lo yeeOn
2015-12-09 04:50:52 UTC
Is the Pentagon politicized or is it just swarming with neocons?
How can anyone expect the American people to believe, after all these
years, that the Muslims would ever be so dumb as to choose our bombs
and missiles for their homeland just so that they can apply for a visa
to visit Nueva York?
If you were they, which would you rather:
1) be looked at with a wary eye and denied permission to come to the
States for the foreseeable future (but they won't come for your
lives during all this time - because they now are feeling
adequately protected)?
or
2) continue to live in a state of constant fear that you and your
loved ones might be bombed into smithereens tonight, right where
all of you are in your own home sleeping (while the military
commanders all pay lip service to your freedom and well being)?
So, after 14 years of the Afghan invasion and occupation and 12 years
of the devastating Iraq war with Shock'n'awe, our policymakers are
telling us that the Muslims are so dumb that they will make a choice
that we ourselves wouldn't make.
As I have observed early on, the Paris attackers went on the very
stage where the American Dead Metal Eagles band was performing and no
members of the group was hurt while scores below the stage were shot
at and killed.
And it turned out that the ISIS/ISIL rule of engagement was to go out
of their way to avoid provoking the Americans - for the very reason
that they are fighting their asymmetric warfare only for the purpose
of driving foreign oppression out of their land in the Middle East.
For a long time the French people were able to go about their lives
free of terrorism, unlike Britain, Spain, and even Russia.
And the reason was clear. Chirac as the president of France in 2003
repudiated George W Bush's fraudulent "war on terror" even as Dick
Cheney was smarting about the French's rejection and mocked them with
his "Freedom Fries".
The French people only began experiencing terrorism after Sarkozy and
Hollande got France involved in bombing people far, far away from
France itself - first the Libyans, then the Malians and other
Africans, and lately those on the Asian side of the Middle East.
France has been "mission-creeping" their military adventure all the
time. And it's hard to see how the French's actions themselves could
not beget terrorists in whatever land they set their feet on. That,
apparently, was the background of the Parisian attacks.
Now why is the Pentagon saying such nonsense about Trump? (See the
report appended below for reference.)
My take is that the most expensive bureaucracy the American taxpayers
are forced to lubricate every year is infested with neocon operatives.
So, of course they want the American people to continue to be confused
about why we are still waist-deep in foreign wars after more than a
dozen years fighting our enemies who don't even have an air force or
navy let alone nuclear warheads as we do.
And, Donald Trump has been leading a sort of truther movement about
all the whys - all the questions pertaining to whether we should have
invaded Iraq or even Afghanistan, to whether George W Bush was somehow
responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and to whether we should have bombed
Libya and made regime change after regime change!
(Alternatively, if the Defense Department is not swarming with neocons
as I surmised, then clearly the boss of the bureaucracy is doing
something even worse - politicizing a government organization, the
purpose of whose existence is supposedly to ensure our security, i.e.,
the people's personal safety, not some nefarious goal of controlling
other people's oil or land.)
Donald Trump is a no-no to the neocons.
And the latter know that they will have to run for cover if Trump is
president. And so, they accuse Trump of playing into people's fear,
even though that is exactly what the neocons have been doing behind
the fraudulent leadership of George W Bush and Obama/Hillary Clinton.
The world's Muslims all know that it is infinitely better to be denied
permission to the United States than to get themselves bombed in their
own homes.
Why would Trump's Monroe Doctrine antagonize them more than our
unwelcome missiles and bombs? If they have studied what Trump has
said in the past year, they should know that Trump is much more averse
to military adventures abroad than Bush and Obama.
Muslims know what is best for them. They don't stick their fists in a
hornet's nest, unlike the neocons who now rule the West.
In fact, I believe that all decent human beings, including Muslims,
want to live. So, Muslims should easily be able to live with a
temporary measure such as that proposed by Trump! For any human
being, that reciprocal feeling of "I want to live - so it makes sense
that they want to live too" should be very natural. Only when you put
someone "between a rock and a hard place", as the neocons have been
doing to the Middle Easterners, will you find that your victims may
not be forever willing.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Trump's Muslim ban 'endangers US security'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35047105
The leading Republican presidential candidate has said Muslims should
be banned from entering the US, in the wake of the deadly California
attacks.
But Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said such talk "bolsters
Isil's narrative," referring to IS.
There has been a global outcry since Mr Trump made his remarks.
US Secretary of State John Kerry joined the onslaught of condemnation
on Tuesday afternoon when he said they were "not constructive" in the
fight against IS.
