. It veered sharply in one direction, then into another and plunged from 37,000 feet into the sea.

Yes, it doesn’t appear to have been a “mechanical failure.” But this is no time for rush judgments or declarations from the presidential campaign trail from candidates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-reacts-to-egyptair-calls-it-a-terrorist-attack/

American voters need to listen up. They need to assess the quality of comments that major-party candidates for the highest office in America make as the experts try to sort through the confusion caused by such a tragic event.

Sixty-six people now are missing. They likely will be declared “presumed dead” in very short order. Reports indicate the discovery of debris from this flight, even though those reports have been disputed by Greek aviation officials.

So, how about standing down rash comments about what some of us think might have occurred until we know more — if not all — the facts?

 

 

 

Hezbollah leader killed … good! Let there be more

BBt0udt

Mustafa Badreddine was a bad actor.

He’s now dead. Who killed this terrorist? Hezbollah, the terror organization he helped lead, thinks the Israelis are responsible for the bomb blast that killed Badreddine in Syria.

Israel isn’t commenting. Officials there usually stay mum about these incidents.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/top-hezbollah-commander-kille-in-syria/ar-BBt07l2?li=BBnb7Kz

If the Israelis indeed are responsible for the death of Hezbollah’s top military leader, my initial reaction is this: Good deal … now let’s go after the rest of them!

I am one who strongly backs Israel’s effort to defend itself against the terror threat the nation’s existence every day.

I’ve had the honor and the pleasure to travel throughout the country. It was seven years ago this week, in fact, that I ventured to Israel for a month with four dear friends as part of a Rotary International Group Study Exchange.

One of the places we visited was in Nahariyah, on the country’s northern border with Lebanon. We could see the fortified border — complete with barbed wire and watch towers — along the ridgeline where we toured. Just on the other side of that border is a nation where Hezbollah runs wild.

Just as Hamas has launched rockets into Israel from Gaza, Hezbollah has done the same from Lebanon and Syria. They send their missiles into neighborhoods, targeting civilians. The Israelis are forced into a constant state of alert against these terrorist organizations.

Do the Israelis make any apologies for the measures they take to eradicate terrorist leaders? Absolutely not … nor should they.

As Reuters reports: “Israel deems Hezbollah its most potent enemy and worries that it is becoming entrenched on its Syrian front and acquiring more advanced weaponry.”

It wouldn’t surprise any observer of this ongoing conflict to learn that Israeli agents detonated the bomb that killed Badreddine.

Will the Israelis own up to it? Probably not.

That’s all right with me.

 

Obama still went to a ballgame …

NC_obama_baseball_07_mm_160322_12x5_1600

President Barack Obama has been second-guessed — big surprise there, right? — about his decision to attend a baseball game in Havana in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Brussels.

Republican presidential candidate John Kasich said if he was president, he would have packed up his gear and returned to D.C. immediately to take charge of the U.S. response.

That’s fine, governor. Except that you aren’t the president. The man who’s in the hot seat now says quite clearly that the terrorists’ aim is to disrupt the lives of everyone in the world — and he would have none of it. As he told ESPN: “The whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt people’s ordinary lives … it’s always a challenge when you have a terrorist attack anywhere in the world.”

Indeed, let’s look back at what President Bush said in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Didn’t he say quite the same thing, that we should go about our daily lives without fear? Didn’t say something like, “Go shopping”?

Barack Obama offered the nation’s support to the Belgians who are reeling in the wake of this horrific attack. He has dispatched military and intelligence officials to assist and help coordinate the pursuit of the monsters who did this deed.

As has been noted here and elsewhere, the president of the United States is never disconnected from the world.

So what if he went to a ballgame?

I’m pretty sure the state-of-the-art intelligence apparatus we all pay for is on the job.

 

Now it’s Brussels …

brussels

Good morning, my fellow Americans.

We awoke today to more horror across The Pond. Terrorists have struck again, this time in Brussels, Belgium. At least 34 people are dead. All of them are innocent civilians. All of them presumably leave behind loved ones who are grieving.

