Archive for the ‘Military’ Category
2010 OLYMPICS, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BELGIAN MALINOIS, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, ISLAM, ISLAMIC SHARIA COUNCIL, ISRAEL, JOHN FORD, JOHN WAYNE, MUHAMMED, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, TERROR, TERRORISM, TEXAS RANGERS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE SEARCHERS, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. NAVY SEALS
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 1, 2016 at 12:46 am
There’s a scene in the classic 1956 Western, The Searchers, that counterterrorism experts should study closely.
John Wayne–in the role of Indian-hating Ethan Edwards–and a party of Texas Rangers discover the corpse of a Comanche killed during a raid on a nearby farmhouse.
One of the Rangers–a teenager enraged by the Indians’ killing of his family–picks up a rock and bashes in the head of the dead Indian.
Wayne, sitting astride his horse, asks: “Why don’t you finish the job?”
He draws his revolver and fires two shots, taking out the eyes of the dead Comanche–although the mutilation is not depicted onscreen.

John Wayne as Ethan Edwards in The Searchers
The leader of the Rangers, a part-time minister, asks: ”What good did that do?”
“By what you preach, none,” says Wayne/Edwards. “But by what that Comanche believes–ain’t got no eyes, he can’t enter the Spirit land. Has to wander forever between the winds. You get it, Reverend.”
Now, fast forward to May 1, 2011: U.S. Navy SEALS descend on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and kill Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda chieftain.
Among the details of the raid that most titillates the media and public: The commandos were accompanied by a bomb-sniffing dog, a Belgian Malinois.
The canine was strapped to a member of the SEAL team as he lowered himself and the dog to the ground from a hovering helicopter near the compound.

Heavily armored dogs–equipped with infrared night-sight cameras–have been used in the past by the top-secret unit.
The cameras on their heads beam live TV pictures back to the troops, providing them with critical information and warning of ambushes.
The war dogs wear ballistic body armor that is said to withstand damage from single and double-edged knives, as well as protective gear which shields them from shrapnel and gunfire.
Some dogs are trained to silently locate booby traps and concealed enemies such as snipers. The dogs’ keen senses of smell and hearing makes them far more effective at detecting these dangers than humans.
The animals will attack anyone carrying a weapon and have become a pivotal part of special operations as they crawl unnoticed into tunnels or rooms to hunt for enemy combatants.
Which brings us to the ultimate of ironies: Osama bin Laden may have been killed through the aid of an animal Muslims fear and despise.
Muslims generally cast dogs in a negative light because of their ritual impurity. Muhammad did not like dogs according to Sunni tradition, and most practicing Muslims do not have dogs as pets.
It is said that angels do not enter a house which contains a dog. Though dogs are not allowed for pets, they are allowed to be kept if used for work, such as guarding the house or farm, or when used for hunting.
Because Islam considers dogs in general to be unclean, many Muslim taxi drivers and store owners have refused to accommodate customers who have guide dogs.
In 2003, the Islamic Sharia Council, based in the United Kingdom, ruled that the ban on dogs does not apply to those used for guide work.
But many Muslims continue to refuse access, and see the pressure to allow the dogs as an attack upon their religious beliefs.
Counterterror specialists have learned that Muslims’ dread of dogs can be turned into a potent weapon against Islamic suicide bombers.
In Israel, use of bomb-sniffing dogs has proven highly effective—but not simply because of the dogs’ ability to detect explosives through their highly-developed sense of smell.
Muslim suicide-bombers fear that if they blow themselves up near a dog, they might kill the animal—and its unclean blood might be mingled with their own. This would make them unworthy to ascend to Heaven and claim those 72 willing virgins.
Similarly, news in 2009 that bomb-sniffing dogs might soon be patrolling Metro Vancouver’s buses and SkyTrains as a prelude to the 2010 Olympics touched off Muslims’ alarms.
“If I am going to the mosque and pray, and I have this saliva on my body, I have to go and change or clean,” said Shawket Hassan, vice president of the British Columbia Muslim Association.
Hassan said that he wanted the transit police to develop guidelines that would keep the dogs about one foot away from passengers.
What are the lessons to be learned from all this? They are two-fold:
- Only timely tactical intelligence will reveal Islamic terrorists’ latest plans for destruction.
- But no matter how adept such killers prove at concealing their momentary aims, they cannot conceal the attributes and long-term objectives of the religion, history and culture which have scarred and molded them.
American police, Intelligence and military operatives must constantly ask themselves: “How can we turn Islamic religion, Islamic history and islamic culture into weapons against the terrorists we face?”
These institutions must become intimately knowledgeable about the mindset of our Islamic enemies, just as the best frontier Army scouts and officers became knowledgeable about the mindset of the Indians they fought.
And then they must ruthlessly apply that knowledge against the weaknesses of those sworn enemies.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AL QAEDA, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CHRISTIANITY, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, FACEBOOK, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, IRAN, IRANIAN REVOLUTION, ISLAM, JOSEPH STALIN, MUNICH OLYMPICS MASSACRE, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RACIAL PROFILING, RELIGION, SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON, SYRIAN EXODUS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WINSTON CHURCHILL, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 31, 2016 at 12:11 am
During the 1930s, Winston Churchill, a seemingly failed politician, repeatedly warned his British countrymen against the growing menace of Nazi Germany.
The leaders of Britain and France–the two great victors of World War 1–hoped that if they simply ignored the increasingly aggressive behavior of German Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, they could somehow escape catastrophe.

Winston Churchill
This aggressive behavior included:
- In the early 1930s, Hitler began re-building a powerful German army in open defiance of the Versallies Treaty that had ended World War 1.
- Hitler ordered his army to occupy his native Austria in 1938.
- In 1938, Hitler demanded that Czechoslavakia cede the Sudetenland, its northern, southwest and western regions, which were inhabited mostly by ethnic Germans.
- British Prime Minister Nveille Chamberlain surrendered to Hitler’s demands at the infamous “Munich conference.” Believing they had avoided war, his fellow Britons were ecstatic.
- In March, 1939, the German army occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia.
- Hitler next turned his attention to Poland–which he invaded on September 1.
- In doing so, he unintentionally triggered World War II.

