I was inspired to write this post after reading the famous case of two siblings in Germany being convicted of living an incest relationship. The ruling finally proclaimed them guilty.
Most incestuous relationships worldwide are banned. In Islamic society even though incestuous marriages between first cousins are common, direct sibling relationships are even punishable by death.
The conflicting arguments of weather the law has a right to intervene in such circumstances needs to be discussed and was also addressed in this case by the lawyer.
My view on this is quite in favor of the law. Not really because the siblings shared a sexual relationship but because they conceived at least two children who were born disabled.
These children will probably be helpless from birth till death and a burden on taxpayers and a waste of medical resources that could be used to help people who can actually be helped.
The government or society has the right to intervene in cases that directly affect others. These children are unfairly born into disability and difficulties which gives the law the moral right to prevent such births.
Should pedophiles be allowed to have sexual intercourses with children with the children's consent? The same rules apply here. It's not even an issue of having sexual relationships between two adults, but because of the consequences it could bring.
If siblings wish to live a sexual relationship they should at least be sterilized to prevent the births of children. That should apply to all close relatives having sexual relationships as well as people with diseases and disabilities.
The lawyer of Patrick and Susan argued this case of why disabled people and people with diseases are allowed to breed children but not incestuous couples and I totally agree with him.
People with disabilities of any form should not be allowed to conceive or even adopt children. Personal happiness is a fundamental right of every living being as long as others are not hurt.
Western laws are full of double standards despite having much better human rights practices than the rest of the world. Not to mention it's easy policies on convicted criminals which seem to be pressuring the rest of the world to abolish the death sentence and burden taxpayers with keeping such people alive.
I am open to the idea of incestuous couples adopting children but at the same time concerned weather the child's welfare and how he/she will be seen by society. The other concern is weather he/she will take on his/her adoptive parents relationship.
The brother Patrick was himself adopted and went into the incestuous relationship with his sister. What are the chances of adopted children not emulating their sibling parents and engaging in similar incest relationships with close relatives?
It is unethical for adoptive parents not to ensure the hazards of adopting a child/children will be taken care of.
The law should have no power on what people do at home as long as others are not affected. If homosexual or sibling/related couples wish to engage in a sexual relationship they must keep it to themselves. This should be as much as anybody else and not sharing it with the rest of the world or promoting the practice.
I am all for the ruling against them for producing disabled children and believe that the world should take a step ahead and ban all those planning to breed with close relatives as well as those with diseases/disabilities from breeding or adopting children.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Gender discrimination against males in society
We've all heard about society discriminating against girls and women and there is no denying that. But we hear it again and again. From discriminatory laws to domestic abuse and the list goes on.
But what about gender bias against males? Before arguing against it readers should consider the following. It's okay for a female to admire another female and say she's beautiful. They can openly admire her and call her all sorts of praises such as pretty or even a more extreme, sexy.
She can say/write all that about another female or even male and not get called a homosexual.
Now imagine the very same for a male admiring another male for good looks. Even if he didn't use the word "sexy" but simple plain words such as handsome, the most common reaction would be "homosexual" or "gay."
Is that fair? Is that not inequality? Same thing applies here no matter how you look at it.
Then there's also many women, particularly feminists out there who enjoy putting on a false persecution. They like the fact that domestic violence against women exists so anytime they get into a disagreement with men they can convince others that they were abused.
These are just few observations that I mention of greater, mostly unnoticed gender discrimination against males in society.
But what about gender bias against males? Before arguing against it readers should consider the following. It's okay for a female to admire another female and say she's beautiful. They can openly admire her and call her all sorts of praises such as pretty or even a more extreme, sexy.
She can say/write all that about another female or even male and not get called a homosexual.
Now imagine the very same for a male admiring another male for good looks. Even if he didn't use the word "sexy" but simple plain words such as handsome, the most common reaction would be "homosexual" or "gay."
Is that fair? Is that not inequality? Same thing applies here no matter how you look at it.
Then there's also many women, particularly feminists out there who enjoy putting on a false persecution. They like the fact that domestic violence against women exists so anytime they get into a disagreement with men they can convince others that they were abused.
These are just few observations that I mention of greater, mostly unnoticed gender discrimination against males in society.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
A possible case of reverse discrimination against sexually straight people
I don't like using the term "straight" for non-homosexual people but I'll use it anyway since we are not supposed to make a technical meaning of these terms.
It just happened that I was reading a news article while waiting for my ordered breakfast at a restaurant near my house in Canada. It was about a high school teen in America convicted of shooting a homosexual schoolmate in the head and killing him.
According to the report, the family of the dead school mate "could not forgive" the shooter. At first glance I thought it a case of an extreme homophobic ready to express his anti-gay beliefs with violence. But there was more to it as I read on.
The shooter claimed that the gay made sexual proposals and advances to him. This is the only defense claim that was mentioned in the news report other than the shooter's lawyer claiming his client was sorry for the crime.