Who did this dastardly deed? It’s a good bet the act has the signature of the Islamic State or some other monstrous organization.

It’s no coincidence, certainly that the attacks came just days after Belgian police apprehended the last surviving suspect in the Paris attacks of a few months ago.

The nature of our enemy cannot be condemned enough.

They attack so-called “soft targets,” which is another way of saying they go for the most vulnerable victims. They people just like the rest of us doing what they do normally.

Then their lives are shattered. Gone in a spasm of violence.

Yes, this fight must continue for as long as it takes.

The 9/11 attacks of nearly 15 years ago opened our eyes to the threat that’s always been there.

We went to war against the terrorists. How in the world do we declare victory against this evil that lurks among us?

Our hearts are broken yet again this morning as we ponder what’s happened abroad. Yet we must remain as vigilant as ever.

 

Taliban aren’t ‘terrorists’?

taliban_053115getty

Let us hit the reset button for a moment.

When the United States secured the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who’d been held captive by the Taliban for five years, the rationale was that the Taliban aren’t a “terrorist organization.” That’s what the White House press flack, Josh Earnest, said about the negotiation that led to Bergdahl’s release.

Our policy has been that we don’t negotiate with terrorists, Earnest said. Since the Taliban isn’t a terrorist outfit, well, that gave our side the opportunity to secure Bergdahl’s release from captivity in Afghanistan.

Then we awake this morning to news that at least 20 people have been killed in a terrorist attack at a Pakistan university.

Who took responsibility for the tragedy? The Taliban!

Someone has some explaining to do.

Many of us out here haven’t bought the notion that the Taliban is anything but a terrorist organization. The ultraconservative extremists have been terrorizing Muslim women for longer than any of us can remember. They’ve been denying citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan access to education. How do they do that? By killing them.

Isn’t that the ultimate form of terror?

It appears to be time for President Obama’s national security team to take another look at how it defines the Taliban.

They got it wrong about this monstrous organization.

Killers victimized their infant daughter, too

farook and malik

Of all the victims of the latest mass shooting, in San Bernardino, Calif., the most troubling of all well might be a six-month-old girl.

She’s still alive. But she is the daughter of the two people suspected of carrying out the terrorist attack that killed 14 people and injured many more.

How does one comprehend the act of taking an infant to her grandparents’ home, leaving her there, and then launching a mission of terror against innocent victims at a social services agency?

What happens now to this little girl? Sure, she’ll be reared by her grandparents. I get that. What is more difficult to get is what will become of her as she comes of age.

Will she ever know of the tragedy that her parents, Tafsheen Malik and Syed Farook, inflicted on the world? Should she know what her parents did?

I’ll let others debate that one. I’m not going there.

A little girl now is left to grow up without a set of parents who presumably loved her, but who felt compelled to commit this horrific act.

Who’s the villain in this tragedy? It’s looking as though Malik was the “radicalized” one, that she persuaded her husband to join her in this jihad against those at the agency who were celebrating at a Christmas party.

But, of course, that does not absolve Farook of anything. They both abandoned their baby girl to take up for some demented cause.

She’s now left to grow up and enter a world that’s been made decidedly less safe and comforting by the two people who broke their solemn pledge to protect her.

This is a singular tragedy that defies logic at every level imaginable.

 

Yes … it was a terrorist act

terrorism1

Let’s stop pussyfooting around a certain word regarding the San Bernardino, Calif., massacre.

It was an act of terrorism. There can be no doubt, zero, of that — in my view.

Whether it was “workplace violence,” the culmination of a terrible argument gone tragically  wrong, or the doings of a young couple persuaded to follow the rhetoric preached by religious fanatics, what the suspects did was terrorize the nation.

They gunned down more than 30 people. Fourteen of them died.

The nation is now asking: Did this young couple represent the Islamic State or some other ruthless cabal of terror?

Whatever the motive turns out to be, they have managed to accomplish a singular goal. They have frightened a community out of its wits and have terrorized a nation looking for answers on how to stop this spasm of brutality.

It’s what terrorists — be they domestic or foreign-born — always do.