From the bowels of media coverage

First, the story is the beating and treatment of the white teenager by 4 black Chicago Trump-haters. Everyone probably heard the story by now. Exhibit A for disgusting.

They discuss the crime on CNN and what happens? All hell breaks loose? No. Someone labels it an evil act but no, again, Don Lemon has to take issue with that term. Hate crime? No, they don’t like that term either.

Tied up, tortured and beaten…. just some bad rearing. Really?

Don Lemon on horrific Chicago torture: ‘I don’t think it’s evil.’ You’ll love his alternate theory.

The Blaze

In the wake of the horrific torture of a white man with special needs by four black suspects — which was live-streamed on Facebook — a panelist on Don Lemon’s CNN show called the act “evil.”

“You just try to wrap your head around evil,” Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller told Lemon on Wednesday night. “That’s what this is. It’s evil. It’s brutality. It’s man’s inhumanity to man.”

But Lemon took issue with that assessment.

“I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil,” Lemon responded. “I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.”

The host continued:

And I say, “Who’s raising these young people?” I have no idea who’s raising these young people, because no one I know on earth who is 17 years old or 70 years old would ever think of treating another person like that. It is inhumane. And you wonder, at 18 years old, where’s your parent? Where’s your guardian?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/05/don-lemon-on-horrific-chicago-torture-i-dont-think-its-evil-youll-love-his-alternate-theory/

Don Lemon takes the award for journalism bias. He’s trying to keep his stellar record going. “Where’s your guardian?” They are 18 yr-olds and older. Where’s yours, Don?

That was not even the whole problem on CNN. He had another guest besides Lewis. A black woman who insisted this should not be considered a hate crime, as if we don’t know and can’t hear for ourselves what they did. She argued with Lewis.

She went on to state that it is different for black people, who suffered a long history of abuse etc in America. She complained it is wrong to overuse that term and charge.  Well, maybe there is another award for her. Does being black excuse what they did? Does it disqualify them from being charged with a hate crime? Lewis called it evil.

Then Lemon chimed in with the “I don’t think it is evil” line. The same people who see “structural racism” everywhere, and an inherent evil in it, cannot see or at least define evil even when watching it take place on a video, which was streamed live.

But they just can’t get there to this hate crime and evil thing.

Evil nature redux…

Let’s skip the Adam and Eve thing and go straight to the current situation with IS [ISIS] and bloodthirsty Islamist terrorists. Or does it depend on the meaning of “is”?

We’re talking an insidious type of evil here, even beyond their horrifying practices to such evil. The people who worry about passing gas in a crowded room (or how to lie about it), or worry about a soil stain on their underwear, making all daily prayers at the mosque, or about a woman showing a square inch of flesh — burqas don’t have wardrobe malfunctions — are the very same people responsible for wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter of people, even children, in the most gruesome manner like barbarian animals. Ones who believe in sacred jihad terrorism.

Then they lecture people on the proper adherence to their faith and Allah. Or the proper code of conduct for women, and on Islamic piety. The same people are telling everyone else what to do. Is there not one hell of a contradiction there?

Right these are the guys — known as the religion of peace — who are in charge of a caliphate that supposedly represents a billion plus Muslims. Strains of evil and hate run through it all. Are these not serious issues?

Then Obama trots out the old lame excuse that Islam is a religion of peace, and that these people are not Islamic. Maybe Obama is almost as schizophrenic and in denial as they are? Judging by the way Obama treats US people here, and what he’s inflicted on America, he has a propensity for evil himself.

 

ISIS is an Islamic (Terrorist) State, by their own definition.

Of course, the problem there is in definitions. There are different definitions for terrorism. But terrorism is not a state by most definitions. So it does not fit. They seem to have a problem. If it is a self-proclaimed state, then it is more an act of war than mere terrorism. That’s based on their definitions. It is considered war in terrorists’ ideology. We’re the ones arguing over semantics and definitions.

So it would seem that Obama and others have yet to prove their case that it is not — a state and not Islamic. Saying “is not” does not cut it. It is an Islamic terrorism State.

Job 34:10
10 “Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding:
Far be it from God to do wickedness,
Isa 5:20
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Matt 12:34-35
34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.

RightRing | Bullright

Incensed by the use of “Evil”-pt 3 of 3

Say a doctor treats a man with Aids but ignores the disease he is stricken with and its nature. No doctor would do that. It is akin to treating the symptoms and not the disease to ignore the evil nature and its factor. Granted it may not win you points with Muslims(or fellow academics), but one withholds or censors the term evil at his/her peril.

Column continued: Is Isis Evil? 3rd part — [see 2 ; 1]

We can analyze the ways its violent tactics are effective for its purposes given the local power dynamics, so that we can also better understand its weak spots. And we can ask how it is that normal men — men who were not born evil — get turned into monsters, so that we can work to change the structures that produce terrorists over the long-term instead of locking ourselves into an endlessly repeated, short-term policy of “killing fanatics” until they are gone.

Trying to understand something isn’t the same as trying to justify or excuse it. That’s a basic mistake, and a costly one.

As Jane Harman, president of the Woodrow International Center for Scholars, recently wrote: “We can’t counter radical narratives if we don’t understand the motives of the radicalized.”

Nonetheless, trying to understand evil is an offense. It is an offense to everything we hold dear, because understanding — that is, true and effective understanding — must bring us close to the other, must help us see the world through their eyes.

That is a painful, offensive process, and that is exactly what we must do.

See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/opinion/dawes-isis-evil/

We can analyze the ways its violent tactics are effective for its purposes given the local power dynamics, so that we can also better understand its weak spots. And we can ask how it is that normal men — men who were not born evil — get turned into monsters, so that we can work to change the structures that produce terrorists over the long term instead of locking ourselves into an endlessly repeated, short-term policy of “killing fanatics” until they are gone.

What all is wrong with that? The government, military and CIA do analytics on their effectiveness and there are documentations. But if we do not have the leaders who act on those facts, we have our heads in the sand dunes. “Local power dynamics” is a problem.

You treat it as a social services matter, but this community(and ME region) has had these problems for many decades. Then you expect to “unmake” the results over their desires and will. If those in the neighborhood do not care, how can you undo a situation hundreds of years in the making? Generations of terrorists were weened on it.

We have also given them the incentives to improve and reform these “dynamics” but it falls on deaf ears. Apparently they don’t want to and have reasons to do otherwise. Put it this way, some of them like it this way, some of them don’t, but yet another part that is interested in reform wants to amplify those same dynamics many times over.

It doesn’t take a majority, only a fractional faction hell bent on any means necessary to do it. Change the structures? The structures are just the way they like them — and not even big or bad enough for some. Blaming the structures brings us right back to blaming, or understanding something other than the central causes of terrorism. It is evil.

Trying to understand something isn’t the same as trying to justify or excuse it. That’s a basic mistake, and a costly one.

Oh yes it can be the same thing. Attempts at understanding can lead to rationalizations for why they do it, and lead you to error. Human beings are easily capable of such rationalizations. Thereby making excuses for the evil conduct.

As Jane Harman, president of the Woodrow International Center for Scholars, recently wrote: “We can’t counter radical narratives if we don’t understand the motives of the radicalized.”

Sounds nice. So we must argue against another academic. We do have to understand and know the nature of evil that drives them, too, and its source. But that includes recognizing the evil. Their motives are part of the evil we face.

Nonetheless, trying to understand evil is an offense. It is an offense to everything we hold dear, because understanding — that is, true and effective understanding — must bring us close to the other, must help us see the world through their eyes.

That is a painful, offensive process, and that is exactly what we must do.

I realized some limitations to understanding “evil”. But there is real danger in trying to understand the people who perpetrate and spread this evil and their sordid history, across borders — against those structural boundaries — absent the evil involved. Pain or not.

Summary:

He said that evil is inhuman so best not even try to understand it. But then he also wants to treat these people from a humane perspective to counter it. As if applied humane nature will overcome the inherent evil in them. Now there’s a fool’s errand. You don’t get it do you? How do you do that with people who’s military strategy is summed up in deception or lying? What are you really going to understand about them and their social fabric of evil woven throughout the region? People who put severed heads on spits do not generally offer much in the way of working therapy. When an animal is rabid we don’t just say let me find out why he got it? The first defense is to destroy it and find out where its been etc. And yes we do understand the disease of rabies and know what it can do, and take precautions.

Handling this as if it were some humanitarian social ill would be a mistake. We know what goes into it. Finally, ignoring the central factor of their radicalization, their religion, would be another huge mistake. Playing social worker with terrorists is not a treatment, it’s a recipe for disaster. And how many months or years would that take? We don’t have that kind of time, when the very humanity you savor hangs in the balance. When there seems to be more urgency for Ebola epidemic than there is for terrorism, something is askew. We do understand enough about that culture to know how it works. And then it uses the most powerful addiction on the planet, blood. What is there to understand about that? Let’s not over complicate it, and its evil.

What he is asking us to do is to play social worker and therapist, namely to people who hate us. I notice he didn’t offer any solutions other than ‘apply the ointment, liberally’.

We don’t have enough beds or an asylum large enough to house all these patients. That’s what he has done, converted them into patients —albeit unthinking sick ones.

Terrorism: “The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” But we do not have a simple matter of terrorism. We have a religion sponsored, state-sponsored, caliphate-centric, political, ideologically rooted, Islam-driven terrorism.

From ABC:
That includes the U.S. government. “No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance,” the State Department said in a report on world terrorism in 2000.
The key elements to terrorism are obvious to many — violence, non-combatant targets, intention of spreading fear, and political aims. But crafting a watertight, commonly accepted definition has proven difficult.
The State Department’s definition holds that only sub-national groups, not states themselves, can commit acts of terrorism. It states the violence must be politically motivated, but does not mention instilling or spreading fear.
The FBI looks to the Code of Federal Regulations definition: “The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
“In a nutshell, [terrorism] is the threat and use of both psychological and physical force in violation of international law, by state and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals,” says Yonah Alexander, a terrorism expert and director of the Institute for Studies in International Terrorism at the State University of New York.
“No ifs, ands, or buts,” he adds.

RightRing | Bullright

Incensed by the use of “Evil”- pt 2 of 3

In the second part he makes it clear he wants to separate undesirable “understanding” of evil from the preferable understanding of the terrorist culture, and their environment, etc. (Part 3 follows.)

Column continued: Is Isis Evil? 2nd of 3

The fact is, there are few things more dangerous now than allowing ourselves to think that way. [like Goldberg: “They’re evil. They do obviously evil things for evil ends.”]

To resist ISIS and, perhaps more importantly, the larger social forces it represents, the U.S. will need more than a collective psychological readiness to injure, and more than bombs.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized that this evil ideology will only be stopped when “enough of its fanatics have been killed.” But if we’ve learned anything as a nation since our “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq, it is this: While invasions and bombing can be effective in the short-term, they are not durable solutions to terror-based violence.

Even if U.S. military force could effectively destroy ISIS, there will be similar groups waiting in the wings. If we are to have any hope of preventing the spread of extremist ideologies, we must do more than bomb the believers. We must understand them. We must be willing to continue thinking.

How is ISIS able to achieve the support it needs? What drives people into its ranks? What social pressures and needs, what political and regional vacuums, make it possible for a group like this to thrive? We can choose to answer these questions in two ways.

We can say they are evil people doing evil things for evil ends. Or we can do the hard work of understanding the context that made them, so that we can create a context that makes them.

See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/opinion/dawes-isis-evil/

“The fact is, there are few things more dangerous now than allowing ourselves to think that way.”

Than like Goldberg: “They’re evil. They do obviously evil things for evil ends.” – I think denial and distractions are pretty dangerous. We haven’t heard why that is so dangerous.

To resist ISIS and, perhaps more importantly, the larger social forces it represents, the U.S. will need more than a collective psychological readiness to injure, and more than bombs.

So he’s leading to his big point. We do need all our assets, but to leave out an important one of calling something what it is and identifying it psychologically and strategically is key. That is before those bombs are dropped. Dismissing the sinister evil nature of it gets us nowhere.

Even if U.S. military force could effectively destroy ISIS, there will be similar groups waiting in the wings. If we are to have any hope of preventing the spread of extremist ideologies, we must do more than bomb the believers. We must understand them. We must be willing to continue thinking.

Yes, we keep thinking and they keep plotting, undeterred. Sound like a plan? We don’t have to prove the better thinkers, we have to prove to be ready and denial is not a strategy. We already are planning and thinking, so are they. Our ability and readiness are a deterrent. Has history not taught you want it can take to end that? Force is about the only thing they understand. A new one rises, so what is the alternative?

How is ISIS able to achieve the support it needs? What drives people into its ranks? What social pressures and needs, what political and regional vacuums, make it possible for a group like this to thrive? We can choose to answer these questions in two ways.

It’s the questions, stupid. They are loaded, try unpacking them. We see and know how its possible, more importantly so do they. Their hatred and religion are the driving dynamics. Those are two obstacles in your path. Now you show me your protocol for that, since you believe in it so much, and I may start listening. Either deal with that or live in denial.

We can say they are evil people doing evil things for evil ends.[Goldberg] Or we can do the hard work of understanding the context that made them, so that we can create a context that unmakes them.

I wanted to laugh and couldn’t. “Hard work of understanding the context”? Well, do you know the context of the last 1400 years, which might have something to do with this repetition thing? We understand if we paid attention. Do you understand their context of warfare and deception being sacred things? Do you understand their tenants to lie as necessary to pursue and achieve their age-old goals, that context? Or is some other fabricated one in your own mind or someone else’s, which claims to have caused this?

What context or circumstances? Well, maybe we could undo the entire civilized world to satisfy them. Or maybe we could just accept their rules for the world to appease them – give it over to them? That might work. But outside that, you don’t have a plan, or even a theory either, on how to unmake this evil incarnate. Get it yet? We are back to examining symptoms not dealing with the disease.

First off any real solution for it would have to come from within. Except last I checked, Islam does not self-correct. Its the dirty little secret no one wants to mention. And trying to sterilize this barbaric terrorism from Islam is like trying to separate Naziism from The Third Reich. Btw, an awful lot of people have already devoted countless time and energy to this problem. You are not the first one to come along, but might be the most recent to whistle past the graveyard.

Our great tool is right here in the idea sphere. But as long as we are saying things like understanding and what is their reasons for radicalization we are wasting our time. Been there done that. If we don’t understand the central radical factor, you miss the point and end up in denial.

Part 3 follows…

RightRing | Bullright

Incensed by the use of “Evil”

Should we use the term or shouldn’t we, and why?
Have we gone that far? Yep.

This is obviously an important subject but also provocative. There may not be simple answers but there might be limitations on conversation, at least with liberals. Here is my attempt at the topic, which is also a rebuttal to a column on CNN.

I soon realized others have taken issue with it, and one a conservative he singled out in it. I didn’t read the others until after. I included them below in case you want to check them out too. The subject deserves consideration. (It is three parts) You can read his entire column at link. But it could irk you, as liberal academics do.

Should we call ISIS ‘evil’?

By James Dawes | August 22, 2014

Editor’s note: James Dawes, director of the Program in Human Rights at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, is the author of “Evil Men” (Harvard University Press). The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) — When most people look at ISIS, they see the incarnation of evil. Among its many horrific acts, the Islamic militant group beheaded American journalist James Foley and posted the video this week in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. The Pope typically protests violence, but he implied that he supports the use of military force to combat ISIS. Even al Qaeda says ISIS is too violent. Across the political spectrum, public officials and pundits have characterized them as “savages,” a “cancer” and the “face of evil.”

Is ISIS evil?

The problem with that question is that the answer is as easy as it is useless. Yes, ISIS is evil and must be stopped. Saying so over and over again could very well make it harder to stop them.

There is only one good reason to denounce a group as evil — because you plan to injure them, and calling them evil makes it psychologically easier to do so. “Evil” is the most powerful word we have to prepare ourselves to kill other people comfortably.

The flip side is that “evil” is also a word that stops us from thinking.

There is no point in trying to understand evil because it is, in the most typical phrasing, “inhuman,” “senseless” or “beyond comprehension.” It is a fool’s quest to analyze the local realities and strategic imperatives of unthinking savages. There is something almost offensive about trying to understand such evil.

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg tried to shame those who are trying to think seriously about ISIS. In a recent tweet, he mocked the attempt to understand ISIS in its social and political context, suggesting that we should focus instead on one fact: “They’re evil. They do obviously evil things for evil ends.”

See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/opinion/dawes-isis-evil/

The first paragraph generally gets a pass as fairly matter-of-fact.

The word evil may get tossed around, but I think most people know it when they see it.

“Easy” to call it evil, but “useless?” I don’t agree. Their acts speak for themselves, and useless? The repeated use of the term evil makes it “harder to stop them”? So the answer is to stop using the term, so we can stop them. Say what? Thus, evil is a useless descriptor. I think he expects one to make a case just for using the term.

Now be careful about making all-inclusive statements:

There is only one good reason to denounce a group as evil — because you plan to injure them, and calling them evil makes it psychologically easier to do so. “Evil” is the most powerful word we have to prepare ourselves to kill other people comfortably.

Only one reason? I disagree. There are more than one reason. He is saying our use of the term is based on our intent. He ascribes our motives and intent to the use of the word. What about the evil ISIS? (he’s more concerned with us) A “powerful word”? It’s a powerful concept or force.

I have called some things evil without feeling the reflex to kill them. Likewise, a hunter shoots an animal not because he sees it as evil. I used the term about someone’s actions for years, but never, ever had a desire to kill or harm them. It surely was not my motive for using the word. Wrong. At times I did not wish them the best, that’s quite different. Even if there were reasons not to use the term, one needs to call something what it is – not based on what you want to do to it. So that doesn’t work, nor is it 100% correct. A motive might be to call attention to it or a person, or an effort to demonize them; but that is not an effort to go string them up on a tree. There is room and need for calling some things or people evil though, it is not meaningless.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose and fight it based on what it is. It is a moral repugnance. The ISIS evil is not just a criminal offense either. Anger is justifiable.

“The flip side is that “evil” is also a word that stops us from thinking.”

Use of the word stops me from thinking? Ludicrous and wrong. Now maybe evil nature could prevent its host from thinking? Just suppose it gets easier for these people to do what they’re doing without thinking — searing off any conscience. Isn’t that more the case? And people have given a lot of thought to opposing evil, even predicting its moves. Maybe some are obsessed about understanding it? That is reason to be careful trying to fully understand it. I would agree there is a danger inherent in trying to understand it that: to understand evil is to excuse it[LM]. The point is in trying to understand it you can rationalize reasons for it.

Apparently there is no point trying to understand evil:

There is no point in trying to understand evil because it is, in the most typical phrasing, “inhuman,” “senseless” or “beyond comprehension.” It is a fool’s quest to analyze the local realities and strategic imperatives of unthinking savages. There is something almost offensive about trying to understand such evil.

I don’t believe understanding is the cure. However, no point trying because it is inhuman? That’s pretty absurd. I’m not looking for explanations though. We have enough of that and call it what it is. I agree that what these people are doing is inhuman — what I call anti-human. But that doesn’t change the evil nature. Islamic terrorists are biologically humans. Savages, yes – unthinking, no. But they are taught and aspire to this evil. Sure they have turned themselves into barbaric animals. True some evil is beyond our comprehension and understanding — which is why the objective is not to understand it. Many people do not want to get into the mindset of that evil, and probably never will, but that does not make inquiry irrelevant. From one extreme to the other.

So are Islamic terrorists just zombies incapable of cognitive thought? No. We see what they do think about. They are actively establishing and running a caliphate – of evil but a caliphate. It takes some scheming evil thought.

Then don’t even consider their strategic imperatives? Is that asinine? Are we supposed to be numb to it or zombies ourselves? Of course you have to consider its strategy. And it wants to kill us as part of its grand strategy. But don’t bother with that.

“It is a fool’s quest to analyze the local realities and strategic imperatives of unthinking savages. There is something almost offensive about trying to understand such evil”

The reasoning here seems to be not to label it evil. Maybe this type of sinister illusion prevents its defining, and the application? Maybe a waste of time is what human nature would like us to think? At least know enough to guard against and predict it as possible.

I remember many people taking the criminal approach to terrorism pre-9/11. But possibly that itself is a passive participation in evil, to dismiss it as just another criminal deed.(that requires ignoring a lot) People do grow tired of an overuse of a term. As they say: “all that is needed for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing”. How would you fight something without understanding what it is?

I have a huge problem with other words there, like calling them unthinking. Now we have gone from one extreme to another — from scheming evil to unthinking. In fact, it would appear that a lot of thought goes into their actions. And there is a deliberate nature to it. It is actually work to do what these savages do. But unthinking? Unaware of what they are doing? I don’t think either works. It seems as systematic as what Nazis were doing. Then there is the political motives, which are at the very definition of terrorism. And not for one minute would I ascribe that they didn’t know what they are doing. Just the opposite, they incorporate a psychological propaganda campaign designed to affect their opponents.

Something offensive about trying to understand such evil. We should be offended by it, it is evil after all. But calling understanding a fool’s errand? We had to understand some of what created Hitler and the Third Reich did, and its nature, to see it doesn’t take hold again. After WWII, the Germans were led through the camps to see what their society had done. It is called denial. I”m certain it left many with questions how all this came to be? And who exactly permitted it? Crushing and tough questions.

I find that people who refuse or don’t want to use the term evil have an agenda , and often a reason for it. To recap, he has attacked both sides: he attacked using the word, and also attacked even trying to understand it. Though he did admit the evil involved. That would be hard for a person with a new book on Evil Men to deny. Well, he would not want to deny evil, having written on it. But don’t bother trying to understand it, something that is inhuman. When evil inhabits men then humanity is involved. That’s a different story from understanding perps and terrorists’ social culture.

In no particular order, here are the bullet points:

  • Do not use the word – evil.
  • Do not even try to understand it.
  • Will make you stop thinking.
  • Using it will cause us to lose the battle
  • The only reason to use the word is to kill the person or thing.
  • Don’t consider its strategy or goals
  • It is offensive to try to understand it
  • He criticizes the ‘evil is as evil does’ notion

As background, I include a statement about his book Evil Men. His description gives a flavor for his treatment of the subject. But he is talking about evil men, not ideology or ideas, and apparently labeled them evil based on their deeds.

As readers, what are we to do when we read such testimony? Can torture narratives teach us anything? Isn’t the endless circling around stories of atrocities a form of obscenity itself? When does the fight for justice and truth end and human rights pornography begin? Evil Men is painful to read. Horror and terror are etched into every page. Atrocities are reflected upon – sometimes calmly; other times with cold fury. The book’s author, James Dawes, forces us to think carefully about the ethics of telling stories – true ones – about acts of staggering cruelty. Disturbingly, it is a book about friendship, too. When we are brought face to face with men who raped, tortured and murdered men, women and children, where should we look? Straight into their eyes, he advises.

Other columns:

Jonah Goldberg’s rebuttal None Dare Call It Evil?
Kevin Jackson also takes him to task:CNN writer implies calling ISIS evil is a bad idea
Conservative Firing Line took issue with him Liberal cautions that U.S. faces a danger in calling ISIS ‘evil’

Part 2
RightRing | Bullright

What do words tell us?

If I were a speech writer for Obama, I would have wondered, maybe highlighted a couple lines in the text either for clarification, revision, or removal. Sorry for the wordiness of this but it is unavoidable.

The line in question was about religion. Here is the text:

Jim Foley’s life stands in stark contrast to his killers. Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors and offer them nothing but an endless slavery to their empty vision, and the collapse of any definition of civilized behavior.

And people like this ultimately fail. They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy and the world is shaped by people like Jim Foley, and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him. … And we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.

Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg

Seal of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

“Declared their ambitions to commit genocide” … and are carrying it out. The word is ‘committing.’

Lonely phrases

“So ISIS speaks for no religion.” Was that completely necessary? On what facts does he base that? They believe they speak for Islam. In fact, they believe they are the self-declared spokesman for it. And masses of the Islam faith have not argued that point. Why was it so critically important for Obama to state that? He tries to separate ISIS from the religion of Islam, writ large. Again, why is that necessary? Others would seem more suited to make that distinction, except they don’t. He tries to put ISIS outside the parameters of Islam. We don’t need to do that. It is what it is — self-asserted. They certainly speak for some segment of it. Just declaring they don’t is a lonely phrase in there.

So he seemed more concerned that their actions are hurting Islam. If they are hurting Islam, that should not be of great importance to us. There seems to be no shortage of Islam defenders to make that case — but they don’t. It is not up to our president to explain why ISIS and the terrorists are not spokespersons for Islam. Sure it seems a simple thing and some probably see his motivation, not that I do. But why is there a need for it?

I realize there is a large world-wide population of Muslims to which it should matter, but why is it a priority to separate this violence, horror, and evil from Islam? The fact that he feels compelled to speaks for itself. Again, where are their voices? If a religion this large cannot make a case against this uber-evil, then what does that tell us?

Territorial control of ISIS

Rather, I recommend that we pose the question to Muslims: “do you realize these actions are being done in the name of your religion?” And it is not the first time — probably not the last. Had it been any other religion they would follow that tack. They’d say, “well I don’t believe they do, but others can make the case why they don’t speak for their membership.” But the majority of any other religion would beat them to it, to make that case. Not here, we don’t have that.

Of course, the real reason is his apologetics. He felt a need to separate them from the religion of Islam to defend it from this bloody stain. Again, that could be left to cleric spokesman and their academics. The ironic thing is Obama has Muslim advocates and activists all around him. I was no fan of Bush doing it either. Sometimes things are what they are. It would help if others were making the case. Instead, we see Muslims either joining ISIS-fever or registering their approval by their silence.

Someone please help Obama because if he has a heart it is sure not in this. We’ve seen his critique of Iraq politics and laying the problem at their feet. Yes. However, if ISIS is a threat to us and other countries, then how is it logical and rational to trust Iraq to solve the ISIS problem? That dependency on them places our security in their hands. Is that what we want to do? That is what Obama is doing — putting them in charge of our security and the free world’s. It would be nice if one of our generals took Obama out back and explained the food chain to him. He doesn’t seem to get the basics.

So then, I guess Obama speaks for no country either, especially not the USA.

 
RightRing | Bullright

The problem from hell oozes on

Obama has a problem, one of many, but it’s a doozy. He believes terrorism, like any other problem, can be adjudicated as a sterile law enforcement issue through courts etc. No matter what the crime. Well, hello, these are not compatible with that system. Of course the howling will start about that any minute.

We hear their arguments all the time — yada, yada. I won’t even dignify them with repetition. Courts are no deterrent to it.The answers haven’t been written. It is evil the likes of which we haven’t seen so blatantly this century. Still they will make their justice speech about bringing them to justice. Thus its a police matter. But what is justice for a massive, ever-growing group, bent on human slaughter by the worst methods they can think of? Is a jury trial capable of arbitrating that? We are in a new era.

Now videos and pictures surface with terrorists’ children holding severed heads. When is enough? Oh, tell me this shall be a law enforcement action, handled by bringing said culprits to some justice. I only state that possibility, as stupid as it is, to demonstrate the mentality of their arguments. Those talking points are an insult. This is mass genocide against humanity in general. It deserves a response. People would be appalled seeing animals treated and displayed like this. Yet here is a group operating with the objective of subverting humanity out of the equation.

No, I’m not even waiting to hear about bringing them to justice for their “crimes”. Maybe that is one of the reasons why Obama is reluctant to face or respond to it. It just will not fit in that box of theirs. This is pure evil it its worst form. It is not something one can summarily dismiss as a law enforcement matter. It’s way beyond that, intentionally so. This is the antithesis to humanity. Clinton’s failure was treating terrorism, like the Cole, as a simple civil law-enforcement matter. Message delivered. The problem is it doesn’t fit.

We’ve talked about state-sponsored terrorism before. But this is the terrorist sponsored state, or the “terrorism state”. That’s what the caliphate is. There are no levers over it to which it responds. It exists as an evil fog spreading around the world. People that have seen and witnessed this type evil don’t categorize it so easily. People label things “crimes against humanity”, but this is anti-humanity on the scale we haven’t seen. And it is breeding and flourishing under whatever banner it uses, into its own self-declared state.

Couple it with a weak-kneed, lily-livered liberal, diplomatic-espousing Oval Office occupant. However, the reverse may be true. In fact, he may fit right into their agenda. That’s a hell of a cocktail. He has us in a real predicament. He is so locked into his ideology, which fits right into ISIL’s and Al Qaeda’s decapitating glove, that he plays right into their evil nature — intentionally or not.(you decide) Tell me I’m wrong.

Obama gave a speech once, borrowed from another, saying “words, just words?” Sadly, that is all this pretender has ever had in his arsenal. Walk softly and carry a big script. And it’s totally inadequate for what we humanity faces. To choose to allow this kind of evil exist in any form on the earth is courting evil. To address it with words is irrational. It has no logic to appeal to; it is only the base form of evil, in its distilled form. All other characterizations are totally inadequate.

The other part of the same problem is a more logical one. Simply that a human crisis of this proportion, while drawing sharp rebuke from everywhere, is still a tool in the hands of scheming elitists and global ghouls. How do we decipher that reality?

“The present window of opportunity, during which a peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long… We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” — David Rockefeller., September 23, 1994, at the UN Ambassadors’ dinner

.

The problem is Islamic jihadists are now working on their own new word order — okay an old one — methodology that is precipitated by international crisis as well. That crisis is their own war on humanity. Politicians can worry about their so-called war on women, their pet issues, their re-elections, “never letting a crisis go to waste;” while this war rages on. If Rockefeller or his ilk think this humanitarian crisis can be transformatively used somehow, then they really have lost all senses. The only thing to be harvested from “using” this crisis in some way, for political purposes, is more evil. Are they up for that? Are we?

Part of the evil of this genocidal menace is it also has its own law to deal with everything else, including humanity, through inhumanity. If anyone was unaware of the nature of evil loose and manifested in the world, they should now be privy to it or they are beyond rehabilitation.

RightRing | Bullright