As I mentioned in another posting of mine, I am no advocate of violence other than for defensive purposes. I also don't sympathize with people who provoke violence as much with those who were directly or indirectly compelled into committing it.
In the case of the convicted defendant, it does appear as if he was pressured into reacting violently if what he claims is true. Who would be stupid enough to surrender his/her freedom just to hurt somebody because of their sexual orientation?
I'm quite certain the person killed had been sexually harassing the defendant. Imagine if it was a case of a woman claiming she killed a man sexually harassing her. She would probably have sympathy. Imagine if the defendant was a minor, claiming the one he/she killed was a pedophile trying to make sexual advances towards him/her.
In such cases, the defendant would probably be recognized as the victim. But because the incident involved a straight killing a homosexual, all sympathies goes to the persecuted minority as usual. If it's true, it clearly shows North American society switching from discriminating against minorities to giving them exclusive rights over the majority.
According to the report, the gay was allowed by law to express his sexual orientation by dressing up as a woman. This could be an indication that he felt a little overconfident about his rights and decided to make sexual advances towards the would-be shooter. But that's not for me to decide.
If the accused makes a defensive statement, the courts by law must launch a probe into the claims that the gay made sexual proposals and advances towards the shooter.
Sure people can react by claiming the shooter should have sought help instead of committing violence and to a great extent I agree. He did go too far by killing him. But let's be honest. How would you feel telling others if somebody sexually harassed you? And especially in a society where the average straight person would not like to be mistaken for a homosexual.
Again, people would also consider it self-defense if it was a man sexually harassing a woman. But because it was a gay, North American society has suddenly jumps to defend a discriminated minority. If I were that individual, I wouldn't have used such excessive force. I might have warned him with physical assault if he didn't stop. And I would have carried out my warning if he did indeed not stop.
I think that would have stopped him and have been the best solution instead of bringing in a gun and shooting him. But who knows, could it be the shooter was smaller or bullied by this gay? On the mention of bullying and shootings, I'd like to point out many cases of victims bringing guns to school and shooting up the bullies. Many commit suicide right after the incident.
And often they leave suicide notes explaining who and what lead them into doing it. Such acts are often followed by sympathy. But because the individual who was shot dead was homosexual, he was automatically the victim and gets all the sympathy without any probe into what lead the shooter to commit such an act.
I believe the shooter should be placed on probation and on curfew including a ban from possessing weapons or any dangerous objects that could be used as weapons until an official inquiry into the incident is completed. But as I explained, that won't happen because the killed was a homosexual and automatically becomes privileged.
Readers who've read my other posts will know I oppose all forms of discrimination- including reverse discrimination. I don't like people being mistreated simply because they are of a different color, religion, race, sexual orientation etc. At the same time I don't like the fact that people are forced to hire others on the basis of racial/religious/sexual diversity instead of the basis of qualification. This is a clear sign of Western society opting from being discriminatory to reverse discriminatory.
But it doesn't really end with this case. For many years I've been hearing people advocating the belief that homosexuality is genetic and as normal as straight sexual orientation.
I don't see any scientific evidence for it nor am I surprised that anything contradicting this theory will in the future be banned as "homophobic."
I'm willing to guarantee there are plenty of "gay rights" campaigners pushing for such a ridiculous move.
I personally believe that this theory is scientifically incorrect and homosexuality is more psychological than genetic. But Western society wants to adopt it as collective belief just to appease those belonging to the persecuted minority and their supporters.
I'm not going to get much into genetics and psychology since it's not the point of discussion. The point is more about Western society trying to elevate theory to fact because of political pressures and enforce that belief on the masses- much like fascism.
The reason why I don't believe homosexuality is genetic is because the scientific study of mating shows clear reasons for most species coming in two sexes instead of one. An interaction of two opposite genders even if non-sexual shows chemical reactions in the bodies. Even when species such as frogs self-reproduce, they switch genders back and forth to do this.
Attraction to the opposite sex is inside the genetic coding and has results. Same sex attraction has more of a psychological background. Many cases can attest to this. The famous Afghan tradition of Bacha Bazi is a good example of that.
Bacha Bazi results from ultra-conservative traditions which prohibit contact between unrelated and unmarried individuals from the opposite sex, resulting in people to lust of people of the same sex. There's nothing genetic about this. It's all psychological.
Take pedophilia for example. Imagine the outcry if we were made to believe it's genetic. I can confidently state even if not 100% confidently, that it is as "genetic" as homosexuality. And I place the same scientific arguments that our genetics are not programmed to mate with the sexually premature. It results from a lack of opportunity to mate with a suitable partner of the opposite gender and same age grouping.
Even if pedophilia occurs in animals or other species, it usually has reasons behind it that are non-genetic. Likewise, the acceptance of any scientific finding that homosexuality is not genetic will unlikely approved of simply because people see it as an attempt to discredit homosexuals.
This is where Western society fails to draw the line between homosexual rights and hard science due to political correctness, but will definitely try to find psychological reasons to discredit pedophilia.
But weather genetic or not is not the point of discussion. Homosexuals and their supporters are now pushing further from gay/lesbian rights to the point of reverse discrimination if any of my above statements are found to be correct.
Reverse discrimination did not end with religion or race as in the case of Jews from being a persecuted minority to being able to silence almost all political opposition by pulling out the discrimination cry. It didn't end with blacks (by blacks I mean people of sub-Saharan African linage in this case) reverse discriminating against other races on the basis of their forefathers being enslaved.
Now it's the homosexuals turn to reverse discriminate against those who are "straight" (again, not too fond of the word, but readers know what I mean), and that's what I oppose. This case may become a classic example of that.
It just happened that I was reading a news article while waiting for my ordered breakfast at a restaurant near my house in Canada. It was about a high school teen in America convicted of shooting a homosexual schoolmate in the head and killing him.
According to the report, the family of the dead school mate "could not forgive" the shooter. At first glance I thought it a case of an extreme homophobic ready to express his anti-gay beliefs with violence. But there was more to it as I read on.
The shooter claimed that the gay made sexual proposals and advances to him. This is the only defense claim that was mentioned in the news report other than the shooter's lawyer claiming his client was sorry for the crime.
As I mentioned in another posting of mine, I am no advocate of violence other than for defensive purposes. I also don't sympathize with people who provoke violence as much with those who were directly or indirectly compelled into committing it.
In the case of the convicted defendant, it does appear as if he was pressured into reacting violently if what he claims is true. Who would be stupid enough to surrender his/her freedom just to hurt somebody because of their sexual orientation?
I'm quite certain the person killed had been sexually harassing the defendant. Imagine if it was a case of a woman claiming she killed a man sexually harassing her. She would probably have sympathy. Imagine if the defendant was a minor, claiming the one he/she killed was a pedophile trying to make sexual advances towards him/her.
In such cases, the defendant would probably be recognized as the victim. But because the incident involved a straight killing a homosexual, all sympathies goes to the persecuted minority as usual. If it's true, it clearly shows North American society switching from discriminating against minorities to giving them exclusive rights over the majority.
According to the report, the gay was allowed by law to express his sexual orientation by dressing up as a woman. This could be an indication that he felt a little overconfident about his rights and decided to make sexual advances towards the would-be shooter. But that's not for me to decide.
If the accused makes a defensive statement, the courts by law must launch a probe into the claims that the gay made sexual proposals and advances towards the shooter.
Sure people can react by claiming the shooter should have sought help instead of committing violence and to a great extent I agree. He did go too far by killing him. But let's be honest. How would you feel telling others if somebody sexually harassed you? And especially in a society where the average straight person would not like to be mistaken for a homosexual.
Again, people would also consider it self-defense if it was a man sexually harassing a woman. But because it was a gay, North American society has suddenly jumps to defend a discriminated minority. If I were that individual, I wouldn't have used such excessive force. I might have warned him with physical assault if he didn't stop. And I would have carried out my warning if he did indeed not stop.
I think that would have stopped him and have been the best solution instead of bringing in a gun and shooting him. But who knows, could it be the shooter was smaller or bullied by this gay? On the mention of bullying and shootings, I'd like to point out many cases of victims bringing guns to school and shooting up the bullies. Many commit suicide right after the incident.
And often they leave suicide notes explaining who and what lead them into doing it. Such acts are often followed by sympathy. But because the individual who was shot dead was homosexual, he was automatically the victim and gets all the sympathy without any probe into what lead the shooter to commit such an act.
I believe the shooter should be placed on probation and on curfew including a ban from possessing weapons or any dangerous objects that could be used as weapons until an official inquiry into the incident is completed. But as I explained, that won't happen because the killed was a homosexual and automatically becomes privileged.
Readers who've read my other posts will know I oppose all forms of discrimination- including reverse discrimination. I don't like people being mistreated simply because they are of a different color, religion, race, sexual orientation etc. At the same time I don't like the fact that people are forced to hire others on the basis of racial/religious/sexual diversity instead of the basis of qualification. This is a clear sign of Western society opting from being discriminatory to reverse discriminatory.
But it doesn't really end with this case. For many years I've been hearing people advocating the belief that homosexuality is genetic and as normal as straight sexual orientation.
I don't see any scientific evidence for it nor am I surprised that anything contradicting this theory will in the future be banned as "homophobic."
I'm willing to guarantee there are plenty of "gay rights" campaigners pushing for such a ridiculous move.
I personally believe that this theory is scientifically incorrect and homosexuality is more psychological than genetic. But Western society wants to adopt it as collective belief just to appease those belonging to the persecuted minority and their supporters.
I'm not going to get much into genetics and psychology since it's not the point of discussion. The point is more about Western society trying to elevate theory to fact because of political pressures and enforce that belief on the masses- much like fascism.
The reason why I don't believe homosexuality is genetic is because the scientific study of mating shows clear reasons for most species coming in two sexes instead of one. An interaction of two opposite genders even if non-sexual shows chemical reactions in the bodies. Even when species such as frogs self-reproduce, they switch genders back and forth to do this.
Attraction to the opposite sex is inside the genetic coding and has results. Same sex attraction has more of a psychological background. Many cases can attest to this. The famous Afghan tradition of Bacha Bazi is a good example of that.
Bacha Bazi results from ultra-conservative traditions which prohibit contact between unrelated and unmarried individuals from the opposite sex, resulting in people to lust of people of the same sex. There's nothing genetic about this. It's all psychological.
Take pedophilia for example. Imagine the outcry if we were made to believe it's genetic. I can confidently state even if not 100% confidently, that it is as "genetic" as homosexuality. And I place the same scientific arguments that our genetics are not programmed to mate with the sexually premature. It results from a lack of opportunity to mate with a suitable partner of the opposite gender and same age grouping.
Even if pedophilia occurs in animals or other species, it usually has reasons behind it that are non-genetic. Likewise, the acceptance of any scientific finding that homosexuality is not genetic will unlikely approved of simply because people see it as an attempt to discredit homosexuals.
This is where Western society fails to draw the line between homosexual rights and hard science due to political correctness, but will definitely try to find psychological reasons to discredit pedophilia.
But weather genetic or not is not the point of discussion. Homosexuals and their supporters are now pushing further from gay/lesbian rights to the point of reverse discrimination if any of my above statements are found to be correct.
Reverse discrimination did not end with religion or race as in the case of Jews from being a persecuted minority to being able to silence almost all political opposition by pulling out the discrimination cry. It didn't end with blacks (by blacks I mean people of sub-Saharan African linage in this case) reverse discriminating against other races on the basis of their forefathers being enslaved.
Now it's the homosexuals turn to reverse discriminate against those who are "straight" (again, not too fond of the word, but readers know what I mean), and that's what I oppose. This case may become a classic example of that.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
My opposition to the current Palestinian bid for statehood
Over the past few weeks I received various email requests in my inbox to sign petitions in favor of an independent Palestinian state.
I did not sign the petition because looking into the history of why the Palestinian leadership did not declare statehood, I don't see the logic for doing it now.
I don't particularly care for the politics of the Middle East and I'm quite certain most people of that region could not care what a Pakistani thinks about it's politics either.
This does not mean I support the injustice that was committed against the Palestinian people in 1948 to make way for various Jewish refugees from around the world.
Even the proposal of a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one in accordance to the pre-1967 borders is not practical as the Palestinians only get two small patches of land whereas the Israelis get to keep most of the land.
The Palestinian cause that started all the way back in 1948 is a respectable one because even after the other Arab states in the region giving up the cause still continues to this day, thanks to the determination of the Palestinian people. This cause will die permanently and will have little or no international support once a state of Palestine with strict borders is declared.
As I just mentioned I looked at the history of why the Palestinians haven't declared themselves a state with it's own currency and passport. This is because once statehood is declared they must permanently accept the boundaries of the state with no objections.
This means if they are restricted to small patches of land on either side of Israel, they cannot later change their minds.
An over six decade cause would be lost upon declaration of this statehood.
The Palestinians have already been restricted in their choice of boundaries by Israel and it's Western supporters in the UN. They may as well abandon their cause to regain more land and stick with what they have without declaring statehood. The difference is there is no international law restricting them to a boundary currently which is not possible for a Palestinian state with official borders.
If I were the Palestinian leadership I would wait until the decline of Jewish political influence in the West. That may be a long time in the future and may not change in many of our lifetimes, but at the same time if the Palestinians and their supporters worldwide are loyal to their very old cause, accepting a state will end it all.
A realistic and satisfactory Palestinian state would be one equal to if not bigger than the size of the current Israeli state given the large Arab population both inside Israel and the Palestinian territories. A large state would be required to accommodate that population size.
An even more realistic and possibly only solution would be the complete disappearance of Israel or Palestine. Either the Palestinians immigrate to foreign countries and leave their territories or the Israelis leave and go back to where they came from voluntarily or be driven out.
Since it cannot be both ways in this case, either the cause must be completely fulfilled or abandoned all together.
I did not sign the petition because looking into the history of why the Palestinian leadership did not declare statehood, I don't see the logic for doing it now.
I don't particularly care for the politics of the Middle East and I'm quite certain most people of that region could not care what a Pakistani thinks about it's politics either.
This does not mean I support the injustice that was committed against the Palestinian people in 1948 to make way for various Jewish refugees from around the world.
Even the proposal of a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one in accordance to the pre-1967 borders is not practical as the Palestinians only get two small patches of land whereas the Israelis get to keep most of the land.
The Palestinian cause that started all the way back in 1948 is a respectable one because even after the other Arab states in the region giving up the cause still continues to this day, thanks to the determination of the Palestinian people. This cause will die permanently and will have little or no international support once a state of Palestine with strict borders is declared.
As I just mentioned I looked at the history of why the Palestinians haven't declared themselves a state with it's own currency and passport. This is because once statehood is declared they must permanently accept the boundaries of the state with no objections.
This means if they are restricted to small patches of land on either side of Israel, they cannot later change their minds.
An over six decade cause would be lost upon declaration of this statehood.
The Palestinians have already been restricted in their choice of boundaries by Israel and it's Western supporters in the UN. They may as well abandon their cause to regain more land and stick with what they have without declaring statehood. The difference is there is no international law restricting them to a boundary currently which is not possible for a Palestinian state with official borders.
If I were the Palestinian leadership I would wait until the decline of Jewish political influence in the West. That may be a long time in the future and may not change in many of our lifetimes, but at the same time if the Palestinians and their supporters worldwide are loyal to their very old cause, accepting a state will end it all.
A realistic and satisfactory Palestinian state would be one equal to if not bigger than the size of the current Israeli state given the large Arab population both inside Israel and the Palestinian territories. A large state would be required to accommodate that population size.
An even more realistic and possibly only solution would be the complete disappearance of Israel or Palestine. Either the Palestinians immigrate to foreign countries and leave their territories or the Israelis leave and go back to where they came from voluntarily or be driven out.
Since it cannot be both ways in this case, either the cause must be completely fulfilled or abandoned all together.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Why I oppose homosexual child adoptions
Firstly I have nothing against homosexuals doing as they please within their own rights and private spaces. I have never opposed gay/lesbian couples getting legally married and I actually endorse it as their fundamental human right.
I endorse people doing as they please as long as it does not effect others.
Who exactly is affected when homosexuals adopt children? The child/children of course and that's what I wish to discuss in this post. I once saw a video in which the broadcasters criticized a public swimming pool facility for banning same sex couples and their adopted children while allowing regular couples and even single mothers to bring their children into the pool.
To me it appears the advocates of same sex couple adoptions are trying to justify the practice by pointing towards single parents having children with them.
I don't see this as a justification at all. I see a big difference between a single parent of any gender raising a child than that of same sex couples.
Having two adoptive parents of the same gender draws extra unwanted attention towards the child from peers, friends, acquaintances to start with.
For anyone to live a normal life and grow up without unwanted attention or any sort of intrusion of their privacy, unwanted attention is not a healthy thing for them.
This is how somebody else can suffer as a result of others practicing their human rights. For a homosexual couple to live in peace with one another is their right, but when it destroys or even affects their adopted child's/children's rights, it is no longer an issue of human rights.
There can also be psychological consequences of homosexuals adopting children. Often children follow the lifestyle of their parents/guardians. In the case of homosexuals adopting children, it could lead the child to "voluntarily" imitate their homosexuality weather physical or mental simply as a result of direct influence from the parents lifestyle.
This would be another way of alienating them from society. I put voluntarily in quotation marks because it ought to be questioned weather the child has a chance to decide for him/herself weather he/she/they want to be in a regular or homosexual relationship.
And it's unlikely they will be in a regular opposite gender relationship if they under the influence of what their adoptive parents do.
Children also deserve to have exposure to people of the opposite sex, something a homosexual couple can offer them less of. A child also need to understand the authority of adults regardless of gender. A single parent also cannot offer a child much exposure to those of another gender, but at least there is also the balance of not having the presence of an extra person of the same gender in their lives.
It is not just gender orientation of the adoptive parents that I fear will lead the adoptive child/children to alienation from society. There's also the question of interracial adoptions and other types of adoptions that may bring great difficulty on the adopted individual(s) which would only be doing a great injustice to them.
I endorse people doing as they please as long as it does not effect others.
Who exactly is affected when homosexuals adopt children? The child/children of course and that's what I wish to discuss in this post. I once saw a video in which the broadcasters criticized a public swimming pool facility for banning same sex couples and their adopted children while allowing regular couples and even single mothers to bring their children into the pool.
To me it appears the advocates of same sex couple adoptions are trying to justify the practice by pointing towards single parents having children with them.
I don't see this as a justification at all. I see a big difference between a single parent of any gender raising a child than that of same sex couples.
Having two adoptive parents of the same gender draws extra unwanted attention towards the child from peers, friends, acquaintances to start with.
For anyone to live a normal life and grow up without unwanted attention or any sort of intrusion of their privacy, unwanted attention is not a healthy thing for them.
This is how somebody else can suffer as a result of others practicing their human rights. For a homosexual couple to live in peace with one another is their right, but when it destroys or even affects their adopted child's/children's rights, it is no longer an issue of human rights.
There can also be psychological consequences of homosexuals adopting children. Often children follow the lifestyle of their parents/guardians. In the case of homosexuals adopting children, it could lead the child to "voluntarily" imitate their homosexuality weather physical or mental simply as a result of direct influence from the parents lifestyle.
This would be another way of alienating them from society. I put voluntarily in quotation marks because it ought to be questioned weather the child has a chance to decide for him/herself weather he/she/they want to be in a regular or homosexual relationship.
And it's unlikely they will be in a regular opposite gender relationship if they under the influence of what their adoptive parents do.
Children also deserve to have exposure to people of the opposite sex, something a homosexual couple can offer them less of. A child also need to understand the authority of adults regardless of gender. A single parent also cannot offer a child much exposure to those of another gender, but at least there is also the balance of not having the presence of an extra person of the same gender in their lives.
It is not just gender orientation of the adoptive parents that I fear will lead the adoptive child/children to alienation from society. There's also the question of interracial adoptions and other types of adoptions that may bring great difficulty on the adopted individual(s) which would only be doing a great injustice to them.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Brief thoughts on Osama Bin Laden's alleged "death," 911, and who he really was.
Well looking up news on Pakistan, I found the headlines on the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad of all places which came as a bit of a puzzle.
But the most puzzling idea was the area where he was allegedly killed in.
According to sources this was a highly walled house which stands out in the town of Abbottabad. This may be a news of celebration to many, but adds to the suspicion and the circumstances of the killing operation if it is for real.
Why would a man at the center of attention for the world be in a house that stands out over the rest of the town, with such high walls?
An individual who's known to the rest of the world hide in an area that would grab so much attention? A quote from the Guardian:
How would one of the smartest terrorists who's evaded one of the strongest armies and intelligence suddenly end up in an attention-attracting location where he would be targeted?
Then there is the question of how American forces entered the area without the ISI's knowledge; especially in the aftermath of the Raymond Davis affair.
It sounds a bit too 'easy.'
Either this whole operation was a drama staged to end the highly unpopular war, which's pretext, 911 attacks were used to enter Central Eurasia. And already to the vast majority of Americans and many people, the suspicion that 911 was a false flag operation is still very much large. Hamid Gul seems to share my suspicions.
The circumstances as I mentioned and suddenness of the killing and the location of the seems to be the most suspicious.
Either the claims of Bin Laden secretly being an American agent and an excuse to advance the New World Order are true and he was betrayed and killed by the CIA after his role amongst them was complete. A quote from another source:
It is very questionable on what really happened in the whole operation and what exactly Bin Laden's role was.
This post may be updated as more information arises. Meantime another Pakistani source seems to be raising more suspicious points.
In the whole alleged tracking and killing operation, we are made to believe he's hiding in a mansion that is bigger than the average house. Now they claim they recovered computers and stored data in the house.
Even the stupidest terrorist would not store his/her data in PCs or Macs. A much more realistic scenario would be the terrorist stored his/her contacts on paper to be burned at the last minute instead of letting them into enemy hands.
That's how stupid they take us for. Honestly I'd more easily believe that he was found in an apartment building or in some underground bunker or pit similar to Saddam Hussein's.
Another believable scenario would be he sneaked to the Altay mountain region in Mongolia with the help of Uighur terrorists in Xian. Mongolia would have been more realistic as it's the world's most sparsely populated country with thousand of hiding places.
Also what would have been wiser to get their jackpot of info, the Americans would have used sleep darts to hit him with instead of bullets. This way they could take him alive for interrogation. On the subject of how he was killed there are conflicting reports on the supposed raid. First we heard that he aimed to shoot at US commandos, then we hear he hid behind his wife as a human shield. Then it apparently turned out his wife deliberately came in front of him to protect him.
Also isn't he supposed to be a man always on the run according to the US government and media? Why suddenly this story that he's been hiding in Abbottabad for the last five years.
But no. Out of all the places he had to be in a town where no one claims to have even seen him. Why Pakistan?
Here's why:
But the most puzzling idea was the area where he was allegedly killed in.
According to sources this was a highly walled house which stands out in the town of Abbottabad. This may be a news of celebration to many, but adds to the suspicion and the circumstances of the killing operation if it is for real.
Why would a man at the center of attention for the world be in a house that stands out over the rest of the town, with such high walls?
An individual who's known to the rest of the world hide in an area that would grab so much attention? A quote from the Guardian:
The compound was eight times bigger than neighboring residences and the walls were between three and six meters high, topped with barbed wire. Access was highly restricted. Although valued at over US$1m the place had no phone or internet connection.
How would one of the smartest terrorists who's evaded one of the strongest armies and intelligence suddenly end up in an attention-attracting location where he would be targeted?
Then there is the question of how American forces entered the area without the ISI's knowledge; especially in the aftermath of the Raymond Davis affair.
It sounds a bit too 'easy.'
Either this whole operation was a drama staged to end the highly unpopular war, which's pretext, 911 attacks were used to enter Central Eurasia. And already to the vast majority of Americans and many people, the suspicion that 911 was a false flag operation is still very much large. Hamid Gul seems to share my suspicions.
The circumstances as I mentioned and suddenness of the killing and the location of the seems to be the most suspicious.
Either the claims of Bin Laden secretly being an American agent and an excuse to advance the New World Order are true and he was betrayed and killed by the CIA after his role amongst them was complete. A quote from another source:
When first built, the compound was secluded and reachable by only a dirt road, the officials said. In recent years, more residences built up around it, but it remained by far the largest and most heavily secured property in the area, they said.
It is very questionable on what really happened in the whole operation and what exactly Bin Laden's role was.
This post may be updated as more information arises. Meantime another Pakistani source seems to be raising more suspicious points.
In the whole alleged tracking and killing operation, we are made to believe he's hiding in a mansion that is bigger than the average house. Now they claim they recovered computers and stored data in the house.
Even the stupidest terrorist would not store his/her data in PCs or Macs. A much more realistic scenario would be the terrorist stored his/her contacts on paper to be burned at the last minute instead of letting them into enemy hands.
That's how stupid they take us for. Honestly I'd more easily believe that he was found in an apartment building or in some underground bunker or pit similar to Saddam Hussein's.
Another believable scenario would be he sneaked to the Altay mountain region in Mongolia with the help of Uighur terrorists in Xian. Mongolia would have been more realistic as it's the world's most sparsely populated country with thousand of hiding places.
Also what would have been wiser to get their jackpot of info, the Americans would have used sleep darts to hit him with instead of bullets. This way they could take him alive for interrogation. On the subject of how he was killed there are conflicting reports on the supposed raid. First we heard that he aimed to shoot at US commandos, then we hear he hid behind his wife as a human shield. Then it apparently turned out his wife deliberately came in front of him to protect him.
Also isn't he supposed to be a man always on the run according to the US government and media? Why suddenly this story that he's been hiding in Abbottabad for the last five years.
But no. Out of all the places he had to be in a town where no one claims to have even seen him. Why Pakistan?
Here's why:
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Arms industries need to be dismantled instead of nuclear weapons
The latest campaign by the West and so-called "progressive" activists to try to reduce and eventually rid the world of nuclear weapons is nothing more than a naive and unrealistic goal.
Global nuclear disarmament also seems as a means to shift the balance of power to the West (particularly NATO) and it's allies. This is true both militarily and economically.
It is not nuclear weapons that pose such a serious threat to world peace and stability and also kill so many living beings as well as destroying property. When was the last time nuclear weapons killed so many people or were used in a full scale war?
Compare that to the number of times regular weapons from simple machine guns to sophisticated missiles that do damage and take lives on a regular basis. Nuclear weapons productions are not yet (and probably never will be) an industry as regular conventional weapons. Many countries such as America rely on wars to sustain their economies part of which is heavily dependent on arms exports.
A sudden standstill in wars and conflicts worldwide would do severe damage to the economies of mainly NATO countries as well as others.
It's also ridiculous how America and many other Western countries supply sophisticated weapons to two opposing countries. Why are F-16s supplied to both Greece and Turkey who have had military and territorial conflicts going back decades?
Because it's an industry. It's understandable that weapons are needed by some countries in order to protect themselves from hostile, larger, more aggressive states. But to make an entire industry out of these deadly weapons is a much larger danger to the world than nuclear weapons, which only create stalemates.
The American bombing of Japan in World War Two was an exception as America was the only nuclear power for that short period of time. In the modern world, no country dares use nuclear weapons unless they wish complete destruction of life on the planet Earth.
Why did not the United States and the Soviet Union not use their nuclear weapons against each other during the Cold War? Because there is no winner in a nuclear conflict. Why did not America and North Korea engage in a nuclear conflict? Why did India and Pakistan hesitate to go to war after producing nuclear weapons? The answer became clear in all these cases: A nuclear conflict means utter death and destruction on not only the parties involved but also in the surrounding countries caught in such a conflict between the opposing nuclear powers; hence no one with logic will ever use them.
Regular non-nuclear weapons on the other hand are used all over the world and the a major part of the economies of major arms producers depend on such conflicts to keep their arms industries going to feed their continual growth based economies.
And in such a process thousand upon thousands of people are hurt and killed (even non-human species such as plants and animals suffer) simply because some countries feed off these deadly conflicts.
Also when countries purchase arms from their allies to feed their economies in order to keep good relations, they trigger a arms races which is when other countries in the region also pursue similar or the same weapons to keep the balance of power neutral.
Before we know it, all sides are wasting money on weapons and constantly trying to overpower one another, only wasting precious GDP and fueling tensions on all sides. So I ask why has this not been the case for nuclear weapons? When again was the last time nuclear weapons used deliberately to kill or hurt people since World War Two?
Nuclear weapons are not the causes and sources for so many conflicts around the world. It's the dangerous conventional arms market that relies on wars that is the biggest danger and is getting even more dangerous as these conventional weapons get more sophisticated.
Nuclear weapons bring stalemates and keep a decent balance of power around the world. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons distributed around the world, America would probably swallow up China, North Korea, the Russian Federation and others.
India would have also probably swallowed up Pakistan being far bigger had it not been for nuclear weapons.
And with the balance of power uneven on certain sides, the danger of full scale wars breaking out is much, much higher.
I am not trying to advocate nuclear weapons for all or anything close to a nuclear arms race. I am simply against the disarmament of nuclear weapons by countries that currently posses them- including Israel.
It is not nuclear weapons around the world that has caused so many deaths and suffering since World War Two, but these conventional weapons industries that are used to fight small and full scale wars.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand prevent these full scale wars. Many corrupt and dangerous warlords also depend on these conventional weapons to keep their businesses running while many people are hurt/killed in the process in addition to loss of property and infrastructure.
Today some countries are so dependent selling the arms they produce, that excuses to go to war are the only solutions to keep their economies alive. So I ask once again, what is a bigger obstacle to world peace? Nuclear weapons that prevent full scale conflicts due to the devastation they would bring if ever used or conventional weapons industries that are regularly used and have destroyed so many lives?
The solution in my perspective is to greatly reduce this dangerous arms market that only continues to incite wars and are used all over the world everyday.
Global nuclear disarmament also seems as a means to shift the balance of power to the West (particularly NATO) and it's allies. This is true both militarily and economically.
It is not nuclear weapons that pose such a serious threat to world peace and stability and also kill so many living beings as well as destroying property. When was the last time nuclear weapons killed so many people or were used in a full scale war?
Compare that to the number of times regular weapons from simple machine guns to sophisticated missiles that do damage and take lives on a regular basis. Nuclear weapons productions are not yet (and probably never will be) an industry as regular conventional weapons. Many countries such as America rely on wars to sustain their economies part of which is heavily dependent on arms exports.
A sudden standstill in wars and conflicts worldwide would do severe damage to the economies of mainly NATO countries as well as others.
It's also ridiculous how America and many other Western countries supply sophisticated weapons to two opposing countries. Why are F-16s supplied to both Greece and Turkey who have had military and territorial conflicts going back decades?
Because it's an industry. It's understandable that weapons are needed by some countries in order to protect themselves from hostile, larger, more aggressive states. But to make an entire industry out of these deadly weapons is a much larger danger to the world than nuclear weapons, which only create stalemates.
The American bombing of Japan in World War Two was an exception as America was the only nuclear power for that short period of time. In the modern world, no country dares use nuclear weapons unless they wish complete destruction of life on the planet Earth.
Why did not the United States and the Soviet Union not use their nuclear weapons against each other during the Cold War? Because there is no winner in a nuclear conflict. Why did not America and North Korea engage in a nuclear conflict? Why did India and Pakistan hesitate to go to war after producing nuclear weapons? The answer became clear in all these cases: A nuclear conflict means utter death and destruction on not only the parties involved but also in the surrounding countries caught in such a conflict between the opposing nuclear powers; hence no one with logic will ever use them.
Regular non-nuclear weapons on the other hand are used all over the world and the a major part of the economies of major arms producers depend on such conflicts to keep their arms industries going to feed their continual growth based economies.
And in such a process thousand upon thousands of people are hurt and killed (even non-human species such as plants and animals suffer) simply because some countries feed off these deadly conflicts.
Also when countries purchase arms from their allies to feed their economies in order to keep good relations, they trigger a arms races which is when other countries in the region also pursue similar or the same weapons to keep the balance of power neutral.
Before we know it, all sides are wasting money on weapons and constantly trying to overpower one another, only wasting precious GDP and fueling tensions on all sides. So I ask why has this not been the case for nuclear weapons? When again was the last time nuclear weapons used deliberately to kill or hurt people since World War Two?
Nuclear weapons are not the causes and sources for so many conflicts around the world. It's the dangerous conventional arms market that relies on wars that is the biggest danger and is getting even more dangerous as these conventional weapons get more sophisticated.
Nuclear weapons bring stalemates and keep a decent balance of power around the world. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons distributed around the world, America would probably swallow up China, North Korea, the Russian Federation and others.
India would have also probably swallowed up Pakistan being far bigger had it not been for nuclear weapons.
And with the balance of power uneven on certain sides, the danger of full scale wars breaking out is much, much higher.
I am not trying to advocate nuclear weapons for all or anything close to a nuclear arms race. I am simply against the disarmament of nuclear weapons by countries that currently posses them- including Israel.
It is not nuclear weapons around the world that has caused so many deaths and suffering since World War Two, but these conventional weapons industries that are used to fight small and full scale wars.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand prevent these full scale wars. Many corrupt and dangerous warlords also depend on these conventional weapons to keep their businesses running while many people are hurt/killed in the process in addition to loss of property and infrastructure.
Today some countries are so dependent selling the arms they produce, that excuses to go to war are the only solutions to keep their economies alive. So I ask once again, what is a bigger obstacle to world peace? Nuclear weapons that prevent full scale conflicts due to the devastation they would bring if ever used or conventional weapons industries that are regularly used and have destroyed so many lives?
The solution in my perspective is to greatly reduce this dangerous arms market that only continues to incite wars and are used all over the world everyday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)