I took up terrorism as a topic to write an essay about for a course I took in high school. This is a rough draft of the thesis that I submitted before working on the full essay. I decided to share it in this post before disposing my rough copy.
Thesis:
What are the possible causes of terrorism?
Political reasons
The question to why people turn to terrorism as a tactic, which is considered often to be inhuman or violent in most modern-day civilizations is dependent not always on how their living conditions are but what kind of situation they live in and/or what political beliefs they hold.
The actions of terrorists are often seen as random criminal acts; but they each serve a purpose.
The purpose is either to create fear in the minds of the victims or gain more attention to their cause. If people are desperate to push for or to prevent a radical, social or political change for their own reasons, but are unable to do so, they may turn to terrorism as a last resort out of desperation.
The first purpose, which is to cause fear or intimidation or an atmosphere of fear, is through the destruction of property and loss of life to create such an atmosphere.
For example one of the world's most famous terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, who was strongly opposed to the presence of the American military in his home country Saudi Arabia, carried out a series of attacks at American bases through out the Arabian peninsula in a failed attempt to frighten the Americans away.
He also felt that the Saudi government was betraying his people and sought to intimidate the Saudi government to giving into his demands by bombing police stations and other government installations. As a result he was exiled forever from his country and had his Saudi citizenship permanently removed.
Terrorism is not usually directed towards un-involved individuals or bystanders. Though terrorists are usually selective about their targets, it is not always the case; especially if the outcome of the terrorist attack meets the objective of the terrorists.
For example in 1995, the famous Oklahoma bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh, was an attack directed straight at the US government. Most of the casualties were civilians including nineteen children. However McVeigh, the attacker openly stated that was his primary objective: To cause maximum damage and (even at the risk the lives of innocent bystanders) to the American government whom he saw as the greatest threat to the American people and to the world.
Though the bystanders killed in the incident were not the main targets, McVeigh argued that the purpose of the attack was to express his full defiance of the American government.
Another alternate purpose in political terrorism is to bring the world's attention to a cause or a forgotten issue.
As an example after the world's attention turned away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the upcoming 1972 Olympics, the Palestinian terror group known by the name of Black September used this event to regain the world's attention back to the ongoing Middle East crisis.
Just as the Olympics in Munich, Germany started, the Black September seized members of the Israeli Olympic team and took them as hostages. They managed to kill eleven of them. The result was a shootout in which the hostages were all killed and a German police officer dead in the shootout.
Three militants died and two were arrested by the German police. Despite this, their goals has been achieved:
The world's attention turned back to the ongoing Middle East crisis. Impacts such as those are seen as necessary to make a political point across.
The chain of events that followed also caused many countries to withdraw their teams from the Olympics, which also included Israel for fear of security.
Social reasons
Terrorism can also be used as a weapon to prevent social change in a society. An example of this is the experiences of Abu Al-Saf, an Egyptian national who had gone away to the United States during the 1960s and 70s.
His experience led him to hate American society and what he saw as "greed." People did not seem to show an interest in what happened in societies around them and were completely disconnected from the events taking place in the rest of the world. He noticed people caring too much about themselves to the slightest bit such as being able to score ahead in a game of bowling.
He saw massive advertisement and consumerism taking place. In his opinions, life in the West was all about consumerism and selfishness.
After returning to his home country of Egypt, he was particularly alarmed when he saw western products and massive advertisements being targeted at Egyptian customers. Abu Al-Saf feared that the Western culture of greed, selfishness and consumerist culture was slowly creeping into the Egyptian population.
After the Egyptian government ignored repeated protests by him and his colleagues to stop this massive western marketing system in the country, Al-Saf helped set up the Egyptian Islamic Jihad to resist what they saw as the westernization of Egypt and began their crusade to overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with a non-secular, Sharia-style Islamist government to resist this social change in their country.
As a result, this right-wing group was banned in Egypt and several other Islamic countries with many members and supporters jailed.
However, this group has been consistent in attacking Egyptian government installations and property outside the country to continue their resistance of what they saw as massive social changes introduced by the Egyptian government, such as the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in November of 1995 which wounded sixty people.
At other times, terrorism is also used to promote social changes such as overturning the growth of modern capitalist societies in Western Europe and North American saw the creation and growth of the most left-wing extremist terrorist organizations.
For example, a large group of home-grown terrorists in the USA going by the name of "the Weathermen," sought to extinguish the capitalist system by launching attacks on banks and companies.
They are known to have carried out at least 4,300 bombings across the USA. Another example is the Red brigade of Italy that also carried out a series of attacks. They attacked factories and communication centers as well as kidnapping and murdering former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. Their main objective was to frighten the Italian state into giving up on capitalism through the use of these terrorist attacks.
Their actions and promotion of their political goals through the use of terrorism has found them little public sympathy in their home countries and has led to countless arrests of group members.
Even trade unions and socialist parties have strongly condemned the Italian Red Brigade for it's rather violent conduct.
Ironically they (terrorists) do not always come from impoverished classes, yet they feel for the working class and consider them their fellow "exploited" working class.
State terrorism
A country may use the act of state terrorism as a means of controlling the political situation in it's best interest.
For example, the state of Israel saw the organization of Hezbollah and it's supporters in the Lebanese government and population as a threat to it's safety. After refusals by the Lebanese government and the Lebanese population to disarm Hezbollah, Israel took matters into its own control by responding to Hezbollah attacks with counter attacks of its own and through temporary invasions of Lebanon both in the 1980s and most recently in the summer of 2006.
Israel also bombed civilian targets in Lebanon which they felt were harboring Hezbollah militants and as an attempt to warn the Lebanese population of the consequences for what at least Israel saw as their support for Hezbollah.
Such actions regarded as state terrorism by Israel could arguably be caused by its fear of Hezbollah and the rise of anti-Israeli militancy in the Middle East.
The use of state terrorism can serve other purposes as well and also has its causes. Another example is to maintain political power of one nation over other nations to protect its personal interests to maintain a stable economy. This can be arguably when political groups or entities resist that government political agenda.
Other examples of state terrorism can be caused when one state tries to counter the control or influence of another.
Saddam Hussein for example resisted American political interests in the Middle East. As a result, he was ousted. State terrorism such as this is seen by a state to protect its interests and a reaction to anything it sees as a threat to its political goals.
A state can also commit terrorism against its own citizens which is caused by the fear of civil disobedience or fear of loosing domestic stability. In one case in 1984, Sikh nationalists sought to establish a separate state by the name of Khalistan, independent from India. They even carried out bombings of civil airliners and took refuge in Sikhism's holiest shrine.
The Indian government took harsh steps to curb the Sikh militants and the ongoing insurgency. The government of India took further steps to frighten the Sikh community into silence by sponsoring public pogroms against Sikh civilians resulting in the deaths of thousands of Sikhs. Ever since then, the Khalistan movement has been rather abandoned or kept more secretive.
A similar reaction took place since 1947 in Kashmir when the British left the territory disputed between India and Pakistan. When Kashmiris sought to have an independent state from India and Pakistan, India's government feared loosing the region.
In reaction to the growing Kashmiri movement, the Indian government invaded Kashmir and attacked all those it suspected of trying to separate Kashmir from India. In the process many civilians were also said to be killed in an attempt to intimidate Kashmiris into accepting Indian rule and further resistance.
Ever since then, the vast majority of Kashmir has remained under Indian and Pakistani military occupation.
Nationalistic terrorism
Terrorism can also be caused by nationalistic or feelings of one's culture, ethnicity or nationality being threatened by another.
Examples of these are the Neo-Nazi movement in Europe and North America against immigration.
In a more specific case, Bruce Carroll Pierce, a right-wing Ku Klux Klan member sought to ethnically cleanse the western United States and establish a new state for people of European, Christian descent (white nationalists don't accept Jews in their movements even if they are of European descent). During the 1980s, Peirce and his KKK gang set a series of bombs across the United States and set out on an 18 month terrorist campaign in which religious and ethnic minorities were also targeted.
Other forms of nationalistic terrorism can include the efforts to free one's nation of being part of another. For example the Irish Republican Army (IRA) has been around since the beginning of the nineteenth century but was on the rise in its terrorist campaigns in the 1970s in an attempt to free all of Ireland and establish an independent state for the Irish people.
The group has a history of setting off bombs all across Britain, even in civilian population areas and attempting to carry out several assassinations.
Similar examples of such acts can be seen through out the world, with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) seeking to drive off the state of Israel off Palestinian lands and seeking an independent Palestinian state. The Balochistan Liberation army is another example, which seeks a separate homeland for the Baloch people of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Chechnya, rebels seek to make Chechnya an independent state, separated from the Russian Federation. Their nationalist campaign has resulted in thousands of people being killed on both sides, including many civilians.
Psychological terrorism
Terrorists can sometimes be merely their own victims. On many occasions, terrorists are simply brainwashed individuals who do not have a clear mind of what they are doing. For example during the Lebanese civil war which lasted from 1975 till 1990, many young Muslim boys were brainwashed into joining and serving Islamist groups such as Hezbollah and participating in frequent campaigns against archival groups.
Even in Palestinian nationalist groups such as Hamas, many boys as young as their early teens were taught about the rewards God would give them if they were to martyr themselves or die for a cause. With this message they were successfully able to breed an army of volunteers who later became suicide bombers.
In other similar cases there are cults worldwide that are able to gain followers to push their cause with the use of terrorism (also used as a weapon by cults sometimes) through their technique of brainwashing.
According to perisonplanet.com, cults are able to gain followers by keeping that person unaware of what she/he's going through. usually terrorists/cults can be attractive to people usually isolated from societies, people whom are neglected or people whom are not of strong educated background.
A strong example was the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan financed religious madrassas for Afghan refugees to be brainwashed and become Islamist terrorists. They were seen as the perfect tool by the United States government to fight the threat of communist expansion beyond Soviet borders. As a result, Afghanistan became a safe heaven for many terrorists.
Many of them, including the Taliban consisted of brainwashed, uneducated and radicalized young men who served their purpose without question. This later on resulted in terrorist attacks against those who did not share such radical beliefs, including the United States which has become a target of this.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Why not call it Middle Eastern Gulf?
I'm sure most readers have heard about the controversy regarding the naming of the Gulf that lies between Iran and the Arab-majority states.
Iran's Persian population have insisted it be called the Persian Gulf while it's Arab states insist it be called Arabian Gulf.
Both sides have provided valid points for their arguments.
Both sides publish maps from their countries using the name each side believes in.
From the Arab arguments I've read, the fact that most of the inhabitants living on the shores of the Gulf is the reason for naming it Arabian Gulf.
Even on parts of the Iranian coast, there are Arabs from Iran's Khuzestan province who live on the Gulf shores, as Khuzestan is mainly an Arab province of Iran bordering the Gulf.
The Persian argument has been that the region was historically known as the Persian Gulf and should stay as such.
I find the Arab argument very valid, but at the same time not everyone living on the shores of this Gulf is an Arab.
There are many Persians and Balochis who inhabit it's shores as well.
Others have some up with more neutral terms such as Persian/Arabian Gulf or Islamic Gulf.
The second suggestion I find less helpful since Islamic is a religion and there are many Gulf's around the Islamic world who's shores are inhabited by Muslims.
Additionally the Gulf between Iran and Arab states is bound to be inhabited by Christians and Zoroastrians as well, so it cannot be "Islamic Gulf."
The best solution in my opinion is renaming it "Middle Eastern Gulf."
As far as I know, there is only one gulf in the Middle East.
This name is a geographic name and not one belonging to any ethnicity like Persian or 'Arabian.'
Middle Eastern Gulf is the best name, considering that the Middle East consists of non-Arab majority states as well, such as Iran, Turkey and Israel.
As far as I know, none of the countries in the Middle East weather Iran, Israel or Turkey rejects this geographic name 'Middle East' hence I think the best solution is renaming it Middle Eastern Gulf.
Iran's Persian population have insisted it be called the Persian Gulf while it's Arab states insist it be called Arabian Gulf.
Both sides have provided valid points for their arguments.
Both sides publish maps from their countries using the name each side believes in.
From the Arab arguments I've read, the fact that most of the inhabitants living on the shores of the Gulf is the reason for naming it Arabian Gulf.
Even on parts of the Iranian coast, there are Arabs from Iran's Khuzestan province who live on the Gulf shores, as Khuzestan is mainly an Arab province of Iran bordering the Gulf.
The Persian argument has been that the region was historically known as the Persian Gulf and should stay as such.
I find the Arab argument very valid, but at the same time not everyone living on the shores of this Gulf is an Arab.
There are many Persians and Balochis who inhabit it's shores as well.
Others have some up with more neutral terms such as Persian/Arabian Gulf or Islamic Gulf.
The second suggestion I find less helpful since Islamic is a religion and there are many Gulf's around the Islamic world who's shores are inhabited by Muslims.
Additionally the Gulf between Iran and Arab states is bound to be inhabited by Christians and Zoroastrians as well, so it cannot be "Islamic Gulf."
The best solution in my opinion is renaming it "Middle Eastern Gulf."
As far as I know, there is only one gulf in the Middle East.
This name is a geographic name and not one belonging to any ethnicity like Persian or 'Arabian.'
Middle Eastern Gulf is the best name, considering that the Middle East consists of non-Arab majority states as well, such as Iran, Turkey and Israel.
As far as I know, none of the countries in the Middle East weather Iran, Israel or Turkey rejects this geographic name 'Middle East' hence I think the best solution is renaming it Middle Eastern Gulf.
My short opinion on the "Ground Zero" Mosque issue
I firstly don't see a problem with building a site of worship and cultural center by some Muslims in America. After all everyone has a right to build what they want as long as they own the ground they are building it on.
Also there is still no proof weather the 911 attacks were committed by extremists in the name of Islam or a conspiracy by unknown entities in the American government- which I think was the case.
What I do have a problem with is that it may come at the expense of the American tax payer. I read suggestions that the people behind building the mosque were going to ask for the site to be build by American taxpayers.
If true, then these people are doing more damage to the image of Islam than trying to create understanding and dialogue. Why should an American taxpayer or taxpayers anywhere pay for something that they don't want to pay for?
If a mosque and cultural center is to be built for a certain group of Muslims in America, they need to pay for it from their own pockets. If you want something built, you have pay for it from your own income. Simple as that.
Additionally these people need to have a public permit or own the land that they want to build the mosque and cultural center on.
If the American public refuses to allow the mosque to be built because it's an 'insult' to the 911 victims, that's no excuse at all.
There's no definite proof some extremists in the name of Islam committed 911. And even if they did, it's obvious they didn't represent Islam.
Those are my two cents on it.
Also there is still no proof weather the 911 attacks were committed by extremists in the name of Islam or a conspiracy by unknown entities in the American government- which I think was the case.
What I do have a problem with is that it may come at the expense of the American tax payer. I read suggestions that the people behind building the mosque were going to ask for the site to be build by American taxpayers.
If true, then these people are doing more damage to the image of Islam than trying to create understanding and dialogue. Why should an American taxpayer or taxpayers anywhere pay for something that they don't want to pay for?
If a mosque and cultural center is to be built for a certain group of Muslims in America, they need to pay for it from their own pockets. If you want something built, you have pay for it from your own income. Simple as that.
Additionally these people need to have a public permit or own the land that they want to build the mosque and cultural center on.
If the American public refuses to allow the mosque to be built because it's an 'insult' to the 911 victims, that's no excuse at all.
There's no definite proof some extremists in the name of Islam committed 911. And even if they did, it's obvious they didn't represent Islam.
Those are my two cents on it.
Why the West needs a leader like David Miliband
Most people in the West, including politicians seem to be very naive and gullible people when it comes to politics. Their lack of knowledge in the politics and history of the regions their governments are currently active in has had terrible consequences.
In the West, particularly North America, the average person gets his/her knowledge of the world through biased news networks such as CNN and Fox News or through Hollywood.
In the case of South Asia most people including the politicians learn about the history of the region through biased Indian Hindutva sources.
One that claims India to be the "secular democracy" and Pakistan as the "rogue" "terrorist" "Islamist" state.
Despite the popular claim that Pakistan is the pro-Western puppet and India the tough kid in the neighborhood, the truth is quite the opposite.
The West has always worked with India and has been silent to it's policies through out the decades. It lifted sanctions off India shortly after it's nuclear tests, but Pakistan had to wait until the post 911 era to get sanctions lifted off.
Today India is seen as an excellent proxy in Asia for the West against China and to a degree against Muslim countries.
Many Western history textbooks on South Asia have Indian sources referring to the the region pre-47 as "India," giving credit of every civilization that flourished there to India.
India is also flocked with Western tourists and are often welcomed by high-class Brahmins who simply crave for whiteness.
Whenever an uprising occurs in India, the Western and Indian medias call it "terrorism" and often Pakistan takes the blame for it. But when uprisings occur in Tibet and Xian, the Western media accuses China of "human rights violations."
These double standards in regards India go back decades. The West has made terrible mistakes by putting their immediate interests on the top, not seeing the long term negative impact(s) of it. But the British foreign secretary David Miliband seems to be living outside of the typical Western denial. This denial could very well have prevented 911 assuming it was carried out by Arab terrorists as the West claims and not an inside job.
The oppression in Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir is what sparks these kinds of terrorists attacks in the first place. Yet all the time Western leaders dub it terrorism because it is an attack against their interests.
Unlike Prime Minister Cameron, George W Bush and others, Mr Miliband did something quite different. He saw the reality of the Kashmir issue and the need to settle it for once and for all in order to regain stability in the region. An article on this is found here.
Even after the British PMs remarks on the ISI, which the Western world and their Indian sidekicks blame on all of their reckless disasters as a result of their own foreign policy, David Miliband once again courageously spoke out to the contrary. Most Indian and Western politicians are too frightened to speak the truth or live in denial like the rest of their governments.
Miliband is just what the West needs as a leader. With a bit of Western pressure, the Kashmir issue could indeed be solved without harming Western interests. Infact, it could even help Western interests. A politically stable India could be the best proxy as opposed to one with political messes.
David Miliband is a man who sees reality for what it is. With a leader like him, the West would be headed in the right direction, preventing massive loss of human lives both Western and non-Western.
My opposition to Iran gaining nuclear weapons
Many Pakistanis as well as global opponents of American and Israeli imperialism believe that Iran gaining nuclear weapons is justifiable and will change the balance of power in the Middle East and the world.
I do not agree with these beliefs. I do not endorse the idea of countering one evil by embracing another.
Most supporters of the Iranian regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons are not informed in political history and do not realize the severe consequences of these religious radicals gaining such capability.
The common argument I've heard is that the West is the only entity to use nuclear weapons.
While this may be true, it was a brief time when only the West (more specifically America) possessed the nuclear bomb. Today various countries posses nuclear weapons and any one that uses them first knows the risks and consequences it poses.
Even Israel, a country in the middle of a war zone, surrounded by enemies is unlikely to use it's nuclear arsenal, also aware of the consequences; especially after receiving world condemnation various times and being mostly isolated.
The nuclear powers of today posses logic and strategy, something the Iranian Islamic regime does not. Aside from oppressing it's population, this regime is a main cause of instability in the region alongside it's main arch-rival- The Saudi royal family.
The Iranian regime are a group of religious fanatics with a terrible human rights record and are good at making enemies. With a nuclear arsenal in their control, it is unlikely they will hesitate to use it.
The fanatical Shia brand of Islam that has plagued Iran strongly encourages martyrdom, making it more credible that they will not fear being destroyed in a nuclear war.
Currently a war is already underway between America and Al-Queda. Many defenders of Iran's attempted development of nuclear weapons should ask themselves if Al-Queda or Saudi Arabia or the Taliban are justified in acquiring nuclear weapons to counter America and/or Israel.
These people are religious extremists. If they are not afraid to die fighting Americans, then there is little chance of them being afraid to use nuclear weapons and carelessly kill civilians.
Many Iranians are also pleading for outside intervention to help them overthrow the Islamic regime. But with fully developed nuclear weapons, outside intervention will be more or less impossible since a military confrontation against a nuclear power has never taken place before.
Also by developing nuclear weapons, an untrusted, extremist government like the Iranian regime will only trigger an arms race in the region, adding more instability and tension.
I understand there are many Pakistanis who mindlessly defend Middle Eastern Muslim countries, but this is all due to the funding and political influence Middle Eastern countries that go to indoctrinate young Pakistanis into their pro-Arab/Iranian views.
Many Pakistani Shias are brainwashed into worshiping Iran while many Sunnis are brainwashed into worshiping Saudi Arabia.
Even the Pakistani school system has been hit with similar pro-Middle Eastern extremist ideology, thanks to General Zia's Islamitization of Pakistan.
But the point of this post is that the Iranian Islamic regime gaining nuclear weapons won't be that different from the Taliban, Al-Queda or Saudi Arabia gaining nuclear weapons, so it is something that should not happen and must be prevented at all costs.
I do not agree with these beliefs. I do not endorse the idea of countering one evil by embracing another.
Most supporters of the Iranian regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons are not informed in political history and do not realize the severe consequences of these religious radicals gaining such capability.
The common argument I've heard is that the West is the only entity to use nuclear weapons.
While this may be true, it was a brief time when only the West (more specifically America) possessed the nuclear bomb. Today various countries posses nuclear weapons and any one that uses them first knows the risks and consequences it poses.
Even Israel, a country in the middle of a war zone, surrounded by enemies is unlikely to use it's nuclear arsenal, also aware of the consequences; especially after receiving world condemnation various times and being mostly isolated.
The nuclear powers of today posses logic and strategy, something the Iranian Islamic regime does not. Aside from oppressing it's population, this regime is a main cause of instability in the region alongside it's main arch-rival- The Saudi royal family.
The Iranian regime are a group of religious fanatics with a terrible human rights record and are good at making enemies. With a nuclear arsenal in their control, it is unlikely they will hesitate to use it.
The fanatical Shia brand of Islam that has plagued Iran strongly encourages martyrdom, making it more credible that they will not fear being destroyed in a nuclear war.
Currently a war is already underway between America and Al-Queda. Many defenders of Iran's attempted development of nuclear weapons should ask themselves if Al-Queda or Saudi Arabia or the Taliban are justified in acquiring nuclear weapons to counter America and/or Israel.
These people are religious extremists. If they are not afraid to die fighting Americans, then there is little chance of them being afraid to use nuclear weapons and carelessly kill civilians.
Many Iranians are also pleading for outside intervention to help them overthrow the Islamic regime. But with fully developed nuclear weapons, outside intervention will be more or less impossible since a military confrontation against a nuclear power has never taken place before.
Also by developing nuclear weapons, an untrusted, extremist government like the Iranian regime will only trigger an arms race in the region, adding more instability and tension.
I understand there are many Pakistanis who mindlessly defend Middle Eastern Muslim countries, but this is all due to the funding and political influence Middle Eastern countries that go to indoctrinate young Pakistanis into their pro-Arab/Iranian views.
Many Pakistani Shias are brainwashed into worshiping Iran while many Sunnis are brainwashed into worshiping Saudi Arabia.
Even the Pakistani school system has been hit with similar pro-Middle Eastern extremist ideology, thanks to General Zia's Islamitization of Pakistan.
But the point of this post is that the Iranian Islamic regime gaining nuclear weapons won't be that different from the Taliban, Al-Queda or Saudi Arabia gaining nuclear weapons, so it is something that should not happen and must be prevented at all costs.
The use of the death penalty on a global scale
This post covers the opinions of R3NDI3R seen in the video below and my additional thoughts on the issue:
I don't agree with R3NDI3R on the part of corporal punishment such as a child rapist or a thief being amputated or even his suggestion of a painful death sentence.
Any civilized society on Earth has a duty not to sink to the level of criminals and other lawbreakers by introducing such inhumane practices of amputating body parts or other means of torture.
Most of every thing else I agree with. And the fact is, if a killer or rapist is put to death, it is a win-win situation and it does mean one less criminal to deal with.
My support for the death penalty is not for vengeance, but rather the safety of society as I mentioned in my other blog. By killing deadly criminals, you have less crime to deal with, you have people with similar motives discouraged from carrying out their plans and you have a dangerous individual with no morals put to rest permanently without the fear of him/her returning to do more harm.
Prison should only be a place for those who are guilty of minor crimes such as fraud, theft, corruption etc.
People who oppose the death penalty live in a dream world. They obviously do not work for the police or the law enforcement and don't know the danger of combating such dangerous people. Neither have opponents of the death penalty have been victims of serious crime that causes severe injury or death so it's very easy for them to judge and speak against the death penalty.
My solution of dealing with rapists, pedophiles, murderers, torturers and similar people is a quick and humane death. Put a whole bunch of people proven guilty of these crimes into one chamber and fill it with carbon monoxide. Hanging them is too painful and inhumane. Shooting them will leave a mess.
Carbon monoxide does neither. It is quick and painless. Once a human suffers from carbon monoxide, he/she doesn't know what is wrong with them and die quickly.
Keeping alive a criminal especially in countries with overcrowded prisons is a bad idea and does cost money to keep them alive. The death penalty saves all that. But keeping the execution of the criminals quick and humane is almost as important as killing them.
God forbid anyone of us one day carries out such an act out of desperation for whatever reason, I doubt even the supporters of the death penalty like R3NDI3R will want to suffer a cruel and painful execution.
Therefor we must make the executions as quick and humane as possible. As far as I can tell there is no more of a humane and cost saving way then using carbon monoxide.
I don't agree with R3NDI3R on the part of corporal punishment such as a child rapist or a thief being amputated or even his suggestion of a painful death sentence.
Any civilized society on Earth has a duty not to sink to the level of criminals and other lawbreakers by introducing such inhumane practices of amputating body parts or other means of torture.
Most of every thing else I agree with. And the fact is, if a killer or rapist is put to death, it is a win-win situation and it does mean one less criminal to deal with.
My support for the death penalty is not for vengeance, but rather the safety of society as I mentioned in my other blog. By killing deadly criminals, you have less crime to deal with, you have people with similar motives discouraged from carrying out their plans and you have a dangerous individual with no morals put to rest permanently without the fear of him/her returning to do more harm.
Prison should only be a place for those who are guilty of minor crimes such as fraud, theft, corruption etc.
People who oppose the death penalty live in a dream world. They obviously do not work for the police or the law enforcement and don't know the danger of combating such dangerous people. Neither have opponents of the death penalty have been victims of serious crime that causes severe injury or death so it's very easy for them to judge and speak against the death penalty.
My solution of dealing with rapists, pedophiles, murderers, torturers and similar people is a quick and humane death. Put a whole bunch of people proven guilty of these crimes into one chamber and fill it with carbon monoxide. Hanging them is too painful and inhumane. Shooting them will leave a mess.
Carbon monoxide does neither. It is quick and painless. Once a human suffers from carbon monoxide, he/she doesn't know what is wrong with them and die quickly.
Keeping alive a criminal especially in countries with overcrowded prisons is a bad idea and does cost money to keep them alive. The death penalty saves all that. But keeping the execution of the criminals quick and humane is almost as important as killing them.
God forbid anyone of us one day carries out such an act out of desperation for whatever reason, I doubt even the supporters of the death penalty like R3NDI3R will want to suffer a cruel and painful execution.
Therefor we must make the executions as quick and humane as possible. As far as I can tell there is no more of a humane and cost saving way then using carbon monoxide.
Multi-ethnic, multi-lingual leaders solution to the Afghan crisis
Most people unfamiliar with the history of Central and South Asia do not realise the problems of Afghanistan's civil unrest.
Many thought of this country's civil war based on civilized people against the religious fanatic right. This is actually not the case or even the cause of the Afghan war.
Civil unrest in Afghanistan goes all the way back to the foundations of the country in 1747 when Pakhtun tribes led by Shah Abdali forged non-Pakhtun and Pakhtun areas into one state.
Though many ethnic groups in Afghanistan, particularly the Tajiks, have contested Pakhtun rule, the country has remained under the domination of Pakhtuns, right up till the the beginning of the Afghan-Soviet war. Once the war ended, the Taliban who were also Pakhtun took power in the country.
Their persecution of Hazaras and other non-Pakhtuns was not in the name of Islam, but rather out of traditional Pakhtun hatred for other ethnicities.
The other non-Pakhtun ethnicities also have had their differences amongst each other.
But when it came to challenging the power of the Pakhtuns, they formed a united front called the Northern Alliance.
The Northern Alliance consisted mainly of Iranic speaking Tajiks and Turkic speaking Uzbeks.
The Tajiks had close linguistic ties to Iran, while the Turkic speaking Uzbeks had close linguistic ties to Turkey.
Both ethnicities fought side by side under the common goal of defeating Pakhtun hegemony in Afghanistan and had the support of Turkey and Iran. Pakistan on the other hand saw this as a threat of Iranian influence gaining a stronghold in Afghanistan and it's access to energy rich Central Asia.
Additionally, Pakistan's Northwestern parts are Pakhtun. There are more Pakistani Pakhtuns than Afghan Pakhtuns. Until recently many Pakhtuns in Pakistan's government had strong support for their ethnic brethren across the border.
Even if the Taliban had not been religious extremists, they would still have fought against the other non-Pakhtuns of Afghanistan.
Even if the Taliban and Al-Queda are fully defeated, the civil unrest in Afghanistan is due to ethnic and linguistic hostility.
The current administration in Afghanistan is predominantly Pakhtun, which has only increased tensions. Even during the Afghan elections in 2008-2009, the Pakhtuns voted for Hamid Karzai while the Tajiks voted for Abdullah Abdullah, former member of the Northern Alliance.
The armed forces of Afghanistan are predominantly Tajik, who are secretly targeting Pakhtuns.
Even violence towards other ethnic groups by the Pakhtuns is strong in Afghanistan as seen in this video. Warning: do not watch if you are disturbed by violent footage.
This ethnicity-based violence was clear during the Afghan civil war and is continuing even after the NATO occupation of Afghanistan, but more undercover.
Unless and until NATO sees the problem of ethnic divide in Afghanistan, the civil unrest will continue with or without the Taliban and Al-Queda.
The best solution in my judgment is the formation of a regime with people of multiple ethnicities to remove the tension between the Afghan people. Under such a regime, the feeling of being ruled by one dominant ethnic group will be far less and may ease tensions.
The sooner it is done, the faster the civil unrest and ethnic tensions may reduce. Although easier written or said than done, it is possibly the best solution.
To learn more about this issue, readers should research the history of Afghanistan and the ethnic hostilities in the country.
As the American administration states, Pakistan has a key role in the re-stabilization of Afghanistan.
Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, being key supporters of rival ethnic groups in the country should work together with or without NATO for the formation of this multi-ethnic regime to defuse the ongoing cycle of civil unrest in order to restore peace in Afghanistan and the region.
This topic was also apparently covered in 2003 by Charles Santos in this important article.
Many thought of this country's civil war based on civilized people against the religious fanatic right. This is actually not the case or even the cause of the Afghan war.
Civil unrest in Afghanistan goes all the way back to the foundations of the country in 1747 when Pakhtun tribes led by Shah Abdali forged non-Pakhtun and Pakhtun areas into one state.
Though many ethnic groups in Afghanistan, particularly the Tajiks, have contested Pakhtun rule, the country has remained under the domination of Pakhtuns, right up till the the beginning of the Afghan-Soviet war. Once the war ended, the Taliban who were also Pakhtun took power in the country.
Their persecution of Hazaras and other non-Pakhtuns was not in the name of Islam, but rather out of traditional Pakhtun hatred for other ethnicities.
The other non-Pakhtun ethnicities also have had their differences amongst each other.
But when it came to challenging the power of the Pakhtuns, they formed a united front called the Northern Alliance.
The Northern Alliance consisted mainly of Iranic speaking Tajiks and Turkic speaking Uzbeks.
The Tajiks had close linguistic ties to Iran, while the Turkic speaking Uzbeks had close linguistic ties to Turkey.
Both ethnicities fought side by side under the common goal of defeating Pakhtun hegemony in Afghanistan and had the support of Turkey and Iran. Pakistan on the other hand saw this as a threat of Iranian influence gaining a stronghold in Afghanistan and it's access to energy rich Central Asia.
Additionally, Pakistan's Northwestern parts are Pakhtun. There are more Pakistani Pakhtuns than Afghan Pakhtuns. Until recently many Pakhtuns in Pakistan's government had strong support for their ethnic brethren across the border.
Even if the Taliban had not been religious extremists, they would still have fought against the other non-Pakhtuns of Afghanistan.
Even if the Taliban and Al-Queda are fully defeated, the civil unrest in Afghanistan is due to ethnic and linguistic hostility.
The current administration in Afghanistan is predominantly Pakhtun, which has only increased tensions. Even during the Afghan elections in 2008-2009, the Pakhtuns voted for Hamid Karzai while the Tajiks voted for Abdullah Abdullah, former member of the Northern Alliance.
The armed forces of Afghanistan are predominantly Tajik, who are secretly targeting Pakhtuns.
Even violence towards other ethnic groups by the Pakhtuns is strong in Afghanistan as seen in this video. Warning: do not watch if you are disturbed by violent footage.
This ethnicity-based violence was clear during the Afghan civil war and is continuing even after the NATO occupation of Afghanistan, but more undercover.
Unless and until NATO sees the problem of ethnic divide in Afghanistan, the civil unrest will continue with or without the Taliban and Al-Queda.
The best solution in my judgment is the formation of a regime with people of multiple ethnicities to remove the tension between the Afghan people. Under such a regime, the feeling of being ruled by one dominant ethnic group will be far less and may ease tensions.
The sooner it is done, the faster the civil unrest and ethnic tensions may reduce. Although easier written or said than done, it is possibly the best solution.
To learn more about this issue, readers should research the history of Afghanistan and the ethnic hostilities in the country.
As the American administration states, Pakistan has a key role in the re-stabilization of Afghanistan.
Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan, being key supporters of rival ethnic groups in the country should work together with or without NATO for the formation of this multi-ethnic regime to defuse the ongoing cycle of civil unrest in order to restore peace in Afghanistan and the region.
This topic was also apparently covered in 2003 by Charles Santos in this important article.
Hypocrisy amongst conservative Muslims regarding homosexual rights.
When I criticize conservative Muslims, it also extends to female Muslims as well. Back in 2009 I was on a Pakistani aviation forum that I am a member of and in the general discussion section people were discussing the marriage of a female Muslim imam to a non-Muslim man.
Of course most of these people were from a religious background and started spurring all sorts of nonsense as if they had never heard of inter-religious marriages. But that's not going to be the focus of my post. My focus is on a comment one of these ignorant, conservative hypocrites made.
He wrote something like in a country such as Britain where female imams (Muslim equivalent of priest), gay marriages are okay it should not be surprising.
So he clearly had a problem with homosexual marriages like many other Muslim conservatives do.
Yet these same kind of people seem to have no problem with marriages between first cousins. It's not homosexual marriages that produce inbred children who have a high chance of health problems later on in life and yet these gay/lesbian bashing Muslim conservatives simply ignore this fact. Isn't this hypocrisy?
When I was once on vacation in Pakistan our Bangladeshi housekeeper asked me is it true that some men marry other men in America? When I answered yes he was puzzled. What he was clearly unaware of is that people from other cultures frown upon the Muslim practice of marrying first cousins and they have a far more legitimate reason to frown upon this than Muslims do upon homosexual marriages.
So at the end of the day you have homosexuals who only hurt themselves at the most and Muslim conservatives who are silent and sometimes even advocate marriages between first cousins, producing retarded children who can do little or nothing for their society(s) and just take up extra resources such as extra medical care. Medical care that could be devoted to helping someone who actually can be helped.
And when I criticize Muslims for inter-family marriages, I criticize mainly Muslims because other religious groups do not or rarely marry and breed amongst their own family members. Sure the Hindus marrying dogs and drinking cow urine is even more primitive, but it still doesn't excuse producing inbred, retarded children.
If there are Muslim conservatives who are against marrying first cousins, they need to speak out against it, because at the moment there seems to be no sign of condemnation against this medieval practice, yet we can hear loud and clear condemnations of even the practice of people dressing up as the opposite sex.
So the next time a Muslim conservative is ready to criticize homosexual marriages, think twice because you just might be married to your cousin, or perhaps your parents might be first cousins with the chances of you having a physical disability(s) being high.
If you're neither of these, then still you as a Muslim have a duty to condemn inbreeding and maybe then try to bash homosexuals provided you give a strong and valid reason for doing so.
Of course most of these people were from a religious background and started spurring all sorts of nonsense as if they had never heard of inter-religious marriages. But that's not going to be the focus of my post. My focus is on a comment one of these ignorant, conservative hypocrites made.
He wrote something like in a country such as Britain where female imams (Muslim equivalent of priest), gay marriages are okay it should not be surprising.
So he clearly had a problem with homosexual marriages like many other Muslim conservatives do.
Yet these same kind of people seem to have no problem with marriages between first cousins. It's not homosexual marriages that produce inbred children who have a high chance of health problems later on in life and yet these gay/lesbian bashing Muslim conservatives simply ignore this fact. Isn't this hypocrisy?
When I was once on vacation in Pakistan our Bangladeshi housekeeper asked me is it true that some men marry other men in America? When I answered yes he was puzzled. What he was clearly unaware of is that people from other cultures frown upon the Muslim practice of marrying first cousins and they have a far more legitimate reason to frown upon this than Muslims do upon homosexual marriages.
So at the end of the day you have homosexuals who only hurt themselves at the most and Muslim conservatives who are silent and sometimes even advocate marriages between first cousins, producing retarded children who can do little or nothing for their society(s) and just take up extra resources such as extra medical care. Medical care that could be devoted to helping someone who actually can be helped.
And when I criticize Muslims for inter-family marriages, I criticize mainly Muslims because other religious groups do not or rarely marry and breed amongst their own family members. Sure the Hindus marrying dogs and drinking cow urine is even more primitive, but it still doesn't excuse producing inbred, retarded children.
If there are Muslim conservatives who are against marrying first cousins, they need to speak out against it, because at the moment there seems to be no sign of condemnation against this medieval practice, yet we can hear loud and clear condemnations of even the practice of people dressing up as the opposite sex.
So the next time a Muslim conservative is ready to criticize homosexual marriages, think twice because you just might be married to your cousin, or perhaps your parents might be first cousins with the chances of you having a physical disability(s) being high.
If you're neither of these, then still you as a Muslim have a duty to condemn inbreeding and maybe then try to bash homosexuals provided you give a strong and valid reason for doing so.
Continental unions are not a good idea
As some readers may be aware of the most recent developments in the EU with Greece suffering from a financial crisis, it is actually hurting the European Union.
Readers can read here on the impact Greece's problems have had on the Euro.
I'm not trying to be negative towards Greece or it's presence in the EU, after all it could have happened from any country.
The point I'm trying to make is when you form a union, you can get benefits and you can get setbacks.
But when one country seems to have a setback, it's a serious problem for the entire union.
Sure trade and political agreements and even military agreements are beneficial. But an entire union with a common currency?
Other setbacks for such unions are the freedom of nationals to travel into another country at their own free will. For Europe, it slowly seems to be having a negative impact, but for Asia it would be a disaster.
Countries with larger populations and poverty will have the freedom to send their citizens anywhere in an Asian union.
A common union just allows countries to surrender a significant part of their sovereignty to one another and pay the price for the downfall of one country.
It also allows one leadership to expand it's authority. I clearly say no to unions of any kind, especially those modeled after the EU. I had opposed this long before Greece's financial crisis and still oppose it.
Readers can read here on the impact Greece's problems have had on the Euro.
I'm not trying to be negative towards Greece or it's presence in the EU, after all it could have happened from any country.
The point I'm trying to make is when you form a union, you can get benefits and you can get setbacks.
But when one country seems to have a setback, it's a serious problem for the entire union.
Sure trade and political agreements and even military agreements are beneficial. But an entire union with a common currency?
Other setbacks for such unions are the freedom of nationals to travel into another country at their own free will. For Europe, it slowly seems to be having a negative impact, but for Asia it would be a disaster.
Countries with larger populations and poverty will have the freedom to send their citizens anywhere in an Asian union.
A common union just allows countries to surrender a significant part of their sovereignty to one another and pay the price for the downfall of one country.
It also allows one leadership to expand it's authority. I clearly say no to unions of any kind, especially those modeled after the EU. I had opposed this long before Greece's financial crisis and still oppose it.
Reverse racism is the cause of Neo-Nazism in the world.
For those who do not know yet, I am from Pakistan. I have lived in North America for almost ten years and experienced multiculturalism to it's fullest.
Through my years in a multicultural society I have learned a great deal on human history and politics- all through independent research and analysis- not what the media taught me or what I was taught in school in North America.
Even what my parents have taught me about Pakistan, Asia or the world no longer influences my political views or knowledge in history; only research and historic facts do.
I've heard a former close family friend say several times "the white man has committed the worst of all crimes."
Perhaps true to some extent, but nevertheless a racist and stereotypical statement no matter how you look at it.
Ironically this family friend said Jews cannot be blamed as a race for what Israel does and have the right of freedom to support any cause they see suitable. I agree with the second statement as well. Jews and Muslims have the right to support any cause they want. But then so should white people. If somebody wants to be a white nationalist, we all assume the comeback of Adolph Hitler. ("white" in this case refers to European descent and not white-skinned people from other parts of the world).
That's what all my family and friends insist when I argue against the defamation of race-based groups. They insist there is only one meaning behind all of it: White racial supremacy. Really?
So with all the Muslim groups we've been participating in from Muslim Canadian congress and others, we must all be associated with Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden? Is it not? Don't excuse it, because this is exactly what it sounds like by the same standards.
It's simply hypocrisy, there's no two ways to it.
I have also followed the phenomenon of white nationalism even before moving to North America through documentaries and movies. Like everyone else, I swallowed what I was told unquestionably. That white nationalism is all about killing black people and Muslims and Jews.
Through my own independent reading I think I have managed to understand the various categories of white nationalism and modern-day Neo-Nazism.
One is of course the idea of white supremacy and global world dominance, which is what all white human rights activists are labeled as these days by the mass media.
Then there are other groups that express the fear of their culture, ethnicity and future being diminished by the policies of our liberal society. Now imagine if these people were black and felt the same way. Wouldn't we all sympathize with it?
But they are white, so we will never sympathize with them and always brand them "racists."
That is double standards and a very rigid, narrow way of thinking.
From my experience, Western society has learned very little on the lessons of racism and discrimination. Whenever we hear of racism in North America and perhaps most of Western society, people usually think of discrimination against blacks (blacks in this case refers to people of Subsaharan African descent), slavery, discrimination against Jews and the Holocaust.
What about the other ethnic groups that face discrimination in Western society? Even before the September 11th attacks, I recall people in my school in Canada discussing Timothy McVeigh and a young kid made a statement that terrorists have a strange way of thinking; they all come from Iraq.
Now imagine for second if Iraq was a Jewish state or a country of black people. That kid and his parents would get hell for his "politically incorrect" comment. I doubt he'd even be bold enough to be even making such an ignorant statement.
Once a Jew in class had openly said "Christians don't believe in God, they worship idols in a Church."
His opinion, well respected by me. But what does not deserve respect is the fact that if some Christian said the same about the Jews, the chances of him/her being in trouble would be much higher and those who live in a Western country or have lived there know this fact to be true.
The bottom line is we in the Western world have learned nothing. The Neo-Nazis come into this picture from fear of reverse discrimination and double standards.
Many people associate white nationalism with Hitler-style Nazism with a quest to dominate the world. These people live in a dream world.
Today almost nobody wastes their time trying to achieve such an unrealistic goal. The modern white nationalists are indeed a result of reverse discrimination and double standards.
Their nationalism is based on securing their culture and tribes. Some readers may see that as segregationist. Segregationist is if it's by white people, not colored.
Why is it that when non-white Arab countries or non-white countries in general have strict immigration policies, we respect it and don't complain, yet when European countries implement the same law, we shout racists.
It's all out of ignorance. And because we have remained so ignorant to this issues, the white nationalists have come up to fight this and are only increasing.
They fear unconditional immigration and they fear of being branded as racist if they complain about it. If we look everywhere, most countries inhabited by white people are hit with immigration. Why were we Pakistanis not branded as 'racist' when we cracked down on Bangladeshi immigrants that flooded Pakistani cities?
Now if we go back to my point on white countries being hit immigration, reverse racism is on the rise. How does that sound for a future for you and your family and descendants no matter what race you are?
Your country hit with immigration, your people hit with reverse discrimination how would you react?
To stop the rise of Neo-Nazism, we must focus on solving the issue of reverse discrimination. Trying to silence white nationalists and Neo-Nazis will only increase the threat of Neo-Nazism. But we cannot solve the problem until we come out of our ignorance and blame everything on "white discrimination."
Sure discrimination does happen from whites, but we only focus on that. We also do not focus on other people being discriminated against aside from blacks and Jews.
I once read of a boy at school in Canada bullied because his name was Osama. Imagine if that boy was Jewish and bullied on the basis of having a Jewish name or the kid being black and having an African name.
This mentality has to change. The school curriculum forcing kids to learn about he Holocaust and the wickedness of white people will only fuel racial tensions in the future.
Heck I was once forced to read a book on the Holocaust by a teacher because I opposed her pro-Israeli views.
She once did lose control of her emotions in class and said some very nasty things against Muslims. Had it been a Jewish student who had to take the same insulting comments, she would have lost her job.
We have to keep learning about the Holocaust, but not the Native American genocide, not the Armenian genocide or the genocide committed by the Mongols against the people of Eurasia under Genghis Khan and the Mongols.
Maybe if the Armenian genocide was introduced as part of the school curriculum, relations between Turkey and the West would decline. Turkey has been an important ally of NATO and teaching the Armenian genocide would change all that.
Why is it that Germany has been made to apologize publicly to the Jews for the Holocaust, yet Mongolia has never been asked to apologize to China, Pakistan and other Muslim countries in the Middle East and Central Asia for the crimes of it's people under Genghis Khan?
When seeing a documentary on Mongolia I saw a Mongol villager proudly speak of the conquests by Genghis Khan and how it makes him feel proud of being a Mongol.
Imagine if a German made similar comment on the same lines that Hitler's deeds made him proud to be a German.
He'd probably be blamed for the rest of his life for being a racist. This ignorance needs to be pulled out of our education system and some real education needs to be implemented such as the issue of reverse discrimination.
If we don't I can grantee in the future, racial tensions will skyrocket and we'll have nothing but our own ignorance to blame.
Through my years in a multicultural society I have learned a great deal on human history and politics- all through independent research and analysis- not what the media taught me or what I was taught in school in North America.
Even what my parents have taught me about Pakistan, Asia or the world no longer influences my political views or knowledge in history; only research and historic facts do.
I've heard a former close family friend say several times "the white man has committed the worst of all crimes."
Perhaps true to some extent, but nevertheless a racist and stereotypical statement no matter how you look at it.
Ironically this family friend said Jews cannot be blamed as a race for what Israel does and have the right of freedom to support any cause they see suitable. I agree with the second statement as well. Jews and Muslims have the right to support any cause they want. But then so should white people. If somebody wants to be a white nationalist, we all assume the comeback of Adolph Hitler. ("white" in this case refers to European descent and not white-skinned people from other parts of the world).
That's what all my family and friends insist when I argue against the defamation of race-based groups. They insist there is only one meaning behind all of it: White racial supremacy. Really?
So with all the Muslim groups we've been participating in from Muslim Canadian congress and others, we must all be associated with Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden? Is it not? Don't excuse it, because this is exactly what it sounds like by the same standards.
It's simply hypocrisy, there's no two ways to it.
I have also followed the phenomenon of white nationalism even before moving to North America through documentaries and movies. Like everyone else, I swallowed what I was told unquestionably. That white nationalism is all about killing black people and Muslims and Jews.
Through my own independent reading I think I have managed to understand the various categories of white nationalism and modern-day Neo-Nazism.
One is of course the idea of white supremacy and global world dominance, which is what all white human rights activists are labeled as these days by the mass media.
Then there are other groups that express the fear of their culture, ethnicity and future being diminished by the policies of our liberal society. Now imagine if these people were black and felt the same way. Wouldn't we all sympathize with it?
But they are white, so we will never sympathize with them and always brand them "racists."
That is double standards and a very rigid, narrow way of thinking.
From my experience, Western society has learned very little on the lessons of racism and discrimination. Whenever we hear of racism in North America and perhaps most of Western society, people usually think of discrimination against blacks (blacks in this case refers to people of Subsaharan African descent), slavery, discrimination against Jews and the Holocaust.
What about the other ethnic groups that face discrimination in Western society? Even before the September 11th attacks, I recall people in my school in Canada discussing Timothy McVeigh and a young kid made a statement that terrorists have a strange way of thinking; they all come from Iraq.
Now imagine for second if Iraq was a Jewish state or a country of black people. That kid and his parents would get hell for his "politically incorrect" comment. I doubt he'd even be bold enough to be even making such an ignorant statement.
Once a Jew in class had openly said "Christians don't believe in God, they worship idols in a Church."
His opinion, well respected by me. But what does not deserve respect is the fact that if some Christian said the same about the Jews, the chances of him/her being in trouble would be much higher and those who live in a Western country or have lived there know this fact to be true.
The bottom line is we in the Western world have learned nothing. The Neo-Nazis come into this picture from fear of reverse discrimination and double standards.
Many people associate white nationalism with Hitler-style Nazism with a quest to dominate the world. These people live in a dream world.
Today almost nobody wastes their time trying to achieve such an unrealistic goal. The modern white nationalists are indeed a result of reverse discrimination and double standards.
Their nationalism is based on securing their culture and tribes. Some readers may see that as segregationist. Segregationist is if it's by white people, not colored.
Why is it that when non-white Arab countries or non-white countries in general have strict immigration policies, we respect it and don't complain, yet when European countries implement the same law, we shout racists.
It's all out of ignorance. And because we have remained so ignorant to this issues, the white nationalists have come up to fight this and are only increasing.
They fear unconditional immigration and they fear of being branded as racist if they complain about it. If we look everywhere, most countries inhabited by white people are hit with immigration. Why were we Pakistanis not branded as 'racist' when we cracked down on Bangladeshi immigrants that flooded Pakistani cities?
Now if we go back to my point on white countries being hit immigration, reverse racism is on the rise. How does that sound for a future for you and your family and descendants no matter what race you are?
Your country hit with immigration, your people hit with reverse discrimination how would you react?
To stop the rise of Neo-Nazism, we must focus on solving the issue of reverse discrimination. Trying to silence white nationalists and Neo-Nazis will only increase the threat of Neo-Nazism. But we cannot solve the problem until we come out of our ignorance and blame everything on "white discrimination."
Sure discrimination does happen from whites, but we only focus on that. We also do not focus on other people being discriminated against aside from blacks and Jews.
I once read of a boy at school in Canada bullied because his name was Osama. Imagine if that boy was Jewish and bullied on the basis of having a Jewish name or the kid being black and having an African name.
This mentality has to change. The school curriculum forcing kids to learn about he Holocaust and the wickedness of white people will only fuel racial tensions in the future.
Heck I was once forced to read a book on the Holocaust by a teacher because I opposed her pro-Israeli views.
She once did lose control of her emotions in class and said some very nasty things against Muslims. Had it been a Jewish student who had to take the same insulting comments, she would have lost her job.
We have to keep learning about the Holocaust, but not the Native American genocide, not the Armenian genocide or the genocide committed by the Mongols against the people of Eurasia under Genghis Khan and the Mongols.
Maybe if the Armenian genocide was introduced as part of the school curriculum, relations between Turkey and the West would decline. Turkey has been an important ally of NATO and teaching the Armenian genocide would change all that.
Why is it that Germany has been made to apologize publicly to the Jews for the Holocaust, yet Mongolia has never been asked to apologize to China, Pakistan and other Muslim countries in the Middle East and Central Asia for the crimes of it's people under Genghis Khan?
When seeing a documentary on Mongolia I saw a Mongol villager proudly speak of the conquests by Genghis Khan and how it makes him feel proud of being a Mongol.
Imagine if a German made similar comment on the same lines that Hitler's deeds made him proud to be a German.
He'd probably be blamed for the rest of his life for being a racist. This ignorance needs to be pulled out of our education system and some real education needs to be implemented such as the issue of reverse discrimination.
If we don't I can grantee in the future, racial tensions will skyrocket and we'll have nothing but our own ignorance to blame.
Silencing your oponents in a "free" and democratic society.
I've seen various videos and documentaries on Neo-Nazism and demonstrations in front of public facilities such as universities etc.
At the site of them, there are massive crowds out to silence them. I ask why? Why do societies who champion themselves as protectors of human rights and free thought allow this to happen?
Sure Nazis are bad and maybe evil. But why do you silence them? Do you not like what they say? Then you are not in favor of free speech.
Some people insist that the 'lies' of the Nazis are too dangerous for others to hear and be seduced into. Then what about what you believe? Perhaps your political opponents see them as lies.
The truth is western societies love 'free speech' -as long as you don't express what your western society sees as 'politically incorrect.'
Sure even eastern countries in Asia and Africa have laws censoring free speech, but then again, they don't really champion themselves defenders of free expression do they?
If western countries and their citizens learned to be more tolerant of other peoples opinions, perhaps there can be political understanding.
Perhaps giving your political opponents the right to express themselves and stress their opinion, might give you an insight to their point of view.
How else does exchange of free thought and free expression occur? How else are pressing problems discussed and solved?
Western nations have no right to claim themselves as protectors of free thought, until they actually allow everyone and every political thought to be expressed openly.
At the site of them, there are massive crowds out to silence them. I ask why? Why do societies who champion themselves as protectors of human rights and free thought allow this to happen?
Sure Nazis are bad and maybe evil. But why do you silence them? Do you not like what they say? Then you are not in favor of free speech.
Some people insist that the 'lies' of the Nazis are too dangerous for others to hear and be seduced into. Then what about what you believe? Perhaps your political opponents see them as lies.
The truth is western societies love 'free speech' -as long as you don't express what your western society sees as 'politically incorrect.'
Sure even eastern countries in Asia and Africa have laws censoring free speech, but then again, they don't really champion themselves defenders of free expression do they?
If western countries and their citizens learned to be more tolerant of other peoples opinions, perhaps there can be political understanding.
Perhaps giving your political opponents the right to express themselves and stress their opinion, might give you an insight to their point of view.
How else does exchange of free thought and free expression occur? How else are pressing problems discussed and solved?
Western nations have no right to claim themselves as protectors of free thought, until they actually allow everyone and every political thought to be expressed openly.
Double standards on "free speech" and it's true meanings in Western society
Firstly, I am a huge critic of Islam especially being a person of Muslim descent. I am also a strong defender of free speech and human rights, including the right to criticize any religion a person or people may choose.
From all the observations I have made in the past few years of relations between the West and the Muslim world, I've come to realize the idea of "free speech" actually has different meanings in Western societies.
For a long time the West has argued that Muslims should be able to tolerate any forms of free speech, including insults at Islam and it's prophets. The reason behind all of this is that since the Western media has mocked other religions, Muslims must also accept their share of criticism.
The reality of the matter is far from this. By the publication of the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, the Danish media was not really objective nor offered constructive criticism.
Many Western European countries defended this idea as "free speech" but ironically, some of these same countries have legal punishments for those who deny the holocaust.
I am no holocaust denier, but if I was it should not be anybody's business. Many defenders of silencing public holocaust denial usually do not come up with productive arguments. Instead when reminded of the fact that holocaust denial is clearly free speech, these people try to prove the holocaust actually happened, which is completely irrelevant in an argument discussing freedom of expression.
The most likely reason is that they really have no argument in favor of punishing holocaust deniers. It's also because on the other hand their arguments for insulting Islam and Muslims in the name of free speech is automatically killed.
Then there's also the difference between insulting and actual criticism. When it comes to Islam and Muslims, both are perfectly considered normal and a part of free speech. On the other hand, if anyone were to publish cartoons depicting Jews as terrorists or criticizing them, they usually get targeted for alleged "Antisemitism."
Instead of criticizing the lack of condemnation for Muslim actions in Darfur or the silence of many Muslims to the ways of their leaders and violent actions of their people, the Western press has counterproductive cartoons actually insulting a religion.
It's quite clear "free speech" has a different meaning in the West (including North America) than it actually tries to make it out to be. Free speech to them means the right to insult/criticize any religious or ethnic group as long as it's not the Jews or denying the holocaust.
Since this is what appears to be the case, Western governments should restrict freedom of expression all together depending on what/who is being criticized or mocked. Otherwise they should open up to free speech in all forms.
It should be noted that many people who defend holocaust denial as free speech are Jewish themselves. I met a man of Dutch-Jewish descent who defend this right. Famous Jews including Noam Chomsky have defended this right.
So in the end both the West and the Muslim world have blasphemy laws, the Muslim world with restricting criticism on Muhammad and Islam and the West with restricting criticism of Jews and/or denying the holocaust.
Free speech means criticizing anything you want as long as it's not the Jews.
Some of my important points on the carton controversy:
-They were wrong by all means. They did not offer constructive criticism but actually counterproductive insults.
-They only promoted ignorance of who the Prophet Muhammad was and stereotyped Muslims as a whole. This is really more or less promoting hatred against a religious group.
-The reaction to the cartoons was equally as bad if not worse. Muslims in their own countries are ready destroy their own infrastructure and attack their own police because of the publication of some cartoons. It's madness.
-Knowing the tension between the West and the Muslim world especially in the post 911 era, this was a completely irresponsible act of Western governments who allowed them to be published and actually defended them.
-Western governments have been pressuring Muslim governments to crack down on extremist groups in their countries, but publishing such provocative material and then defending it is like telling someone to restrain the lion from biting you while provoking the lion yourself. These cartoons only make it more difficult for Muslim governments to deal with extremism.
-Prosecuting and punishing holocaust deniers while defending anti-Islamic publications is clearly sending out the wrong message by Western countries who try to champion themselves as defenders of free speech.
-In encounters with anti-Islamic atheists, I've noticed they will freely criticize, insult Islam or Christianity in the name of free speech. But when it comes to criticizing Judaism, every religion must be criticized alongside it. Western atheists never publish criticism of Judaism individually. It's perfectly clear they do not live in a society of free speech and have a double standard around the idea itself.
-I may sound "antisemitic" to some. But the fact is I see America and Israel as the only hope for preventing the mullah regime of Iran gaining nuclear weapons which I will discuss in another post.
A dangerous nuclear arms race in Eurasia may be underway, and I feel only America and Israel can prevent that.
-I've always heard of Muslim hypocrisy coming from the West. But what I haven't heard is Westerners admitting the hypocrisy in their own so-called "free society" while many Muslims or people of Muslim descent such as myself publicly condemn the hypocrisy in Islamic societies.
-Until holocaust denial is legalized as free speech, there is absolutely no justification for publishing counterproductive cartoons or any kind of provocation directed against Islam and Muslims or any other religion for that matter.
Seperatism in China, the West and the Muslim world
A couple of years ago when things started to heat up in Tibet, western human rights groups and politicians were quick to condemn China.
People took to the streets in major western capitals to protest to the Chinese embassies.
I see this as nothing more than hypocrisy. Imagine if Chinese people took to the streets and protested in front of the British embassy for the abuses in Northern Ireland, the Spanish and French embassies for the abuses of the Basque people.
Even in the Muslim world there have been those who were eager to condemn China's treatment of the Uighurs, Russia's treatment of the Chechens, but take a one-eighty degree turn when it comes to their own country's treatment of religious and ethnic minorities or any other Muslim state's similar abusive practices.
Weather it is the mistreatment of Balochis in Iran and Pakistan or the treatment of Kurds in Turkey and Iraq or the genocide of sub Saharan Africans by the Sudanese Arabs.
It is not to say that people should condone human rights abuses by any country, certainly not. But each time you are ready to condemn another country's human rights records and denial to their separatist's demands, always ensure your country has a clean or better human rights record and does not face separatism.
If so, then be ready to condemn it first before setting out to point fingers at another country for doing the same.
People took to the streets in major western capitals to protest to the Chinese embassies.
I see this as nothing more than hypocrisy. Imagine if Chinese people took to the streets and protested in front of the British embassy for the abuses in Northern Ireland, the Spanish and French embassies for the abuses of the Basque people.
Even in the Muslim world there have been those who were eager to condemn China's treatment of the Uighurs, Russia's treatment of the Chechens, but take a one-eighty degree turn when it comes to their own country's treatment of religious and ethnic minorities or any other Muslim state's similar abusive practices.
Weather it is the mistreatment of Balochis in Iran and Pakistan or the treatment of Kurds in Turkey and Iraq or the genocide of sub Saharan Africans by the Sudanese Arabs.
It is not to say that people should condone human rights abuses by any country, certainly not. But each time you are ready to condemn another country's human rights records and denial to their separatist's demands, always ensure your country has a clean or better human rights record and does not face separatism.
If so, then be ready to condemn it first before setting out to point fingers at another country for doing the same.
My opinions on the politics of the Russo-Georgian conflict
Firstly, I don't want to be seen as someone who is on any country's side or a "cheerleader" of some sort. I am just interested in clearing out misconceptions and what I see as one-sided views of this issue.
Ever since the war broke out between Georgia and the Russian Federation in August 2008, many were quick to jump out and point fingers at Georgia for many things from forcefully holding on to South Ossetia to being a NATO/Western/Zionist "puppet" or "proxy."
Firstly, I want to discuss the issue of Ossetia and Abkhazia.
As some people might not know, the Russian Federation faces various separatist movements within it's borders, most particularly in Chechnya.
For the Russian government to act as a 'protector' of Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples rights to separate from Georgia is hypocrisy given that it has denied the same rights to separatists within it's own borders.
For any country to promote separatism in another country while denying it's own separatist issue is hypocrisy.
For people to condemn another country for denying the demands of it's separatists should ask if they would do the same for separatists in their own country.
Would Britain suddenly allow Northern Ireland to break away or France and Spain allow the Basque to break away? Simply no.
Additionally, for a small country like Georgia to loose any territory is something simply unaffordable. Georgia is doing what any other country would do when responding to separatists within their own borders and their supporters abroad.
On the part on accusing Georgia of being a NATO/American/Zionist "proxy," I now want to cover.
Going all the way back to the years of the cold war, countries that were allies of the USSR and now the Russian Federation were always seen as "strategic allies."
Weather these countries were India, Iran or Cuba, they were all "strategic allies" of the USSR. But any country like Georgia or Pakistan or any other American ally has been labeled a "puppet" or a "proxy."
Why was Cuba not labeled a Soviet "puppet" or "proxy?"
Most ignorant people saw it as a country "protecting itself from American imperialism."
Why did these same ignorant people not see the same in the case of Georgia?
Alot of small former Soviet republics see the Russian Federation as a hegemonic power in their neighborhood, threatening their sovereignty.
This is why Georgia turned to the United States and Israel as allies to counter what it felt as Russian threats to it's sovereignty.
Indeed Georgia is very much like Cuba, except that it is committing a 'crime' by allying itself with the west and Israel; thus being labeled a "proxy" whereas any pro-Soviet (now Russian) ally is simply a "strategic ally."
This kind of thought is hypocrisy by all means. Sometimes there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in modern geopolitics. Everyone looks out for their interests, sometimes at the expense of others if that's what they are forced to do.
Ever since the war broke out between Georgia and the Russian Federation in August 2008, many were quick to jump out and point fingers at Georgia for many things from forcefully holding on to South Ossetia to being a NATO/Western/Zionist "puppet" or "proxy."
Firstly, I want to discuss the issue of Ossetia and Abkhazia.
As some people might not know, the Russian Federation faces various separatist movements within it's borders, most particularly in Chechnya.
For the Russian government to act as a 'protector' of Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples rights to separate from Georgia is hypocrisy given that it has denied the same rights to separatists within it's own borders.
For any country to promote separatism in another country while denying it's own separatist issue is hypocrisy.
For people to condemn another country for denying the demands of it's separatists should ask if they would do the same for separatists in their own country.
Would Britain suddenly allow Northern Ireland to break away or France and Spain allow the Basque to break away? Simply no.
Additionally, for a small country like Georgia to loose any territory is something simply unaffordable. Georgia is doing what any other country would do when responding to separatists within their own borders and their supporters abroad.
On the part on accusing Georgia of being a NATO/American/Zionist "proxy," I now want to cover.
Going all the way back to the years of the cold war, countries that were allies of the USSR and now the Russian Federation were always seen as "strategic allies."
Weather these countries were India, Iran or Cuba, they were all "strategic allies" of the USSR. But any country like Georgia or Pakistan or any other American ally has been labeled a "puppet" or a "proxy."
Why was Cuba not labeled a Soviet "puppet" or "proxy?"
Most ignorant people saw it as a country "protecting itself from American imperialism."
Why did these same ignorant people not see the same in the case of Georgia?
Alot of small former Soviet republics see the Russian Federation as a hegemonic power in their neighborhood, threatening their sovereignty.
This is why Georgia turned to the United States and Israel as allies to counter what it felt as Russian threats to it's sovereignty.
Indeed Georgia is very much like Cuba, except that it is committing a 'crime' by allying itself with the west and Israel; thus being labeled a "proxy" whereas any pro-Soviet (now Russian) ally is simply a "strategic ally."
This kind of thought is hypocrisy by all means. Sometimes there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in modern geopolitics. Everyone looks out for their interests, sometimes at the expense of others if that's what they are forced to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)