Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Beer Mug Assault and Burning Crosses

I ran into this last night:
"Charges: Woman attacked non-English speaking Applebee's diner"
KARE 11 Staff, KARE (November 5, 2015)

"A woman is charged with assault for allegedly smashing a beer mug across a diner's face at a local Applebee's -- all because the victim wasn't speaking English, according to the complaint.

"Jodie Marie Burchard-Risch, 43, was charged with third-degree assault for an incident that occurred on Oct. 30 at the Applebee's in Coon Rapids.

"According to the criminal complaint, Burchard-Risch was dining with her husband when she became upset after hearing the victim speaking in a foreign language in the neighboring booth...."
Managers at Applebee's tried to get Burchard-Risch to leave at that point. She did: after yelling a bit more at the other diner and using her beer mug as a weapon, hitting the other woman's face.

One of Applebee's managers followed Burchard-Risch out of the restaurant, staying with her until responding officers arrested her.

The victim has a deep cut across her nose; a cut on her right eyebrow and a big, deep, cut on her lower lip. That's bad, but it could have been worse. Apparently her eyes are okay, and she probably got medical attention promptly.

Burchard-Rish was charged Monday: and there may be more legal trouble coming.

Hate Crimes and Attitudes


I'm not a big fan of hate crime/bias-motivated crime laws, mostly because I think they wouldn't be needed if America's courts paid attention to earlier legal sanctions against slander and physical violence.

That said, I think this attack looks a lot like a 'hate crime.'

The violence of the attack encouraged my suspicion that the 'non-English' language would be Arabic or Spanish. I was wrong. The victim was speaking Swahili:
"Attack on diner at Coon Rapids Applebee's being examined for hate-crime charges"
"The victim, targeted because she wasn't speaking English, suffered deep cuts on her face in the beer-mug attack, according to assault charges."
Shannon Prather Star Tribune (November 7, 2015)

"An Anoka County prosecutor said Friday that authorities are looking into possible hate-crime counts against a woman charged with attacking a diner at the Coon Rapids Applebee's because she was speaking Swahili.

"The victim suffered deep cuts to her face when she was struck with a beer mug Oct. 30 as she ate lunch with her husband and friends, Anoka County authorities said this week.

"Jodie Burchard-Risch, 43, of Ramsey, was charged Monday in Anoka County District Court with third-degree assault.

"On Friday, the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) called for hate-crime charges against Burchard-Risch...."
At this point, I could start ranting about the dangers of insufficiently-American foreigners, the need for beer mug control laws, or why restaurants breed violence and obesity.

That would be silly — but no more silly, I think, than many political debates. And that's another topic.

I'm not a Swahili-speaking young woman, so why should I care what happened in that restaurant?

For starters, I don't think 'my end of the boat isn't sinking' makes sense in situations like this. If I don't care when folks who aren't just like me get hurt, I can't reasonably expect sympathy if I'm the next target.

I don't fit today's 'victim' stereotype, but some 'real Americans' might see folks like me as a threat to 'their' country.

I look like a WASP, but I'm not. I'm a half-Irish Catholic. Happily, most Americans have realized that many Irishmen aren't violence-prone drunkards with criminal tendencies.

I've discussed attitudes, bias, and internment camps, before. (A Catholic Citizen in America June 21, 2015; Another War-on-Terror Blog September 12, 2009; January 22, 2009)

Avoiding Hasty Generalizations


I've seen a few folks who might speak Swahili in the small central-Minnesota town I call home, but I haven't heard that language here — apart from someone saying the Lord's Prayer in Swahili at the parish church.

I have, however, heard Spanish more frequently in recent years: mostly while standing in a grocery checkout line: and, rarely, an east-Asian language I didn't recognize.

My lack of violent response to these 'foreign threats' is no virtue. I see new families moving in as a sign that my town is in good shape, and likely to endure: at least for another generation or two.

Besides, as an American, I'd be very concerned if folks weren't pulling up stakes and moving here.

Maybe it's easier to divide the world into 'people like me' and 'foreign threats.' But that attitude doesn't make sense. Not to me.

Sure, some folks who speak Swahili, Arabic, Spanish, or Latvian, might try to blow up the post office or kill me. But but assuming that all Africans, Arabs, Hispanics, or whatever, are threats that makes about as much sense as assuming that all Christians are in the Ku Klux Klan. And that, sadly, is not another topic. (A Catholic Citizen in America January 18, 2015)

Living with difference:
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Dead Marines in Chattanooga, Living with Change

Maybe you've seen the headlines:


(From AP, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Police were deployed on the Amnicola Highway near the US Navy reserve centre in Chattanooga"
(BBC News))
"Chattanooga shootings: Four Marines killed at Tennessee US Navy centres"
BBC News (July 16, 2015)

"Four US Marines have been killed after shootings at two US Navy buildings in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

"The local district lawyer said the two incidents were being investigated as an 'act of domestic terrorism'.

"Chattanooga city police said it was the same gunman at both locations and confirmed he had been killed.

"The gunman was identified as 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez by an unnamed official, according to the AP news agency.

"He is believed to have been born in Kuwait, but it is unclear whether he was a US or Kuwaiti citizen.

"Reports said armed police have been deployed to the house where he lived, a few miles outside Chattanooga in Hixson, and neighbours were being evacuated.

"FBI agent Ed Reinhold, who is leading the investigation, said the first shooting occurred at about 10:45 local time (14:45 GMT) at a US Navy recruitment centre in the east of the city.

"After opening fire on the building, the gunman then fled the scene in a Ford Mustang and was pursued by Chattanooga police, Mr Reinhold told reporters.

"He was shot dead after a gunfight at a US Navy reserve centre about seven miles (10 km) away on Amnicola Highway...."
This isn't, I'm quite certain, a major milestone in world history. Ten thousand years from now, I'd be surprised if more than a few antiquarians knew that Chattanooga even existed: or Tennessee, for that matter.

On the other hand, five folks are now dead: that is significant, at least for their families and friends. That is a personal tragedy for those involved, and may deserve the international news coverage it is getting.

Since the victims were serving in the United States armed forces, and the killer's name, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, identifies him with an ethnic group that's had its share of terrorism-related deaths and killings — the district attorney may be right. This does look like "domestic terrorism."

The killer's motives may be hard to figure out, since he's dead: and my guess is that we're not looking at part of a coordinated attack on the United States.

For all I know, this might be a simple holdup gone horribly wrong. It's remotely possible that Mr. Abdulazeez mistook the Marine recruiting office for a convenience store, and panicked when he discovered that there was no cash register to pilfer.

No, I don't think that's the case.

My guess is that Mr. Abdulazeez decided that America was a threat to his faith, that God wanted him to kill Marines, or something equally daft.

If that's true, it does not, in my considered opinion, prove that all Muslims hate Americans, or that America threatens Islam, or that Marines should be killed. It does, I think, show that individuals can do very bad things for daft reasons. (A Catholic Citizen in America, June 21, 2015)

Drunk Driving, Names, a Yearbook, and the Irish



(From BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(Location of Chattanooga, Tennessee)

We're learning more about the killer. Apparently Mr. Abdulazeez had been arrested for drunk driving, earlier this year. That was in Chattanooga, too: and may not have much of anything to do with today's killings.

It looks like Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was born somewhere in the Middle East. He's 24 years old. A local newspaper said that someone with his name graduated from a local high school and left a message in a school yearbook: "My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?" (BBC News)

I'm slightly sympathetic toward folks who feel that they're unfairly suspected of crimes. I've used my Irish ancestry as an example of America's occasionally-grudging tolerance of non-English, non-Protestant Americans.

I figure that we'll eventually get used to the idea that folks from Latin America and the Middle East are no more — or less — of a threat than the Irish. By then, tightly-wound Americans will probably be upset about folks arriving from some other part of the world.

At least, I hope so.

Me? I'll be concerned if folks stop wanting to come to America. From my viewpoint, we can always use folks with fresh ideas, enthusiasm, and a new set of customs. Of course, I'm almost half-Irish: and that's where I started this tangent.

The President, Celebrities, Experts, and All That


It's about two hours after I started writing this. The family's eaten our evening meal, and I see that America's president made the usual 'this is a bad thing' statement.

There's news that the killer lived in Hixson, a few miles from Chattanooga, that police raided the house,and "an AP reporter said two women were led away in handcuffs." (BBC News)

That sounds reasonable, although I don't know what it means. Being "led away" by police simply means what the words say. I've been "led away" and searched by police — for good reason — but I've never been a threat to American lives.

I'd say "never been a threat to national security:" but since I don't think whoever is president at the moment is always right — or wrong, question the Supreme Court's infallibility, and don't vote a straight party ticket: some folks might see me as a loose cannon.

If this follows the usual pattern, over the next 24 to 48 hours we'll read about assorted other national and state leaders saying pretty much what the president did. Celebrities will make more-or-less-regrettable statements, and the usual gaggle of "experts" will weigh in on how this attack proves that they're smarter than anyone else.

I'll grant that I've got my own opinions about what happened.

I'm reasonably sure that local, state, and federal law enforcement folks are sorting through evidence and statements: and will eventually learn what happened. They may even discover why these killings started. I don't have blind faith in any of the agencies or people involved: but I don't automatically assume that they're plotting against me, either. That's why I'm inclined to believe this:
"FBI Statement on Shootings at Military Facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee"
FBI National Press Office, Washington, D.C. (July 16, 2015)

"The FBI's Knoxville Field Office, along with the Chattanooga Police Department and other law enforcement partners, are working jointly to investigate today’s shootings at a military recruitment center and a reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee in which four individuals were killed and three injured. The shooter, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, 24, is also deceased. While it would be premature to speculate on the motives of the shooter at this time, we will conduct a thorough investigation of this tragedy and provide updates as they are available."

It's a Big World


Predictably, there's the usual rumor that ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham) planned the killings, or knew about them before they happened. That may be true, or not. Right now, I don't know.

It's likely that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez's motives were at least partly religious, ethnic, or patriotic. That doesn't prove that religion kills, or that everybody who's not a Norwegian-Irish-Scots-American like me is a threat to blue-eyed people, or that nations shouldn't exist.

When someone goes off the rails, the motive generally seems to be something that's emotionally engaging: like religion, ethnicity, national origin, or sex.

But I don't think that Mr. Abdulazeez's actions prove that all Muslims, or Middle Easterners, are terrorists: any more than Anders Behring Breivik's and Dylann Roof's actions prove that everyone with European ancestry is a killer.

It's true that right now quite a few folks are extremely upset at how the world's changing. Mr. Roof, for example, seems convinced that folks with African ancestry are threatening "his" country. Mr. Abdulazeez may have had a similar opinion about Marines.

In a way, these killers are right. Sort of.

The America I grew up in has changed, a lot. Not only have we had an Irish president: folks who don't even look British are moving to this country. I don't mind: but some folks do.

Mr. Abdulazeez is too young to remember the 'good old days' before steam power, television, and the Geneva Conventions, but he may have grown up around folks who yearn for their 'good old days.' Today's world may be a terrifying place for folks who aren't comfortable around anyone who is not from their extended family.

Small wonder that some Muslims are acting like some 'regular Americans' have, lashing out at folks who aren't just like themselves. (A Catholic Citizen in America, September 11, 2014)

That doesn't, I think, excuse folks who kill others for having the 'wrong' faith, or ancestry. And it certainly does not make it okay for me to hate folks who aren't just like me.

If I expect others to let me live, even though I'm not just like them: I'd better show them the same courtesy. I've talked about love, hate, and building a better world, mostly in another blog:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, January 9, 2015

Charlie Hebdo: Dealing With Difference



(From Jeremy Schultz, via Reuters, used w/o permission.)
("Police entering the supermarket."
(Reuters))

Here we go again. This time it's in Paris, France.

