Scary plot for a B-movie!

A plot right out of a scary B-movie!

 

 

 

The Only Commonality is Mass Killing

Temptation to compare acts of mass violence around the world is overwhelming.  But as Anat Berko points out, you have to be careful.

Aaron Alexis murdered 12 people and injured at least eight more at the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard before he was shot and killed by law enforcement professionals. It is tempting to compare Alexis to a suicide bomber, especially now that we have heard rumors he opened a website under the name "Mohammed Salem." However, clear thinking demands that temptation be resisted. Let me explain why.

As an Israeli criminologist who has studied suicide bombers for almost two decades—making extensive observations of and conducting numerous interviews with those who failed, as well as with those who dispatch the bombers, with family members of suicide bombers and decision makers and elites in their society— I can say with confidence that the differences between mass killers in the West such as Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, and yes, Aaron Alexis at the D.C. Navy Yard, and suicide bombers are categorical and insurmountable.

Commenting on the comparison of events such as Sandy Hook and suicide bombers, she writes

The overriding distinction between the two is their native cultures: the suicide bomber's education and attack preparations are diametrically opposed to that of mass killers, as is their socialization. Suicide bombers are radical Islam's celebrated heroes, its darlings, whose acts are viewed by the larger culture as exemplary and heroic; in contrast, the West's mass killers are aberrant individuals isolated from their resolutely life-affirming culture.

Read the full article The Only Commonality is Mass Killing

Nairobi and other things

It's kind of hard to write about the terror in Kenya.  The disregard for any sanctity of life by the terrorists who perpetrated this act and the people who sent them are beyond words.

At the same time, we see the Palestinians gearing up for a new round of violence directed against Israel.  Two murders of soldiers during the past week, continued incitement in the Palestinian media, and total silence from Palestinian leadership, do not bode well for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Was Rabin right in telling me that the PA leadership is nothing but a bunch of terrorists?  Where are the moderate voices in the West Bank that condemn violence and the glorification of murder?

Well, that's all I have to say right now.
Stephen M. Flatow

Israel’s Enmity?

OK, I admit it, I am a fan of the New York Sun and its editorial staff led by Seth Lipsky.  But reading the editorial set out below reinforces my belief that there is still hope for editorial integrity in America's media.

“President Rouhani is sending strong signals that he will dispatch a pragmatic, experienced team to the table when negotiations resume, possibly next month. That’s when we should begin to see answers to key questions: How much time and creative thinking are he and President Obama willing to invest in a negotiated solution, the only rational outcome? How much political risk are they willing to take, which for Mr. Obama must include managing the enmity that Israel and many members of Congress feel toward Iran?”
* * *
We’ve read our share of editorials in the New York Times, but it’s hard to recall a paragraph to match the above, issued Sunday under the headline “Reading Tweets From Iran.” It’s not altogether surprising that it took the new Persian president, Hassan Rouhani, only a few keystrokes on the social media to send the Gray Lady into a swoon of appeasement. But the suggestion that for President Obama this “must” include “managing the enmity that Israel and many members of Congress feel toward Iran”? Neville Chamberlain call your office.

The idea that the little difficulty with Iran has something to do with an enmity that Israel and many members of Congress feel toward Iran is just a classic of Timesian logic. What does the Times figure — that the poor, innocent mullahs were promulgating their peaceable revolution when the dastardly Israelis turned on them for no good reason other than bigortry, and the Congress the Times must imagine was bought and paid for by the Zionists suddenly turned against the Iranians? Just out of plain anti-Persian prejudice?

Maybe the Times figures that it’s similar to the enmity that FDR (and the Jews, for that matter) maintained for Nazi Germany. We understand that the Times strove to maneuver itself above that fray, too; it thought our enmity could be managed. But one would have thought that history would have taught it a lesson. The mistake wasn’t just the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia. It was the going to Munich in the first place. That was the mistake. The way we have put it before is that the talking is the appeasement.

As for President Obama, he rode into office on a promise of good will. He went to Cairo and reached out to the Muslim world. He said he would meet with the Iranians, and he’s taken every opportunity to talk to probe for possibilities. He pulled out of Iraq and is retreating in Afghanistan. This vast display of good will has delivered a Middle East in flames, a region where America’s standing is lower than at any nadir ever reached by any previous president. The fact is that a deal with the mullahs would be a defeat for freedom. Wisdom for Mr. Obama can only start with the comprehension that whatever enmity fuels this fight, it did not begin in either Israel or the Congress of the United States.

 You can read the on-line version Israel’s Enmity?

How to watch Al Jazeera America -

One thing that Americans should not have to be told is how to watch the news.  But some of us who have been watching news reports over the years know that things aren't always what they appear to be.  Case in point, Al Jazeera.

Now that Al Jazeera is coming here, Frida Ghitas writes a primer on who to watch its programming.

For those of us who believe the American public deserves and needs to know much more about what goes on in the rest of the world, the arrival of a television network determined to focus on hard news, to “make news the star,” to quote my old boss Ted Turner, should be cause for celebration. But when that network is Al Jazeera, we all need to take a few steps back and prepare before we start watching.

The first fact to keep in mind when watching the just launched Al Jazeera America is that the new network is, like the other Al Jazeera channels, owned by the royal family of Qatar, which has used Al Jazeera to spread its influence, raise its global profile, influence public opinion and try to create its desired outcomes.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/24/3581967/how-to-watch-al-jazeera-america.html#storylink=cpy

 Doesn't sound good does it?  Read the full story.  How to watch Al Jazeera America