The Raw Story

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Victims of terror in Africa mostly ignored, while media rages over attacks in Europe

Are African lives worth less than the lives of people elsewhere in the world?

Last week 17 people were killed by terrorists in France. The events were shocking and quite rightly the murders were subject to unequivocal condemnation. At the same time, considerably more people were reported to have been killed by gunmen in Baga, Nigeria, with figures ranging from 150 to over 2,000. But it's the French victims who we focus on, showing our solidarity with them by declaring 'Je suis Charlie', and holding vigils in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere- while the African victims of violence have - certainly until the last day or so - been ignored. Even Nigeria's own President was keener to condemn the Paris attacks than those in his own country. How can this be right? Surely we should be mourning all victims equally?

For a brief period it was fashionable to show concern for the victims of political extremism in Africa. Remember the hash tag when the militant Islamist organization Boko Haram kidnapped schoolgirls in Chibok in Nigeria in 2014? The interest however soon died away.

As the media spotlight was shone elsewhere, Boko Haram continued to make major territorial gains killing thousands in the process. Today, as reported by RT, the group now controls an area of 52,000 square kilometers, the size of Slovakia.

But while Islamic State and their territorial advances became front page news in 2014, the gains made by Boko Haram have, like the group's victims, been ignored. Instead the focus is on the very small 'threat' terrorists pose to Europe, a threat which as I explained here our governments are doing their best to 'big up'.

© AFP Photo/Boko Haram

A screengrab taken on August 24, 2014 from a video released by the Nigerian Islamist extremist group Boko Haram and obtained by AFP shows the leader of the Nigerian Islamist extremist group Boko Haram, Abubakar Shekau (C), delivering a speech at an undisclosed location.

You've probably got more chance of being killed by a lightning strike than by terrorists in Europe but the odds are greater in Africa.

It's certainly more dangerous going to church there than it is in Europe.

Dozens of churches were attacked in Kenya and Tanzania in a wave of bombings in 2013. Two worshippers were killed and thirty injured in a bomb attack at the Roman Catholic Church in Arusha, Tanzania in May 2013. Imagine what a major story it would have been had it happened in Europe, but it was in East Africa, so you probably didn't read about it.

Cameroon is another African country which has more grounds to worry about terrorism than France. Only this week, there's been a fierce battle between government forces and Boko Haram militants in the north of the country. "You will taste what has befallen Nigeria, Your troops cannot do anything to us," Boko Haram's leader Abubakar Shekau declared on video.

In Uganda too, the terrorist threat is very real. In 2010 militants from the Somali-based al-Qaeda affiliate group al-Shabaab killed over 70 people in bomb attacks on venues which were showing the football World Cup final. In September 2013 the same group killed at least 67 people in a shopping mall in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.

It's clear than in many African countries, ordinary civilians have more reasons to worry about being murdered by al-Qaeda type groups than we do in Europe. So why is there the excessive focus on the threat to the West'?

It's partly about furthering the interests of our political elites. As I explained here , the so-called "war on terror" is being used by our governments as a pretext to restrict our age-old civil liberties and gain more control over our lives. They also want to 'big up' the terrorist threat at home to justify their interventionist foreign policies and their continued military presence in the oil-rich Middle East.

explosion Koachinsky Market in Volgograd

© RIA Novosti

Agents of law enforcement and operative services work at the site of an explosion on a trolleybus near Kachinsky Market in Volgograd.

Acknowledging that Africans, and indeed Russians too face bigger risks than we do also wouldn't fit in with the dominant neoconservative narrative of a "clash of civilizations" between radical Islamists, and "the civilized West," with the latter of course including Israel, the state in the front line of the battle. We in the West must be seen to be the prime targets of the terrorists, even though we've been backing the same people in Syria and turned a blind eye when they murdered civilians there. It's our values and our way of life which is being threatened and no one else's.

You could argue too that racism also comes into it. Compare the relative lack of interest in the victims of terror attacks in Africa with the enormous interest there was in the events in Zimbabwe in the early noughties. The land redistribution program of the government was in some cases, accompanied by violence. There were calls in the West for military intervention to topple President Robert Mugabe for his government's treatment of the white farmers and for its persecution of the opposition. Tony Blair, the great 'regime-changer' pronounced "there can be no question of Mugabe being allowed to stay in power" unless forthcoming elections were held to be free or fair. But the level of violence that was taking place at the time was exaggerated, as Seumas Milne highlighted in a 2002 essay. "In a BBC Television interview on Sunday with Foreign Office Minister Baroness Amos, David Frost talked blithely of '100,000 people killed by Mugabe supporters over the last two years.' In fact human rights groups estimate the total number killed on both sides during that period at around 160."

That was still 160 deaths too many, but what happened in Zimbabwe twelve or thirteen years ago, pales in comparison with the far greater crimes which have occurred in countries such as Nigeria, and which have got far less coverage.

bomb blast at Terminus market in city of Jos

© AFP Photo/Str

Firefighters and rescuers extinguish a fire at the scene of a bomb blast at Terminus market in the central city of Jos on May 20, 2014.

There's also the fact that drawing too much attention to the advance of al-Qaeda affiliates in Africa would make people ask how these groups have become so powerful. That's a complex question for which there is no one simple answer. While US forces have been assisting certain countries in Africa in their battles against terrorists, there's no doubt too that Western policy has contributed significantly to the current problems, especially when one bears in mind that it was the NATO powers which toppled the Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi, the main bulwark against al-Qaeda in Northern Africa. Libya, like Syria, saw the West line up on the same side as al-Qaeda .

The neoliberal economic policies that many governments on the continent, including Nigeria's, have pursued at the behest of Western financial institutions has also had a disastrous effect as it has increased economic hardship and pushed more young people towards extremism. "Nigeria's experience with neoliberal economic policy presents a classic example of a state which progressively shifted from a relative welfare state to ad-hoc 'welfarist' state and full blown free market economy....Neoliberal reforms were not concerned with social issues but with market efficiency, which worked against the basic tenets of human rights and constitutional safeguards for Nigerian citizens.... A substantial number (of people) have resorted to criminal activities in the nation. This explains in part why arson, kidnapping, and other criminal activities and social vices are thriving in the Niger Delta region and other parts of the Nigerian state," says Dr Olumide Victor Ekanade, in his 2014 paper The Dynamics of Forced Neoliberalism in Nigeria since the 1980s.

Groups like Boko Haram have undoubtedly benefited from these shifts in economic policies. If terrorism is to be defeated in Africa, then we need to see a return to the more socialist policies that many countries followed after independence in the 1960s and 70s, policies that produced higher levels of employment and greater social justice.

The first step though is to give the problem of terrorism in Africa the attention it deserves. We in the West are not the only people that matter in the world although sometimes it certainly feels that way.

Chomsky: We Are All – Fill in the Blank.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.

Forty-eight hours after hosting a massive march under the banner of free expression, France opened a criminal investigation of a controversial French comedian for a Facebook post he wrote about the Charlie Hebdo attack, and then this morning, arrested him for that post on charges of "defending terrorism." The comedian, Dieudonné (above), previously sought elective office in France on what he called an "anti-Zionist" platform, has had his show banned by numerous government officials in cities throughout France, and has been criminally prosecuted several times before for expressing ideas banned in that country.

The apparently criminal viewpoint he posted on Facebook declared: "Tonight, as far as I'm concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly." Investigators concluded that this was intended to mock the "Je Suis Charlie" slogan and express support for the perpetrator of the Paris supermarket killings (whose last name was "Coulibaly"). Expressing that opinion is evidently a crime in the Republic of Liberté, which prides itself on a line of 20th Century intellectuals - from Sartre and Genet to Foucault and Derrida - whose hallmark was leaving no orthodoxy or convention unmolested, no matter how sacred.

Since that glorious "free speech" march, France has reportedly opened 54 criminal cases for "condoning terrorism." AP reported this morning that "France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism."

As pernicious as this arrest and related "crackdown" on some speech obviously is, it provides a critical value: namely, it underscores the utter scam that was this week's celebration of free speech in the west. The day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, I coincidentally documented the multiple cases in the west - including in the U.S. - where Muslims have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for their political speech. Vanishingly few of this week's bold free expression mavens have ever uttered a peep of protest about any of those cases - either before the Charlie Hebdo attack or since. That's because "free speech," in the hands of many westerners, actually means: it is vital that the ideas I like be protected, and the right to offend groups I dislike be cherished; anything else is fair game.

It is certainly true that many of Dieudonné's views and statements are noxious, although he and his supporters insist that they are "satire" and all in good humor. In that regard, the controversy they provoke is similar to the now-much-beloved cartoons (one French leftist insists the cartoonists were mocking rather than adopting racism and bigotry, but Olivier Cyran, a former writer at the magazine who resigned in 2001, wrote a powerful 2013 letter with ample documentation condemning for descending in the post-9/11 era into full-scale, obsessive anti-Muslim bigotry).

Despite the obvious threat to free speech posed by this arrest, it is inconceivable that any mainstream western media figures would start tweeting "#JeSuisDieudonné" or would upload photographs of themselves performing his ugly Nazi-evoking arm gesture in "solidarity" with his free speech rights. That's true even if he were murdered for his ideas rather than "merely" arrested and prosecuted for them. That's because last week's celebration of the Hebdo cartoonists (well beyond mourning their horrifically unjust murders) was at least as much about approval for their anti-Muslim messages as it was about the free speech rights that were invoked in their support - at least as much.

The vast bulk of the stirring "free speech" tributes over the last week have been little more than an attempt to protect and venerate speech that degrades disfavored groups while rendering off-limits speech that does the same to favored groups, all deceitfully masquerading as lofty principles of liberty. In response to my article containing anti-Jewish cartoons on Monday - which I posted to demonstrate the utter selectivity and inauthenticity of this newfound adoration of offensive speech - I was subjected to endless contortions justifying why anti-Muslim speech is perfectly great and noble while anti-Jewish speech is hideously offensive and evil (the most frequently invoked distinction - "Jews are a race/ethnicity while Muslims aren't" - would come as a huge surprise to the world's Asian, black, Latino and white Jews, as well as to those who identify as "Muslim" as part of their cultural identity even though they don't pray five times a day). As always: it's free speech if it involves ideas I like or attacks groups I dislike, but it's something different when I'm the one who is offended.

Think about the "defending terrorism" criminal offense for which Dieudonné has been arrested. Should it really be a criminal offense - causing someone to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned - to say something along these lines: western countries like France have been bringing violence for so long to Muslims in their countries that I now believe it's justifiable to bring violence to France as a means of making them stop? If you want "terrorism defenses" like that to be criminally prosecuted (as opposed to societally shunned), how about those who justify, cheer for and glorify the invasion and destruction of Iraq, with its "Shock and Awe" slogan signifying an intent to terrorize the civilian population into submission and its monstrous tactics in Fallujah ? Or how about the psychotic calls from a Fox News host, when discussing Muslims radicals, to "kill them ALL." Why is one view permissible and the other criminally barred - other than because the force of law is being used to control political discourse and one form of terrorism (violence in the Muslim world) is done by, rather than to, the west?

For those interested, my comprehensive argument against all "hate speech" laws and other attempts to exploit the law to police political discourse is here. That essay, notably, was written to denounce a proposal by a French minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, to force Twitter to work with the French government to delete tweets which officials like this minister (and future unknown ministers) deem "hateful." France is about as legitimate a symbol of free expression as Charlie Hebdo, which fired one of its writers in 2009 for a single supposedly anti-Semitic sentence in the midst of publishing an orgy of anti-Muslim (not just anti-Islam) content. This week's celebration of France - and the gaggle of tyrannical leaders who joined it - had little to do with free speech and much to do with suppressing ideas they dislike while venerating ideas they prefer.

