Jennifer Rubin (Post and Courier, Nov. 21) again displays her considerable talent of playing mind games to purposely manipulate and mislead readers. As she rhetorically talks about “moral idiocy” coming from Secretary of State John Kerry and the president, there is only one problem: Not all of her readers are idiots.
She goes after Kerry’s statement regarding the difference between the killing at Charlie Hebdo and the killings on Friday the 13th in Paris. But the reaction is different, depending on whether the killing is interpreted as random or targeted. This is true whether it happens in Paris or in Charleston.
Attacking a performance and folks eating, including people of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, undermines any feeling of reason at its core. The victims were simply available. That does not make it less horrific or more justifiable.
Representations, or denigration in any way, of the founder of Islam have been met with threats and violence in the past — cartoons, print and video. Pushing the boundaries of free speech in this area is done at considerable risk.
Rubin attempts to confound Benghazi into the mix. There were many protests at embassies by offended Muslims regarding the YouTube video (some violent). The ambassador was caught off guard with inadequate security at the wrong location. The video chaos was used as cover for the lethal attack that claimed his life by smoke inhalation in a CIA safe room without proper equipment. But this is old news which keeps popping up when convenient. It doesn’t seem to be related in any way to the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.
Mass killings for revolution such as the Chechens at the Russian school had no religious intent. And religious mass killings have not always been related to Islam. We had Jim Jones at Jonestown as well as our own Christian terrorists, the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. (Most of us Christians would prefer they be called terrorists as God was clearly used as cover for an agenda that was against every Christian value.)
Rubin’s most reprehensible attempt to confound was writing about the Palestinians. Theirs was not a religious revolution but a result of years of resentment over confiscated land and Israel’s expansion of settlements. True, innocents were killed. It is false to suggest it happened for religious ideology.
She doesn’t make you think; she only helps you recall the course on propaganda.
Great Oak Drive