The new approach to suppressing rights to free speech, and political expression is to call any speech or attitude that conveys disgust or moral outrage over the very obvious US and our ally’s violations of international law that have come to characterize the so called war on terrorism, radicalization.
If, when you hear that a drone has killed ten or twenty innocent people or more at a wedding or funeral in Pakistan in a military attempt to supposedly kill just one supposed terrorist, and you criticize that disproportionate and immoral use of force, you might be called radical, and extreme. It’s not because your gut instincts are naturally repulsed by what happened, that’s fine. You simply are not supposed to criticize or suggest that what happened was wrong, a violation of international law, or that it creates a desire and an excuse that justifies a similar use of violence by our supposed adversaries, in ways that might also be illegal and immoral.
If, when you hear that more than 1 million innocent people have been killed in a war where we were not fighting an army, or an enemy, but an insurgency that had a right to fight against a foreign invading and occupying military force, and that we not only killed those people, but also tortured them, raped them and destroyed their homes and then sent missionaries to provide them with Bibles in exchange for food and comfort. If you hear that, and you feel morally outraged that a certain faction in our country has used our troops and our money in this way, and you say or write anything critical about it, you might be considered by the powers that be, Democrats and Republicans and some so called independents, a person that has become radicalized.
Becoming radicalized can be compared to getting infected with rabies. If you hang out with, read, or agree with people who have already been infected with radicalism, and who write, speak, and do radical things like write letters critical of the war to newspaper editors, or submit op-eds to newspapers suggesting that the US is committing war crimes in these wars, etc., you can, and might also become radicalized. Like rabies, radicalization makes you appear angry. It can cause you to froth at the mouth as you debate simple concepts like human decency, law and justice and fair play with people who have been inoculated against radicalization. Such people are immune to radicalization due to injections of cash, jobs, appearances on cable TV, a mention in mainstream media as good people, and other perks, and pay offs.
The inoculated are absolutely incapable of understanding things like, you can’t lie your way into an illegal military invasion of a sovereign country, kill off its people, send in para-military groups to carry out slaughters, and then claim to be justified by the deaths of 3000 people, many of whom were foreign nationals and not even Americans, who were killed by other people, and not the people whose country you invaded and subsequently destroyed. Not only will the ambivalence and distorted sense of justice of the inoculated cause people who have been radicalized to froth at the mouth, it has been known to occasionally boil the blood to the point that a radicalized person will simply shut down, refuse to ever speak again and go into seclusion.
Radicalization, if it leads to frustration, can kill the spirit of even the strongest among us, when it reaches the point that logic shuts down, causing a person to believe the entire world has gone mad, and that it’s useless to say anything more, or to expect that anyone gives a damn, or that things will ever change. In such cases, the radicalized person might resort to bingo, and refuse to read newspapers or even to watch TV anymore.
Now, those who are involved in detecting radicalization and wiping it out or curing it, are not concerned that radicals might actually do anything violent, since it almost never happens. Yet, they must, and do suggest that radicalization leads to violence because it is the only way that they can get money to fight radicalization, or rather to fight free speech and expression and also the US Constitution that guarantees such rights as free speech and political expression. You see, no one can get government money to overtly undermine the US Constitution, or to violate our Constitutional rights. They can get millions, even billions to protect our country from the threat of terrorism.
This is why radicalization experts claim that the inevitable consequence of the dreaded disease, radicalization is politically motivated violence, or terrorism. Like rabies, it supposedly gives the appearance of mental illness, but can only be diagnosed as such if it is found in Zionists. Their violence and extremism is always the result of mental illnesses, or its self defense, while the common person’s moral outrage must be the result of radicalization. It is similar to a neurological disorder that prevents a person from being able to see evil as goodness, and goodness as weakness.
Radicakization is a type of moral dissonance that will not allow an infected person to believe that we are actually seeing our government and military act as an immoral and barbaric conquering force, completely ignoring the laws that we helped to impress upon the world as right and good and essential to peaceful co-existence. Laws like the Geneva Conventions. Yet, since moral dissonance has not been recognized by the AMA as a real mental illness, radicalization remains like rabies, a contagious neurological like disease that supposedly can only lead to violence, and so according to the experts, including the established religious experts who condone and support the war on radicalization, it must be eradicated.
Since aside from the Wall Street robber barons, our government is the only institution that can never run out of money, so long as it has a press that can print money, those who are part of the anti-terrorism industry must always have an angle whereby they can parlay their deep insights into the hearts and souls of the American sheeple, into cold hard government cash, formerly known as taxpayer money. Without much research or study, they know intuitively that enough outrageous behavior by our government and military will lead to the moral outrage of many American people. Eureka! What better way to make a buck than to bank on the fact that a free people will use their rights to free speech and political expression to criticize a government that claims to be representative, yet has clearly adopted a set of values and created for itself a law that is completely opposite of the values and laws of the people it claims to represent.
There is a cure for radicalization, but it doesn’t get much attention. You will almost never hear the word cure even mentioned by radicalization experts. Just like conspiracy theories surrounding cancer research and cures for other deadly diseases, the idea is that if radicalization is cured, the anti-radicalization industry will go out of business, and even worse, all of their lies will be exposed and they will lose credibility, maybe even be put in jail for lying to Congress and other crimes.
The obvious cure for radicalization is truth and accountability. To cure its radicalized citizenry, our government needs only reform, and to respond to the urgings of its people, and also the international community. End these wars; stop supporting dictators and violent despots who oppress their people in exchange for hand outs. Get rid of the double standards, the lying and the greed for power and replace it with common sense and a desire to co-exist peacefully in the world with others of varied cultures, skin colors, languages, religions, etc. Stop coveting the natural resources of others to the extent that rather than to depend upon free market economics, you will stoop to any level in smash and grab operations for oil and other resources that always fail miserably, leaving only hatred, death and destruction behind them.
Unfortunately, there is little hope that our government will opt for the cure anytime soon. So, we the people are left with two options. 1). Shut up and refuse to criticize the government, hide our moral outrage, and just go along hoping that the wars will eventually end and gas prices will one day be 1.50 a gallon or cheaper forever, or 2). Refuse to shut up, and demonstrate our moral outrage in every legal way possible, keeping in mind that the anti-radicalization forces in our Congress are at work trying to find ways to criminalize dissent, which is what radicalization was called previous to the wars. Since word dissent implies some type of patriotism and noble intent, it has been exchanged for the dreaded word, radicalization.
Keep in mind that if you adopt #2, that it is a war after all. If we adopt the mentality of our government and the insane faction of warmongers and imperialists now controlling our government, we will realize that there are no rules. They will either shut us all up, or we will shut their insane arses down. Power to the people.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Understanding and defeating the war against radicalization
The new approach to suppressing rights to free speech, and political expression is to call any speech or attitude that conveys disgust or moral outrage over the very obvious US and our ally’s violations of international law that have come to characterize the so called war on terrorism, radicalization.
If, when you hear that a drone has killed ten or twenty innocent people or more at a wedding or funeral in Pakistan in a military attempt to supposedly kill just one supposed terrorist, and you criticize that disproportionate and immoral use of force, you might be called radical, and extreme. It’s not because your gut instincts are naturally repulsed by what happened, that’s fine. You simply are not supposed to criticize or suggest that what happened was wrong, a violation of international law, or that it creates a desire and an excuse that justifies a similar use of violence by our supposed adversaries, in ways that might also be illegal and immoral.
If, when you hear that more than 1 million innocent people have been killed in a war where we were not fighting an army, or an enemy, but an insurgency that had a right to fight against a foreign invading and occupying military force, and that we not only killed those people, but also tortured them, raped them and destroyed their homes and then sent missionaries to provide them with Bibles in exchange for food and comfort. If you hear that, and you feel morally outraged that a certain faction in our country has used our troops and our money in this way, and you say or write anything critical about it, you might be considered by the powers that be, Democrats and Republicans and some so called independents, a person that has become radicalized.
Becoming radicalized can be compared to getting infected with rabies. If you hang out with, read, or agree with people who have already been infected with radicalism, and who write, speak, and do radical things like write letters critical of the war to newspaper editors, or submit op-eds to newspapers suggesting that the US is committing war crimes in these wars, etc., you can, and might also become radicalized. Like rabies, radicalization makes you appear angry. It can cause you to froth at the mouth as you debate simple concepts like human decency, law and justice and fair play with people who have been inoculated against radicalization. Such people are immune to radicalization due to injections of cash, jobs, appearances on cable TV, a mention in mainstream media as good people, and other perks, and pay offs. They are absolutely incapable of understanding things like, you can’t lie your way into an illegal military invasion of a sovereign country, kill off its people, send in para-military groups to carry out slaughters, and then claim to be justified by the deaths of 3000 people, many of whom were foreign nationals and not even Americans, who were killed by other people, and not the people whose country you invaded and subsequently destroyed. Not only will the ambivalence and distorted sense of justice of the inoculated cause people who have been radicalized to froth at the mouth, it has been known to occasionally boil the blood to the point that a radicalized person will simply shut down, refuse to ever speak again and go into seclusion. It can kill the spirit of even the strongest among us, when it reaches the point that logic shuts down, causing a person to believe the entire world has gone mad, and that it’s useless to say anything more, or to expect that anyone gives a damn, or that things will ever change. In such cases, the radicalized person might resort to bingo, and refuse to read newspapers or even to watch TV anymore.
Now, those who are involved in detecting radicalization and wiping it out or curing it, are not concerned that radicals might actually do anything violent, since it almost never happens. Yet, they must, and do suggest that radicalization leads to violence because it is the only way that they can get money to fight radicalization, or rather to fight free speech and expression and also the US Constitution that guarantees such rights as free speech and political expression. You see, no one can get government money to overtly undermine the US Constitution, or to violate our Constitutional rights. They can get millions, even billions to protect our country from the threat of terrorism.
This is why radicalization experts claim that the inevitable consequence of the dreaded disease, radicalization is politically motivated violence, or terrorism. Like rabies, it supposedly gives the appearance of mental illness, but can only be diagnosed as such if it is found in Zionists. Their violence and extremism is always the result of mental illnesses, or its self defense, while the common person’s moral outrage must be the result of radicalization. It is similar to a neurological disorder that prevents a person from being able to see evil as goodness, and goodness as weakness. It is a type of moral dissonance that will not allow an infected person to believe that we are actually seeing our government and military act as an immoral and barbaric conquering force, completely ignoring the laws that we helped to impress upon the world as right and good and essential to peaceful co-existence. Laws like the Geneva Conventions. Yet, since moral dissonance has not been recognized by the AMA as a real mental illness, radicalization remains like rabies, a contagious neurological like disease that supposedly can only lead to violence, and so according to the experts, including the established religious experts who condone and support the war on radicalization, it must be eradicated.
Since aside from the Wall Street robber barons, our government is the only institution that can never run out of money, so long as it has a press that can print money, those who are part of the anti-terrorism industry must always have an angle whereby they can parlay their deep insights into the hearts and souls of the American sheeple, into cold hard government cash, formerly known as taxpayer money. Without much research or study, they know intuitively that enough outrageous behavior by our government and military will lead to the moral outrage of many American people. Eureka! What better way to make a buck than to bank on the fact that a free people will use their rights to free speech and political expression to criticize a government that claims to be representative, yet has clearly adopted a set of values and created for itself a law that is completely opposite of the values and laws of the people it claims to represent.
There is a cure for radicalization, but it doesn’t get much attention. You will almost never hear the word cure even mentioned by radicalization experts. Just like conspiracy theories surrounding cancer research and cures for other deadly diseases, the idea is that if radicalization is cured, the anti-radicalization industry will go out of business, and even worse, all of their lies will be exposed and they will lose credibility, maybe even be put in jail for lying to Congress and other crimes.
The obvious cure for radicalization is truth and accountability. To cure its radicalized citizenry, our government needs only reform, and to respond to the urgings of its people, and also the international community. End these wars; stop supporting dictators and violent despots who oppress their people in exchange for hand outs. Get rid of the double standards, the lying and the greed for power and replace it with common sense and a desire to co-exist peacefully in the world with others of varied cultures, skin colors, languages, religions, etc. Stop coveting the natural resources of others to the extent that rather than to depend upon free market economics, you will stoop to any level in smash and grab operations for oil and other resources that always fail miserably, leaving only hatred, death and destruction behind them.
Unfortunately, there is little hope that our government will opt for the cure anytime soon. So, we the people are left with two options. 1). Shut up and refuse to criticize the government, hide our moral outrage, and just go along hoping that the wars will eventually end and gas prices will one day be 1.50 a gallon or cheaper forever, or 2). Refuse to shut up, and demonstrate our moral outrage in every legal way possible, keeping in mind that the anti-radicalization forces in our Congress are at work trying to find ways to criminalize dissent, which is what radicalization was called previous to the wars. Since word dissent implies some type of patriotism and noble intent, it has been exchanged for the dreaded word, radicalization.
Keep in mind that if you adopt #2, that it is a war after all. If we adopt the mentality of our government and the insane faction of warmongers and imperialists now controlling our government, we will realize that there are no rules. They will either shut us all up, or we will shut their insane arses down. Power to the people.
If, when you hear that a drone has killed ten or twenty innocent people or more at a wedding or funeral in Pakistan in a military attempt to supposedly kill just one supposed terrorist, and you criticize that disproportionate and immoral use of force, you might be called radical, and extreme. It’s not because your gut instincts are naturally repulsed by what happened, that’s fine. You simply are not supposed to criticize or suggest that what happened was wrong, a violation of international law, or that it creates a desire and an excuse that justifies a similar use of violence by our supposed adversaries, in ways that might also be illegal and immoral.
If, when you hear that more than 1 million innocent people have been killed in a war where we were not fighting an army, or an enemy, but an insurgency that had a right to fight against a foreign invading and occupying military force, and that we not only killed those people, but also tortured them, raped them and destroyed their homes and then sent missionaries to provide them with Bibles in exchange for food and comfort. If you hear that, and you feel morally outraged that a certain faction in our country has used our troops and our money in this way, and you say or write anything critical about it, you might be considered by the powers that be, Democrats and Republicans and some so called independents, a person that has become radicalized.
Becoming radicalized can be compared to getting infected with rabies. If you hang out with, read, or agree with people who have already been infected with radicalism, and who write, speak, and do radical things like write letters critical of the war to newspaper editors, or submit op-eds to newspapers suggesting that the US is committing war crimes in these wars, etc., you can, and might also become radicalized. Like rabies, radicalization makes you appear angry. It can cause you to froth at the mouth as you debate simple concepts like human decency, law and justice and fair play with people who have been inoculated against radicalization. Such people are immune to radicalization due to injections of cash, jobs, appearances on cable TV, a mention in mainstream media as good people, and other perks, and pay offs. They are absolutely incapable of understanding things like, you can’t lie your way into an illegal military invasion of a sovereign country, kill off its people, send in para-military groups to carry out slaughters, and then claim to be justified by the deaths of 3000 people, many of whom were foreign nationals and not even Americans, who were killed by other people, and not the people whose country you invaded and subsequently destroyed. Not only will the ambivalence and distorted sense of justice of the inoculated cause people who have been radicalized to froth at the mouth, it has been known to occasionally boil the blood to the point that a radicalized person will simply shut down, refuse to ever speak again and go into seclusion. It can kill the spirit of even the strongest among us, when it reaches the point that logic shuts down, causing a person to believe the entire world has gone mad, and that it’s useless to say anything more, or to expect that anyone gives a damn, or that things will ever change. In such cases, the radicalized person might resort to bingo, and refuse to read newspapers or even to watch TV anymore.
Now, those who are involved in detecting radicalization and wiping it out or curing it, are not concerned that radicals might actually do anything violent, since it almost never happens. Yet, they must, and do suggest that radicalization leads to violence because it is the only way that they can get money to fight radicalization, or rather to fight free speech and expression and also the US Constitution that guarantees such rights as free speech and political expression. You see, no one can get government money to overtly undermine the US Constitution, or to violate our Constitutional rights. They can get millions, even billions to protect our country from the threat of terrorism.
This is why radicalization experts claim that the inevitable consequence of the dreaded disease, radicalization is politically motivated violence, or terrorism. Like rabies, it supposedly gives the appearance of mental illness, but can only be diagnosed as such if it is found in Zionists. Their violence and extremism is always the result of mental illnesses, or its self defense, while the common person’s moral outrage must be the result of radicalization. It is similar to a neurological disorder that prevents a person from being able to see evil as goodness, and goodness as weakness. It is a type of moral dissonance that will not allow an infected person to believe that we are actually seeing our government and military act as an immoral and barbaric conquering force, completely ignoring the laws that we helped to impress upon the world as right and good and essential to peaceful co-existence. Laws like the Geneva Conventions. Yet, since moral dissonance has not been recognized by the AMA as a real mental illness, radicalization remains like rabies, a contagious neurological like disease that supposedly can only lead to violence, and so according to the experts, including the established religious experts who condone and support the war on radicalization, it must be eradicated.
Since aside from the Wall Street robber barons, our government is the only institution that can never run out of money, so long as it has a press that can print money, those who are part of the anti-terrorism industry must always have an angle whereby they can parlay their deep insights into the hearts and souls of the American sheeple, into cold hard government cash, formerly known as taxpayer money. Without much research or study, they know intuitively that enough outrageous behavior by our government and military will lead to the moral outrage of many American people. Eureka! What better way to make a buck than to bank on the fact that a free people will use their rights to free speech and political expression to criticize a government that claims to be representative, yet has clearly adopted a set of values and created for itself a law that is completely opposite of the values and laws of the people it claims to represent.
There is a cure for radicalization, but it doesn’t get much attention. You will almost never hear the word cure even mentioned by radicalization experts. Just like conspiracy theories surrounding cancer research and cures for other deadly diseases, the idea is that if radicalization is cured, the anti-radicalization industry will go out of business, and even worse, all of their lies will be exposed and they will lose credibility, maybe even be put in jail for lying to Congress and other crimes.
The obvious cure for radicalization is truth and accountability. To cure its radicalized citizenry, our government needs only reform, and to respond to the urgings of its people, and also the international community. End these wars; stop supporting dictators and violent despots who oppress their people in exchange for hand outs. Get rid of the double standards, the lying and the greed for power and replace it with common sense and a desire to co-exist peacefully in the world with others of varied cultures, skin colors, languages, religions, etc. Stop coveting the natural resources of others to the extent that rather than to depend upon free market economics, you will stoop to any level in smash and grab operations for oil and other resources that always fail miserably, leaving only hatred, death and destruction behind them.
Unfortunately, there is little hope that our government will opt for the cure anytime soon. So, we the people are left with two options. 1). Shut up and refuse to criticize the government, hide our moral outrage, and just go along hoping that the wars will eventually end and gas prices will one day be 1.50 a gallon or cheaper forever, or 2). Refuse to shut up, and demonstrate our moral outrage in every legal way possible, keeping in mind that the anti-radicalization forces in our Congress are at work trying to find ways to criminalize dissent, which is what radicalization was called previous to the wars. Since word dissent implies some type of patriotism and noble intent, it has been exchanged for the dreaded word, radicalization.
Keep in mind that if you adopt #2, that it is a war after all. If we adopt the mentality of our government and the insane faction of warmongers and imperialists now controlling our government, we will realize that there are no rules. They will either shut us all up, or we will shut their insane arses down. Power to the people.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
America's muderous double standards
There are some people who believe that things happen for a reason, and that everything has meaning. Such people reject the idea that things happen by mere coincidence, or that events and happenings have no relevance in respect to life’s big picture. Whether meaning is derived from the immediate emotional impact, or the symbolism conveyed through the details of such events, many people believe that everything has meaning and that understanding the meaning is where we draw benefit from even the most tragic circumstances.
When several young men attacked an American high school in Columbine Colorado years ago, killing many of their own class mates in a brutal massacre, the media acted in a way that at least appeared responsible. It distracted us from our natural desire to know more about the killers, and to hate them. The media did not dwell upon their religious beliefs or their cultural roots. In respect to the Columbine killings, the media kept our attention focused on the horror of the event, and how bullying and persecution of people can lead to tragic outcomes, like what happened at Columbine.
Very little main street media attention was given to the fact that the Columbine killers had trained, like young men on a mission, seeking proficiency in how to kill human beings with different types of weapons. They even recorded their preparation, and rehearsals as if they wanted to leave a how to book for other tormented souls supposedly seeking revenge against classroom bullies, while spitting into the face of society by killing our children in a coldly calculated, yet gruesome way, then committing suicide, denying society its right to choose to either take revenge or to forgive. The killers judged themselves and executed themselves, leaving the country to wonder who the real victims were, and then to conclude that we were all victims of a tragic set of events that seemingly began with hurt feelings and humiliation based upon a high school social hierarchy that is welcoming only to certain people, and extremely cruel to others.
It was not until several reporters published interviews they conducted with witnesses and parents of surviving victims, that we learned that the there was perhaps more to the Columbine story than what met the eye. As it turned out, the killers did indeed seem to have an ideology and a purpose. As more was learned about the killers, it also seemed that the meaning went far beyond how hatred, powerlessness and resentment can boil over into violent rage. As time passed we learned that the meaning of Columbine perhaps reached back into the religious culture of the killers, a religious culture whose primary feature is the mythical “chosen” status of its adherents, and the supposed gross inferiority, in fact inhumanness of all others.
The victim’s parents, survivors and witnesses told a different story of Columbine than the media. They told a story of heavily armed young men who stalked the halls of the school like mercenaries, questioning victims about their religious beliefs before killing them. One of the survivors said one of the Columbine killers walked up to her and asked “Do you believe in Jesus?” and when she answered “yes,” he shot her. Others said they also heard victims being asked before they were killed, if they believed in Jesus.
From the media we learned that the perpetrators were troubled youths who were victims of bulling and persecution. The media explained to us that these were young people who had perhaps been forced to the fringes of society because of the way they dressed, their choice of music or poor social skills. Listening to the media, it was obvious that its controllers wanted us to feel that in some way, we were as guilty as the perpetrators because we had not as a society acted to end bullying and to address the hazing that is all too common as rights of initiation among our young people, and especially in our high schools. It is also clear that the media did not want us to know that the Columbine murderers were Jewish teenagers who killed non Jews because they believed in Jesus.
Several days ago, an army officer and soldier of the Muslim faith was blamed with carrying out a massacre on a Texas military base. It was a massacre that left 13 American soldiers dead, and 30 injured, some with life threatening injuries. In stark contrast to how the media treated the Columbine story, this event was immediately given a meaning. The media wanted us to know that the alleged perpetrator is Palestinian, that he is Arab and that he is supposedly a devout Muslim. This information was the first and only information that was revealed about the accused shooter, aside from the fact that he was a psychiatrist, and that he was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Immediately following the initial reporting of the incident itself, we were told that the perpetrator was killed and that two other suspects had been detained for questioning. After the FBI arrived, we learned that in fact the alleged perpetrator is still alive, after hours of being mistakenly dead, and that he is Arab, and Muslim. We also learned that the other suspects had been questioned and released, prior to an investigation. Was the real shooter killed, and an Arab and Muslim scapegoat, or rather sacrificial lamb, put in his place?
For hours following the supposed death and later the hospitalization of the alleged Fort Hood perpetrator, the media was saturated with anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic innuendo that while careful not to be too obvious, made it very clear that the media wants us to understand that the meaning of the event is that Islam is a violent ideology that leads its adherents over the top to the commission of violent acts against non Muslims, which is a lie. The tragic incident was also used to make the point that President Obama must send more troops into Afghanistan, that the Patriot Act is still necessary, that it is right for the FBI to send informants to poison the spiritual environment in the mosques, and to entrap young Muslim men into suspected FBI schemes aimed at creating and sustaining fear of Muslims and Islam, and that it was right to kill Imam Luqman. These were all issues our country was deliberating the week that the tragedy at Fort Hood took place, while a UN resolution to send the Goldstone Report to the UN Security Council, charging Israel with war crimes and possible crimes against humanity in Gaza, was also being debated and subsequently passed.
Later, on the day of the tragedy at Fort Hood, as a footnote to the bigger story, we were allowed to know that Fort Hood’s alleged killer was not dead, and had also been a victim of bullying and persecution, and that he did not fit the description of a terrorist or a person acting out for political reasons. We learned that previous to the killings, he had shown signs of anger about plans to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Moral of the story: If you are Muslim or Arab, there is a segment of the US population that wants you to live in fear and to feel guilty for crimes you had nothing to do with and no prior knowledge of. They want you to hide, and to feel ashamed and to be scared. They want you to surrender your Constitutional rights and to self censor, or fear their wrath. They want you to worship their false gods. They are bullies and persecutors mostly with political and even anti-religion agendas. These are the same people who did not want us to know about the possible real meaning of Columbine.
Columbine explains the double standards that we see increasingly in US society. We are a country whose standards of justice differ depending upon your skin color, your economic standing, who you know, and what you claim to believe, and who your victims are. Just as Columbine was very likely a cold and calculated act of religiously motivated terrorism against Christians and those who believe in Jesus, so too the media perpetrated demonization, and vilification of Muslims and Arabs and the subsequent violence resulting from these media stereotypes, against Muslims in the US and abroad.
When several young men attacked an American high school in Columbine Colorado years ago, killing many of their own class mates in a brutal massacre, the media acted in a way that at least appeared responsible. It distracted us from our natural desire to know more about the killers, and to hate them. The media did not dwell upon their religious beliefs or their cultural roots. In respect to the Columbine killings, the media kept our attention focused on the horror of the event, and how bullying and persecution of people can lead to tragic outcomes, like what happened at Columbine.
Very little main street media attention was given to the fact that the Columbine killers had trained, like young men on a mission, seeking proficiency in how to kill human beings with different types of weapons. They even recorded their preparation, and rehearsals as if they wanted to leave a how to book for other tormented souls supposedly seeking revenge against classroom bullies, while spitting into the face of society by killing our children in a coldly calculated, yet gruesome way, then committing suicide, denying society its right to choose to either take revenge or to forgive. The killers judged themselves and executed themselves, leaving the country to wonder who the real victims were, and then to conclude that we were all victims of a tragic set of events that seemingly began with hurt feelings and humiliation based upon a high school social hierarchy that is welcoming only to certain people, and extremely cruel to others.
It was not until several reporters published interviews they conducted with witnesses and parents of surviving victims, that we learned that the there was perhaps more to the Columbine story than what met the eye. As it turned out, the killers did indeed seem to have an ideology and a purpose. As more was learned about the killers, it also seemed that the meaning went far beyond how hatred, powerlessness and resentment can boil over into violent rage. As time passed we learned that the meaning of Columbine perhaps reached back into the religious culture of the killers, a religious culture whose primary feature is the mythical “chosen” status of its adherents, and the supposed gross inferiority, in fact inhumanness of all others.
The victim’s parents, survivors and witnesses told a different story of Columbine than the media. They told a story of heavily armed young men who stalked the halls of the school like mercenaries, questioning victims about their religious beliefs before killing them. One of the survivors said one of the Columbine killers walked up to her and asked “Do you believe in Jesus?” and when she answered “yes,” he shot her. Others said they also heard victims being asked before they were killed, if they believed in Jesus.
From the media we learned that the perpetrators were troubled youths who were victims of bulling and persecution. The media explained to us that these were young people who had perhaps been forced to the fringes of society because of the way they dressed, their choice of music or poor social skills. Listening to the media, it was obvious that its controllers wanted us to feel that in some way, we were as guilty as the perpetrators because we had not as a society acted to end bullying and to address the hazing that is all too common as rights of initiation among our young people, and especially in our high schools. It is also clear that the media did not want us to know that the Columbine murderers were Jewish teenagers who killed non Jews because they believed in Jesus.
Several days ago, an army officer and soldier of the Muslim faith was blamed with carrying out a massacre on a Texas military base. It was a massacre that left 13 American soldiers dead, and 30 injured, some with life threatening injuries. In stark contrast to how the media treated the Columbine story, this event was immediately given a meaning. The media wanted us to know that the alleged perpetrator is Palestinian, that he is Arab and that he is supposedly a devout Muslim. This information was the first and only information that was revealed about the accused shooter, aside from the fact that he was a psychiatrist, and that he was scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Immediately following the initial reporting of the incident itself, we were told that the perpetrator was killed and that two other suspects had been detained for questioning. After the FBI arrived, we learned that in fact the alleged perpetrator is still alive, after hours of being mistakenly dead, and that he is Arab, and Muslim. We also learned that the other suspects had been questioned and released, prior to an investigation. Was the real shooter killed, and an Arab and Muslim scapegoat, or rather sacrificial lamb, put in his place?
For hours following the supposed death and later the hospitalization of the alleged Fort Hood perpetrator, the media was saturated with anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic innuendo that while careful not to be too obvious, made it very clear that the media wants us to understand that the meaning of the event is that Islam is a violent ideology that leads its adherents over the top to the commission of violent acts against non Muslims, which is a lie. The tragic incident was also used to make the point that President Obama must send more troops into Afghanistan, that the Patriot Act is still necessary, that it is right for the FBI to send informants to poison the spiritual environment in the mosques, and to entrap young Muslim men into suspected FBI schemes aimed at creating and sustaining fear of Muslims and Islam, and that it was right to kill Imam Luqman. These were all issues our country was deliberating the week that the tragedy at Fort Hood took place, while a UN resolution to send the Goldstone Report to the UN Security Council, charging Israel with war crimes and possible crimes against humanity in Gaza, was also being debated and subsequently passed.
Later, on the day of the tragedy at Fort Hood, as a footnote to the bigger story, we were allowed to know that Fort Hood’s alleged killer was not dead, and had also been a victim of bullying and persecution, and that he did not fit the description of a terrorist or a person acting out for political reasons. We learned that previous to the killings, he had shown signs of anger about plans to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Moral of the story: If you are Muslim or Arab, there is a segment of the US population that wants you to live in fear and to feel guilty for crimes you had nothing to do with and no prior knowledge of. They want you to hide, and to feel ashamed and to be scared. They want you to surrender your Constitutional rights and to self censor, or fear their wrath. They want you to worship their false gods. They are bullies and persecutors mostly with political and even anti-religion agendas. These are the same people who did not want us to know about the possible real meaning of Columbine.
Columbine explains the double standards that we see increasingly in US society. We are a country whose standards of justice differ depending upon your skin color, your economic standing, who you know, and what you claim to believe, and who your victims are. Just as Columbine was very likely a cold and calculated act of religiously motivated terrorism against Christians and those who believe in Jesus, so too the media perpetrated demonization, and vilification of Muslims and Arabs and the subsequent violence resulting from these media stereotypes, against Muslims in the US and abroad.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Woman's NGO submits Goldstone Report to International Criminal Court
PRESS RELEASE
11/03/09
For Immediate Release
Contact:info@namaw.org
Muslim Women's NGO Submits Goldstone Report to International Criminal Court as part of Communication on situation in Gaza.
Washington DC: Today, the National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW) submitted the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" better known as the Goldstone Report to the International Criminal Court at the Hague in the Netherlands. The report was submitted via e-mail, and also priority mail as documentation and evidence in support of a communication submitted by the group entitled, "Communication on the situation in Gaza and the Goldstone Report."
Under the rules of the International Criminal Court, non state parties can submit Communications to the court that are taken up for analysis and assessment the same as referrals from the UNSC or UN member nation/states. According to article 53 of the Rome Statute, the only difference is that the Court is not automatically complelled to initiate an investigation into the situation brought to its attention as it must when the referral comes from the UN Security Council. The International Court must now review the Communication and the supporting documentaion and evidence, and decide if there is enough probable cause, and supporting documentation to compel an investigation.
Considering that the UNHRC recently endorsed the report, which alleges that Israel committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity in its December 2008 military assault on Gaza, the group is hoping that the court will find Goldstone's report sufficient evidence to compel an investigation, along with reports by the World Health Organization and international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Whereas the Goldstone report only called for action by the court if Israel refused to conduct an investigation of its own into the allegations made in the report, and failed to bring suspected persons to trial, the International Court is now seemingly involved as a result of the appeal made by NAMAW, a UN accredited NGO with the Division on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians, for a Court assessment of the alleged facts and an investigation.
NAMAW Chairwoman Anisa Abd el Fattah says that the group has received confirmation from the Court that the Communication was successfully received. What is left now, is to see if the Court will find the Goldstone report as compelling as many, including the US and Israel might fear.
Along with the allegations of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity as mentioned in the Goldstone Report, the NAMAW communication also alleges that the economic embargo being imposed upon Gaza by Israel and Egypt is genocide, and that Israel also used banned weapons in its December 2008 assault, that included White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium and the DIME which shoots small metal shards into flesh that cannot be removed with serious damage.
NAMAW's Communication to the Court and the supporting documentation will be viewable at the website, namaw.org.
The National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW) is the United State's first and only Muslim woman's pro-life and pro-family organization. We are an accredited NGO with the UN Division on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians and members of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court.
# # #
11/03/09
For Immediate Release
Contact:info@namaw.org
Muslim Women's NGO Submits Goldstone Report to International Criminal Court as part of Communication on situation in Gaza.
Washington DC: Today, the National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW) submitted the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" better known as the Goldstone Report to the International Criminal Court at the Hague in the Netherlands. The report was submitted via e-mail, and also priority mail as documentation and evidence in support of a communication submitted by the group entitled, "Communication on the situation in Gaza and the Goldstone Report."
Under the rules of the International Criminal Court, non state parties can submit Communications to the court that are taken up for analysis and assessment the same as referrals from the UNSC or UN member nation/states. According to article 53 of the Rome Statute, the only difference is that the Court is not automatically complelled to initiate an investigation into the situation brought to its attention as it must when the referral comes from the UN Security Council. The International Court must now review the Communication and the supporting documentaion and evidence, and decide if there is enough probable cause, and supporting documentation to compel an investigation.
Considering that the UNHRC recently endorsed the report, which alleges that Israel committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity in its December 2008 military assault on Gaza, the group is hoping that the court will find Goldstone's report sufficient evidence to compel an investigation, along with reports by the World Health Organization and international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Whereas the Goldstone report only called for action by the court if Israel refused to conduct an investigation of its own into the allegations made in the report, and failed to bring suspected persons to trial, the International Court is now seemingly involved as a result of the appeal made by NAMAW, a UN accredited NGO with the Division on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians, for a Court assessment of the alleged facts and an investigation.
NAMAW Chairwoman Anisa Abd el Fattah says that the group has received confirmation from the Court that the Communication was successfully received. What is left now, is to see if the Court will find the Goldstone report as compelling as many, including the US and Israel might fear.
Along with the allegations of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity as mentioned in the Goldstone Report, the NAMAW communication also alleges that the economic embargo being imposed upon Gaza by Israel and Egypt is genocide, and that Israel also used banned weapons in its December 2008 assault, that included White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium and the DIME which shoots small metal shards into flesh that cannot be removed with serious damage.
NAMAW's Communication to the Court and the supporting documentation will be viewable at the website, namaw.org.
The National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW) is the United State's first and only Muslim woman's pro-life and pro-family organization. We are an accredited NGO with the UN Division on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians and members of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court.
# # #
Sunday, November 1, 2009
African Union holds key to Rafah Crossing: "Will they use it?"
On October 29, 2009, the National Association of Muslim American Women (NAMAW), a US based NGO and member of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinians, sent an appeal to all of the members of the African Union requesting that the African Union take jurisdiction over the Rafah Crossing, and provide the necessary military and security support to insure that the crossing is operated safely, and efficiently.
The African Union, which has adopted the UN Rome Statute as a guide for its own set of human rights laws, has the authority to take jurisdiction from Egypt, since Egypt is a member of the African Union, and bound by its human rights laws, and is subject to the African Union’s authority. It is clear that by keeping the crossing closed, and denying Palestinian’s humanitarian aid, including food, medicines and medical supplies, and also building materials and equipment, that Egypt is in violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Rome Statute that prohibits genocide and crimes against humanity. Egypt is also blatantly violating the African Union’s human rights laws and principles.
It is clear from even a cursory review of the Rome Statute that both Israel and Egypt are in almost certainly in violation of article 6, which prohibits genocide. The Statute describes genocide as “acts committed to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group ...” The statute includes such acts as “ killing members of the group, causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
They are also likely in violation of Article 7, “Crimes against Humanity” which is described by the Rome Statute as “acts committed as part of a widespread or systemic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.” According to the Rome Statute such acts include, but may not be limited to murder, extermination, torture, rape, persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender or other grounds...”
Under the above mentioned definition, the Rome Statue also criminalizes apartheid, and “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body, or physical health.”
Whereas much is being made of Israel’s history of alleged war crimes and refusal to abide by UN resolutions in respect to Palestine, and especially in respect to its continued and illegal economic siege on Gaza, little has been said about the fact that Israel’s embargo could not succeed if Egypt, a supposedly Muslim and Arab nation/state, was not providing full support and cooperation, making it possibly a co-conspirator with Israel in the conduct of these crimes.
Since there is little hope that either the EU or US will use their considerable influence over Israel, to lift the illegal embargo, it is clear that the only hope now is for the people of the Muslim and Arab world to come together to insist that Egypt end its possibly criminal cooperation with Israel, and act according to international law by opening the Rafah Crossing.
There must also be greater pressure applied by the international Muslim religious authorities who can call for Muslim and Arab boycotts of Egyptian goods, along with boycotting Israeli goods, should Egypt also thumb its nose at the African Union.
Muslim, Arab and African people are shocked by Egypt’s stubbornness in respect to permanently re-opening the Rafah Crossing, and many suspect that this stubbornness is being driven by a new lucrative industry that has sprung up in Egypt that is dependant upon illegally confiscated aid and goods intended for Gaza, along with bribes paid by activists who want to enter the strip for humanitarian causes, and also bribes paid by journalists.
Egypt has begun to auction off the goods intended for Gaza that it confiscates from tunnels under the guise of searching for weapons. If the goal is to prevent the re-arming of Gaza, why is food and equipment confiscated and why can’t these confiscated items be delivered by Egyptian security to the Gazans? Previously Egypt burned and even allowed donated foods to rot, rather than to allow the people of Gaza to receive and benefit from the humanitarian aid, illegally confiscated by Egypt at the borders and also in the makeshift tunnels. This shows that it is Egypt’s clear intent to deny the people of Gaza the sustenance and medical aid required for their survival, and that this denial is based purely upon the Egyptian, US, PA and Israeli desire to undermine the elected government, and to overthrow Hamas.
Hopes are high, that since Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddhafi, known for his fiery speeches in support of the Palestinian’s ongoing struggle, is the present head of the AU, that the Union will use its power and authority to end the illegal siege on Gaza by permanently re-opening the Rafah crossing, and possibly bringing charges of genocide and crimes against humanity against Egypt in its own criminal court. The AU can also recommend to the International Criminal Court, that an investigation immediate into Egypt’s wrong doing get underway, while giving jurisdiction over the crossing, which is in Africa, to the African Union.
With winter and the cold weather approaching quickly, it is of the utmost importance that adequate shelter, clothing, food and medical care be made immediately available for the people of Gaza. The African Union holds the key to the Rafah Crossing; let’s pray that they will use that key to save the lives of the people of Gaza.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)