Nidal Hasan Is Not a Terrorist, He Is an Enemy Combatant

Nidal Hassan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 12 soldiers, 1 civilian, and wounded 32 others at Ft. Hood, Texas, in November 2009, was convicted of all charges last week. This week, the jurors decide what his sentence will be.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/nidal-hasan-sentencing/

I have no problem with this whole trial thing, or anything else related to this, for that matter. The only problem I have with this is that the vast majority of Americans are calling Hassan a terrorist, when in fact, he is not. He is an enemy combatant. He attacked soldiers in war-time, on a military base. His victims were overwhelmingly soldiers, (12 soldiers and 1 civilian). That's certainly better than the ratio of combatants/civilians the US has killed in all the wars after WW2. 

It would help illustrate my point if we had a textbook definition of terrorism, because that word has been thrown around so much the last dozen years that it basically has lost all meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary defines terrorism as:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Okay, now, compare the definition to what Hasan did.
THEY'RE NOTHING SIMILIAR!!!!

This shows the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy of America in general, but specifically it's media. It shows the extreme lengths that America will go to, to de-legitimaize any type of resistance to it's imperialistic terrorist policies. They're trying to make it look like ANY person who opposes America is automatically a terrorist, no question asked. This is a typical fascist technique to gather support from it's citizens. After all, who wants to be called a terrorist? So, they brainwash people into supporting America blindly, in the fear that if they don't, they will be called terrorists, and shunned from ordinary society, and/or face criminal charges, imprisonment, etc.

Okay, some people say, but Hasan killed un-armed Americans. He was in contact with a radical Muslim cleric. He's obviously a terrorist, right???
Ahhh, but you have to look deeper than that to find the truth.
 In war, soldiers, police officers, and government personal are legitimate targets to attack. They are the ones doing the attacking, so it only makes logical sense that you can defend yourself from them. Otherwise, you'd just have to sit there and get killed, saying "I can't defend myself because that's being a terrorist." Yeah fucking right, give me a fucking break. So, who did Hasan shoot at?
That's right, soldiers! Hassan shot soldiers! Soldiers who were getting ready to deploy to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Hassan acted in a totally rational manner as an enemy soldier would. Police reports verify that Hassan "specifically targeted soldiers in his attack. There were several times where he aimed at a civilian, realized that he/she was a civilian, and passed by them."

The fact that they're un-armed makes no difference, they are still soldiers. If you saw Osama Bin Laden walking down the street, you would kill him, right? You wouldn't rush towards him, and notice he has no weapon, and say "Oh, I know you're a mass murderer and all, but since you have no gun, I can't touch you."
Of course not! A soldier is a soldier, whether he is armed or not. That's why sneak attacks are so effective in war. It catches your enemy off-guard and un-armed. Which is exactly what this was, not a terrorist attack, but a simple sneak attack. It's a center piece of guerrilla warfare. American patriots did it all the time to British forces in the American Revolution. Are you calling them terrorists? They didn't do it because they were terrorists, they did it because that's the only way they could afford to fight. They couldn't afford the big fancy armies and cannons like the British could. Lumping guerrilla warfare with terrorism de-legitimizes any non-governmental group's fighting cause, effectively taking away the poor man of the world's way to defend himself.

Just because he was in contact with a so called radical Muslim cleric doesn't mean he's a terrorist. Let's say your best childhood friend turned out to a terrorist, and you honestly had no idea he was. The police can't call you a terrorist, simply by association. It doesn't work that way. But of course, the police could spin the story to make it look like you are. They could say "This guy spent a lot of time with this terrorist, they went to parties together, he even played air-soft with him!" Of course, that would be true, you did do those things with your best childhood friend, but with no terrorist ties at all, just simple friendship.

 Bottom line I'm trying to make here is: we are overusing the word terrorist by a shitload. The discussions flew out the fucking windows of the house of rationality. People are acting like paranoid delusional crazies right now. It has got to stop, otherwise, this country is gonna end up like Tea Time with the Mad Hatter. The media has got to tone it down a few thousand notches. If America has the notion that any resistance to it's policies will be seen as terrorism, they will do anything they want to, without fear of consequences, because no one will try and stop them, on the fears of being called a terrorist, (1984 anyone?!?!?!)

You may not agree with the enemy or it's policies, but you have to admit that they have the inalienable right to fight against us in accordance with the laws of war and human rights.
Nidal Hasan is not a terrorist, he is a enemy soldier who tried to operate a sneak attack deep in our territory, and was captured after being wounded. Simple as that.  

Turns Out "Tamarod" Coup Was to Restore Dictatorship in Egypt

Things are getting real interesting in Egypt right now, and by interesting I mean going down the fucking tube. Let's set some summaries out before we dive into it, shall we?

• Morsi was not a good president. He wasn't helping the already pathetic economy, his policies were creating an even more divisive and polarized society, he wasn't doing much to protect women and minorities from harassment and attacks, and all he did was talk but no walk when it came to the Palestinians. (There are a few more things but these are the main ones).

But did he deserve to be overthrown? That's debatable. When a president is completely horrible in a democracy, the military doesn't overthrow him and put in an oligarchical authoritarian regime instead. The people are supposed to petition him to do/not do certain things, impeach him, or vote him and his party out in the next elections. Morsi, even though he wasn't a good president, was the first and only legitimately elected ruler in all of Egypt's history. His term was for 3 more years. How much good can you expect someone to do in only a year's time? Maybe Egyptians should've put more legal and legitimate pressure on him for a longer period of time and see how he would've done, instead of overthrowing him.

• No matter Morsi's politics, the military's killings of unarmed protesters right after the coup is state terrorism, and gives the Egyptians the right to use violence to defend themselves from said state terrorism. 

Contrary to what a lot of bigoted, racist Americans are saying, if you go back to the news reports to June 30th and the next couple of days, you will see that the Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters were entirely peaceful in their protests against the coup. And what did they get for being peaceful? The military and pro-dictatorship thugs slaughtered them by the hundreds, detained some and killed them in police custody, (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/2013818175824286257.html), raped hundreds of women, and attacked and burned dozens of MB offices.
 I don't care even if you hate the MB, you're perfectly allowed to have that opinion. But that doesn't mean you should support killing and torturing them just because you disagree with their politics. The thing is, not everyone who was protesting is a MB member. They might've just voted for Morsi, that doesn't mean they belong to the MB, anymore than voting for Obama once makes someone a Democrat. Other people who were protesting had nothing to do with the MB, they were just against the coup. Killing a non-combatant for political reasons is terrorism.
The very moment the military opened fire on protesters, the protesters now had the right to use violence to defend themselves. If you say no to that, that means you're saying the government can kill any citizen they want at any time, and the citizen has to sit there and do nothing and get killed. That's fascist bullshit. Everyone, regardless of political ideology, race, or religion, has the right to defend themselves against anyone who attacks them first.

The "interim" government is acting just like the Mubarak regime: persecuting Egyptians because of their political affiliation and kidnapping civilians out of their homes in nightly raids. Showing their love for a military dictatorship even more, now they're going to free Mubarak, the previous dictator in prison for all the hundreds of crimes he's done over the decades:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/middleeast/egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This shows that that military dictatorship does not want to return to democracy in the least bit. Like Morsi or hate Morsi, you gotta admit that his election was fair and democratic. You can't claim you want democracy, saying "Oh yeah we can have elections, just these certain people can't run for office."

In conclusion, this has shown that peaceful protests will not work against the authoritarian regime, because they'll just shoot you. This has shown that participating in democratic elections against the authoritarian regime will not work because they'll just overthrow you if you win. Some Egyptians have realized this and have started doing the only thing that can get the corrupt authoritarian out of Egypt's political system:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/egypt-attack_n_3778106.html

The funeral for 25 police officers killed in an ambush in the Sinai Penisula

The Egyptian revolution of 2011 did not fully get rid of the authoritarian officials from the Egyptian government, it only got rid of Mubarak. This is the limitations of a peaceful revolution. It left the corrupt system intact. All it did was wait two years and then it seized upon anti-Morsi sentiment and took back the country. So how to solve this problem?

The Egyptian people must launch an armed revolution that will purge Egypt of the authoritarian regime. It's beyond saving; they must burn it to the ground and start again from scratch. It must be a legitimate armed struggle that is solely aimed at Egyptian police and military forces. Attacks on civilians, especially women and minorities, should not be tolerated and anyone who is found guilty of such attacks should be put to death. Once the government is defeated, an interim government should be set up. This interim government must have a counter-insurgency plan enacted, because surely there will be a pro-authoritarian insurgency, leftovers from the dictatorship. Elections can be held 8-10 months from victory date. For more details on how this revolution should be waged, see my July 31st entry on how the Palestinians should wage the 3rd Intifada.    
    

It Is Not Extreme to Rebel Against a Tyrannical Government

Yemeni tribesmen killed 5 soldiers guarding a gas plant in south-western Yemen.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/11/world/meast/yemen-violence/index.html

Now why would these tribesmen kill those soldiers? I mean, the only people who kill are psycho extremists, right? I mean, that's what the main stream media says, so it MUST be true.

To find out the answer to this question, we must look at Yemen's government.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/yemen

To summarize it in a sentence, Yemen's government is a corrupt, violent oligarchy that doesn't give a fuck about its people.
It's rating, from a 1-7, 1 being completely free and 7 being fascist asshole land, is a 6. Even before the Arab Spring hit it in the spring of 2011, the government did the standard horrible things to its people: secret police kidnappings, torturing, killings, rapes, corrupt officials, no free elections for government officials, no basic human rights like freedom of expression or freedom to gather.
After the Arab Spring hit, the government went into violent panic mode, like many Arab governments did when they were hit with waves of protests. They slaughtered unarmed protesters by the hundreds. Then, some Yemenis thought, logically, "Hey, I, like every other person in the world, have the right to defend myself, even against a government." So, they put down their cute protest signs and picked up some rifles, and started defending themselves from government attacks. A government should not get special treatment when it comes to judging it in killing people.

Yemeni protesters running after the police attacked them.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the average Yemeni, to help better understand why it is rational, logical, and within human nature to rebel against a violent oligarchical government. Let's say you are a husband and a father of two, living in an apartment in downtown Sanaa, the capital. Let's say you absolutely had nothing to do with opposition politics whatsoever. You literally did not care what the government did as long as they physically didn't hurt you.

But then the protests of 2011 started. Now the government is striking your neighborhood with artillery and tank shells. Government troops are moving in. You're put in a horrible situation. You either fight to protect your family, or do nothing, and you all die. That's how a government crackdown whips up people to fight against them that normally wouldn't do anything.

Let's take another situation. Let's say you are into opposition politics. You petition the government to allow for political gatherings, and instead of granting it, they kidnap you and bunch of other people in the dead of night. They break down the front door, and throw flash bangs and smoke grenades as they enter. They shoot your son, because, well, they can and get away with it, beat the crap out of your wife, and then kidnap you, putting a black bag over your head and cart you to God knows where, where they proceed to torture you for days and weeks, all for what? For simply peacefully petitioning the government to allow for a basic human right. Well, you're not peaceful anymore. You're out for bloody justice, and if peaceful means won't do anything, the minute you get your hands on a gun you're gonna kill some of dem gommverment troops, (Blood Diamond reference. If you haven't seen it you should. Damn good movie). 

The point of these examples is to show that under certain government conditions, it is rational and logical to fight against said government. It is not extreme, bloodthirsty, or a terrorist act to do so. History has shown that the human psychology does not like being conformed or restricted to a large degree. It is natural for a human to want to be free to make his/her own decisions.When it is chained by fascist rules or a corrupt government, psychologically the human gets mad, and wants to do something about it. First he would try peaceful means, because if you can solve a problem without bloodshed, that is better. But if peaceful means don't work, then you're left with no choice but to use violence.

A Yemeni man injured by government artillery shelling

This is what happens with a good chunk of the human population, however this is not the case 100% of the time. For example, there are some people who are pacifists, who under any circumstances, will not fight back. Even if they are being physically attacked, they will just sit there and get the shit beat outta them. However these are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm. You have to consciously be a pacifist because it is human instinct, (primal instinct that we obtained when our ancestors were cavemen and relied a lot on the fight or flight response to survive), to fight to defend yourself.

Revolution against tyrannical governments is rooted in our nation's culture because that is how our nation was born: out of the ashes of the American Revolution against the British. Therefore, as Americans, we must support any people's rightful revolution against any power that is oppressing them. Just take a look at all of the revolutions that have happened throughout history. It shows that humans do not like dictatorships and oligarchies; they want to be in control of their own destinies:   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

What has the American government done in relation to this revolution? Well, as usual, it has not acted in accordance with our American values and morals, only more reason to kick this violent tyranny support government out of power, (but that's for another time). The American government has supported and even fought in support of the Yemeni government. That makes us, as is in many cases, guilty of all the crimes that Yemen does that we support: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/yemen-reported-us-covert-actions-2013/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20894
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/09/the_us_is_buying_even_more_hardware_for_yemens_military

So what can we do, as Americans, to help the Yemenis achieve the same freedom and dignity that we enjoy everyday?
1. Call for the U.S. government to cut off all aid to the Yemeni government. We absolutely cannot be giving aid to terrorists. The Yemeni government is a terrorist organization that kills unarmed civilians on purpose to scare them into submission. Is that where you want your hard earned tax dollars to go to?!
2. Support moderate rebels while denouncing extremist ones. There are a myriad of organizations fighting against the Yemeni government. Many include extremists and Al-Qaeda that are against both our American values and Islamic values. They kill civilians and shove their interpretation of Islam down peoples' throats. The Yemeni and American propaganda machine want you to believe that those are the ONLY organizations against the Yemeni government, to support their narrative that the Yemeni government is a good government that is just trying to survive terrorist attacks. These are the people that we must identify and denounce. Call them out on their bullshit ideology, make 'em look like idiots in the public and international arena, and make sure they don't get any American money or weapons.
But there are many moderate organizations, soldiers, and people who are fighting for the same aspirations that our ancestors fought for in the American Revolution. They want democracy and equal rights for all. They only fight against Yemeni soldiers; they do not attack civilians. These are the people we must identify and support, make sure their voices are heard, and make sure that the Yemeni American propaganda machine does not drown out their legitimate aspirations and goals.   

Anti-government demonstrators carry a Yemeni army officer as he joins demonstrations demanding the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh during a demonstration in Sana'a