Hungary to rescue Christians

The First Country to Officially Defend Christians Persecuted by ISIS

Hungary has drawn criticism for favoring Christian over Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq.
Christianity Today

This week, Hungary, which has during the past year come under pressure for its handling of Europe’s mass migration crisis, has become the first government to open an office specifically to address the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Europe.

“Today, Christianity has become the most persecuted religion, where out of five people killed [for] religious reasons, four of them are Christians,” Catholic News Agency (CNA) quoted Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources, Zoltan Balog, as saying. “In 81 countries around the world, Christians are persecuted, and 200 million Christians live in areas where they are discriminated against. Millions of Christian lives are threatened by followers of radical religious ideologies.”

Read more: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/september/first-country-to-officially-defend-christians-persecuted-by.html?visit_source=twitter

Yet at the same time, many of our leaders like Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with countless subordinate officials, refuse to call them Radical Islamic Terrorists.

But they have seen fit to condemn the Crusades or criticize Christians whenever possible. And they do throw around words like Islamaphobia to describe their own political critics.

Faced with confronting ethnic or religious cleansing, they cannot be forced to utter the words radical Islamic terrorists. That could offend Muslims. But they can call out critics of their refugee policy that caters to Muslims as bigots. These leaders and officials worry about families of illegal immigrants or Muslims being ripped apart byt the rule of law, yet cannot condemn the slaughter of Christian families and cleansing in Iraq and Syria.

At least Hungary can call it out and recognize it — for the human rights catastrophe it is.

A message for Muslims: beware

So let me offend Muslims a little bit and say we should use a little psyops on them. (apply a little reverse psychology) It may sound provocative to some people.

We can start with one of the oldest books in the Old Testament. Joel has something to say about just such a situation as we are going through. People of Judah were down and things were bad. Joel felt judgement had come upon them.

Joel 1:2-4

2 Hear this, you elders;
listen, all who live in the land.
Has anything like this ever happened in your days
or in the days of your forefathers?
3 Tell it to your children,
and let your children tell it to their children,
and their children to the next generation.
4 What the locust swarm has left
the great locusts have eaten;
what the great locusts have left
the young locusts have eaten;
what the young locusts have left
other locusts have eaten.

Joel 2:6-7

6 At the sight of them, nations are in anguish;
every face turns pale.
7 They charge like warriors;
they scale walls like soldiers.

They were depressed at the prospects all around them. They were no doubt wondering if God was with them? The answer came in the second half of chapter two.

Joel 2:25’I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten — the great locust and the young locust, the other locusts and the locust swarm— my great army that I sent among you. (26) “You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you; never again will my people be shamed. (27) Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed.

(28)’And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”

The point is we often debate the cause of bad things, but there is also judgment. Yet God is capable of restoring us to greater blessings for going through them. When we call on Him and pray, He hears. He can turn to good that which is done to us.

We tend to personalize it seeing circumstances as punishment feeling judgment has come, that God has removed his protection. But He will restore even bless us.

2 Chronicles 7:13″If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 14and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

So I have to wonder about the terrorism, as bad and evil as it all is? I’m thinking how God can restore us and greatly bless us for going through it. Then I wonder how great those blessings might be for what we are going through now?

Do hihadis and Islamists realize, with what they are doing, that God can and will bless us in the end? God will restore His people, and take them to greater heights. We can have faith in that. That’s the message I hear.

That should give Muslims, Islamists, and terrorists pause to know(or think) we will be restored. We will be blessed in spite of all they do. Now maybe that is the best message that could be sent to them. Just proclaim what is going to happen. That might be the best campaign we could have. It will also build a confidence among God’s people in anticipation of what is to come. Plus, it would be better than any propaganda we could employ. God repaid to his people what the locusts had eaten. God has a salvation plan, Christ.

RightRing | Bullright

The invasion crisis, not a humanity crisis

The perennial “refugee” sympathizer squatting in the White House has certainly gotten the information updates. He chooses to ignore them like all the other pertinent briefings he may get from our intelligence. But most of Americans are aware of what is going on in all the countries these so-called refugees fled to. Face it, if there is one issue O-bastid is interested in other than the Climate Change one, it is the plight of the refugees he so closely identifies with. So at least they are on his attention radar — which neither Putin nor ISIS can really claim.

Still what Americans have seen unfold across Europe where refugees have invaded is not a pretty picture. And there looks to be no end in sight, especially for the places they already infiltrated. But we know it is not just Syrians, as it is not just refugees either. They are just fleeing from many places and many of them are the young males. A portion are more closely associated with the Caliphate, ISIS and Islam than they are with democracy or anything like it.

Have people learned their lesson on supporting the Muslim Brotherhood as a means to Democracy and peace? Sure, people may have but our illustrious ‘stuck in ideological mud’ leaders have not. It could be unfolding right in front of them — as it is — and they would deny and ignore any ulterior motives to Islamic transients. What better way to spread a global Caliphate than exporting hoards of thousands, millions from the region infected with it? Of course that would be doing just what they have done all along: ignoring the growing threat to the Western world. It would be just what Obama has done since the inception of the ME crisis, largely spawned and supported by the White House.

Why would he want ours or the world’s attention focused on the crisis now that the consequences became so obvious to the rest of us? He lit the Mid East ablaze, fanned the flames, exported that fire everywhere he could, then stood back and declared ‘what can we really do about it anyway?’ He says things like we cannot send thousands of troops here because what happens when something pops up elsewhere? Do we then send them there too? Yes he would know because he is involved with all those grease fires popping up everywhere. By design he is realizing his dream. He has turmoil everywhere. Funny how he can be involved in the turmoil everywhere and claim that we cannot be everywhere. And use that as an excuse not to respond to it. Does it sound like anything else, like maybe our illegal immigrant crisis? It is not Assad’s mess, it is not Iran’s mess, it is not Russia’s mess, it’s not George Bush’s mess, it is not even ISIS’s mess. It is Obama’s mess.

While the invaders flow through the free world to infect everywhere they descend, we are reaping the product of his policies and his strategies. He’s made the problem so big that we now dare not do anything but watch the world burn with radicalism as he lectures us on Climate Change. What great irony is that? Everyone will be fine if we just cut our emissions, or have our throats slit by Islamic terrorists hell bent on taking over the world and enforcing their global Caliphate. Do numbers, of them, really matter when we have seen the sinister effects from just tens of thousands of them? But then Obama doesn’t seem to care that it is growing as fast as the flames can spread it. Rather he has more respect for ISIS than he has for us. His only mission seems to be not putting it out.

But, as typical, Obama lectures us on what the Statue of Liberty says.
Well, what it does not say is:

Bring me your your rebellious insurgents and ideological warriors to wreck our peace, justice, prosperity, and undermine our Republic. Give me your suicide bombers and jihadists. Come here to take over not assimilate.

There is no country too far out of reach of the Climate Caliphate, for Obama, and there is no country or place worth saving from Islamic radicalism or their Caliphate.

RightRing | Bullright

Same old song and dance

It’s been a little while since I did an essay, and pontificating is really not in vogue at the moment. I’ll bust the boundaries and meet in the middle with personal commentary on this process that looks more like helter-skelter than an election year roll out. Plus a rant.

First off though I’d compare the situation to 2012, and most of the same issues are in the mix. Coincidence. How many years now have we been running on ObamaCare, political dysfunction or corrupt beltway politics. Frankly, I am sick of hearing the same things about upcoming elections: it’s this issue or that. It may always be about it but in the aftermath “it” never gets addressed. Next election.

When you do think you got a mandate on something at the polls, you are disappointed to learn later on that the election did not mean what you thought — or should have meant. We send people to congress with a message but that “tin can & and string” magically turns into a fundraiser speed-dial campaign once they hit Washington. So we get letter after letter of what they are concerned about, with reasons for raising money for their campaign coffers. Who doesn’t have a pet issue to pander for dollars about? Pick one, any one.

If I could sum up the political climate across the board it’s a lyin’ and cryin’ campaign. Lying about what they’ll do and crying for mo’ money.

So with that as the backdrop, its pretty hard to be optimistic about the people’s business. The subliminal message is expect what you have always gotten. We heard “if we change Congress things will change.” Have they, you decide? We heard “we will repeal Obamacare.” We heard that will not stand with a change in leadership. We heard Obama will finally be challenged or stopped. Executive tyranny will be opposed. (Benghazi, IRS, Iran, ISIS, Israel, amnesty, same sex marriage, 1st amendment, drilling, Keystone, VA hospitals, nominees, cronyism, scandals.) Well, all meant to keep our hopes up. We even had our hopes in the process and courts. How many Independence Days have we celebrated while wondering if that sacred covenant must be renewed? If election IOUs we’re given were frequent flier miles, then we would have been home-free long ago.

Is it our fault?

For years we could have only looked back at ourselves saying we get the government we deserve, and we’d be right. We’ve allowed it and brought it on. But now I think we are a little past that. We may stand accused for a lot and haven’t been vigilant, however, can we really be blamed for the entire current condition? I think not. We told them and did our best to hold them responsible. We sent them a message that we aren’t going to take it anymore. But afterward we endure a relapse of the same systemic failures we’ve seen for over a decade.

The standard answer is always, “if you don’t like it vote them out next election. That’s the process.” No kidding? After the fact, right. But the damage can’t be undone easily.

Many of us have been waiting, hoping, praying for something different. We always hear “next election” and that’s where we put our emphasis. So maybe now, this time, it finally is “next election.” If so, I hope it’s like Groundhog Day and keeps happening over and over.

Why do I think that is against the odds? I’m not really sure. But this year one candidate came in different from the cookie cutter politicians, and from an unlikely place. You know which one I mean, and it isn’t Bernie Sanders, with the initials DT.

But let’s back up a moment. Trump has made noises about running for years. He was an almost in 2012. Last election it stirred curiosity. Naysayers said he wouldn’t run and they were right. I was dismissive about his prospects then. I didn’t think he would make much difference anyway. He was not my favorite.

Remember Newt at South Carolina?

When Newt Gingrich ran he was not an odds on favorite either but something happened in South Carolina that made us take another, closer look. It was that question from the media which Newt turned into his moment. Against all odds he shot up and made everyone take notice. Sure, it didn’t last or turn out well. Maybe lightning in a bottle cannot be repeated at will. But it did happen for a moment in South Carolina, where the sky opened and people took a deep breath, just for a moment. They were on notice. When media blushed and the blame turned on them it caught them off guard. It didn’t last but it was a spotlight on the whole process while it lasted.

Alluding in his South Carolina victory speech to elites and media influence Newt said, “But we do have ideas, and we do have people and we proved here in South Carolina that people power with the right ideas beats big money.” Or so we’d like to think. We’d like to believe the right ideas do win, too. Incidentally, Romney’s answer to SC was to turn up the heat against Newt, who probably wasn’t prepared for the barrage. (cue attack ads)

Years ago, I used to hear the line: you dance all night someone has to pay the fiddler. They’ve been doing a lot of dancing in DC.

One of the worst things IMO has been that we were led to believe they were going to do things, namely resist Obama’s agenda, pursue accountability, hold spending, oppose amnesty, restore the separation of powers. What difference at this point has it made? And they wonder why people are angry with Washington? It’s been almost a year and we still hear talk. So then comes Trump but they take issue with Donald for pointing it out.

It’s already been said if this much effort they use to oppose Trump were focused on holding Obama to account, like they said they were going to do, then we would see fruits from their labor. But no, instead Obama is going on now another victory tour for his Iran deal disaster. He’s taking an international bow while they cast Israel to the curb. And Republicans gave him fast track authority. It’s a one lane highway, or a freeway.

Obama now says from Ethiopia that: “In 18 months, I’m turning over the keys, I want to make sure I’m turning over the keys to somebody who is serious about the serious problems that the country faces and the world faces.” Say what? Now he’s the guard for our safety or security, after making a miserable deal with Iran, saturating government in radicalism, scandal upon scandal, and watching ISIS explode across the Middle East. Who in the hell does he think he is? This must be some kind of a joke like… “Live from Africa, its Obamerika!”

So is there anything new here? Have our efforts been fruitful? Rather than oppose Obama’s radical agenda Republicans give him Fast Track. Amnesty without a whimper. Republicans poured gas on the flames instead. They’ve given but haven’t gotten a damn thing back. Oh, we have gotten these public attacks and vengeance from Obama, and threats. Now its a nuclear deal with Iran on the table. Do we really have an irrelevant Congress like Obama promised to do — at State of the Union no less. He’s rolling out the EPA jihad. He’s declared a war on energy, and war on the economy.

Yep, we had elections on issues. Now we’re going to campaign on most of the same things. How many years has Obamacare been an election issue. In Live from Obamerika debut, Barry claimed the outrage and disagreement with his Iran nuke deal was just to divert attention from Trump. Say what? He must think people cannot do more than one thing at a time? That’s what he hoped: that people would be too preoccupied with election politics to pay lip service to his Iran giveaway. The UN rubber stamp was a nice touch.

RightRing | Bullright

The real war on women

Another new Islamic treatment toward women exposed.

The Gateway Pundit has the story on a primitive looking device used on women who commit the crime of breastfeeding in public. They consider this punishment.

It calls to mind, with constant stories about their barbaric treatment of humans, how are we deemed the bad guys? So stack this up against those chants about America torturing people. Measure that against the detainment of combatants in Gitmo. Of course there is no comparison but that’s the point.

What won’t they bring back or think up to intentionally torture people? When it is this evil there really aren’t any limits.

See: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/isis-finds-savage-way-to-mutilate-women-caught-breast-feeding-in-public/

Selective first amendment

It’s so strange what some people will use the first amendment for, besides toilet tissue.

Just ask Pamella Geller, or her art exhibit in Texas. Well, let’s get something straight, there are no safety zones for the first amendment. So Geller knows this full well. Regardless, she had the exhibit/contest anyway. Now the post exhibit is being scripted, and it ain’t pretty.

Now that it’s over, and we all know the shooters who attacked it were stopped before carrying out their apparent mission, we have a new discussion. One on the first amendment. Sure, before the exhibit many complained about her holding something so controversial, if dangerous. No such controversy over the Muslims holding a “stand with the prophet convention” with all the characters it had — the one place guaranteed not to have a suicide bomber crash the party or a terrorist attack. Media wasn’t in a feeding frenzy over that.

Since the exhibit and the events are now history a new phenomena unfolds. That’s right, the fallout in the media and talking-head establishment over the exhibit. Sure they can gang up on Pamella Geller and actually blame her for what did happen. Let’s not misplace any of that venomous blame on exactly the right parties, Islamists. Instead let’s blame Geller for holding the event in the first place. Surely she knew something would happen. Surely she knew it would inflame radical Muslims. She was courting disaster. Surely she new the potential harm that it could attract. Right?

Check, check, check. She knew alright. And she went ahead and held it anyway, shrug. Why? What’s wrong with her? Is she just doing it for publicity? What a stunt, they say. Well, notice anything in all this criticism? Yes, it is the first amendment rearing its ugly head, once again,. I don’t mean that she had the event, I mean their criticism about it.

See article at Pamela Geller’s website.

After that came the denunciations. No, not against the Islamic fanatics. But against Geller.

From all across the Liberal dials, plus The New York Times, came blasts of outrage against Geller for being “provocative” and “asking for trouble.”

See, they can all come out safely to criticize her with their first amendment “rights”. Oh, that’s the thing to do now. But as to her taking a stand in defense of the first amendment? Not so much. Though they are right on board with calling her out or blaming her for the fallout from it. They’ll even claim it is the responsible thing to accept the criticism for it.

So let me understand the issue correctly. The guys with hoods and machetes get to define free speech. Then, as a course of action against would be assailants who don’t fall in line, hold them up to ridicule in the very-vocal and critical mainstream media. So the cries of outrage come against any cartoonists or a person who would hold such an event.

But Muslims and Islamists holding a “stand with Prophet Muhammad” and rally against “Islamophobia” that is perfectly acceptable and receives no criticism. Follow that with a cartoonist draw contest and the long knives come out. (pardon the pun)

Now class, we have our lesson on the first amendment. Thou shall not criticize the Prophet Muhammad, Islam, or any Muslims, Sharia Law, or whatever hateful genocidal deeds they do. Got that class? Oh there will be tests on it too. But it is alright to use Islam in any way to condemn, attack, promote bigotry and hatred, or otherwise assault anyone else or their freedoms. In fact, not to worry, media and lots of outraged mouthpieces will make excuses for their right to do it. And media will question the motives of anyone who would criticize Islam. This is very important class, so I hope you’re taking notes and getting all this.

