As the war of words becomes more aggressive between North Korea and the loud mouth Trump, the Guardian cartoonist provides his vision.

A sombre tone from the Guardian editorial:

Wednesday 9 August 2017 20.09 BSTLast modified on Wednesday 9 August 2017 23.50 BST

It is not reassuring when the US secretary of state has to reassure his country that it is not on the brink of war. “I think Americans should sleep well at night,” Rex Tillerson told reporters on Wednesday. He was playing down the incendiary words of his president, who had promised “fire and fury like the world has never seen” in response not to an attack but to mere threats from North Korea. It was “language designed to send a strong message” to Pyongyang, Mr Tillerson said.

A few hours later, the defense secretary, James Mattis, weighed in: North Korea should cease “actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people … [it] would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates”. Starker words than Mr Tillerson’s, but similarly designed to shift towards a more traditional message of deterrence: actions (not just threats) have consequences. Most likely this storm will soon pass. The armistice has held since 1953. The dire warnings after China and others joined the nuclear club proved unfounded. The previous North Korea crises have fizzled out; not least because nuclear weapons concentrate most minds.

But Mr Trump is not most people. The last US president to use this kind of language was Harry Truman, warning after Hiroshima that Japan must accept US terms or “expect a rain of ruin … the like of which has never been seen on this earth”. But that was in a world war, against a non-nuclear opponent.

The rhetoric was strikingly reminiscent of the bluster of North Korea itself. Yet Pyongyang’s bellicose statements are always worth parsing closely. In the past it has threatened the US mainland – even the White House – with nuclear attack if its survival was in doubt. On Wednesday it said it was considering plans to strike around the US Pacific territory of Guam, choosing a lesser target and talking of containing (not hitting) the military base. For all the extravagance of its threats, they are calculated, not cavalier.

In contrast, Mr Trump offers ad-libbed soundbites from the clubhouse of his resort and on Twitter. But as so often in his case, we should take them seriously if not literally. Military options are still under consideration. Experts say that intelligence on North Korea is too poor, and its capabilities too well advanced, to allow for their wholesale destruction in a preemptive strike. The risk of severe retaliation by conventional means alone is immense.

 

Donald Trump bars New York Times, CNN, Los Angeles Times and Politico from White House press briefingSeveral major American news organisations were on Friday afternoon barred from a White House press briefing in a an unprecedented move by the Trump administration.

Source: Donald Trump bars New York Times, CNN, Los Angeles Times and Politico from White House press briefing

All so consistent. When you are a despot you want to make sure that news information is contrloled which includes portraying the media as the enemy and the problem. Next stage is to exclude the ones who are more of an problem and split any semblance of group protection.

This latest action was predictable. How does the US deal with its President now?

How can anyone overseas treat him with anything but caution and contempt rather than acquiescence and promotion?

Trump is the Republic party candidate for the presidential election in November. His campaign has been tracked with ongoing disbelief from the outset. He continues to confuse and shock the world but maybe not his intended audience with his words. Here is a neat description of him by Rupert Cornwall in the Independent:

Before he entered the race, he was merely the flashy, ever-bragging entrepreneur, with a knack for TV. Now we know Trump the politician. He’s shown himself to be incapable of self-discipline for more than five minutes. His relationship with the truth is next to non-existent.

He’s got an incredibly thin skin. He never lets an insult go unreturned. He lacks uttterly that vital political skill of sometimes turning the other cheek. And, even though he’s hopelessly ignorant on policy matters, he seems unwilling to listen to advisers, convinced that he himself is the source of ultimate wisdom on all matters.

From the Independent

Why has France become such a persistent target for jihadist assault? There is a temptation, both inside and outside the country to suggest that France, and successive French governments, may be partly to blame. This hides a darker reality. The truck attack which slaughtered 84 people in Nice was the third mass killing in France in 17 months. There have also been a cluster of other, “smaller” incidents which were broadly jihadist in nature.

Source: How much more can France take before it spirals into hatred?

On the evening of Bastille day celebrations a driver of a trunk mowed down and killed 84 people with more in a sever state. Violence and the apparent Jihadist threat remains.

The reaction of the French government is more of the same. The state of emergency has been extended and more aeroplanes have been sent to bomb Syria some more. This was after the day before Francois Hollande had announced that the state of emergency would end by the end of July. So a reflex reaction for which there is some discussion regarding the effectiveness of this approach.

From the Guardian:

There has been an admission from the prime minister of France that terrorism is here to stay and if I understand correctly that there are no simple solutions.

The Guardian gives a potted reasoning for why France is so targeted. Some of the explanation relates to local French problems and social exclusion. A more appropriate approach to find solutions?

The recent attacks by ISIS/Daesch have take place in Belgium. Aside of the violence and death I have left a bit cold or depressed. The reaction has been typical with more fear, more calls to violence and more grist to impose fear and loss of liberties.

I found Simon Jenkins article again insightful.
One would think that politicians and policymakers would come up with more thought out reactions than to talk of war and more security.

We need to look at ourselves more in what we do currently and how we should respond.

Paranoid politicians, sensational journalists – the Isis recruiting officers will be thrilled at how things have gone since their atrocity in Belgium

Source: The scariest thing about Brussels is our reaction to it | Simon Jenkins | Opinion | The Guardian

‘Those who live under freedom know it demands a price, which is a degree of risk. We pay the state to protect us – but calmly, without constant boasting or fearmongering. We know that, in reality, life in Britain has never been safer. That it suits some people to pretend otherwise does not alter the fact.

In his admirable manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, the Belfast academic Richard English defines the threat to democracy as not the “limited danger” of death and destruction. It is the danger “of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses”.

The menace of Brussels lies not in the terror, but in the reaction to the terror. It is the reaction we should fear. But liberty never emerges from a Cobra bunker.’