Tag Archives: Islam

International news, military news

Why the fixation over labels?

Conservative media continue to be fixated over the White House’s refusal to refer to the terrorists with whom we are at war as “Islamic terrorists.”

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson got the third degree on Fox News Sunday over that question.

His answer: Islamic State terrorists don’t deserve to be dignified by any reference to Islam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/22/fox_news_sunday_host_vs_jeh_johnson_islamic_state_doesnt_deserve_the_dignity_of_being_called_islamic.html

I’ve long wondered when this silly argument is going to cease. I’m believing now that it will never end.

From my standpoint, it makes no difference if we call these monsters “Islamic terrorists,” or “violent terrorists,” or “garden-variety terrorists.” What matters — or what should matter — is what we’re doing in the field to fight these groups.

We’re stalking them. We’re killing them. We’re taking some of them prisoner. We’re subjecting them to serious interrogation.

Isn’t that enough?

However, it doesn’t seem to be among those on the right who keep insisting that the refusal to label the bad guys as “Islamic terrorists” somehow makes the fight less, well, heartfelt or sincere on our part.

I continue to believe our deep-cover agents, special operations personnel, Homeland Security and CIA analysts are doing all they can do to ensure that we avoid a repeat of the 9/11 attacks. No one anywhere can predict the level of success in avoiding another dastardly attack.

If we get hit once again, it won’t be because the White House doesn’t hang the correct label on the forces of evil with whom we are fighting a war.

 

national news

Obama echoes Bush on Islam

This video is worth watching as the nation debates whether the 44th president of the United States harbors some sort of bias that gives terrorists a pass just because they purport to be of the Islamic faith.

Listen to the words spoken here by the 43rd president, George W. Bush, just six days after the 9/11 attacks.

He quotes the Quran, noting that acts of evil will be the end of those who commit those acts.

President Bush refers to Islam as a great religion, that its tenets condemn violence committed against innocent victims.

Where was the outcry then as the president sought to inform the nation that our anger should not be directed at peaceful Muslims, those who pay their taxes and who go about their business daily without regard to harming other human beings?

Yet we keep hearing from those who suggest that President Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, harbors sympathies to those who have done us harm.

Listen carefully to the words spoken on the video.

 

International news, national news

Let's stop quibbling over branding of war

President Obama went on offense today in declaring that the enemy in our current war against terror doesn’t comprise “religious leaders.”

We are fighting terrorists, pure and simple, he said.

So, the president will continue to resist referring to the enemy as “Islamic terrorists,” or “Islamist terrorists,” or some such derivation of the use of a word describing a great religion.

Obama: ISIS ‘aren’t religious leaders, they’re terrorists’

While some of us — including yours truly — disagree with the president’s decision to avoid using the term “Islamic terrorist” in describing our enemy, I am willing to drop the argument.

We’re now quibbling over semantics.

“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” he said.  “No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”

Obama sounds just like his immediate predecessor, former President George W. Bush, on this matter. President Bush made precisely the same point when we went to war in Afghanistan immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Was there an outcry then about how we defined the enemy? If there was, well, it’s gotten lost on me.

Yet the outcry continues to this day about the current president’s use of language to describe the war that is on-going.

What difference does any of this make? What ought to matter is what we’re doing on the field of battle. We’re bombing Islamic State targets, along with aircraft being flown by our allies. I’m certain we’re killing terrorists; we’re even killing some of their leaders. We’re seeking to disrupt the terrorists’ command and control operations. We’re attempting to blast them into oblivion. We are deploying special operations units to hunt them down on the ground. We’re putting men and women at supreme risk of being captured.

OK, so we’re not calling them Islamic terrorists. The bad guys know who they are and what they represent. So do the good guys — and we’re acting accordingly.

Let’s stick to the mission in the field and quit arguing over what to call it.

 

International news

House speaker mounts lame defense

John Boehner must be fantasizing about being president of the United States.

Why else would the speaker of the House of Representatives take it upon himself to buck long-standing diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign head of government to speak to Congress without consulting first with the White House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/john-boehner-defends-netanyahu-invitation-115212.html?hp=c2_3

The speaker has defended his invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, saying he didn’t tell the White House because he didn’t want any interference from President Obama, who he thinks might seek to derail the invitation.

Such so-called “logic” simply dodges the real issue, which is whether it is appropriate for a legislative leader to go behind the back of the nation’s head of state — the president — in inviting a foreign dignitary to make a public speech before a joint congressional session.

To my way of thinking — and others as well — the speaker broke a long-held rule of diplomatic decorum.

And why? Because of some so-called tension between the president and the prime minister.

“There’s so secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu,” the Ohio Republican said. “I, frankly, didn’t want that getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.”

The “real opportunity,” according to Boehner, would be for Netanyahu to argue for stronger sanctions against Iran while the Islamic Republic is in the middle of nuclear disarmament negotiations with the State Department and other foreign governments. Barack Obama doesn’t want to impose any new sanctions while the negotiations are under way.

I agree totally with Boehner that Netanyahu is the “perfect person” to talk about radical Islamic terrorism and about the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That’s as far as Netanyahu should go, however, when he stands before a joint congressional session.

To lobby publicly for the increased sanctions now undercuts the president — which is another breach of decorum that Boehner has committed.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve got just one president at a time.

And, sir, it isn’t you.

 

International news

'Every believing Christian' offended? I think not

2 Comments

Jim Gilmore, a former Virginia governor, and a possible Republican presidential candidate next year, is trying to put words into my mouth.

Of the remarks made this week by President Obama about the Crusades and how Christianity has produced acts of violence in the name of its religion, Gilmore said that Obama has “offended every believing Christian” with his statement.

Um, governor? As a “believing Christian,” sir, I am categorically not offended by those remarks.

So, there.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/232027-white-house-defends-prayer-breakfast-remarks

If you listen to the president’s remarks in their totality, he said at the prayer breakfast that Islam isn’t the only religion that’s been perverted by cultists who are performing terrible deeds in the name of their religion. Christians launched the Crusades a millennium ago and, yes, did some terrible things to non-believers who stood in their path as they marched through the Middle East.

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

The president is holding the United States up to a higher standard than all that he cited.

Deputy White House press aide Eric Schultz said: “The president believes that America is the greatest country on earth, not only because of our military or economic prowess or because we serve in a unique leadership role amongst the international community.”

That hasn’t stopped right-wing critics from slamming the president. Erick Erickson, author of RedState.com, said Obama isn’t even a “meaningful” Christian, whatever in the world that means. Good grief, young man. The president has proclaimed his faith repeatedly whenever he’s given the chance.

But I digress …

Barack Obama understands history as well as any American, and as well as any practicing Christian. He knows Christians have committed barbaric acts. He merely was seeking to put this whole discussion of present-day terrorism being carried out by Islamic radicals in some historical context.

And I’m fully confident the remains fully dedicated to fighting those radical Islamists to the death.

So, let’s chill out here. I’m not offended by what the president said. I am more interested in ensuring that we continue to fight the war against international terrorism.

national news, political news

Crusades, slavery … in the name of Christianity?

1 Comment

Barack Obama cannot possibly have a tin ear to the prevailing attitude among his harshest critics.

Can he?

The president stood before the National Prayer Breakfast audience Thursday and managed to offend Christians by invoking the memory of the Crusades and ol’ Jim Crow laws in scolding those who contend that Islam is the only great religion that produces horrible acts against humanity.

Not true, the president said. The Crusades and slavery were carried out — in the minds of many — in the name of Jesus Christ.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/critics-pounce-after-obama-talks-crusades-slavery-at-prayer-breakfast/ar-AA92xT8

Let’s understand something: President Obama spoke the harsh truth about the Crusades and U.S. laws that placed Americans in bondage.

He said: “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

His comments enraged some Republicans. According to the Washington Post: “’The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,’ said former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R). ‘He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.’”

Have we gotten over-sensitized to hearing such harsh scolding from our politicians? I’m beginning to think that’s the case. The late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy used to admonish Americans for not exhibiting more understanding and compassion toward others and he, too, enraged critics by speaking words not everyone wanted to hear.

Barack Obama’s own Christian faith ought to give him some license to tell the truth the way he sees it.

That, of course, won’t sell to those who continue to insist he has “Muslim sympathies,” or even that he’s actually a “closet Muslim.” He has proclaimed his faith in Jesus Christ more times than I can remember, but that won’t quell the critics this time.

Then again, the Constitution of the United States declares there should be no religious litmus test for those seeking public office. But what the heck, that’s another story for another time.

 

International news

You go, Mme. First Lady!

Social media are chattering about first lady Michelle Obama.

No, she didn’t say anything worth noting. All she did was get off a plane in Saudi Arabia sans a scarf covering her hair, which is customary in the Sunni Muslim country.

Some, but not all, of her hosts were offended by the first lady. My own reaction? You go, Mrs. Obama!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/27/michelle-obama-forgoes-a-headscarf-and-sparks-a-backlash-in-saudi-arabia/?tid=sm_fb

The president and first lady stopped briefly in Saudi Arabia to pay their respects after the death of King Abdullah. Saudi custom dictates that women cover their heads; many Saudi women wear niqabs.

But here’s the deal. Saudi women do so to honor their Islamic faith. The Obamas aren’t Muslim. They are practicing Christians. Indeed, although the custom is followed generally in Saudi Arabia, it’s not a requirement, particularly if women are seen only in, shall we say, secular surroundings. Were she to enter a mosque? Yes, I can understand the requirement to cover her hair as required by Islamic teaching.

And as the Washington Post reported: “Exceptions are made for foreigners, however, and Michelle – who did wear loose clothing that fully covered her arms – appears to have been one of them. In photographs from the official events, other foreign female guests are also shown not wearing headscarves.”

That hasn’t stopped Saudi social media from chattering all over creation about the supposed “insult” perpetrated by the American first lady.

Let’s just get over it, shall we?

national news

'No-go zones' myth builds

Fox News got itself into some trouble recently when it reported something about European countries establishing “no-go zones” where Muslims reportedly don’t allow non-Muslims to enter.

The story turned out to be false. The media have piled on, chortling and laughing out loud at Fox for its insistence on these zones, particularly in Paris. The mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox over its false reporting. Good luck with that, Mme. Mayor.

Fox News anchors apologized repeatedly for the mistake.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/

But some on the right have wondered out loud why Fox is getting hammered. The Amarillo Globe-News questioned in an Opinion page comment today whether other media would have been beaten up as badly as Fox has been. The commentary suggested much of the criticism is unfair, but noted that the criticism the network has received has been justified “to an extent.”

I have a possible answer as to why the piling on has occurred.

Fox News has done a very good job of demonizing other media outlets for transgressions real and sometimes imagined. Its talking heads quite often disparage other media’s coverage of issues on the basis of a perceived bias.

Listen to some of the network’s talk shows and you get the clear and distinct impression that their side is correct and the so-called “mainstream media” is wrong.

I must add that Fox News is as mainstream as other media, given its prominence among the broadcast and cable networks that are on the air these days.

The piling on over its mistaken reporting about the no-go zones and the coverage of its repeated on-air apology for messing up is a consequence of its own making.

Payback can be harsh.

International news

Listen to this fellow Aslan about Muslim reaction

1 Comment

Reza Aslan burst onto the national scene about a year ago when a Fox News Channel talking head tried to goad him into acknowledging that, as a Muslim, he was not qualified to write a book about Jesus Christ.

He told the talking head that she didn’t know what she was talking about and that as a religious scholar who studied all the world’s great religions he was perfectly qualified to write such a book.

Now he tells critics of Islam and the Muslim community that they aren’t paying attention to the outrage being expressed by Islamic fanatics’ acts of terror.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/01/11/reza-aslan-anyone-who-asks-why-muslims-arent-de/202086

Aslan points out in an interview that Muslims have been criticizing these actions not only after the Charlie Hebdo massacre but have been doing so ever since the 9/11 attacks.

Yet we keep hearing from critics, mainly in the right-wing media, that Islamic believers — the actual believers — have been silent in the face of these terror onslaughts.

Aslan said this: “The answer to Islamic violence is Islamic peace. The answer to Islamic bigotry is Islamic pluralism, and so that’s why I put the onus on the Muslim community, but I also recognize that that work is being done, that the voice of condemnation is deafening and if you don’t hear it you’re not listening.”

Let’s start listening to all the voices out there, not just those that are outshouting everyone else.

 

International news

ISIL defines itself

The Islamic State may have defined itself much more sharply with its dastardly execution of an American aid worker in Syria.

ISIL isn’t fighting a war against Christians. It is fighting a war against westerners, namely Americans.

So, for this murderous cult to call itself an “Islamic” anything is to commit serious heresy.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/mystery-abdul-rahman-peter-kassig

Peter Kassig once served as a U.S. Army Ranger, doing his duty as a soldier and a loyal American. Then he left the Army and became an aid worker dedicated to helping civilians caught in the middle of a bloody civil war in Syria.

Along the way, he converted to Islam. He changed his name to Abdul-Rahman Kassig. ISIL captured him, held him captive and then beheaded him in the same brutal fashion it executed two other Americans.

A dear friend of mine, an educated and well-traveled man, noted on social media the other day that ISIL is anything but a religion-based organization. “The leaders of radical Islam are simply a collection of pychopaths, sociopaths, and murderous thugs who probably get aroused by watching be-headings, rapes, and other disgusting acts,” my dear pal noted.

You know, I accept that description — perhaps except for the arousal part.

Still, we are engaging in a fight with an enemy that simply knows no boundaries of decency at any level.

Kassig was seeking to do some good against the forces of evil. He was giving aid and comfort to fellow Muslims. This is the kind of act that requires a summary execution by monstrous killers proclaiming to be carrying out Allah’s holy command?

The Islamic State has just provided a stark reminder — as if the world needed one — of the nature of this beastly cult.