Perhaps the most intellectually corrupted figure in this regard is, unsurprisingly, France's most celebrated (and easily the world's most overrated) public intellectual, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. He demands criminal suppression of anything smacking of anti-Jewish views (he called for Dieudonné's shows to be banned ("I don't understand why anyone even sees the need for debate") and supported the 2009 firing of the writer for a speech offense against Jews), while shamelessly parading around all last week as the Churchillian champion of free expression when it comes to anti-Muslim cartoons.

But that, inevitably, is precisely the goal, and the effect, of laws that criminalize certain ideas and those who support such laws: to codify a system where the views they like are sanctified and the groups to which they belong protected. The views and groups they most dislike - and only them - are fair game for oppression and degradation.

The arrest of this French comedian so soon after the epic Paris free speech march underscores this point more powerfully than anything I could have written about the selectivity and fraud of this week's "free speech" parade. It also shows - yet again - why those who want to criminalize the ideas they most dislike are at least as dangerous and tyrannical as the ideas they target: at least.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the offices of satirical newspaper and a Jewish supermarket in Paris, EU ministers have issued a joint statement calling for ISPs to help to report and remove extremist material online.

The statement was signed by interior ministers from 11 European countries -- including the UK's Theresa May -- on 11 January, with French ministers and security representatives from the US, Canada and EU in attendance. It called for tighter internet surveillance and border controls.

The letter stated that "the increasingly frequent use of the internet to fuel hatred and violence" was of great concern, and that European nations were steadfast in their "determination to ensure that the internet is not abused to this end, while safeguarding that it remains, in scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law".

It argued that a partnership of major ISPs was "essential to create the conditions of a swift reporting of material that aims to incite hatred and terror and the condition of its removing, where appropriate/possible". This would be in an effort "to prevent and detect radicalisation in an early stage".

In March 2014, the UK's minister for immigration and security alluded to the need for similarly vast internet controls that would give the government details on material "that may not be illegal but certainly is unsavoury and may not be the sort of material that people would want to see or receive" -- namely terrorist propaganda.

The ministers also took the opportunity to reaffirm an "unfailing attachment to the freedom of expression, to human rights, to pluralism, to democracy, to tolerance and to the rule of law".

"By attacking Charlie Hebdo, police officers and Jewish community, the terrorists set out to tear down these universal values. They will not succeed," the letter argued.

The International Otter Survival Fund (IOSF) has become increasingly concerned about the decline of many species of otter in different countries with many little or no government conservation support.

As recently as 2012, the Japanese Otter was officially declared extinct, and of the 13 species across the world, nine are declining in numbers.

In the IUCN Red List, five species are classed as Endangered and two as Vulnerable, meaning that they are facing a high or very high risk of extinction in the wild.

The Eurasian otter, the only species which we have in the UK, is overall classed as Near Threatened, despite recent rises in UK populations, but in Asia it is believed to be critically endangered.

Asia forms about 80 per cent of the geographical range of the Eurasian otter. In parts of China it is almost extinct and in the Changbaishan Mountain Reserve numbers went down from 1.2 million in 1975 to just 4 in 2012 - a decline of over 99 per cent.

There have been no sightings of the species since the early 1990s in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Vietnam and most of India. Even in Europe it is declining in some areas.

Conservation of otters depends on creating a greater awareness of their importance in the ecosystem and demonstrating how vital they are in wetland habitats, says IOSF. They are the ideal environmental indicator species - they use both the land and water habitats and so it is essential that both are in pristine condition.

This is important not just for otters but for all wetland species.

The IOSF is holding a series of training workshop for students, park rangers and government officials to encourage the next generation of otter workers to gather reliable data, encourage enforcement of legal protection and develop effective education/public awareness programmes within local communities.

The most recent workshop was held in Bangladesh in December 2014, where there is an urgent need for conservation as a result of an oil spill in the Sundarbans, home to Asian small-clawed otters.

In that region, 350,000 litres of oil were emptied into this pristine environment killing the small crabs and mudskippers that are prey for the otters.

Dr Paul Yoxon of IOSF says: "The Sundabans is a truly wonderful environment with tiger, crocodile, the rare Ganges and Irrawaddy river dolphins, eagles, kites and egrets.

"The need for conservation has clearly increased with the oil spill and the increasing human pressure, but until now no-one had been looking at the otters.

"Now this will change and with the care of the Bangladeshi people the three species of otter that inhabit this truly remarkable place will continue to survive.

"There is now a Bangladesh Otter Network to take things further and encourage more students to study otters and work on their conservation."

For more information go to www.otter.org

The United States and their satellites have been using nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for the preparation and implementation of "color revolutions" in North Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet countries extensively, which has made numerous headlines across international media. The consequences of such "democratic activity" carried out by Washington can be clearly seen in Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, and in several other countries, where this strategy has led to the creation of uncontrolled chaos.

The tactics of Washington's NGOs can be summed out by a famous quote of retired US Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters: "Hollywood is "preparing the battlefield," and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade."

As a rule, the target of these "cover activities" carried out by NGOs is the struggle for energy markets, or the fight against political opponents, among which the White House highlights Russia, China and Iran. This much explains the latest developments in Hong Kong. Washington has effectively created a network of NGOs there that promote American interests under the pretext of promoting "democracy", which operate by using social networks for spreading their agenda. This same pattern has been duplicated numerous times across the globe to attempt regime change in countries that the White House perceives as a threat to US dominance.

To sponsor these activities Washington has been allocating billions of dollars annually through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - the organization responsible for countless coups around the world along with the CIA, on par with numerous private foundations. It's no coincidence then that in Russia alone there were a total of 650 foreign NGOs back in 2012, that were receiving up to one billion dollars a year, with 20 million handed out by Western diplomatic missions directly.

So, if we are to focus on the post-Soviet region, in recent years Western NGOs have been particularly active in the states of Central Asia, desperate in their strive to trigger "color revolutions" wherever possible. The avid interest of Washington towards this particular region is caused by a number of factors, including considerable deposits of natural resources along with the possibility to control the flow of those by taking a firm footing in the region, such as in destabilized Afghanistan. But the "key" factor behind Washington's thinking is the ability to influence the geopolitical future and stability of the entire Asian continent and Russia. That is why the territory of the Central Asian region is considered by US think tanks an area of choice for projecting political influence on Russia and China, launching military campaigns against Afghanistan and potentially Iran. In this case, the United States seeks to break the Central Asian states away from Russian influence, by extensive use of international organizations and NGOs.

After failing to achieve the redrawing of the political landscape in Central Asia after the so-called "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and the consequent shift of focus of the White House to "democratic political reforms" in Ukraine and in Hong Kong, the US State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2011 have sharply reduced the funding of their ongoing "projects" in Central Asia, by dropping it to 126 million dollars from and initial 436 million. In 2013 the funding was cut even further to 118 million dollars (a 12% decrease of in comparison to 2012).

However, due to the increasing political and economic strength of Russia along with the active participation of the Central Asian states in the Customs Union project implemented by the Russian Federation and a number of other integration initiatives, the White House has made significant adjustments to its policies in the countries of Central Asia. Therefore, to "promote access to free unbiased" media, USAID has allocated an additional 3.8 million dollars to NGOs in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in 2014.

At the same time George Soros has spent a whooping total of 80 million dollars on "democratic reforms" in Kyrgyzstan over the past 11 years . A November 2014 trip by the 84-year-old investor and philanthropist to Kyrgyzstan has attracted a lot of media attention, along with the "considerable" financial assistance he has provided to non-governmental organizations to the "revolution" in Ukraine. George Soros has clearly expressed his anti-Russian position at a press conference of the International Crisis Group in Brussels, where he urged Europe to, "wake up." That is why his visit to Kyrgyzstan was regarded by most foreign observers as an attempt to disrupt the entry of Kyrgyzstan into the Customs Union and its rapprochement with Russia. It's no coincidence that all through his visit the US Embassy in Kyrgyzstan witnessed numerous demonstrations, where protesters urged local NGOs to abstain from taking the "blood money".

It is obvious that Washington will carry on its attempts to actively pursue its own interests in Central Asia through non-governmental organizations, by making sure to take every possible opportunity to increase its influence over the internal affairs of the former Soviet territories. Moreover, bringing loyal leaders to power in those states is believed to be a top priority.

It's obvious that the White House will also attempt to exploit religious factors as a means of destabilization, especially since it has already tested the "Islamic State" scenario along with its satellites in the Gulf elsewhere, proving to be quite effective in spreading chaos not only in a specific region, but also worldwide.

Masked gunman run towards a victim of their gunfire outside the French satirical magazine office, in Paris, January 7, 2015.

The new information has almost confirmed that Paris attack was a false flag operation carried out by the CIA, says Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich, an independent researcher and writer based in Irvine, California.

According to , one of the men responsible for last week's terrorist attack that killed 12 people in the French capital claimed to have lived with the Nigerian man behind the failed al-Qaeda "underwear bomb" plot five years ago, Yemeni Journalist and researcher Mohammed al-Kibsi who met Said Kouachi, the alleged Paris attacker, said on Monday.

In a phone interview with Press TV on Tuesday, Ulrich said, "The whole Paris incident has been a puzzle for many... and one has to find connections to find what really is going on."

"We have been told by the mainstream media, the Western media, that a Yemeni reporter has claimed that he had interviewed Kouachi who was responsible for the Paris attack, or one of those who were responsible," she said.

"And he had ties with 'the underwear bomber', 'the underwear bomber' who was held responsible for wanting to blow up an airliner at Christmas in 2009," Ulrich added.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was convicted of attempting to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253, en route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan.

"Well, it so happens that the mainstream media here is so busy turning up this information that they turned to forget the very information they gave us in the first place. For example, in 2012, we were told that 'the underwear bomber' was in fact working with the CIA intelligence and with the Saudis," she pointed out.

US and Yemeni officials told s in May 2012 that the so-called underwear bomber was in fact working under cover for Saudi intelligence and the CIA when he was given a new non-metallic type bomb aimed at getting past airport security.

Ulrich said it is important to mention that the so-called underwear bomber slipped past the security "when Israeli intelligence was in charge of the Amsterdam airport -- [its] security."

She added that intelligence officials failed to scrutinize the bomb and helped the bomber get on the plane, which "indicates to me that they all were aware of this individual's job."

"Six or seven months ago, the UK airport security supposedly received a warning from the US intelligence... that al-Qaeda terrorists were going to attack airports and airliners using a new generation of non-metallic bombs developed by them in Syria and Yemen," Ulrich said.

"What is really very alarming for me is all this information, or misinformation we are getting," she stated. "We have to understand who gain from" all this.

A spate of violent incidents, including the attack at the Paris office of controversial magazine , left at least 17 people dead last week in the French capital.

Two days after the attack, Said and Cherif Kouachi, suspects, were killed after being cornered at a printing workshop in the French town of Dammartin-en-Goele.

"So at the end of the day, we have to understand who is gaining by all these alleged attacks," Ulrich emphasized. People are not being told the truth; they are "told a bunch of lies that are supposedly not connected and somehow when they do get connected we trace it back to the intelligence services, like the CIA."

"So we have to be very alert, and do not forget what we read yesterday in order to absorb what we are reading today and connect the dots ourselves," she warned.

"I mean many have had doubts about the veracity of the incident in Paris. Many had thought it to be a false flag operation. And now with this new information they are feeding us and tying [it] to the underwear bomber who worked for the CIA, it has virtually established the fact that it was indeed a false flag operation," Ulrich concluded.

On July 24, 2011, two days after Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people, mostly teenagers, in Norway to call attention to his view that Muslim immigration was a bad thing, NBC's didn't mention the words "Breivik" or "Norway." Nor did CBS's .

On ABC, This Week With Christiane Amanpour - who prided herself on her international perspective - did have 258 words on the massacre. No discussion, but we did hear there were "some incredible survivor stories."

Fast forward three-and-a-half years, after another politically motivated killing spree in Europe, this one resulting in the deaths of 20 people. This European violence was decidedly more interesting to Meet the Press, which previewed its January 11 episode:

PARIS TERROR ATTACK: As the French authorities dissect how these horrific acts of violence were committed in the name of Islam, Chuck Todd will ask Attorney General Eric Holder how the US government is dealing with potential home-grown terrorists in this country....

PLUS: The attack on Charlie Hebdo once again highlights the vulnerability of the West to deadly terrorist attacks that can paralyze a major city. How does religion encourage some people to choose violence? And can these attacks be prevented? Our panels weigh in.

, January 11, 2015

At , host Bob Schieffer described his upcoming show on Bob's Blog (1/9/15):

After a series of terror attacks in Paris that left more than a dozen people dead this week, many questions remain about the perpetrators and their motives.

But the big question in the United States is: Are we safe here at home? We'll ask the nation's chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Eric Holder, who will appear on from Paris where he plans to attend an international summit on terrorism.

Holder will meet with top European officials to discuss one of the gravest challenges of our day: preventing Westerners from traveling to the Middle East, training with terror groups, and bringing their terror home.

We'll also talk to Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.

Then Scheiffer said he would bring on Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to "discuss the GOP agenda, which in the House includes withholding funding for the Department of Homeland Security in protest of President Obama's recent executive order on immigration. In light of the Paris terror attacks, is this really the right time for a showdown on funding the department that keeps us safe?"

Scheiffer also promised another segment that would talk about "bigger questions about the influence of radical Islam and how to prevent these 'lone wolf' incidents from continuing in the future."

, January 11, 2015

On This Week , the topic of the day was likewise to be "Terror in Paris":

On Sunday, covers the latest on the terror attack in Paris, with Attorney General Eric Holder, and Sen.Richard Burr, R-N.C., the new chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Why is that Islamist violence is drop-everything fascinating to US corporate media, while a bloodbath by a right-wing anti-Muslim zealot doesn't seem to be even worth talking about? Is it because Muslims are the only people who commit political attacks in the United States? Well, no - the vast majority of political terrorism in the United States is perpetrated by non-Muslims (Extra!, 5/11 ).

In fact, the day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, a bomb went off outside the NAACP office in Colorado Springs, which the FBI was investigating as a potential terrorist attack (, 1/9/15). The person wanted for questioning in the incident is described as "a white male around the age of 40." But don't expect corporate media to spend much time discussing the possible threat posed by middle-aged white guys.

The Raw Story

Focused on providing independent journalism.

Kiev orders crackdown on Russian TV channels

What I did after police killed my son

Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Victims of terror in Africa mostly ignored, while media rages over attacks in Europe

France's arrest of Dieudonné shows the sham of its free speech celebrations

Free speech? EU ministers push ISPs to censor web after Paris attacks

Otters across the world are threatened with extinction says new report

U.S. using NGOs to destabilize Central Asia

Independent researcher: New info shows CIA behind Paris attacks

Hypocrisy in action: Media selectively covers 'terror attacks', to suit the political agenda

Search

Recent Posts

Popular