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

Israeli-Palestinian Talks Have Started, But I'm Not Holding My Breath

Palestinian-Israeli peace talks have started on Monday, July 29th, in Washington D.C. Government officials have expressed cautious optimism at this, but even that is folly. There is no evidence that anything will go right in these talks, and much evidence that shows that these talks will go nowhere and will be a waste of time. Here's a short list why:

1. Israel has already said in the past that they refuse to negotiate about the most important issues of the conflict.
They're not even pretending to care anymore. How are you supposed to reach a solution in the conflict if you can't talk about the most important issues? That's like having a parent-teacher conference about a child's bad grades, but they're not allowed to talk about how the teacher teaches, the kid's study habits, or how the parents can help. You absolutely cannot talk about those concepts at all. It just leaves me with my hands in the air, with a WTF look on my face, thinking "It's all bullshit. It's all complete fucking bullshit, and anyone who buys into it needs to be tested for drugs."

Israel has previously said that the issues of Jewish only settlements, Palestinian refugees, and the 1967 border are not up for discussion, (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/4739/World/Region/Olmert-adviser-says-AlJazeera-leaks--correct.aspx,) (http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122112512844113.html), (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43106082/ns/politics-white_house/t/we-cant-go-back-israeli-pm-rejects-border-proposal/).

So how is anyone going to get anything done?

2. Neither side has renounced terrorism.
I haven't heard Hamas say they're going to stop attacking Israeli civilians. I haven't heard Israel say they're going to stop attacking Palestinian civilians, or kidnapping and abusing Palestinian children, (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54616). Renouncing terrorism is a key first step in peace talks, because if your side is still a terrorist organization, then there's no incentive for the other side to negotiate with you. I'm sure you've heard America's position a million times before "We do not negotiate with terrorists." With both Israel and Hamas still terrorist organizations, how is anything going to get done?

3. Israel has demanded that a future "state" of Palestine be demilitarized.
http://www.jcpa.org/text/demilitarization.pdf
This is a fucking joke. You know as well as I do that any country that isn't allowed to have a military is not a country in any sense of the word. People keep talking about "Israel's security needs" over and over again, like it is the only country in the Middle East that deserves the right to security. What about Palestine's security needs? Why does no one in the Western media or government say that one particular phrase? Do they not deserve security from their neighbors because they're all just Muslim terrorists? If any, it's Palestine that needs more security than Israel. Israel is 100 times stronger than it, and has the capability to launch raids, both by land and air, on a moment's notice and cause massive damage. Palestine does not have that capability. Just look at the stats from the latest flare-up in violence that happened in November 2012.
http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9052:1&catid=145:in-focus
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/pages/israel_under_fire-november_2012.aspx
In a week's time, Palestine lost 105 civilians, and 55 combatants.
Israel lost 2 soldiers, 1 defense contractor, and 3 civilians.
The numbers speak for themselves. So no, any country that can't have a military is not a country. So Israel flat out does not want a true Palestinian state.

4. Palestine has no legitimate government, that is representative of the Palestinian people, to negotiate with.
Israel is negotiating the Palestinian Authority, and that's it. Well, they only govern the West Bank. But the PA is an illegitimate government. Mahmoud Abbas's term expired January 2009, but 4 years later he's still in power. Are you fucking kidding me? Why does no one in the Western media or government say this one simple sentence? Oh, because they don't want to bring up the fact that they are propping up an illegitimate despot who doesn't give a flaming fuck about his people. They are deliberately stifling Palestinian democracy because they want to deal with only Abbas, who they can control, because they are the majority of his financial support. If the Palestinians were allowed to vote, they would bring into power someone who truly cared about the Palestinian people, and who stand up for their rights. Well, the U.S. and Israel can't allow that to happen, how dare the Palestinian people stand up for their human rights?!?!
Then on the other side we have Hamas, (fascist jackasses), who came to power via elections but haven't held elections since 2007. So that makes them illegitimate as fuck as well. How are you supposed to make a lasting peace agreement if one side doesn't have a legitimate institution to voice for them?!

5. Israel won't stop committing acts of war against the PA.
The PA, who has renounced violence for several years now like the cowards they are, is under constant attack by Israel. How can you reach a lasting peace agreement if one side has completely renounced violence but the other side is still constantly attacking it? There's no justice in that. Israel constantly raids West Bank towns, kidnapping adults as well as children, holding them in undisclosed locations for hours or even days, they shoot unarmed civilians, they steal water and resources from Palestinian land, and above all, they constantly expand Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land, which is stealing territory, which is an act of war. 
One of the first things you learn about in negotiations is that, in order for them to happen, the two sides have to stop fighting first. A cease-fire must be in place, and it must be honored by both sides. Well, Israel refuses to stop committing acts of war against the PA. Abbas has asked them repeatedly to stop, but every time they say no.

This, in essence, is why I believe this latest round of peace talks will not result in anything. But, I can't just criticize something and not offer what I think should be done, right? That's not helping anyone. Here's what I think the Palestinian people should do if they truly want freedom and independence, instead of wasting their time doing these "peace talks."

1. Overthrow their current governments.
Now there are many sub-steps involved in doing just this one step, because it is a monumental task. The current governments has repeatedly refused to have open and free elections, so that means the only way to get them out of power is through armed struggle. Peaceful protests have only been met with violent repression. Am I advocating for violence? Yep, but sometimes, violence is necessary because it is the only thing that will work. It should only be used as a last resort. In order to do this step, the Palestinian people must:

• Establish a process to get guns and ammo, everything from light arms to anti-vehicle weapons. This means going through black markets, raiding military warehouses or other installations for guns and ammo, and buying from groups/organizations from neighboring countries. One would have to establish smuggling routes, make contact with these other groups, etc, etc. Make it reliable as possible so that when the SHTF, you can have a dependable way of getting what you need in a tough situation.   
• Organize into brigades, establish routes for patrolling for defending neighborhoods, coordinate with community leaders, have a system in place for a counterattack when the inevitable government crackdown launches raids into villages and towns. Have safe houses where militia can hide and take shelter.
• Fight by attacking police, military, and government installations. Do not, under any circumstances, attack unarmed civilians. The enemy is the oppressive corrupt Palestinian governments, not the Palestinian people. Do a variety of attacks to make it hard for the government to defend and counter-attack. If you do the same thing over and over again, the government will know what you're gonna do, and be able to defend from it better. Some types of attacks may include ambushing convoys of soldiers, attacking police stations, car bombs at government centers or installations, mortar attacks, sniping, IEDs, sabotage equipment, poison food supply, etc, etc.  
• Let the world know why you're doing what you're doing. Talk to the media, explain why you are fighting, your principles, morals, values, the crimes that the governments are doing, have data, charts to back up your argument, explain the historical development of why fighting against a government that does these things is rational and logical. Use social media as well. Have people go in for talks on news stations. Secure support from sympathetic organizations and foreign governments. 

2. Once the government is overthrown, establish a temporary transition government that will hold power only until you can have free and fair elections, which on average can take from 9-12 months from the date of victory. This temporary government must uphold all Palestinians' human rights, regardless of religion or political ideology. It must not be corrupt, it must be efficient, and it must be serious about Palestinian independence.

3. Have a nation wide vote to see what type of government the Palestinian people want. Do they want a parliamentary system like Britain's or a religious orientated government like the Muslim Brotherhood or a presidential system like ours? Whatever they want, that's what they should get.   

4. Have free and fair elections to elect the type of government chosen in the step above.

5. Now that the Palestinian people have a legitimate government that truly represents them, they can take the fight to Israel. History has proven that peaceful negotiations with Israel have not worked, because Israel either still attacks them when they're negotiating, won't compromise on anything, or agree on an accord that only benefits them but hurts the Palestinians, (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-oslo-illusion-the-historical-accords-between-palestine-and-israel/5337332). So, logic would tell us that armed struggle is the only option left. That, unless they want the current situation to keep going on forever.
The Palestinian people would need to fight in a way similar to the way I described in #1. It has to be of the utmost importance that the uprising target Israeli military, government, and police targets only. Under no circumstances should Israeli civilians be targeted. Any person found guilty of a terrorist attack on civilians should be given the sentence prescribed by Islam: death. Terrorist attacks only hurt the operations of the ones that do it, it never, ever helps them.  

Some people will criticize this approach, saying that "Of there's no way Palestine could beat Israel militarily. Israel is 100 times stronger than it." Obviously these people know nothing about the military, because there's two facts that would put that argument to rest:
1. Palestine doesn't have to beat Israel, they only have to hurt them enough that Israel will see they have no choice but to enter negotiations with good faith i.e. actually try to achieve peace, not put on this charade that they're currently going through. Palestine could still militarily lose the war but politically win in the end.
2. A guerrilla force can beat a conventional military that is much stronger than it, through effective use of guerrilla warfare. Numerous cases throughout history show this to be true: American Revolutionary War, Vietnamese-French War, Vietnam War, Afghan-Soviet Union War, etc. In the Vietnam War, the Viet-Cong lost considerably more soldiers than the U.S., but in the end, the Viet-Cong won the war.    

Lastly, some people would dismiss this argument, saying "Oh, you're a violent terrorist extremist for advocating war against Israel." Yet, if you look at cases of occupation throughout history, historical documents, political philosophies and ideologies, including the U.S.'s, you will see that is not extreme at all to advocate for self-defense. That's all I'm advocating for. The Palestinian people, just like any other people in the world, deserve the right to defend themselves against injury and death. It actually the accusers who are extreme. They are saying for the Palestinians to just sit there and get killed. They are saying the Palestinians are sub-human, and therefore, do not get to enjoy basic human rights like every human being should be able to enjoy. They are going against the human instinct to defend oneself and his/her family. Those are the true violent extremists, not me.              

 

 

What the Heck's Going On In Iraq?

With official U.S. military operations in Iraq being done for many months now, most Americans aren't paying any attention to the country anymore, (I wonder if they can find it on a map now?) But a quick glance at the news over the past few months show that the country is anything but quite. But the war is over, so shouldn't everything be fine, right? I mean, Americans wouldn't leave the country before it was fixed, right, right??!?!

The aftermath of an insurgent attack on Iraqi soldiers.

Well, the problem is that Iraq is still severely messed up. Many of the problems that the U.S. "solved" were just minimized with overwhelming U.S. firepower, (a.k.a. they just killed 90% of the people who were causing problems, which caused the other 10% to stop what they were doing or hide underground). But if something is minimized, it's still happening. And Iraq's problems are no longer minimized, they're simply just not as bad as it was in the late 2000's. Here's just a summary of what Iraq is going through at the moment:

• Sectarian violence, mostly between Sunni and Shia Arabs, which leads to a highly polarized and extreme society that doesn't get along with people that are only slightly different than they are. 
• Massive corruption of government and other public officials.
• Crackdown on civil liberties and human rights by the government. 
• Fucked up economy and job market. 
• In the middle of an imperial power struggle between the West and Iran. 
• Having spillover of the Syrian civil war, which only further polarizes society. 
• A small, very wealthy upper class hogging up all the wealth, leaving very little wealth and resources for the vast majority of the population, who are very poor. 

Many of these problems are inter-related, which make them all the more difficult to solve. For example, the imperial struggle between the West and Iran to control Iraq involved a lot of propaganda. Iran's power base in Iraq are Shias, while the West support the Sunnis, generally. Iran commands some Shias to attack a Sunni mosque, a place of business where Sunnis work, etc, etc, to gain power, take out a rival, etc, etc, whatever the case may be. But this also polarizes society, because now, the Sunni community that just got attacked views the Shias with hatred and rage because they just killed Sunnis. Their anger clouds their judgement, and makes them view all Shias, not just the particular Shias who did this attack, as Iranian agent infidels who are traitors to Iraq. Now they go attack some random Shia neighborhood in response. But this has the same effect on the Shias who just got attacked. Now the Shias feel persecuted, so now they wanna fight back. And that's how the vicious cycle of sectarian violence continues.

The core issue actually has very little to do with religion, despite what many right-wing U.S. commentators say. There is nothing in Sunni texts that say "You have to kill Shias," and vice versa. The issue is primarily political: both the West and Iran want control of Iraqi affairs. Power struggles like this one have happened all over the world, not just in Muslim countries. But these sides are using religion as a catalyst for violence and to divide Iraq society. Think about it, by just looking at two people, can you tell which one is Sunni and which one is Shia? Absolutely not. So how do the Iraqis tell the difference? Because they take out the time and energy to find out who is a Sunni, who is a Shia, which neighborhoods are Sunni neighborhoods, which stores are run by Shias, etc, etc. People take the time and energy to do these things for a reason, not just cuz they want to. And these reasons are some of the bullet points above.

Some problems cause other problems to happen, while others make already existing problems worse, (Sorry guys, none of this is good news). For example, a corrupt and inefficient government makes sectarian violence all the more easy to carry out because the government forces cannot stop the gunmen and suicide bombers who are carrying out these attacks. The government cracking down on innocent civilians' human rights makes people not want to cooperate with the government, or makes them flat out want to attack the government because they're sick of this shit. A crappy ass job market for young people makes them all the more likely to engage in criminal activity, because they're not getting anywhere in life the legal way, so why not? They view the government as corrupt and oppressive, so why bother paying attention to their stupid laws?

Iraq's location has made it a prime target for expanding empires throughout history. It's not easy to defend because it's flat compared to the Iranian mountains to the east and easy to get to from the Mediterranean coast to the west. Historically it has produced much food, making it a prime target for empires needing to feed their ever-growing population. Currently, Iran wants it as its gateway to its other Arab allies: Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Having a cooperative Iraq makes it easier for Iran to send arms and volunteers to help the dictator Bashar al-Assad put down the rebellion in Syria. The West wants it strategically so it can use it as a launching pad against these same Arab powers and Iran, as well as control of its oil fields and vital Persian Gulf port.

Conclusion: Iraq is screwed because of many factors. There is a way to for them to stop it, but it will be close to impossible because it will require many people, who are iron-willed but not extreme, to come and work together. And in the current condition it just isn't gonna happen. These group of Iraqis would have to set a list of principles and stick to them 100% no matter what happens. That takes dedication and perseverance that is rare, and the chances of many Iraqis having these characteristics, (or any people for that matter) is close to none. This is why real change in countries happens so rarely in history because the odds of all the right things being set in one place at one time is extremely rare. These principles would have to be:

1. Never to attack unarmed civilians for any reason, no matter what their race or religion may be. 
2. Uphold every Iraqi citizen's human rights, no matter what their race or religion may be.
3. Vote out every single politician that is corrupt, or, if he/she is non-electable, protest the government to get that person outta office. It may take 2 or 3 elections for this to happen, but they got to send a message to people in office "If you're corrupt, we're voting you out, no ifs ands or buts." They got to make the politicians serve them, not the other way around. 
4. Every citizen has the right to self-defense and right to bear arms. The common citizen has to have a way of protecting himself and his family from sectarian thugs, especially if the government can't/won't protect them. Never rely on the government for protection.
5. Organize neighborhood watches, committees that solve local issues. Through dialogue and saying how your week went, your interactions with people, etc, etc, local people can root out the sectarian extremists that hide in their midst. For example "I was hanging out with so-and-so and he made several disturbing comments about Kurds. Let's talk with him, see what his problem is, why he feels that way, what we can do." Or "I saw so-and-so going to an unused garage several time last week. What's he doing? Why's he going there?" It may nothing, or it might be a terrorist attack in the planning. They should always go on one of these visits prepared for the worst, which would be a violent individual. 
6. Never faltering loyalty to their goals and ideals, which would leave no room for corruption, back-room deals, or double crossing. 
7. Democracy. Now this doesn't mean they have to have a Western style democracy. This simply means they must have the type of government the people want. If they want a government set up like Iran's, (the one difference being that everyone has terms and elections), then let 'em have it. If they want a British style parliamentary system, then let 'em have it. 

Finally, who is to blame for the mess that Iraq is currently in? Well, everyone involved, unfortunately. The U.S., Iran, and Iraq all have contributed to this mess. It's not all one country's fault, contrary to what many other people will say. Some countries are more to blame than others, but none of the three are completely innocent. The sad thing is that the people losing out the most are the people who deserve the biggest break after the hell they've gone through: the Iraqi people.             

U.S. government is rewarding criminals while hurting American citizens

The ridiculousness of the U.S. government knows no bounds, and one of the best examples of this is their view on illegal immigrants. The latest step in rewarding these criminals is offering them in-state tuition for college:

http://www.freep.com/article/20130715/NEWS06/130715018/U-M-may-soon-give-state-tuition-rates-undocumented-students

This makes my blood boil and just leaves a reaction screaming in my brain "WHAT THE HELL?!" It is utter insanity. The government is stabbing itself with a knife and thinks it is helping the country out. What's even more mind-boggling is how the vast majority of Americans are completely mute/don't care about this issue at all.

Let's get a few basics down before we dive any further into this. First of all, illegal immigrants are criminals. They are breaking a law, which makes them a criminal. No room for argument there. Even if you think the law is unjust, doesn't matter. Legally speaking, they are criminals. They are legally not supposed to be here. They are trespassing in this country, because the authorities in this country did not give them permission to be here.

And yet, we are rewarding this criminal behavior. Your and mine hard earned tax payer dollars, dollars that we actually worked for, is going to given to a criminal for free. You know, combining all the taxes taken out of my pocket, 20% of paycheck gets taken away from me. 20%. Yet I can barely afford gas and food, but God forbid a criminal trespasser doesn't get in state tuition for college. You know, I could really use that 20% of my paycheck. At least I know part of it is being completely fucking wasted.

Second of all, what the fuck is an illegal immigrant gonna use a college degree for? Good luck finding a job that needs a college degree that won't check your legal status in this country. Gardener, laborer, sure, you can find a job like that won't check your status, but good luck working in the corporate/government/NGO/business realm and not get checked.

An illegal immigrant will get a better tuition rate in Michigan than an American citizen who lives in neighboring Ohio, for example. And people are okay with this? What the hell is America doing, favoring foreign citizens over their own citizens? They are encouraging illegal immigration by enacting these ridiculous laws. A foreigner living in his/her own country can look at the laws being passed in America, and think to himself/herself "Hm, wow, I can make a pretty good living by getting into the U.S. illegally. Some colleges will give me in-state tuition, some states will give me a driver's license, (such as D.C. and Maryland are trying to get done), and I don't have to pay taxes on my income because the government has no SSN to tax me by! Well, let's go then!"

Meanwhile, I have to pay 20% of my paycheck in taxes, while Mr. Illegal over here get's to keep 100% of his paycheck. Fucking bullshit.

That ends my rant for the week. But I feel I also have to include rebuttals for the most common arguments for illegal immigration, because without those, I feel my argument will not be as effective. So, here they are:

1. You're racist.
Rebuttal: I get this every. Single. Time I argue against illegal immigration. That is illegal immigration advocates' first argument against me without a doubt, every single time. All I say is: You're an idiot. I've half Spanish. My mom's side of the family came from Spain and Mexico. They immigrated here legally, LIKE YOU'RE FUCKING SUPPOSED TO. So I'm racist towards myself? Or technically, half of myself? Get the fuck outta here.

2. The illegal immigrants come from war-zones, poverty, abuse, corrupt places, etc, etc, so they're simply fleeing a bad situation, so we shouldn't turn them away.
Rebuttal: Just because you're coming from a bad situation doesn't mean that suddenly international, Mexican, and U.S. laws don't apply to you, and you can do whatever you want. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. You can go to another country besides the U.S., or apply for refugee status in the U.S. That is preferable because it's LEGAL.

3. Illegal immigrants really aren't committing a crime.
Rebuttal: Okay then, I can just break into your house and take your stuff. I'm not really trespassing or stealing, right? I'm just a poor, down trodden immigrant, looking to help myself. You can't get me to stop, otherwise you're a racist. Please, give me a fucking break. Legally, they are breaking a law. Besides that, using logic and rational, they are committing a crime. 

4. The American economy depends on illegal immigration, so we shouldn't turn them away.
Rebuttal: The fact that our economy is dependent on illegal activity is only more proof that something is very wrong with the system and we need to change it. The unemployment rate is unacceptable. Purging the illegal activity from the economy will free up more jobs for desperate, poor Americans who need a full-time job to get by. Oh, you think illegals do the jobs Americans don't want to do? Fuck no. I'm currently working part-time but I'm still looking for full-time work. I wouldn't mind in the least bit to go out and be a gardener or a farmer or a construction worker. I don't care what I do, I need a freaking paycheck so I can get on with my God damn life.

What can ordinary Americans do about this? Be proactive, because the illegal immigrant supporters are out there every damn day, working to help criminals. Find out who your senator/representative is, and see their voting record on illegal immigrant issues is. If they vote to help criminals, then vote them out next election. Find out who in which colleges is pressing to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition, and send them a letter, write to their boss, telling them your dismay, petition, etc, etc. If we stand idly by, working our jobs and going about our daily lives without acting on this, then in a few years time this country will look vastly different than what it looks like now, (no I'm not talking about race, you race baiters,) and American citizens will be second class citizens in their own country.       

Egypt is rapidly spinning out of control, I don't know who to support

I had avoided talking about Egypt's revolution/coup, (even which one of those two words to use is controversial), because one: I don't know which side I favor, and two: things are happening and changing so fast that by the time I publish something, the situation may be far different than when I wrote it. But there have been a lack of interesting other stories to write about, so it is with great hesitation that I wade into this unholy mess of a situation.
Situation in a sentence: Mohammed Morsi, the first democratically elected president in Egypt's history, has been taken out of power by the military, and an interim government has been put in his place.

Revolutionaries camped out in Tahrir Square. 

Now, there's so much propaganda, BS, false history, blah blah blah so much crap going around the internet and news agencies that this is far as we can go without getting into controversy. It is very hard to isolate what is fact and what is fiction. This is far as we can go that everyone agrees with. I'm going to explain each side's argument and each problem I have with both of them, and then let you decide which side you want to support, or to support neither of them.

Pro revolution/Anti-Morsi argument: Morsi was creating a more sharply divided Egyptian society between Islamist vs secular, Muslim vs Christian, conservative vs liberal, etc. He was not including people from all segments of Egyptian society in his government. He was only serving the Muslim Brotherhood and didn't care about anybody else. He was grabbing power for himself, so many Egyptians feared that he was going to turn into another dictator. He wasn't doing enough to help the country's huge economic woes.

Problem I have with that argument: First: The president of the country is not responsible for how people view other type of people in the country. He's not there to baby-sit people. If some Muslim and Christians in Egypt believe the bigoted shit they hear or read and go at it, it's not his problem. Second: the nature of politics is to put people in power who like you, have similar views of yours, and will do what you tell them to do. When Republicans get into power, guess what they do, they put Republicans in power so they can get Republican-y shit done. When Democrats get into power, they put a bunch of Democrats in power so they can get Democrat-y shit done. Third: Egypt's economy is severally fucked up. It has been for decades. A combination of an Authoritative centrally planned economy, requisites for international loans, and several wars have completely wrecked the economy, which has the potential to be a very strong one. There's no way Morsi, or anyone else for that matter, could've fixed all of the economic problems in one year. They simply need more time.

Anti-revolution/Pro Morsi argument: Morsi was democratically elected, so the appropriate way to go at him is through elections, not overthrowing him. Overthrowing him, even with his flaws, is an attack on Egyptian democracy. The revolutionaries have been attacking pro-Morsi supporters and Muslim Brotherhood buildings, so they are hooligans and do not deserve to have power because of their violent actions. In the revolutionary ranks are many former Mubarak era politicians, which show the true nature of this "revolution," that they only want democracy for themselves. They are the ones, not the Muslim Brotherhood, who wants another dictator.

Problem I have with that argument: I don't care how someone came to power, the people always have the right to take him/her out of power if they feel he/she is not doing their job correctly. That is a fundamental part of democracy is for the people to have power over their government. So it is not an attack on democracy. Benjamin Franklin said we need a revolution at least once every 50 years to keep the government in check. Non-Egyptians, including me, don't have the right to tell Egyptians who to elect or what style of government to have. That is their right and their right alone. Same thing: Egyptians don't have the right to tell Americans who to elect. So if 22 million+ Egyptians felt that their president needed to be taken out, then that is in their right to do so, and who are we to tell them otherwise?

Conclusion
I hope this has cleared up a little bit of a very murky situation. Like I said earlier, I don't support one side or the other at the moment. I see the good and bad points in both sides. I need more time and information before I cast my vote.
The test of whether this revolution was pro-democracy or pro-dictator will be if they stay true to their word, and have free and fair elections in 6-8 months. If they do that, then their revolution has my support. If they don't, and simply appoint a strongman to power, then I will condemn their revolution as a subversion of democracy.        

We must support the oppressed Uighurs in China

Last week, tensions flared in China's Xinjiang province between the autocratic Communist government and the Uighur minority that they repress.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-01/china/40306444_1_lukqun-xinjiang-east-turkestan

The Chinese government accuses the Uighurs of committing "terrorist acts," which, like 95% of what the Chinese government says, is complete fucking bullshit. Governments have thrown the word "terrorist" around so much in recent decades that basically the word has lost all meaning. If you see the word in any publication or article, an alert should beep in your head, saying "BS! BS!"

As I've described in my past posts, terrorism is an attack on unarmed civilians. Therefore, by definition, you cannot commit a terrorist attack against military or government targets. If you attack one of those two targets, then it is an act of war, and you become a rebel against the government, not a terrorist.

The article above says that the Uighurs attacked police stations. A logical place to attack, seeing it as the policemen in China are the ones oppressing, kidnapping, torturing, and repressing the people of China. The policemen cannot do all those things to Chinese civilians, and then cry foul when they decide to fight back.

China, being a country who views people as little more than commodities and resources to use in order to get more wealth for itself, wants to take away the Uighurs' right to life and right to defend themselves. They view humans, especially religious and ethnic minorities, as being sub-human, and therefore do not deserve to enjoy basic human rights. They use the resources that the Uighur communities live in, but the Uighurs never see any of the benefit from the sale and use of these resources. In effect, the Chinese are stealing their resources and wealth. They do not allow the Uighurs to practice their religion freely.

So, what should we Americans do about this? Well, a look at our American values will help us answer this question. As a people who's nation was born out of the shaking off of tyranny and oppression, we must stand with the Uighurs in their fight for freedom and independence. It is absolutely sickening that the U.S. is with the Chinese government against the Uighurs. It is another sign that this current government has betrayed our American values for power and money.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/07/16/72000/uighur-detainees-us-helped-chinese.html#.UdRNdZxJmUM

The article above says that the U.S. helped Chinese authorities interrogate and torture Uighurs.

Here are some steps we can take to help the Uighurs and to get our government to stop in aiding their oppression:

1. Call your senator, representative, the White House, and demand that the government respect the rights of all people, regardless of race or religion, to be free and able to elect their own system of government. The U.S. government, on American principles, must stop aiding the Chinese oppression and all trade with China. Seem radical? Fuck yeah its radical. Extreme situations call for extreme remedies. The Chinese government taxes all goods coming to and from the US. They can use that tax money to pay more police officers to oppress Uighurs, buy more weapons, more military vehicles, more government goons, etc. So when we buy something that is made in China, we are funding Uighur oppression.
Now, I realize that 90% of the things we buy is made in China. So realistically, we cannot buy nothing from China. All I ask is that you limit the amount that you buy from China as realistically as you can without creating hardship for yourself. The less we buy from China, the less money they have to oppress not only the Uighurs but all of their citizens.

2.Educate yourself about the Uighurs. People won't listen to you if you don't know what you're talking about! The Uighurs are not a common household name that people will recognize like British or French. So read up on Chinese history, the background of the conflict, and the conflict as it is today.

3.Spread awareness about the situation in Xinjiang. Most people, due to censorship by the U.S. and Chinese government and media, have no idea about what the Uighurs are going through. The media hardly ever reports on it, and when they do, they just demonize the Uighurs as "Muslim terrorists." We must counter this censorship by sharing articles and information about the Uighur struggle, and say that no, they are not terrorists, they are simply human beings who want freedom and independence, same as every other human wants.

Announcement

I know it's been almost a year since I got on here last and posted a blog. There were a couple of reasons why I stopped. I had some personal, financial, and health issues that took a lot of my time and really messed me up for a while. Also I wasn't getting many hits on this blog so I figured, eh, why continue to do it?

But recently I've been reading some of the headlines, and I can't just sit here in silence. I may not have the power to stop these horrible things that my country is doing, but I surely have the power to speak out against it. So, that's what I'm gonna do. This blog is for me more than it is for anyone who reads it. It helps get my anger out.

So, I'll put out a piece in the next couple of days, and then it'll be regular just like before, once a week. We'll see where it goes from there.

Condemn Terrorist Attacks, No Matter Who the Perpetrator Is

         I’m going to talk about the one thing that no one is talking about when it comes to the story of Malala Yousufazi, the 14 year old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban. 

          Before I get into that, I am glad that so many governments, so many news channels, and so many people from all over the globe are united in their condemnation and utmost disgust of this attack. With it being hard for people of different faiths or races to agree on anything now in days, it is heartening to see such a diverse group of unified people on such an important issue. But, once you look closer at this, with historical context, you notice that there is something very wrong about this.

          No, I’m not saying we should not condemn this act of terrorism, that’s not my point at all. We should condemn it. My problem with it is: Why is that when a Muslim injures or kills someone in a terrorist attack, Westerners are quick to condemn that attack, but when a Westerner does the exact same fucking thing to a Muslim victim, the number of Westerners condemning the attack sharply decreases to very few people?

          Every single major U.S. news station has reported on Malala’s story, (CNN, FOX, CBS, MSNBC, etc). So why haven’t they expressed the same amount of outrage or given the same amount of coverage say when, American soldiers have shot unarmed Iraqi civilians on purpose? (Sometimes they’ve shot children in the head, the exact same thing that happened to Malala.) Why aren’t they disgusted when American soldiers bomb unarmed Afghani civilians? Why aren’t they repulsed when American drones bomb a funeral procession in Somali, or a wedding in Pakistan, or students in Yemen? Why why why why? No American has ever been able to answer me this question. No one. 

 

An Afghani child that was shot in the head by American soldiers

          This is very disturbing. The majority of Westerners, particularly the majority of Americans, have no problem with one of their fellow citizens, (Read: someone who “looks like them,”) murdering an innocent civilian that is not American, especially if that innocent civilian is Muslim, (Read: the mysterious, foreign, dangerous “Other,”). Our current culture hypes up people’s egos so much, turning them into megalomaniacs, that they honestly believe that Americans are genetically superior to every other nation in the world, so, we can do things that everyone else can’t. The rules that apply to everyone else in the world, don’t apply to us. We’re just that fucking special. 

          Now, not everyone who gives Americans a pass on terrorist attack is a self-absorbed prick. I’ve met some good, honest, nice people who do the same thing. Now why is that? Simply, it makes them feel too awkward, or too uncomfortable, to admit that their soldiers do such things. They don’t want to face the facts of all of the millions of civilians American soldiers have murdered over the decades, (centuries actually, if you want to go back to colonial times, but let’s not overwhelm ourselves here). So, they simply never talk about it. They never admit it. If someone brings it up in a debate or an argument, they physically cannot say anything else; they just sit there.

          An American being the villain and a Muslim being the victim simply cannot compute for many Americans. That is not the official narrative of the government and their media lackeys. That is not what they hear when they are growing up. So, if anyone says otherwise, (like me), I’m simply an American hating terrorist. They completely disregard all my facts, charts, graphs, testimonies, history books, etc, etc, etc, i.e. all the overwhelming evidence that I have, with name calling. How immature.      

                                            An Iraqi civilian killed by American forces       

          If we can’t condemn our own terrorists, then why do we expect every other nation in the world to condemn their own terrorists? You can’t tell someone to do something that you are not willing to do yourself. The answer goes back to the megalomaniac point earlier: “We’re Americans, we don’t have to condemn Americans for anything, because we don’t commit any terrorist acts. We are only hard workers and heroes. However, you Islamic countries, you guys are all terrorists, so you have to condemn each and every terrorist attack a Muslim commits.”

          Don’t think other nations get a pass on this either. It’s not just Americans that do this. Every single other nation has the exact same sick problem. They condemn terrorist attacks right and left, but as soon as someone of their own nation commits a terrorist attack, they fall deathly silent. Israel, Palestine, Russia, Syria, Nigeria, Mexico, Burma, etc, etc, all of them do the exact same thing.

          We, as Americans, need to get over the awkwardness and the stigma that comes with condemning our own soldiers. I have no fear of walking up to an American soldier and saying “American soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose.” Because it’s true. Look at history, YouTube, the news, etc. The facts are on my side. No one should be afraid of saying the truth. There is nothing un-American about calling a blatant terrorist attack, a blatant terrorist attack ,even if that terrorist is an American soldier. If you are a truly principled person, then race/nationality should have no role in whether you condemn a terrorist attack or not. If it does, then that means you are truly not against terrorist attacks. You’re only against terrorist attacks, as long as the terrorist is not an American. That’s right. You support terrorism. What does that say about your morals, your character, your values? 

                                 The site of a Pakistani wedding bombed by a U.S. drone

          Think on it, and you’ll see why so many people around the world hate America. And, you’ll see that hate is not stemmed in ignorance, or jealously, no, it’s because they want us to stop killing them! Wow, who would’ve thought that killing unarmed civilians would piss people off?!