Why the Chinese Earthquake is More Significant than the Boston Bombings

Not seen here on American Trusim, but seen broadly in response comments on websites such as CNN.com and Huffington Post, I think a lot of folks missed my point entirely my blog post contrasting the obsession with everything Boston Marathon Bombing related and the complete indifference to the deaths and injuries in China.

I UNDERSTAND that people are more interested and more obsessed with the Boston Bombing for two main reasons:

• Boston is in the United States - That act of terror happened here, in our backyard, on American soil.
  
• Terrorism is a Deliberate Act, Earthquakes are Acts of Nature - Terrorism is much more grave.

I GET that, OK?  That was never in question.  You'll get no argument from me that there would naturally be more interest in a bombing inside the United States vs. an earthquake in China.  WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.

What I DON'T get is that there was next to NO coverage of the devastation and death caused by the Chinese earthquake.

What's worse, in the small amount of coverage we're now seeing, it appears that impacted Chinese citizens are not getting the help nor the attention they deserve, either. 

100,000 Homeless in China  

"We are in the open air here. No place to sleep, nothing to eat. No one is paying any attention to us," said Peng Qiong, 45, a farmer in Chaoyang village on the outskirts of Lushan, near the epicenter.

Thousands of displaced survivors are living in Red Cross tents following an earthquake in China's Sichuan province, though many are left with no form of shelter. Saturday's 6.6 magnitude earthquake killed more than 200 people and has left an estimated 100,000 homeless.

Caring about the 200 who died, the 11,000 who were injured and the 100,000 left homeless does not take away from how we feel about the tragedy in Boston, but we MUST treat these situations very differently and ask the world to begin paying attention to the needs of the Chinese people affected by this natural disaster.

Three Die in Boston, 186 in China - Which Gets More Media Attention?

The two Boston Marathon bombing culprits have been killed in one case and captured in the other.  They turned out to be brothers who had lived in the Boston area for quite a while, but felt tied to Chechnya, and possibly conducted this act of terrorism as a Chechnya protest.  Maybe?

That one of the terrorists is dead, and the other captured is a good thing.

Along with rest of the United States, I sat, transfixed Friday night, as police forces (local, state and federal) converged on a covered boat parked in a Watertown, MA driveway, bringing an incredible manhunt to a close, with the second terrorist, a 19-year-old, being shot and eventually surrendering to authorities.

Their deadly act killed three people in Boston, and injured hundreds more.

Then, half a world away, a major earthquake struck the Chinese province of Sichuan at 8 a.m. local time, killing 186 and injuring more than 11,000.


How much television coverage have you seen of the earthquake in China or the 186 deaths there?

All I've seen is a text crawl at the bottom of the screen while wall-to-wall, repetitious coverage of the Boston Marathon Bombings continues on all the 24-hour news networks (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.) non stop.

Three people died in Boston.  186 in China.  11,000+ were injured in China.

Where are the five-minute profiles of children who died in the China earthquake?  Instead, we're treated to "deep background" pieces on the Boston Terrorists, the Tsarnaev brothers and speculation by talking heads about what might have radicalized these men.

What about the dead and injured in China?

I'm not saying the events which unfolded in Boston aren't newsworthy.  They clearly are, and I was among the "consumers" of news all week long, and especially into the weekend.

But, do they justify the amount of international news coverage they're receiving, especially on the same weekend that a 7.0 magnitude earthquake killed nearly 200 people (sure to be more) and injured 11,000?

We need to get our priorities straight, here in the United States and elsewhere.

Tragedy in Boston

Media reported an arrest had been made, then stepped back from the assertion. 

(From CNN)  Investigators scrambling to solve the fatal bombings at the Boston Marathon want to question a man seen on video as a possible suspect in the attack, two official sources with knowledge of the investigation said Wednesday.

The sources identified the person as a man wearing a white baseball cap. News of a possible suspect comes on a day when authorities have made "significant progress" in the case but no arrests, a federal law enforcement source told CNN's John King.

Sources previously told CNN that a suspect was in custody, but both Boston police and the FBI denied that any arrests had been made.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In writing about the recent deaths and injuries from the bombing attacks at the Boston Marathon, the only title that seemed fitting was "Tragedy in Boston."

The human toll that has been seen on television the last few days is deeply saddening to anyone with a conscience.  There can be no excuse, political, ideological or otherwise for the slaying of innocent civilians, including women and children.

A SLATE article (I refuse to link to it) employs the headline, "Let's hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is White Male."

WHAT?

It would be understandable to say, "Let's hope the Boston Marathon Bomber ISN'T (fill-in-the-blank)," but to "wish" for the guilty party to come from a certain group, race or demographic is deplorable, and an example of "Yellow Journalism" at its worst, simply seeking headlines.

In fact, a current SLATE piece from David Weigel IS headlined, "Understandable for Muslims to 'Hope Beyond Hope' That This Doesn't Turn out to Be What It Might Be."

Weigel quotes CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour who said, "There are no conclusions.  Is it international? Is it domestic?  I am part Iranian. And I do understand the burden of association. And I know when we know who did this, we will all unite in strong condemnation."

That is reasonable.  Hoping that a white male, black female, Latino male, Irish female, etc. is culpable, is far beyond the pale.

I'd call it racism, but then again, the Left is incapable of racism, right?

US Fears Impending Israeli Attack on Iran over Nukes

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station.

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station, 

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

According to a story on the Arutz Sheva website (referencing the Channel 10 item) U.S. officials believe a Likud-Kadima government could make a quick decision about an Israeli attack on Iran at any moment, even before the U.S. presidential elections in November.

The Americans have been operating under the assumption that early elections would be held in Israel which would likely postpone an Israeli attack of Iran at least until after the election. 

With Israeli politics stabilized and the current government likely to end its term as scheduled, the situation has changed and the US is worried.

It is generally accepted by the US, European and Gulf Arab states that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, not simply peaceful, energy applications.

The position of the Israeli minister of defense remains that "as long as Iran poses a threat to Israel with its nuclear program, all options are on the table."

Defense Minster Ehud Barak recently said, "I believe it is well understood in Washington, D.C., as well as in Jerusalem that as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table,"

"A military option is not a simple one," Barak added. "It would be complicated with certain associated risks. But a radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the world."

Recent reports indicate that President Barack Obama is prepared to make a major concession to Iran on uranium enrichment which would allow five percent enrichment if Iran  takes other major steps to curb its ability to develop nuclear weapons.

(Summarized and excerpted from Arutz Sheva, Israel National News)

American Truism #15.

Midnight Approaches: Israel Prepares for Attack on Iran with Bunker Buster Request

Following President Obama’s address to AIPAC in which he gave the “green light” to Israel for an attack on Iran, Israel has now requested advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes from the United States, according to a Reuters report.

These bunker buster bombs and planes would significantly improve Israel’s ability to carry out successful bombing attacks on Iran's underground nuclear sites.

That's not just MY opinion.  That supposition comes straight from an unnamed Israeli official.

As reported by Reuters, it appears that the US received the request for bunker busters and refueling planes during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington.

Other reports claim the US might supply the hardware, but only under the condition that Israel promises not to attack Iran THIS YEAR.

JUST NOT THIS YEAR?  But, 2013 would be fine?  Sounds like a political calculation on the part of Team Obama.

I’m not making a judgment here.  When all is said and done, maybe Israel has no other choice.  I believe it’s possible for a rational person to come to that conclusion, yet recent events seem to indicate that Israel is hell bent on destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, WITH or WITHOUT the aid and comfort of the United States.

In a recent article musing upon the entire Israel / Iran / US relationship and likely outcomes, Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for THE ATLANTIC  noted, “I don't believe the leaders of Iran are Nazis, but they certainly do talk like Nazis, and they've oriented their foreign and defense policies around the extermination of the Jewish state."

A White House spokesman denied that requests for bunker busters and refueling planes were made during the Netanyahu / Obama meetings.  But, we all know that could simply be semantics and that back channel discussions could have already taken place.   This alternative channel may very well have been Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The White House wouldn’t confirm or deny a possible DOD possible role, saying only, "I would refer you to other officials.”

Unnamed sources on the US side confirm that these conversations DID take place between Netanyahu and Panetta.  The same source claims no deals were finalized.

While many agree that Obama’s AIPAC speech was indeed a “green light” to attack Iran and its nuclear capabilities, it still puts the Obama administration in a tight spot.

An Israeli-Iranian war would create tough political sledding for Obama in this US election year.  Such a conflict would almost certainly send oil and gas prices skyrocketing, a condition which hold great political peril for Obama.  Yet, being seen as weak on Iran and lukewarm in his support of Israel could be even worse for Obama.

None of the parties involved wants to see an Israeli-Iranian conflict.  And, while its neighbors are no great fans of Iran, a unilateral attack on the trouble-making nation might be all the excuse its neighbors need to unleash “attacks of solidarity” on Israel.

Pressure is growing on all sides, and no one appears to be willing to stand down or blink, which may make armed conflict between Israel and Iran inevitable.

While unlikely, one possibility is that taking recent events into account, Iran could decide to make a preemptive strike of its own against Israel.  This is unlikely because it would allow Israel to strike at Iran with practically no limits while giving Iran’s neighbors the cover they’d need to sit on the sidelines.  Still, the behavior of Iran’s political and religious leadership rarely follows conventional wisdom.

Obama is between a rock and a rockier place, unlikely to get any softer in the coming weeks.  He can’t be the president who allowed Iran to have a nuclear bomb.  He also can’t be the president that allowed Israel to launch a preemptive strike on Iran.  And the LAST thing he wants to do is commit American military power and lives into a new Middle East conflict.

American Truism #9.