Muhammad محمد Cartoon Censorship

As a sign of solidarity with the French people, and in honor of the  survivors, and the nine Charlie Hebdo employees who were killed in the recent terror attack by Muslim extremists in Paris, I am posting the cartoon of Muhammad محمد which sparked the attack:

Most major news networks are refusing to show the cartoon for fear of inciting violence, offending Muslims, or provoking an attack on their own operations.

By capitulating to the wishes of these extremists not to show images of Muhammad, we are agreeing with their position that the tenets of their religious faith are beyond reproach. We are not talking about defecating on Qur'ans, writing graffiti on mosques, or suppressing Muslim expression of faith. We are talking about the principle of censorship, and whether Islam deserves a special place above all other subjects to avoid ridicule.

A redditor posted this video yesterday of the late Christopher Hitchens' defense of publishing such cartoons because of its relevance to recent events in France:

US Propaganda for War on ISIS

Does anyone else see through these recent stories reported in the media about imminent attacks conveniently discovered or thwarted since US military involvement in Syria?

Congress can barely agree on anything, yet in the midst of reelection they come to a consensus with the President that ISIS must be stopped. The US has bombed ISIS in Syria almost by itself, without official permission from Syria to enter its airspace.

War against a common enemy has a way of bringing the country together, fortunately or unfortunately. But military action alone would not be enough to maintain domestic and international support. The US government in cooperation with the military have fed the mainstream media stories of success since the start of this war against ISIS.

Is anyone critical of the thwarting of an imminent attack by the Khorasians?

http://wtkr.com/2014/09/23/khorasan-group-in-syria-plotted-attack-against-u-s-with-explosive-clothes-toothpaste-source-says/

Supposedly this group was planning to attack the US by smuggling explosives in carryon luggage. Could this be continued justification for TSA screening? Does it help to justify the actions of bombing people in Syria?

Today there was a story that the Iraqi PM heard of an (again) imminent attack on the US and Paris subway systems.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/09/25/iraqi-pm-plot-to-attack-us-paris-subways-uncovered/

Is it possible the US government advised the Iraqi PM to release this information? How can these claims be verified? Is it not possible that ISIS could be plotting any attack anywhere? If so, the US government and military could claim they are thwarting terror attacks with every member of ISIS they kill.

We need journalists who will ask the difficult questions to hold the US government and military accountable for their actions. Mainstream media is too cozy with the very entities they are supposed to be questioning.

Of course, we want the US to succeed, but if they are feeding us lies, exaggerations, unverified claims as a means of garnering popular support for their bombing, they need to be called on the carpet.

Pre-Crime Police State

Imagine an America in which the state was capable of monitoring keywords and phrases in face-to-face public and private communication with tiny sensors placed wirelessly throughout the country. Even when a person is not speaking but only typing, sensors could translate keystroke vibrations to determine which key is being selected based on the amount of pressure placed on the keyboard.

Prior to revelations of NSA spying by former contractor Edward Snowden the public largely believed the government was incapable of mass surveillance methods; and even if it was, it was not using them without a warrant. Now we know the NSA has been spying on citizens without warrants, the CIA has been spying on Congress, and very little has been done to curtail abuses of power by the President or Congress. In fact, the current administration is perpetuating methods adopted by the Bush administration, justifying them in the name of national security under the legal permissions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Methods of spying include, but are not limited to:

- Cell phone geolocation
- Cell phone calls/texts sent and received (not necessarily audio or context)
- Email scanning
- Social network activity
- Web history

The NSA has requested information about individual users of services from Google, Microsoft, Apple, and others and has placed these firms under a gag order so they cannot disclose the extent of the requests.

On August 7th while listening to The Takeaway, a mid-day NPR program hosted by John Hockenberry, I learned there is technology capable of detecting audio vibrations typically only captured by microphones, which can be reconstructed to create a close rendition of the original audio. Hockenberry interviewed MIT electrical engineering student Abe Davis who has been working on a project that uses a "visual microphone" to detect sounds from music and even the sounds of crumpling potato chip bags.(1)

When asked whether the technology could be used for pernicious purposes the student dismissed the possibility since such technology requires a vast amount of resources. But who has the kind of resources to turn the technology into something usable on a massive scale? You got it.

Never before in the history of human civilization have people's lives been trackable to the extent they can be in the 21st century. Nearly everyone has some form of electronic communication device, email account, or GPS navigation system. And never before in the history of national defense has the need for early detection of threats been necessary as in the age of Islamic terrorism and cyberwarfare.

The government is in the business of protecting its citizens from foreign and domestic threats. It has an interest in using all means necessary to fulfill its primary duty. There is a point where surveillance tramples civil liberties, and this is the moment where we must ensure our need for security is not overstepping its bounds.

If the government can go so far as to spy on conversations and keystrokes as a means of detecting possible threats to security, they will. That would mean that everyone in the US could be spied on at all times. Maps would display colored dots where each color represents a threat level. Let us say the threat levels move progressively in order from the least threatening individual to the most threatening, starting with green, then moving to blue, purple, yellow, orange, and red. Every citizen is assigned a green dot at birth.

Source: fwi.co.uk

Regional maps would display colors by county of places where the highest threat levels are present. The government could then zoom in on any area down to a single house and see the colored dots inside of it representing the number of individuals in that building and the threat level of each. Vibration sensors could pick up the conversations and keystrokes of anyone in that building.

Source: https://zaboujojo.wordpress.com/tag/surveillance/

Technology has given us the tools to draw ourselves out of the enslavement of our barbaric past. Unless it is kept in check, though, we risk being subordinated to a more modern barbarism by our not-so-benevolent overlords in government.

(1). http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/eavesdropping-using-vibrations-bag-potato-chips/

NSA Spying

Day after day there are new revelations of NSA spying.  The reach of the NSA extends beyond the United States into even the private phone lines of foreign diplomats.  Those in positions of power who defend the overreach of the seemingly unregulated spy organization say that every government participates in spying, that information obtained is limited to phone numbers and times, that it has been successful in thwarting terrorist attacks, and that every day Americans are not the subject of this massive collection.

The number and type of stories being reported on a daily basis from all over the world suggest otherwise.  The NSA is the product of the War on Terror.  It is able to operate its spying network in the name of keeping American's safe.  What it is doing has been made possible by FISA and its subsequent amendments.

The NSA needs to be investigated more thoroughly by Congress to make sure it is kept in check from unnecessary invasions of privacy.

Here are some reasons why the NSA is not being investigated:

- One job of government is to protect its citizens from domestic and international threats.  A government will use whatever tools it has at its disposal to accomplish this task.  It just so happens that in the information age people are connected together digitally, making it easier for the public to obtain information, but also easier for those in power to spy.

- In order to operate effectively, law enforcement agencies and the military require a certain level of secrecy.  If their methods of gathering intelligence were completely transparent it would be impossible to act preemptively against threats to security.

- Laws and amendments passed during the Bush administration and not overturned by the Obama administration are perpetuated by the Obama administration.  Republicans have a reputation for being hawkish when it comes to national security, but even liberals know the value of intelligence gathering.  Look how outspoken a defender of the NSA is Democrat California Senator Dianne Feinstein.

- No government official wants to give Edward Snowden the glory when it is forced to admit wrongdoing.

There are other reasons why the NSA has not been officially held accountable for its overreach.  It is extremely important for this to be addressed because if any government agency is able to harvest a large scale of data on the habits of it citizens, if a tyrant gets into power it could be just a serious a threat as the government taking away guns by force.

Gov. Patrick's Intro to Obama Speech at Interfaith Memorial Service

Last Thursday night I was listening to live coverage of the President's speech at the interfaith memorial service in Boston that followed last Monday's Marathon bombings.  Governor Deval Patrick introduced the President with a list of things he is thankful for.  The most impressive aspect of the speech this second half:

"...And I am thankful, maybe most especially, for the countless numbers of people in this proud City and this storied Commonwealth who, in the aftermath of such senseless violence, let their first instinct be kindness. In a dark hour, so many of you showed so many of us that 'darkness cannot drive out darkness,' as Dr. (Martin Luther) King said. 'Only light can do that.'

