Follow by Email

Thursday, August 21, 2014

New York Times Editorial, "Death by Terror": Meanwhile, Obama Sells Arms to Qatar, a Terrorist State

In an editorial entitled "Death by Terror" with the subheading "James Foley’s Execution and the Question of Ransom," The New York Times observes, "There is no simple answer on whether to submit to terrorist extortion." The editorial's asinine conclusion:

"In the meantime, we can honor the many brave journalists, aid workers and civil servants who risk their lives in conflict zones, and grieve for Mr. Foley and the many others who have lost their freedom or their lives."

Remarkably, there is not a single mention in the editorial of Israel's experience in dealing with hostage taking by terrorist organizations over the course of many decades. No mention of the Entebbe raid and no mention of Gilad Shalit.

Also, no mention by the editorial of Obama's soporific response to terror. In his speech on Wednesday, following the murder to James Foley, Obama said of ISIL:

"People like this ultimately fail."

How reassuring. Let's wait around for spontaneous combustion.

Well, the Islamic State will be smashed only if it is pounded into the ground. A few pinprick airstrikes are not going to do the trick.

Most important, the US must stop doing arms deals with countries like Qatar that finance terrorist organizations (see: Shame on Obama for signing an $11 billion arms deal with Qatar and supplying this Lilliputian country with 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles!

I can promise you that these anti-tank missiles will be headed for Hamas and will also find their way into the hands of the Islamic State, i.e. ISIL, but what does Obama care?


  1. Jeff, keep up the good work!

    Perhaps you're the reason the NYT allowed Kenan Malik
    to publish this op-ed in today's online edition.

    Just don't read the comments if you want to continue feeling good. Apparently, there isn't enough hate among the NYT readership even after the facts are clearly stated and proven.

  2. I am sure I am not the first to say it, but Obama's "not caring" may miss the point. It has been said that, keeping in mind his father's influence, Ayer's influence, and the overall theme that seems to have run though his entire presidency, Obama, whether his backers are in favor or not (I suspect not), his agenda does care---about the expansion and ascension of global jihad. Seems he's travelled in pretty much a straight line.