My guess is that body count will keep going up.

I'll skip the conventional 'it is the fault of the Jews/Muslims/police/whatever' rhetoric.

Oddly enough, cherry-picking facts from recent events could be twisted into a claim that Paris police declared war on a kosher supermarket.

I do not think this was a Zionist conspiracy to assassinate insufficiently-kosher Jews, or a plot by McDonalds to take over the kosher food industry, by the way.

Death at a Kosher Supermarket

"French forces kill newspaper attack suspects, hostages die in second siege"
John Irish, Emmanuel Jarry and Ingrid Melander; Reuters (January 9, 2015)

"Two brothers suspected of a bloody attack on the offices of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo were killed when police stormed their hideout on Friday, while a second siege ended with the deaths of four hostages.

"The violent end to the simultaneous stand-offs followed a police operation of unprecedented scale as France tackled one of the worst threats to its internal security in decades. The heavy loss of life over three consecutive days also risked fuelling anti-immigrant voices in the country and elsewhere in the West.

"Officials said Cherif Kouachi and his brother Said, both in their thirties, died when anti-terrorist forces moved in on a print shop in the small town of Dammartin-en-Goele, northeast of Paris, where the chief suspects in Wednesday's attack had been holed up. The hostage they had taken was safe, an official said....

"...Minutes later police broke the second siege at a Jewish supermarket in eastern Paris. A police union source said four hostages had died there along with a gunman, believed to have had links to the same Islamist group as the Kouachi brothers, who was holding them.

"HOSTAGES RUSHED OUT

"News footage of the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in the Vincennes district showed dozens of heavily armed police officers massed outside of two entrances. The assault began with gunfire and a loud explosion at the door, after which hostages were rushed out...."
The folks who murdered Charlie Hebdo staff cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski; economist Bernard Maris; and two police officers on duty at the magazine; may have believed they were lions on Islam, defending their faith against blasphemers.

Outside their fan base, my guess is that they've added more fuel to the argument that Islam and the 21st century do not mix well.

Islam in the Information Age

"...During the attack the gunmen were heard to shout Allahu akbar, 'the Prophet is avenged', ... [30][38][39][40] President François Hollande described it as a 'terrorist attack of the most extreme barbarity'.[41] The three attackers were identified as Said Kouachi and Cherif Kouachi, both French, and Hamyd Mourad, 18, whose nationality is unknown...."
(Charlie Hebdo, Wikipedia [emphasis mine])
This week's lions of Islam apparently had a reason for murdering eight folks at Charlie Hebdo. That's the November 3, 2011 issue's cover. I gather that the issue was "guest-edited" by Muhammad, and depicted Muhammad saying: "100 lashes of the whip if you don't die laughing."

Then, in September of 2012, Charlie Hebdo ran an issue with nude caricatures of Mohammad. That was after other lions of Islam killed folks at U.S. embassies in the Middle East. Those attacks were presumably a response to an anti-Islamic film: "Innocence of Muslims."

I run into folks who rant about some threat to their beliefs — based on what they read in The Onion, an American digital media company and news satire organization.

I've read a few Onion pieces: and can understand how someone with a negligible sense of humor and stunted imagination might mistake their satire for 'real' news.

But I don't think killing Onion staff would be a sensible way to express displeasure.

The good news, I suppose, is that Charlie Hebdo went this long without a lethal attack.

I do not think that the French government will respond to this week's events by suspending their Parliament, declaring France an Islamic state, and giving French citizens 24 hours to convert or die.

It's quite possible that Muslims will continue to enjoy whatever rights they share with the rest of the citizenry: but after this, I don't think their popularity will increase among the non-Muslims.

Dealing With Difference: or Not


Being a Catholic in America, I know a little about living in a country where one's faith is not universally respected.

Chick Publications occasionally publishes another warning against Catholic beliefs.

I'm not gleeful about that, or the continuing popularity of Maria Monk's perennial bestseller.

But I wouldn't kill anyone to express my disapproval: not even if I felt like it. I'm a Catholic, murder is against the rules, and that's another topic.

Related posts, not entirely in this blog:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Remembering 9/11, Living in a Big World

About 3,000 folks died in attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon on this date, 13 years ago.

The death toll would almost certainly have been higher, if passengers and surviving crew of United Airlines Flight 93 had not attacked their hijackers. They died, probably because the Al Qaeda pilot deliberately flew into the ground.

Depending on their views, folks have commemorated the 9/11 attacks in many ways.

Some have declared that the attacks were justified, because America is a big meany. They usually express the idea in more sophisticated terms, of course.

Others say that Muslims are to blame: all Muslims. Still others take the more sweeping view that all religion is to blame.

I think there is a tiny element of truth in 'all of the above.'

Al Qaeda's leader at the time, Osama bin Laden, almost certainly had sincerely-held religious beliefs: and chose American targets in response to this country's profound lack of fidelity to his brand of Islam.

I like being an American, and am still upset that so many folks were killed by religious fanatics. But I am not going to rant about folks who don't follow my faith: or those who do, and behave badly.

Instead, I'm going to take a look at how some — but happily not all — Americans have reacted to Catholics, Jews, blacks, and other 'threats' to my country....

The rest of this post is in another blog:
Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 1, 2013

"Displaced Aggression:" Terrorism, Culture, and Assumptions

This isn't, as I've said before, a "political" blog.

I don't claim that a particular party or person is always right, or wrong; or believe that major problems are always the result of commie plots, capitalistic greed, or what the 'other' party is doing.

That doesn't make me "moderate." I have a well-defined point of view, and definite opinions. I try to limit my opinions to matters where I have at least some data to work with.

Looking for Reasons

I've run into folks who don't seem to have any doubts about why terrorism is a problem. Depending on who you ask, it's the fault of Muslims, American imperialism, news media, religion in general, or not having the 'right' party in Congress. That's overly-simplified, of course, and doesn't include all possibilities.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Anything having to do with human beings isn't, generally.

I do think that some Muslims are terrorists. So are some Christians, and folks with no particularly strong religious views. That doesn't mean that religion makes people want to kill other people: or that having religious beliefs keeps folks from acting badly.

Sadly, angry people seem to want reasons for being angry: other than what's actually frustrating them. Religion, national identity, economic status, and ancestry can be convenient canvases for folks desperately in need of a 'big picture' for their feelings. My opinion.

Folks who still yearn for a worker's paradise, or who sincerely believe that American corporations are responsible for the world's woes are a familiar part of America's cultural landscape. I don't think they are potential terrorists - - - but I'm getting ahead of myself.

This excerpt from a CNN talk show got me started on today's post:
FEINSTEIN

"I think there is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist, jihadist, Islamic community. And that is that the west is responsible for everything that goes wrong, and that the only thing that's going to solve this is Islamic Sharia law and the concept of the caliphate.

"And I see more groups, more fundamentalists, more jihadists more determined to kill to get to where they want to get. So, it's not an isolated phenomenon. You see these groups spread a web of connections. And this includes North Africa, it includes the Middle East, it includes other areas as well."
("Feinstein: 'Terror is up worldwide'," CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley transcript, CNN (December 1, 2013))

"Fundamentalists:" Accurate, But - - -

I don't like Feinstein's use of "fundamentalists" in this context. I think she's right, in the strictly dictionary meaning of the word fundamentalist: but in American culture that term can also refer to any Christian group or individual.

There are Christian fundamentalists, but not all Christians in America are fundamentalists. I'm Catholic, which by some Christian fundamentalist standards means that I'm not any sort of Christian, and that's not quite another topic. I've put links to posts in this and another blog near the end of this one, which may or may not be of interest.

Wrenching myself back to Feinstein, fundamentalists, and folks who kill other folks for 'religious' reasons -

Sincere, Maybe: Justified, No

I think many, but not all, of today's terrorists are folks who really believe that God wants them to kill 'unbelievers.' Many of these terrorists insist that they're the only true Muslims around: and are more likely to kill their neighbors for being insufficiently Islamic, than go to the trouble of killing Westerners.

Folks in Europe and on this side of the Atlantic aren't safe, as deaths before, during, and after 9/11 showed. That's partly because we live in a world where travel is fairly easy: and because an increasing number of folks in America are not WASPs and WASP wannabes.

This most certainly does not mean that I think America should repeat the grotesque mistake of rounding folks up for having the 'wrong' ancestors. I think I understand why FDR signed Public Law 100-383. I also think it was a mistake that took much too long to sort out.

Making 'looking like an Arab' an acceptable excuse for detaining someone makes as much sense as rounding up all the pale people in Oklahoma City, after the bombing. The folks who blew up the Alfred Murrah building apparently had ethnic and nationalistic motives: which doesn't make having European ancestors and living in America grounds for suspicion of terrorist tendencies.

Dealing With Difference

The Ku Klux Klan isn't the social and political force it once was in America, but a burning cross still occasionally shows up on the news. I think some iterations of the KKK are a useful example of how folks can use religion as a reason for hating outsiders.

That's more an indictment of human nature, I think, than a reason to distrust all spiritual beliefs.

Here's a sampling of how different folks express their religious beliefs:

From ''Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty'', 1926. Published by the Pillar of Fire Church in Zarephath, NJ. Copyright was not renewed.
(Pillar of Fire Church, via Wikipedia, used w/o permission)
"From ''Klansmen: Guardians of Liberty'', 1926. Published by the Pillar of Fire Church in Zarephath, NJ...."

New York, NY, September 28, 2001 -- A view of the recovery operation underway from a roof adjacent to the World Trade Center. Photo by Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo
(Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo, via Wikipedia, used w/o permission)
"...A view of the recovery operation underway from a roof adjacent to the World Trade Center. Photo by Andrea Booher/ FEMA News Photo." (September 28, 2001)


(From "The Pope and Children" (January 6, 2003), used w/o permission)
Some Catholic, carrying out standing orders: Matthew 25:31-46.

From the Days of Abram to Cable TV and Beer in One Generation

I've had personal experience with Christians who didn't distinguish between personal preference, cultural mores, and eternal principles. Folks who sincerely believe that God ordained that folks always act like the American middle class of the 1950s are more funny than dangerous: because they're not likely to kill you.

Other folks, equally convinced that God ordained that everyone should act they way they did in some village before they had Internet and cable: they don't always have inhibitions about enforcing their beliefs with an axe or a sword.

I'm strongly inclined to believe that we're looking at cultural values here, since many Muslims in places like Malaysia seem to have little trouble fitting into a global society. I doubt that every Muslim in Malaysia thinks the Petronas Towers were a good idea: but quite a few Americans of various beliefs are grumpy, too.

I do not think that feeling bad made it okay for white supremacists to kill people in Oklahoma City, any more than I think it's okay for folks to kill Americans because they miss the 'good old days.' I do think that we need to remember that some folks sincerely believe that killing others for being different.

Terrorists, whatever their motivation, are a real threat. Forgetting that, and 'defending' America against efforts to stop terrorists, is a bad idea.

So is forgetting that disagreeing with the government is not treason, too: and I've written about that before.

Related posts:
1 Excerpts from CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley transcript
CROWLEY
"The big question that's always asked, are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago? In general?"

FEINSTEIN
"I don't think so. I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that, the fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnatometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups that ever and there's huge malevolence out there."

CROWLEY
"So congressman, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, oh, we're safer. Do you agree?"

ROGERS
"Oh, I absolutely agree that we're not safer today for the same very reasons.

"So the pressure on our intelligence services to get it right to prevent an attack are enormous. And it's getting more difficult because we see the al Qaeda as we knew it before is metastasizing to something different, more affiliates than we've ever had before, meaning more groups that operated independently of al Qaeda have now joined al Qaeda around the world, all of them have at least some aspiration to commit an act of violence in the United States or against western targets all around the world.

"They've now switched to this notion that maybe smaller events are okay. So if you have more smaller events than bigger events, they think that might still lead to their objectives and their goals. That makes it exponentially harder for our intelligence services to stop an event like that."

...

CROWLEY
"So, one of the things that the senator said was that there is more hatred out there, more - and why is that?"

FEINSTEIN
"I think there is a real displaced aggression in this very fundamentalist, jihadist, Islamic community. And that is that the west is responsible for everything that goes wrong, and that the only thing that's going to solve this is Islamic Sharia law and the concept of the caliphate.

"And I see more groups, more fundamentalists, more jihadists more determined to kill to get to where they want to get. So, it's not an isolated phenomenon. You see these groups spread a web of connections. And this includes North Africa, it includes the Middle East, it includes other areas as well."

CROWLEY
"Lots of times we look at kind of some of these splinter groups going, yeah, but their interest is local."

ROGERS
"And here's the - but here's the concern of that. Now, remember, you have somewhere near 25 states that have some failed level of governance, meaning they can't secure large spaces of their own country. Those are always attractive for safe havens when it comes to any terrorist organization. And we're finding they're taking advantage of that.

"So you see what's happening in a place like Syria where you have a pooling of al Qaeda members and affiliates of al Qaeda in a way we've never seen before at the level of numbers that we have never seen before, and here's the scary part of this, some thousands of people showing up to participate in that in their mind jihadist effort are westerners, meaning they have western passports.

"A percentage of them have already gone home, including the United States, by the way, is included in that western number. We are very, very concerned that these folks who have western paper have gone there, participated in combat events, are trained, are further radicalized, now have the ability to go back in western countries.

"We know that those–"

...
("Feinstein: 'Terror is up worldwide'," CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley transcript, CNN (December 1, 2013))
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Using a Machete in a Global Civilization

You've probably read about this:
"Woolwich machete attack leaves man dead"
BBC News (May 22, 2013)

"A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot and wounded by police in Woolwich, south-east London.

"The Met Police said a murder inquiry was being led by its Counter Terrorism Command. Prime Minister David Cameron said the UK would 'never buckle' in the face of terror attacks.

"Footage has emerged showing a man wielding a bloodied meat cleaver and making political statements.

"Police confirmed two men had been arrested in connection with the murder.

"There are unconfirmed reports that the dead man was a soldier...."
Those "unconfirmed reports" include at least two high-profile folks:
"...Both French President Francois Hollande and MP Nick Raynsford said the dead man had been a soldier at Woolwich barracks.

"The footage shown on the ITV website shows a man, speaking to the camera, saying: 'We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'..."
(BBC News )
Back in my 'good old days,' the (alleged) soldier might have been killed by a 'peace activist' trying to shove peace down the bloodthirsty throats of the icky military-industrial complex. I don't miss the 'good old days,' and that's not quite another topic.

At least one of the chaps who killed the man are black, but their actions and arrest don't seem to be motivated by racism: another reason I don't miss the 'good old days.' They're in custody, I understand: and will probably be charged with a serious crime. They seem to have been motivated by sincere religious beliefs:

"...By Almighty Allah...."

"Cameron condemns brutal hacking death, says Britain stands firm"
Laura Smith-Spark, CNN (May 23, 2013)

"Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would be 'absolutely resolute' in the face of terrorism Thursday, as he vowed to track down those behind the brutal hacking death of a British soldier in London....

"...A video recorded by one of the two men immediately after the attack seemed to suggest a jihadist agenda.

" 'We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone,' said a meat cleaver-wielding man with bloody hands, speaking in what seems to be a London accent...."
Can't say that I blame BBC News for downplaying the Islamic angle here. Between legitimate concerns about the occasional murder and car bomb, it's quite possible that some old-school British residents are almost ready to solve the 'Muslim problem' the way the Ku Klux Klan tried to solve race relations here in America.

By the way, despite what I had to learn during indoctrination for being a teacher here: not all whites are racists. By the same token, not all blacks are stupid and lazy: and, in my considered opinion, not all Muslims are murderers looking for a victim.

I've corresponded with Muslims who seem to be at least as upset about terrorists with an 'Islamic' identity as I am. That's understandable, I think, since Islamic crazies tend to kill more Muslims than non-Muslims. Maybe it's easier to get at neighbors, maybe they're more upset about Muslims who don't live or worship the 'right' way, maybe they owe money to their victims: I really don't know.

Religion, Psychosis, and Violence

Again in my considered opinion, not all religious folks are crazy, not all crazy folks are 'religious,' and not all religious lunatics kill people. Some do, but they're not normal: in several senses of the term.

I've got more to say about religion, sanity, and lethal force. That's a bit off-topic, though. You'll find links to some of my take on what makes sense, and what doesn't, at the end of this post.

The 'Good Old Days'

Back when I was growing up, 'good old boys' thought telling the 'little woman' she was as smart as a man was a compliment. 'Nice' women were supposed to stay home, be improbably sweet 24/7, and act as if men were smarter and generally better than they were.

I didn't think that made sense, still don't, and think some of the social upheaval of the '60s was a long-overdue set of corrections to an ailing society.

Then, as now, some folks who are 'Christian' at the top of their lungs seem to believe that God hates the folks they hate, and wants everybody to be just like them: right down to musical preferences. They are not typical Christians. They're not even typical American Protestants: but they're the ones who tend to get noticed.

Folks who want America to be a WASP nest aren't the only ones who are uncomfortable with today's world.

Dealing With Today: Or Not

There are parts of the world where culture hadn't changed much since Abram moved out of Ur until a few generations back. The head of a house was a man, who could kill one of his women or children if they didn't behave 'properly,' and who lived with a comfortable assurance that all 'people' were like him.
He might have been aware that there were creatures off in some distant land that looked like him: but they weren't 'people,' not really. Not unless they agreed with him about everything he thought was important.

That was then, this is now.

Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, folks who follow other faiths, and those who wish religion wasn't so, are building a global civilization. I'm okay with that: but some folks aren't.

It's early days, but my guess is that the two chaps in England may have be at how non-Muslims - and quite a few Muslims, for that matter - reacted when religious crazies killed several thousand folks on September 11, 2001.

I understand nostalgia, and indulge in it now and then. But I also realize that it's no longer acceptable to use a machete for that sort of self-expression.

By the way, one reason I'm not horrified at the prospect of a global and diverse civilization is that I'm part of an outfit that was global and diverse before the current iteration of Western Civilization began. More about that in the second set of 'related post' links.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, November 23, 2012

Egypt, America: Change, Freedom, and Other Threats to the Status Quo

Egypt's president says:
  • He's making Egypt
    • Safe for freedom and democracy
    • Stable
  • Nobody can change the new rules
    • Except him
That's a simplified version of what I found in the news.1

Most of the new Egyptian decree sounds okay: being safe is nice; folks seem to like freedom; and democracy is supposed to be a good idea, too. I think part of the trouble folks have is that the president says that nobody can change the new rules, except him.

I can see their point: but not because President Mursi is an "Islamist."

'Free to Agree With Me?'

Freedom doesn't, or shouldn't, mean "free to agree with the boss," or "free to support 'proper' opinions." Like I've said before, I remember the trailing edge of McCarthyism, and endured political correctness while doing time in American academia.

Although their vocabulary was different, supporters of both said they were defending freedom. I think they believed it; and probably couldn't understand that another person might disagree without being pinko, homophobic, or whatever.

What 'Everybody Knows, That Just Ain't So'

Today's 'real Americans,' and those who graduated from campus activism to successful career tracks, have an odd sort of common belief: Muslims are evil, or at least dupes of Islam. An oversimplification? Yes: but I think it's good enough for a quick sketch of the attitude toward 'those people.'

What sets today's establishment apart is that all religion is supposed to be dangerous, or at least 'intolerant.'

"The establishment" isn't what it used to be, and that's almost another topic:
As the name of that blog suggests, I'm one of 'those religious people.' Worse, I'm a Catholic: which doesn't mean what you may have heard.

By the way, I discuss political issues, but this isn't a "political" post, and there's a reason why it's hard to pigeonhole my views as liberal or conservative:
I'm getting seriously off-topic. Sort of.

'Kill a Commie for Christ,' and Assumptions

Denver News (1921), from The Library of Congress (American Memory Collection), http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/, via wikipedia.org, used w/o permissionLet's say that the more violent iterations of the Ku Klux Klan were the only sort of 'Christianity' a person heard about. Assuming that folks who 'protected' their America from foreigners, blacks, and other 'anti-Christian' influences, were typical Christians wouldn't be hard.

Equally rabid patriots who inspired the 'kill a commie for Christ' slogan didn't help, in my opinion.

My reaction to ranting radio preachers and their secular counterparts eventually led to my becoming a Catholic, and that's definitely another topic.

Beware Rabid 'Defenders'

In a way, I'm not half as concerned about foreign threats, as I am about some of the folks determined to 'protect' my country.

These days, I don't see a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' as a serious threat to America's freedom. Too many folks remember various red scares, or were told about them in the government schools. Yet another topic.2

I am concerned about folks who apparently want to 'protect' America from the supposed dangers of religious belief: any religious belief.

That's another over-simplification. I've written about tolerance, real and imagined, fairly often: and put links under "Tolerance," below.

Egypt and a Changing World

Maybe the Egyptian president really will bring freedom, democracy, and stability, to Egypt: and then let someone else have a say in how his country is managed. I'm dubious about that: but it's possible.

I think it's more likely that Mr. Morsi wants Egypt to be a nice, orderly, "stable" country: like North Korea, Burma/Myanmar; and 20th century Latin American rulers whose title was "president," since American support depended on a show of "democracy." Cynical? Maybe.

I don't mind stability, or freedom. But I think there are different sorts of "stability:"
  • Good news
    • Choosing leaders without bloodshed
    • Citizens living without fear of criminals in the
      • Private sector
      • Government
  • Bad news
    • Protecting folks with power
      • Political
      • Military
      • Economic
    • Silencing criticism
    • Preventing change
I realize that change is unsettling, sometimes painful. But change happens, change can be good, and resisting change can create new problems: and even more unsettling, painful change. My opinion.

Getting a grip about:
In the news:
1From the news:
"Egypt President Mursi defends new powers amid protests"
BBC News (23 November 2012)

"President Mohammed Mursi has appeared before supporters in Cairo to defend a new decree that grants him sweeping powers.

"He told them he was leading Egypt on a path to 'freedom and democracy' and was the guardian of stability.

"He was speaking as thousands of opponents gathered in Cairo's Tahrir Square and offices of the president's party were attacked in several cities.

"The decree says presidential decisions cannot be revoked by any authority...."
"Egypt's President Expands His Own Powers"
Sam Dagher in Cairo and Jay Solomon in Washington, The Wall Street Journal (November 22, 2012)

"Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, coming off a heady week of high-stakes diplomacy that thrust his government onto the international stage, pushed to consolidate his power at home with a set of decrees aimed at sidelining a judiciary that has been one of the last institutions challenging the Islamist government.

"The declarations, which appeared to stun the Obama administration, brought into the open a long-simmering confrontation between Mr. Morsi's Islamist government and a judiciary that is populated with many secular-leaning judges appointed by the former regime of Hosni Mubarak.

"U.S. officials on Thursday said there was no indication that Mr. Morsi was going to make this move when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Cairo Wednesday, and the administration widely praised the Egyptian president for brokering the cease-fire between the militant group Hamas and Israel that also involved the U.S. and a host of regional powers. The agreement ended more than a week of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and repeated bombardment of Gaza by the Israeli military.

"A senior U.S. State Department official said Mr. Morsi's actions 'have raised some concerns' and that officials are watching the developments closely....

"...The set of decrees exempt the president's decisions from all judicial review and bars the courts from dissolving a constitutional-drafting committee that has increasingly come under the sway of Mr. Morsi's allies in the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Several prominent Egyptian liberal political leaders, including some who ran in this year's presidential election, met in Cairo on Thursday, with most expressing their shock at Mr. Morsi's moves.

" 'Morsi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh. A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences,' wrote Mohammed ElBaradei, a former candidate and former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on his official Twitter account.

"The negotiations over Gaza, whose conclusion was announced by Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohammed Kamel Amr with Mrs. Clinton at his side, elicited praise for Egypt's new leader, who came to power this year in the wake of the revolution that overthrew Mr. Mubarak. The Obama administration talked with cautious optimism of teaming up with Mr. Morsi to attempt to make progress on regional issues that have been stalled for decades....

"...U.S. officials have urged Mr. Morsi to pursue changes that include gender and religious rights in Egypt. 'We encourage all parties to work together and we call for Egyptian leaders to resolve these issues through democratic dialogue,' the official said....

"...While the immediate impact of the declarations remains unclear, observers said they could help further strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood's dominance of the constitutional-drafting process and perhaps open the door to retrials of former regime officials and connected businessmen who were found not guilty in corruption trials.

"Mr. Morsi's allies defended the decrees as necessary to prevent former regime influence from derailing an increasingly turbulent transition.

"They insisted that the extraordinary powers bestowed by the decrees will disappear once a new constitution is drafted and goes into effect....

"Yet the declarations also sealed Mr. Morsi's position as the dominant figure over Egypt's transition to a system many hope will be more democratic—and raised new concerns that Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are eliminating all checks on their authority...."
2 Some Americans who home school their kids may be intellectually-challenged sociopaths with strong anti-science beliefs. I think that stereotype is seriously flawed, but what would I know? I'm one of those home-schooling parents: and 'everybody knows' what they're like.

I've harangued about education, science, and religion, a bit in another blog:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Remembering September 11, 2001; and Looking Ahead

On September 11, 2001, thousands of people died in an attack on cities along the east coast of North America. The attack was carried out by people who apparently didn't approve of America, America's way of life, and anything else that wasn't exactly consistent with what they preferred.

I'm not entirely pleased about some aspects of America's contemporary culture, either: but slaughtering thousands of folks I don't like isn't a reasonable response. I'll get back to that.

Since 9/11/2001, a remarkable number of national leaders have decided that getting killed by religious fanatics isn't a good thing. Even more remarkable, many have committed to an armed response to the threat of Al Qaeda and like-minded outfits.

I think peace is nice. I think war is very unpleasant. But sometimes peace isn't an acceptable option.

The Job at Hand

In the short term, the job at hand is dealing with the sad fact that some folks would like to kill more people who don't dress and act the way they want us to. Since asking nicely hasn't worked in the past, my guess is that military action in the Middle East and other parts of the world will continue to be necessary.

Tolerance, Real and Imagined

While dealing with the physical threat posed by religious fanatics, I think it's vital to preserve the tolerance that earned America their hatred. That's going to be difficult, since my country is home to some folks who seem as fervently dedicated to their own notions as any Al Qaeda zealot.

One lot seems to feel that 'Muslims and other foreigners' are a Satanic threat to their own views of how everybody should dress and act. These folks see "tolerance" as allowing others to agree with their views: even if the others look like foreigners.

Another lot seems convinced that all religion is a sort of psychiatric condition or social pathology. These folks see "tolerance" as allowing others to hold differing opinions: as long as the 'intolerant' people keep quiet, and do whatever the 'tolerant' folks tell them to.

I'm not at all fond of either sort of 'tolerance.'

Sorting Out 'Quirky' and 'Constant'

Tolerance has been defined as "a permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits." (Princeton's WordNet) I think that's reasonable.

One of the major challenges in today's world is determining just what "some freedom" means. We're going through exciting and promising changes - which means that quirky little preferences that may have worked a few generations back simply don't apply any more.

The trick will be distinguishing between rules that don't matter, like which side of a plate the fork goes on, and ethical principles that apply to 'left fork,' 'right fork,' and 'no fork' folks. It's not going to be easy: but it's necessary. And that's another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Tolerance, Change, America, and the World

An item in Monday's news started me thinking about tolerance, and how it's been practiced here in America. Sometimes tolerance, American style, is the sort you'll find in a dictionary: "willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others." (Princeton's WordNet) Sometimes "tolerance" and "freedom" mean "free to agree with me, and do things my way."

I've experienced two flavors of the latter sort of "tolerance," and don't think much of either.

I think the 'dictionary' sort of tolerance is a good idea. Partly because it's part of my system of belief, partly out of a kind of enlightened self-interest. I've been over this in another blog:And, yes: as the name of that blog suggests, I'm a Catholic. Which may not mean what you've been told. I'll get back to that, later in this post.

If you follow that other blog, you may as well skip this post. It's a slightly-edited version of "Religious Freedom In America: It Could be Worse" (March 20, 2012). I decided that most of the original post fit this blog's range of topics:Enough introduction. Here's that post:

Tolerance, Freedom, and America

One reason that I think America is okay is that this country has a fairly good track record for tolerance. Far from perfect, though.

I remember when this country was flushing McCarthyism out it its system, and when "banned in Boston" was taken seriously: sometimes as a sign of End Times; sometimes, I think, as free publicity.

I endured political correctness, when I last did time in American academia. It wasn't, in my opinion, an improvement on McCarthyism: just the same old 'my way or the highway' attitude, with a somewhat different agenda.

Life, Freedom, and Change

But we got over McCarthyism. I think we'll get over political correctness, although the "free to agree with me" attitude packaged as "tolerance" is still very much with us. I've been posting about a current effort by America's national government to control how Americans practice our religions:
By the way, what you may have read in the papers notwithstanding: 'Those Catholics' aren't trying to make you worship our way. The problem we have with the HHS mandate comes from our belief that human beings are people. All human beings.

Anyway, we're not allowed to 'force' anyone to change your mind about faith. It's in the rules:
  • Catholics must support religious freedom
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2104-2109)
    • For everybody
      (Catechism, 2106)

It Could be Worse

Like I said, America has a fairly good record of tolerance. Killing folks who don't conform, and bragging about it, isn't a serious problem in today's America.

Folks in some parts of the world have a very different approach to living with differences:
"School that employed American shot in Yemen denies he proselytized Christianity"
Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (March 19, 2012)

"The school employing an American teacher gunned down in Yemen has denied accusations that he was proselytizing Christianity.

"A text message that circulated by mobile phone in Yemen said that 'holy warriors' had killed 'a senior missionary' in the central city of Taiz, shortly after the teacher was shot dead Sunday by two gunmen on a motorcycle...."

"...A statement from the International Training Development Centre in Taiz identified the victim as Joel Shrum, an American development worker living in Yemen with his wife and two children since 2010.

"The school denied that Shrum was proselytizing, saying that he 'highly respected' Islam. It said Muslims and Christians work together on 'human development, skill transfer and community development' projects there and that religious and political debates are not permitted...."
The lesson to learn from that article isn't, I think, that all Yemeni, or Muslims, are bad. Even though whoever killed Joel Shrum may have been a Yemeni, or a Muslim.

Frightened by Change?

I'm inclined to believe the school's claim that he was not guilty of proselytizing. Arguably, though, the entire school is guilty of trying to 'destroy' Yemeni culture. Sort of.

The school's agenda of "human development, skill transfer and community development" sounds like a 'plot' to bring Yemen into the 20th century. Maybe even the 21st.

Change can be scary. Folks sometimes feel threatened by change. I think that Associated Press article shows what can happen when folks get scared: and think that killing someone will solve their problems. Or at least make them feel better.

Judgmental as this may seem: I don't think that's right.
(Catechism, 2258-2287, 2302-2317)

Human Development, Living in the Past, and Being Catholic

I'm a practicing Catholic, so human development is one of my priorities. (" 'To Build a Better Future ... With Confidence Rather Than Resignation' " (February 20, 2012))

For someone living in Yemen, who sees change as intrinsically bad: the International Training Development Centre in Taiz is a very real threat.

I'm not spooked by change. But then, I'm an American.

I grew up in a crucible of change: the country I live in today isn't like the one I grew up in. Which isn't an entirely bad thing. I remember when "she's as smart as a man" was supposed to be a compliment, and that's another topic.

A World Full of 'Foreigners'

I have no problem with international organizations. Not because they span national boundaries, anyway. That's not because I'm a Catholic, though.

I grew up outside the Catholic faith, and spent my teens in the '60s. The United Nations was a disappointment, communist experiments were disasters: but I found no reason to drop the idea that people are people, no matter where they are.

Later, when I became a Catholic, I learned more about why accepting all people is important. (Catechism, 616, 631, 2318, for starters) And that's yet again another topic.

A World Full of Neighbors

I've said it before. We live in a big world. Some of us are what the "Parthians, Medes, and Elamites..." became after two millennia of change.

Some of us are like me: what barbarians living on the far side of Magna Germania became after more than a millennia of contact with the Catholic Church. We changed a lot. We even gave up human sacrifice, and that's yet again another topic.

But we're all the same. We're people. And, like it or not, we're all neighbors.

The Catholic Church tells me that I'm supposed to love God, and love my neighbors. Also that everybody is my neighbor. (Matthew 22:36-40; Matthew 5:43-44; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-30; Catechism, 1825)

That's a simple set of ideas. Believing them isn't a problem. Embracing them isn't always easy: but I think it's important.

Particularly since some of my neighbors have been through a rough time lately.

Yemen, History, and Getting a Grip

Some places weathered Europe's colonial period, and the Treaty of Versailles, without coming apart at the seams. Other places are still like Yemen. I think there are worse ways of wrapping up a war than the Treaty of Versailles, and that's another topic, for another blog:
I sympathize with folks in Yemen who are trying to pick up the pieces from several centuries of foreign rule.1 But I don't sympathize with those who decided that folks who don't agree with them should die. They're still neighbors: but that sort of thing has to end, for everybody's sake.

Apparently someone in Taiz, Yemen, is at least going through the motions of treating Joel Shrum's death as a crime:
"...Taiz security director Ali al-Saidi said Monday that the investigation is still ongoing...."
(Associated Press)
That's good news, as far as it goes.

Related posts:
1 Yemen was a center of civilization. Two or three millennia back. Change happens, though, and several centuries of foreign rule didn't work out very well for Yemen. My opinion. (More at "History of Yemen," Wikipedia) Yemen since the Versailles debacle, briefly:
"North Yemen became independent of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The British, ... withdrew in 1967 from what became South Yemen. ... the southern government adopted a Marxist orientation. ... exodus of hundreds of thousands of Yemenis from the south to the north.... formally unified as the Republic of Yemen in 1990. A southern secessionist movement in 1994 was quickly subdued. ... a group seeking a return to traditional Zaydi Islam, began in 2004 and has since resulted in six rounds of fighting ... with a ceasefire that continues to hold. The southern secessionist movement was revitalized ... Public rallies ... inspired by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt ... fueled by complaints over high unemployment, poor economic conditions, and corruption. ... resulted in violence, and the demonstrations had spread to other major cities. ... hardened its demands and was unifying behind calls for SALIH's immediate ouster. ... and in early June an explosion at the mosque in the presidential compound injured SALIH, who was evacuated to Saudi Arabia for treatment. ... SALIH returned to Sanaa amid heavy shelling and machinegun fire ... SALIH signed the GCC-brokered agreement to step down, to transfer some of his powers to Vice President Abd al-Rabuh Mansur HADI..."
(Yemen, CIA World Factbook (last updated March 6, 2012))
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.