In the event of misconduct, such as the cartoonists or others, the first amendment shall be used to condemn the offender for his wrongful, provocative misuse of the first amendment. So everyone can now apply their first amendment toward criticizing the organizer of an event, but not to defend or sympathize with the offenders. Isn’t it funny how they were absolutely chomping at the bit to apply their first amendment toward the offender, yet cannot muster any defense for the accused. Oh, and the accused shall just be pronounced guilty — as if it is even possible to prove his/her innocence.

See they weren’t willing to use their first amendment to support Geller’s first amendment. But they are happy to use their first amendment to attack and condemn her — something Islamists also wasted no time in doing.

Letter from Tehran….with love or not

Many people probably were unaware of this attempt at a letter from Iran. The ones who did see it may not have wanted to publicize it. I have mixed feelings about that but to those who understand and know, it should be read. So I include the words here in its entirety. (as wordy as it is – a few passages highlighted for emphasis)

In the name of God, the Beneficent the Merciful
To the Youth in Europe and North America, (from Seyyed Ali Khamenei)
The recent events in France and similar ones in some other Western countries have convinced me to directly talk to you about them. I am addressing you, [the youth], not because I overlook your parents, rather it is because the future of your nations and countries will be in your hands; and also I find that the sense of quest for truth is more vigorous and attentive in your hearts.
I don’t address your politicians and statesmen either in this writing because I believe that they have consciously separated the route of politics from the path of righteousness and truth.
I would like to talk to you about Islam, particularly the image that is presented to you as Islam. Many attempts have been made over the past two decades, almost since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, to place this great religion in the seat of a horrifying enemy. The provocation of a feeling of horror and hatred and its utilization has unfortunately a long record in the political history of the West.
Here, I don’t want to deal with the different phobias with which the Western nations have thus far been indoctrinated. A cursory review of recent critical studies of history would bring home to you the fact that the Western governments’ insincere and hypocritical treatment of other nations and cultures has been censured in new historiographies.
The histories of the United States and Europe are ashamed of slavery, embarrassed by the colonial period and chagrined at the oppression of people of color and non-Christians. Your researchers and historians are deeply ashamed of the bloodsheds wrought in the name of religion between the Catholics and Protestants or in the name of nationality and ethnicity during the First and Second World Wars. This approach is admirable.
By mentioning a fraction of this long list, I don’t want to reproach history; rather I would like you to ask your intellectuals as to why the public conscience in the West awakens and comes to its senses after a delay of several decades or centuries. Why should the revision of collective conscience apply to the distant past and not to the current problems? Why is it that attempts are made to prevent public awareness regarding an important issue such as the treatment of Islamic culture and thought?
You know well that humiliation and spreading hatred and illusionary fear of the “other” have been the common base of all those oppressive profiteers. Now, I would like you to ask yourself why the old policy of spreading “phobia” and hatred has targeted Islam and Muslims with an unprecedented intensity. Why does the power structure in the world want Islamic thought to be marginalized and remain latent? What concepts and values in Islam disturb the programs of the super powers and what interests are safeguarded in the shadow of distorting the image of Islam? Hence, my first request is: Study and research the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam.
My second request is that in reaction to the flood of prejudgments and disinformation campaigns, try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion. The right logic requires that you understand the nature and essence of what they are frightening you about and want you to keep away from.
I don’t insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is: Don’t allow this dynamic and effective reality in today’s world to be introduced to you through resentments and prejudices. Don’t allow them to hypocritically introduce their own recruited terrorists as representatives of Islam.
Receive knowledge of Islam from its primary and original sources. Gain information about Islam through the Qur’an and the life of its great Prophet. I would like to ask you whether you have directly read the Qur’an of the Muslims. Have you studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his humane, ethical doctrines? Have you ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?
Have you ever asked yourself how and on the basis of which values has Islam established the greatest scientific and intellectual civilization of the world and raised the most distinguished scientists and intellectuals throughout several centuries?
I would like you not to allow the derogatory and offensive image-buildings to create an emotional gulf between you and the reality, taking away the possibility of an impartial judgment from you. Today, the communication media have removed the geographical borders. Hence, don’t allow them to besiege you within fabricated and mental borders.
Although no one can individually fill the created gaps, each one of you can construct a bridge of thought and fairness over the gaps to illuminate yourself and your surrounding environment. While this preplanned challenge between Islam and you, the youth, is undesirable, it can raise new questions in your curious and inquiring minds. Attempts to find answers to these questions will provide you with an appropriate opportunity to discover new truths.
Therefore, don’t miss the opportunity to gain proper, correct and unbiased understanding of Islam so that hopefully, due to your sense of responsibility toward the truth, future generations would write the history of this current interaction between Islam and the West with a clearer conscience and lesser resentment.
Seyyed Ali Khamenei
21st Jan. 2015

As I said, it is something of a sight. Yet the same guy now complains about Congress addressing a letter to him? Go figure. Note he is talking to the kids. The thing that got me is the amount of people out there pimping this letter for him. I don’t think there is any valuable information in it. Though it does offer some insight into what we are dealing with.

If he really wanted to express non-bias he could start closer to home — without having to worry about the rest of the world and its children. (i.e. indoctrinating their children)

And if he cared about youth, he would be improving lives of the youth in Iran via jobs, the economy, opportunity, and freedoms of course. The people spoke in elections on those things. But he ignores the plight of people right in his own country.

