Today's major threat is one well understood, but one we aren't supposed to mention. If this sounds weird consider the NY Times of May 23rd, 2013. More specifically, consider the following three stories:
Page A10, World Briefing: "Sweden: Riots Continue in Immigrant Neighborhoods --
Hundreds of young people burned cars and attacked police officers this week in three nights of riots in immigrant neighborhoods of Stockholm, Sweden't capital."
Let's stop here for a moment. The NY Times, adds, for those who don't already know this, that the place that's experienced the rioting, Stockholm, also happens to be Sweden't capital. However, the exact locations in Stockholm, where the rioting took taken place, were referred to simply as "immigrant neighborhoods." The Times saw no need to mention that these immigrant neighborhoods are, by and large, Muslim neighborhoods -- neighborhoods to which Muslims have flocked from various Islamic nations to enjoy Sweden's social entitlements. These immigrant neighborhoods are, essentially, Islamic communities.
So why the rioting? "The riots appear to have been started by the police killing of a 69-year old man wielding a machete in (the neighborhood of) Husby this month, which prompted accusations of police brutality." So the man wielding the machete was 69 -- good to know. But, what about this 69-year old man wielding a machete? What kind of 69-year old goes around wielding a machete? Isn't that dangerous? And, what's with the machete? Hint, hint: Muslims favor something large and sharp when they decide to commit a bit of mayhem. (Of course, serious kitchen cutting tools including a meat cleaver were used by two Muslims who hacked to death an unarmed British soldier in London. See below.)
This sorry kind of reporting may not be entirely the fault of the NY Times. They very likely took the story from a Swedish source and the Swedes are, if anything, more politically correct than the Times.
Page A26 Court Documents Detail A Deadly Family Feud From Brooklyn to Pakistan
"She (Amina Ajmal) fled her husband and her family, sneaking out of her home in Pakistan to take sanctuary in the American Embassy, which then whisked her to a secret hideout in the United States."
Amina, having been born in America, was "an American citizen who said she had ben held captive for years by her own relatives in Pakistan and forced to marry a man there who only wanted an American visa."
A transcript of a recorded phone call her father made to Amina has her father saying the following, "I will not end this until I find you. I will kill their entire family."
Per the article, "(Two people) (r)elatives of the man who had helped her escape ... were gunned down while riding a motorcycle through the streets of Gujrat."
Further transcripts of Mr. Choudhry, Amina's father, has him saying the following: "Even if I did kill him, isn't a person supposed to kill that being, when he finds out that his daughter ran away because of him? .... My name is tainted everywhere in newspapers, on TV channels, that I am a man with no honor, my daughters are whores."
"The Brooklyn house (of Mr. Choudhry)" the NY Times goes on to explain, " (is) a modest, cluttered home full of children's toys and adorned with verses from the Koran ........"
Mr. Choudhry is not without supporters. One individual (a member of the Pakistani National Assembly" wrote in an affidavit that Mr. Choudhry's family was 'famous for helping the poor people of the area, and always stood for the rights of women in our society.' "
So, what have we here, a good Muslim, a Muslim who helps the poor, attempting to redeem his "honor?"
Page A6 'Barbaric' Attack in London Renews Fears of Terror Threat -- Man Near Barracks Is Hacked to Death "LONDON --- In an attack that raised new fears of terrorism in Britain, a man walking near a military barracks in south London on Wednesday was rammed by a car and then hacked to death by two knife-wielding assailants, according to witness accounts carried by British news media."
"ITV News showed a video taken with a cellphone at the scene in Woolwich, in which a man who appears to be in his 20s or early 30s holds a cleaver in one of his bloodied hands. He offers what seems to be a political message before the police arrive."
"Organizations representing Britain's 2.5 million Muslims were quick to condemn the attack."
Three points: (1) The incidents above all involved Muslims creating mayhem because of their understanding of their Muslim faith, (2) Muslim organizations have in some cases spoken out against acts perpetrated in the name of Islam, and (3) news articles, such as those cited here, largely skirt the role of Islamic religious behavior in these various atrocities. In the case of Swedish media, no mention is made of Islam although a close reading of the news makes abundantly clear that the rioting was by Muslims in response to the fatal shooting of a Muslim waving a machete. And then there is the Pakistani man in Brooklyn, who allegedly ordered the killing of individuals in Pakistan to redeem his "honor," in pursuance of his code of proper behavior. Where does one acquire such a code, especially if one lives in a home that features framed sayings from the Koran?
Terror is what you experience when a tsunami rushes towards you. Terror is what you experience when your airplane has to make an emergency landing. Terror is what you feel as a gunman demands your wallet. But, the terror on which we are supposedly waging a war are not from acts of nature, or something one experiences when one's plane appears not to be performing properly. Nor is it when you find yourself threatened by a criminal. The war, such as it is, represents our effort to defend ourselves against Islamic extremism. It is the hostility of Muslims being directed against non-Muslims or towards Muslims of a different persuasion.
The value of calling Islamic terrorism what it is is that it would hopefully prompt stronger action from moderate Muslims. Who better than a Muslim to preach to a fellow Muslims what is allowed by their mutual faith and what is not. It is unseemly for one faith to preach to another. Islamic terrorism is, or should be, a challenge first and foremost to fellow Muslims. Yes, they have on occasion spoken out against fanatical behavior. But they must do more -- far, far more.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Jews, Indigestible; Israel, An Indigestible Nation
Why do they hate us? It is a question Jews have been asking for some time.. The answers arrived at often include the following: (1) non-Jews are jealous of us, (2) we are cultural outsiders, and outsiders are generally unwelcome, (3) if Jews lack respect for other cultures, why should others respect theirs, (4) Jews think they're special; chosen, etc. etc. etc. And, now, once again, an author tries to come to grips with this question. In his book, From Ambivalence to Betrayal, Robert S. Wistrich grapples with the question as to how and why the European Left is anti-Jewish.
Repeated waves of Czarist anti-Semitism, in the opinion of Mr. Wistrich, caused leftist, Jewish radicals, to "embrace(d) Socialism or Communism with the fervor of neophytes." It was a way of shedding an "unwanted residue of an anachronistic tribal past."
As early as the time of Theodor Herzl, he notes, Jews on the left were in the vanguard of those making anti-Zionist arguments. They not only criticized their Jewish faith, but also the idea of Jewish nationalism. But, how, asks Wistrich, did anti-Semitism find fertile ground, not simply among Jews, but also among non-Jewish fellow travelers?
In his search for answers, Wistrich offers a number of anecdotes. He points out, for example, that Karl Marx and Moses Hess, two German Jews, were clearly estranged from their Jewish faith. And, in their criticism of capitalism, it was almost inevitable that Jews would come in for criticism for being capitalists. Add to that Jews were adherents of a primordial religion based on the faith of their forefathers. (Voltaire and d'Holbach, in their attacks on the Old Testament, held Jews responsible for the Catholic Church's barbarism, fanaticism, and intolerant obscurantism.)
At the time of the Boer War, British socialists accused South African Jews of attempting to influence public opinion against them and to discredit the Conservative government.
On one hand, Jews were bashed for being wealthy and for assimilating, on the other, for clinging to a clannish religion that set them apart from others. Communists attacked them for being politically reactionary and for having survived as a unique people rather then vanishing into the multi-ethnic "classes" over which Marxists loved to pontificate.
Karl Kautsky, a Jew from Prague and editor of Die Neue Zeit, concluded that Jews had been subjected to pogroms because of their isolation in the Pale of Settlements and their consequent disenfranchisement. From this, in his mind, it followed that the Zionist movement, by segregating itself would only serve to strengthen anti-Semitism.
Rosa Luxemburg, a Jewish left-wing revolutionary who had clearly disassociated herself from fellow Jews, is quoted as asking, "Why do you come with your special Jewish sorrows?" She then goes on to declare, "I feel just as sorry for the wretched Indian victims of Putamaya, the negroes of Africa ... I can not find a special corner in my heart for the ghetto." In other words, for reasons best understood by her, sympathizing for others left no room for Jews.
The reviewer of Wistrich's book, Seth J. Frantzman, writing in The International Jerusalem Post, Dec 14 - 20, 2012, finds that the various anecdotes don't really connect into some sort of unified theory. But, in my opinion, a theory can be found even if Wistrich didn't manage to put his finger on it.
The key lies in "respect for the other." That's not really as simple as it might sound. Consider the economics of "free markets." You can't just will free markets; too many people want to manipulate them for personal gain. Once manipulated, a market ceases to be free. Free markets require laws to safeguard them; for example, anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies, and anti-insider trading laws to ensure transparency. Then too, you will need a body of commercial laws. In other words, you need a relatively honest and sophisticated nation.
In much the same way, respect for "the other" also requires a body of law to which all citizens willingly subscribe. Jesus may have given gave us the "golden rule"; namely, to do to others as you would have them do to you." And, before that, the Jew, Rabbi Hillel, preached that to be a good Jew, don't do to anyone what you wouldn't want done to yourself. But, quite frankly, you need more than a good sermon. You need a body of law; namely, laws safeguarding human rights, and laws prohibiting discrimination.
Americans tend to think that our political system sprang full blown from an egg; that our exceptionally brilliant forefathers fought with one another over questions of ideology, but, in the end, got it right and set it all down as the American Constitution. That, of course, is not quite how the American system emerged -- not really. Our forefathers were keenly aware of Europe's religious wars and wanted to be sure our government stayed clear of establishing a religion. In this they deviated a bit from the British, who established the Anglican Church as their Church of England. Nevertheless, they were much indebted to British law. And, while they didn't much care to be taxed without representation, they were aware of the Magna Carta and the subsequent evolution of British law. Those laws became the foundation of America's laws.
The lot of the Jews in earlier ages was precarious at best. But, as western governments evolved along lines that would bring them into the 20th century, Jews would benefit enormously from the progress being made in human rights. Indeed, German Jews began taking pride in their German identity. But, German democracy proved fragile. It couldn't withstand the suffering that the German people experienced after the WW I. In their midst, emerged a man, Hitler, who sold them on the idea that all of Germany's problems stemmed from the Jews. Germany would be made whole again if Germany could only rid itself of its Jews. The manner in which Germany set forth to do this was truly monstrous. Indeed, it was genocidal.
Here in the U.S., the drafting of our Constitution left incomplete the task of safeguarding human rights. It took a horrific civil war to rid our country of slavery. Other tasks that remained to be undertaken were the elimination of Jim Crow, the elimination of child labor, suffrage, gay rights, etc. Jews participated in all these struggles. And struggles they were. American anti-Semitism remained quite palpable prior to WW II. Nevertheless, the lot of Jews became better than it had ever been before. Today, Jews participate in all of America's affairs and are represented across the entire political spectrum.
But what about Europe? There Jewish rituals have come under attack. Jewish newborn boys are still, by and large, circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Some in Europe would ban this. A number of European countries would also deny Jews the right to kosher meat -- meat from kosher animals that has been ritually slaughtered. Ritual slaughter involves slitting the animal's throat. Death is virtually immediate. Nevertheless, one European country after another is requiring that an animal be stunned prior to having its throat slit. This violates Jewish law.
Then too the influx of Islamic immigrants has made many European streets unsafe for Jews.
Liberal minds, it seems, are comfortable with other cultures, provided they are not Jewish. They are tolerant of nations with the most horrendous record on human rights abuses, but find fault with that Middle Eastern nation, Israel, that extends far greater tolerance to Muslims and Christians than its Islamic neighbors. Whatever it is that makes Jews unique -- it's that which seems to offend people everywhere. With the exception of Israel, America, and of other English speaking countries, Jews find themselves under attack. Ireland is of course the exception. They may speak English, but have little love for Israel. But, of course, the stayed neutral during WW II.
Repeated waves of Czarist anti-Semitism, in the opinion of Mr. Wistrich, caused leftist, Jewish radicals, to "embrace(d) Socialism or Communism with the fervor of neophytes." It was a way of shedding an "unwanted residue of an anachronistic tribal past."
As early as the time of Theodor Herzl, he notes, Jews on the left were in the vanguard of those making anti-Zionist arguments. They not only criticized their Jewish faith, but also the idea of Jewish nationalism. But, how, asks Wistrich, did anti-Semitism find fertile ground, not simply among Jews, but also among non-Jewish fellow travelers?
In his search for answers, Wistrich offers a number of anecdotes. He points out, for example, that Karl Marx and Moses Hess, two German Jews, were clearly estranged from their Jewish faith. And, in their criticism of capitalism, it was almost inevitable that Jews would come in for criticism for being capitalists. Add to that Jews were adherents of a primordial religion based on the faith of their forefathers. (Voltaire and d'Holbach, in their attacks on the Old Testament, held Jews responsible for the Catholic Church's barbarism, fanaticism, and intolerant obscurantism.)
At the time of the Boer War, British socialists accused South African Jews of attempting to influence public opinion against them and to discredit the Conservative government.
On one hand, Jews were bashed for being wealthy and for assimilating, on the other, for clinging to a clannish religion that set them apart from others. Communists attacked them for being politically reactionary and for having survived as a unique people rather then vanishing into the multi-ethnic "classes" over which Marxists loved to pontificate.
Karl Kautsky, a Jew from Prague and editor of Die Neue Zeit, concluded that Jews had been subjected to pogroms because of their isolation in the Pale of Settlements and their consequent disenfranchisement. From this, in his mind, it followed that the Zionist movement, by segregating itself would only serve to strengthen anti-Semitism.
Rosa Luxemburg, a Jewish left-wing revolutionary who had clearly disassociated herself from fellow Jews, is quoted as asking, "Why do you come with your special Jewish sorrows?" She then goes on to declare, "I feel just as sorry for the wretched Indian victims of Putamaya, the negroes of Africa ... I can not find a special corner in my heart for the ghetto." In other words, for reasons best understood by her, sympathizing for others left no room for Jews.
The reviewer of Wistrich's book, Seth J. Frantzman, writing in The International Jerusalem Post, Dec 14 - 20, 2012, finds that the various anecdotes don't really connect into some sort of unified theory. But, in my opinion, a theory can be found even if Wistrich didn't manage to put his finger on it.
The key lies in "respect for the other." That's not really as simple as it might sound. Consider the economics of "free markets." You can't just will free markets; too many people want to manipulate them for personal gain. Once manipulated, a market ceases to be free. Free markets require laws to safeguard them; for example, anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies, and anti-insider trading laws to ensure transparency. Then too, you will need a body of commercial laws. In other words, you need a relatively honest and sophisticated nation.
In much the same way, respect for "the other" also requires a body of law to which all citizens willingly subscribe. Jesus may have given gave us the "golden rule"; namely, to do to others as you would have them do to you." And, before that, the Jew, Rabbi Hillel, preached that to be a good Jew, don't do to anyone what you wouldn't want done to yourself. But, quite frankly, you need more than a good sermon. You need a body of law; namely, laws safeguarding human rights, and laws prohibiting discrimination.
Americans tend to think that our political system sprang full blown from an egg; that our exceptionally brilliant forefathers fought with one another over questions of ideology, but, in the end, got it right and set it all down as the American Constitution. That, of course, is not quite how the American system emerged -- not really. Our forefathers were keenly aware of Europe's religious wars and wanted to be sure our government stayed clear of establishing a religion. In this they deviated a bit from the British, who established the Anglican Church as their Church of England. Nevertheless, they were much indebted to British law. And, while they didn't much care to be taxed without representation, they were aware of the Magna Carta and the subsequent evolution of British law. Those laws became the foundation of America's laws.
The lot of the Jews in earlier ages was precarious at best. But, as western governments evolved along lines that would bring them into the 20th century, Jews would benefit enormously from the progress being made in human rights. Indeed, German Jews began taking pride in their German identity. But, German democracy proved fragile. It couldn't withstand the suffering that the German people experienced after the WW I. In their midst, emerged a man, Hitler, who sold them on the idea that all of Germany's problems stemmed from the Jews. Germany would be made whole again if Germany could only rid itself of its Jews. The manner in which Germany set forth to do this was truly monstrous. Indeed, it was genocidal.
Here in the U.S., the drafting of our Constitution left incomplete the task of safeguarding human rights. It took a horrific civil war to rid our country of slavery. Other tasks that remained to be undertaken were the elimination of Jim Crow, the elimination of child labor, suffrage, gay rights, etc. Jews participated in all these struggles. And struggles they were. American anti-Semitism remained quite palpable prior to WW II. Nevertheless, the lot of Jews became better than it had ever been before. Today, Jews participate in all of America's affairs and are represented across the entire political spectrum.
But what about Europe? There Jewish rituals have come under attack. Jewish newborn boys are still, by and large, circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Some in Europe would ban this. A number of European countries would also deny Jews the right to kosher meat -- meat from kosher animals that has been ritually slaughtered. Ritual slaughter involves slitting the animal's throat. Death is virtually immediate. Nevertheless, one European country after another is requiring that an animal be stunned prior to having its throat slit. This violates Jewish law.
Then too the influx of Islamic immigrants has made many European streets unsafe for Jews.
Liberal minds, it seems, are comfortable with other cultures, provided they are not Jewish. They are tolerant of nations with the most horrendous record on human rights abuses, but find fault with that Middle Eastern nation, Israel, that extends far greater tolerance to Muslims and Christians than its Islamic neighbors. Whatever it is that makes Jews unique -- it's that which seems to offend people everywhere. With the exception of Israel, America, and of other English speaking countries, Jews find themselves under attack. Ireland is of course the exception. They may speak English, but have little love for Israel. But, of course, the stayed neutral during WW II.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Terrorist Killers -- Why They Murder
Terrorist killers including Mir Aimal Kansi, Ali Abu Kamal, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet and Nidal Malik Hasan do, it seems, have something in common with murderers such as Eric Harris, Dylan Klebald, Seung-Hoi Cho and Adam Lanzi. For insights into these people and their common attributes we are indebted to Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at University of Alabama, Adam Lankford, whose findings appeared in a NY Times, Op-Ed piece, Dec. 18, 2012.
Like most rampage shooters, suicide terrorists are motivated to kill and be killed. It is Adam Lankford's informed opinion that we should think of rampage shooters as non-ideological suicide terrorists. "In some cases, they claim to be fighting for a cause, e.g. neo-Nazism, eugenics, masculine supremacy, or an anti-government revolution." But to really understand their motivation, we must look elsewhere
Lankford points to a triad of factors generally found in mass shooters. He lists them as (1) Mental health issues that produce a desire to die, (2) a deep sense of victimization, and (3) a desire to acquire fame and glory through killing.
The mental health issues that create a desire to die can vary from clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis. Lankford points out that in 2010 the suicide rate in the U.S. was 12.4 per 100,000 people. This is fairly low, but it is even lower in Muslim nations. In other words, the pool from which most suicide terrorists and rampage shooters emerge is relatively small.
Per Lankford, "the second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the victim's life has been ruined by someone else." In their minds, they have been bullied, oppressed, or persecuted by someone or something. Mental issues can inflame these beliefs. The perceived victimizer might be an enemy government, or the victim's boss, his co-workers, fellow students, or family members. In the "victim's" mind, he has been terribly mistreated and that violent vengeance is justified. Also, the victim often generalizes on his oppressor and extends the oppressor to include an entire category of people he believes responsible for his pain and suffering.
We then come to the third factor, the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing. Lankford notes that over 70 percent of murder-suicides occur between significant-others and take place in the home. Attackers who commit murder-suicide in public are far more brazen and unusual. Also, most suicide terrorists believe they will be honored and celebrated as "martyrs." And, indeed, many are encouraged in this belief by terrorist organizations who create martyrdom videos and other memorabilia so that other desperate individuals will volunteer to blow themselves up.
Rampage shooters too are often captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. Eric Harris, the Columbine shooter, was heard to say, "Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve."
Lankford notes that American mass killers are not that different from mass killers in other countries. The differences between them can be found in cultural forces that determine which destructive behavior the killers seek to copy. If Adam Lanza had lived in Gaza and had been subjected to the propaganda of Hamas, would he have strapped on a suicide vest? Lankford guesses the answer to be yes.
In the light of this analysis, it is clear that many impressionable people have been motivated by hostile organizations to kill Jews, Americans, and Israelis. Pakistanis have been sent to kill Indians and Afghans to kill westerners. But, it also worth noting the damage done by presumably "peace loving" individuals like the Reverend Tutu, who refers to Israelis as Nazis and contends that Palestinians live under Apartheid conditions. These accusations are not merely false, they impede a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israelis and their Arab neighbors. It is odd indeed to find a Palestinian such as Fayyad providing greater hope for peace and stability for Palestinians and Israelis than that "great" South African, the Rev. Tutu.
Like most rampage shooters, suicide terrorists are motivated to kill and be killed. It is Adam Lankford's informed opinion that we should think of rampage shooters as non-ideological suicide terrorists. "In some cases, they claim to be fighting for a cause, e.g. neo-Nazism, eugenics, masculine supremacy, or an anti-government revolution." But to really understand their motivation, we must look elsewhere
Lankford points to a triad of factors generally found in mass shooters. He lists them as (1) Mental health issues that produce a desire to die, (2) a deep sense of victimization, and (3) a desire to acquire fame and glory through killing.
The mental health issues that create a desire to die can vary from clinical depression and post-traumatic stress disorder to schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis. Lankford points out that in 2010 the suicide rate in the U.S. was 12.4 per 100,000 people. This is fairly low, but it is even lower in Muslim nations. In other words, the pool from which most suicide terrorists and rampage shooters emerge is relatively small.
Per Lankford, "the second factor is a deep sense of victimization and belief that the victim's life has been ruined by someone else." In their minds, they have been bullied, oppressed, or persecuted by someone or something. Mental issues can inflame these beliefs. The perceived victimizer might be an enemy government, or the victim's boss, his co-workers, fellow students, or family members. In the "victim's" mind, he has been terribly mistreated and that violent vengeance is justified. Also, the victim often generalizes on his oppressor and extends the oppressor to include an entire category of people he believes responsible for his pain and suffering.
We then come to the third factor, the desire to acquire fame and glory through killing. Lankford notes that over 70 percent of murder-suicides occur between significant-others and take place in the home. Attackers who commit murder-suicide in public are far more brazen and unusual. Also, most suicide terrorists believe they will be honored and celebrated as "martyrs." And, indeed, many are encouraged in this belief by terrorist organizations who create martyrdom videos and other memorabilia so that other desperate individuals will volunteer to blow themselves up.
Rampage shooters too are often captivated by the idea that they will become posthumously famous. Eric Harris, the Columbine shooter, was heard to say, "Isn't it fun to get the respect that we're going to deserve."
Lankford notes that American mass killers are not that different from mass killers in other countries. The differences between them can be found in cultural forces that determine which destructive behavior the killers seek to copy. If Adam Lanza had lived in Gaza and had been subjected to the propaganda of Hamas, would he have strapped on a suicide vest? Lankford guesses the answer to be yes.
In the light of this analysis, it is clear that many impressionable people have been motivated by hostile organizations to kill Jews, Americans, and Israelis. Pakistanis have been sent to kill Indians and Afghans to kill westerners. But, it also worth noting the damage done by presumably "peace loving" individuals like the Reverend Tutu, who refers to Israelis as Nazis and contends that Palestinians live under Apartheid conditions. These accusations are not merely false, they impede a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israelis and their Arab neighbors. It is odd indeed to find a Palestinian such as Fayyad providing greater hope for peace and stability for Palestinians and Israelis than that "great" South African, the Rev. Tutu.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)