Tag Archives: terrorism

International news, national news

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.

 

International news

Evil needs to be 'mocked'

Rudolph Bush’s blog for the Dallas Morning News is so spot on it’s nearly impossible to improve on it.

I won’t try here, except to add a point here and there.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/01/evil-cannot-stand-to-be-mocked-so-lets-all-mock-it.html/

The assassins who opened fire on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris embody evil in its purist form. Bush’s point is that evil hates being mocked and he encourages good people around the world to mock whenever and wherever possible.

I’m not inclined to “mock” evil. Instead, I prefer to call it what it is. “Evil” well could be the most descriptive four-letter word in the English language. So, let’s allow the word to stand on its own.

Bush writes: “If we think about the good people we know, they’re often lighthearted. They might lead serious lives, but they are quick to pull themselves down, often with a joke at their own expense. They don’t burden others with their troubles. They don’t blather on about their accomplishments or beliefs. Their lives are quiet examples.

“Not so the evil. They can’t stop jabbering on about their own goodness, or the goodness of their beliefs, or the goodness of their possessions, or on and on. It’s a loud and energetic effort. The evil are often very busy people, and they would have us know it.”

Charlie Hebdo had satirized the prophet Mohammed, enraging three Muslim cultists who opened fire on the magazine’s offices. One of them surrendered. Two others, brothers, are on the lam. French police essentially have locked down the nation and are dedicated to finding these individuals.

I’ll leave the mocking to others. But let’s all be sure that we don’t cower in the face of those who terrorize others. The world’s “lighthearted good people” cannot let them declare victory.

 

International news

'Terrorism' takes on cyber meaning

“Terrorism” is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as a “political use of violence or intimidation.”

That’s all it says. I get it.

So does U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who wants to label North Korea’s hacking of Sony Pictures an act of terrorism.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/228439-democratic-senator-calls-sony-hack-an-act-of-terrorism

The notion is quite clear that to commit an act of terrorism, one doesn’t need to kill or maim someone.

Intimidation comes in many forms. That is what happened when someone — probably the North Koreans — hacked into Sony’s system as the company was getting ready to release the film “The Interview,” a so-so movie that depicts an attempt on the life of North Korean goofball/dictator Kim Jong-Un. Sony initially pulled the film, refusing to release it as scheduled. Then it had second thoughts and released “The Interview” in selected theaters. It’s gotten mixed reviews.

Back to the point.

Menendez said the U.S. government needs to label this hacking episode a terrorist attack, as it clearly defines how terrorism is morphing into something quite different in the Internet Age.

President Obama is reluctant to follow Menendez’s advice. He called the hacking an “act of vandalism.” Menendez disagrees — and so do I.

According to The Hill: “‘You know, the one thing I disagree … with the president on is when he characterized the action here against Sony by North Korea as an act of vandalism. Vandalism is when you break a window,’ he told (CNN reporter Dana) Bash. ‘Terrorism is when you destroy a building. And what happened here is that North Korea landed a virtual bomb on Sony’s parking lot, and ultimately had real consequences to it as a company and to many individuals who work there.’”

Indeed, the cyber attack frightened many Americans who don’t work at Sony.

It’s not an act of war, as some have called it. It’s far more, thought, than an act of “vandalism.”

 

International news, political news

Clinton's foreign policy far from 'feckless'

1 Comment

Rick Perry calls Hillary Clinton’ foreign policy record “feckless,” does he.

He doesn’t know feckless from freckles.

https://wordpress.com/read/post/feed/12395410/583466090/

I would argue that the outgoing Texas governor needs to clarify his entire meaning.

He’s sounding more like a probable Republican presidential candidate in 2016. For that matter, Clinton is sounding more like a probable Democratic candidate in two years.

My own hunch is that the governor should concentrate on his potential GOP primary competition than worry too much just yet about how to take on the Democratic frontrunner.

As for his “feckless” comment, he’s joined the GOP echo chamber in brining up “Benghazi” as a sign that then-Secretary of State Clinton somehow botched the response to that terrible tragedy. I’m waiting — still — to understand precisely what Hillary Clinton her own self could have done differently to prevent the Sept. 11, 2012 siege that killed four Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Have there more attacks on U.S. soil by terrorists? No. Have we been killing the bad guys? Yes. Have we killed Osama bin Laden? Yes again. Did we rid Syria of chemical weapons? Yes. Have the economic sanctions leveled against Ukraine worked?

Yes. OK, so some of this occurred on John Kerry’s watch at State. The Texas governor, though, makes sure to equate our foreign policy with the president of the United States, who’s still on the job.

He compares her foreign policy record to California Gov. Jerry Brown’ record in handling the economy of his own state. Hmm. Actually, Gov. Perry, the California economy has rebounded right along with the rest of the country.

Well, the campaign is looking and sounding as if it’s beginning.

To think we’re still a whole year away from when it starts for real.

International news, military news

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.

 

entertainment news, International news

What was Sony thinking?

7 Comments

Time allows one to think things through and to cogitate a bit on the consequences of one’s action.

Perhaps the makers of the film “The Interview” could have thought just a little bit longer about the product that was supposed to be shown to American theater crowds.

I’ve been pondering the blowback from the film, the threats of Internet hackers striking back at the producers of the film — and at the public at large. My conclusion? I believe Sony Pictures should have known with whom it was dealing when it made a “comedy” about an attempt to assassinate the leader of North Korea.

My sympathy for Sony, the actors involved and those who thought they would make a lot of money from the film is waning — rapidly.

The film stars Seth Rogen and James Franco. It’s supposedly a comedy. The main characters are plotting to kill Kim Jong Un.

Let’s be real. The entire world knows about Kim Jong Un’s weirdness. The world knows he runs a country that gives hyper-secrecy a bad name. I mean, this place is reclusive beyond description. Kim’s antics — just as those of his late father, Kim Jong Il — are, to say the least, highly unpredictable.

Why couldn’t the makers of the film fictionalized the story? Why single out the leader of a nation — and a dangerous one at that — for this kind of “comic parody”? What would the reaction be in any country on Earth if someone made a film purporting to assassinate its leader?

My conclusion is that Sony should have expected a highly negative reaction from a country that hardly anyone knows with any certainty.

Terror threats in response to the film? Well, duh! Do you think?

 

legal news, national news, political news, Uncategorized

A presidential pardon may be in order

The beans are spilled. The cat’s out of the bag. The CIA just might have broken some laws when it detained suspected terrorists and subjected them to torture techniques immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

The spy agency says otherwise, that it broke no laws.

U.S. Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee insist that the torture techniques were real and allege that they broke U.S. law.

The New York Times editorial board refers to the findings in the just-released Senate summary of the “enhanced interrogation” as a sign of “depravity” that defies comprehension.

The thought has occurred to me. Perhaps it’s not an original thought, but I’ll toss it out there anyway.

Given that there’s really no serious need to prosecute anyone for alleged criminal activity, perhaps a presidential pardon would be in order.

Go ahead and snicker. This is a serious suggestion, even absent any formal criminal charges being filed against the principals involved — namely President Bush, then-CIA director George Tenet, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Hey, President Ford pardoned his immediate predecessor in the White House, Richard Nixon, for crimes he may have committed while covering up the Watergate burglary. That was the right call in 1974. A similar pardon just might be the right call now.

Let’s have the debate over whether the suspected terrorists were tortured illegally. Both sides will vent. Both will have their say.

There well might be an inclination in some circles to prosecute those in charge at the time. Others will be declare that there’s no need now to punish those who might have committed a crime.

That’s where President Obama can step in.

He’s got the power to issue summary pardons. This well could be the time to act.

 

International news

Israel feels terrorists' wrath yet again

Someone needs to explain to me in elementary terms why terrorists deserve any semblance of civil treatment.

Four worshipers at a Jerusalem synagogue were murdered early today by a couple of terrorists. Israeli police shot them to death at the scene of the carnage they left behind.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/world/meast/jerusalem-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Three of the victims were American-Israelis, one was a British-Israeli. They were worshiping in peace when two Palestinian cousins wielding axes and knives began slashing them to death.

And who do you suppose has endorsed this vicious act?

Among others was Hamas, the terrorists who run the so-called government in Gaza, the place that keeps originating attacks on Israelis civilians.

Does this make any sense to anyone?

The terrorists complain about Israeli settlements in territory captured by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967. So rather than talk to the Israeli government, they choose to bomb innocent victims, shoot them dead in the street or, in the case of the attack today in Jerusalem, slash them to death in a horrific attack.

Israeli officials vow to respond with all necessary force to put down this latest round of violence.

How in the world can one justify this? How in the same world can one criticize a nation for trying to protect its citizens from this kind of barbarism?

 

Intgernational news

Israel's self-defense policy under attack once more

Whoever in the Obama administration who delivered the scathing critique of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to understand a fundamental truth about Israel.

The nation is under attack constantly from forces right next door and it is obligated to defend itself using whatever means are necessary.

So says the prime minister himself.

I happen to agree with him.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.623356

Netanyahu says the U.S.-Israel alliance remains strong despite the comments from an unknown U.S. official who has been quoted as calling Netanyahu a “chickens**t.” I’m betting the prime minister has been called worse things by his enemies and even by his political foes inside his country.

Of course, given the testiness that existed at times between Netanyahu and President Obama, this particular comment is drawing even greater scrutiny.

Still, Netanyahu isn’t shying away from his country’s efforts to protect itself against forces dedicated to its destruction.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda? We know who they are and what they stand for, correct?

So do the Israelis and they’ve been living in the same neighborhood with these terrorist monsters.

Here’s Netanyahu’s take, according to Haaretz: “I am not prepared to make concessions that will endanger our state. Understand, our national interests, topped by security and the unity of Jerusalem, are not what top the interests of those anonymous forces attacking us, and me personally. I am under attack simply because I am defending the State of Israel. If I didn’t stand firm on our national interests, I would not be under attack.”

The name-calling can stop now.

 

 

 

International news, military news

Why the masks, bad guys?

Growing up watching TV and movie westerns, I came to understand why the bad guys — bank robbers, train robbers, cattle rustlers and the like — wore masks.

They wanted to protect their identity from the sheriff’s, marshals, posses and the assorted white-hat good guys looking to apprehend them or to, well, shoot ’em dead.

I am struck in the present day, therefore, about why these international terrorists keep parading around wearing masks.

The hideous pictures of the Islamic State monster we’ve all seen as he’s preparing to execute those journalists come to mind. FBI and Interpol apparently know the identity of the individual, but haven’t released his name for law-enforcement reasons.

We see other images of terrorists parading around in pickups armed with machine guns. The terrorists are wearing hooded masks.

Al-Qaeda “soldiers” have been recorded participating in training exercises. They’re firing those automatic weapons and acting like soldiers. Again, they’re masked. We can’t see who they are.

I won’t assume for an instant that these individuals are hiding their identities because their so-called “conscience” tells them that terrorizing the world is a bad thing and that they should be ashamed.

However, I will assume they’re hiding behind those masks because of cowardice.

Cowards, sad to say, are a more dangerous enemy than those who are unafraid to reveal their identities. They do their filthy deeds under cloaks of secrecy, then peel the masks off and go about their business right along with the rest of civilized society.

This is a treacherous foe we’re fighting. The masks only affirm their treachery.