The evil we can't ignore

Was this about radical Islam? It's folly to ignore the possibility

  • Follow Editorials

Vastly varying emotions lay heavy in the spring air Friday as authorities closed in on the mega-violent, ultra-evil Boston bombing suspects.

News Friday morning of one’s death and the other’s scramble to escape brought immense relief – the hope of closure, and the apparent answer to the prayer that this abhorrent crime against humanity wouldn’t go unsolved.

Neither a years-long investigation nor the most meticulous jury trial could’ve rendered a more certain conclusion: We got ’em. Otherwise, you have to believe that two men perfectly fitting the suspects’ descriptions, and who just happened to be armed better than a small army while killing a campus cop in cold blood, have been wrongly fingered.

At the same time, that will be of limited comfort to the marathon’s severely wounded and those who are mourning loved ones. And Monday’s lasting horror was only added to on Friday, by more killing as the heavily armed terrorists sought to take others down with them in a blaze of rabid viciousness.

Relief is also tempered by the realization that there most certainly are others already here or on the way who have similar scruples – which is to say none – about killing innocent men, women and children.

The suspects’ backgrounds as Muslim brothers with ties to violence-wracked Russian republic Chechnya also will put a spotlight on America’s internal war against political correctness, the tenets of which – we’re not really at war, you can’t call it terrorism, you should never “profile” –
inarguably add significantly to the
dangers of modern American life.

That danger was ominously present in the bizarre hopes and expectations among terribly misguided folks on the left that the bombers would turn out to be Americans – preferably white conservative Americans. The unspeakable alternative, of course, was radical Islam – and even after all these years and attacks, that’s something our liberal friends just can’t get their arms around.

Before the suspects’ identities were known, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday shared with the Arab American Institute her “hope beyond hope that this doesn’t turn out to be what it might be” – meaning, of course, radical Islam.

Why? Why hope that it is or isn’t a certain nationality, religion or ideological persuasion? Why play favorites like that? Would it feel better? Terror is terror. Ripped limbs are ripped limbs. Dead children are dead children.

The answer to the question, of course, is that the left is desperate to prove that radical Muslims aren’t a threat, because that doesn’t conform to politically correct dogma. But they’re perfectly willing and even eager to postulate, repeatedly, that conservative Americans are a threat (see editorial Friday, “The Boston Scare-athon”).

Not even being wrong time and again has convinced them otherwise.

We happen to think it’s wrongheaded to assume or, heaven forbid, actually hope that terror emanates from a particular demographic group. Evil isn’t the exclusive franchise of a particular people. Like goodness, barbarity can be found in every shape, size, color and creed, and every corner on Earth.

But it’s also fatal and beyond irrational to ignore real patterns and true threats. Or to try to imagine them away.

We must work for a better world, while dealing honestly with the one we’re currently in.

At this writing, the Boston bombers’ motivations weren’t clear. Whatever their psychotic methods, one would think their real beef would’ve been with Mother Russia. It seems highly improbable that any tie to Russian politics or dreams of Chechen independence led them to attack America.

Were they mentally ill? Isolated and un-assimilated?

Perhaps. Another possibility, as uncomfortable as it might be, is that they fancied themselves part of radical Islam’s homicidal effort to build a worldwide
caliphate, while inflicting maximum pain on the West.

We pray that, rather than try to hope otherwise – or to gin up offense at the notion – that Muslims worldwide will instead dedicate themselves to eradicating hatred in their midst.

And in our midst too.

Comments (100) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
24031
Points
carcraft 04/21/13 - 05:52 pm
2
1
I would like to see some

I would like to see some instance of unbridled communism being a success! Socialism ussually ends when you run out of other peoples money to spend such as in Spain and Greece! I think the Capitalism we have maybe wanning but it hasn't yet created the debt crises we see in Europe and rapidly coming to American socialist Bastions like California!

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/21/13 - 07:18 pm
3
3
"You'll have to wait for a
Unpublished

"You'll have to wait for a reply KSL....it's typical of dahreese to throw nonsense out there and then sign off for a while. It's difficult to have a reasonable conversation with so much lag time in between, but it is what it is.......notice no response to my comment....just thumbs down and then sign off for a while. Maybe he needs to search for more bogus material."

There is lag time between posts (whether hours or days) because I run out of the free time AC allots those who are not paid subscribers. You and your self-flattery have nothing to do with it.

"I have no issue with someone questioning war, but it is your quiet condemnation of others who defend this country (whether right or wrong)."

If you are talking about my condeming the military who are sent to fight these wars, then your statement is a blatent lie!

If you speak of my condeming those who send the military to fight unnecessary wars while they stay safely home, you are on target.

The problem with conservatives is that you feel like you have to defend the country even when it's wrong. That doesn't seem "Christian" to me.

You swallow and wallow in editorials like the one above - over and over and over and over - and think you're being sooooo patriotic when you do so.

You're about politics as you are religion.

If you question war you're afraid of being anti-patriotic.

If you question your religion you're afraid of going to hell.

Have you ever dared ask yourself the question who needs religion anyway to lead a spiritual life?

Or does thinking like that scare the bejezuss out of you?

Now quote me some scripture (declared as such, and not before, in the 4TH CENTURY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sweet Angela who knows it all;

Bush denies authorizing prisoner torture despite memos - ShortNewswww.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=40165Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Jun 11, 2004

George W Bush admits to authorizing torture. - YouTube► 2:16► 2:16www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfa88i0ZhVA

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 04/21/13 - 07:29 pm
1
2
From The New York Times

From The New York Times editorial on April 16th on the finding of an 11-member task force convened by the Constitution Project on United States' use of torture:

"The work of the task force, led by two former congressmen — Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, who served in the Bush administration as under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and James Jones, a Democrat, who was an ambassador to Mexico during the Clinton years — is informed by interviews with dozens of former American and foreign officials, as well as with former prisoners.

It is the fullest independent effort so far to assess the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the C.I.A.’s secret prisons. Those who sanctioned the use of brutal methods, like former Vice President Dick Cheney, will continue to defend their use. But the report’s authoritative conclusion that “the United States engaged in the practice of torture” is impossible to dismiss by a public that needs to know what was committed in the nation’s name.

The report found that those methods violated international legal obligations with “no firm or persuasive evidence” that they produced valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means. This blunt language should help end a corrosive debate that has broken down on largely partisan lines.

Reaching a stronger national consensus on the issue of torture is crucial because, as the report says, “as long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United states could again engage in torture.” The task force found that using torture — like waterboarding, slamming prisoners into walls, and chaining them in uncomfortable stress position for hours — had “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive.” And in engineering “enforced disappearances” and secret detentions, the United States violated its international treaty obligations. A detailed 22-page appendix cites dozens of legal cases in which the United States prosecuted similar treatment or denounced it as torture when carried out by other countries.

Brutality is not uncommon in warfare. But, as the panel notes, there never was before “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

The panel further details the ethical lapses of government lawyers in the Bush years who served up “acrobatic” advice to justify brutal interrogations, and of medical professionals who helped oversee them. It is also rightly critical of the Obama administration’s use of expansive claims of secrecy to keep the details of rendition and torture from becoming public and to block victims’ lawsuits."

carcraft
24031
Points
carcraft 04/21/13 - 09:43 pm
3
1
The US really doesn't torture

The US really doesn't torture regardless of what some stupid report says . To get to the toe nail finger nail pulling, testicular electrical shocking hand crushing male rape torture look up "rendition "! Obama has kept rendition in place! The "client "is sent to a country that isn't squimish about providing a brief view of the worse Dante's Inferno had to provide!

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 04/22/13 - 07:47 am
1
3
So, the U.S. IS complicit in

So, the U.S. IS complicit in torture when it renders suspected terrorists to 3rd countries known to abuse human rights. Obama is as guilty of this as Bush. KSL, it really doesn't matter "who started it". When violence and retribution spiral out of control, it is incumbent on rational thinking people to take steps to ease the situation. Take Syria for example. United States has egged on the violence by supporting rebels, demanding Assad leave, and siding with rebels who refuse to negotiate. On thing is certain about the 11 year 5 month long U.S. "global war on terror". It has resulted in the spread of militant Islam in the Middle East, in the Arabian Peninsula, in the Maghreb, elsewhere in Africa, in South Asia, and in Central Asia. United States militarized foreign policy certainly hasn't "ended it". We are only making matters worse and bankrupting ourselves in a doomed attempt to dominate (or, if you prefer, police) the world.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 07:57 am
3
2
Bush denies torture, because
Unpublished

Bush denies torture, because the techniques used were NOT defined as torture. How hard is that to understand?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 04/22/13 - 10:30 am
1
3
Waterboarding, stress

Waterboarding, stress positioning, slapping, hooding, sensory derivation, slamming people against walls, sleep deprivation, and extended periods of solitary confinement are all torture. Beyond that there are the pictures from Abu Ghraib which prove United States was engaged in torture. Electrical shocks and intimation with dogs is torture. It went further than that. There is a picture of a dead Iraqi general on ice with a U.S. female soldier giving a thumbs up. That Iraqi general died after he was stuffed inside a sleeping bag and had an interrogator sitting on his chest. Torture and MURDER are war crimes. Your denial is patently absurd. It is inexcusable on a personal level, but U.S. justice officials are even more culpable for failing to investigate and prosecute. These were not "rogue" soldiers who did these things. This was an organized program. The CIA outsourced to private interrogators. The bottom line as far as this editorial is concerned is that blowback from illegal U.S. wars, illegal drone strikes, torture, and the killing of civilians over the last 11 years 6 months since 9/11/01 is not surprising. Evil exists on both sides. Our country should stop contributing its share of evil which only continues and escalates violence. Our country should return to the rule of law, respect for human rights, respect for sovereignty, and respect the right of others to self-determination and autonomy.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 10:40 am
3
1
No one said it was fun and
Unpublished

No one said it was fun and games. Being in prison isn't fun and games, but it's not torture. Just because you and some other people say something is torture, does not make it so.....and your definition being the only definition is necessary for what he said to be a lie.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 10:41 am
3
2
So....it's back to name
Unpublished

So....it's back to name calling again dahreese? Does it always have to come back to that?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 10:43 am
3
1
I love how Mr. Cain just
Unpublished

I love how Mr. Cain just keeps on stating things are facts, simply because he says the are facts. Opinions are NOT facts.

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/22/13 - 02:21 pm
3
2
GWB's question to his
Unpublished

GWB's question to his attorney wasn't was torture illegal, but did he as president have the authority to authorize it.

BIG DIFFERENCE !!!

And Bush has admitted he authorized torture.

But, this is a free country if you want to go on and continue denying.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/22/13 - 02:28 pm
3
3
He did NOT say he authorized
Unpublished

He did NOT say he authorized torture. He said he authorized the use of techniques that people such as yourself defined as torture AFTER THE FACT. The statement "And Bush has admitted he authorized torture." is a bald faced untrue statement. But go ahead hand keep saying it all you want....someday it may become true.

KSL
120680
Points
KSL 04/22/13 - 03:54 pm
2
2
So it is being said that the

So it is being said that the brothers were apparently members of a sleeper cell.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/23/13 - 10:53 am
1
1
--
Unpublished

--

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/23/13 - 10:53 am
0
1
--
Unpublished

--

myfather15
49167
Points
myfather15 04/23/13 - 10:25 pm
0
1
Well, I for one can't

Well, I for one can't completely disagree with some liberals; If I concentrate on our American citizens jumping out of the twin towers to save themselves from burning to death; it makes it a lot easier to accept that we might waterboard someone, or stuff them in a sleeping bag. Some liberals are just whiners and seem to always twist the truth to make America seem like the villian. Truth is, I've had worst done to me while in Marine Corps boot camp. I've had hazing incidents worst that MANY techniques liberals would call torture.

That is the exact problem; to a liberal, anything besides warm bubbles baths, cocktails and a good nights rest, is torture. They define ANYTHING they disagree with as torture. I personally don't think waterboarding is torture; it has no risidual effects. You don't lose fingers or toes, receive broken bones. You receive the ILLUSION that you may drown. OMG!!!! Ooooh, the humanity!!!

This illusion that led to the killing of Bin Laden; nope, I have no problem with it. They have a problem with it because they on the side of those being waterboarded!!!!

myfather15
49167
Points
myfather15 04/23/13 - 10:27 pm
1
1
That last post was edited for

That last post was edited for those who have no stomach and can't take a little harsh criticism; not surprising it's the same people against "torturing" (i.e. waterboarding) radical murderers.

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/24/13 - 09:35 am
1
1
"Truth is, I've had worst
Unpublished

"Truth is, I've had worst done to me while in Marine Corps boot camp."

And Rambo had better not mess with you, either.

You're DI was John Wayne.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In his book, “Decision Points,” Bush asserts that he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency whether he would support the agency’s waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind.

“Damn right,” Bush says that he said."

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 10:00 am
1
1
And waterboarding was not
Unpublished

And waterboarding was not classified as torture, so what's your point......or as in your Rambo remark, what's "you're" point?

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/24/13 - 03:07 pm
1
2
Actually it was classified as
Unpublished

Actually it was classified as torture; that was the point in getting and giving permission.

How can you miss that?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/24/13 - 04:01 pm
1
1
No it wasn't. But I'm sure if
Unpublished

No it wasn't. But I'm sure if you keep saying it was over and over, maybe it will become true.

How about you try to prove that it was classified as torture PRIOR to authorization. Good luck.

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/24/13 - 05:59 pm
0
2
Can you prove your own point
Unpublished

Can you prove your own point that waterboarding wasn't considered torture?

If it wasn't classified as torture, then what was it classified as, fun and games? It's not like waterboarding is/was a new technique, so why did Bush have to be involved in the first place?

As I said twice before, you could be standing along with GWB watching it and you'd still deny it was torture and GWB was giving premission for it.

But, if it makes you feel better, you can keep denying all it over and over.

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/24/13 - 08:21 pm
2
2
"In his recently released
Unpublished

"In his recently released memoir Decision Points, George W. Bush admitted that he enthusiastically authorized that certain detainees be waterboarded – or tortured, a crime under domestic and international law."

ccrjustice.org

You have the man's own confession (which I posted previously; guess some sensitive soul reported me to the AC editor for "hurting my feelings" and "calling me names.)."

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/25/13 - 07:34 am
1
1
So if you released memoirs
Unpublished

So if you released memoirs that said you authorized something, then I summarize what you said and use words that you never used, then that means you confessed to whatever I summarized you saying. You just have to love this kind of thinking.

Show me where George Bush said "I authorized torture which is a crime under international law."

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/25/13 - 07:37 am
2
1
And I'm sure no one reported
Unpublished

And I'm sure no one reported you for "hurting feelings." Your posts were removed for repeatedly violating the rules of posting. I would say Sean has been quite lenient with you since the rules also prohibit posts that "contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims" which you have done on many occasions.

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/25/13 - 10:38 am
1
1
"In his recently released
Unpublished

"In his recently released memoir Decision Points, George W. Bush admitted that he enthusiastically authorized that certain detainees be waterboarded – or tortured, a crime under domestic and international law."

ccrjustice.org

"And I'm sure no one reported you for "hurting feelings."

I suppose it's the person with the "hurt feelings."

Why would anyone else care?

"...posts that "contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims."

Such as?

The man confessed in his book.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/25/13 - 11:21 am
1
1
Such as?????
Unpublished

"As I said twice before, you could be standing along with GWB watching it and you'd still deny it was torture and GWB was giving premission[sic] for it."

This is what is known as an unsubstantiated claim. You made a statement (several times) and have NOTHING to back up that statement; it is simply an ad-hominem attack. (one of the many reasons your posts are getting removed.)

Give me a quote in Bush's book where he said he authorized torture. Don't paraphrase. Give me a quote.

And as far as your posts getting pulled. "Why would anyone else care?" Well, apparently Sean cares. He likes to run a respectable forum, and you keep sullying it with your derogatory posts.....I believe it is Sean that is pulling the posts. Check your email. I'm sure he explained why. Learn to follow the rules and your posts will remain.

dahreese
4674
Points
dahreese 04/25/13 - 06:11 pm
0
0
"And as far as your posts
Unpublished

"And as far as your posts getting pulled. "Why would anyone else care?"

While the editor, Sean, may care about politness in commentor's exchanges, I feel certain he has more important things to do than to scrutnize all the comments looking for "violators" of politeness; unless someone whines.

And that someone certainly hasn't been me.

I suppose it's the person with the "hurt feelings."

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/25/13 - 06:20 pm
1
0
Nice baseless
Unpublished

Nice baseless statement........again.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/25/13 - 06:38 pm
1
0
By the way.....it's Sean's
Unpublished

By the way.....it's Sean's JOB to "scrutnize [sic] all the comments looking for "violators" "

Back to Top

Loading...