"How very strange that the cowardice unleashed on us should come on Marathon day, on Patriots’ Day, a day that marks both the unofficial end of our long winter hibernation and the first battle of the American Revolution. And just as we are taught at times like this not to lose touch with our spiritual faith, let us also not lose touch with our civic faith.

"Massachusetts invented America. And America is not organized the way countries are usually organized. We are not organized around a common language or religion or even culture. We are organized around a handful of civic ideals. And we have defined those ideals, through time and through struggle, as equality, opportunity, freedom and fair play.

"An attack on a civic ritual like the Marathon, especially on Patriots’ Day, is an attack on those values. And just as we cannot permit darkness and hate to triumph over our spiritual faith, so we must not permit darkness and hate to triumph over our civic faith. That cannot happen. And it will not.

"So, we will recover and repair. We will grieve our losses and heal. We will rise, and we will endure. We will have accountability, without vengeance. Vigilance, without fear.And we will remember, I hope and pray, long after the buzz of Boylston Street is back and the media has turned its attention elsewhere, that the grace this tragedy exposed is the best of who we are..."


Then he introduced the President.   I have never listened to a speech by the Governor before, but this was profound.  Well done.

http://www.boston.com/news/source/2013/04/text_of_governo.html

Good Christopher Hitchens Interview With Reddit.com

Not sure how to make this video fit my blog but it's good so who cares!

Cost of the Afghan War

Before the United States commits itself to more troops in Afghanistan I would like to know how much I will have to pay for it out of my pocket.  If the number is zero, I will be confused (doesn't war cost something); if the number is something, I will be angry (why should I have to pay with funds that should have stayed in Afghanistan all along instead of Iraq); and if the number is undetermined I will be even angrier (only in Washington DC can you get away without a budget for something).

A Question About Reward for Suicide Bombing

Fareed Zakaria is the international editor for Newsweek magazine and narrator of the new documentary Terror in Mumbai.  He was interviewed by Scott Simon on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, November 14th.  What interested me most about the interview was one of the exchanges between the host and his guest:

SIMON: Fareed, obviously we continue in the United States to deal with the effects of - investigation, obviously, into what happened at Fort Hood and just the anxieties of our time. And I want to try to be certainly scholarly, clinical, and detached, but I feel this documentary, what happened in Mumbai introduces a fair question. In the world today, are there number of religious extremists, who may happen to be Muslim, who are bent on suicidal violence because they believe theyll be rewarded for it?

Mr. ZAKARIA: I think the answer to your question is yes. And it is all the more incumbent, therefore, on religious authorities, of leaders within these communities of Islam, of Muslims, to really come out and unequivocally make the case that this stuff is not just bad, but deeply un-Islamic, pernicious, violates, you know - now, for the most part, people in the United States have done that. But it hasn't happened in, say, Pakistan, and until there is ambivalence on those issues, you wont have the kind of united front that will exorcise these demons.

Kudos to liberal NPR to ask so "offensive" a question!  And to believe that they would allow any hint from a guest that some Muslims believe suicide bombings are actually part of their deeply held religious beliefs and not just their politico-socio-economic position!

Would we be able to replace the word "Muslim" in Scott Simon's question with any other religious affiliation like "Jewish?"  If the answer is no, Simon should not have used the phrase "...religious extremists, who happen to be Muslim...".  And another thing is clear to me: The religious belief  that God will reward an individual for suicide and killing in the modern era is exclusively a Muslim idea.

What is more disturbing is Zakaria's comment that non-violent Muslims and their leaders are not speaking out against the attacks along with the rest of the world.  What does this say about these non-violent Muslims?

"America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy"

When the United States was waging war in Iraq, Americans who criticized the war as illegitimate, self-defeating, and misguided were labeled by conservatives as un-American, weak, and unpatriotic.  It seemed as if conservatives loved war, gloried in it, and wanted more of it.

Now that liberals control Washington and are faced with the decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan to fight Taliban and other terrorists, conservatives are not as bloodthirsty as they were before Obama's election.  Instead of supporting our commander in chief they do everything they can to portray him as indecisive and incompetent.  They even float the idea of pulling out of Afghanistan all together.

But this is politics isn't it?  Yes, and it's politics in rare form.

But let us take a moment to observe just how much liberals and conservatives have in common when it comes to the war in Afghanistan.  Both want democracy and stable elections in the country where US troops are fighting.  Both want to minimize Afghan and Pakistani casualties.  And both want to make sure we are maintaining strong allegiances with allies in the region.  And I tell you both are extremely wrong.

Neither liberals nor conservatives are willing to do what it takes to actually make Americans safer, namely killing as many terrorists as possible as quickly as possible with the goal of defeating those who conspired to attack us on 9/11 so that we can continue to live in peace in the USA.  If democracy is established, if civilian casualties are minimized, and if our allegiances with allies remain intact as a result of our efforts, then so much the better for us.

But this knee-jerk reaction to events, these wars of crisis management without strategy, of US aid and goals of spreading democracy - it's all hindering our progress in our war against Islamic Totalitarianism.  We need to fight and then get out.

For a great article about the current state of affairs in our war against Islamic Totalitarianism, read "America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy" from The Objectivist Standard journal.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/america-self-crippled-foreign-policy.asp

Fort Hood Shooting

There are lots of questions I have about this incident.  One that I would want answered before posting anything is why was Malik Nadal Hasan not released from the Army after his requests to leave, poor performance evaluations, and strange behavior?

Rarely Do I Quote Hillary Clinton...

...but she had some badass straight-talk for those Taliban who attacked a market with a car bomb during her visit to Pakistan today.

"These attacks on innocent people are cowardly. They are not courageous.  If the people behind these attacks were so sure of their beliefs, let them join the political process, let them make that case in the political arena and see how far they would get. They know they are on the losing side of history, but they are determined to take as many lives with them as their movement is finally exposed for the nihilistic, empty effort that it is."

Support for Suspected Muslim Terrorist Raises An Eyebrow

It is rare for suspected terrorists to live so close to home.  There has been a lot of activity recently with FBI nabbing those who would wish to cause harm to innocent Americans.  The most recent case was reported this morning.

A Sudbury, MA resident named Tarek Mehanna was plotting to commit violent jihad by shooting up a mall.  He has been under investigation since 2001.  Since that time he has taken trips to the Middle East, allegedly gathering information on how to carry out an attack on the U.S.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8318708.stm

More surprising is a blog I found from my Google search this morning.  The blog insists on Mehanna's innocence from an FBI probe back in 2008 and asks for support.  Most disturbing are the comments at the bottom of the blog, with people saying things like "May Allah free him."

http://izzatulillah.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/justice-for-tarek-mehanna/

It will be interesting to see if this blogger posts a similar supportive post after today.  It is hard for me to believe that his fellow Muslims were supporting this man who was plotting to harm innocent Americans.

FBI Interrogation of Saddam Hussein

Listening to the radio podcast of "To the Point" today, I heard a guest of the show refer to the 60 Minutes interview with the FBI interrogator, George Piro, who systematically drew information from the former Iraqi dictator through the FBI's rapport-building interrogation techniques.

How had I missed news about this interview?

This afternoon I read the transcript of the interview at the 60 Minutes website. Piro's interrogation discovered the following facts:

1. Saddam Hussein's WMDs had been mostly destroyed by the UN in the 90's, and by 1998 Iraq had unilaterally completed the task.

2. Hussein was not friendly with Osama bin Laden, and the feeling was mutual.

Iraq had not been completely transparent about its weapons program because Iran, its neighbor and long time foe, could have taken advantage of a weakened Iraqi state.

Apparently Saddam had no connection with al-Qaeda and bin Laden, and had even refused to cooperate with them. He viewed bin Laden as a fanatic.

This information must have been told to President Bush while the U.S. Military was conducting a thorough search for the weapons and legitimate ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. We all know that this information was not enough to change President Bush's mind that the invasion was the right thing to do.

You can read the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview at the following link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml