Every person has the right to life and self-defense

     It's really sad that I have to write this post in the 21st century. You think that mankind would evolve and figure out that just because a person belongs to a certain ethnic group/ religious group, that doesn't mean that they, automatically and without question, deserve to die. But no, that would be asking WAY too much for humanity.
     The logic is really quite simple. If a person doesn't have the right to self-defense, then that invites anyone to just go up and kill them, and they can't fight back at all. They just have to sit there and take it, and die in the process. Even the Nazis had the right to self-defense. If the American soldiers are attacking them, I'm not going to cry and call the Nazis terrorists when they start fighting back, (they're terrorists for other reasons). Because fighting back is a natural and logical response, it is psychologically engraved in animals and in us as well. Just because a person is your enemy, does not mean they are not human, and therefore, should not enjoy human rights.  
     These are the reasons why every person, regardless of race or religion, (or any other group identity for that matter), have the right to life.
     1. A person is not responsible for the actions done by other people of his/her same religion or ethnicity. Every day, dozens of white people murder innocents in America and Europe, steal from people, kill people in car crashes, commit vandalism, rape people, etc, etc. Just pick up any local newspaper and you'll see examples. Now, imagine how absurd it would be if all the minorities in America and Europe demanded that all white people apologize every single time a white person did any of those things. That's right, you'd be thinking "Hey, I didn't do this crime xyz, why should I apologize for it?"
      You can substitute white people for any other ethnicity and the scenario would be the same. People dehumanize groups they hate, thinking they are all one monotonous group. But of course, they never apply the same logic to the groups they are apart of. A person is only responsible for the actions done by himself/herself, AND THAT'S FUCKING IT. In the Central African Republic, for example, when a group of radical Christians kill Muslim civilians on purpose, it is not "getting back at them" if Muslims go and kill random Christians in a retaliatory attack. Why? Because those aren't the Christians who killed the civilians. DUH!! All the Muslims have done is the exact same thing back to the Christians. They've both committed terrorism now.
     2. If a human being has committed no crime, then they shouldn't be put to death. Again, common sense, which is never common these days. Simply existing is not a crime.
     3. Thinking that because some members of xyz commit a crime, therefore, all members of xyz should die is a double standard, because people never think that about their own race. See this example to illustrate it:
      Racist Jew: A Muslim killed a Jewish civilian today, so all Muslims should die!
      Me (showing the fallacy): A Jew killed a Muslim civilian today, so all Jews should die!
      Racist Jew: What?! You can't take the crimes of one person and apply it to all Jews! I didn't do anything wrong! I shouldn't die!
      See what I mean? They never apply the same logic to the groups they hate and their own group. If they did, then they would think that literally everyone on the Earth should die, because all religions and races have had their share of people who have murdered innocent people throughout history.
      4. All religions and races are equal. Again, so sad that I have still have to write this. For every Asian terrorists I can find a South American terrorist to match, and vice versa. Substitute for any other religion or ethnic group and the statement is still the same. Besides, I'm sure there are more terrorists in one religion than another, for example, more Muslims than Jews, because there are 1.5 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. So even if percentage wise they're same, numerically, there will be more Muslim terrorists than Jewish terrorist. Does that mean Islam supports terrorism and Judaism doesn't? Of course not. Since when it is a rule than if your religion has more terrorists than my religion, then that means your religion supports terrorism and mine doesn't?
      Let's just say, for argument's sake, there are 40 million Islamic terrorists, and 34 million Christian terrorists in the world. What moral high ground can Christians have on Muslims? "Ha, you have 40 million terrorists and I only have 34 million! So that means you support terrorism and I don't!" Yeah, it makes no sense.
      5. Self-defense is logical. If you're a Palestinian, just walking through Gaza, minding your own business, and then, your house gets bombed by Israeli warplanes when there are no missiles or militants nearby, killing your family. What is your natural, logical reaction? You go join the group that is fighting Israel. Does that make you a terrorist? No, but unfortunately the only group fighting Israel is a terrorist organization, so technically, yes, you are now in a terrorist organization, and Israel has the right to kill you. But you haven't launched any rockets at civilians. You want to fight Israeli soldiers that killed your family.
     See how real life is more complicated than children stories of "good guys vs evil guys"?

     6. People have the right to self-defense in the best way that they can. If America is attacked, they attack with jet fighters, artillery, marines, etc. If you are attacked in your home by criminals, you attack with a gun. Is your actions automatically terrorism because you aren't a official state military using big expensive equipment? Of course not. But some people act like that's how it is. For example, they think the Free Syrian Army is a terrorist organization because it uses guerrilla warfare, with AK-47's and car bombs, against the Assad dictatorship. But they don't think Assad is, even though he is using jet fighters and artillery against civilians. Why don't they think Assad is a terrorist? Because he is a government, using machines to fight, so therefore, he couldn't possibly be a terrorist. 
      You store your gun in your home, because, that's the legal and rational thing to do, because it is on your property. But if you were a Palestinian in Gaza, Israel would drone strike your house, saying that you're using human shields because you're hiding arms in a civilian building. See how easy it is to twist things to make a normal action look like a terrorist action?  If your best weapon are homemade rockets, then that's what you have to use. If Hamas had jet fighters and cruise ships and artillery, believe me, they'd much rather use those then homemade rockets than cannot be aimed very well. But saying that all methods of warfare except expensive state of the art warfare that only rich countries can afford is "terrorism" is taking away the poor men of the world's fight to self-defense. You'd be condemning millions of people to death just because they can't afford laser guided missiles that your government can conveniently afford.
      In conclusion, this is a quick summary of my post, using again, an example:

• Israel has the right to fight against Palestinian militants, because they are both combatants who are at war with one another. 
• Israel DOES NOT have the right to kill Palestinian civilians, just because they are living in Gaza, or are Arab, or are Muslim etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.
• Palestine has the right to fight against Israeli military forces, because they are both combatants who are war with one another.    
• Palestine DOES NOT have the right to kill Israeli civilians, just because they are living in Israel, or are Jewish, etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.

Russia done fucked up several times recently

      It's not a good time to be Russia right now. Sure, they won the 2014 Winter Olympics, but honestly, who the fuck cares about the Olympics, which is a contest to how much countries can spend on their athletes, rather than the skill of the athletes themselves, (Do you notice how it's almost always the rich countries who win? WHAT A COINCIDENCE?!?! But I digress, that is an issue for another post).
      Aside from winning the Olympics, Russia has made a series of internal and foreign policy blunders within the last couple of months. I think it's showing to a lot of people around the world that Russia is not the "good alternative" to buddying up to the U.S. Russia may talk smack about U.S. war crimes and acts of terrorism, but at the end of the day, they do the exact same thing, just to different countries. So let's go through the list of recent Russian DANG FLABBITs, shall we?

      1. Picking the wrong side in the Ukraine revolution.     
      Yep, they just bet on the wrong horse on this one. From the beginning, the Russian government supported the now deposed "President" of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. They did this because they wanted to keep their "special" relationship to Yanukovych's government. They could not tolerate even the mere chance that someone else that could run the government would not give them all the same benefits that Yanukovych did. The Russians went about the narration of the conflict with their usual pathetically weak propaganda: that the anti-government protesters were just a bunch of "Nazi pro-Western stooges." (I'm not making this up, Google it. You can't get any better than this. WHO KNEW that Ukraine had a bunch of people that are Nazis yet love the countries that defeated the Nazis, right? RIGHT?!).
     The Russians continuously backed their story that the Ukrainian "security" forces had the right to use violence against the protesters. Figures, considering they're fascist bastards. And when the evidence kept and keeps pouring and pouring in that the police were shooting unarmed people, kidnapping people out of their homes in the dead of night, torturing them, beating them, etc, etc, the Russians just had no answer for all that. They fumbled furiously for a coherent rebuttal in their state narrative, but it was hollow and thin. Everyone could see it was just complete and utter bullshit. Now Putin, even with his comrades' gold Olympic medals, is avoiding the spotlight. He's just hoping people forget the whole thing and leave him alone to hunt bears in the wilderness without a shirt on.

      2. Oppressing gay Russians.
      Who thought that in today's political climate was it a good idea to persecute gays? Let me be clear: It's never a good idea to do so. But doing so today, with the recent gains gays have made in equality in the U.S., and the media spotlight already in Russia because of the Olympics, is extra damaging to the Russian image.  Russian gays are fleeing the country in droves because they can't stand life there.
     Some examples of Russian oppression against gays would be:

• denying gay couples the ability to adopt Russian-born children.
• allowing policemen to arrest anyone who is "suspected of being gay" and detain them for up to two weeks. 
• Saying anything in defense of gays is considered "pornography."        
• Taking away children from their parents if the parents are suspected of being gay, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
• Denying parade/march requests from organizations suspected of asking for equality for gays. 
• Calling homosexuality the same as pedophilia, http://www.policymic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english  

     3. Having police whip members of Pussy Riot in public.
     Even if you don't like Pussy Riot's goals and/or tactics, having policemen whip unarmed women in the streets for everyone to watch is a really fucking dumb thing to do, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10649037/Pussy-Riot-attacked-with-whips-by-police-at-Sochi.html
     Pussy Riot is a very widely known band/advocacy group. Again, with dozens of cameras rolling on them because they were performing in Sochi, it's only going to lower Russia's image around the world to publicly whip them, detain them for several hours, and then let them go because they didn't do anything wrong. This only strengthens the narrative that Russia is ruthless in repressing any criticism. They have made some gains since they were the Soviet Union, but not by much it seems.

     4. Picking the wrong side in the Syrian revolution.
     Russia has been the lifeline for the Syrian government during their attempt to squash the revolution. Sure, Hezbollah and Iran have sent men to Syria to fight the rebels, but Russia has poured and poured vast amounts of Soviet era weapons to Bashar Assad. Without the seemingly endless supply of Russian weapons, there would be no way that Assad could keep up the amount of bombardments that he has been dishing out for years now.
     But what makes Assad the wrong choice in the revolution? Well, I could write a whole paper on that, so I'll give you the short version. Assad was not elected to power; he inherited the throne from his daddy. So that makes him an illegitimate ruler, because the people did not elect him to power. Therefore, the Syrian people have the right to use force against him since he did not hold free and fair elections. It doesn't matter if there are some radical rebel elements in the many groups fighting against Assad. That doesn't take away the Syrian peoples' right to use force against Assad.
     Back in 2011, the Syrian people peacefully asked for free and fair elections. And what did Assad do? He sent his soldiers in, and they shot and killed thousands of them, they kidnapped others from their homes, tortured them, maimed them, raped them, and mutilated them. He took away their right to assemble, their right to speech, their right to choose what government rules them, their right to bear arms, right to free press, right to petition their government, right not to have soldiers in their houses, right to be secure, etc, the list just goes on and on. I mean, this guy is just fucking sick. You are fucking sick if you can see all the horrible thing Assad has done to his people and still support this dude.
     Yes, the radical rebels are bad, but Assad's crimes are 10 times worse. He has more power, so he has more opportunity to deal damage. Anything the radical rebels have done bad, Assad has already done 10 times as bad. The radical rebels have caused pain and chaos for 3 years; The Assad regime has caused pain and suffering for more than 4 decades. The Syrian people deserve the right to govern themselves. Nothing can change that fact. If they gotta beat Assad, the radical rebels, Iran, and Hezbollah, then so be it.

So yeah, that's why the Russian government, (not the Russian people), and specifically Vladmir Putin, completely suck dick.

 
      

Why does Australia want to punish it's citizens for fighting against despotism?

     The Australian government is seeking to pass a law that would strip their citizens of their citizenship if they go to Syria and fight against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.

http://muslimvillage.com/2014/01/22/48932/australians-fighting-in-syria-risk-loosing-citizenship/

     There are already Australian laws making fighting in Syria, (for any side), illegal for Australian citizens or dual Australian/Syrian citizens as well.

http://muslimvillage.com/2012/08/29/27701/australian-citizens-fighting-in-syrian-conflict-illegal-australian-government/

      There are a number of things wrong with these laws/proposals.
      1. This conflict does not concern Australia or the Australian government, so why do they feel like they have the right to regulate it? What gives them the right to tell their citizens "You don't have the right to fight to protect people who just want basic human rights"?

      2. By doing this, they are telling their citizens that the ideal of fighting to protect other people is not the correct thing to do. This reeks of neo-liberalism because it the regulation of morality, and that the liberals in government know what's best for us, even better than we do.

      3. By doing this, the Australian government is establishing the norm that violence is an 100% automatic "radical and extreme act," (except when the Australian government and/or military does it, of course). How did I come to this conclusion? A logical path following the government's statements on this. The Australian government said that the reason they already have these laws, and why they seek this new proposal, is because they are worried about "Australians becoming extremist and returning home." If they were truly worried about this, they had better come up with something else, because this law will not address that worry at all.
      Just because an Australian goes over to Syria to fight, does not mean that they will become radicalized. Violence, in of itself,  is not an extreme or radical action. On the contrary, it is rational, logical, and in line with human psychology, (which is why you have to train or be indoctrinated to be a pacifist, because non-violence is against the primal psychology of humans). Risking yourself to save another person has historically been seen as selfless, brave, and noble. Now, the Australian government seeks to turn that norm upside down. Now, risking yourself to save someone else is seen as "radical" and "extreme," not to mention illegal.     

      4. The laws and proposal insinuate that ALL Syrian rebels are extremists, and that by simply fighting alongside them, you will be brainwashed by their radicalism, and become extreme.
      One only need to do a simple Google search to see that not all of the Syrian rebels are religious extremists. The rebels are not one monotonous group, as many racist and bigoted Americans would want you to believe. There are religious radicals under the ISIS, (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), umbrella, who are linked to Al-Qaida. The other rebel umbrella is the FSA, (Free Syrian Army), which is a secular and moderate organization. Saying that all Syrian rebels are terrorists is a simpleton's cop-out of looking at the conflict, and not reflective of reality at all. Saying so is an insult to the FSA, as they make a point to distinguish themselves from the ISIS in ideology and fighting tactics. It is also an insult because hundreds of FSA combatants have given their lives fighting against the ISIS, to prevent the radicals from hijacking the revolution, killing civilians, imposing a twisted version of Islam upon a population who doesn't want it, etc, etc. For more on this, you can do a simple Google search or visit the Institute for the Study of War's blog entry:

http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2014/01/syrian-rebels-attack-isis.html

      5. The Australian government, by doing this, is pushing another disturbing neo-liberalist norm: That dictatorships, oligarchies, and fascism is okay, but democracy, universal human rights, and freedom is not. By not allowing people to fight as rebels against Assad, (whose government is all three of those descriptions: a dictatorship, an oligarchy, and a fascist regime), the Australian government is saying "Assad's way of government is acceptable to us."

      So there you have it, 5 reasons why these Australians laws and proposal are stupid all the way around. It only ends up hurting the Syrian people, who need every combatant they can get to protect themselves, and gives the Australian government Not only that, it is against traditional Australian values, which is all the more reason why we should disapprove of these laws. Australians are a people that pride ourselves in ideals like freedom and democracy, and also helping our fellow man. The country has a history of individual Australians traveling to fight in foreign wars that they believed were justified. All of a sudden, the current Australian government is calling that historical tradition wrong, illegal, and not noble. Australians serving in the British Army volunteered to fight in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1919, Australian citizens volunteered in fighting in the Spanish Civil War, (mostly on the Republic's side but there were some on the fascist's side as well), the Boer War, and the Rhodesian military, just to name a few. These volunteers were regarded as heroes and patriots. Now suddenly the same action gets you branded a terrorist and a traitor to your country! How does fighting in a war that your government is not involved in considered a traitorous act?! It has nothing to do with Australia! Which is the exact reason why the Australian government should just BUTT THE FUCK OUT OF THIS AND FUCKING MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING GOD DAMN BUSINESS AND STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYTHING!            

Russia and Iran are hypocrites on the issue of intervention

     Syria's revolution is a very complicated one, so I'm going to just lay out the basics on it, so we don't waste a lot time before getting to the main idea of this post. There is a 3 way battle going in the country right now.
     1. Syria's dictatorship is putting down a revolution that has been waging since 2011. They are backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
     2. The moderate, secular rebels, under the umbrella group called the Free Syrian Army, (FSA), are fighting against the dictator and the extremist rebels, (next group down). They have very few backers, only the US for non-lethal aid and individual foreign volunteers.
     3. The extremist rebels are also fighting against the dictator and the moderate rebels. They are backed by Al-Qaida and many of the Gulf states, (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc).

     The main point of this post, in one sentence, is that Russia and Iran cry all the time that the West cannot intervene in Syria, yet they're intervening in it themselves. It's hypocrisy at it's best. It's an attempt to try and seem impartial and fair to the Syrian people, but really they're just doing it to better themselves in the political/military realm. Iran has at least 4,000 troops in there right now, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/17/syrian-activists-say-al-qaida-linked-militants-blow-up-shiite-mosque-in-hatla/ and Russia has sold at least 50% of the arms Syria has, including $1 billion in 2011 alone, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-arms-insight-idUSBRE97S0WW20130829.

     To be fair, Russia and Iran are operating as the same as virtually every other country does: They have 2 sets of rules: one that they say that everyone else has to follow, and one set for themselves. The thing is, the rule set for themselves is blank; they don't have to abide by any rules, even those they expect other countries to follow. It's how the US can say to other Al-Qaida "Don't kill civilians," and then turn around and bomb Iraqi civilians dead. It's how Pakistan can whine to the US about drone strikes killing its citizens, and then it turns around and kills Pakistani civilians in broad daylight.  
     But just because other countries do it doesn't make it right. In Russia's mind, other countries cannot intervene in Syria. Except Russia. It can, because it's special, and doesn't have to follow any rules. Iran believes the exact same for Iran, Hezbollah thinks the exact same thing for Hezbollah. So we have all these countries and organizations running around with weapons, thinking that they are so fucking special that they don't have to follow any rules. Is it any surprise as to why these leads to never ending war in the world?

      I'm not saying on whether the US, Russia, etc, should or should not intervene in Syria. That's not what this post is about. All I'm saying is that do not follow the "do as I say, not as I do" routine. Don't ask a country to do something that you won't do yourself.
     Ironically, a Russian statement on this bears some truth:

A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry this morning warned of "catastrophic consequences" for Syria and the region if the United States and its allies intervene.

 http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-warns-catastrophic-consequences-us-meddles-syria/story?id=20081747

     He's right, there are catastrophic consequences for foreign intervention. Syria's civil war started off as a purely domestic war between the dictatorship and rebels. But now, it seems all the major countries in the world are picking a side and getting their hands dirty to sway the war one way or another to benefit themselves. The US and Israel are supporting the rebels because they want Assad gone. Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are supporting Assad because they want Assad in power. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want the extremist rebels to win because they want a hard-line Islamic government in power. This has increased the number of soldiers and arms in the battlefield tenfold, which only dishes out more death, more destruction, more refugees, more seriously injured civilians, etc, etc. 

     It's like a fistfight at a soccer game: what started off as a fight between two players has turned out into a full field brawl, with both teams at it, plus the referees, players, police, etc.

     Suddenly, the war is not about what the Syrian people want anymore. It's all about what other countries want. And that's the tragedy of the whole thing. What started off as a legitimate revolution has now been hijacked by foreign and extremist elements.

     What can we ordinary Americans do about this? Unfortunately, not much, as usual. But at least, when this war is over, we can be on the right side of history. We can say "I supported the moderate, secular rebels, and I did not support the dictatorship or the radical rebels." We can talk talk talk. Post on facebook, twitter, tumblr, write a letter to the editor for a newspaper, etc. Explain that not all of the rebels are extremists, that the Syrian people have a fundamental right to basic human rights, and the right to fight anyone who takes them away from them, that using violence is acceptable if you use it to defend yourself or someone else who is under attack. Challenge the racists, the bigots, explain that Islam is not the cause of this conflict, that this conflict is purely political and this type of conflict has occurred plenty of times in non-Islamic countries.
     That's all we can do for now.    

  

We Should Not Attack Syria

     One can go through my past posts and see how much I support the Syrian rebels and their fight against a dictator for freedom and liberty. These rebels are some of the most bravest and most steadfast fighters I have seen in years. They're taking on not only the Syrian dictatorship, (who is being supplied and financed by Russia, <--- fascist assholes,) but Hezbollah and Iran also, as well as fighting against extremist rebels who wish to turn Syrian into an al-Qaida playground. That's a lot to go up against, especially when they are receiving minimal support from anyone else.

     So if I want the rebels to win, why would I not support a U.S. strike against the Syrian dictatorship? At first glance that would see counter-intuitive. In a sentence, a U.S. strike in the manner that President Obama described would not help the Syrian rebels, it would actually hinder them in the long run by emboldening Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship.

      Obama wants to launch a limited cruise missile attack from our Navy against Syrian government installations. Here are the things wrong with that:

1. Since he already announced he was going to do it, (like the blundering idiot that he is. Who publicly the exact time they're going to attack? Honestly?), the Syrian government has already moved lots of its personnel out of government and military installations and into civilian areas, http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N34/long1.html. So any attack on those installations would cause minimal causalities. That defeats the whole purpose of attacking. And if we wanted to cause massive causalities, we would have to bomb civilian areas, which defeats the whole point of wading into this civil war to save civilians' lives in the first place.   
2. Obama says he wants to bomb Syria to punish them for using chemical weapons against their own people and to deter them from doing it again. But if a limited cruise missile attack is all that's going to happen to Assad for doing that, that's not going to deter him at all. It will only hurt him in the slightest bit; it'll just be like a fly momentarily annoying him. There's no incentive for him to not do it again.
3. If Congress doesn't approve and nothing happens, it'll embolden Assad even more. He'll think "The Americans said they were going to punish me, but yet they ended up doing nothing. Oh, better gas civilians again then!"
4.  An American strike would strengthen Assad's narrative that he is fighting against Western imperialism and their NATO-trained rebel death squads. 
5. As bad as Syria has been for decades, they still have not attacked us. So why should we attack them? They didn't do anything to us. We're already like in 10 different wars, do we really want to get involved in another one? When will we stop wanting to kill so many people around the world who aren't even doing anything to us?!
6. The US is in no position to be the enforcer of using no chemical weapons. The US used depleted uranium in Iraq that is just as harmful as the chemical weapons Assad used, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html and continuously gives billions of dollars to the apartheid regime known as Israel, who has used chemical weapons against the Palestinians, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/israel-army-white-phosphorous_n_3157604.html. How can we have the moral high ground if we do the exact same thing Assad does? It's like a murderer trying to stop a murderer from murdering. It doesn't work.  

     Instead, the Obama administration should do these steps. These steps would help the rebels out a lot more and quicken Assad's downfall:   

• Give the moderate secular rebels weapons and medical supplies. It really is that simple. Our intelligence gatherers can determine which brigades are moderate and which ones are religious extremists. Contrary to what some racist, bigoted Americans say, not all the rebels fighting against Assad are al-Qaida. They think if they repeat that lie enough times, it'll become true. Sadly, reality does not work that way. Our intelligence analysts, CIA, etc, are good enough that they can determine which brigades are in line with our American values, and who truly want a free and fair Syria.  
• Politically prop up these moderate rebels and their political counterparts, while politically isolating the extremist rebels. The fact that the government controls most of the big media corporations makes it all the more easier for them to get these facts out.   

These two steps is all we would need to do to ensure the moderate rebels would overthrow Assad. Really, that's all. The rebels are already a very effective guerrilla fighting force with the small amount of firepower they already have. If we multiply their firepower, that multiplication would result in more government soldiers' deaths and more territory claimed by the rebels.
If that's all we need to do to overthrow Assad, then why hasn't Obama done that yet? Because, contrary to what he says, Obama wants Assad in power. Why? Because Assad is a coward who talks a big talk but when it comes to walk, he doesn't. Obama wants Assad in power because he knows Assad is too much of a pussy to attack Israel, even in self-defense. When Israel bombed Syria's nuclear facility in 2007, Assad railed on and on how he was going to attack Israel and he was the great champion of the Arabs, etc, etc. What did he do?
Nothing.
Obama loves to support dictatorships and fascist oligarchies around the world, (see 8/30/12 article). Syria is no different. Obama wants Assad in power. If a democratically elected government came to power in Syria, and truly wanted what was best for their people, that would be a much harder government to deal with. They would stand up for themselves more often. Assad just bends over and lets anyone attack him and doesn't lift a finger. America can't have an Arab country who looks after it's peoples' rights, so they would rather deal with a dictatorship.

The world's really fucked up, isn't it?

Car and Suicide Bombs Are the Weapons of Oppressed People

           I follow the Syrian revolution pretty closely, through the news, videos, activist websites, etc. The Syrian rebels have used a wide variety of guerrilla attacks on government forces, (and to surprising effectiveness, I might add. Since March of 2011, the government has lost over 7,200 troops while the rebels have only lost around 1,100, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights: http://www.syriahr.com/. But again, I digress). These guerilla attacks range from ambushing convoys, to IED attacks, to hit and run attacks on checkpoints and bases. Another tactic they use fairly often is car bombs and suicide bombings. 

I separated those two out because those two are going to be the focus of this post. Just one example is the most recent high-profile attack as of the time I am writing this: 

          http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

          What I have a problem with is some of the comments on this article, and on other similar articles as well, that describe Syrian rebel attacks. Here are some of the insults I read often, that go generally along the lines of:

          1. Just like a Muslim, blowing each other up cowardly with car bombs. What dogs.

          2. Those FSA, (Free Syrian Army), terrorists cannot even fight decently, fucking       low-lives.

          3. At least our American boys fight better than this.

          Blah blah blah, etc, you get my point. All of the people who write ignorant comments like this are fucking idiots. There, that’s the summary of my post. But let’s dive deeper as to why they’re so blatantly bigoted.

          People, specifically Americans, are once again confusing terrorism and terrorist attacks with guerrilla warfare and guerrilla attacks. Here are the distinctions I would like to make:

          1. A group or organization can be a guerrilla group but not be a terrorist group. For example, the Filipino rebels, who fought against U.S. occupation from 1899-1902, overwhelmingly attacked U.S. soldiers and military buildings. By definition, they were not a terrorist group, because a terrorist group overwhelmingly attacks civilian targets. Guerrilla attacks on military targets are legal as per international law and conventions.

          2. A group or organization can be a guerrilla group as well as a terrorist group, but not necessarily. For example, Hamas, a Palestinian resistance group, launched attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets during the Second Intifada.

          3. A group, organization, or state can be a terrorist group but not a guerrilla group. For example, the U.S. military launched numerous attacks on civilian targets during their invasion and occupation of Iraq, on purpose, knowing that they were going to kill lots of civilians. The overwhelmingly majority of their causalities were civilians, so by definition, the U.S. military is a terrorist organization. Same thing with the Israeli military. During their 2008-2009 Cast Lead operation, the overwhelmingly majority of Palestinians that they killed were civilians. Israel repeatedly, literally thousands of times, has targeted Palestinian civilians on purpose throughout the many wars. So by definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization.

          Some thugs and gangs operating under the banner of the Free Syrian Army have killed civilians on purpose. This I freely admit because it is sad but true. But this is not coming from the FSA leadership; they are not out to kill Syrian civilians. The vast majority of the FSA’s targets have been military and government targets. This is their goal: to topple the Assad dictatorship. They have the right to attack the government under international law and laws of war, (as well as in all major religions such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, and also in American law). This is a legitimate goal; these are legitimate targets. Therefore, the FSA is a guerilla group, not a terrorist group.

          Now that we’ve got that established, let’s move onto the fact that many Americans, Assad supporters, and other 1^st world people look down and criticize the way that guerilla groups, specifically the FSA in this case, fight an insurgency against a conventional state military. It is sickening that these pompous, arrogant, and often racist people insult the Syrian rebels, who are fighting against overwhelming odds. They have limited foreign support, and fight with mostly Kalashnikovs, RPG-s, and IED’s. And they’re up against: A conventional military with tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters. Not only that, but Iran and Hezbollah have freely admitted that they have sent troops to reinforce the Assad military. So that’s 2 countries and one guerrilla group that they’re up against.

          Against all that, and people have the nerve to slur the FSA, thumbing their nose at a people who are fighting the only way that they can. They don’t have foreign countries giving them billions of dollars in military aid, like Israel does. They don’t have the money or technology to have Predator drones or armored APC’s, like the U.S. They are fighting with what they can capture, smuggle or make.

          These insults are part of a broader scheme to delegitimize the people’s right to fight against their government. They want to make it out to look like fighting with car bombs and IED’s is somehow less legitimate, less honorable, and more barbaric than fighting with a tank or an airstrike. This is absolutely ridiculous. An attack on an army base is no more or less legitimate when it is attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. On the flip side, a terrorist attack on unarmed men and women in a marketplace is no more or less a terrorist attack when they are attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. The target is what makes an attack legitimate or not, not the manner of the attack.

          By making types of guerrilla attack seem illegitimate to people, these 1^st world bigots and dictator supporters want it to seem like that only their conventional, government military has the right to use deadly force. Therefore, the people, who cannot afford that, they can only afford cheap, simply guerrilla attacks, don’t have the right to use deadly force to protect their rights or protect themselves and their families. If people view violence as being always illegitimate, then they will not use it to defend their rights and families. Which is exactly what they want!!

          These guerrilla attacks work because they are cheap and simple, so it is completely rational and logical for people to use them against conventional militaries. It’s not because they’re bloodthirsty Muslims, no, they’re in a civil war, fighting for their lives, you ignorant fuckers. Yes, I know it’s an epiphany for some bigoted people, but Muslims are humans who have rights too you know, and that includes the right to life! It shows how pathetic we humans are if we actually have to have a human right dedicated just so people are allowed to live and not be slaughtered because of their race or religion.

          Okay, gotta stay on topic. Back to why using car bombs and suicide bombings makes logical and rational sense for the FSA to use against the Assad government. A car bomb is very simply to make, it’s small, it’s cheap, and can be produced rather quickly. And, when used correctly, it can produce devastating results, killing dozens of soldiers and wounding several dozen others. Why wouldn’t you use that??

          Suicide attacks have been used throughout human history, even before we invented explosives. In medieval battles, a lone warrior or two could stay behind and hold off dozens of soldiers, dying in the process, but allowing their comrades to regroup, get away, set up an ambush, etc. In cavalry charges, the first row of cavalry suffered the most causalities, sometimes serving only to slam into a wall of spears so that possibly the 2^nd or 3^rd guy behind them might have a chance of getting through the enemies’ defenses. In World War 2, the Japanese used to slam their planes into American aircraft carriers. Etc etc, these are just 3 examples I thought of, but you get my point.

          Suicide bombings are logical to use for two primary reasons: 1. Guerrilla groups, on the whole, lack sophisticated training for their fighters. It is very hard to get in a situation where they can train 1 of their members well enough, give him enough weaponry, etc, etc, to be able to kill 15 or 20 enemy soldiers by himself in a firefight. That’s hard for any soldier to do, from any country. But, it is very easy to give an untrained man a suicide vest, and tell him to walk up to an enemy patrol, disguised as a civilian, and blow himself up, killing 15 or 20 enemy soldiers.

          2. It’s a simple numbers game. The guerrilla group’s losses versus the government’s losses makes suicide bombings a great tactic. You lose 1 guy, but you kill 15, 20, maybe even 50 or 100 if you’re really lucky. Why wouldn’t you do that?

          In conclusion, just because car bombings and suicide bombings are sometimes used by terrorist groups, does not mean that every time they are used, it is automatically and without question terrorism. It is no more or less a potential terrorist act than a helicopter airstrike or a battleship firing. We should not look down on people for fighting tyranny the only way they possibly can. Believe me, if the FSA had tanks and jet fighters, they’d use them. It’s a lot fucking easier to kill soldiers in a tank than with small arms. But they don’t have them. So they do ambushes, assassinations, etc. The British did the same thing to us during the Revolutionary War. Documents reveal how the British officers viewed us as savages, uncivilized, wild brutes for ambushing them and not fighting face to face in an open field, as was the custom in Europe. They scorned our guerrilla tactics while they walked towards us all in nice, little neat rows. Do we want to act towards other countries the way how the British acted towards us? Uh, fuck no. The British were imperial pricks back then. I for one, do not want to be an imperial prick to anyone.          

          Useful links:

          Syrian American Council:   http://www.sacouncil.com/

          Their FB page:  http://www.facebook.com/sacouncil

          Syrian Observatory for Human Rights:  http://www.syriahr.com/

          Their FB page, (which is in English, the page above is in Arabic): http://www.facebook.com/syriaohr

          Their FB page in Spanish: http://www.facebook.com/siriaosdh

          Islamic Relief’s Syria Page: http://www.irusa.org/emergencies/syrian-humanitarian-relief/

         

          Useful books:

          Guerilla Warfare by Che Guevara

          War in the Shadows: The Guerilla in History by Robert Asprey

           Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape

          (photo is from usatoday.com) 

Defending the Brave

Current Events

Monday July 16^th, 2012

I came across this article a few days, dated from Thursday July 12^th:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/12/taking-up-rebel-cause-woman-trades-toronto-apartment-for-battle-zone/

It explains how a Canadian woman of Syrian origin, Thwaiba Kanafani, left Canada to go fight with the Syrian rebels against the dictator Bashar al-Assad, (the Syrian rebels rally under the banner of the Free Syrian Army, or FSA). She is an engineer and a mother of two. 

Now, it is common knowledge that there are several brave and selfless foreigners that are fighting with the Syrian rebels, but most of them are men from other Arab countries. I’ve never heard of a Western woman joining them yet; Kanafani is the first. After I was done reading the article, I thought “Wow this woman is really flippin’ cool. She leaves the comfort of a peaceful, 1^st world country to go and help people halfway across the world achieve freedom and democracy. She is not required to do this at all; she goes there on her own free will to help in a fight where she has no stake in whatsoever. She is the very definition of selfless because she has absolutely nothing materially to gain from this.”

What really disturbed me was when I read some of the comments on the article. Here is a few of them: 

“Good to know that Canada is NOT your homeland, now you stay where you are you've shown your true colours. You earn your living here  you raise your kids here & still doesn't feel this country to be your homeland -how ungrateful you could be. We don't need people with deranged mentallity to be Canadians. Our immigration system is broken it needs to fixed.”

“Don't come back ! I do not want my tax money ( Canadian Medicare ) to pay for your Syrian injuries. Syria.....your homeland......give me a break ! Why did you leave ? Go home.”

“Hopefully she bought a one way ticket and took her kids with her.  She was obviously welcomed in Canada, but has no loyalty to the country.”

“Hope she stays there forever.”

When I read these I literally had a WTF moment. How the hell can these people sit there and say such horrible things about this woman, who did something so dangerous that I bet NONE of them would ever have the courage to do so. They are the biggest internet trolls I have ever seen. They sound like they have something lacking in their lives, so they just get on the internet and take out their frustration on someone like Kanafani who did something so brave and self-sacrificing. I also suspect that there might be some racist reasons involved in this as well. It’s not for certain, because I cannot read their minds, but it certainly sounds like it. They’re calling her “not a real Canadian, a Canadian by convenience.” This echoes of the mindset decades ago of the British deciding that only white people could be British citizens. 

My three points about what they said are:

1.      Just because she goes and fights in a war that Canada is not involved in, that has nothing to do with her loyalty to Canada. The two things have no rational/logical connection to each other. That’s like saying “Oh, since the sky is blue, that’s the reason why this safe is steel plated.” She is going overseas to help people who very desperately need anyone’s help who is willing to give it. Even if she is not a front line combat soldier, she is an engineer, which is very valuable for a rebel army to have. Also, since she is a woman, she will be better able to understand and work with women civilians who have been caught up in the conflict. Good men will try their best of course but sometimes a situation needs a woman-to-woman approach to fix it, (like if a woman got raped by a Syrian soldier, she’d much rather talk to a woman about that than to a man). 

          In the past, when someone has helped somebody else fight against a tyrannical or oppressive government, that person is looked upon as a hero, a caring person. An example would be like the French soldiers who helped fight alongside the Americans against the tyrannical British government. Or the American soldiers who helped Europe fight back against the Nazis. Their service, their sacrifice in battle, was never, ever looked upon as being disrespectful or insulting to the country that they lived in. This concept is also portrayed in countless movies, video games, and books. Were the Americans doing disservice to America by helping to liberate France and Belgium? Of course not!!!

          She is not a mercenary; she is not getting paid to fight in this war. All of this is on her. She is a volunteer. Why is it that when a person volunteers to join the military of his/her county, he/she is “patriotic, brave, noble,” etc, but when another person wants to help people in another country, then suddenly that is dumb, ungrateful, or fanatical? Canada’s military is not in Syria, so she had no way of helping the Syrians if she joined the Canadian military. 

2.      I also read, on another article on the same story, that many posters called her a slut or a whore for joining the Syrian rebels. This is disgraceful to all women who have ever served in any military. Their libelous comments are only reinforcing the hateful stereotypes that women who join the military are just looking for men to sleep with. Maybe some of them are, no one knows because you can’t read all of their minds. But certainly not all of them are, that is an insult to the women who want to join the military to protect their country, make a better life for themselves, etc etc.

3.      One last point is this: In many of those comments they call Kanafani a “Wahabi/Salafi militant,” or a “Islamofascist.” These insults are within a larger problem, which is a lot bigger than this one post can cover. The problem is that many Westerners have this the paranoid xenophobic fear that all Muslims who take up arms to defend themselves and other civilians are without doubt Islamic terrorists. To them, Muslims are sub-human, and therefore, do not deserve the God given right that all humans have: to defend themselves and others who cannot defend themselves. These insults are only used to try and delegitimize the Syrian rebels. Are there radical Islamists fighting in Syria? Of course there is some. But does that have anything to do with the legitimacy of regular, ordinary Syrians who are fighting for their families, liberty and freedom? Uh, no.

             Radicals are always drawn to conflicts because in the chaos they can try and establish a foothold. You better damn well better believe that, for instance, if the U.S. descended into chaos, that there would be some white-supremacists who would take advantage of the situation and start to go around to kill African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims etc. There would be racists from all races, taking advantage of the situation.  

          These internet trolls are just stupid, spiteful people. Plain and simple. There’s no way around it. It is sad that some people have lost the ageless concepts such as honor, sacrifice, selflessness, and bravery in the face of tyranny. I guess those concepts are too higher levels for their pea brains. They see something they don’t understand, and then automatically call it deranged, idiotic, or morally wrong. They couldn’t be farther from the truth.

(Picture is from Thwaiba Kanafani's profile on Facebook).