Since everything in Iran has to do with Islam, one way or another, it does not seem to be making a great promotion for Islam. Rather it is making a negative statement, all by itself, about Islam and its culture. It is not the West doing that. Surely it does not go beyond notice that their terrorism tentacles are widespread throughout the region. Its treatment of women, or its hostages, does not speak well for Islam.

Speak up and forever hold the peace

Obama said in a message to the Iranian people:

    “We have to speak up for the future we seek”

What a bunch of nonsense, which is typical of Obamaspeak. Then he usually gets praised for excellent delivery. Too bad he couldn’t hear any applause from Tehran.

Straw man alert:

“The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.”

Who are all these people who are against a “diplomatic resolution”? People are opposed to failure. They are opposed to something that doesn’t work. They are opposed to giving away the store. They are opposed to a policy of containment that won’t work But they are not opposed to a diplomatic resolution. But what diplomatic resolution would not include congress? Diplomacy? And they are not opposed to a deal. As long as it is one that works.

But of course he is talking about “diplomacy” with a theocracy and dictatorship waiting for the Mahdi or 12th Imam. An ideology whose duty is to usher in and speed that age through violent jihad and terrorism.

BTW: Can anyone point out the difference between what Russia(Putin) is doing and what Iran is doing? It is the same thing different regions. Russia has invaded Ukraine on the auspices that they were invited there to stabilize it. Iran invaded Iraq under the guise of pushing back ISIS and calming things down. Both have ulterior motives. Both insist it was invited in as a good neighbor. Each believes it is justified in its expansionist motives.

Furthermore, what do the Iranian people have to do or say about the nuclear program? Right, it’s a democratic nuclear program. Petitions, phone calls, and letters to follow.

It’s Springtime in Iran. “Peace in our time.” Watch and listen to this video.

Neville Chamberlain 1938, after Munich Conference: “I believe it is “peace for our time.””

So people wrongly oppose a diplomatic resolution?

Obama’s Strategic Ignorance Plan

Also could be called strategic neglect, as this piece says. What grade would you give him?

The Cost to America of an AWOL President

by Dr. Sebastian Gorka Feb 2015 | Brietbart

In the recently released, but largely unheralded, National Security Strategy of the United States, the new buzz-word was “strategic patience.” As our unarmed Marines hastily departed Yemen, and ISIS closed in on their fellow devil-dogs in Iraq, the President was more than showing patience: he was making video about taking selfies.
The new National Security Strategy of the United States, which was a year late and strangely dropped on a Friday – a technique usually reserved for documents the administration doesn’t want to be read – opens with a a letter from President Obama.

In it, he states that his answer to the threats and challenges that face the nation is “strategic patience.” Instead of tackling the dangers of the word proactively and head-on, America will play a waiting game. This fits neatly into previous approaches from the White House that have emphasized “leading from behind.” Given the geopolitical realties of today’s world, American voters should draw their own report card of what a reactive and “patient” approach has brought the Republic in the last six years:

  • The Global Jihadist Movement: Not only is Al Qaeda not on the ropes, but ISIS /The Islamic State has overtaken it as a fully-fledged insurgency which is so powerful that latest reports have it attacking the base in Iraq where US Marines are deployed to assist the Iraqi army in standing itself back up after being routed last Summer. As media attention focuses again on the Middle East, especially after the gruesome immolation of Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh of the Royal Jordanian Air Force, the Jihadist movement grows ever stronger in Africa, with Boko Haram killing thousands and enslaving hundreds of Christian girls. Back home, we have the unprecedented statement by the director of the FBI that the Bureau is investigating ISIS activity in 49 states of the union. (Every state except Sarah Palin’s Alaska).
  • On the Shia side of this global war, we see that not only is Iran very deftly outmaneuvering the administration when it comes to its nuclear program, its proxies are gaining ground in South Asia and the Middle East, most especially in Yemen, where the Houthis have captured the capital. This despite the fact that Yemen was lauded last year by the President as one of the true success stories of his counterterrorism strategy.
  • The most populous and important Arab Muslim state, Egypt, has not responded well to “strategic patience” – or rather, strategic neglect and rejection of the White House. When the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammad Morsi was deposed by General Sisi, Cairo became the black sheep of the region as far as the administration is considered. This despite the fact that now-president Sisi is the only Muslim leader since 9/11 to openly call for a “religious revolution” in Islam aimed against the violent jihadists that threaten his nation as much as ours.
  • With the “pivot to Asia” declared by then-Secretary Clinton resulting in nominal, if any actual, redirection of our attention to the region, China has proceeded to build up its military and use it to intimidate its neighbors and lay claim to new territories in ways that could very easily lead to a shooting war in the region.
    And in Europe, Vladimir Putin has managed to break a 60-plus year international taboo by using force to redraw borders and annex the territory of a neighboring state. Clearly, the former KGB colonel believes in being a pro-active leader.
This is just a short version of a disturbing list that could be made much longer. The empirical truth on the ground is that we have enemies at home and abroad, enemies who believe neither in “leading from behind” nor in “strategic patience.” At the same time, the most powerful nation the world has ever seen has a Commander-in-Chief who is Absent With Out Leave.
Sebastian Gorka Ph.D. is the Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University. — Brietbart

I’ll just call him Captain Decadence for now. The patience of Neville Chamberlain. Whatever the horrible results of Obama’s strategy are, he will channel Chamberlain to describe it as “peace for our time.”

Islamic State ups their ante

Report: Islamic State Claims ‘Radioactive Device’ Now in Europe

Freelance jihadist weapons maker makes claim on Twitter
BY: Adam Kredo | Free Beacon
December 8, 2014 4:35 pm

An alleged weapons maker for the Islamic State (IS) claimed that a “radioactive device” has been smuggled into an undisclosed location in Europe, according to an intelligence brief released Monday by the SITE Intelligence Group.

