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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

Background on terrorism.

Author's note: I took up terrorism as a topic in a high school course on the West and the world for my final essay.
I did a background note list and a rough draft which I posted here to share with readers. This is the background note list that I will share in this post.

Background:
-Earliest recorded organized group striving for political goals through the use of force or violence was found in ancient Roman times.

-The group known as Zealots of Judea, a Jewish nationalist group seeking to free the Holy Land from Roman occupation, demonstrated traits of modern day terrorist groups.

-Main traits of ancient terrorist groups were assassinations of arch-rival or opposing groups.

-Other well organized groups have been recorded since then to be carrying out similar acts of violent behavior.

-The use of the word "terrorist" did not come into being until the late seventeenth century during the French revolution.

-The first use of the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" (terrorisme in French) was found in 1795 in reference to the reign of terror committed by the new revolutionary government.

-These words were based on the Latin verb (terrain) to describe the causing of urinate.

-By the nineteenth century with the growth of technology, terrorism saw a new opening.

-Radical policies and the growth of globalization fed the risk of global terrorism even more.

-Empires slowly started to decline as terrorism based on nationalism rose throughout world colonies.

-Terrorist groups lasted for longer periods of time closer to the nineteenth century such as the Irish Republican army in Europe or the Ku Klux Klan in North America which was founded in the eighteen hundreds and both still have underground members even to this day.

-With the availability of modern day technology for modern warfare and improved communication systems in the twentieth century, modern-day terrorist groups become more and more difficult to track down or tackle.

-Early recorded terrorism showed small, but still violent incidents of assigns and fewer open battles.

-Modern day terrorism is shown operating on a much larger scales and includes full scale war against political arch-rivals which can even be states and organizations (ie. Al-Queda and the USA).

Types of terrorism:
-State terrorism is the role of a state or government (or proxy state) using violence or terror to enforce its power on anybody whether it's a foreign country or it's own people.

-Some examples of state terrorism are arrests by governments, executions, military oppression, mass murder against opposing entities or mass murder by opposing sides during wars which are best known as war crimes.

-A well known and accepted historical example of state terrorism is the aftermath of the French revolution where the Bourgeoisie had thousands of people imprisoned, tortured and executed under false charges.

-Current worldwide accepted killings which are classified as examples of war crimes or state terrorism is the famous 1915 Armenian genocide in which up to two million Armenians were allegedly killed by the Ottoman Empire.
Though the incident is disputed, those who claim it to have happen claim the number of two million to have been killed.

-Other examples include the killing of the Jews in World War Two by Hitler's Nazi government, the killings of Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s by Slobodan Moloshevich.

-Ecoterrorism (also called ecological or environmental terrorism) is the destruction or interference of the natural environment or the threat to destroy it by a government/state or political group in order to reach political goals using this destructive measure.

-Examples of environmental terrorism include cutting of water off water supplies to populations, nations or states.

-The use of Biological weapons that strictly cause damage to living beings as opposed to land or infrastructure.

-The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was adopted in 1998, officially defines such modification or destruction of the environment as a war crime.

-Some witnessed examples of ecoterrorism is the burning of oil well in the first and second Gulf Wars by Saddam Hussein that created heavy fires resulting in massive air pollution.

-Economic terrorism is the act of creating economic chaos by the intimidator to terrorize his/her/its victim to giving in to the intimidator.

-Though the acts of economic terrorism can be extremely harmful they are not necessarily violent acts.

-Examples of this include the economic boycott by more economically powerful nations or states against less powerful economies in an attempt to enforce them to submit to the stronger economic powers demand(s).

-The examples of such practices can include the intimidation of large corporations over smaller markets in order to diminish competition from arch-rival producers.

-Economic terrorism can also be defined as physical attacks on powerful economic sites such as the famous September Eleventh attack on the World Trade Center which is said to be done by Al-Queda in an attempt to damage the American economy which proved to be successful for a temporary period of time.

-To use large profits by rich, powerful individuals and/or companies to have influence on the legal system is also widely accepted as an example of economic terrorism.

-Religious terrorism is the use of force or violence in the name of a religion.


Islamist:
-Islamist groups can be found in mostly Asia and the Middle East.

-Abu Sayyaf Group based in the Philippines with the political objective of creating an independent state for Philippine Muslims through the use of violent attacks for intimidation.

-Groups in Egypt such as Al-Jihad or the Egyptian Islamic Jahid with the objective of the violent overthrow of the Egyptian government and an establishment of a pure Islamic state.

-The famous Al-Queda with the goal of expelling all Western military and civilian presence in the Middle East as well as overthrowing the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.

-Hezbollah, a Lebanese-based group dedicated to the removal of the state of Israel.

Christian:
-The Army of God, a Christian group that has been seeking the end of abortion because they see it as going against their religious teachings. This group is known to have bombed several abortion clinics.

-The Ku Klux Klan which appeared as early as the eighteenth century to terrorize freed black slaves and has sought to keep North America as "White" and Christian. The group has used violence towards people who are not of European descent and not of Christian faith.

Jewish:
-The Jewish defense league has been known to be pushing it's point of view through the use of extremely violent behavior and has been described by the FBI as "a right wing terrorist group."

-The Gush Underground which has sought to terrorize Palestinian-Arab populations out of the Holy Land with the use of violent attacks in many cases. Similar groups have been banned by the government of Israel which fears they threaten peace and the stability of the country.

Buddhist:
Other religiously motivated groups have been found in almost all religion. However they're mostly unheard of because of their underground activities or small populations of their religion.

Some of these other religious oriented terrorist groups include Buddhist groups based in Sri Lanka and Japan, such as the Aum Shinrikyo.

Hindutva:
There are various Hindutva groups that are known to engage in terrorist activity especially in India and among Hindu expatriates living in Western countries.
Hindu Unity for example is a well known terrorist group founded by an Indian expatriate living in the USA by the name of Bajrang Dal whom sees himself as a Hindu nationalist. The organization openly describes itself as anti-Christian and anti-Islam. Hindu Unity is possibly most famous for its "hit list" which seeks to target people who they see as a "threat" to their "religion."

-Political terrorism is used as a tool or as blackmail to influence a change in world events or to intimidate political entities to change their conduct to a way seen more suitable to the imposer or intimidator.

-Political terrorism usually cannot be predicted by its course and international rules of war (ie. the deliberate killings of non-combatants during war is considered a violation of the fourth Geneva convention which forbids the killing of unarmed civilians during war).

-Political terrorism can have a reason behind it, depending on the background of the issue. The terrorists may strike at their targets according to that. For example, if the terrorists want to simply retaliate for an action committed against them or their people, then they may simply attempt to kill their targets in cold blood to gain satisfaction of vengeance.

-In other situations if the terrorists have a demand then they may only take hostages and use them to reach those demands. For example, a Palestinian group by the name of Black September seized members of the Israeli Olympic team in 1972 and held them hostage. They placed in demands for the Israeli government and its supporters worldwide and at the same time had an intimidating message for them.

-In other similar situations the terrorists may repeatedly attack in a form of insurgency until their arch-rivals give in to their demands or simply to force them away from what the terrorists or insurgents see as a threat to their own interests.

-The Irish Republican Army, for example has a long history of setting off bombs across Britain and at British government installments in Ireland in an attempt to intimidate the British government to withdraw from their country and to physically remove their presence in Ireland by attacking their installments.

Inquiry questions:

-What may the future of terrorism be like in decades or even generations form now?

-How does the growth and sophistication of technology increase the threat of terrorism?

-Could issues that affect the world today such as global warming or a shift in economic power amongst countries or the rise of corporations ever become a source of terrorism?

-What would the world do to keep itself safe in the rise of growing capabilities of the terrorists?

-Will Cyber terrorism be another key issue in the rise of technology since it is a growing threat today?

Quotes and sources:
-"Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians." -http://wapedia.mobi/

-"Terrorism:The systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population hereby to bring about a particular political objective" -www.Brittanica.com

-"Terrorism is the use of fear to threaten people or nations to make them do things they do not want to do".- World cultures textbook. (Don't remember the name of author and publisher).

-"Terrorism has been described variously as tactic and strategy; a crime and holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination." -www.terrorismresearch.com

Reforming experimentation on live specimens

I've always been an opponent on experimenting especially on innocent animals. I endorse it being done on convicted criminals instead provided it does not constitute torture.

I feel the best way to conduct experiments is on animals that cannot be cured and are on the path to death anyways. If the experiment shows signs of doing severe harm or damage on animals, it should be halted and the animals suffering should be put to death instantly.
The same should be done on convicted killers, rapists, child abusers and others sorts of people who are proven guilty and put on the death row. Since the person is already going to be executed the experiment isn't going to make much of a difference. But again should the experiment prove extremely harmful or painful, the specimen should be put to death instantly. That would be the most humane practice that I can currently think of.

 But if it was a choice between convicted criminals and plain ordinary animals, I would pick convicted criminals. I know anyone else with true moral values would.
There are those who oppose animal experimentation outright and also some animals rights advocates who wish for plants to be used instead. These people are ignorant and don't realize that plants and animals both have feelings except plants aren't able to display it.

Human beings and animals who have lost all nervous senses also known as 'vegetables' would also be better candidates for experimentation provided that death is also available to them at the first sign of any painful or damaging outcomes of the experiment.

What opponents of animal experimentation should also do is invest in future technology that could serve as an alternate to animal experimentation such as the use of artificial cells or anything else that can replace animal experimentation. I believe this would be the best specimens to experiment on as an alternate and should be developed as soon as possible.

Until that happens opponents of animal experimentation are encouraged to boycott products that are known to be tested on animals and to buy test-free products. The tea tree shampoo that I use for example is free of animal experimentation as per the label on the bottles.

The more people use these kind of products and boycott the products tested on animals, the faster we are likely to see animal experimentation banned.  Simply campaigning against it will most likely not stop it.

What is wrong with the global education system

A tutor I had a few years back told me a famous quote (I don't remember who it exactly was by) which said don't let school come in the way of your education.
Now I know exactly what the quote means.

Going back in time to the early years of my life when I attended elementary school in Pakistan, I realize the many causes of my failures and difficulties. The education system structure was simply wrong and today I feel it only adds confusion into the minds of young people.

As an example I encountered many difficulties in math, science and history. I was unable to understand many concepts such as the different categories of animal life except for birds and reptiles due to their similar appearances (ie. scaly skin, feathers etc.). I was unable to categorize other species such as mammals as I had literally no experience in categories.

Who would understand the relationships between cows, wales, humans and other mammals unless through thorough scientific research?

I feel the reason I managed to pull through elementary school was by memorizing most of my material instead of actually understanding it.
It was only later that I was able to understand how categorization works when my father taught me the different members of the cat family.

It was only from there that I understood how biological categorizing works after I observed different families of animals. But most of this came from independent research and discussions with people, not from school.

I know even ask myself, why are children even required to study something at such a young age which rather complex to understand.
Especially over things they have no first hand experience with. As already mentioned, I understood reptiles, birds and their relationships with one another because I had actually seen real life birds, turtles, lizards, snakes and not just from images in a textbook.

The same problems also arise when teaching other subjects such as history. Most of history is dominated by politics. We were made to study things like European and Roman history to the point of boredom.

I had little understanding of ancient history or how humans lived thousands of years ago. I could not picture or imagine how people lived in prehistoric times. Most of the visual insight we were given to ancient civilizations were paintings which is not very accurate.

How is a child supposed to grasp the political history of societies thousands of years ago, when he/she has little knowledge to the current political events of his or her society?

Even when learning about the history of our country Pakistan, we were not taught the Indo-European origins of our people and languages. Most crucial topics in educating us on the origins of our country and prehistory of our people was left out. This was not only because it was not part of the curriculum, but also because the teachers has no idea of this prehistory.

Only at an older age after discovering amazing connections between languages and peoples that most would not expect to be connected, my interest in history and culture skyrocketed.
I have also gained a strong interest in science after learning of interesting scientific facts and theories. With the age of the Internet and flow of free knowledge, I can confidently say I know human history better than most of my teachers did.

I can also confidently say that most of the things I have learned in life is through the Internet and through personal discussions with people knowledgeable in certain fields. Reading books has also been equally advantageous.
One can argue that the Internet is an unreliable source as anyone can post information true or false.

There is truth to this, however the Internet has many advantages that school does not have. If a student is required to research a certain amount of information on a subject, he/she could be spending hours researching through entire books for only one section within a section for the required information.

All the time wasted on this could be used into doing something else useful.

As examples I had to find meanings of listed words as a homework assignment in school. I have always resented using a dictionary knowing how much time and energy can be wasted on looking up each word even in a working order, let alone a list of several words being looked up.

Because it was the early days of the Internet I had to do a bit of web browsing for a dictionary website. But once this was done, I completed the list of words without any problems.

Another example is when I chose to do a history project on Genghis Khan. Instead of having to pull out books and search through them for hours to find information relevant to my project, I simply used Internet websites and video documentaries to help me with my project, using the websites as citations.

The Internet offers other advantages such as almost unlimited info on many topics since websites have more data space than school textbooks.

School also censors certain topics considered "politically incorrect" depending on the country they are taught in. Though access the Internet also gets censored in some countries, it still has no restrictions to what is put online.

As an example the theory of evolution is not taught in many countries due to the religious sensitivity it carries with it, yet the study of biology and comparison of organisms still continues. The question comes up how are these things related to one another since they are so similar?

But because the answer of evolution cannot be discussed, there is more confusion instead of full understanding of the entire subject.

I am not trying to suggest the Internet or virtual schools as a replacement for regular schooling, but rather point out the flaws in the school system worldwide; which only results in people learning through independent research rather than following a collective belief of a society.

The only solution to making school a useful place to learn is to seriously reform the education system and make learning interesting for students so the material doesn't end up being memorized instead of being actually learned.

How to reform the system is a different issue. However; a good start would be easing pressure on students, such as letting them wake later in the morning to start school, when young children need extra hours of rest.

Examinations should also not determine the student's entire grade, rather a fraction of their overall performance through the school year.
I have found that semestered school system is also very useful for students. When I attended high school, I took four courses a semester which made it easier to come though the courses even if they were academic/university level.

Examples like these can serve as good ones in reforming the school system which needs desperate reforming worldwide, no matter in what country.