Posts Tagged ‘Terrorism’

They Booed Trump at the World Series:  What Does That Mean?

October 29, 2019

They Booed Trump at the World Series:  What Does That Mean?

There’s been a lot of discussion in the press about events October 27, 2019.  First, Americans woke up to hear that the founder and leader of DAESH or ISIS had been killed in a nighttime raid in Syria.  He was a brutal and seemingly power-mad terrorist, even compared to Osama bin Laden, and the violent death of a person who celebrated rape, slavery, torture and murder is good news for anyone who loves justice.  As the Commander in Chief of the US military, Donald Trump clearly expected at least a little boost in his popularity.  You could argue that he should have gotten enormous praise and gratitude, not in the sense that he was morally owed anything but rather in the sense that if you light a fuse and it burns down to the dynamite and nothing happens, you say, “That should have exploded.”  Something unexpected and seemingly unnatural happened; instead of cheers or even polite applause, Donald Trump was jeered and booed the very day he announced that one of America’s most vicious enemies had been killed.  Why is that?

There have been many comments made about the way Trump announced the death of Baghdadi.  Obama announced the death of bin Laden with little prior build-up.  It came totally unexpectedly.  In fact, right before the raid he was going through one of the traditional Washington rituals, the White House Correspondents Dinner Roast.  He mocked himself and was mocked by others; he also teased others.  He was funny and seemed relaxed, as if nothing special was happening.  A few hours later, he was in the White House listening in real time while the raid played out, so that if any major decisions needed to be made or major announcements made, good or bad, he’d be there to do so.  When the raid was over and the troops safely on their way home, he made a relatively dignified speech congratulating and thanking all those involved, even the military who weren’t always his biggest fans because he had not served and had made decisions many disagreed with.

By contrast, during the actual raid to kill Baghdadi, Trump was golfing, enjoying his weekly multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded personal pleasure.  Then he tweeted about an upcoming big announcement, teasing it like it was the new Star Wars trailer or something.  When he finally made his announcement, it seemed to many to be self-congratulatory, to reveal operational details better kept secret, and to be generally undignified and unworthy of the president of the United States.  While Obama had emphasized that the body of bin Laden had been buried with the dignity we’d give one of our own, Trump repeatedly spoke of how humiliated Baghdadi had been, “whimpering” and dying “like a dog.” While Obama had notified leaders of both parties, Trump notified the Russians but not his real enemies, the Democrats, American citizens, most of whom have handled secret materials for years without leaking it.  And many were quick to note that when bin Laden was killed, Donald Trump was one of the first to say that Obama did not deserve any credit because he was merely the President; so why, critics asked, should Trump get any credit now when he had no more to do with killing Baghdadi than Obama had to do with killing bin Laden?

All of this, however, strikes me as beside the point.  Ultimately, while these considerations might have warranted rebuking Trump’s boorish and narcissistic messaging or his hypocrisy, it doesn’t explain the chants of “Lock Him Up!” by tens of thousands of people on live, international television.  Something much more is going on here. 

Tamara Keith of PBS Newshour was onto part of it when she pointed out that bin Laden was a much bigger force in most Americans’ minds than Baghdadi ever was.  Al Qaeda killed thousands of Americans in one day on live television; DAESH sought to establish its caliphate on the other side of the world, and most of its victims were Syrians and Iraqis.  Newshour also pointed out that while Obama got a popularity boost after the killing of bin Laden, it didn’t last; wile he got a month or two versus the hours at most that Trump earned, ultimately it partisanship took hold in both cases.  The difference between the two cases was not as different as it might first seem; still, it’s worth asking why Trump didn’t earn even the temporary boost Obama got.