The IS militants have been the target of a US-led bombing campaign in
Syria and Iraq.
Mr Trump announced his plan days after an attack in California raised
US fears about homegrown terrorism.
A Muslim couple, believed to have been radicalised, opened fire and
killed 14 people at a health centre in San Bernardino.
One of the two perpetrators, Tashfeen Malik, reportedly pledged
allegiance to Islamic State on the day of the tragedy.
But responding to Mr Trump's remarks, the US Pentagon said a border
closed to Muslims would harm American efforts to counter extremist
ideology.
Without mentioning Mr Trump by name, Mr Cook said: "Anything that
bolsters Isil's narrative and pits the United States against the
Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary
to our national security."
Analysis - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
With Mr Trump's latest rhetorical flourish, Republicans can likely
"write off" the support of Muslim US citizens.
And his ongoing diatribes against immigration from Latin America
aren't going to win the hearts of Hispanics, either.
Even if he doesn't capture the nomination, he's pulled his party to
the anti-immigrant, nativist right and forced his fellow candidates to
take positions that could be harmful when the general election comes
around next November.
In perhaps the greatest irony, Mr Trump is waging his war with the
Republican establishment and the US media with tools that the
conservative movement fashioned and had previously used with gusto.
Is Donald Trump destroying the Republican Party?
These comments echoed a tweet from Hillary Clinton that said Mr
Trump's proposed ban is "not only counter to our values - it plays
right into the hands of terrorists".
The outcry was swift as soon as Mr Trump said in a statement on Monday
night that Muslims nursed a "hatred" towards America and should be
banned "until our country's representatives can figure out what is
going on".
The property billionaire and reality TV star later said it would not
apply to people living in the US.
He defended the idea on Tuesday, comparing it to policies implemented
by President Franklin Roosevelt during World War Two against Japanese,
German and Italian people in the US.
But Muslim leaders, the UN and foreign leaders have criticised the
call as dangerous and divisive, while the White House said he should
be disqualified from the race.
When he said parts of London were "so radicalised the police are
afraid for their lives", the city's mayor said that was "ridiculous".
Boris Johnson added: "The only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of
New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump."
Republican leaders were strong in their condemnation. House Speaker
Paul Ryan said: "What was proposed yesterday is not what this party
stands for. And more importantly, it's not what this country stands
for."
How can anyone expect the American people to believe, after all these
years, that the Muslims would ever be so dumb as to choose our bombs
and missiles for their homeland just so that they can apply for a visa
to visit Nueva York?
If you were they, which would you rather:
1) be looked at with a wary eye and denied permission to come to the
States for the foreseeable future (but they won't come for your
lives during all this time - because they now are feeling
adequately protected)?
or
2) continue to live in a state of constant fear that you and your
loved ones might be bombed into smithereens tonight, right where
all of you are in your own home sleeping (while the military
commanders all pay lip service to your freedom and well being)?
So, after 14 years of the Afghan invasion and occupation and 12 years
of the devastating Iraq war with Shock'n'awe, our policymakers are
telling us that the Muslims are so dumb that they will make a choice
that we ourselves wouldn't make.
As I have observed early on, the Paris attackers went on the very
stage where the American Dead Metal Eagles band was performing and no
members of the group was hurt while scores below the stage were shot
at and killed.
And it turned out that the ISIS/ISIL rule of engagement was to go out
of their way to avoid provoking the Americans - for the very reason
that they are fighting their asymmetric warfare only for the purpose
of driving foreign oppression out of their land in the Middle East.
For a long time the French people were able to go about their lives
free of terrorism, unlike Britain, Spain, and even Russia.
And the reason was clear. Chirac as the president of France in 2003
repudiated George W Bush's fraudulent "war on terror" even as Dick
Cheney was smarting about the French's rejection and mocked them with
his "Freedom Fries".
The French people only began experiencing terrorism after Sarkozy and
Hollande got France involved in bombing people far, far away from
France itself - first the Libyans, then the Malians and other
Africans, and lately those on the Asian side of the Middle East.
France has been "mission-creeping" their military adventure all the
time. And it's hard to see how the French's actions themselves could
not beget terrorists in whatever land they set their feet on. That,
apparently, was the background of the Parisian attacks.
Now why is the Pentagon saying such nonsense about Trump? (See the
report appended below for reference.)
My take is that the most expensive bureaucracy the American taxpayers
are forced to lubricate every year is infested with neocon operatives.
So, of course they want the American people to continue to be confused
about why we are still waist-deep in foreign wars after more than a
dozen years fighting our enemies who don't even have an air force or
navy let alone nuclear warheads as we do.