“A Radioactive Device has entered somewhere in Europe,” according Twitter user Muslim-Al-Britani, who claims to be a freelance jihadist weapons maker now working alongside IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS), according to tweets captured and disseminated by SITE.

BREAKING NEWS# WARNING A Radioactive Device has entered somewhere in Europe. pic.twitter.com/9GKHjz7ugs

— Muslim-Al-Britani (@TNTmuslim) December 6, 2014

The claim by Al-Britani comes just days after reports emerged that IS could have in its possession a dirty bomb, the elements of which were obtained via earlier IS raids on a university research facility in Mosul that contained uranium. Al-Britani is also responsible for the flurry of reports on the dirty bomb.

Al-Britani, who has disseminated on his Twitter feed “weapon instructions and manuals,” claimed on Nov. 23 that the “Islamic State does have a dirty bomb. We found some radioactive material from Mosul university,” according to the tweets reproduced by SITE. [more]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-islamic-state-claims-radioactive-device-now-in-europe/

At the G-20 Summit, Obama suggested using troops “would require rather extreme turn of events” (11/16/14):

“There are always circumstances, in which the United States might need to deploy ground troops,” Obama said. “If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.”

Troops not an option says Obama

Defense Secretary Could Consider Recommendation For More Ground Troops In Iraq

[…But Obama could not]
Hunter Walker | Business Insider

In his interview with CNN, Hagel said he did not “foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent.”

“If we get to any other variation of recommendations from General Dempsey, we will deal with it, but we are not there yet,” said Hagel.

At the G20 Summit, Obama would not completely rule out the possibility of using combat troops to fight ISIS. However, he suggested it would require a rather extreme turn of events.

“There are always circumstances, in which the United States might need to deploy ground troops,” Obama said. “If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-may-consider-recommendation-for-iraq-ground-troops-2014-11#ixzz3JLnrfV00

 
Only if ISIS were to get hold of a nuclear weapon, would Obama send ground [combat] troops into Iraq. This is a war of ideology —  ISIS’ verses Obama’s. He not only took troops off the table but he took the ‘threat of troops’ off the table.

He can use executive power to grant amnesty for illegal aliens, and stop deportations but he cannot use it to deploy troops in Iraq. He also has no problem threatening unilateral action here for any reason, but cannot threaten a cult of evil ravaging across the Middle East.

On the other hand, he will not take action to prevent Iraq from building a nuclear weapon. Why would IS need a nuclear weapon with Obama in the White House? He’s following the same formula on Iran: not only taking action off the table but taking the ‘threat of action’ off the table.

RightRing | Bullright

The comparison lives on, Ebola to IS

Ebola_2988634b The IS Motto: “Remaining and Expanding”

A while back I made a comparison of ISIS and Ebola (or Islamic State)  and was probably one of the first to draw direct parallels. Since then, the more I see and learn about either of these viruses the more similar they seem.

For instance, Ebola has been around since ’76 but its a naturally occurring virus. That means they may eliminate the latest epidemic but at some point it will return.

That much is really like ISIS, or Islamism itself. It keeps returning even in areas pushing natural boundaries or borders. Killing the latest strain of ISIS would only be followed by a return of Islamic terrorism under some other name.

But unlike the Ebola disease, radical rabid Islamists spread their virus in creative ways mutating almost daily. And, instead of a fear and withdraw, there is a natural attraction to it in the Mid East and Muslim world. A remote cell can be activated in any country and a willing individual radicalized just by reading their constant propaganda.

It is never politically correct to criticize the environment that breeds such an insidious and evil disease as ISIS or Islamic radicalism. In Ebola they try to use science and understanding to combat the plague. They claim knowledge is power and accurate information will only help not hurt us. It is in our interest to know about it to defeat it. So science claims.

Still Obama claimed the chances of an Ebola outbreak here is very low. In fact, he declared that it was very hard to get. Do not enact a travel ban because it could make the threat worse, he claims. We were worrying about nothing, before the exact remote chance indeed happened.

With the Islamic radicalism it is all about denial. We must deny the source, must deny its motivations, and must deny its end goals as ridiculous. Does that make any sense? Not to you or me but does to those in authority that lecture us about it. The same talking points apply to Islamicism though, when it happens…deny deny. They claim it is something happening way over in another part of the world that really has no affect here. So that was the mantra.

But they do say we have to contain Islamic terrorism there so it does not come here, or that was the assumption before Obama. He changed that. He decided until we have a case here that affects us, then we will worry about it. IOW, after the caliphate is formed, after the fatwas are drawn up, after they demonstrate they are here and serious. Then they will respond. But even then they tone down the source, laced in denial, about who they really are. Government is at work cleansing the terms. Even when it does happen, they call it something else so it technically wasn’t labeled Islamic terrorism.

Both are very much a threat to our national security. Both are dismissed as pretty much irrelevant to us in America. However, they tell us every trace of carbon is a problem. Thus, their war on coal and energy. EPA can design regs that will exterminate whole industries, and entire communities, but that is a commendable.

We are Islamophobic if we are worried about Islamonazis. We are fear mongering if we are concerned about Ebola. We are “flat-earthers” if we deny their man-made global warming agenda. We are extremists if we oppose EPA’s dictates. Now conservatives are even blamed for it all. But just don’t fear the Reaper.

RightRing | Bullright

World according to WH Baghdad Josh

According to Josh Earnest:

People can be confident of the tenacity of government’s response to be able to deal with evolving situations, on the Ebola crisis.

Asked about a Ebola or disease czar, Earnest said that they are continually monitoring the situation and, if needed. they would “not hesitate” to install one.

Here’s a simple analogy of our current Ebola situation
Suppose you have a ship and it somehow gets a hole in the midsection. The captain immediately puts an alert to keep an eye out for any new cracks or holes in the bow. Then the captain says we are not going to repair that hole because we don’t think that is productive to dealing with the problem… in the water where it originated.

Also for perspective from a nurse about Ebola, see here.

Now apply either of the above talking points to the Islamic State, or ISIS’ black-flag death cult. Does Obama say “we are monitoring the situation and tenacious on responding to it…and if troops or more response is needed we will “not hesitate” to provide it”? No, of course not. But on the contrary, Obama absolutely rules it out. I’m sure that if more troops or something is needed for Africa, he will “not hesitate” to act accordingly.

However, when it comes to closing the border and travel from the infected areas, well, he refuses to do that. In fact, he declares it the wrong thing to do. (notice the pattern) Since when did Obama “NOT HESITATE” about any crisis? Worse, Obama’s first line of defense to a crisis is not even to hesitate, but actually ignore or deny it.

Now if, according to the talking points on Ebola so far, the chief “symptom” of someone causing them to be contagious is a fever, then you could say they’re acting by checking temps of passengers in selected airports. But that “symptom” check only suggests whether the person is contagious at that moment. (going by what they told us). That means that truly the only people they are protecting are supposedly other passengers and airline staff. So a person can show up somewhere like Thomas Duncan did, or travel to a destination in the middle of America, and become contagious.

The only thing it does is help insure he isn’t infectious in travel or at airport. That’s like a suicide bomber making it all the way through the checkpoints without being detected only to blow himself up later at some destination. And if we should have such an incident, we will not hesitate to respond in our tenacious government.

Make sense? I thought so. Thanks, Obama, or maybe that is the strategy to allow someone to pass through undetected. Why would you not place travel restrictions, especially after the exact scenario already happened? Now we have the fallout from the initial patient. The irony now is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

More toxic fallout — or symotoms:

State attorney general wants to stop ashes of Ebola victim’s belongings from being brought to Louisiana

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said late Sunday that he will seek a temporary restraining order to stop the incinerated belongings of Dallas Ebola victim Thomas Eric Duncan from being brought to a Louisiana landfill.

However, there is no evidence that this would spread the dreaded disease.

Another unforeseen problem. Surprise!

RightRing | Bullright

Latest ISIS outrage

The most repulsive comparison I ever heard was the latest ISIS to Christians one. The talking point is there are extremists in both Islam and Christianity.

If ever there were polar opposites it would be ISIS and Christians. In fact, comparing Muslims and Christians is hardly possible. You can look around the world and see what Christians have done.

They helped build homes and communities, purify drinking water, teach farming and agriculture. The provide aid, food, and clothing in every disaster. They build schools and care for the sick. What do you see Muslims doing, besides blowing things up and killing people?

We can see what Christians consistently did in this country. Muslims were attacking this country since the very beginning. They want to compare that?

Michael Eric Dyson compared ISIS to Christians on MSNBC. (see video) So “we don’t have enough counter narratives when it comes to Islam,” says Peterson. Yea, that’s what we need more counter narratives. Except what narratives he is referring to.

That is probably the other underlining problem with their critique, they juxtapose gays (and civil rights) etc with the Christian persecutions going on right out in the open over in the Middle East. Can they not even address and discuss that atrocity, dare we say genocide? No, they must turn it around to make it about political correctness of gays.

Sure women’s rights is a problem too, but they must put it in context of abortion rights and gays. Meanwhile women are being stoned, beaten or killed for the most inexcusable reasons but they have to frame it in reproductive rights vernacular — as if that were the main problem. Give women abortion rights and they’ll be happy.

When Obama went to Africa and tried to sell them on same-sex marriage, they weren’t interested. Obama making the official State Dep position to promote gay rights around the globe probably is not a great sales pitch for America. Yet he told them in his Cairo address that we’ve been arrogant and dismissive toward their concerns in the past. Could trying to force gay rights on them make them like us any better?

But when it comes to Christian persecution he can’t even utter a word about it. He cannot bring it up with leaders or stand up for them. But he can stand up for a same sex couple trying to get married. Genocidal cleansing of Christians, women and children included, and he cannot make a public stand on it. Really now, can you compare IS or Islamic radicals to anything? It’s pure evil.

RightRing | Bullright

Johnathon Turley names the IS overseas contingency

Operation Voldemort: The War Which Must Not Be Named

October 7, 2014 by jonathanturley

There is an interesting dimension to the ongoing circumvention of the Constitution over our latest undeclared war. While some Administration officials are finally calling our attacks in Syria as a “war,” the discomfort over defining this indefinite campaign has led to equal discomfort over naming it. After two months of airstrikes and statements that the campaign will likely go on for years, the Administration still have not named this war. The choice would now seem obvious: Operation Voldemort, the war which must not be named.

Usually, the military loves to give inspiring names to its campaigns, though sometimes the name can reveal a bit of insecurity like “Operation Just Cause” in Panama — a name that only seemed to amplify the questions of the legality or legitimacy of the invasion.

[…./]

Source reference: Wall Street Journal

See more: http://jonathanturley.org/2014/10/07/operation-voldemort-the-war-which-must-not-be-named/

Name that operation, not that this administration is listening to anything.

He has it right, they purposely do not want to name it. They might be as divided over that as they are everything else? The Joint Chiefs could name it and Obama would say “no, I don’t like it.”

I suggested another alternate name could be “Operation Denial” – keeping it simple. They deny we are at war with those we deny we are at war with, who hold beliefs they deny… against what they deny is a problem, in a place they deny could be a problem. So Obama and the left are at war with their denial.

Or I thought another could be Obama’s ‘Operation: IS Not’. (I do like that one.) But notice they have no problem naming the Ebola mission. Maybe what we really need is a name for Obama’s Oval Office Occupancy Operation? Or maybe just ask ISIS what name they’d like, since Obama is willing to use the ISIL name or whatever name they choose to use? Notice their name is allowed to offend anyone. In fact, it is supposed to.

What about “Operation Nobel Peace Prize”?

RightRing | Bullright

ISIS and CIA , Saudi Arabia’s Islamic State

Conventional wisdom, what is conventional in Iraq or Mid-East for that matter?

Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United

SEPT. 20, 2014 | NYT

BAGHDAD — The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.

“We know about who made Daesh,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the C.I.A. for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory. (Mr. Sadr is considered close to Iran, and the theory is popular there as well.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/world/middleeast/suspicions-run-deep-in-iraq-that-cia-and-the-islamic-state-are-united.html?_r=2

The Islamic State . . . of Saudi Arabia

Between beheadings, they’ll help train the “moderate” Syrian rebels.
By Andrew C. McCarthy | NRO
September 20, 2014

The beheadings over the last several weeks were intended to terrorize, to intimidate, to coerce obedience, and to enforce a construction of sharia law that, being scripturally rooted, is draconian and repressive.

And let’s not kid ourselves: We know there will be more beheadings in the coming weeks, and on into the future. Apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and perceived blasphemers will face brutal persecution and death. Women will be treated as chattel and face institutionalized abuse. Islamic-supremacist ideology, with its incitements to jihad and conquest, with its virulent hostility toward the West, will spew from the mosques onto the streets. We will continue to be confronted by a country-sized breeding ground for anti-American terrorists.
Advertisement

The Islamic State? Sorry, no. I was talking about . . . our “moderate Islamist” ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But the confusion is understandable.

Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the “moderate Islamists” that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars. […/]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388460/islamic-state-saudi-arabia-andrew-c-mccarthy

Pandora’s box

So boredom is the cause for radicalization and terrorists’ recruitment.
Isil’s Western converts are not motivated by Islam. They are motivated by boredom
— The Telegraph UK

Bombs fly on ISIS facilities in Syria.

Al Qaeda in Syria Was Close to Launching Attack on U.S., Europe
Leader of group targeted in initial strikes

Senior Obama administration officials who briefed reporters on the Syrian airstrikes said an al Qaeda group known as Khorasan was attacked after intelligence reports indicated that it posed an imminent threat of attack.

ABC: Syria refugee masses at Turkey’s border

The United Nations said the number of Syrian Kurds fleeing into neighbouring Turkey may have topped 100,000 and was likely to go much higher, as IS militants seized dozens of villages close to the border and advanced on the frontier town of Ayn al-Arab, known as Kobani in Kurdish. …./

“Islamic State are continuing to advance. Every place they pass through they kill, wound and kidnap people. Many people are missing and we believe they were kidnapped,” Welat Avar, a doctor, told Reuters by telephone from Kobani.

A Kurdish politician from Turkey who visited Kobani on Saturday said locals had told him IS fighters were beheading people as they went from village to village. …/

“Rather than a war this is a genocide operation … They are going into the villages and cutting the heads of one or two people and showing them to the villagers,” Ibrahim Binici, a deputy for Turkey’s pro-Kurdish HDP said.

Maps of ISIS conflict/control area

Iran is the bomb

Israel Warns of Iranian Sweet Talk; Says Nothing’s Changed

IPT

The international community is allowing the rise of ISIS to distract it from the far more dangerous prospect of a nuclear Iran, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz warned Wednesday. The comments followed his visit last week to the United States, where he met with senior State Department figures William Burns and Wendy Sherman.

“The Iranians are getting almost everything but giving almost nothing,” Steinitz told a Jerusalem news conference in which he expressed his belief that Iran is being far from truthful in its ongoing P5+1 nuclear talks. “Although it is important to defeat ISIS [Islamic State], if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it’s a different world for decades. This is the main threat to global security and should be the priority… I went [to Washington] concerned and I came back concerned,” Steinitz added. “I didn’t hear anything… that gave me hope.”

Protestors: ‘The Met Opera Glorifies Terrorism’

Protesters say ‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ justifies the 1985 murder of wheelchair-bound Jew Leon Klinghoffer

Israel Hayom reports:

The Met is scheduled to perform the opera between Oct. 20 and Nov. 15.

The opera deals with the death of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish passenger on the cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985.

The ship was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists, who shot the wheelchair-bound Klinghoffer and threw him over board.

The opera’s critics say it justifies the killers’ actions and is prejudiced against Jews.

Supporters defend it on grounds of artistic freedom and claim it presents a thoughtful take on all sides.

Federal Employees Use Government Credit Cards at Casinos, Racetracks

Audit finds DOT has poor oversight over its travel card program
September 23, 2014 | Free Beacon
BY: Elizabeth Harrington

Department of Transportation (DOT) employees use government credit cards for cash advances at casinos and racetracks, according to a report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

Employees misused their government-issued travel cards in 2012, racking up $2.1 million in charges for personal items, and more than $180,000 in unauthorized cash advances while they were not on business trips.

The audit, released last week, examined the travel card program, which employees are authorized to use on hotels, transportation, and meals during government travel. The OIG found that the DOT does not have effective policies in place to prevent the government credit cards from being misused. In fact, the agency has no policy prohibiting employees from taking cash advances out at casinos.

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