When Obama took office, there were two great threats hanging over our collective heads:  the Great Recession and radical Islamist terrorism.  Killing bin Laden symbolically took care of one of these, while the Obama economic plan, including the bailout of the auto industry, helped with the other.  Before Obama took office, economists predicted that recovery from the Great Recession would be slow and uneven; some of the jobs lost would never come back, though others would replace them.  Sadly, that prediction proved true; some areas of our country never really recovered, though overall the economy has grown steadily through most of the Obama administration and into Trump’s.  The result was a balkanization of our fears.  In rural areas, and many manufacturing areas, the economy continued to be a source of anxiety; but for most of the nation, things were slowly looking up.  Areas where jobs were scarce and immigrants relatively unknown, the fear of Islamic terrorism grew to a general xenophobia; not only were foreigners seen as terrorists and criminals, but also as competitors for the scarce jobs.  But in more developed areas, there were enough jobs that immigrants were seen not as competitors as much as a necessary part of the work force.  People who knew Muslims first-hand didn’t fear them all, but distinguished between them.  So while Obama addressed the concerns of most Americans, Trump addressed himself to the needs of only a limited portion.

According to opinion polls, more Americans are worried about mass shootings and domestic terrorism than they are about Mexicans or ISIS.  More Americans worry about Russian hackers than about whether #MeToo is unfair to men.  While Trump voters fear illegal aliens voting, voters in other areas have dealt with real election fraud:  the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia sabotaging voting machines in black neighborhoods, the Republican candidate in North Carolina literally stealing ballots from Democratic voters, thousands of legal citizens being blocked from voting around the nation by Voter ID laws designed to handicap legal citizens, and so on.  The problems most Americans fear are not being solved by Trump.  In fact, Donald Trump seems to exacerbate those problems.  He doesn’t fight mass shootings; he defends the NRA, which even the GOP-controlled Senate concedes is a Russian asset, and which fights to preserve the rights of suspected terrorists, domestic abusers and the mentally ill to have military-grade weapons.  He doesn’t fight to ensure that all citizens can vote; he supports voter suppression and voter suppressors.  He doesn’t fight foreigners undermining our elections; he encourages and even forces them to intervene to help him.  And most tellingly, while he touts his fight against Islamic terrorism, more Americans have been killed or threatened by white supremacist terrorism which often cites Trump-favored information sources like Breitbart and InfoWars, or even quotes Trump himself.  We’ve had mass shootings, white supremacist riots, and bombing attempts, all citing Trump’s words in support and loyalty to him as their motive.  In short, to most Americans, Donald Trump is a more obvious and all-encompassing danger than Baghdadi was on his best day. 

Why did they boo Donald Trump at Game 5 of the World Series?  Because they hate Trump, sure.  But why?  Is it, as Trump supporters claim, because those 40,000 people simply hate America?  That would be stupid; this is where we keep our stuff, so why would we blow it up?  Is it “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” an irrational blind hatred of all things Trump?  Again, no.  The hatred and anger flows from the fact that Trump is felt to be a threat, a greater threat than any other, the nexus of most or all of the fears and anxieties of the majority of Americans.  He supports the terrorists most of us fear, the ones who shoot up schools and shopping malls and churches:  the white supremacists, the incels, the people who just collect guns so that when their anger boils over they’ll be ready to make the universe pay.  He accepts the praise of those who literally proclaim him the new Christ, and who threaten to unleash civil war in God’s name if he is opposed. 

I don’t think most of the people in that ballpark thought about this explicitly.  They reacted emotionally, as a result of conscious reasoning and unconscious perception.  The two things Trump can most credibly brag about are simply not the two things most people fear the most; and the things they do fear the most are things they associate with him.  Booing Donald Trump feels like booing Nazis and other “very fine people,” like booing the El Paso shooter and the Charlottesville driver and all the other terrorists who have quoted him, like booing climate change and all the entitled billionaires who fight to keep it happening, like booing the corruption of government officials who funnel tax money into their businesses while brazenly shaking down lobbyists for “donations.”  In a real sense, Donald Trump is a symbol, a bigger-than-life character, the way bin Laden was and Baghdadi is not, at least not for Americans.  And while for many Americans he’s a symbol of fighting social and economic changes that unsettle traditional values, for a return to the America they remember from their childhood, when America was Great, for many more he’s a symbol of chaos, random violence, political violence, oppression, environmental chaos of floods, fires, melting glaciers and mass extinctions, of religious oppression, and an attack on Hope itself. 