And, Donald Trump has been leading a sort of truther movement about
all the whys - all the questions pertaining to whether we should have
invaded Iraq or even Afghanistan, to whether George W Bush was somehow
responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and to whether we should have bombed
Libya and made regime change after regime change!
(Alternatively, if the Defense Department is not swarming with neocons
as I surmised, then clearly the boss of the bureaucracy is doing
something even worse - politicizing a government organization, the
purpose of whose existence is supposedly to ensure our security, i.e.,
the people's personal safety, not some nefarious goal of controlling
other people's oil or land.)
Donald Trump is a no-no to the neocons.
And the latter know that they will have to run for cover if Trump is
president. And so, they accuse Trump of playing into people's fear,
even though that is exactly what the neocons have been doing behind
the fraudulent leadership of George W Bush and Obama/Hillary Clinton.
The world's Muslims all know that it is infinitely better to be denied
permission to the United States than to get themselves bombed in their
own homes.
Why would Trump's Monroe Doctrine antagonize them more than our
unwelcome missiles and bombs? If they have studied what Trump has
said in the past year, they should know that Trump is much more averse
to military adventures abroad than Bush and Obama.
Muslims know what is best for them. They don't stick their fists in a
hornet's nest, unlike the neocons who now rule the West.
In fact, I believe that all decent human beings, including Muslims,
want to live. So, Muslims should easily be able to live with a
temporary measure such as that proposed by Trump! For any human
being, that reciprocal feeling of "I want to live - so it makes sense
that they want to live too" should be very natural. Only when you put
someone "between a rock and a hard place", as the neocons have been
doing to the Middle Easterners, will you find that your victims may
not be forever willing.
lo yeeOn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Trump's Muslim ban 'endangers US security'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35047105
The leading Republican presidential candidate has said Muslims should
be banned from entering the US, in the wake of the deadly California
attacks.
But Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said such talk "bolsters
Isil's narrative," referring to IS.
There has been a global outcry since Mr Trump made his remarks.
US Secretary of State John Kerry joined the onslaught of condemnation
on Tuesday afternoon when he said they were "not constructive" in the
fight against IS.
The IS militants have been the target of a US-led bombing campaign in
Syria and Iraq.
Mr Trump announced his plan days after an attack in California raised
US fears about homegrown terrorism.
A Muslim couple, believed to have been radicalised, opened fire and
killed 14 people at a health centre in San Bernardino.
One of the two perpetrators, Tashfeen Malik, reportedly pledged
allegiance to Islamic State on the day of the tragedy.
But responding to Mr Trump's remarks, the US Pentagon said a border
closed to Muslims would harm American efforts to counter extremist
ideology.
Without mentioning Mr Trump by name, Mr Cook said: "Anything that
bolsters Isil's narrative and pits the United States against the
Muslim faith is certainly not only contrary to our values but contrary
to our national security."
Analysis - Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
With Mr Trump's latest rhetorical flourish, Republicans can likely
"write off" the support of Muslim US citizens.
And his ongoing diatribes against immigration from Latin America
aren't going to win the hearts of Hispanics, either.
Even if he doesn't capture the nomination, he's pulled his party to
the anti-immigrant, nativist right and forced his fellow candidates to
take positions that could be harmful when the general election comes
around next November.
In perhaps the greatest irony, Mr Trump is waging his war with the
Republican establishment and the US media with tools that the
conservative movement fashioned and had previously used with gusto.
Is Donald Trump destroying the Republican Party?
These comments echoed a tweet from Hillary Clinton that said Mr
Trump's proposed ban is "not only counter to our values - it plays
right into the hands of terrorists".
The outcry was swift as soon as Mr Trump said in a statement on Monday
night that Muslims nursed a "hatred" towards America and should be
banned "until our country's representatives can figure out what is
going on".
The property billionaire and reality TV star later said it would not
apply to people living in the US.
He defended the idea on Tuesday, comparing it to policies implemented
by President Franklin Roosevelt during World War Two against Japanese,
German and Italian people in the US.
But Muslim leaders, the UN and foreign leaders have criticised the
call as dangerous and divisive, while the White House said he should
be disqualified from the race.
When he said parts of London were "so radicalised the police are
afraid for their lives", the city's mayor said that was "ridiculous".
Boris Johnson added: "The only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of
New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump."
Republican leaders were strong in their condemnation. House Speaker
Paul Ryan said: "What was proposed yesterday is not what this party
stands for. And more importantly, it's not what this country stands
for."