A Sad Day for a Hero

I generally love President Kagame, and all that he has done for Rwanda, and I kept denying theories that he would run again for President. Which is why this makes me so sad.

It was announced today (December 9th) in several online news agencies that Rwanda is going to hold a referendum on December 18th, next week, to amend the constitution or not in a way which would allow current President Paul Kagame to run again as president. On the 17th, Rwandans outside the country will have a chance to vote, and on the 18th those in the country will be allowed to vote. The change would allow the current president to run for an additional 7 year term. It then cuts the term of the president to only 5 years, but that will not take effect until  2024 and then it would reinstate the two-term limit for President. At that point, Mr. Kagame could run for two more 5 year presidential terms, and potentially be in office until 2034 when he is 77 years old. Although President Kagame has not explicitly said he would run again in 2017, he has said that he will consider the move if the referendum is approved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35049885

 

 

House Votes to Restrict Travel by Foreigners Who Visited Iraq, Syria

With Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump lighting the media on fire with his controversial comments, this article shows a good, common sense compromise between the far left and the far right in American foreign policy.  The House recently voted to restrict travel by Foreigners who have recently visited Iraq and Syria.  The measure passed 407-19.  The overwhelming support of this bill shows that both Republicans and Democrats believe that the way America fights terror needs change.  Previously, certain “travel privileges” were granted to 38 foreign countries’ citizens.  Although these countries were considered friendly law makers are recognizing that there needs to be a larger response to an evolving terrorist threat and this includes reevaluating international security features such as the United States’ visa-waiver program.  The bill passed places a ban on individuals who had traveled to known terrorist states including Iraq or Syria since March 2011 without first getting a visa.

I think the bill passed by the House is a great step towards making America safer.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-tighten-visa-waiver-program-1449613891

Darned if You Do, Darned if You Don’t

Tags

Conflict, ISIS, Middle East, Obama, Syria, terrorism, United States

The debate over how to best deal with the Islamic State (IS) only continues to intensify, and IS has at least made it clear what they think United States (and Western) strategy should be. They want the US and friends dragged into a ground war. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 one of the most vocal proponents of it was major IS leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Why do they want this? Scripture prophesies an apocalyptic battle fought at the Syrian town of Dabiq. The name of the IS online magazine? Dabiq. Eager to see their ranks flush with more recruits, IS keeps poking the West trying to force it into a ground war. However, just because IS wants this to happen doesn’t mean it will actually happen; the Islamic State is far from a rational actor. Western leaders seem very quick to continue air strikes of quite frankly lukewarm strength of intensity, and readily admit that this will not solve neither IS nor the Middle East’s deeper problems. Largely ambiguous discussions of changes to social and political structure are frequently discussed. Some, mainly in the US, are beginning to call for a total ground war against IS. Ted Cruz famously said that he didn’t know if sand glows, but we would find out after bombing the Islamic State into oblivion. I will ask the question on everyone’s minds which it seems no one has an answer to. How do we get rid of the Islamic State? And how do we prevent the rise of similar groups afterwards?

*P.S. Please spare me answers centering around climate change.

Based on the article by Rukmini Callimachi in the Dec 8 2015 edition of The New York Times, which can be found by clicking HERE.

Trump’s Grand Idea

Monday, Donald Trump announced his new plan to prevent terrorist attacks from happening in America, to stop all Muslims from entering the country till the nation’s leaders can “figure out what is going on.” This announcement came the day after Obama encouraged Americans to not turn against Muslims, even in this time of trial. Many Americans were outraged by this and many religious groups sided with Muslim-Americans against Trump’s statement. Believing that saying such a thing is comparable to acts performed in World War II.  While some other GOP supporters suggested that Trump proposing such a strong idea will begin to show people how large the problem actually is and how dangerous it is. This statement has already done negative things to Trump’s campaign.

Is there any sense whatsoever in Trump’s very strong statement? It’s already hard enough already to gain refugee status in America, how would this idea affect that? What would this do to Muslims already living in America? How do you think Muslim-American’s feel about this, and now about the presidential election in general?

This is the link to the article http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/

Has Donald Trump Finally Gone too Far?

This week, Donald Trump called for a ban on all Muslim immigrants. This has sparked a large amount of hatred and malice. There have been many people who have compared him to Hitler himself comparing this to the time when Hitler banned the Jews.

However, there has also been speculation that this is just what our country needed. An idea so crazy that it finally gets people to take some sort of preventative action.

Meanwhile, Trump issued another statement today defending his statement and brought up President Roosevelt and how during and post- WWII there was the classification of “enemy aliens” for those that were German, Italian or Japanese. For most Americans, this only brings back bad memories and not ones of success.

Ms. Morawetz stated in the New York Times, “It would be particularly bizarre to have an immigration test based on religion given that the country was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution.”

Do you all think that Trump has taken things to far? How will his opponents react and will his percentage in the polls decrease because of this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-muslims.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-banning-muslims-from-entering-u-s/

What does ISIS want?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/us/politics/president-obama-terrorism-threat-speech-oval-office.html?_r=0

On Sunday, President Obama addressed the nation as he tried to assuage the fear of terrorism that the recent shooting in San Bernardino, California had caused.  Though he stressed the importance of the US’s involvement in providing aid to eradicate ISIS, he also emphasized  the need to avoid falling into the perception and mindset that ISIS wants us to adopt.  “We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam,” he said, “That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values, plays into the hands of groups like ISIL.”  He was criticized for not taking a more definitive stance on the issue, and many are unsure of his decision to keep troops off the ground in Syria.  However, besides turning America against Islam, Obama also specified other goals that ISIS might have.

Since the President’s speech, several other articles have appeared in the news detailing what ISIS’s other goals might be.  According to some, ISIS believes that an apocalyptic battle with the “infidel” in the heart of the Muslim world would end in victory for them and the downfall of the “infidel”.  Rukmini Callimachi, a reporter for the New York Times who has done extensive work in Syria, believes that a ground war with the US is exactly what ISIS wants, since they believe it will end in victory for them and the Western world’s total demise.  “That’s what groups like ISIL want,” said Obama on Sunday, “They know they can’t defeat us on the battlefield.  ISIL fighters were part of the insurgency that we faced in Iraq, but they also know that if we occupy foreign lands, they can maintain insurgencies for years, killing thousands of our troops and draining our resources, and using our presence to draw new recruits.”  What do you think?  Should the US send ground troops to Syria, or would that play into ISIS’s hands?

For more information on this idea, here’s an article with Callimachi’s explanation as to why she thinks this is one of ISIS’s goals: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/6/9859696/obama-isis-ground-war

Mass Shootings and the Media: Source of Information, or Source of “Inspiration”?

Are the Paris or California shootings inspired by the media? Does the international media have a moral obligation to not exaggerate or too frequently “inspire” other mass killers to perform their murders?

Some would argue yes:

The Phoenix New Times argues that the media’s definitions of mass shootings dramatically overstates how many shootings there actually are. By the media’s standard, there have been 15 mass shootings in Arizona since 2013. The government? They only count 3. Nationally in 2015 alone, Mass Shooting Tracker reported 355 mass shootings. Government data shows only 32.

So which is correct? It depends how a mass shooting is defined. The media tends to consider 3+ people getting injured as a mass shooting. The government counts 3+ people getting killed as a mass shooting.

So is the media making it seem like mass shootings are more popular than they actually are? Perhaps this “primes” murderers and civilians alike to perform or worry about mass shootings.

However, there are those who argue that the media really is not making things worse by their coverage. Fact checker argues:

“As media coverage has increased, mass shootings have held steady for decades and school homicides are decreasing. The perception that shootings are happening more often likely stems from this increased coverage. When rare events can be easily brought to mind, we tend to overestimate their likelihood — in psychology, this is called availability heuristic.

Some might make the case that the rate of shootings would’ve been even lower if not for media coverage. This could be, but it would need to be shown that these people would not have done what they did if not for media coverage of previous events. There doesn’t seem to be evidence of this.”

What do you think? Should there be less coverage of shootings? More coverage? How should the media be addressed on the international level as killings happen worldwide?  What would be the consequences if your plan happened?

 

 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/number-of-us-mass-shootings-greatly-exaggerated-in-media-acclaimed-researcher-states-7872731

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/06/22/fact-checker-media-blame-mass-shootings/10824103/

Red Alert

Yesterday the city of Beijing was put on red alert for pollution from Tuesday morning to Thursday afternoon. This means that all the schools will be shut down, factories will be closed, and a limited number of drivers will be allowed on the road. This is the first time that this will have happened, which shows that the government in Beijing is taking this seriously. Before this week, officials were afraid of putting the city on red alert because of how it could hurt the economy. They are now realizing that health should come first before economy. This comes at a very interesting time when world leaders right now are discussing pollution and climate change in Paris. Hopefully this will inspire leaders to come up with solutions and compromises.

ISIS and San Bernardino

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/fbi-says-san-bernardino-assailants-were-radicalized.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I thought back to a few weeks ago when we heard from Eric Schmidt of the NY times on terrorism and his analysis of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I felt it interesting in the first few paragraphs how it talks about Tashfeen Malik, one of the shooters, came out on facebook and posted her personal allegiance to the Islamic State.

It will take some serious effort on behalf of the entire world to put an end and get in control of the cyber front of terrorism. It’s terribly tragic to see the seemingly constant shootings and bombings happening in our world today.

“You ain’t no Muslim bruv”

Over the weekend, a terrorist incident occurred in London. It was not as major as the attacks we have become accustomed to like that in San Bernadino or in Paris, but it was still a terrorist attack nonetheless.

A man on the subway stabbed three people. None had life threatening injuries, but it caused terror. The most interesting piece in this case is the response of bystanders. One man was caught on tape shouting, “You ain’t no Muslim bruv.” Bruv being the equivalent of the American slang “bro”. This phrase caught on and was trending worldwide before too long. I think this is an important response because while these attacks may be done for a “religious” purpose, he was not showing how a true Muslim acts. The bystander is presumed to be a Muslim as well and would not want to be put into the same category as a terrorist like this.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/world/europe/london-stabbing-attack-muslim-bruv.html?ref=world&_r=0