I side with the jeering masses, the booers, the chanters, the displeased.  I see two great forces struggling for control of America.  One saw itself as the Culture Warriors, but they’ve largely lost that war so rather than fight to win the culture they fight to establish rule by force over it.  Their slogan, Make America Great Again, is a formula for going backwards, for stasis and even degeneration.  The best days are behind them, so they seek to drag everyone and everything back into the past, back to when it was simple.  The other side’s slogan is “Yes We Can!”  It is optimism, It was Hope and Change, It is growth.  Anything not busy being born is busy dying; so this other side seeks to guide the change but not to fight it.  Trump famously, proudly resists learning, resists change, resists advice or other perspectives or other voices than his own.  Obama studied and read and questioned all through his presidency, and changed course when he had to.  Obama said, “You are the change you’ve been waiting for.” Trump said, “Things are a mess, and I alone can fix it.”  I guess, for all my cynicism, my self-esteem is simply not low enough for me to bow down to a mere mortal who claims perfection and omnipotence, and who demands that I shut up and follow meekly where he leads.  I’d rather have leaders who demand my effort, my attention, my mental engagement, my work, but not my soul.  And so, apparently, do 40,000 or so baseball fans at the fifth game of the 2019 World Series.

Why Were We Attacked on 9/11? Why Must We Remember? What Have We Forgotten?

September 11, 2018

This.  This is why we were attacked.

Al Qaeda was originally founded to overthrow the corrupt tyrannies in the Muslim world.  Osama bin Laden and his gang believed that the governments that they opposed were propped up by Western democracies and Communist dictatorships, and would never be removed until the influence of those outside powers was broken.  They knew they could ever do this in open war, as the Prophet had done when he led the faithful from Medina to unify the Arabian peninsula or the Caliphs had done when they led armies out of Arabia into Africa and across Asia, eventually even into parts of Europe.  Instead, they chose to rely on terrorism and attrition.  They would commit acts of terror in countries they intended to conquer, in order to destabilize them.  The government would have to commit to guarding everywhere, and still would not be able to insure peace.  People would start to turn on each other, as their government’s financial resources were drained and they had to rely on themselves for security.  Eventually, the country would collapse into anarchy, and the former national unity would fracture along tribal and ethnic lines.  This vicious infighting would be the “savagery” part of the strategy.  Then they, the terrorists who originally caused the problems, would ride in to fix the problems.  This is the “management” part.  They would restore the very social services they had destroyed, restore law and order, and bring peace.

And where would Russia, the US, and Europe be during all this time?  The plan was to lure these powers into war on Muslim soil.  This would serve as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, and would drain the great powers of their chief advantage:  their wealth.  As they went bankrupt, they would break up and lose the ability to export their culture, their movies, their blue jeans, and their political ideas, notions about women’s rights and so on.  This is the strategy they used to shatter the USSR and, they thought, it would work against the USA too.  Big, spectacular attacks like 9/11/01 are giant, bloody recruitment posters for al Qaeda, as well as attempts to goad the West into unending war and eventual bankruptcy.

At first, it seemed like it would fail, miserably.  This is why we need to remember.  After 9/11, the entire civilized world united against the forces of barbarism and savagery.  We had more pro-USA rallies around the world in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center fell than we had at any time since the defeat of Hitler, maybe even more.  The values that our nation was founded on—that all people are created equal, that we the people should control our own government—are principles that were valued around the world, even in the Islamic world.  The Muslim world has suffered under colonization and economic exploitation, as well as centuries of economic and intellectual stagnation that had left it weak and vulnerable in the 20th Century; but even there, many people want freedom, peace and prosperity, government that works for the people and in which they have some voice, even if the form that takes is not the same as our democracy.  And even people who disagreed with us did not agree with the idea of killing men, women and children who were working, or shopping, or on school trips to the city, people who might themselves be Muslim or Jewish or Christian, American or European or Asian or African, anyone who happened to be in the World Trade Center.  And we Americans, who had been pushed apart by the Culture Wars of the 1990s, came together, despite differences in race, class or religion.  Gay and straight, atheist and faithful, rich and poor all came together to mourn as one people, and to dedicate ourselves to preserving the promise of the United States of America.  We had national prayer services, we had fundraising telethons, public expressions of patriotism surged, and military recruiters were busier than they had ever been since the end of the draft.

There were some voices of dissent to all this unity.  Culture warriors like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on the Right chose to blame feminists and progressives for the attacks, saying that God hates equal pay for women and help for the poor so much that He (sic) sent the terrorists to punish us.  Culture warriors on the Left chose to blame the victim, saying that the terrorist attacks were just retribution for the past wrongs of colonization and the present wrongs of racism and exploitation  But the vast majority of people, from George W. Bush to Christopher Hitchens, were horrified, and we mostly saw those voices of division for what they were:  self-serving attempts to keep the Culture War Industry going and its leaders prosperous.

What we have forgotten, though, is that although we were more unified than ever, the forces of division never gave up.  Falwell and Robinson merely bided their time.  More to the point, the Republican party leaped into bin Laden’s trap.  Instead of pursuing a financially sound strategy, attacking and defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan while negotiating with other Muslim nations to side with us against this common foe, they launched a second front in Iraq, a regime that for all its despicableness had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us.  Yes, they supported terrorists in Israel, but not al Qaeda. They launched these wars with no realistic idea how to end them, with inadequate garrison forces to control the land and prevent them from descending into the very savagery bin Laden was seeking to create.  And worst, they did all this without paying for any of it running up huge national debts where the previous president had left a surplus that would have paid off the debt if only the Bush tax cuts hadn’t been passed.  As a result of this economic mismanagement, the world experienced an economic collapse in 2008 that much of Europe, Asia and Africa still has not recovered from.  The USA, under Obama, managed to stop the economic free-fall and slowly improve the economy, which has grown steadily for about ten years now.

Today, the United States government is pursuing national and international policies that seem to be intended to make bin Laden’s dream come true.  He could never have sabotaged the USA economy without help, which he got from Republican tax cuts.  He could never have sabotaged the world economy and alliances without help, which he got from the White House.  Bin Laden could never have turned Americans against each other and threatened to break up the United States into disunited separate nations, if it weren’t for the cooperation of Republicans who called out their state militias to watch Jade Helm exercises, or threatened to shoot Federal workers who sought to enforce health care laws, or who simultaneously worked tirelessly to deprive American citizens of the right to vote while threatening “Second Amendment Remedies” against anyone they didn’t like who had the gall to win in a free and fair election.  We have forgotten what it was that our enemies wanted, and thus have allowed them to come closer to victory than ever before.

Is Islam More Violent?

June 9, 2016

Is Islam More Violent? A Response to Nils Petter Gleditsch and Ida Rudolfsen


War and civil war have decreased — leaving, primarily, fighting in Muslim countries

—-Nils Petter Gleditsh and Ida Rudolfsen, “Are Muslim Countries More Violent?”



In their article, “Are Muslim Countries More Violent?” authors Nils Gleditsh and Ida Rudolfsen reject the idea that violence around the world is driven by a “clash of civilizations.”[1] They point out that in fact, there is relatively little violence around the world that rises to the level of “war,” and furthermore that almost none of that warfare is between nations. Instead, they point out, most of the world’s large-scale violence consists of civil wars within predominately Muslim nations within a broad geographic swath stretching from central Africa to South Asia. They then consider several explanations that have been commonly offered as to why this is the case. They discuss and largely reject the notion that Islam is itself inherently more violent than any other religion, correctly pointing out that most major religions have both violent and peaceful messages which human agents choose to emphasize to suit their own purposes. Jerry Falwell famously argued on the television show 60 Minutes that Mohammed was a terrorist, while Jesus and Moses were men of peace.[2] The pacifism of Moses would come as a surprise to the Amalekites, or other peoples who opposed Israel on its march towards Canaan; and Moses’ successor Joshua destroyed entire city-states from the fighting men down to even the animals. The pacifism of Jesus is more pronounced, but the pacifism of Christians is largely refuted by the words of the evangelists interviewed by Bob Simon. For example, prominent televangelist Kay Arthur insists that God sanctioned the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. Christians who, like Arthur and Falwell, wish to find excuses for violence in the name of God are able to do so, largely by mining the apocalyptic literature; those like the Amish or Quakers who wish to push for total pacifism can find other passages, particularly the words of Jesus; and those like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas who wish to argue for a more moderate “just war theology” emphasize other texts, particularly Paul’s letter to the Romans. Other major religions present the same varied inheritance; neither Christianity nor Islam are markedly more or less inclined to violent rhetoric than these others.

Gleditsh and Rudolfsen also consider the argument that the civil wars in Muslim nations have more to do with economics in those societies than their religion. The fact is that the nations with the most violent civil wars are also nations with past histories of being colonized, with the resultant poverty and lack of political development today; they are nations with little industrialization or other economic assets aside from oil; and they are generally nations with a small rich elite while the majority live in poverty with no economic opportunity. Once you control for the economic factors, the argument goes, the Muslim nations are no more violent than are any others. However, the authors ask, what if the religion is itself contributing to the economic and political dysfunction? If that might be the case, is it in fact feasible or truthful to “control for” and ignore the religious issues?

While their article points out some bad questions and points the way towards some better ones, in the end it doesn’t really attempt to answer the question it asks in its title. For me, the most interesting aspect of the article was that it reminded me of a very helpful book I read in seminary, Islam in the World by Malise Ruthven, and particularly of his comments on the intersection of Islam and politics.[3] Written decades before the Arab Spring and even five years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, this book offers insights into Muslim history and political theory that prove prescient, while still being accessible to an amateur like myself. One of the first interesting nuggets is his observation that “the Prophet had been his own Caesar.”[4] Western culture is shaped largely by Christianity, and Jesus was utterly lacking in official power or worldly authority. For the first formative centuries of Christian history, the same can be said of his followers. Islam from the start had to work out the relationship between temporal ruler and the bearer of the divine message. This puts the whole discussion of “the secular state” versus “the Mosque” into an entirely different context. Christians had to learn to live under the political sovereignty of pagans long before they had to work out how to faithfully live while wielding political power themselves; Muslims began with the problem of how to wield political authority over themselves and others, and only later had to deal with the crisis caused by largely losing that autonomy to foreign colonizers.

In the 20th Century, strains of thought originating from this well of the original Medina community nourished Islamic responses to the Cold War.[5]            The former colonies were often ideological battlegrounds between Soviet Communism and Democratic Capitalism. In many cases, local responses sided with one or another of the superpowers and adopted an Islamized or Arabic version of some foreign philosophy (Baathism, with its debt to both Fascism and Soviet support, is a good example of this). But for nations that sought an ideology that was truly neutral between the contending sides of the Cold war, political Islam offered an alternative that was truly different and truly rooted in the culture of the people. Drawing not only from the Quran and hadith but also from the history of Islamic civilization and philosophy, thinkers such as Sayyid Abu’l Ala Maududi strove to work out systems of governmental authority and economic interaction that were something other than just adopting authoritarian collectivism or individualist capitalism. And in particular, these Islamic political theorists sought to work out a theory of political-economic society that rejected the secularism assumed by both Soviet and Western societies.

When I started teaching religious studies a few years after reading Ruthven, Germany was united and even Russia and China were moving towards free-market economics. The Cold War was over. At the same time, there was not yet any talk of a “clash of civilizations” to replace that global polarization. I remember remarking, referring to Ruthven’s observation that Islam offered a third ideology for peoples who did not wish to be either Western or Soviet, that with the elimination of the Soviet alternative the only two ideologies were Western secular liberalism and political Islam. At that time, I wondered how that fact might work itself out. Jumping ahead twenty years, today we see two major forms of political violence: terrorism and civil war. And as Gleditsch and Rudolfsen observe, these civil wars are almost all in Islamic countries with at least one party expressly pursuing an Islamist ideology. I suggest that this is not so much because Islam causes the violence, but that people disaffected enough by the status quo to resort to civil war move towards Islam as a political ideology, to provide some conceptual framework and intellectual foundation for their group. Without this ideology, they would simply become the intellectual mirror image of their enemies, with no distinct characteristics of their own.

Gleditsch and Rudolfsen also point out that while Islamic terrorism gets a lot of attention from the Western press (and is intended just for that purpose), by far most of the victims of Islamic violence are themselves Muslims. Furthermore, FBI statistics suggest that most U.S. terrorists are not Muslim, but anti-government, or white supremacist, or Christian dominionist agents.[6] If you are in America, you are far more likely to be killed by a self-avowed Christian terrorist (like Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolf) than by a Muslim terrorist.

Perhaps what we see here is that with the collapse of Communism as a viable political ideology for terrorists, would-be insurrectionists are turning to other ideologies and “tribal” loyalties to justify and conceptualize their violence. And in doing so, they generally turn to some theme within their own culture. In Islamic nations, this means Islamism. In the U.S. this more often means some sort of Christian Dominionism or Christian Identity. “Christian Identity” refers to any of a group of pseudo-Christian groups that believe non-whites are subhuman, that the British people are descended from the biblical Israelites and are the only true heirs to the messianic promise, that Jews are Satanic and that Jesus wants his followers to start and win a race war. They generally are not much of a threat to our democracy for the simple reason that they are so obviously dangerous. The white hoods or Nazi tattoos serve much the same purpose as the bright colors of a wasp.

Christian Dominionism more insidious. Followers of this ideology state that their goal is to use democratic means to elect leaders who will then abolish democracy and establish a Christian theocracy. The more intellectually honest among them argue that the religious tolerance advocated by the Founding Fathers was a mistake; the more willfully schizoid argue that this is a Christian nation founded by Christians and religious tolerance was never intended to apply to atheists or pagans, or to Catholics who include too many “unbiblical” practices such as prayers to saints, or to moderate Protestants who are too tolerant of Catholics and non-Christians. They simply choose to ignore Jefferson taking a pair of scissors to the Bible to cut out all the miracle stories that he thought too silly, or the other Deists, as well as a few Catholics and even an atheist or two who were prominent leaders of the American Revolution and the later Constitutional Convention. If Rev. Rafael Cruz had been an avowed racist (leaving aside for the moment that the Christian Identity movement wouldn’t accept a Latino), his son would never have been a serious politician without first loudly and repeatedly renouncing this poisonous theology. But as a Dominionist, Rev. Cruz can reject the Constitutional separation of Church and State, and insist that God wants Christians to impose their religion and morality on others by force, and his son Ted can be elected a U.S. senator.

Am I saying that Ted Cruz has ties to Christian terrorism? No! But, I am saying that the divide that leads to civil war in some Islamic countries is also inspiring division and even violence in this country, too. The primary ideological opposition to Western democracy is no longer Soviet Communism; it is theocracy. Rafael Cruz, Cliven Bundy, Tim McVeigh and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are all on a continuum, and the essential similarity between them is more decisive than the fact that some claim to be Christian and others claim to be Muslim. So I say that the question is not whether Islam is more violent than Christianity. One could argue that Mohamed was a general and political leader who ordered the execution of whole tribes, while Jesus was a pacifist who submitted to an unjust death sentence; but in fact, Christian Dominionism undoes that difference by leaping ahead to the prophesized return of Jesus, and seeks to make him Caesar now. The same dynamic can be seen in Buddhist and Hindu nations as well; where there is a modern group and another group that resents them, those often turn to some religiously-justified ideology.

In his article, “Why They Hate Us,” Fareed Zakaria writes, “Islamic terrorists don’t just hate America or the West. They hate the modern world, and they particularly hate Muslims who are trying to live in the modern world.”[7] The same can be said of Christian terrorists who bomb abortion clinics or Olympic Park; they hate modernity, they hate and fear the changes that are occurring in the world that clash with their preferred values and lifestyle, and they hate their fellow Americans and fellow Christians who disagree with them. And this is a phenomenon that transcends nationality and religious identity today. In every major religion there are those who accept that the world is changing and try to navigate lives of faith given these changing currents, and others who rage against the tides.





[1] Nils Petter Gleditsh and Ida Rudolfsen, “Are Muslim Countries More Violent?” The Washington Post May 16, 2016 (

[2] Bob Simon, reporter, ”’Zion’s Christian Soldiers,’ The 60 Minutes Transcript;” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs December 2002 (

[3] Malise Ruthven, Islam in the World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984)

[4] Ruthven, p. 29

[5] Ruthven, pp. 326-29

[6] See Zalid Jilani, “While King Targets Muslims, There Have Been Twice as Many Plots since 9/11 from Non-Muslim Terrorists;” ThinkProgress March 9, 2011 ( and Washington’s Blog, “Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of all Terrorist Attacks in America;” Global Research; centre for research on globalization May 1, 2013 (

[7] Fareed Zakaria, “Why They Hate Us,” CNN, May 24, 2016 (