I was inspired to write this post after reading the famous case of two siblings in Germany being convicted of living an incest relationship. The ruling finally proclaimed them guilty.
Most incestuous relationships worldwide are banned. In Islamic society even though incestuous marriages between first cousins are common, direct sibling relationships are even punishable by death.
The conflicting arguments of weather the law has a right to intervene in such circumstances needs to be discussed and was also addressed in this case by the lawyer.
My view on this is quite in favor of the law. Not really because the siblings shared a sexual relationship but because they conceived at least two children who were born disabled.
These children will probably be helpless from birth till death and a burden on taxpayers and a waste of medical resources that could be used to help people who can actually be helped.
The government or society has the right to intervene in cases that directly affect others. These children are unfairly born into disability and difficulties which gives the law the moral right to prevent such births.
Should pedophiles be allowed to have sexual intercourses with children with the children's consent? The same rules apply here. It's not even an issue of having sexual relationships between two adults, but because of the consequences it could bring.
If siblings wish to live a sexual relationship they should at least be sterilized to prevent the births of children. That should apply to all close relatives having sexual relationships as well as people with diseases and disabilities.
The lawyer of Patrick and Susan argued this case of why disabled people and people with diseases are allowed to breed children but not incestuous couples and I totally agree with him.
People with disabilities of any form should not be allowed to conceive or even adopt children. Personal happiness is a fundamental right of every living being as long as others are not hurt.
Western laws are full of double standards despite having much better human rights practices than the rest of the world. Not to mention it's easy policies on convicted criminals which seem to be pressuring the rest of the world to abolish the death sentence and burden taxpayers with keeping such people alive.
I am open to the idea of incestuous couples adopting children but at the same time concerned weather the child's welfare and how he/she will be seen by society. The other concern is weather he/she will take on his/her adoptive parents relationship.
The brother Patrick was himself adopted and went into the incestuous relationship with his sister. What are the chances of adopted children not emulating their sibling parents and engaging in similar incest relationships with close relatives?
It is unethical for adoptive parents not to ensure the hazards of adopting a child/children will be taken care of.
The law should have no power on what people do at home as long as others are not affected. If homosexual or sibling/related couples wish to engage in a sexual relationship they must keep it to themselves. This should be as much as anybody else and not sharing it with the rest of the world or promoting the practice.
I am all for the ruling against them for producing disabled children and believe that the world should take a step ahead and ban all those planning to breed with close relatives as well as those with diseases/disabilities from breeding or adopting children.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Gender discrimination against males in society
We've all heard about society discriminating against girls and women and there is no denying that. But we hear it again and again. From discriminatory laws to domestic abuse and the list goes on.
But what about gender bias against males? Before arguing against it readers should consider the following. It's okay for a female to admire another female and say she's beautiful. They can openly admire her and call her all sorts of praises such as pretty or even a more extreme, sexy.
She can say/write all that about another female or even male and not get called a homosexual.
Now imagine the very same for a male admiring another male for good looks. Even if he didn't use the word "sexy" but simple plain words such as handsome, the most common reaction would be "homosexual" or "gay."
Is that fair? Is that not inequality? Same thing applies here no matter how you look at it.
Then there's also many women, particularly feminists out there who enjoy putting on a false persecution. They like the fact that domestic violence against women exists so anytime they get into a disagreement with men they can convince others that they were abused.
These are just few observations that I mention of greater, mostly unnoticed gender discrimination against males in society.
But what about gender bias against males? Before arguing against it readers should consider the following. It's okay for a female to admire another female and say she's beautiful. They can openly admire her and call her all sorts of praises such as pretty or even a more extreme, sexy.
She can say/write all that about another female or even male and not get called a homosexual.
Now imagine the very same for a male admiring another male for good looks. Even if he didn't use the word "sexy" but simple plain words such as handsome, the most common reaction would be "homosexual" or "gay."
Is that fair? Is that not inequality? Same thing applies here no matter how you look at it.
Then there's also many women, particularly feminists out there who enjoy putting on a false persecution. They like the fact that domestic violence against women exists so anytime they get into a disagreement with men they can convince others that they were abused.
These are just few observations that I mention of greater, mostly unnoticed gender discrimination against males in society.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
A possible case of reverse discrimination against sexually straight people
I don't like using the term "straight" for non-homosexual people but I'll use it anyway since we are not supposed to make a technical meaning of these terms.
It just happened that I was reading a news article while waiting for my ordered breakfast at a restaurant near my house in Canada. It was about a high school teen in America convicted of shooting a homosexual schoolmate in the head and killing him.
According to the report, the family of the dead school mate "could not forgive" the shooter. At first glance I thought it a case of an extreme homophobic ready to express his anti-gay beliefs with violence. But there was more to it as I read on.
The shooter claimed that the gay made sexual proposals and advances to him. This is the only defense claim that was mentioned in the news report other than the shooter's lawyer claiming his client was sorry for the crime.
As I mentioned in another posting of mine, I am no advocate of violence other than for defensive purposes. I also don't sympathize with people who provoke violence as much with those who were directly or indirectly compelled into committing it.
In the case of the convicted defendant, it does appear as if he was pressured into reacting violently if what he claims is true. Who would be stupid enough to surrender his/her freedom just to hurt somebody because of their sexual orientation?
I'm quite certain the person killed had been sexually harassing the defendant. Imagine if it was a case of a woman claiming she killed a man sexually harassing her. She would probably have sympathy. Imagine if the defendant was a minor, claiming the one he/she killed was a pedophile trying to make sexual advances towards him/her.
In such cases, the defendant would probably be recognized as the victim. But because the incident involved a straight killing a homosexual, all sympathies goes to the persecuted minority as usual. If it's true, it clearly shows North American society switching from discriminating against minorities to giving them exclusive rights over the majority.
According to the report, the gay was allowed by law to express his sexual orientation by dressing up as a woman. This could be an indication that he felt a little overconfident about his rights and decided to make sexual advances towards the would-be shooter. But that's not for me to decide.
If the accused makes a defensive statement, the courts by law must launch a probe into the claims that the gay made sexual proposals and advances towards the shooter.
Sure people can react by claiming the shooter should have sought help instead of committing violence and to a great extent I agree. He did go too far by killing him. But let's be honest. How would you feel telling others if somebody sexually harassed you? And especially in a society where the average straight person would not like to be mistaken for a homosexual.
Again, people would also consider it self-defense if it was a man sexually harassing a woman. But because it was a gay, North American society has suddenly jumps to defend a discriminated minority. If I were that individual, I wouldn't have used such excessive force. I might have warned him with physical assault if he didn't stop. And I would have carried out my warning if he did indeed not stop.
I think that would have stopped him and have been the best solution instead of bringing in a gun and shooting him. But who knows, could it be the shooter was smaller or bullied by this gay? On the mention of bullying and shootings, I'd like to point out many cases of victims bringing guns to school and shooting up the bullies. Many commit suicide right after the incident.
And often they leave suicide notes explaining who and what lead them into doing it. Such acts are often followed by sympathy. But because the individual who was shot dead was homosexual, he was automatically the victim and gets all the sympathy without any probe into what lead the shooter to commit such an act.
I believe the shooter should be placed on probation and on curfew including a ban from possessing weapons or any dangerous objects that could be used as weapons until an official inquiry into the incident is completed. But as I explained, that won't happen because the killed was a homosexual and automatically becomes privileged.
Readers who've read my other posts will know I oppose all forms of discrimination- including reverse discrimination. I don't like people being mistreated simply because they are of a different color, religion, race, sexual orientation etc. At the same time I don't like the fact that people are forced to hire others on the basis of racial/religious/sexual diversity instead of the basis of qualification. This is a clear sign of Western society opting from being discriminatory to reverse discriminatory.
But it doesn't really end with this case. For many years I've been hearing people advocating the belief that homosexuality is genetic and as normal as straight sexual orientation.
I don't see any scientific evidence for it nor am I surprised that anything contradicting this theory will in the future be banned as "homophobic."
I'm willing to guarantee there are plenty of "gay rights" campaigners pushing for such a ridiculous move.
I personally believe that this theory is scientifically incorrect and homosexuality is more psychological than genetic. But Western society wants to adopt it as collective belief just to appease those belonging to the persecuted minority and their supporters.
I'm not going to get much into genetics and psychology since it's not the point of discussion. The point is more about Western society trying to elevate theory to fact because of political pressures and enforce that belief on the masses- much like fascism.
The reason why I don't believe homosexuality is genetic is because the scientific study of mating shows clear reasons for most species coming in two sexes instead of one. An interaction of two opposite genders even if non-sexual shows chemical reactions in the bodies. Even when species such as frogs self-reproduce, they switch genders back and forth to do this.
Attraction to the opposite sex is inside the genetic coding and has results. Same sex attraction has more of a psychological background. Many cases can attest to this. The famous Afghan tradition of Bacha Bazi is a good example of that.
Bacha Bazi results from ultra-conservative traditions which prohibit contact between unrelated and unmarried individuals from the opposite sex, resulting in people to lust of people of the same sex. There's nothing genetic about this. It's all psychological.
Take pedophilia for example. Imagine the outcry if we were made to believe it's genetic. I can confidently state even if not 100% confidently, that it is as "genetic" as homosexuality. And I place the same scientific arguments that our genetics are not programmed to mate with the sexually premature. It results from a lack of opportunity to mate with a suitable partner of the opposite gender and same age grouping.
Even if pedophilia occurs in animals or other species, it usually has reasons behind it that are non-genetic. Likewise, the acceptance of any scientific finding that homosexuality is not genetic will unlikely approved of simply because people see it as an attempt to discredit homosexuals.
This is where Western society fails to draw the line between homosexual rights and hard science due to political correctness, but will definitely try to find psychological reasons to discredit pedophilia.
But weather genetic or not is not the point of discussion. Homosexuals and their supporters are now pushing further from gay/lesbian rights to the point of reverse discrimination if any of my above statements are found to be correct.
Reverse discrimination did not end with religion or race as in the case of Jews from being a persecuted minority to being able to silence almost all political opposition by pulling out the discrimination cry. It didn't end with blacks (by blacks I mean people of sub-Saharan African linage in this case) reverse discriminating against other races on the basis of their forefathers being enslaved.
Now it's the homosexuals turn to reverse discriminate against those who are "straight" (again, not too fond of the word, but readers know what I mean), and that's what I oppose. This case may become a classic example of that.
It just happened that I was reading a news article while waiting for my ordered breakfast at a restaurant near my house in Canada. It was about a high school teen in America convicted of shooting a homosexual schoolmate in the head and killing him.
According to the report, the family of the dead school mate "could not forgive" the shooter. At first glance I thought it a case of an extreme homophobic ready to express his anti-gay beliefs with violence. But there was more to it as I read on.
The shooter claimed that the gay made sexual proposals and advances to him. This is the only defense claim that was mentioned in the news report other than the shooter's lawyer claiming his client was sorry for the crime.
As I mentioned in another posting of mine, I am no advocate of violence other than for defensive purposes. I also don't sympathize with people who provoke violence as much with those who were directly or indirectly compelled into committing it.
In the case of the convicted defendant, it does appear as if he was pressured into reacting violently if what he claims is true. Who would be stupid enough to surrender his/her freedom just to hurt somebody because of their sexual orientation?
I'm quite certain the person killed had been sexually harassing the defendant. Imagine if it was a case of a woman claiming she killed a man sexually harassing her. She would probably have sympathy. Imagine if the defendant was a minor, claiming the one he/she killed was a pedophile trying to make sexual advances towards him/her.
In such cases, the defendant would probably be recognized as the victim. But because the incident involved a straight killing a homosexual, all sympathies goes to the persecuted minority as usual. If it's true, it clearly shows North American society switching from discriminating against minorities to giving them exclusive rights over the majority.
According to the report, the gay was allowed by law to express his sexual orientation by dressing up as a woman. This could be an indication that he felt a little overconfident about his rights and decided to make sexual advances towards the would-be shooter. But that's not for me to decide.
If the accused makes a defensive statement, the courts by law must launch a probe into the claims that the gay made sexual proposals and advances towards the shooter.
Sure people can react by claiming the shooter should have sought help instead of committing violence and to a great extent I agree. He did go too far by killing him. But let's be honest. How would you feel telling others if somebody sexually harassed you? And especially in a society where the average straight person would not like to be mistaken for a homosexual.
Again, people would also consider it self-defense if it was a man sexually harassing a woman. But because it was a gay, North American society has suddenly jumps to defend a discriminated minority. If I were that individual, I wouldn't have used such excessive force. I might have warned him with physical assault if he didn't stop. And I would have carried out my warning if he did indeed not stop.
I think that would have stopped him and have been the best solution instead of bringing in a gun and shooting him. But who knows, could it be the shooter was smaller or bullied by this gay? On the mention of bullying and shootings, I'd like to point out many cases of victims bringing guns to school and shooting up the bullies. Many commit suicide right after the incident.
And often they leave suicide notes explaining who and what lead them into doing it. Such acts are often followed by sympathy. But because the individual who was shot dead was homosexual, he was automatically the victim and gets all the sympathy without any probe into what lead the shooter to commit such an act.
I believe the shooter should be placed on probation and on curfew including a ban from possessing weapons or any dangerous objects that could be used as weapons until an official inquiry into the incident is completed. But as I explained, that won't happen because the killed was a homosexual and automatically becomes privileged.
Readers who've read my other posts will know I oppose all forms of discrimination- including reverse discrimination. I don't like people being mistreated simply because they are of a different color, religion, race, sexual orientation etc. At the same time I don't like the fact that people are forced to hire others on the basis of racial/religious/sexual diversity instead of the basis of qualification. This is a clear sign of Western society opting from being discriminatory to reverse discriminatory.
But it doesn't really end with this case. For many years I've been hearing people advocating the belief that homosexuality is genetic and as normal as straight sexual orientation.
I don't see any scientific evidence for it nor am I surprised that anything contradicting this theory will in the future be banned as "homophobic."
I'm willing to guarantee there are plenty of "gay rights" campaigners pushing for such a ridiculous move.
I personally believe that this theory is scientifically incorrect and homosexuality is more psychological than genetic. But Western society wants to adopt it as collective belief just to appease those belonging to the persecuted minority and their supporters.
I'm not going to get much into genetics and psychology since it's not the point of discussion. The point is more about Western society trying to elevate theory to fact because of political pressures and enforce that belief on the masses- much like fascism.
The reason why I don't believe homosexuality is genetic is because the scientific study of mating shows clear reasons for most species coming in two sexes instead of one. An interaction of two opposite genders even if non-sexual shows chemical reactions in the bodies. Even when species such as frogs self-reproduce, they switch genders back and forth to do this.
Attraction to the opposite sex is inside the genetic coding and has results. Same sex attraction has more of a psychological background. Many cases can attest to this. The famous Afghan tradition of Bacha Bazi is a good example of that.
Bacha Bazi results from ultra-conservative traditions which prohibit contact between unrelated and unmarried individuals from the opposite sex, resulting in people to lust of people of the same sex. There's nothing genetic about this. It's all psychological.
Take pedophilia for example. Imagine the outcry if we were made to believe it's genetic. I can confidently state even if not 100% confidently, that it is as "genetic" as homosexuality. And I place the same scientific arguments that our genetics are not programmed to mate with the sexually premature. It results from a lack of opportunity to mate with a suitable partner of the opposite gender and same age grouping.
Even if pedophilia occurs in animals or other species, it usually has reasons behind it that are non-genetic. Likewise, the acceptance of any scientific finding that homosexuality is not genetic will unlikely approved of simply because people see it as an attempt to discredit homosexuals.
This is where Western society fails to draw the line between homosexual rights and hard science due to political correctness, but will definitely try to find psychological reasons to discredit pedophilia.
But weather genetic or not is not the point of discussion. Homosexuals and their supporters are now pushing further from gay/lesbian rights to the point of reverse discrimination if any of my above statements are found to be correct.
Reverse discrimination did not end with religion or race as in the case of Jews from being a persecuted minority to being able to silence almost all political opposition by pulling out the discrimination cry. It didn't end with blacks (by blacks I mean people of sub-Saharan African linage in this case) reverse discriminating against other races on the basis of their forefathers being enslaved.
Now it's the homosexuals turn to reverse discriminate against those who are "straight" (again, not too fond of the word, but readers know what I mean), and that's what I oppose. This case may become a classic example of that.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
My opposition to the current Palestinian bid for statehood
Over the past few weeks I received various email requests in my inbox to sign petitions in favor of an independent Palestinian state.
I did not sign the petition because looking into the history of why the Palestinian leadership did not declare statehood, I don't see the logic for doing it now.
I don't particularly care for the politics of the Middle East and I'm quite certain most people of that region could not care what a Pakistani thinks about it's politics either.
This does not mean I support the injustice that was committed against the Palestinian people in 1948 to make way for various Jewish refugees from around the world.
Even the proposal of a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one in accordance to the pre-1967 borders is not practical as the Palestinians only get two small patches of land whereas the Israelis get to keep most of the land.
The Palestinian cause that started all the way back in 1948 is a respectable one because even after the other Arab states in the region giving up the cause still continues to this day, thanks to the determination of the Palestinian people. This cause will die permanently and will have little or no international support once a state of Palestine with strict borders is declared.
As I just mentioned I looked at the history of why the Palestinians haven't declared themselves a state with it's own currency and passport. This is because once statehood is declared they must permanently accept the boundaries of the state with no objections.
This means if they are restricted to small patches of land on either side of Israel, they cannot later change their minds.
An over six decade cause would be lost upon declaration of this statehood.
The Palestinians have already been restricted in their choice of boundaries by Israel and it's Western supporters in the UN. They may as well abandon their cause to regain more land and stick with what they have without declaring statehood. The difference is there is no international law restricting them to a boundary currently which is not possible for a Palestinian state with official borders.
If I were the Palestinian leadership I would wait until the decline of Jewish political influence in the West. That may be a long time in the future and may not change in many of our lifetimes, but at the same time if the Palestinians and their supporters worldwide are loyal to their very old cause, accepting a state will end it all.
A realistic and satisfactory Palestinian state would be one equal to if not bigger than the size of the current Israeli state given the large Arab population both inside Israel and the Palestinian territories. A large state would be required to accommodate that population size.
An even more realistic and possibly only solution would be the complete disappearance of Israel or Palestine. Either the Palestinians immigrate to foreign countries and leave their territories or the Israelis leave and go back to where they came from voluntarily or be driven out.
Since it cannot be both ways in this case, either the cause must be completely fulfilled or abandoned all together.
I did not sign the petition because looking into the history of why the Palestinian leadership did not declare statehood, I don't see the logic for doing it now.
I don't particularly care for the politics of the Middle East and I'm quite certain most people of that region could not care what a Pakistani thinks about it's politics either.
This does not mean I support the injustice that was committed against the Palestinian people in 1948 to make way for various Jewish refugees from around the world.
Even the proposal of a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli one in accordance to the pre-1967 borders is not practical as the Palestinians only get two small patches of land whereas the Israelis get to keep most of the land.
The Palestinian cause that started all the way back in 1948 is a respectable one because even after the other Arab states in the region giving up the cause still continues to this day, thanks to the determination of the Palestinian people. This cause will die permanently and will have little or no international support once a state of Palestine with strict borders is declared.
As I just mentioned I looked at the history of why the Palestinians haven't declared themselves a state with it's own currency and passport. This is because once statehood is declared they must permanently accept the boundaries of the state with no objections.
This means if they are restricted to small patches of land on either side of Israel, they cannot later change their minds.
An over six decade cause would be lost upon declaration of this statehood.
The Palestinians have already been restricted in their choice of boundaries by Israel and it's Western supporters in the UN. They may as well abandon their cause to regain more land and stick with what they have without declaring statehood. The difference is there is no international law restricting them to a boundary currently which is not possible for a Palestinian state with official borders.
If I were the Palestinian leadership I would wait until the decline of Jewish political influence in the West. That may be a long time in the future and may not change in many of our lifetimes, but at the same time if the Palestinians and their supporters worldwide are loyal to their very old cause, accepting a state will end it all.
A realistic and satisfactory Palestinian state would be one equal to if not bigger than the size of the current Israeli state given the large Arab population both inside Israel and the Palestinian territories. A large state would be required to accommodate that population size.
An even more realistic and possibly only solution would be the complete disappearance of Israel or Palestine. Either the Palestinians immigrate to foreign countries and leave their territories or the Israelis leave and go back to where they came from voluntarily or be driven out.
Since it cannot be both ways in this case, either the cause must be completely fulfilled or abandoned all together.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Why I oppose homosexual child adoptions
Firstly I have nothing against homosexuals doing as they please within their own rights and private spaces. I have never opposed gay/lesbian couples getting legally married and I actually endorse it as their fundamental human right.
I endorse people doing as they please as long as it does not effect others.
Who exactly is affected when homosexuals adopt children? The child/children of course and that's what I wish to discuss in this post. I once saw a video in which the broadcasters criticized a public swimming pool facility for banning same sex couples and their adopted children while allowing regular couples and even single mothers to bring their children into the pool.
To me it appears the advocates of same sex couple adoptions are trying to justify the practice by pointing towards single parents having children with them.
I don't see this as a justification at all. I see a big difference between a single parent of any gender raising a child than that of same sex couples.
Having two adoptive parents of the same gender draws extra unwanted attention towards the child from peers, friends, acquaintances to start with.
For anyone to live a normal life and grow up without unwanted attention or any sort of intrusion of their privacy, unwanted attention is not a healthy thing for them.
This is how somebody else can suffer as a result of others practicing their human rights. For a homosexual couple to live in peace with one another is their right, but when it destroys or even affects their adopted child's/children's rights, it is no longer an issue of human rights.
There can also be psychological consequences of homosexuals adopting children. Often children follow the lifestyle of their parents/guardians. In the case of homosexuals adopting children, it could lead the child to "voluntarily" imitate their homosexuality weather physical or mental simply as a result of direct influence from the parents lifestyle.
This would be another way of alienating them from society. I put voluntarily in quotation marks because it ought to be questioned weather the child has a chance to decide for him/herself weather he/she/they want to be in a regular or homosexual relationship.
And it's unlikely they will be in a regular opposite gender relationship if they under the influence of what their adoptive parents do.
Children also deserve to have exposure to people of the opposite sex, something a homosexual couple can offer them less of. A child also need to understand the authority of adults regardless of gender. A single parent also cannot offer a child much exposure to those of another gender, but at least there is also the balance of not having the presence of an extra person of the same gender in their lives.
It is not just gender orientation of the adoptive parents that I fear will lead the adoptive child/children to alienation from society. There's also the question of interracial adoptions and other types of adoptions that may bring great difficulty on the adopted individual(s) which would only be doing a great injustice to them.
I endorse people doing as they please as long as it does not effect others.
Who exactly is affected when homosexuals adopt children? The child/children of course and that's what I wish to discuss in this post. I once saw a video in which the broadcasters criticized a public swimming pool facility for banning same sex couples and their adopted children while allowing regular couples and even single mothers to bring their children into the pool.
To me it appears the advocates of same sex couple adoptions are trying to justify the practice by pointing towards single parents having children with them.
I don't see this as a justification at all. I see a big difference between a single parent of any gender raising a child than that of same sex couples.
Having two adoptive parents of the same gender draws extra unwanted attention towards the child from peers, friends, acquaintances to start with.
For anyone to live a normal life and grow up without unwanted attention or any sort of intrusion of their privacy, unwanted attention is not a healthy thing for them.
This is how somebody else can suffer as a result of others practicing their human rights. For a homosexual couple to live in peace with one another is their right, but when it destroys or even affects their adopted child's/children's rights, it is no longer an issue of human rights.
There can also be psychological consequences of homosexuals adopting children. Often children follow the lifestyle of their parents/guardians. In the case of homosexuals adopting children, it could lead the child to "voluntarily" imitate their homosexuality weather physical or mental simply as a result of direct influence from the parents lifestyle.
This would be another way of alienating them from society. I put voluntarily in quotation marks because it ought to be questioned weather the child has a chance to decide for him/herself weather he/she/they want to be in a regular or homosexual relationship.
And it's unlikely they will be in a regular opposite gender relationship if they under the influence of what their adoptive parents do.
Children also deserve to have exposure to people of the opposite sex, something a homosexual couple can offer them less of. A child also need to understand the authority of adults regardless of gender. A single parent also cannot offer a child much exposure to those of another gender, but at least there is also the balance of not having the presence of an extra person of the same gender in their lives.
It is not just gender orientation of the adoptive parents that I fear will lead the adoptive child/children to alienation from society. There's also the question of interracial adoptions and other types of adoptions that may bring great difficulty on the adopted individual(s) which would only be doing a great injustice to them.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Brief thoughts on Osama Bin Laden's alleged "death," 911, and who he really was.
Well looking up news on Pakistan, I found the headlines on the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad of all places which came as a bit of a puzzle.
But the most puzzling idea was the area where he was allegedly killed in.
According to sources this was a highly walled house which stands out in the town of Abbottabad. This may be a news of celebration to many, but adds to the suspicion and the circumstances of the killing operation if it is for real.
Why would a man at the center of attention for the world be in a house that stands out over the rest of the town, with such high walls?
An individual who's known to the rest of the world hide in an area that would grab so much attention? A quote from the Guardian:
How would one of the smartest terrorists who's evaded one of the strongest armies and intelligence suddenly end up in an attention-attracting location where he would be targeted?
Then there is the question of how American forces entered the area without the ISI's knowledge; especially in the aftermath of the Raymond Davis affair.
It sounds a bit too 'easy.'
Either this whole operation was a drama staged to end the highly unpopular war, which's pretext, 911 attacks were used to enter Central Eurasia. And already to the vast majority of Americans and many people, the suspicion that 911 was a false flag operation is still very much large. Hamid Gul seems to share my suspicions.
The circumstances as I mentioned and suddenness of the killing and the location of the seems to be the most suspicious.
Either the claims of Bin Laden secretly being an American agent and an excuse to advance the New World Order are true and he was betrayed and killed by the CIA after his role amongst them was complete. A quote from another source:
It is very questionable on what really happened in the whole operation and what exactly Bin Laden's role was.
This post may be updated as more information arises. Meantime another Pakistani source seems to be raising more suspicious points.
In the whole alleged tracking and killing operation, we are made to believe he's hiding in a mansion that is bigger than the average house. Now they claim they recovered computers and stored data in the house.
Even the stupidest terrorist would not store his/her data in PCs or Macs. A much more realistic scenario would be the terrorist stored his/her contacts on paper to be burned at the last minute instead of letting them into enemy hands.
That's how stupid they take us for. Honestly I'd more easily believe that he was found in an apartment building or in some underground bunker or pit similar to Saddam Hussein's.
Another believable scenario would be he sneaked to the Altay mountain region in Mongolia with the help of Uighur terrorists in Xian. Mongolia would have been more realistic as it's the world's most sparsely populated country with thousand of hiding places.
Also what would have been wiser to get their jackpot of info, the Americans would have used sleep darts to hit him with instead of bullets. This way they could take him alive for interrogation. On the subject of how he was killed there are conflicting reports on the supposed raid. First we heard that he aimed to shoot at US commandos, then we hear he hid behind his wife as a human shield. Then it apparently turned out his wife deliberately came in front of him to protect him.
Also isn't he supposed to be a man always on the run according to the US government and media? Why suddenly this story that he's been hiding in Abbottabad for the last five years.
But no. Out of all the places he had to be in a town where no one claims to have even seen him. Why Pakistan?
Here's why:
But the most puzzling idea was the area where he was allegedly killed in.
According to sources this was a highly walled house which stands out in the town of Abbottabad. This may be a news of celebration to many, but adds to the suspicion and the circumstances of the killing operation if it is for real.
Why would a man at the center of attention for the world be in a house that stands out over the rest of the town, with such high walls?
An individual who's known to the rest of the world hide in an area that would grab so much attention? A quote from the Guardian:
The compound was eight times bigger than neighboring residences and the walls were between three and six meters high, topped with barbed wire. Access was highly restricted. Although valued at over US$1m the place had no phone or internet connection.
How would one of the smartest terrorists who's evaded one of the strongest armies and intelligence suddenly end up in an attention-attracting location where he would be targeted?
Then there is the question of how American forces entered the area without the ISI's knowledge; especially in the aftermath of the Raymond Davis affair.
It sounds a bit too 'easy.'
Either this whole operation was a drama staged to end the highly unpopular war, which's pretext, 911 attacks were used to enter Central Eurasia. And already to the vast majority of Americans and many people, the suspicion that 911 was a false flag operation is still very much large. Hamid Gul seems to share my suspicions.
The circumstances as I mentioned and suddenness of the killing and the location of the seems to be the most suspicious.
Either the claims of Bin Laden secretly being an American agent and an excuse to advance the New World Order are true and he was betrayed and killed by the CIA after his role amongst them was complete. A quote from another source:
When first built, the compound was secluded and reachable by only a dirt road, the officials said. In recent years, more residences built up around it, but it remained by far the largest and most heavily secured property in the area, they said.
It is very questionable on what really happened in the whole operation and what exactly Bin Laden's role was.
This post may be updated as more information arises. Meantime another Pakistani source seems to be raising more suspicious points.
In the whole alleged tracking and killing operation, we are made to believe he's hiding in a mansion that is bigger than the average house. Now they claim they recovered computers and stored data in the house.
Even the stupidest terrorist would not store his/her data in PCs or Macs. A much more realistic scenario would be the terrorist stored his/her contacts on paper to be burned at the last minute instead of letting them into enemy hands.
That's how stupid they take us for. Honestly I'd more easily believe that he was found in an apartment building or in some underground bunker or pit similar to Saddam Hussein's.
Another believable scenario would be he sneaked to the Altay mountain region in Mongolia with the help of Uighur terrorists in Xian. Mongolia would have been more realistic as it's the world's most sparsely populated country with thousand of hiding places.
Also what would have been wiser to get their jackpot of info, the Americans would have used sleep darts to hit him with instead of bullets. This way they could take him alive for interrogation. On the subject of how he was killed there are conflicting reports on the supposed raid. First we heard that he aimed to shoot at US commandos, then we hear he hid behind his wife as a human shield. Then it apparently turned out his wife deliberately came in front of him to protect him.
Also isn't he supposed to be a man always on the run according to the US government and media? Why suddenly this story that he's been hiding in Abbottabad for the last five years.
But no. Out of all the places he had to be in a town where no one claims to have even seen him. Why Pakistan?
Here's why:
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Arms industries need to be dismantled instead of nuclear weapons
The latest campaign by the West and so-called "progressive" activists to try to reduce and eventually rid the world of nuclear weapons is nothing more than a naive and unrealistic goal.
Global nuclear disarmament also seems as a means to shift the balance of power to the West (particularly NATO) and it's allies. This is true both militarily and economically.
It is not nuclear weapons that pose such a serious threat to world peace and stability and also kill so many living beings as well as destroying property. When was the last time nuclear weapons killed so many people or were used in a full scale war?
Compare that to the number of times regular weapons from simple machine guns to sophisticated missiles that do damage and take lives on a regular basis. Nuclear weapons productions are not yet (and probably never will be) an industry as regular conventional weapons. Many countries such as America rely on wars to sustain their economies part of which is heavily dependent on arms exports.
A sudden standstill in wars and conflicts worldwide would do severe damage to the economies of mainly NATO countries as well as others.
It's also ridiculous how America and many other Western countries supply sophisticated weapons to two opposing countries. Why are F-16s supplied to both Greece and Turkey who have had military and territorial conflicts going back decades?
Because it's an industry. It's understandable that weapons are needed by some countries in order to protect themselves from hostile, larger, more aggressive states. But to make an entire industry out of these deadly weapons is a much larger danger to the world than nuclear weapons, which only create stalemates.
The American bombing of Japan in World War Two was an exception as America was the only nuclear power for that short period of time. In the modern world, no country dares use nuclear weapons unless they wish complete destruction of life on the planet Earth.
Why did not the United States and the Soviet Union not use their nuclear weapons against each other during the Cold War? Because there is no winner in a nuclear conflict. Why did not America and North Korea engage in a nuclear conflict? Why did India and Pakistan hesitate to go to war after producing nuclear weapons? The answer became clear in all these cases: A nuclear conflict means utter death and destruction on not only the parties involved but also in the surrounding countries caught in such a conflict between the opposing nuclear powers; hence no one with logic will ever use them.
Regular non-nuclear weapons on the other hand are used all over the world and the a major part of the economies of major arms producers depend on such conflicts to keep their arms industries going to feed their continual growth based economies.
And in such a process thousand upon thousands of people are hurt and killed (even non-human species such as plants and animals suffer) simply because some countries feed off these deadly conflicts.
Also when countries purchase arms from their allies to feed their economies in order to keep good relations, they trigger a arms races which is when other countries in the region also pursue similar or the same weapons to keep the balance of power neutral.
Before we know it, all sides are wasting money on weapons and constantly trying to overpower one another, only wasting precious GDP and fueling tensions on all sides. So I ask why has this not been the case for nuclear weapons? When again was the last time nuclear weapons used deliberately to kill or hurt people since World War Two?
Nuclear weapons are not the causes and sources for so many conflicts around the world. It's the dangerous conventional arms market that relies on wars that is the biggest danger and is getting even more dangerous as these conventional weapons get more sophisticated.
Nuclear weapons bring stalemates and keep a decent balance of power around the world. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons distributed around the world, America would probably swallow up China, North Korea, the Russian Federation and others.
India would have also probably swallowed up Pakistan being far bigger had it not been for nuclear weapons.
And with the balance of power uneven on certain sides, the danger of full scale wars breaking out is much, much higher.
I am not trying to advocate nuclear weapons for all or anything close to a nuclear arms race. I am simply against the disarmament of nuclear weapons by countries that currently posses them- including Israel.
It is not nuclear weapons around the world that has caused so many deaths and suffering since World War Two, but these conventional weapons industries that are used to fight small and full scale wars.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand prevent these full scale wars. Many corrupt and dangerous warlords also depend on these conventional weapons to keep their businesses running while many people are hurt/killed in the process in addition to loss of property and infrastructure.
Today some countries are so dependent selling the arms they produce, that excuses to go to war are the only solutions to keep their economies alive. So I ask once again, what is a bigger obstacle to world peace? Nuclear weapons that prevent full scale conflicts due to the devastation they would bring if ever used or conventional weapons industries that are regularly used and have destroyed so many lives?
The solution in my perspective is to greatly reduce this dangerous arms market that only continues to incite wars and are used all over the world everyday.
Global nuclear disarmament also seems as a means to shift the balance of power to the West (particularly NATO) and it's allies. This is true both militarily and economically.
It is not nuclear weapons that pose such a serious threat to world peace and stability and also kill so many living beings as well as destroying property. When was the last time nuclear weapons killed so many people or were used in a full scale war?
Compare that to the number of times regular weapons from simple machine guns to sophisticated missiles that do damage and take lives on a regular basis. Nuclear weapons productions are not yet (and probably never will be) an industry as regular conventional weapons. Many countries such as America rely on wars to sustain their economies part of which is heavily dependent on arms exports.
A sudden standstill in wars and conflicts worldwide would do severe damage to the economies of mainly NATO countries as well as others.
It's also ridiculous how America and many other Western countries supply sophisticated weapons to two opposing countries. Why are F-16s supplied to both Greece and Turkey who have had military and territorial conflicts going back decades?
Because it's an industry. It's understandable that weapons are needed by some countries in order to protect themselves from hostile, larger, more aggressive states. But to make an entire industry out of these deadly weapons is a much larger danger to the world than nuclear weapons, which only create stalemates.
The American bombing of Japan in World War Two was an exception as America was the only nuclear power for that short period of time. In the modern world, no country dares use nuclear weapons unless they wish complete destruction of life on the planet Earth.
Why did not the United States and the Soviet Union not use their nuclear weapons against each other during the Cold War? Because there is no winner in a nuclear conflict. Why did not America and North Korea engage in a nuclear conflict? Why did India and Pakistan hesitate to go to war after producing nuclear weapons? The answer became clear in all these cases: A nuclear conflict means utter death and destruction on not only the parties involved but also in the surrounding countries caught in such a conflict between the opposing nuclear powers; hence no one with logic will ever use them.
Regular non-nuclear weapons on the other hand are used all over the world and the a major part of the economies of major arms producers depend on such conflicts to keep their arms industries going to feed their continual growth based economies.
And in such a process thousand upon thousands of people are hurt and killed (even non-human species such as plants and animals suffer) simply because some countries feed off these deadly conflicts.
Also when countries purchase arms from their allies to feed their economies in order to keep good relations, they trigger a arms races which is when other countries in the region also pursue similar or the same weapons to keep the balance of power neutral.
Before we know it, all sides are wasting money on weapons and constantly trying to overpower one another, only wasting precious GDP and fueling tensions on all sides. So I ask why has this not been the case for nuclear weapons? When again was the last time nuclear weapons used deliberately to kill or hurt people since World War Two?
Nuclear weapons are not the causes and sources for so many conflicts around the world. It's the dangerous conventional arms market that relies on wars that is the biggest danger and is getting even more dangerous as these conventional weapons get more sophisticated.
Nuclear weapons bring stalemates and keep a decent balance of power around the world. If it wasn't for nuclear weapons distributed around the world, America would probably swallow up China, North Korea, the Russian Federation and others.
India would have also probably swallowed up Pakistan being far bigger had it not been for nuclear weapons.
And with the balance of power uneven on certain sides, the danger of full scale wars breaking out is much, much higher.
I am not trying to advocate nuclear weapons for all or anything close to a nuclear arms race. I am simply against the disarmament of nuclear weapons by countries that currently posses them- including Israel.
It is not nuclear weapons around the world that has caused so many deaths and suffering since World War Two, but these conventional weapons industries that are used to fight small and full scale wars.
Nuclear weapons on the other hand prevent these full scale wars. Many corrupt and dangerous warlords also depend on these conventional weapons to keep their businesses running while many people are hurt/killed in the process in addition to loss of property and infrastructure.
Today some countries are so dependent selling the arms they produce, that excuses to go to war are the only solutions to keep their economies alive. So I ask once again, what is a bigger obstacle to world peace? Nuclear weapons that prevent full scale conflicts due to the devastation they would bring if ever used or conventional weapons industries that are regularly used and have destroyed so many lives?
The solution in my perspective is to greatly reduce this dangerous arms market that only continues to incite wars and are used all over the world everyday.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
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
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
Saturday, March 12, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Western double standards, media wars and patrionization of their pawns as "saints."
Looking through the calls by many western based human rights groups and organizations, I can almost swear they are on the payroll of their governments or that their governments have an influence in their activities.
Most of their "human rights" campaigns seem nothing more than attempts to defame certain countries. These countries they defame and accuse of human rights abuse also happen to be countries that Western Europe and North America have had bad relations with.
An example is their ongoing screeching at China for alleged human rights in Tibet and Xiang. China is growing as a world power in economic, political and military fields. Other examples are Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara or Iran's mistreatment of it's citizens.
But when it comes to other key issues of human rights abuse such as Kashmir, Northern Ireland, or the Basque territory shared by Spain and France, these so-called "human rights" groups/organizations are nowhere to be found. Weather it's public protests or other forms of activism, these "human rights" campaigners are almost non-existent.
Perhaps it's no coincidence too that these abuses that they're so silent on are carried out by traditional allies of these West. Take for example India's actions in Kashmir or other areas. India has been a close ally and proxy of the West against China and what the West sees as the threat of growing Islamic extremism.
Relations between India and the West are not just warm at political levels, but also amongst the people. Westerners also feel very welcomed in India as opposed to Muslim countries where they are suspected as "infidels."
India's Brahmin rulers have traditionally had an obsession with whiteness and a respect for white people. Westerners in turn enjoy this respect and brahmin pride in knowing English and other Western languages.
India's relatively westernized urban areas are portrayed as a symbol of "modernization."
Because of mostly Brahmin rule in India, the country is falsely portrayed as a "champion of human rights."
The Western media has always had a key role in making their allies look good and their enemies look bad from spreading falsified news reports to making propaganda movies.
They make their historic pawns such as Mahatma Gandhi and the Dali Lama look like some sort of "saints."
The riots and rebellions incited by the Dali Lama and the West has harmed and killed many Tibetans. Instead of being held responsible for inciting people to endanger themselves, the Dali Lama is portrayed as some sort of martyr in danger of persecution.
Mahatma Gandhi's racism towards Africans and bigotry towards women is deliberately covered up.
The activities of Islamic terrorist groups are closely covered by the western media to such an extent that it hurts the image of ordinary Muslims.
On the other hand the operation of Hindutva terrorist groups are neither censored, nor given much attention by the same western media.
Below is a video that discuss the activities of the RSS in the UK and calling for their ban:
And these are videos discussing the West's role in destabilizing China and the fraud image of the Dali Lama:
Readers who liked this post should also read this post of mine.
Most of their "human rights" campaigns seem nothing more than attempts to defame certain countries. These countries they defame and accuse of human rights abuse also happen to be countries that Western Europe and North America have had bad relations with.
An example is their ongoing screeching at China for alleged human rights in Tibet and Xiang. China is growing as a world power in economic, political and military fields. Other examples are Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara or Iran's mistreatment of it's citizens.
But when it comes to other key issues of human rights abuse such as Kashmir, Northern Ireland, or the Basque territory shared by Spain and France, these so-called "human rights" groups/organizations are nowhere to be found. Weather it's public protests or other forms of activism, these "human rights" campaigners are almost non-existent.
Perhaps it's no coincidence too that these abuses that they're so silent on are carried out by traditional allies of these West. Take for example India's actions in Kashmir or other areas. India has been a close ally and proxy of the West against China and what the West sees as the threat of growing Islamic extremism.
Relations between India and the West are not just warm at political levels, but also amongst the people. Westerners also feel very welcomed in India as opposed to Muslim countries where they are suspected as "infidels."
India's Brahmin rulers have traditionally had an obsession with whiteness and a respect for white people. Westerners in turn enjoy this respect and brahmin pride in knowing English and other Western languages.
India's relatively westernized urban areas are portrayed as a symbol of "modernization."
Because of mostly Brahmin rule in India, the country is falsely portrayed as a "champion of human rights."
The Western media has always had a key role in making their allies look good and their enemies look bad from spreading falsified news reports to making propaganda movies.
They make their historic pawns such as Mahatma Gandhi and the Dali Lama look like some sort of "saints."
The riots and rebellions incited by the Dali Lama and the West has harmed and killed many Tibetans. Instead of being held responsible for inciting people to endanger themselves, the Dali Lama is portrayed as some sort of martyr in danger of persecution.
Mahatma Gandhi's racism towards Africans and bigotry towards women is deliberately covered up.
The activities of Islamic terrorist groups are closely covered by the western media to such an extent that it hurts the image of ordinary Muslims.
On the other hand the operation of Hindutva terrorist groups are neither censored, nor given much attention by the same western media.
Below is a video that discuss the activities of the RSS in the UK and calling for their ban:
And these are videos discussing the West's role in destabilizing China and the fraud image of the Dali Lama:
Readers who liked this post should also read this post of mine.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Essay on terrorism
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)