Terrorism strikes Mexico and the USA border.

[Woodrow]

I am posting this to keep things in perspective and as a reminder that Terrorism is not the exclusive tool of any particular group, race or faith.


This is no less horrifying than the events in Mumbai, but in this case everybody knows who the terrorists are and there is no way to connect them to any religious belief.

9 headless bodies found in Mexican border city

TIJUANA, Mexico – The bodies of nine decapitated men were found in a vacant lot in Tijuana Sunday, part of a wave of violence that claimed at least 23 lives over the weekend in this border city plagued by warring traffickers, authorities said.

The heads were discovered in plastic bags near the bodies in a poor neighborhood of Tijuana, across from San Diego, Baja California state police said in a statement. Three police identification cards were also found at the site.

The statement gave no motive for the killings, but they came as Mexico's drug cartels wage a bloody fight for smuggling routes and against government forces, dumping beheaded bodies onto streets, carrying out massacres and even tossing grenades into a crowd of Independence Day revelers — an attack that killed eight people in September.

More than 4,000 people have died so far this year in drug-related violence in Mexico.

SOURCE

A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what label we try to place on them.


This is much closer and much more scary to residents of the USA then any incidents in the Mideast or the subcontinent. Or rather it should be.

In the past years the loss of life nearly equals all of the Americans killed in Iraq in the past 5 years. It seems the war on terror is missing a major battlefield.

Do we feel that the loss of Mexican lives is of no importance? Do we deny that Mexicans are also Americans? Are we too concerned with events far away, because we are in denial it is in our own back yard?

[Woodrow]

A related story:

Mexico charges police officer in murder of 24 men

MEXICO CITY – Prosecutors have charged a municipal police commander and an alleged drug cartel member with homicide in the September massacre of 24 men outside Mexico City.

The Attorney General's Office says it also lodged organized crime and drug charges against policeman Antonio Ramirez Cervantes and alleged trafficker Raul Villa Ortega.

The charges, announced Thursday, follow the execution-style killing of 24 men whose bodies were found bound with duct tape and shot in the head on Sept. 12 in a rural area west of Mexico City.

Cervantes served as police commander of a nearby town and allegedly helped Villa Ortega kidnap and kill the victims, many of whom were believed to be rival drug dealers.

SOURCE

[جوري]

what a thread that doesn't implicate Muslims in a terror act?
:haha:

[Woodrow]

We all need to overcome our differences and recognise terrorism is terrorism, no matter who the terrorist claims to be. Terrorism is the enemy of all people of peace and those who desire to resolve differences by peaceful means.

A terrorist who kills innocent people in the name of religion is no different than one who kills innocent people for drug profits.


Terrorists are not a follower of any religion except of terrorism.

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[north_malaysian]

We all need to overcome our differences and recognise terrorism is terrorism, no matter who the terrorist claims to be. Terrorism is the enemy of all people of peace and those who desire to resolve differences by peaceful means.

A terrorist who kills innocent people in the name of religion is no different than one who kills innocent people for drug profits.


Terrorists are not a follower of any religion except of terrorism.

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

I really angry with people potraying themselves as the "real" Muslims but kill innocent people... both Muslims and non-Muslims...

[Grace Seeker]

Do we feel that the loss of Mexican lives is of no importance? Do we deny that Mexicans are also Americans? Are we too concerned with events far away, because we are in denial it is in our own back yard?

Well, many would deny that Mexicans are also Americans. Mexicans are of one nation and Americans are of a different nation. Of course there are many Americans of Mexican descent, and they often go by the hypenated Mexican-Americans; but when it comes to actual nationality rather than ethnicity, they are not Mexicans, they are Americans. When I see a media report that X Mexicans were killed, I'm thinking nationality not ethnicity.

Now, to your bigger topic. Do we feel that the loss of Mexican lives is of no importance? No, I don't think so. But we may be in denial, or more likely living in naivette.

The reason I suggest naivette is because there is a difference between these deaths that you mention and the deaths that draw our attention and are reported as terrorist killings. Not that both aren't equally human and equally dead. But the deaths in Mexico are reported to be the deaths of criminals involved in illegal drug trafficking operations. We don't see this as a threat in Minnesota and Illinois. Even though it is certainly closer than Mumbai, it is of people engaged in an activity that we are not engaged in. Since I'm not a drug trafficker, I feel that I'm not likely to be a victim of the violence they are directing against one another. Now this part is where I am most likely expressing my naievette. Maybe I should worry about them as well, but I don't feel the need. I have never experienced or known anyone personally who experienced the terror associated with a drug war. That can't be said about some of these other terrorist events. These other events target people who, like me, are just going about their day minding their own business. And it is specifically because they are minding their own business that they become targets of terrorism. That is what makes it so much more scary than the criminal violence you cite in Tiajuana and San Diego. While that may be horrible, especially because I have visited and love those cities, I sense that as long as I didn't get involved in their criminal world, that I might be exempt from the violence they are doing to each other. But, how do I exempt myself from terrorism that targets those who aren't doing anything but trying to live their life peacably and stay out of other people's way?

[Keltoi]

Mexican drug cartels have a very recognizable call sign, which is beheaded bodies. Usually they cut off the hands as well if they are dealing with a thief or a rat.

The American border states have been calling for increased U.S. military patrols along the border, but as you can imagine that isn't very popular with a certain segment of the Washington political class.

[Amadeus85]

I am posting this to keep things in perspective and as a reminder that Terrorism is not the exclusive tool of any particular group, race or faith.


This is no less horrifying than the events in Mumbai, but in this case everybody knows who the terrorists are and there is no way to connect them to any religious belief.


A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what label we try to place on them.


This is much closer and much more scary to residents of the USA then any incidents in the Mideast or the subcontinent. Or rather it should be.

In the past years the loss of life nearly equals all of the Americans killed in Iraq in the past 5 years. It seems the war on terror is missing a major battlefield.

Do we feel that the loss of Mexican lives is of no importance? Do we deny that Mexicans are also Americans? Are we too concerned with events far away, because we are in denial it is in our own back yard?

We shouldnt also forget about Congo. In the last ten years about 4 million people died there. They are not americans, europeans, tibetans or palestinians so the world media doesnt care.

[Woodrow]

We shouldnt also forget about Congo. In the last ten years about 4 million people died there. They are not americans, europeans, tibetans or palestinians so the world media doesnt care.

I think you hit it right. If the media can say that terrorism has a label such as a nationality or a religion, it sells.

Perhaps people do not want to hear: A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Perhaps people want to hear:

A terrorist is a Muslim.
A terrorist is a Christian.
A terrorist is a Sikh.
A terrorist is a Jew.
A terrorist is a Hindu.

Attach the connotation that a terrorist is somebody of a different belief than what we are.
Do that and we suddenly no longer see the possibility that our own kind can be terrorists.

Make it a group that has some similarities to us and suddenly we have placed a label on the word terrorist and have convinced ourselves that our own people can not be a terrorist.

We can not fathom the concept of a Congo Terrorist as a threat, as they are not like us and isolated far from us.

[KAding]

But I think there are two important issues that makes this example of yours different:
1. Politics: terrorism as it is usually defined is a form of political violence. That is, the perpetrators must be motivated by politics and have political objectives.
2. Global character: this so-called "war on terror" (in other words this clash between "radical jihadists" and "the West") has a global reach, making it more relevant to all of us.

And as Grace Seeker pointed out, the most shocking forms of terrorism are those that involve the indiscriminate killing of civilians. It becomes even more shocking and thus newsworthy when you have a high number of casualties in just a single incident.

That said, I don't doubt that criminal violence can also be devastating to local communities. Btw, it is not as if the "war on drugs" is not a political and law enforcement priority in the US.

[Woodrow]

But I think there are two important issues that makes this example of yours different:
1. Politics: terrorism as it is usually defined is a form of political violence. That is, the perpetrators must be motivated by politics and have political objectives.
2. Global character: this so-called "war on terror" (in other words this clash between "radical jihadists" and "the West") has a global reach, making it more relevant to all of us.

I can't argue with that. It is very much political and the media has globalized it, concentrating upon any Muslim mentioning. That is the politacal attitude and tends to globalize any terrorism done by those using the name Muslim.

And as Grace Seeker pointed out, the most shocking forms of terrorism are those that involve the indiscriminate killing of civilians. It becomes even more shocking and thus newsworthy when you have a high number of casualties in just a single incident.

I agree. But, that is not Islamic, that is terrorism and should be called terrorism, not Islamic Terrorism.

That said, I don't doubt that criminal violence can also be devastating to local communities. Btw, it is not as if the "war on drugs" is not a political and law enforcement priority in the US.

True, but notice that nobody has jumped on the chance to call it Mexican or Italian or even Catholic terrorism? Why not? Perhaps because it would not be "politicaly correct"? I think that following the logic of using the term "Islamic Terrorism" could also apply to calling the war on the drug cartel the "War against Catholic Terrorism" it would be just as wrong and just as offensive. If it is wrong to call it "Catholic Terrorism" Would it not be equally wrong to call it "Islamic Terrorism"?

[Keltoi]

True, but notice that nobody has jumped on the chance to call it Mexican or Italian or even Catholic terrorism? Why not? Perhaps because it would not be "politicaly correct"? I think that following the logic of using the term "Islamic Terrorism" could also apply to calling the war on the drug cartel the "War against Catholic Terrorism" it would be just as wrong and just as offensive. If it is wrong to call it "Catholic Terrorism" Would it not be equally wrong to call it "Islamic Terrorism"?

The Mexican drug cartels don't claim to do what they do in the name of Christianity. Al-Qaeda, for example, are Muslim terrorists because they claim to be Muslims and claim to commit their actions in defense of Islam. That is a connection that is a little hard to overlook.

[Woodrow]

The Mexican drug cartels don't claim to do what they do in the name of Christianity. Al-Qaeda, for example, are Muslim terrorists because they claim to be Muslims and claim to commit their actions in defense of Islam. That is a connection that is a little hard to overlook.

I will agree that it is more publicized. (Islamic?) terrorists tend to be more verbal. I use the word Islamic loosely, terrorism is not Islamic.

I have seen/heard indications from other terrorists that they believed they were doing "God's work"

I don't get much chance to hang around with Mafioso, but in various stages of my life I have met a few and all I met (small number, perhaps 100) were very devout people and quite pious and believed that they were acting to help preserve their religious beliefs. But, they were not vocal about it when caught.

[shuraimfan4lyf]

As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.

Jazak'Allah khairan brother woodrow for posting that. It made me smile.

You are absolutely right about how media portraits muslims as terrorist. Its all part of a plan. Astaghfurlah! may Allah topple the plan the disbelievers have. Also why can't the media call the internal rebels in Africa terrorists? also the mobs in Mexican and latin america. or anywhere else. The U.S. let the drug dealers come in and let the crime rates go up just because its part of a Esoteric Agenda barely anyone knows about. I see where this is heading towards. May Allah guide us and forgive us. And give the religion of truth a big victory. Ameen

[KAding]

An interesting article that directly concerns the issues brought up in this thread.

US gives Mexico anti-drug funding

A $197m (£133m) aid package to help Mexico fight drugs cartels has been released by the US government.

It is part of the Merida Initiative, a $400m (£270m) scheme to assist Mexico's efforts to take on the drugs trade.

US Ambassador Tony Garza formally unveiled the programme, which includes the donation of helicopters and surveillance aircraft, in Mexico City.

Mexican newspaper El Universal says at least 5,000 people have been killed in drugs-related violence this year.

The newspaper, which has been keeping tallies for the past four years, said that the number of people killed by organised crime was on course to be double the 2,700 deaths registered in 2007.

Deaths had been happening at an average of one an hour during the past 42 days, El Universal said.

Corruption fears

In the last two years, Mexican President Felipe Calderon has deployed more than 40,000 troops, along with federal police, in a crackdown on drug gangs in the country.

Mexico is in the midst of a major campaign against immensely powerful cartels that traffic cocaine and other drugs to consumers in the United States, says the BBC's Stephen Gibbs in Mexico City.

Ninety percent of all the cocaine consumed in the United States is believed to reach the country via Mexico.

President Felipe Calderon, has long sought, and been promised, financial aid from Washington to try to defeat the traffickers.

The initiative is part of a $1.6bn (£1.1bn) US plan to help train and equip security forces and strengthen justice systems in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.

The aid has been held up for months, partly because US legislators were concerned that the money might end up in the hands of corrupt Mexican officials.

None of the $197m which has just been released will be in the form of cash.

Instead equipment is being provided to enable American and Mexican law enforcers to work more closely together.

Forces unleashed

The deal comes at at time when the drug war in Mexico appears to be having increasingly violent.

In Tijuana last weekend, for example, there were 25 murders, including nine decapitations.

What the numbers signify is open to interpretation, our correspondent says.

The Mexican Government says that the increased killings are often the result of leaderless drug gangs turning on each other for the fewer spoils that remain.

But some analysts fear that by taking on the drug runners, President Calderon has unleashed forces he arguably will not be able to control.

There is plenty of evidence that Mexican law enforcement agencies have been extensively infiltrated by the cartels.

The government is having to rely on the army to police parts of the country.

Mr Calderon says his war on drugs will be long and difficult. In that, he is being proved right, our correspondent says.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...as/7764054.stm

Published: 2008/12/04 09:06:02 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

[KAding]

I can't argue with that. It is very much political and the media has globalized it, concentrating upon any Muslim mentioning. That is the politacal attitude and tends to globalize any terrorism done by those using the name Muslim.

I agree. But, that is not Islamic, that is terrorism and should be called terrorism, not Islamic Terrorism.

True, but notice that nobody has jumped on the chance to call it Mexican or Italian or even Catholic terrorism? Why not? Perhaps because it would not be "politicaly correct"? I think that following the logic of using the term "Islamic Terrorism" could also apply to calling the war on the drug cartel the "War against Catholic Terrorism" it would be just as wrong and just as offensive. If it is wrong to call it "Catholic Terrorism" Would it not be equally wrong to call it "Islamic Terrorism"?

I stand by my point that calling this phenomenon (drug related crime) a form of 'terrorism' really stretches the concept beyond recognition. The motivation of the perpetrators is incredibly important here. They aren't killing in defense of Mexico, or in defense of Catholicism. They don't even have any political objectives. Thats why they aren't "Catholic terrorists" or "Nationalist terrorists", how could they be if it isn't about religion or politics?

"Islamic terrorists" aren't called that way because these terrorists happen to be Muslim, it calls them that because they are driven by a belief (rightly or wrongly) that their religion calls on them to do what they do. This is why Kurdish terrorism in the form of the PKK has never been called Islamic terrorism, despite the fact that they were Muslims. In a similar vain terrorist acts by the PLO were never called Islamic terrorism by the main stream media, because everyone understood that both these organizations were driven by nationalist objectives first and foremost. Their actions were not grounded in religious ideology, or criminal intent, but in nationalist beliefs and objectives.

In short, it is not the background, ethnicity, gender, color of their eyes that makes anyone an "X" or "Y" terrorist. It is their beliefs and their motivations for committing acts of terrorism, i.e. their ideology.

[AvarAllahNoor]

The Mexican drug cartels don't claim to do what they do in the name of Christianity. Al-Qaeda, for example, are Muslim terrorists because they claim to be Muslims and claim to commit their actions in defense of Islam. That is a connection that is a little hard to overlook.

The Lords Army in Africa, have you heard what they do in the name of Christ? - I bet you don't address that. It's all about Muslims. Some are bad, just as you would get in any other relgion.

[KAding]

The Lords Army in Africa, have you heard what they do in the name of Christ? - I bet you don't address that. It's all about Muslims. Some are bad, just as you would get in any other relgion.

I don't understand how this is a response to Keltoi. Where does he say that Christian extremists would be incapable of terrorism?

The Lords Resistance Army are a weird bunch, I am not sure how christian they really are to be honest. But they definitely could be seen as a Christian-inspired sect. A better example of Christian terrorism IMHO would be attacks on abortion clinics or doctors which have happened in the US.

[AvarAllahNoor]

I don't understand how this is a response to Keltoi. Where does he say that Christian extremists would be incapable of terrorism?

.

He insinuates it many times in other posts.

Also, we don't hear of ''Christian Terrorists'' killing innocents in Africa do we. :rollseyes

[Amadeus85]

He insinuates it many times in other posts.

Also, we don't hear of ''Christian Terrorists'' killing innocents in Africa do we. :rollseyes

If they were really inspired by catholicism or protestantism to kill and murder we would surely hear about it, especially that western media mostly are in hands of people who dislike our religion.

[AvarAllahNoor]

If they were really inspired by catholicism or protestantism to kill and murder we would surely hear about it, especially that western media mostly are in hands of people who dislike our religion.

Lords Army claim they follow the teachings of the Bible. 'Islamic' terrorists claim they follow the teachings of the Quran.... The difference here baffles me?

[Amadeus85]

Lords Army claim they follow the teachings of the Bible. 'Islamic' terrorists claim they follow the teachings of the Quran.... The difference here baffles me?

The question is how much their actions follow the christian teaching and do they have support from the bishops and priests.

[AvarAllahNoor]

The question is how much their actions follow the christian teaching and do they have support from the bishops and priests.

How manu Imans support the terror attacks on innocents? I'm sure it's not the majority, just a few misguided ones.

[Keltoi]

It is also about the "holy war" mentality. These terrorist groups, whose members are self-proclaimed Muslims, wrap their message and their actions in the blanket of jihad. One can debate about what jihad really means but we have no doubt what it means to groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the numerous other groups who fall under the umbrella.

A terrorist act committed by a Muslim doesn't necessarily mean it was influenced by his or her religious beliefs. However, when the "martyrs" who have just blown themselves and a group of civilians to pieces also left behind a videotape describing his motivations it is a little difficult to deny the label.

[The_Prince]

lol its amazing, you look at aaron and see how deperate some christians are, for instance aaron says oh well these african 'christian' terrorists arent really christian, they dont follow the Bible, and dont have support from bishops etc.

so conveniantly for you Muslims who do terrorism are following Islam, but for christians no no they have it all wrong?

go get ur facts straight buddy, the Catholic Church in congo backed the genocide commited by congo against the rwandans.

but again notice the double standards by these christians, when Muslims commit terrorism yesssssss its ISLAMIC ISLAMIC LETS SAY IT, when christians commit terrorism backed by their faith the christians now say oh well u seeeeee theyre just wrong and this isnt christian at all.

[The_Prince]

It is also about the "holy war" mentality. These terrorist groups, whose members are self-proclaimed Muslims, wrap their message and their actions in the blanket of jihad. One can debate about what jihad really means but we have no doubt what it means to groups like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the numerous other groups who fall under the umbrella.

A terrorist act committed by a Muslim doesn't necessarily mean it was influenced by his or her religious beliefs. However, when the "martyrs" who have just blown themselves and a group of civilians to pieces also left behind a videotape describing his motivations it is a little difficult to deny the label.

and the same applies to bush and his war hawks, who evoked the bible and christian terms for their wars in afghanistan and iraq, hence stop looking at things from one angle to try and demonize Islam when your own leaders do the same thing, but nooooooooo thats different isnt it?!!!!!!!

when bush says this is a crusade, and you are either with us or against us, one a christian religous concept, and the other straight from the bible, nooooooooooooooooo thats just erm well u see thats erm erm well no no u see ermmmmmmm. give us a bl00dy break will u?

[The_Prince]

bush and his gang are Christian terrorists. FACT. now watch christians make excuses to show everybody their hypocrisy yet again.

[The_Prince]

bush says crusade: no thats not christian related

bin laden says jihad: well u see this is somehow related to Islam, we cant deny it.

bush says ur either with us or against us, which is from the bible itself: well u see no, not really.

bin laden quotes Quran: see, its Islam related im afraid, he quotes Quran.

lolllllllllllllllllll dang are these Christians for real? their hypocrisy is so bl00dy sickening.

[Keltoi]

and the same applies to bush and his war hawks, who evoked the bible and christian terms for their wars in afghanistan and iraq, hence stop looking at things from one angle to try and demonize Islam when your own leaders do the same thing, but nooooooooo thats different isnt it?!!!!!!!

when bush says this is a crusade, and you are either with us or against us, one a christian religous concept, and the other straight from the bible, nooooooooooooooooo thats just erm well u see thats erm erm well no no u see ermmmmmmm. give us a bl00dy break will u?

For one thing, the word "crusade" is not simply a Christian term. It is used in various ways in modern common speech. President Bush made a mistake in using that term because he was obviously ignorant of what that word brings to mind in the Arab world. He was not suggesting that the U.S. military was representing the will of God in a holy war.

As for "you are either with us or against us", I fail to see how that comes "straight from the Bible." It was a justification for Bush's war policy, which was preemptive.

I would have no problem labeling a Christian group, who was involved in mass killings and terrorism, that justified its actions as the will of God or in "defense of Christendom", as Christian terrorists.

The Mexican drug cartels do not fit that description.

[The_Prince]

For one thing, the word "crusade" is not simply a Christian term. It is used in various ways in modern common speech. President Bush made a mistake in using that term because he was obviously ignorant of what that word brings to mind in the Arab world. He was not suggesting that the U.S. military was representing the will of God in a holy war.

As for "you are either with us or against us", I fail to see how that comes "straight from the Bible." It was a justification for Bush's war policy, which was preemptive.

I would have no problem labeling a Christian group, who was involved in mass killings and terrorism, that justified its actions as the will of God or in "defense of Christendom", as Christian terrorists.

The Mexican drug cartels do not fit that description.

lol lol BUSH IS A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN, so when he says CRUSADE i think we know what he meant, so big fail there with your weak response, we all know what he meant, you know what he meant, you dont even believe your response.

as for your with us or against us from the Bible, here you go my friend:

He that is not with me is against me, Luke 11:23

He that is not with me is against me, Matthew 12:30

this is directly from the Bible, you are either with us, or against us! and again, bush is a born again Christian as he says, so u really think were all stupid and expect to believe when he used the term crusade, as well as using a phrase exactly from the Bible is mere coincidences and not religously motivated? lol well if you want to be in denial, be in denial.

[aamirsaab]

Bush did also claim God told him to attack Iraq....which everyone seems to have forgotten.

Anywho, let's get back to the topic: Terrorism strikes mexico and the USA border.

I always found that weird - the level of animosity between the two neighbouring countries. Of course, I also find certain americans saying immigrants should get out of the USA also weird but whatever.

[Keltoi]

Bush did also claim God told him to attack Iraq....which everyone seems to have forgotten.

Anywho, let's get back to the topic: Terrorism strikes mexico and the USA border.

I always found that weird - the level of animosity between the two neighbouring countries. Of course, I also find certain americans saying immigrants should get out of the USA also weird but whatever.

I think you miss the point. Americans aren't saying immigrants should leave the country, most, for some strange reason, think illegal immigrants should leave the country. There is a big difference there.

As for Bush saying that God told him to attack Iraq, that has been debunked long ago. That actually came from a Palestinian diplomat, who later retracted that statement and said he didn't mean it that way.

[Keltoi]

lol lol BUSH IS A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN, so when he says CRUSADE i think we know what he meant, so big fail there with your weak response, we all know what he meant, you know what he meant, you dont even believe your response.

A Crusade, a term that wasn't even used until about the 4th Crusade, describes a holy war legitimized by papal authority. In the modern age it is a term used to describe a goal or mission. For example, Batman is called "the caped crusader." Does that mean he is on a holy war to reclaim the Holy Sepulchre? Obviously not.

as for your with us or against us from the Bible, here you go my friend:

He that is not with me is against me, Luke 11:23

He that is not with me is against me, Matthew 12:30

this is directly from the Bible, you are either with us, or against us! and again, bush is a born again Christian as he says, so u really think were all stupid and expect to believe when he used the term crusade, as well as using a phrase exactly from the Bible is mere coincidences and not religously motivated? lol well if you want to be in denial, be in denial.

The actual verse is: "The person who isn't with me is against me, and the person who isn't gathering with me is scattering."

That is referring to the fact that those who are not involved in bringing people to God are involved with scattering them away.

That is not what Bush was saying. He was referring to those who give aid or refuge for terrorists inside of their country. It was a warning to those countries who believe they can stay out of the conflict on one hand and on the other give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. As is usually the case, statements require context.