Adolf Hitler
In time, historians and statesmen would agree: Trying to appease dictators is futile–and a guarantee for their further aggression.
It is a lesson that current world leaders have forgotten as Islamic fundamentalists increasingly flex their military and economic muscles–and demand that Western nations bow to their demands.
- In Iran, scientists continue to fashion a nuclear weapons program–while insisting they intend to use the atom only for “peaceful purposes.”
- In Pakistan–which has 90-110 nuclear warheads–Osama bin Laden lived less than a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy, the country’s West Point. So much for America’s “ally” in the “war on terror.”
- On January 7, 2015, the worst terrorist act in France since World War II occurred when three Islamics slaughtered 12 people at a satirical magazine that had published cartoons about the Prophet Muhammed.
- The rising tide of Muslim population growth spells deadly challenges for non-Islamic nations.
Winston Churchill’s warnings were ignored by other world leaders–most notably Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin–until their countries became victims of unprovoked aggression.
So were the warnings of Harvard political science professor Samuel P. Huntington.
In 1993, he published an essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Clash of Civilizations.” Its thesis: In the post-Cold War world, nationalism would decline and differing cultures and religions would emerge as the primary sources of conflict.

Huntington’s critique of Islamic civilizations ignited a firestorm of controversy–especially his statement: “Islam has bloody borders.”
In 1996, Huntington expanded his thesis into a book–called The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
Among his assertions:
- People are divided along religious and cultural lines.
- Islamic civilization do not share the general ideals of the Western world–such as individualism and democracy.
- Their primary attachment is to their religion, not to their nation-state.
- When the Muslim world conflicts with other civilizations, tensions and wars result.
- Arab dictatorships are fragile and can be overturned by the masses of unemployed young men. But even if they fall, the new regimes will not modernize along Western lines.
- A fundamental clash of civilizations between Islam and the West is inevitable.
- Relations between Muslims and non-Muslims–such as Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews–have been marked by Islamic antagonism and violence.
- Western nations should distance themselves from Islamic ones. The more both civilizations interact, the greater tensions between them will be.
Huntington cited several reasons for an inevitable war between the West and Islam:
- Western secular vs. Islamic religious values.
- Past historical rivalry between Christianity and Islam.
- Jealousy of Western power by Islamic nations.
- Islamic resentments of Western domination during the post-colonial restructuring of the Middle East.
- Islamic bitterness and humiliation at the achievements of Western civilization over the last 200 years.
A point of Islamic irony:
Islamic terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS damn Western nations as havens of corrupt infidels. But it’s to Europe and the United States that tens of thousands of Syrians and Iraqis are now fleeing.
And they are fleeing to escape the barbaric slaughters of their fellow Islamics.
Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, a quasi-war developed between some Islamic nations and some Western ones.
On the Islamic side:
- Iran
- Sudan
- Iraq
- Libya
- Syria.
On the Western side:
- The United States
- Great Britain.
“In this quasi war,” wrote Huntington, “each side has capitalized on its own strengths and the other side’s weaknesses.” For example:
- Muslim terrorists exploited the openness of Western societies to plant car bombs at selected targets.
- Western powers used their superior air power to bomb selected targets in Islamic countries.
- Islamics plotted the assassination of Western leaders.
- The United States plotted the overthrow of hostile Islamic regimes.
Writing at a time before the United States directed its full military power at conquering Afghanistan and Iraq, Huntington ominously noted:
“During the 15 years between 1980 and 1995…the United States engaged in 17 military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed against Muslims. No comparable pattern of U.S. military operations occurred against the people of any other civilization.”
And that was before 9/11 plunged the United States into fullscale conflict with Afghanistan and iraq.
The war that Huntington warned was coming and was, in fact, already in progress, has since erupted into full-scale conflict, with no end in sight.
9/11, ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AL QAEDA, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CHRISTIANITY, CNN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, FACEBOOK, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, IRAN, IRANIAN REVOLUTION, ISLAM, JOSEPH STALIN, LEBANON, MUNICH OLYMPICS MASSACRE, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RACIAL PROFILING, RELIGION, SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WINSTON CHURCHILL, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 30, 2016 at 12:01 am
There is a famous joke about racial profiling that’s long made the rounds of the Internet. It appears in the guise of a “history test,” and offers such multiple-choice questions as:
In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
- Olga Korbut
- Sitting Bull
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
- Lost Norwegians
- Elvis
- A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
- Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
- John Dillinger
- The King of Sweden
- The Boy Scouts
- Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
- A pizza delivery boy
- Pee Wee Herman
- Geraldo Rivera
- Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
On September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked. Two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Center; one crashed into the Pentagon; and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
- Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
- The Supreme Court of Florida
- Mr. Bean
- Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

* * * * *
It’s well to remember the bitter truth behind this joke, especially in light of such Islamic atrocities as:
- On April 15, 2013, two pressure-cooker bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 people and injuring 264. The culprits: Two Muslim brothers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who had emigrated to the United States from the former Soviet Union.
- On May 22, 2013, two Islamic terrorists, wielding machetes and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is Great!”) hacked a British soldier to death on a London street.
- On January 7, 2015, 2015, the worst terrorist act in France since World War II occurred when three Islamics slaughtered 12 people at a satirical magazine that had published cartoons about the Prophet Muhammed.
Writing in the British newspaper, The Spectator, Douglas Murray issued a warning to his fellow Britons: “Over recent years, those who have warned that such attacks would come here have been attacked as ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ and, most commonly, ‘Islamophobes.’
“A refusal to recognise the actual threat (a growingly radicalised Islam) has dominated most of our media and nearly all our political class.”
One man who did foresee the present conflicts with stunning clarity–and had the courage to say what has since become Politically Incorrect–was Samuel P. Huntington.

Samuel P. Huntington
A political scientist, Huntington taught government at Harvard University (1950-1959, then at Columbia University (1959-1962). He returned to Harvard in 1963, and remained there until his death in 2008.
The author of nine books, in 1996 he published his most influential one: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Its thesis was that, in the post-Cold War world, people’s cultural and religious identities would be the primary sources of conflict.
Among the points he makes:
- Modernization does not mean Westernization.
- Economic progress has come with a revival of religion.
- Post-Cold War politics emphasize ethnic nationalism over ideology.
- Civilizations are fundamentally differentiated from each other by centuries-old history, language, culture, tradition, and, most important, religion.
- As the world becomes smaller, different civilizations increasingly interact. These intensify civilization consciousness and the awareness of differences between civilizations.
- Economic modernization and social change separate people from age-old identities (such as hometowns and familiar neighbors). Religion has replaced this gap, providing a basis for identity, socialization and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
- The West, at the peak of its power, is confronting non-Western countries that increasingly have the desire, will and resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
- Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.

The most controversial part of The Clash of Civilizations focuses on Islam. Huntington points out, for example, that Muslim countries are involved in far more intergroup violence than others.
And he warns that the West’s future conflcts with Islamic nations will be rooted in the Islamic religion:
“Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
Huntington argues that civilisztional conflicts are “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims.” Among the reasons for these conflicts: Both Islam and Christianity have similarities which heighten conflicts between their followers:
- Both seek to convert others.
- Both are “all-or-nothing” religions; each side believes that only its faith is the correct one.
- The followers of both Islam and Christianity believe that people who violate the base principles of their religion are idolators and thus damned.
Other reasons for the Western-Islamic clash are:
- The Islamic revival, which began in the 1970s and is manifested in greater religious piety and in a growing adoption of Islamic culture, values, dress, separation of the sexes, speech and media censorship.
- Western universalism–the belief that all civilizations should adopt Western values–infuriates Islamic fundamentalists.
These are not differences that will disappear–overnight or even over the span of several centuries. Nor will they be sweet-talked away by Politically Correct politicians, however well-meaning.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AL QAEDA, ARTHUR M. CUMMINGS, BARACK OBAMA, BOKO HARAM, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CANADA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAVID CAMERON, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, HATE CRIMES, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, MOHAMMED, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RELIGION, ROBERT MEULLER III, RONALD KESSLER, SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, STEVEN EMERSON, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, THE INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT ON TERRORISM, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE SECRETS OF THE FBI, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER, TWITTER, VERA LYNN, WORLD TRADE CENTER, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 29, 2016 at 12:08 am
During World War II, British singer Vera Lynn comforted her war-weary fellow citizens with a poignant rendition of “The White Cliffs of Dover.”
The appeal of the song lay in its promise that, once Nazi Germany was defeated, peace and normality would return.
Click here: Vera Lynn: The White Cliffs of Dover – YouTube
And despite being threatened with invasion in 1940 and devastated by massive bombing raids in 1940-41, citizens of Great Britain could take heart in the following:
- Nazi Germany had a capitol–Berlin–and a single, all-powerful leader–Adolf Hitler. Once Berlin was occupied and Hitler dead or captured, the war would be over.
- And, for all their ferocity, German soldiers were easy to recognize: They wore gray uniforms, spoke German and waved flags emblazoned with swastikas or imperial eagles.

Wehrmacht soldiers marching through conquered France
Today, Western nations under attack by Islamic “holy warriors” face none of those advantages. Islam has no single capitol city–or leader.
Nor do Islam’s jihadist legions wear uniforms. Many of them don’t speak Arabic or wear clothing associated with Arabs, such as flowing robes and headdresses.
More ominously, millions of Islam’s potential “warriors” live within the very Western nations they despise. They can get all the instruction and inspiration they need to wreck havoc simply by going to the Internet.
Or, if they have the money, by traveling overseas to such terrorist-recruiting centers as in Syria or Afghanistan.
And yet, faced with an unprecedented threat to their security, many Western leaders refuse to publicly acknowledge this fundamental truth:
Even if the West isn’t at war with Islam, Islam is at war with the West.
Leaders like President Barack Obama, who insisted, at a White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February, 2015: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

David Cameron
And leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said on August 29, 2014: “Islam is a religion observed peacefully by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a poisonous ideology observed by a minority.”
It was at this same press conference that Cameron announced that United Kingdom authorities would soon begin revoking the passports of British citizens traveling to Syria.
Arthur M. Cummings, the FBI’s executive assistant director for national security, has no use for such Politically Correct terms as “man-caused disasters” to refer to terrorism. Nor does he shy away from terms such as “jihadists” or “Islamists.”
“Of course Islamists dominate the terrorism of today,” he says bluntly.
In May, 2014, Steven Emerson, a nationally recognized expert on terrorism, posted an ad in The New York Times, warning about the dangers of PC-imposed censorship:
“Our nation’s security and its cherished value of free speech has been endangered by the bullying campaigns of radical Islamic groups, masquerading as ‘civil rights’ organizations, to remove any reference to the Islamist motivation behind Islamic terrorist attacks.
“These groups have pressured or otherwise colluded with Hollywood, the news media, museums, book publishers, law enforcement and the Obama Administration in censoring the words ‘Islamist’, ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘radical Islam’ and ‘jihad’ in discussing or referencing the threat and danger of Islamic terrorism.
“This is the new form of the jihadist threat we face. It’s an attack on one of our most sacred freedoms—free speech—and it endangers our very national security. How can we win the war against radical Islam if we can’t even name the enemy?”

He has a point–and a highly legitimate one.
Imagine the United States fighting World War II–and President Franklin Roosevelt banning the use of “fascist” in referring to Nazi Germany or “imperialist” in describing Imperial Japan.
Imagine CNN-like coverage of the Nazi extermination camps, with their piles of rotting corpses and smoking gas ovens, while a commentator reminds us that “Nazism is an ideology of peace.”
Then consider these Islamic terrorist outrages of our own time:
- The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., which snuffed out the lives of 3,000 Americans.
- The 2004 bombing of Madrid’s commuter train system.
- The attack on the London subway in 2005.
- The killing of 13 U.S. Army personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, by a Muslim army major in 2009.
- The bombing of the Boston Marathon in 2013.
- The kidnapping of 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram in 2014.
- The slaughter of 12 people at a Paris satirical magazine that had published cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed in 2015.
- The murders of more than 100 people in ISIS attacks across Paris in 2015.
- A series of deadly terrorist attacks in Brussels, killing 31 and injuring 270 in 2016.
In every one of these attacks, the perpetrators openly announced that their actions had been motivated by their Islamic beliefs.
In his groundbreaking book, The Clash of Civilizations (1996) Samuel Huntington, the late political scientist at Harvard University, noted:
“The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
The West may not be at war with Islam–as countless Western politicians repeatedly assert. But Islamics have no qualms about declaring that they are at war with the West.
ABC NEWS, ADOLF HITLER, AL QAEDA, ARTHUR M. CUMMINGS, BARACK OBAMA, BOKO HARAM, BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING, CANADA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DAVID CAMERON, DENMARK, DONALD TRUMP, FACEBOOK, FBI, HATE CRIMES, INVESTIGATIVE PROJECT ON TERRORISM, ISLAM, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, MOHAMMED, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, NIGER, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, RELIGION, ROBERT MEULLER III, RONALD KESSLER, SAMUEL HUNTINGTON, STEVEN EMERSON, TALIBAN, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE SECRETS OF THE FBI, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER, TWITTER, VERA LYNN, WORLD TRADE CENTER, WORLD WAR ii
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 27, 2016 at 11:58 pm
The headline on the CNN website said it all–or seemed to: “Religion’s Week From Hell.”
Then came the first paragraph: “Whether you believe that religious violence is fueled by faith or is a symptom of larger factors–political instability, poverty, cultural chaos–one thing seems clear: Last week was hellish for religion.”
The story–published on the CNN website on February 18, 2015–then outlined a series of atrocities committed in the name of religion:
“Across several continents, including North America, Europe, Central Asia and Africa, scores of religious believers suffered and died in brutal attacks over the past seven days.”
Click here: Religion’s week from hell – CNN.com
And here was the day-by-day chronicle of slaughter:
Monday–February 9:
- Boko Haram, the Islamic group based in Nigeria, attacked several towns in Cameroon, kidnapping 20 people. They also exploded a car bomb in Niger. At the time, the death toll was unclear.
Tuesday–February 10:
- Craig Hicks, an athiest who ranted against religion on the Internet, was charged with killing three young Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Wednesday–February 11:
- The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) attacked Kurdish forces in northern Iraq and Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. At least 31 people were killed in Baghdad by ISIS bombs.
Thursday–February 12:
- Al Qaeda seized a key military base in Baihan, Yemen, killing four Yemeni soldiers. They then took control of the town’s weaponry.
- With the United States’ having already closed its embassy in Yemen, Italy, Germany and Saudi Arabia did the same.
Friday–February 13:
- Boko Haram killed 21 people in attacks on Mbuta and Akida villages in Nigeria.
- The Islamic terror group also killed four civilians and a soldier in neighboring Chad.
- In Peshawar, Pakistan, the Taliban attacked a Shia mosque, killing 19 and wounding dozens.
Saturday–February 14:
- In Copenhagen, Denmark, an Islamic gunman fired at attendees of a free-speech forum, where a Swedish cartoonist was scheduled to speak. His alleged crime: Depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Casualties: Three officers wounded and one 55-year-old man killed.
- Hours later, the same terrorist visited a Copenhagen synagogue. Opening fire, he wounded two officers and killed a private security guard.
Sunday–February 15:
- ISIS released a video showing its members beheading more than a dozen members of Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority on a Libyan beach.
So much for “religion’s week from hell.”
Except that the title of this story was completely misleading. It would have been more accurately entitled: “Islamic Religion’s Week of Hell.”

ISIS member beheading a helpless captive
Of the 13 atrocities detailed above, all but one showcased Islamics as the murderers.
The single exception was that of Craig Hicks, an athiest who was charged with shooting three Muslim college students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
It was this case–and not any of the others–that brought Muslims to demand “justice.” Muslims immediately urged the Obama administration to investigate the murders as a hate crime.
Suzanne Barakat, the sister of one of the victims, said the students had been murdered because they were Muslims. She said that the killings should be considered an act of terrorism: “It’s time people call it what it is.”
But getting Islamics to label other Islamics as terrorists is an entirely different matter.
According to author Ronald Kessler, this has caused serious problems for the FBI. In his 2011 book, The Secrets of the FBI, Kessler notes the refusal of the Islamic community to identify known or potential terrorists within its ranks.

Says Arthur M. Cummings, the Bureau’s executive assistant director for national security: “I had this discussion with the director of a very prominent Muslim organization here in [Washington] D.C. And he said, ‘Why are you guys always looking at the Muslim community?’”
“I can name the homegrown cells, all of whom are Muslim, all of whom were seeking to kill Americans,” replied Cummings. “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants. It’s the Muslims.”
Occasionally, Muslims will condemn Al Qaeda. But “rarely do we have them coming to us and saying, ‘There are three guys in the community that we’re very concerned about.’” said Cummings.
“They don’t want anyone to know they have extremists in their community. Well, beautiful. Except do you read the newspapers? Everybody already knows it. The horse has left the barn.
“So there’s a lot of talk about engagement. But, realistically, we’ve got a long, long way to go.”
At one community meeting, an Islamic leader suggested to Cummings that then-FBI director Robert Meuller III should pose for a picture with his group’s members. The reason: To show that Islamics are partners in the “war on terror.”
“When you bring to my attention real extremists who are here to plan and do something, who are here supporting terrorism,” said Cummings, “then I promise you, I will have the director stand up on the stage with you.”
“That could never happen,” replied the Islamic leader. “We would lose our constituency. We could never admit to bringing someone to the FBI.”
Donald Trump–alone of the Republican and Democratic candidates for President–has dared to say the un-sayable: Islam is at war with us.
And this candor–coupled with repeated Islamic atrocities–has propelled him to the front of Republican candidates.
ABC NEWS, ALLEN DULLES, BRIDGE OF SPIES, CBS NEWS, CNN, COLD WAR, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EAST GERMANY, FACEBOOK, FRANCIS GARY POWERS, JAMES DONOVAN, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, KGB, NBC NEWS, RED SCARE, RUDOLPH ABEL, SOVIET UNION, STASI, STEVEN SPIELBERG, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM HANKS, TWITTER, U-2
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 21, 2016 at 12:01 am
“Bridge of Spies” vividly recaptures a now-forgotten time in American history.
It was the time of “the Cold War.” A time when:
- America was almost universally seen as “The Good Guy,” in contrast to “The Bad Guy” of the Soviet Union;
- The United States and the Soviet Union held each other at bay with arsenals of nuclear weapons;
- Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy terrorized the nation, accusing anyone who disagreed with him of being a Communist–and leaving ruined lives in his wake;
- American TVs blared commercials warning that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had boasted: “We will bury you”; and
- Children and teenagers were taught in school that they could survive a nuclear attack through “duck and cover” drills. They were instructed to keep their bathtubs filled with water for safe drinking, in the event of a Soviet nuclear strike.

Bert the Turtle teaches schoolchildren to “Duck and Cover”
Yet even in this poisonous atmosphere of fear and denunciation, some men stood out as heroes–simply by holding fast to their consciences.
One of these was a New York insurance attorney named James B. Donovan (played by Tom Hanks). Asked by the Justice Department to defend arrested Soviet spy Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance) Donovan did what no one expected.
He gave Abel a truly vigorous defense, arguing that the evidence used to convict him was the legally-tainted product of an invalid search warrant.
Upon Abel’s conviction and sentencing to 45 years’ imprisonment, Donovan again shocked the political and legal communities by appealing the case to the Supreme Court.
Donovan argued that Constitutional protections should apply to everyone–including non-Americans–tried in American courts. To do less made a mockery of the very freedoms we claimed to champion.
He lost by a vote of 5-4. But the arguments he made would resurface 50 years later when al-Qaeda suspects were hauled into American courts.

James B. Donovan
In 1961, Donovan was again called upon to render service by a Federal agency–this time the CIA. It wanted his help in negotiating the release of its spy, Francis Gary Powers, shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960 while flying a high-altitude U-2 spy plane.
Throughout “Bridge of Spies,” audiences learn some unsettling truths about how the American government–and governments generally– actually operate.
The first three of these were outlined in Part one of this series:
Truth #1: Appearance counts for more than reality.
Truth #2: Individual conscience can wreck the best-laid plans of government.
Truth #3: High-ranking government officials will ask citizens to take risks they themselves refuse to take.
Now for the remaining truths revealed in this movie.
Truth #4: Appeals to fear often prevail when appeals to humanity are ignored.
After crossing into East Germany, Donovan enters into negotiations with Wolfgang Vogel, a lawyer representing the East German government.
Vogel offers to exchange Frederic Pryor, an American economics graduate student seized by the East German secret police, for Abel. Donovan replies this is a deal-breaker; the United States (which is never mentioned during the negotiations) wants Powers, not Pryor.
Nevertheless, Donovan is equally concerned for Pryor, and adds him to the list of hostages to be released in return for Abel.
Then a new complication arises: The East German government that holds Pryor threatens to pull out. claiming to be insulted because Donovan did not inform them that the USSR was a party to the negotiation.
His reasoned, legal arguments having failed, Donovan resorts to a threat. He conveys a warning to the president of East Germany:
Abel has not yet revealed any Soviet secrets. But if this deal fails, he may well do so to earn favors from the United States government. And, in that case, the Soviets will blame you–Erich Honecker, the president of East Germany–for the resulting damage.
Where arguments based on humanity have failed, this one–based on fear–works. A prisoner-exchange is arranged.
Truth #5: Personal loyalty can supersede bureaucratic inventions.
On February 10, 1962, Donovan, Abel and several CIA agents arrive at the Glienicke Bridge, which connects East and West Germany. The Soviets have Powers, but not Pryor–who is to be released at Checkpoint Charlie, a crossing point between East and West Berlin.
Glienicke Bridge, the “Bridge of Spies”
The CIA agent in charge of the American delegation tells Abel he can cross into East Germany, even though Pryor has not been released.
But Abel has learned that Donovan has negotiated the release of not only Powers but Pryor. Out of loyalty to the man who has vigorously defended him, he waits on his side of the bridge until word arrives that Pryor has been released.
Then Abel crosses into East Germany while Powers crosses into the Western sector.
Donovan returns home. Before flying off to West Germany, he had told his wife he was going on a fishing trip in Scotland.
His wife and children learn the truth about the risks he ran and the success he attained only when a television newscast breaks the news:
Francis Gary Powers has been returned to the United States. And the man responsible is James Donovan, once the most reviled man in America for having defended a notorious Soviet spy.
ABC NEWS, ALLEN DULLES, BRIDGE OF SPIES, CBS NEWS, CIA, CNN, COLD WAR, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, EAST GERMANY, FACEBOOK, FRANCIS GARY POWERS, JOHN F. KENNEDY, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, KGB, NBC NEWS, RED SCARE, RUDOLPH ABEL, SOVIET UNION, STASI, STEVEN SPIELBERG, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TOM HANKS, TWITTER, U-2
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 18, 2016 at 12:01 am
Steven Spielberg’s new movie, “Bridge of Spies,” is that rarity among films: An intelligent mixture of history and drama, stripped of gratuitous sex and violence.
It’s also a film that accurately reveals unsettling truths about how government intelligence agencies really operate.

Truth #1: Appearance counts for more than reality.
The movie opens with the FBI’s arrest of KGB spy Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance). The evidence against him is overwhelming. This–plus the “Red Scare” climate of 1957–will guarantee his conviction.
But the Eisenhower administration doesn’t want the upcoming trial to be seen as a hangman’s court. It must have the appearance of a fair proceeding.
So the Justice Department (through the Brooklyn Bar Association) asks a New York insurance attorney named James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) to take on Abel’s defense. He’s expected to make a reasonably competent effort but not go all out on behalf of his client.
Truth #2: Individual conscience can wreck the best-laid plans of government.
Donovan has never handled a spy case before. And he has no delusions that Abel isn’t the spy he’s charged with being. But he’s determined to give Abel the same committed defense he would give to any other client.

Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance) and James Donovan (Tom Hanks) in court
This comes as a shock to the prosecutors, the judge, his law firm and even his family.
A CIA agent approaches Donovan in a nearly deserted restaurant and asks him to reveal any secrets that might help win Abel’s conviction.
Donovan replies: “This conversation isn’t happening.”
“No, of course not,” replies the CIA agent, assuming Donovan is agreeing to keep the overture secret.
“No, I mean this conversation isn’t happening,” angrily says Donovan, who leaves the agent fuming.
Donovan becomes a pariah; his mailbox is stuffed with hate mail and one night a would-be drive-by killer riddles his house with bullets.
Abel is convicted and sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment. But Donovan–again shocking everyone he knows–pursues an appeal up to the Supreme Court.
He argues that the evidence against Abel is tainted by an invalid search warrant. No American citizen could be convicted under such circumstances. And the Constitutional protections that hold true for Americans should hold equally true for non-Americans charged with crimes in American courts.
Donovan’s arguments will be heard a half-century later, when al-Qaeda suspects are hauled before American courts.
He puts on an impressive case on Abel’s behalf, but loses 5-4 at the Supreme Court.
That seems to be the end of Donovan’s relationship with Abel. But events soon dictate otherwise.
Before the judge could pronounce a death sentence on Abel, Donovan had argued that this might be a mistake. The day might come, he told the judge, when an American spy might fall into Soviet hands.
And then the United States would need to swap Abel to secure the release of its own agent.
The judge, moved by that argument, had given Abel a lengthy prison term instead.
That day comes sooner than anyone in the Pentagon expects.
On May 1, 1960, Francis Gary Powers, a former Air Force pilot, is flying a high-altitude U-2 plane above the Soviet Union for the CIA. The plane is equipped with state-of-the-art cameras, and Powers intends to photograph military sites and other important complexes.
Suddenly, a surface-to-air missile slams into the plane. Powers ejects before it crashes, but fails to commit suicide with a poison pin concealed in a phony silver dollar. He’s captured by the KGB and brutally interrogated, but maintains his silence.
At about the same time, Frederic Pryor, an American economics graduate student living in West Germany, visits his German girlfriend living in Soviet-dominated East Germany.
The Soviets are starting to build their infamous Berlin Wall, which will stop the flow of refugees from East to West. Pryor tries to bring his girlfriend and her father into West Berlin, but he’s stopped and arrested by agents of Stasi, the East German police, who accuse him of being a spy.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union wants its spy, Abel, returned, before he can spell its secrets. In turn, the new Kennedy administration wants Powers returned, before he can be made to spill American secrets.
Truth #3: High-ranking government officials will ask citizens to take risks they themselves refuse to take.
In 1961, Donovan is once again sought out by the American government–this time by no less than CIA Director Allen Dulles.
And he’s asked to go where no official American representative can go–East Germany. His new assignment: Negotiate the exchange of Powers for Abel.
The CIA wants its spy back. And it’s willing to send Donovan into East Germany to negotiate his release. But it’s not willing to back him up if he’s arrested by Stasi, the notorious East German secret police.
The fiction must be maintained that Donovan is acting strictly on his own behalf, not that of the United States.
In such a case, Donovan could spend the rest of his life in a Communist prison cell.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, CIVIL WAR, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DANIEL DAY-LEWIS, DONALD TRUMP, EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, FACEBOOK, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MEDIA MATTERS, MITT ROMNEY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MOVIES, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SLAVERY, STEVEN SPIELBERG, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, VOTER ID LAWS, VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law, Military, Politics, Social commentary on March 17, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is more than a mesmerizing history lesson.

It’s a timely reminder that racism and repression are not confined to any one period or political party.
At the heart of the film: Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) wants to win ratification of what will be the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. An amendment that will forever ban slavery.
True, Lincoln, in 1862, had issued the Emancipation Proclamation. This—in theory—freed slaves held in the Confederate states that had seceded from the Union in 1861.
But Lincoln regards this as a temporary wartime measure. He fears that once the war ends, the Supreme Court may rule the Proclamation unconstitutional. This might allow Southerners to continue practicing slavery, even after losing the war.
To prevent this, Congress must pass an anti-slavery amendment.

But winning Congressional passage of such an amendment won’t be easy.
The Senate had ratified its passage in 1864. But the amendment must secure approval from the House of Representatives to become law.
And the House is filled with men–there are no women menmbers during the 19th century–who seethe with hostility.
Some are hostile to Lincoln personally. One of them dubs him a dictator–Abraham Africanus.” Another accuses him of shifting his positions for the sake of expediency.
Other members–white men all–are hostile to the idea of “equality between the races.” To them, ending slavery means opening the door to interracial marriage–especially marriage between black men and white women.
Perhaps even worse, it means possibly giving blacks–or women–the the right to vote.
In fact, the possibility that blacks might win voting rights arises early in the movie. Lincoln is speaking to a couple of black Union soldiers, and one of them is unafraid to voice his discontent. He’s upset that black soldiers are paid less than white ones–and that they’re led only by white officers.

He says that, in time, maybe this will change. Maybe, in 100 years, he guesses, blacks will get the right to vote.
(To the shame of all Americans, that’s how long it will eventually take. Not until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 will blacks be guaranteed legal protection against discriminatory voting practices.)
To understand the Congressional debate over the Thirteenth Amendment, it’s necessary to remember this: In Lincoln’s time, the Republicans were the party of progressives.
The party was founded on an anti-slavery platform. Its members were thus reviled as “Black Republicans.” And until the 1960s, the South was solidly Democratic.
Democrats were the ones defending the status quo–slavery–and opposing freed blacks in the South of Reconstruction and long afterward.
In short, in the 18th century, Democrats in the South acted as Republicans do now. The South went Republican only after a Democratic President–Lyndon B. Johnson–rammed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress.
Watching this re-enactment of the 1865 debate in Lincoln is like watching the current Presidential campaign. The same mentalities are at work:
-
Those (in this case, slave-owners) who already have a great deal want to gain even more at the expense of others.
-
Those (slaves and freed blacks) who have little strive to gain more or at least hang onto what they have.
-
Those who defend the privileged wealthy refuse to allow their “social inferiors” to enjoy similar privileges (such as the right to vote).
During the 2012 Presidential race, Republicans tried to bar those likely to vote for President Barack Obama from getting into the voting booth. But their bogus “voter ID” restrictions were struck down in courts across the nation.
Listening to those opposing the amendment, one is reminded of Mitt Romney’s infamous comments about the “47%”:
“Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what….
“Who are dependent upon government, who believe that–that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that’s–it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.”
Put another way: “Who says people have a right to obtain medical care, food and housing? If they can’t inherit unearned wealth the way I did, screw them.”
In the end, it’s Abraham Lincoln who has the final word–and leaves his nation the better for it. Through diplomacy and backroom dealings (trading political offices for votes) he wins passage of the anti-slavery amendment.
The ownership of human chattel is finally an ugly memory of the American past.
The movie closes with a historically-correct tribute to Lincoln’s generosity toward those who opposed him–in Congress and on the battlefield. It occurs during Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address:
“With malice toward none, with charity for all….To bind up the nation’s wounds. To care for him who shall have bourne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan….”
This ending presents a vivid philosophical contrast with the increasingly mean-spirited rhetoric and policies of 2016’s Republican candidates for President–especially those of Donald Trump.
Watching Lincoln, you realize how incredibly lucky America was as a nation to have had such leadership when it was most urgently needed.
.
ABC NEWS, ALAMO, ALTERNET, ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANNA, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DAVID CROCKETT, FACEBOOK, JAMES BOWIE, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAM HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SLAVERY, STEPHEN F. AUSTIN, TEXAS, TEXAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, TEXAS REVOLUTION, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THERMOPYLAE, THREE HUNDRED SPARTANS, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WILLIAM BARRET TRAVIS
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics on March 6, 2016 at 12:01 am
On the night before the final Mexican assault, one man escaped the Alamo to testify to the defenders’ courage. Or so goes the most famous story of the 13-day siege.
He was Louis Rose, a veteran of the Napoleonic wars and the dreadful 1812 retreat from Moscow. Unwilling to die in a hopeless battle, he slipped over a wall and sneaked through Mexican siege lines.
At Grimes County, he found shelter at the homestead of Abraham and Mary Ann Zuber. Their son, William, later claimed that his parents told him of Rose’s visit–and his story of Travis’ “line in the sand” speech.
In 1873, he published the tale in the Texas Almanac.
But many historians believe it is a fabrication. The story comes to us third-hand–from Rose to the Zubers to their son. And it was published 37 years after the Alamo fell.
Even if Travis didn’t draw a line in the sand, every member of the garrison, by remaining to stay, had crossed over his own line.
After a 12-day siege, Santa Anna decided to overwhelm the Alamo.
Some of his officers objected. They wanted to wait for bigger siege cannon to arrive–to knock down the Alamo’s three-feet-thick adobe walls. Without shelter, the defenders would be forced to surrender.
But Santa Anna insisted on an all-out assault: “Without blood and tears, there is no glory.”
The first assault came at about 5 a.m. on Sunday, March 6, 1836.
The fort’s riflemen–aided by 14 cannons–repulsed it. And the second assault as well.
But the third assault proved unstoppable. The Alamo covered three acres, and held at most 250 defenders–against 2,000 Mexican soldiers.
When the Mexicans reached the fort, they mounted scaling ladders and poured over the walls.
Travis was one of the first defenders to fall–shot through the forehead after firing a shotgun into the Mexican soldiery below.

Death of William Barrett Travis (waving sword)
Mexicans broke into the room where the ailing James Bowie lay.
In Three Roads to the Alamo, historian William C. Davis writes that Bowie may have been unconscious or delirious. Mistaking him for a coward, the soldiers bayoneted him and blew out his brains.
But some accounts claim that Bowie died fighting–shooting two Mexicans with pistols, then plunging his famous knife into a third before being bayoneted. Nearly every Alamo movie depicts Bowie’s death this way.

James Bowie’s death
As the Mexicans poured into the fort, at least 60 Texans tried to escape over the walls into the surrounding prairie. But they were quickly dispatched by lance-bearing Mexican cavalry.
The death of David Crockett remains highly controversial.
Baby boomers usually opt for the Walt Disney version: Davy swinging “Old Betsy” as Mexicans surround him. Almost every Alamo movie depicts him fighting to the death.

David Crockett’s Death
But Mexican Lieutenant Colonel Jose Enrique de la Pena claimed Crockett was one of seven Texans who surrendered or were captured and brought before Santa Anna after the battle. Santa Anna ordered their immediate execution, and they were hacked to death with sabers.
Only the 2004 remake of The Alamo has dared to depict this version. Although this version is now accepted by most historians, some still believe the de la Pena diary from which it comes is a forgery.
An hour after the battle erupted, it was over.
That afternoon, Santa Anna ordered the bodies of the slain defenders stacked and burned in three pyres.
Contrary to popular belief, some of the garrison survived:
- Joe, a black slave who had belonged to William B. Travis, the Alamo’s commander;
- Susanah Dickinson, the wife of a lieutenant killed in the Alamo, and her baby, Angelina;
- Several Mexican women and their children.
Also contrary to legend, the bravery of the Alamo defenders did not buy time for Texas to raise an army against Santa Anna. This didn’t happen until after the battle.
But their sacrifice proved crucial in securing Texas’ independence:
- The Alamo’s destruction warned those Texans who had not supported the revolution that they had no choice: They must win, die or flee their homes to the safety of the United States.
- It stirred increasing numbers of Americans to enter Texas and enlist in Sam Houston’s growing army.
- Santa Anna’s army was greatly weakened, losing 600 killed and wounded–a casualty rate of 33%.
- The nearly two-week siege bought time for the Texas convention to meet at Washington-on-the-Brazos and declare independence from Mexico.
On April 21, 1836, Santa Anna made a crucial mistake: During his army’s afternoon siesta, he failed to post sentries around his camp.
That afternoon, Sam Houston’s 900-man army struck the 1,400-man Mexican force at San Jacinto. In 18 minutes, the Texans–shouting “Remember the Alamo!”–killed about 700 Mexican soldiers and wounded 200 others.
The next day, a Texas patrol captured Santa Anna–wearing the uniform of a Mexican private. Resisting angry demands to hang the Mexican dictator, Houston forced Santa Anna to surrender control of Texas in return for his life.
The victory at San Jacinto won the independence of Texas. But the 13-day siege and fall of the Alamo remains the most famous and celebrated part of that conflict.
In 480 B.C., 300 Spartans won immortality at Thermopylae, a narrow mountain pass in ancient Greece, by briefly holding back an invading Persian army of thousands.
Although they died to the last man, their sacrifice inspired the rest of Greece to defeat its invaders.
Like Thermopylae, the battle of the Alamo proved both a defeat–and a victory.
ABC NEWS, ALAMO, ALTERNET, ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANNA, AP, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, DAVID CROCKETT, FACEBOOK, JAMES BOWIE, MEXICO, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SAM HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SLAVERY, STEPHEN F. AUSTIN, TEXAS, TEXAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, TEXAS REVOLUTION, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THERMOPYLAE, THREE HUNDRED SPARTANS, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WILLIAM B. TRAVIS
In Bureaucracy, History, Military on March 4, 2016 at 12:28 am
Sunday, March 6, 2016, marks the 180th anniversary of the most famous event in Texas history: The fall of the Alamo, a crumbling former Spanish mission in the heart of San Antonio.
After a 12-day siege, 180 to 250 Texans were overwhelmed by 2,000 Mexican soldiers.

Mexican troops advancing on the Alamo
Americans “remember the Alamo”–but usually for the wrong reasons.
Some historians believe the battle should have never been fought.
The Alamo was not Thermopylae–a narrow mountain pass blocking the Persian march into ancient Greece. Santa Anna could have simply bypassed it.
In fact, several of Santa Anna’s generals urged the Mexican dictator to do just that–leave a small guard to hold down the fort’s defenders and wipe out the undefended, widely-separated Texas settlements.
But pride held Santa Anna fast to the Alamo. His brother-in-law, General Perfecto de Cos, had been forced to surrender the old mission to revolting Texans in December, 1835.
Santa Anna meant to redeem the fort–and his family honor–by force.
In virtually every Alamo movie, its two co-commanders, James Bowie and William Barret Travis, are portrayed as on the verge of all-out war–with each other.
In John Wayne’s heavily fictionalized 1960 film, The Alamo, Bowie and Travis agree to fight a duel as soon as they’ve whipped the Mexicans besieging them.

James Bowie

William B. Travis
In fact, the frictions between the two lasted only a short while. Just before the siege, some of Bowie’s volunteers–a far larger group than Travis’ regulars–got drunk.
Travis ordered them jailed–and Bowie ordered his men to release them. Bowie then went on a roaring drunk. The next day, a sober Bowie apologized to Travis and agreed they should share command.
This proved a wise decision, for just as the siege started, Bowie was felled by worsening illness–typhoid-pneumonia or tuberculosis.
In almost every Alamo movie, Bowie repeatedly leaves the fort to ambush unsuspecting Mexicans.
In reality, he stayed bed-ridden and lay close to death throughout the 13-day siege.
The Texans intended to make a suicidal stand.
Not true.
From the first day of the siege–February 23–almost to the last–March 6, 1836–messengers rode out of the Alamo seeking help. The defenders believed that if they could cram enough men into the three-acre former mission, they could hold Santa Anna at bay.
No reinforcements reached the Alamo.
Not so. On March 1, 32 men from Gonzalez–the only ones to answer Travis’ call–sneaked through the Mexican lines to enter the Alamo.
Meanwhile, the largest Texan force lay at Fort Deviance in Goliad, 85 miles away. This consisted of 500 men commanded by James Walker Fannin, a West Point dropout.
Fannin was better-suited for the role of Hamlet than military commander.
Upon receiving a plea of help from Travis, he set out in a halfhearted attempt to reach the mission. But when a supply wagon broke down, he returned to Fort Defiance and sat out the rest of the siege.
When the Mexican army approached Fort Defiance, Fannin and 400 of his men panicked and fled into the desert. They were surrounded, forced to surrender, and massacred on March 27
The Alamo garrison was fully prepared to confront the Mexican army.
False. When the Mexicans suddenly arrived in San Antonio on the morning of February 23, 1836, they caught the Texans completely by surprise.
The previous night, they had been celebrating the birthday of George Washington. The Texans rushed headlong into the Alamo, hauling all the supplies they could hastily scrounge.
Santa Anna sent a courier under a flag of truce to the Alamo, demanding unconditional surrender. In effect, the Texans were being given the choice of later execution.
Travis replied with a shot from the fort’s biggest cannon, the 18-pounder (so named for the weight of its cannonball).
Santa Anna ordered the hoisting of a blood-red flag and the opening of an artillery salvo. The siege of the Alamo was on.
San Houston, who was elected general of the non-existent army of Texas, desperately tried to relieve the siege.
Not so.
At Washington-on-the-Brazos, 169 miles east of San Antonio, Texan delegates assembled to form a new government. When news reached the delegates that Travis desperately needed reinforcements, many of them wanted to rush to his defense.
But Houston and others declared they must first declare Texas’ independence. On March 2, 1836, they did just that. Houston spent a good deal of the time drunk.

Sam Houston
Did Travis draw a line?
Easily the most famous Alamo story is that of “the line in the sand.”
On the night of March 5–just prior to the final assault–there was a lull in the near-constant Mexican bombardment. Travis assembled his men and gave them a choice:
They could try to surrender and hope that Santa Anna would be merciful. They could try to escape. Or they could stay and fight.
With his sword, Travis drew a line in the dirt and invited those who would stay to cross over to him.

The entire garrison did–except for two men.
One of these was bed-ridden James Bowie. He asked that his sick-bed be carried over to Travis. The other was a veteran of the Napoleonic wars–Louis Rose.
2010 OLYMPICS, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, BELGIAN MALINOIS, CBS NEWS, CNN, FACEBOOK, ISLAM, ISLAMIC SHARIA COUNCIL, ISRAEL, JOHN FORD, JOHN WAYNE, MUHAMMED, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, TERROR, TERRORISM, TEXAS RANGERS, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE SEARCHERS, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. NAVY SEALS
DOGS NOT BOMBS
In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 1, 2016 at 12:46 amThere’s a scene in the classic 1956 Western, The Searchers, that counterterrorism experts should study closely.
John Wayne–in the role of Indian-hating Ethan Edwards–and a party of Texas Rangers discover the corpse of a Comanche killed during a raid on a nearby farmhouse.
One of the Rangers–a teenager enraged by the Indians’ killing of his family–picks up a rock and bashes in the head of the dead Indian.
Wayne, sitting astride his horse, asks: “Why don’t you finish the job?”
He draws his revolver and fires two shots, taking out the eyes of the dead Comanche–although the mutilation is not depicted onscreen.
John Wayne as Ethan Edwards in The Searchers
The leader of the Rangers, a part-time minister, asks: ”What good did that do?”
“By what you preach, none,” says Wayne/Edwards. “But by what that Comanche believes–ain’t got no eyes, he can’t enter the Spirit land. Has to wander forever between the winds. You get it, Reverend.”
Now, fast forward to May 1, 2011: U.S. Navy SEALS descend on a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and kill Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda chieftain.
Among the details of the raid that most titillates the media and public: The commandos were accompanied by a bomb-sniffing dog, a Belgian Malinois.
The canine was strapped to a member of the SEAL team as he lowered himself and the dog to the ground from a hovering helicopter near the compound.
Heavily armored dogs–equipped with infrared night-sight cameras–have been used in the past by the top-secret unit.
The cameras on their heads beam live TV pictures back to the troops, providing them with critical information and warning of ambushes.
The war dogs wear ballistic body armor that is said to withstand damage from single and double-edged knives, as well as protective gear which shields them from shrapnel and gunfire.
Some dogs are trained to silently locate booby traps and concealed enemies such as snipers. The dogs’ keen senses of smell and hearing makes them far more effective at detecting these dangers than humans.
The animals will attack anyone carrying a weapon and have become a pivotal part of special operations as they crawl unnoticed into tunnels or rooms to hunt for enemy combatants.
Which brings us to the ultimate of ironies: Osama bin Laden may have been killed through the aid of an animal Muslims fear and despise.
Muslims generally cast dogs in a negative light because of their ritual impurity. Muhammad did not like dogs according to Sunni tradition, and most practicing Muslims do not have dogs as pets.
It is said that angels do not enter a house which contains a dog. Though dogs are not allowed for pets, they are allowed to be kept if used for work, such as guarding the house or farm, or when used for hunting.
Because Islam considers dogs in general to be unclean, many Muslim taxi drivers and store owners have refused to accommodate customers who have guide dogs.
In 2003, the Islamic Sharia Council, based in the United Kingdom, ruled that the ban on dogs does not apply to those used for guide work.
But many Muslims continue to refuse access, and see the pressure to allow the dogs as an attack upon their religious beliefs.
Counterterror specialists have learned that Muslims’ dread of dogs can be turned into a potent weapon against Islamic suicide bombers.
In Israel, use of bomb-sniffing dogs has proven highly effective—but not simply because of the dogs’ ability to detect explosives through their highly-developed sense of smell.
Muslim suicide-bombers fear that if they blow themselves up near a dog, they might kill the animal—and its unclean blood might be mingled with their own. This would make them unworthy to ascend to Heaven and claim those 72 willing virgins.
Similarly, news in 2009 that bomb-sniffing dogs might soon be patrolling Metro Vancouver’s buses and SkyTrains as a prelude to the 2010 Olympics touched off Muslims’ alarms.
“If I am going to the mosque and pray, and I have this saliva on my body, I have to go and change or clean,” said Shawket Hassan, vice president of the British Columbia Muslim Association.
Hassan said that he wanted the transit police to develop guidelines that would keep the dogs about one foot away from passengers.
What are the lessons to be learned from all this? They are two-fold:
American police, Intelligence and military operatives must constantly ask themselves: “How can we turn Islamic religion, Islamic history and islamic culture into weapons against the terrorists we face?”
These institutions must become intimately knowledgeable about the mindset of our Islamic enemies, just as the best frontier Army scouts and officers became knowledgeable about the mindset of the Indians they fought.
And then they must ruthlessly apply that knowledge against the weaknesses of those sworn enemies.
Share this: