Ever feel like we are going backwards in the name of progress? I'll start with the lighter issue: tobogganning, sledding, sliding, call it what you will, it's a criminal activity now in more and more places. "We just can't allow people to do such a dangerous thing!" When did, "We just can't allow people to..." become such a popular way to start sentences again? Who are the people who are allowing other people to do stuff? It's a fair question. Is it the majority? If so then it might not be a bloggable issue for me. I just watched an interview with an American judge who actually said, "If the people want this kind of system then we'll have this system. If the people rise up and say, 'Let my kids sled down that hill. We're not going to sue if something happens to them.' then we'll have that kind of system." This is a judge, folks. Granted it's on Fox so... here's the link, I can't link directly but: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152970459010238&set=vb.12795435237&type=2&theater
The important part was what he said just before the quotes. If the people want THIS kind of system, then we'll have this kind of system. What kind of system? It's a system in which anything a lawyer can convince a judge is worthy of liability becomes worthy of liability. We all know the system IS that way. If I am a moronic imbecile and I slip on a banana peel I can either take responsibility for my stupidity or if I happen to have a really good, (expensive), lawyer, I can sue banana growers, distributors, sellers and make sure NObody eats these dangerous, life-threatening, yellow-skinned disasters ever again. And according to this judge, who really ought to know better, the system is like this because the people want it that way. In fact it matters not what the people want, it matters what that one lame-brained, accident-prone nitwit with the high-powered attourneys wants.
So in answer to the question above about who "allows" everybody to do things, it would seem the answer is lawyers and stupid people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's NOT the way most of us want things. But contrary to what this judge was saying, people don't get what they want any more. If they ever did...
Throughout history we've had these people who decided amongst themselves that they are just too clever to spare the world from their opinions and much too wise not to force their ideas and behaviours onto us all. They're called politicians. Government. Within reason they DO govern, but as our world marches on in reverse they have moved outside of reason and become meddling busy bodies who want to exercise their control far too comprehensively. Comprehensive control is necessary for situations of innocence or ignorance. And sometimes when danger has been shown. A class full of kindergarteners or a prison full of felons shouldn't be left to their own devices. But a country full of well-educated adults, I would argue that we need LESS supervision, not more.
Perhaps the "well-educated" is the problem here.
What is education like in YOUR country? There may be a link to how controlling the government is. And, as is almost always the case, it all ties in with greed and the lust for money somehow.
On to the more serious issue. There is another group of people that throughout history and still today has been greatly concerned with forcing their opinions onto others. They're known as religious zealots. If you are excited about your God and you want others to share the joy you derive from your religious walk, you are overstepping your proper place if you try to force it on someone who doesn't want it. Even if you believe that person is in danger of fire and brimstone, that person has an inalienable right to choose for him/herself. The same goes for people who are doing things that are against your religion or mock your God. They have a right, in my opinion, to do so and you are being awfully arrogant to believe that YOU know what's best for anyone but yourself. I think we all have a lifetime challenge just to determine THAT!
There is no reasonable argument to be made in favour of the three terrorists who caused the tragedy in France. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was reprehensible and wrong. Many people, as with any violence committed by Muslim extremists, are jumping to anti-Islam sentiment as if the entire religion killed those innocent people. That would probably have a lot to do with the above education situation. But these people, and there are many, are trying to convince the entire world that Islam is the big problem. Some of them just hate religion no matter which one it is and are enjoying the opportunity to blame some more bloodshed on religion. I'm not saying religion doesn't play a part. It obviously does. I'm saying there is another MAJOR motivator that is being systematically ignored. There was a Muslim policeman shot on video by the perpetrators. That would be a pretty good sign that religion was not the sole motivation here.
When I hear the word "terrorist," I think of this:
By the same token when I think of upstanding, respectable people, I have a habit of thinking of something like this:
That makes me laugh. I mean right out loud. Cuz sometimes ya gotta laugh, right? It's all a guy can do. Even though there is nothing at all funny about the terror and evil this trio has wreaked on the world, (and still continues to), it's absolutely hilarious how they are still thought of and treated like honourable human beings. This is a trifecta of death, destruction and douchebaggery almost without peers. I mean you would have to get historical to come up with better. Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Chinese Communist Party leaders, Lex Luthor... Again, a little levity to cut the tension. It seems this is another issue that doesn't cross relligious lines. While there are hundreds of jokes about other religions and plenty of offensive things said, done and even drawn about other religions, it appears as though the Muslim extremists have yet to develop this grace under pressure, this ability to laugh in the face of death, this gift of tempering tragedy with humour.
I had never heard of Charlie Hebdo until this tragedy I admit. But I read that they are not so much anti-Muslim as anti-religion. In fact I've read that they take more shots at the Christians than they do at the Muslims. It's weird that you only ever hear of Muslim extremists getting so riled up about cartoons. That in itself is almost funny.
But back to the point, which picture do you think depicts the people more responsible for the tragedy? It's pretty easy to pick the picture of the actual perpetrators but I've read statements from their lawyer who says that the major factor in their desire to become Muslim militants was the Iraq invasion. There can be no doubt that a massive amount of what we see routinely called "terrorism" by the media is a direct result of worldwide western illegal occupation, exploitation, killing, torture, and, yes, terrorism in the name of the almighty Dollar.
We debate about other countries and we think it would be tragic to allow, for instance, the Taliban to take over the government of Pakistan. They want strict Muslim rule, total control of the government, Shariah law and they cannot be reasoned with. Two things: First of all who the hell is anybody to say that would be a bad thing? It's probably true that most of the Pakistani people don't want that but we're getting back to the meddlesome busy bodies when we ask ourselves why anybody but the people of Pakistan should be allowed to solve the issue. And secondly the third, and the major Taliban demand always seems to be forgotten about and that is simply for the Imperialist occupiers who are encouraging division and proxy warfare, crippling countries by imposing governments on them who will play ball, accept huge, high interest loans that they can never repay and leave them at the mercy of their debtors, weakening countries and stealing their natural resources, (mostly oil), to get their greedy noses out of Pakistan's business. Many believe that if THIS demand were to be met, in Pakistan and other countries, it would go a long way toward limiting violence and "terrorism" in Pakistan and around the world. Who can say for sure if a Pakistan under strict Muslim rule and Shariah law wouldn't be more peaceful and mellow than it is today? Take a look at Qatar. It's generally regarded, after Saudi Arabia, to be the strictest Muslim country in the world. They adhere to the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. They have Shariah law. They have an absolute monarchy. They allowed Canadian troops to launch missiles into Iraq during Desert Storm. I have a friend living there who says things are actually pretty laid back. You can drink alcohol or eat bacon if you buy a licence. They are okay with people who don't share their religious beliefs living among them. I hear Saudi Arabia isn't that different. A friend of mine living there recently posted a picture of himself and another man labelled, "Me and my Taliban friend." Maybe his Taliban friend posted the same picture on his Facebook page and labelled it, "Me and my infidel friend."
In the midst of all the Charlie Hebdo media coverage where a handful of people were killed, in Nigeria, Boko Haram massacred over 2000. That went largely unheard of. One of the motivators for Boko Haram is reportedly to reduce western influence, which has concentrated the wealth of the country among a small political elite to be replaced with Islamic fundamentalist government and Sharia law. One of the principles of Islam that I didn't know, and I think a lot of people are not aware of is the condemnation of usury. The Quran outlines a sacred mission to build a just economy in which everyone is treated with equity and respect. I won't cite the passages, (though I have checked them), but there are many promising painful doom to those who devour people's wealth through money lending, charging interest and usury. 30:39 "That which ye give in usury to increase on other people's property has NO increase with Allah, but that which ye invest as ZAKAT seeking Allah's countenance, hath increase manifold." Zakat is money given to help the poor, new converts to Islam, the needy, zakat collectors, slaves, stranded trevellors, debtors, and, you guessed it, those fighting for Allah.
When you look at the situation in Nigeria, a country 46.2 billion dollars in debt to money lenders and interest chargers like the World Bank, I.M.F., Paris Club, and recently another 3 billion dollars in loans were approved from China, one can see how the just economy of the Quran would be highly sought after. Not highly enough to justify massacres or kidnapping of school girls but it is easy to understand the feeling of helplessness Nigerians must have. Their country is rich in fossil fuels, agriculture, mining, even tourism, yet they are buried deep in debt. Throughout the world there are many countries in the same boat, and they are tired of it.
I believe it's pretty clear that the motivation for terrorist actions such as Charlie Hebdo has a lot more to do with political, economic and military interference than we are meant to know. The religion in some cases like Syria, is mostly a scapegoat. There is death, war, killing, torture and even combattants believe it's all about religion. Meanwhile the businessmen and politician who set up the war continue to pull the strings and the death toll rises all because of natural gas, pipelines and oil.
I think back to the days when "Occupy Wall Street" was in full swing. I will be occupying Wall Street soon myself. Ar ar. Anyway, the reporters and writers seemed to all get their information from the same source and they started parroting the same dismissive summation of the whole Occupy Wall Street movement: We just can't get a clear message. We're not sure what the actual message is. There seems to be no organized message to all this. What are they doing this for? We just don't understand! This feigned ignorance may have been encouraged by station owners, or politicians or paid off by wealthy oil and natural gas barons. I don't know. But they likely didn't have to pay many of them. Once a few major media players did it, the followers at smaller station, papers, magazines etc. jumped right into lock step. Then private citizens, who are kept too busy to do their own research, started regurgitating the mantras and swallowing the Soma and before we knew it the relevance of the movement faded.
Probably the most incredible thing about Charlie Hebdo, the Pakistani Taliban child massacre, the multiple mass killings in Nigeria, Yemen atrocities, the Ottawa shootings, the list gets added to every couple of weeks it seems... the most incredible thing about these actions is how they are always portrayed as completely unfounded, out of left field, cowardly, terrorist, unprovoked, mysterious, unwarranted incidents. In the minds of the perpetrators who have seen economic terrorism and suffered for it, there is an element to their actions that is not as much for Allah as revenge. They've seen innocents killed and they are responding in kind. It is not appropriate or acceptible but it is not a giant mystery the way we are constantly encouraged to believe. But the media is in lock step again and has been for quite some time. Unprovoked, cowardly attack, unwarranted, out of nowhere, shockingly random, indiscriminate, curious, confusing, TERRORIST actions. Why are they doing this? We just don't understand!
The solution couldn't be simpler. Stop illegally occupying countries. Stop aggressive and military capitalism. Stop exploiting the debt of the impoverished. Stop illegal and indiscriminate drone strikes. Stop scatter bombing. Stop torturing. Stop taking and doing whatever the hell you want because you have more money and power than other people!
But if you think a Muslim extremist is mentally unstable and impossible to de-program, I dare you to take a crack at talking Penis Cheney out of a barrel of oil. You'd have more success talking a pitbull out of a standing rib roast. The economic terrorists are more zealous than religious or even vengeful terrorists in my opinion. That money sickness is a tough thing to shake. Sorry to my friends who posted this and liked it but I have to give a link here to a bunch of Brits prattling on about the root cause of the situation in France. To divide the Muslims of France and to make other countries abide by Muslim law seems to be what they agreed upon as the root cause of these attacks. They flippantly dismiss foreign policy and people who have suggested this as a root cause and just agree it has nothing to do with it. I wonder if any of these guys are in the oil business, arms, surveillance electronics or any of the businesses that profit from aggressive foreign policy and military actions. Just imagine the shelling a person would take on this show if they say something like, "Now people don't even have to witness attrocities in person any more, they will be motivated to join extremist groups just by watching video like the Kouachi brothers." I would say limiting video that inspires hatred for foreign powers might be a bigger issue than laws or inter-Muslim conflict, and once again it would HAVE to be a more effective strategy in limiting or stopping these attacks. And I don't mean just stop filming militant foreign policy, I mean stop it altogether. They talk about other people dealing with secondary issues but they all seem to be perfectly happy with talking about the defences against terrorists and how to react to terrorism when it happens rather than being proactive and keeping it from happening at all. Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1051109638239227&set=vb.283348121682053&type=2&theater
Their solution is to beef up anti-terrorist defences. Well this sounds reassuring but all it really means is more military, more killing, more privacy, rights and freedoms being eroded, more paranoia and more money for the war and terror profiteers. Any who believe this is not already the case should read this. This is far beyong invasive, busybody meddling! It's human rights violation. Both the C.H. employees and Syed Fahad Hashmi were exercising their rights to freedom of expression and were punished for the same "crime." The only difference between what is going on with Hashmi and what happened in the Charlie Hebdo incident is that the American treatment of Hashmi stops short of killing. But 2 1/2 years in solitary confinement? 70 years in prison? Reading the description of Hashmi's possible sentence under "Special Administrative Measures" makes me think I'd rather be dead. These SAM's allow anyone suspected of terrorism to be treated that way with flimsy evidence that would result in the case being thrown out under normal circumstances. It was his friend providing raingear and waterproof socks to Al Qaeda. Hashmi just let him use his room and cellphone. Many would say that that was just what he was sentenced for. His real crime was speaking out against American foreign policy and calling it terrorism. I don't know if this is the situation yet in France or England or any other country but it's what is being suggested. Do YOU want this? I don't! But for the people running the planet it's better than playing fair in the battle for world resources and money. For the terrorists this is just more motivation.
In the end Hashmi was sentenced to 15 years in federal supermax prison. Geez, if the wrong people read my blog, maybe I'll share a cell with him someday. As you might expect NObody has heard of Hashmi. With the C.H. artists on the fast track to martyrdom for dying for freedom of expression, I wonder why Hashmi is so anonymous even though he suffered for the same thing. Hmmmm... I'll post a picture of him. Maybe you can guess.
Freedom of expression should not have a double standard attached to it. I even read that in 2009 a contributor to Charlie Hebdo name Maurice Sinet, who writes under the pen name of "Sine" was fired from the magazine for an article implying that Sarkozy's son married into the religion of Judaism for the money. Electronics heiress Jessica Sebaoun-Darty was his bride. Sine commented that "he'll go far, the lad." This was agreed by the magazine's editor to "incite racial hatred" and he was accused of anti-semitism and promptly fired.
So before you start hating, (or treating with contempt, as S.F. might correct), the C.H. gunmen for trying to limit freedom of expression and impose Islamic restrictions on the world let's think about this for a second. Extremist factions all know by now that stunts like this get worldwide attention. Sometimes THAT is a major reason for terrorist actions. Why is it so easy for intelligent people to believe these Muslim terrorists and the members of the faction they belong to, all just missed the pretty obvious idea that far from stopping the cartoons that they consider to be blasphemous, their actions will expose millions and millions more to them? How many people, like me, had never heard of the magazine before or seen one of its cartoons? Now we've seen many and haven't we all seen several "Je suis Charlie" Facebook posts by now? Stephen Fry, a guy I really like, and whose intellect I respect, just reckons they're idiots and says so here. It's just odd to me how incomplete our questioning of this event seems to be. These terrorists had some schooling. How is it so easy to just believe they're morons? Maybe we're still too angry to think straight.
I can relate to people who want to see the Kouachi brothers caught and strung up. I often fantasize about the politicians, bankers and businessmen who are destroying the world being lined up and shot. Violence is a natural first impulse. And I can admit that the motivation for the France attack could have more to do with things other than global economic terrorism. But for all we know that could be a major motivator and when they wanted to strike France for the evil that top 5 in the world oil and natural gas giant Total is responsible for, (for example), the terrorists could have just decided to kill two birds with one stone and hit that magazine where they mock the Prophet Muhammed. This terrorist act is probably not the best example for my point but the problem needs to be solved thoughtfully and diplomatically. And the way I see it our actions are incomplete without including in the dialogue some reference to the culpability of global business practices that stray well into our definition of terrorism.
Trying to stop violence with violence has not, and I believe WILL never work. I agree with one thing that lawyer on Fox said, "If the people stand up and say we won't sue, then that's the way it'll be." It's only NOT like that because the people haven't stood up. Well if the people stand up and tell the OTHER terrorists of the world to stop with the apocolyptic greed, then that's the kind of world we'd have. Peacefully and intelligently. I sure hope it happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment