Responding to Megaterrorism after Paris

6 Dec


[Prefatory Note: the post below is based on an opinion piece published by Middle East Eye on December 1, 2015 under the title “A Different Response to ISIS after Paris.” My modified text places its focus on the originality of megaterrorism and its distinctive challenges, suggesting that the choice of response needs to be extended beyond the iron cage of militarism and vengeance. Also, it is essential for analysts and leaders to envision the response to the response as well as being preoccupied with how best to hit back. Increasingly, American politicians treat the challenge as if playing poker whereas the realities of the situation call for a chess players’ natural disposition to think ahead as many moves as possible. Finally, given the religious and civilizational dimensions of current versions of megaterrorism, it is vital to guard against various manifestations of Islamophobia.]


What separates megaterrorism from other more customary forms of terrorism is the theme of this post. It is not possible to give a precise definition of megaterrorism by pointing to a threshold of casualties or the magnitude of response. Each megaterrorist event is decisively shaped by its distinctive sociopolitical and psychological context. The focus here is take account of this radical new category of threat posed in a variety of settings, critique the ‘war’ reflex and the war/crime binary, briefly consider alternate paths of response, and recommend risk  and cost assessments that take into account adversary responses to the prescribed response. The 21st century experience with responding to megaterrorist events does not create confidence in either most conceptualizations of the challenges being posed or the responsive strategies chosen to be implemented.   



The horrific Paris attacks of November 13th challenge the West more deeply in some ways than did the 9/11 attacks 14 years ago. The attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center mounted by al-Qaeda were directed at the twin centers of American power: global military dominance, and were in reaction to especially large-scale deployments of American armed forces near the holiest of Islamic religious sites in Saudi Arabia in the early 1990s. There was a terrorist logic associated with striking such symbolic blows, although it aroused an American led unified Western response that was relied upon as a mandate for intervention in Afghanistan and then started to fracture when extended to Iraq after failing to win approval from the UN Security Council. These wars have had the major ‘blowback’ effect contributing to the origins and emergence of the current primary menace of ISIS, above all by its willingness to send suicide bombers to attack ‘soft targets’ of ordinary people that included in Paris a sports arena, a music hall, and several neighborhood restaurants in the city center. In other words, to a greater extent than even was the case with Osama Bin Laden’s manifestos, ISIS has initiated a merciless totalizing campaign against the West, soliciting followers and recruits from around the world, and appears to have the will and capability to continue the effort for the foreseeable future no matter what retaliatory blows it receives as a result of intensified Western military efforts.


Such a grave crisis is deepened, rather than mitigated, by the bellicose stupidity of François Hollande who immediately after the event declared ‘war’ on ISIS, promising to be unremittingly merciless in response. Hollande’s words to the French Parliament: The acts committed on Friday night in Paris and at the Stade are acts of war. This constitutes an attack against our country, against its values, against its youth, against its way of life.” In so framing the French response Hollande repeats the muscular mistakes of George W. Bush. It should be clear by now that ‘war’ with the West is not only what these movements claim and seek, but its nature is such that the capabilities at the disposal of the West, magnify rather than reduce or eliminate the threats posed. Or as maybe more precise, seemingly at first effectively reduce the threat, but later on find that the original threat has somewhat changed and been displaced, and is emergent anew in a somewhat altered, yet even more extreme form. In this regard, there was the belief that when Osama Bin Laden was found and executed, al-Qaeda had been most destroyed and substantially contained, Yet it did not take long that the earlier megaterrorist threat had shifted its locus to ISIS and its various ‘cosmic warriors’ (Mark Juergensmeyer) spread around the world who make it their mission to resort to mass indiscriminate violence against purely civilian targets as a matter of religious devotion.


One alternative response available to Hollande was to denounce the acts of 11/13 as a monstrous ‘crime’ that called for an unprecedented national and international law enforcement effort. This is the manner in which such non-state violence of political extremists has been addressed before 9/11 and should at least be considered in response to a metaterrorist event before leaping into the fires of war. It remains instructive to examine the Spanish response to the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings, a megaterrorist event as measured by the scale of the casualties and the fear generated. The political leader in Spain at the time, José Maria Asner, a junior coalition partner of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq defying Spanish public opinion that opposed such involvement. After the Madrid bombing Asner immediately pointed an accusatory finger at the Basque Separatist movement, ETA, which turned out to be wrong, and his fear-mongering was evidently resented by many Spaniards. The real culprits turned out to be Moroccan Muslim extremists. It happened that there was a national election in Spain a few days after the bombing, Asner was defeated, and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party prevailed, resulting in José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero becoming the new head of state. As the new leadership promised in its electoral campaign, the Spanish government quickly announced the removal of its troops from Iraq and simultaneously embarked on an all out hunt for the criminals. In effect, by removing Spanish troops, the Spanish government was not only respecting the public will of its citizens but also indirectly acknowledging the legitimate grievances associated with the unlawful regime-changing attack and occupation of Iraq. This response to the megaterrorist challenge in Spain could not, of course, remove the deep and tragic personal losses resulting from the attacks, but Spanish society was allowed to move away from shadows of fear, and has not experienced subsequent major terrorist events.


This conjunction of circumstances in Spain will not always be present, and the originality of the megaterrorist challenge, neither can often not be met by the mechanical application of either paradigms of war or crime as traditionally understood. We lack the language or the public awareness needed to capture the dark originality of megaterrorism, and hence often seem to be acting ineffectively or even in a manner that increases the threats of recurrence. At times, the gravity of the event is so great that an aroused and frightened citizenry demands and expects an immediate and proportionate response that usually cannot be generated by acting within the crime paradigm, and yet the war paradigm while responding to public outrage tends to produce policies that spread havoc, expand the zone of strife and devastation, and in the name of security encroach excessively on domestic freedoms at home.  This combination of action and reaction is descriptive of the American experience post-9/11. This American case was further complicated by the fact that neoconservative political leadership controlled the U.S. Government response, and as a result the counter-terrorist response became intertwined with quite distinct and controversial grand strategy goals in the Middle East that largely account for the American led decision to attack and then occupy Iraq in 2003.


The American Vice President, Joe Biden, seemed recently to retreat from ‘the war on terror’ discourse, but only slightly. Biden argued not for war, but unconvincingly urged raising the level of interventionary violence higher against ISIS as the right course of action after Paris, above all, to demonstrate an enhanced commitment to the defeat of ISIS. Biden believeseveryone knows what needs to be done and there’s no doubt we’ll prevail, but we need to do a hell of a lot more. We all have to step up our level of engagement: more troops, more planes, more money. This thing will go on for years unless we do.” Depressingly, the Democratic presidential hopeful, Hilary Clinton, told the Council of Foreign Relations more or less the same thing a few weeks ago, just prior to the Paris attacks. Obama as is his way, seemed to recognize the undesirability of an open ended or permanent war posture without altering the analysis and essential response of his neocon predecessor in the White House. [See speech defending drone warfare at the National Defense University, May 23, 2013] After Paris, and in response to the shooting in San Bernadino, California there is a renewed insistence by the Republican opposition that America is ‘at war’ whether its elected leader acknowledges it or not.


All of these views, despite covering a range of tactical positions, hold in common a shared militarist definition of the proper response to the ISIS threat. Further the response is exclusively focused on offensive tactics and weaponry that are intended to destroy this elusive enemy, but without much prospect of doing so. There is no commitment discussed or made to defending those minorities that are threatened with ‘boots on the ground’ or exploring what kind of political options might make sense. It should not be forgotten that the core capabilities of ISIS arose in response to the anti-Sunni and oppressive tenor of the American led regime-destroying occupation of Iraq that lasted for more than a decade and had been preceded by a devastating UN authorized air war in 1991 that was followed by a punitive peace, featuring a sanctions regime imposed for over ten years that is believed responsible for several hundred thousand Iraqi civilian deaths.



The fact that some of the elements of this enormous crime  committed in Paris were transnational is not decisive in altering its character. By elevating the status of ISIS to that of a belligerent against whom it is necessary to mobilize the society that was targeted perversely adds to the gains of the attacker, and creates incentives for it to do more of the same. If handled as a version of the most dangerous type of crime that deeply threatens human and state security, the society would still be fully mobilized to protect itself as fully as practicable, and other governments would become more inclined to do whatever they can by way of cooperative criminal law enforcement. The magnitude of the crime could be further recognized by prosecuting the Paris attacks as an international crime against humanity as well as the most serious of violations of French criminal law. This was the approach taken centuries earlier by many governments to international piracy. The entire world was presumed to have a shared interest in suppressing piracy, and many governments cooperated to prevent and punish, and continue to do so in response to modern piracy. The realization that the criminals engaged in the Paris attacks had grown up in the heart of Europe further compounds the mistake of externalizing the evil, situating the threat in the Arab World, antagonizing even more the people suffering in that already inflamed region, and in the process inflating the stature of the criminals as combatants in a war.


The Bush/Hollande way of reacting also is harmful in two other fundamental respects: it precludes attention being given to root causes and steadfastly refuses self-scrutiny that might lead to some acknowledgement that extremist motivations of the criminal perpetrators might have taken shape in reaction wholly or partly to legitimate grievances. The best sustainable remedy for terrorist violence, whether large or small, is to address its root causes and legitimate grievances. Otherwise, as even some conservative and militarist political figures have admitted (including Rumsfeld, Mubarak), recourse to warfare, whether by war through a concerted campaign (e.g. Iraq) or by a program of targeted assassinations (e.g. drones) quite possibly generates many more militants than it eliminates, and certainly spreads the zone of violence and devastation more widely causing massive displacements of people, generating refugee flows that give rise to the sort of deep alienation and anger that creates a new pool of recruits that can be attracted to extremist causes, as well as encourages a reactionary backlash in whatever countries are chosen as sanctuaries.


To consider the Paris attacks by a reductio of good versus evil has the further consequence of excluding diplomacy and political accommodation as instruments useful in restoring stability and human security. How many of the supposedly intractable conflicts of the past, including the conflict with Britain that occasioned the American Revolution, were resolved by bringing the terrorists in from the cold? I would not suggest that this is currently a plausible option with ISIS, but keeping open this possibility, however remote and distasteful it now seems, is to be sensitive to the ‘lessons of history.’


More significantly, to avoid self-scrutiny by opting for unconditional war is to miss the best opportunity to undercut in the long-term the extremist rationale for attacking the West. It needs to be better appreciated that extremism does not flourish in a political and moral vacuum. It is probably the case that ISIS cannot be fully explained as a reaction to regional sectarianism, the Palestinian ordeal, and the mayhem brought to the people of Iraq, but absent the widespread sense of injustice associated with Israel’s regional role and millions resultant deaths and displacements, which partly embody the outcomes of the U.S. geopolitical agenda, the emergence of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ISIS might never have happened, at least in their present form. Such a conclusion is reinforced when it is appreciated that the Arab governments, dependent on American protection, proved incapable, and in the end unwilling, to secure even the most minimal post-colonial interests and honor the values of Islamic and Arab peoples, including the provision of jobs and the elimination of extreme poverty. Arguably, given the Sykes-Picot legacies, including the artificial state formations of a century ago, the region has never yet managed to cast off the colonial mantle.


In conclusion, when dealing with the traumas and threats posed by megaterrorist movements it seems appropriate to acknowledge that neither the war nor the crime template as conventionally understood is capable of providing satisfactory answers. The context must be considered, and like skillful chess players a response should not be undertaken without evaluating the likely range of responses of ISIS and others to a range of possible Western responses. It is easy long after the fact to critique what the Bush presidency started to do on 9/12, but doing this in retrospect overlooks the actuality and intensity of the 9/11 challenge. Of course, when the Iraq War was folded into the counter-terrorist rationale that was initially internationally accepted with respect to launching an attack on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it became obvious that other controversial American strategic goals were being pursued, and that the likely result would be a major foreign policy failure as well as an aggravation of the megaterrorist challenge. Beyond this, an unlawful invasion of a sovereign state by the leading member of the UN strikes a severe blow at the authority of UN Charter and the core norms of international law limiting force to situations of self-defense absent Security Council authorization.


As the French response to 11/13 confirms, nothing much has been learned about how to address the distinctive challenges of mega-terrorism. To encourage such learning four preliminary policy prescriptions can be endorsed: (1) the importance of restoring respect for UN authority and international law in the shaping of responses to megaterrorist challenges, including some further development of international law; (2) the need to develop a template for addressing megaterrorism that is more sophisticated than mechanically than opting for either/or logic of war or crime; (3) the revision of tactical and strategic thinking to include a process of looking ahead beyond the response to a megaterrorist event to envision as well as possible the chain of responses and counter-responses likely to ensue; (4) the practical desirability of making and taking account of assessments of root causes and legitimate grievances in clarifying the interpretation of the motivation of those who support, plan, and enact megaterrorism and with an emphasis on the reduction and eventual elimination of such threats to societal wellbeing.





/* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;

20 Responses to “Responding to Megaterrorism after Paris”

  1. Paul Wapner December 6, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

    Thank you for articulating a meaningful response to the attacks. The problem with your analysis is that you’re asking Western leaders to be courageous. It is much easier to lash out on the ‘other’ than to acknowledge legitimate grievances; it shows cowardice to turn on a unilateral war machine aimed at the illusion of national protection than to take the challenging path of building international law that will protect everyone; it is a lot simpler to privilege one’s own uniqueness, and thus see terrorism aimed only at the West, instead of recognizing mega-violence as an affront to all peace-loving people. In an age of globalization, courage involves building and engaging the world community on behalf of humane values. Thank you once again for describing the policy options for practicing such courage.

  2. Gene Schulman December 6, 2015 at 11:37 pm #

    Richard, if you wish to believe that the attack in Paris was an ISIS version of terror, you are welcome to that belief. Much like the San Bernardino, California attack that followed it, I believe it was a false flag. Naming every crime that takes place by some alleged ‘Muslim’ nut is easy to do, as in London the other day. These ‘terrorist’ attacks justify locking down cities, tightening security to the point of removing civil rights from the population, and scaring the hell out of them. Not to speak of justifying more bombing – French and British, in this case.

    The real terrorists are the Western powers who are insistent in continuing the slaughter of innocent peoples, closing borders on refugees trying to escape. As someone elsewhere recently said, it’s good for business.

    • Richard Falk December 7, 2015 at 7:18 am #

      I am agnostic at this point, although I still find it hard to believe
      that such cruel abuses of state power would not be exposed more convincingly and directly.

      • Gene Schulman December 7, 2015 at 1:33 pm #

        Well, when that ‘state power’ owns the main stream media it’s pretty hard to expose these abuses directly. But a reading of the alternative media on the internet and in books, the information is out there. Your own blog is an instance. The problem is that too few are interested. The ‘booboisie’, to use Mencken’s term, are all brainwashed. I’m convinced.

      • Richard Falk December 7, 2015 at 2:39 pm #

        Gene: I agree about the control of access to ‘truth,’ but would still find it hard to accept the darkest explanations
        without something more than circumstantial evidence. As a result I am stick in the purgatory of uncertainty, neither
        accepting official versions of events nor the counter-versions. I do share Peter Dale Scott’s view of ‘deep politics’
        as explaining more than what the media discloses. Greetings, Richard

    • False Flag December 7, 2015 at 7:52 pm #

      These terrors are FALSE FLAG OPERATION designed by the terrorist states US-Israel-Britain, from 9/11 to the present mass killing. ISIS like Al Qaeda is the US creation. Whoever spreads the lies of the USG is either a dumb or is their agent.
      The recent terrors are designed to implement another mass murder in Syria, the same as in Libya. As long as these savages are in power nothing is going to be changed.
      To educate yourself, please read the following paper, so YOU develop immunity against their campaign of lies. They want to fool you AGAIN for more wars to erect “greater Israel” and “world government” of the criminal Zionist bankers.

  3. M.L. December 7, 2015 at 4:00 am #

    Reblogged this on PAJU – Palestiniens et Juifs Unis and commented:
    As the French response to 11/13 confirms, nothing much has been learned about how to address the distinctive challenges of mega-terrorism. To encourage such learning four preliminary policy prescriptions can be endorsed: (1) the importance of restoring respect for UN authority and international law in the shaping of responses to megaterrorist challenges, including some further development of international law; (2) the need to develop a template for addressing megaterrorism that is more sophisticated than mechanically than opting for either/or logic of war or crime; (3) the revision of tactical and strategic thinking to include a process of looking ahead beyond the response to a megaterrorist event to envision as well as possible the chain of responses and counter-responses likely to ensue; (4) the practical desirability of making and taking account of assessments of root causes and legitimate grievances in clarifying the interpretation of the motivation of those who support, plan, and enact megaterrorism and with an emphasis on the reduction and eventual elimination of such threats to societal wellbeing.

  4. Kelly Gerling December 7, 2015 at 12:56 pm #

    Richard, your final policy prescriptions are fabulous. What remains for such recommendations to be implemented, as sensible as they are? One option to consider is modernizing national governments. Many nations in Europe have done this. The United States has not. Extreme constitutional conservativism prevents political innovation. While Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, the Scandinavian nations, New Zealand, and many others have systems of proportional representation, creating legislatures which mirror their citizenries, not so the United States. Canada under new leadership is openly talking in those terms, led by their new prime minister. Are there scenarios for the United States implementing your policy prescriptions for security WITHOUT such political innovations as these which follow? I’d like to know what you and others think.

    Political innovations are practiced in many nations and in many U.S. states …

    Such as amending outside of Article Five via convention-and-referendum and initiative-and-referendum as a foundation right of sovereignty.
    Such as an amendment to establish a new federal supreme court for international affairs to prosecute war crimes, crimes against peace and torture by government officials.
    Such as an amendment mandating public financing of all elections.
    Such as an amendment establishing proportional representation in Congress.
    Such as an amendment establishing a national popular vote for president and vice-president instead of the Electoral College.
    Such as an amendment establishing that all bills be proposed and passed by a joint session of Congress (which would eliminate the Senate veto and disempower the Senate like the UK has disempowered their House of Lords).
    (To name a few amendments which would help to begin fixing the undemocratic features of the American Constitution.)

    • Richard Falk December 7, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

      Thanks for this perceptive comment. The difficulty in the United States is the absence
      of political will to make the system work on behalf of people. There are many innovative
      proposals along the lines you propose, but in the present climate of opinion they lack
      political traction.

    • Laurie Knightly December 9, 2015 at 2:23 pm #

      The most cursory discussion of amendments to the constitution would far exceed the capacity of a blog – coping with the process alone being a very difficult task. Since 1789 to 2014, there have been 11,623 measures proposed to amend and 27 have passed. Would note, however, that the cost/duration of political campaigns in this country is a disgrace. Our legislators campaign in perpetuity.

  5. Laurie Knightly December 7, 2015 at 9:43 pm #

    Perhaps ‘bringing terrorists in from the cold’ is not only feasible but a vital component in coping with the current threat. As there is no ‘official’ Islam, it behooves one to search for a broader understanding regarding cause and effect of ‘megaterrorism’. Absent from the discussion has been the role of the Arab League. It would seem that an inclusion of the tenuous thread that links the Arab World should be constantly acknowledged and consulted. After just reading for the first time the Charter, Treaty of Defense and Economic Cooperation and a chronology of the organization’s history since its formation in 1948, I think it odd that there is not more support and interest in this effort to bring stability to the vast region. On the issue of ISIS, the Arab nations are apparently opposed to its existence, aspirations and strategies. They do not agree, however, regarding the military interventions of the US and its allies. Their recognition and allegiance to Palestine is an impressive piece of documentation. Perhaps encouragement and deference could incentivize the League to keep working toward their objectives.

    The US has lost its credibility as an honest broker in dealing with the MidEast – if it ever had any. Whatever interests/motives existent were dominated by profiteering and power grabbing oligarchs here and in our allied nations. There must be a better way…..small wonder that ‘terrorists’ are molded from the ugly residuals left in the aftermath of failure.

  6. Rod December 8, 2015 at 12:39 am #

    Having read the preceding posts and comments thereof I find it striking that the one element most omitted in the train of thoughts preceding mine is the ever present thorn in the side of the world. Namely recognition. Everyone wants to be recognized. We are a world of nations yet many desire a nation of worlds. I do not know of a country called Islam, Christian, Catholic or Jew. Recognition. It was and continues to be the downfall of man I think. Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim, Serb, Croat, Atheist, Buddist etc, etc.. Can one form of law and government suit all? I have no answers only opinions. They need not be recognized. What is one man to another?

    • Laurie Knightly December 8, 2015 at 3:47 pm #

      But various status designations are the general subject of this discussion. Regardless of categories such as those you have listed are constant dissenting splinter groups within them that can evolve to a degree of outrage, justified or not, that generates what is called terrorism. What has emerged, however, is a new form of identity politics which does elude a single form of law and government as you suggest. If Obama drone targets a perceived enemy in the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan and 20 people get killed, it’s one accused militant and collateral damage. No big deal. Suppose that a ‘militant’ behaves this way. The moral outrage is unceasing. So the militants will plot revenge however/wherever they can.

      ‘What is one man to another?’ It depends on the man, and the degree of power he has over the designated other.

      • Rod December 9, 2015 at 9:53 pm #

        If in fact you seek a status designation in the general subject of this discussion you must surely understand that acceptance by one requires recognition by another. I provided examples as a prelude to prevent those viewing the discussion from assigning categories. If in fact you are of the opinion that dissenting splinter groups within the discussion generates terrorism might I suggest you rethink your interpretation of terrorism. As I stated previously we are a world of nations each unique and having a historic form of identity. That identity forged trade agreements and treaties between nation long before you or myself were born. Therefore it is incumbent on us to study such history. If one cannot accept that which others previously recognized and accepted in the formation of a former existent nation we might very well find ourselves in a pickle. The underlying point of my comment is should we as a people recognize the nation being representative of its people or should we recognize the religion being representative of the nation? Either way each will seek its own recognition. I’m quite sure you might find dissenting splinter groups however, were I you I would not bet that terrorism will be the outcome. A robber in a bank can terrorize as much as a home invader. I do not know the circumstances of your history well enough to know if you have ever been terrorized. Perhaps our definition of terrorism is dissenting which stems from our inability to recognize each others interpretation. Most generally what one experiences is what their understanding becomes. What one recognizes is based on their understanding no?

  7. Gene Schulman December 8, 2015 at 12:47 am #

    Greetings to you, Richard,

    Thank you for pointing me to Scott’s work. I had never read him before. After having read the following:, I can’t understand how you can still be agnostic about the ‘deep politics’ of the US and its allies (especially Israel) in their pursuit of world power.

    Speaking of Israel, isn’t curious that it seems to have dropped off the map as a source of news? What is it’s relation to ISIS? one is tempted to ask. One has to look hard (in the alternative media) to find news of daily stabbings and shootings in the back. Respectfully, Gene

    • Richard Falk December 9, 2015 at 6:03 pm #

      Gene: As usual, perceptive remarks. Peter Dale Scott is exceedingly convincing as to the reality
      of ‘deep politics,’ and I have often associated myself with his views in public venues, but whether
      the alternate constructions of reality uncover the truth is far more difficult to determine. The alternative
      media is less beholden to special interests, but it also embodies a lot of prejudiced or simplistic views.
      An ‘ethics of suspicion’ is definitely justified but the counter-versions of the mainstream narrative are
      more difficult to assess, e.g. the various theories of the Kennedy assassination.

      Yes, the Palestinian struggle has been rendered almost invisible thanks to ISIS and related regional developments.
      Is this part of the Israeli regional design or just a spillover that removes what little pressure the leadership in
      Tel Aviv given the reliability of U.S. unconditional support.

      Greetings, Richard

  8. rehmat1 December 8, 2015 at 7:58 pm #

    Dr. Falk – Both Paris attacks, like the 9/11 and 7/7 were not in response to Western ‘War on Islam’. They’re part of state terrorism to brainwash their public for more wars and destruction of more Muslim nations which were thought to pose future threat to the Zionist regime.

    I wrote a post on this subject, but I rather post here the views of a Hindu blogger from India on Paris attack.

  9. baroukh December 10, 2015 at 3:02 am #

    Dr Falk, I wonder how you can live with such supporters (believing in conspiracy theories, false flags attacks and showing clear hatred towards the Jews) and whether you will change your mind when unfortunately a new megaterrorist attack hits unfortunately Spain again killing your argument to prove that it was a good thing to deal with radical Islam in a Munich way.

  10. Laurie Knightly December 11, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    Dr. Falk, As one of your supporters who believes that some groups, and nations, do conspire toward evil ends and that very conflicting info has emanated from San Bernadino – such as Farook lying dead on pavement handcuffed et al, I hope that we can continue to live productively together. Also the role of murdered Nicholas Thalasinos, described as an equally hate-filled bigot by Harry Houck NYPD police investigator, and Messianic Judaism. Some of us can read ‘what’ and diligently inquire as to ‘why’ and will continue to do so.

    Nov 2, issue of the Guardian reviews brilliantly the Madrid bombings and the Iraq War. Also, the Security Council will conduct an Arria-Formula Meeting on Dec 14 – posted on Dec 10: Responsibility to Protect and Non-State Actors. This will be co-hosted by Chile and Spain. These two short pieces of reading are cogent/current references.

    It must be very frustrating to some of your ethnic kinfolk that Jews differ to such a marked degree. An equal disappointment might be that your supporters differ as well. Onward..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: