The Muslim World Must Clean Its Own House

vigilance-committee notice 1.jpg

In the American Old West, when there was a bad person or people in an area that the law either could not or would not deal with, the local respectable citizens would meet in secret and form a vigilance committee. They would then vote on a resolution to drive the trouble maker[s] away. If the motion passed, a public notice would be drawn up and posted warning the undesirable man/men that he or they had twenty-four hours to vacate the area or be forcibly removed. If the warning went unheeded, the vigilance committee would arm themselves, visit the bad man/men and offer the choice of leaving or being killed. This and the threat of death if the person or people ever returned was very often enough to solve the problem.

Why is this same sort of thing not happening in the Muslim world? Why are members of the Muslim faith not cleaning house just as the good people of the American West once did? We read all the time about the large number of Muslims who abhor terrorism. How come they are not driving out the bad apples? If their numbers are so large, they should have no trouble ridding their communities of violent extremists.

Terrorists are insurgents. History teaches us that insurgents cannot operate without support from the non-insurgent people they live amongst. The numbers of Muslims who reside in predominant Muslim areas who, while not actively engaged in terrorism, are in sympathy with them, must be very high indeed. If it were not, the terrorists simply would be able to operate.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at T_J_Kong@yahoo.com. I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

I also have a YouTube.com channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpauuMnQBSI2FWgFiScj2mw

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

vigilance hanging.jpg

 

A Review of Episode Five (“Babylon”) of the Return Run of “The X-Files” (Some Spoilers are Revealed Below)

x-files_5.jpg

Episode Five (“Babylon”) of the Return Run of “The X-Files” left me more conflicted than any installment of the series ever has. Read on if you wish to learn why the show pulled me in two different directions.

Islamofascist Terrorists on Television

IMG_0705.JPG

I was shocked by the first few scenes that depicted an Islamic fascist terrorist cell, two of its members entering an art gallery, explosions and people catching on fire.  Arabic terrorism being featured on television dramas is not common these days. The belief that such depictions are racist (or in some cases the fear of being labeled racist) has made them few and far between. (The pure insanity of associating a religion-related issue with race is a subject better left to another blog post.) More usual is the fantastical image of a white male terrorist dressed in typical American clothes and carrying himself in a typical American manner that we see in the “See Something Say Something” videos that play on endless loops at every major train station in the United States.

I applaud “The X-Files” for having the courage to show the television viewer Muslim terrorism in all its horror. The show deserves credit for its willingness to accept absurd criticism from individuals such as  Price Peterson, who wrote in his tv.com review that the episode “included some of the hoariest, most stereotypical terrorism imagery of the past 15 years.” How in the heck could the word “stereotypical” apply here when 99% of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. since the year 2000 have been conducted by Muslims? Using the word “stereotypical,” as well as using the word racist in the context of Islamic terrorism, are two prime examples of how the Left tries to win politically by changing the definition of words.

The Politics of The X-Files

IMG_0728.JPG

There is also much about the episode that I condemn. Before the terrorist attack one of the terrorist suffers racist and xenophobic insults at the hands of three “red neck” Texans. In the eyes of “The X-Files,” Texans are seen to be as almost hateful as the terrorist and stereotypes are acceptable when they involve white Southerners. (Price Peterson did not feel moved to point out this stereotype in his review.) Another implication behind the behavior of the Texans is that the conduct of the U.S. and its citizens is at least partially responsible for terrorism. This point is further brought home  by a cable news debate several minutes of which are seen and/or heard during the episode. The argument is disgusting.

About half way through “Babylon,” F.B.I. Special Agent Brem (Eric Breker) expresses views about Muslims and terrorism that are only held by a minuscule percentage of the American population and no F.B.I. agents that exist outside of movies and TV shows. The audience is condescended to when Agent Dana Scully, portrayed by Gillian Anderson, responds to his rant with the line: “Not all Muslims are extremists, certainly.” Even a young child knows this. The lesson is repeated when two Homeland Security agents converse in Arabic later on in the show. Are we all grade school students who need to be reminded that some Muslims are working in law enforcement to keep us safe in the U.S.?

ariane179254_TheXFiles_10x05-Babylon_2788.jpg

Before Brem exits the episode he explains that he wants a terrorist in a coma, who is actually a “beautiful baby boy,” because he did not activate his suicide vest, to remain alive so he suffers. When Scully says she “witnessed unqualified hate that appears to have no end” later in the episode she is talking not of the “beautiful baby boy” terrorist but of Brem and a nurse.

IMG_0591.JPG

This white female nurse (Janet Kidder) in question tries to kill the terrorist by turning off his respirator. When she is interrupted she takes the bizarre step of utilizing the opportunity to express over-the-top opposition to Islamic refuges entering the U.S. I assume “The X-Files” creator and episode writer, Chris Carter feels that consulting the online terrorist membership directory will be enough to vet those refuges and ensure that no terrorists enters the U.S. disguised as refugees. The fact of the matter is that many of those who request asylum either have no paperwork or destroy it before it can be checked. Such people can claim to be anyone and none of their assertions can be verified. Terrorists have already entered the Europe and the United States while pretending to be refuges. Will Carter allow any of the refuges to crash at his mansion until they can get settled?

The nurse, of course, had to be a white person because the Left believes that non-whites can never be prejudiced. I am surprised the nurse was not a man since in the eyes of people like Carter, white males are responsible for all that is bad in the world.

download.jpg

Moral Equivalency

The overarching theme of the installment was moral equivalency. Carter wants us to come away from the episode with the sense that the average citizen of the U.S. is little better than a Muslin terrorist. This point is touched upon during a discussion that takes place during the final scene in which violent passages in the Koran and the Old Testament (or Tora) are compared. The comparison is flawed for several reasons. The number of Christians or Jews who commit terrorist acts after claiming to be inspired by their respective holy books is so small as to be statistically insignificant. Only a small minority of the world’s Christians and Jews interpret their holy books literally. By contrast, 100% of the planet’s faithful Muslims believe every word of the Koran was dictated by God to Mahomed and therefore believe the Koran is the literal word of God. Keep this last point in mind the next time you hear a terrorist justify terrorism by quoting from the violent rhetoric of the Koran.

Miller and Einstein

7806163_the-x-files-episode-5-sneak-preview-babylon_69b96144_m.png

Moving on to more lighthearted criticism, the episode introduced us to F.B.I. Agents Miller and Einstein. Lauren Ambrose brought to life a mildly interesting character in Einstein.  Robbie Amell’s Miller looks more like someone you might see posing outside an Abercrombie and Fitch store with no shirt than an F.B.I. agent.  The concept that the two are meant to be young versions of Agent Fox Mulder (portrayed by David Duchovny) and Scully was just plain silly in a stupid and boring manner of speaking. Is Carter really setting the stage for “The X-Files” to continue on with these new characters after Duchovny and Anderson either quit the show or age out of their roles?

A Major Continuity Error

IMG_0722.JPGThis photograph was taken from my TV and is the best I could do. On both the left and the right sides of the gallery you can see fire balls, smoke and debris from two different bomb detonations.

Before I close I must bring up a whopper of a continuity error made by those who created “Babylon.” It is obvious that, as previously mentioned, the show wants the audience to accept that only one of the two terrorists who walked into the art gallery detonates his suicide vest. However, the viewer is clearly presented with two distinct explosions and two different fireballs during the art gallery scene. This would suggest both vests had to have been detonated. If they were, however, both terrorists would have been blown to smithereens and neither one could have later been seen lying in a hospital bed and in a coma.

Despite the hammering I have given the episode in this review, I nonetheless found it to be fun and thought-provoking TV. Check my blog next week for a review of the season finale.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at T_J_Kong@yahoo.com. I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a YouTube.com channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpauuMnQBSI2FWgFiScj2mw

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

download (3).jpg

 

Why Benghazi Matters and Should be a Difference Maker

05-151807080_10.jpg

The Democrats have been successful in obscuring the facts surrounding Benghazi. The Republicans have been unable to effectively explain to the public why Benghazi does matter and should be a difference maker in the 2016 election. In the text that follows I succeed where the G.O.P. has failed.

20101217101544591797_20.jpg

Private Security Contractors

While George W. Bush was president, the Democrat party created the Boogiemen of “private security contractors” working in the Middle East. Firms like Blackwater were unfairly painted as out of control mercenaries committing violent acts and making large profits while doing so. The image appealed to the party’s left wing base. Those who wet themselves at the mere thought of a firearm took pleasure out of believing that there were too many Americans running around with guns in Iraq and Afghanistan. When deadly encounters between the contractors and others did take place it was seen as another reason to hate Bush. It also fit nicely into the narrative of the Left which argues that it is the actions of the U.S. that are at fault for Islamic terrorism.

When the Barack Obama administration came to power it was faced with the same set of facts that led the Bush administration to rely on private security contractors on a widespread basis. Using them freed up soldiers for combat and they were much cheaper to utilize than similarly trained and capable U.S. military personnel. As former military, intelligence and law enforcement officers, they were typically experienced, more mature than the typical enlisted man and very good at their jobs.

The White House could not have failed to realize that the wise policy decision would be to continue Bush’s widespread reliance on private security contractors in the Middle East. Yet what also could not have been lost on the Obama administration was that if they did so, the Democrats would have shown themselves to be hypocrites for demonizing Bush for the same course of action.  Judged from the cynical perspective of what might cost votes, the best political move was to only hire private security firms for the most low-profile and limited assignments. Only small detachments could be utilized.

The desire to avoid hurting their party in future elections is the only conceivable reason President Barack Obama’s White House and Hillary Clinton’s State Department decided to trust the security of the two men who would ultimately be killed at the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi to a local Libya militia which had little loyalty to those whose lives they were entrusted to protect and even less training. The same reasoning undoubtedly explains the fact that only a handful of private security contractors protected the nearby C.I.A. Annex. It was attacked the same night as the compound. Here two more Americans lost their lives.

Benghazi-attack.jpg

What Happen

It was obvious to those who worked at the compound that the decision to rely on the militia for security put them in danger. Numerous requests were made by them to the State Department for better security. All were denied.

First the local militiamen allowed terrorists to conduct a photographic reconnaissance of the compound. On the night of the attack the militia just walked away without putting up any resistance. The Americans were left to their fate.

Response of Obama and Clinton

Once it became clear just what had happened in Benghazi, the honorable thing for the White House and Clinton to have done would have been to acknowledge that hiring a local militia rather than a private security contractor to protect the compound and not hiring enough contractors to ensure the safety of annex staff were mistakes that resulted in the death of four U.S. citizens at the hands of terrorists.

Since such an admission would have come on the eve of a presidential election this was politically problematic. Obama had campaigned on the notion that he had defeated terrorism and made Americans safe. To admit terrorists had been able to kill four U.S. citizens because proper precautions had not been taken for their safety simply would not do with an election just around the corner. Obama would have a better chance of victory in 2004 if the administration instead claimed that a spontaneous demonstration over a video caused the four deaths on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

Hillary Clinton played her part well. She would repeat the lie about the video several times despite the fact that within twenty four hours of the start of the attack she emailed her daughter, the Egyptian prime minister and the Libyan president and described what had happen in Benghazi as a terrorist attack.

Benghazi victums.jpg

As Secretary of State Clinton shared the responsibility for the lives of the four who died in Benghazi in the service of their country with Obama. Clinton also shares a part of the blame for the costly bad judgment shown in allowing a local militia to provide security for the compound. Clinton’s going along with the deception concerning why they died showed her to not just be dishonest but to lack character. Eight years of bad judgment and a lack of character will have been more than enough. We do not need four more. We do not need a President Hillary Clinton.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please consider sharing it on Facebook or Twitter.

 You may also want to follow my blog and follow me on Twitter (T.J.Kong @Ride_the_bomb).

You can email me at T_J_Kong@yahoo.com. I always welcome suggestions for blog topics.

 I also have a YouTube.com channel called: “Ride the Bomb!” See https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpauuMnQBSI2FWgFiScj2mw

I believe in free speech and so I approve all blog comments. No exceptions.

a_orig_benghazi_fivethings_151022.JPG