The Executive Branch in the United States Federal Government is really challenging the ideal of checks and balances between the branches of government. Now, George W. Bush wants to push the Patriot Act into permanent law.
I see a pattern coming along...
Geoffrey Stone, with Huffington Post, defends his position against Bush's unlimited spying with the fourth amendment. He will also write about the statutory issues in following articles.
Wait, isn't the president supposed to defend the constitution, not go against it?
Bernard Weiner, editor of the Crisis Papers, gave a list of his 12 political insights for 2005.
The Bush Administration has decided that they need to be able to use torture to fight the terrorists. Torture, even though we don't want anyone else to do it to us, we should be able to do it if we need to secure the United States, right?
We must continue the fight for freedom in Iraq; we must not pull our troups out; we must be victorious; a victory in Iraq is a victory against the terrorists. Common phrases for the defenders of the Iraq War. So, what are we really doing in Iraq, anyway? Isn't freedom something for the Iraqi people to win? Isn't victory something for the Iraqi people to accomplish?
As Commander-in-Chief, Bush is doing all this to protect the American people from terrorists. He must be able to defend national security. Even if it means that the role of a checked and balanced government must be overpowered? Did George W. Bush take the literal interpretation that the Executive Branch executes the law, just like Texas executes death-row inmates?
Or are all his actions in an effort to bring into realization a statement he made when first elected as president?
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." --George W. Bush, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."--George W. Bush in Newsweek magazine, July 30, 2001.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Saudi Arabia and Mecca: The 9/11-Iraq Link?
There must be a link to 9/11, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. I think in some odd, obscure way, this history lesson may provide us with one of vital links between the 9/11 terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
If you read the long, boring history lesson, you'll see close to the bottom that they discuss Muslim Shias, and a safe route to Mecca. One of these routes that goes through the Arabian town of Najd, and relied heavily on safe passage through Baghdad to get to Mecca. Now, if you read the last sentence: "During the eighteenth century, Wahhabi ideas, vital to the rise of the Al Saud, would originate in Najd."
Yes, I know you are caught up with Wassabi (Whassup?) and would rather have sushi than read through such a dull history lesson. But, work with me here...
Why would the House of Al Saud care about Iraq and Baghdad? Because the remote village of Najd, would again be a dominant center if it weren't for Baghdad. Is there a concrete connection here? I don't know. Maybe.
Let's go a bit further into the Wass--er Wahhabi sect of Islam. After this reading, you can see a clear link with the 9/11 Taliban and Saudi Arabia. You'll also see the link with Saudi Arabian government with succession of Wahhabi loyalists and their founding predecessors. You can also see from this link, how important Kuwait was to the Saud family during their retreat after unsuccessfully converting the rest of the Middle East to their version of Islam. The extreme majority (90%) of Saudi Arabians are Wahhabi Muslims.
Oh, so you want to know why the US is in bed with the Saudi government? Some writers seem to go to the extreme conspiracy (although the photo of Laura and George Bush with Sami on 3-12-00 is interesting, you'd think that the center of the photo would be on the Bushes). Or this writer, who would lead you to think that the Saud-Bush relationship started with George H. W. Bush.
Yet another brings up the Saudi relationship with the Iraq conflict regarding Kuwait, you know that war George H. W. Bush waged. "On September 11, 1990, Bush (jen edit--that's George H. W.--the US president at the time) addressed a joint session of Congress, saying, "We gather tonight witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia"."--Coincidence?
Ok, ok, enough of the conspiracy. Let's check out family history, that's got to be pretty benign, right? This is quite a family history for the Bush clan. Links to the Spencer family and Lady Di, and even a distant familiarity to John Kerry. Wow.
So, what's the link with the Bush family and the House of Saud? There are many books out there to answer those questions. Could it go back to Prescott Bush and George Walker? Did their dealings with the Nazi regime also give them connections to Saudi Arabia, too?
Did you know that Iraq and Saudi Arabia declared war on Nazi-Germany on September 11, 1939? Is this a part of the link? What's will all these coincidents happening on September 11th--insert year here? What else has happened on other September 11th's? Interesting, the British Mandate over Palestine happened on 9/11/22. The ground breaking for the Pentagon was on 9/11/1941. It is also the date the Sharon Statement was penned in 1960. And a decade later in 1970 on this date the Ford Pinto was introduced, which I think that says it all about the doom of this poor date (all Hollywood car explosions are based from the perspective of the Pinto).
Another odd fact: The beginning of exterminating Christians in Saudi Arabia in August 2001. It is law that the religion of the Saudi land is Islam, and all other religions are not tolerated. So, why does the House of Saud like the Bush family so much, if they can't stand Christians? Does the Bush family prescribe to Christianity--and Islam?
Jen-Aside: Have you ever noticed how similar Saudi Arabia is to Texas, geologically?
If you read the long, boring history lesson, you'll see close to the bottom that they discuss Muslim Shias, and a safe route to Mecca. One of these routes that goes through the Arabian town of Najd, and relied heavily on safe passage through Baghdad to get to Mecca. Now, if you read the last sentence: "During the eighteenth century, Wahhabi ideas, vital to the rise of the Al Saud, would originate in Najd."
Yes, I know you are caught up with Wassabi (Whassup?) and would rather have sushi than read through such a dull history lesson. But, work with me here...
Why would the House of Al Saud care about Iraq and Baghdad? Because the remote village of Najd, would again be a dominant center if it weren't for Baghdad. Is there a concrete connection here? I don't know. Maybe.
Let's go a bit further into the Wass--er Wahhabi sect of Islam. After this reading, you can see a clear link with the 9/11 Taliban and Saudi Arabia. You'll also see the link with Saudi Arabian government with succession of Wahhabi loyalists and their founding predecessors. You can also see from this link, how important Kuwait was to the Saud family during their retreat after unsuccessfully converting the rest of the Middle East to their version of Islam. The extreme majority (90%) of Saudi Arabians are Wahhabi Muslims.
Oh, so you want to know why the US is in bed with the Saudi government? Some writers seem to go to the extreme conspiracy (although the photo of Laura and George Bush with Sami on 3-12-00 is interesting, you'd think that the center of the photo would be on the Bushes). Or this writer, who would lead you to think that the Saud-Bush relationship started with George H. W. Bush.
Yet another brings up the Saudi relationship with the Iraq conflict regarding Kuwait, you know that war George H. W. Bush waged. "On September 11, 1990, Bush (jen edit--that's George H. W.--the US president at the time) addressed a joint session of Congress, saying, "We gather tonight witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia"."--Coincidence?
Ok, ok, enough of the conspiracy. Let's check out family history, that's got to be pretty benign, right? This is quite a family history for the Bush clan. Links to the Spencer family and Lady Di, and even a distant familiarity to John Kerry. Wow.
So, what's the link with the Bush family and the House of Saud? There are many books out there to answer those questions. Could it go back to Prescott Bush and George Walker? Did their dealings with the Nazi regime also give them connections to Saudi Arabia, too?
Did you know that Iraq and Saudi Arabia declared war on Nazi-Germany on September 11, 1939? Is this a part of the link? What's will all these coincidents happening on September 11th--insert year here? What else has happened on other September 11th's? Interesting, the British Mandate over Palestine happened on 9/11/22. The ground breaking for the Pentagon was on 9/11/1941. It is also the date the Sharon Statement was penned in 1960. And a decade later in 1970 on this date the Ford Pinto was introduced, which I think that says it all about the doom of this poor date (all Hollywood car explosions are based from the perspective of the Pinto).
Another odd fact: The beginning of exterminating Christians in Saudi Arabia in August 2001. It is law that the religion of the Saudi land is Islam, and all other religions are not tolerated. So, why does the House of Saud like the Bush family so much, if they can't stand Christians? Does the Bush family prescribe to Christianity--and Islam?
Jen-Aside: Have you ever noticed how similar Saudi Arabia is to Texas, geologically?
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Saddam Hussein Defends American People
When you see a madman rant and rave, you think nothing comprehendable would emit from his mouth. Many have said that Saddam Hussein is a madman. I think he is an experienced dictator who, even though he was known to kill his enemies in his country and elsewhere, does think rather coherently in his own way.
One statement Saddam Hussein made recently, made me come to the conclusion that he is not as mad a man as many pose him to be. I read it in an article from Bloomberg.com (see title link), where Saddam said, "Our enemy is not the American people. Our enemy is the American government which is destroying Iraq."
What kind of message is Saddam sending with this statement? In so many words, this statement in essence is true.
The American people collectively are not the enemy of Iraq. If anything, most Americans probably wish that Iraq can live as many of us do, without fear of daily violence, unprovoked attack, theft of property, unwarranted incarceration and death of loved ones. I know that is what I pray daily for Iraqis and people all over the world who have to daily deal with unwanted violence and evil acts.
I am grateful that Saddam Hussein has spoken to the world, and hopefully the terrorists have heard, that the American people are not the enemy.
It is true that the American government authorized the attacks on Iraq and started the Iraq war. It is true that war creates great destruction, of places, people and establishments. Thus, as the Iraq War continues, the American government is destroying Iraq.
Claiming enemies is subjective, and if Saddam wishes to claim the American government is the enemy of Iraq, that is his opinion. Now, Bush followers will say that the American government wants what is best for the Iraqi people, so the US government can't be the enemy of Iraq. Is war the best thing for the Iraqi people?
Would you want war continuing in your hometown? No? Then, stop wishing it upon other people! Creating a war in another country that had no direct links to 9/11, just to keep terrorists off US soil is at the least a crock.
(Psst. What's up with Saudi Arabia, where most all of the 9/11 terrorists originated? That's because we are in bed with the Saudi royalty. The American government will ensure nothing happens there that goes against the Saudi royal family. You think there's any "strategery" going on between the Bushes and the Saudis?)
Terrorists will strike whenever and where ever they like and a war in Iraq isn't going to keep them from plotting another attack on US soil. All it does is exhaust our own military on foreign soil, so that when we do need to defend US soil, we will be too spread out in the world to help ourselves.
My Christmas Wish is that the whole world will live in peace and harmony. Sure, it's a distance from reality, but I think I read somewhere that with God anything is possible. World domination does not create peace and harmony. War does not create peace.
War is a way for governments to impose change for their own betterment on people that do not normally in their right minds want such a change.
One statement Saddam Hussein made recently, made me come to the conclusion that he is not as mad a man as many pose him to be. I read it in an article from Bloomberg.com (see title link), where Saddam said, "Our enemy is not the American people. Our enemy is the American government which is destroying Iraq."
What kind of message is Saddam sending with this statement? In so many words, this statement in essence is true.
The American people collectively are not the enemy of Iraq. If anything, most Americans probably wish that Iraq can live as many of us do, without fear of daily violence, unprovoked attack, theft of property, unwarranted incarceration and death of loved ones. I know that is what I pray daily for Iraqis and people all over the world who have to daily deal with unwanted violence and evil acts.
I am grateful that Saddam Hussein has spoken to the world, and hopefully the terrorists have heard, that the American people are not the enemy.
It is true that the American government authorized the attacks on Iraq and started the Iraq war. It is true that war creates great destruction, of places, people and establishments. Thus, as the Iraq War continues, the American government is destroying Iraq.
Claiming enemies is subjective, and if Saddam wishes to claim the American government is the enemy of Iraq, that is his opinion. Now, Bush followers will say that the American government wants what is best for the Iraqi people, so the US government can't be the enemy of Iraq. Is war the best thing for the Iraqi people?
Would you want war continuing in your hometown? No? Then, stop wishing it upon other people! Creating a war in another country that had no direct links to 9/11, just to keep terrorists off US soil is at the least a crock.
(Psst. What's up with Saudi Arabia, where most all of the 9/11 terrorists originated? That's because we are in bed with the Saudi royalty. The American government will ensure nothing happens there that goes against the Saudi royal family. You think there's any "strategery" going on between the Bushes and the Saudis?)
Terrorists will strike whenever and where ever they like and a war in Iraq isn't going to keep them from plotting another attack on US soil. All it does is exhaust our own military on foreign soil, so that when we do need to defend US soil, we will be too spread out in the world to help ourselves.
My Christmas Wish is that the whole world will live in peace and harmony. Sure, it's a distance from reality, but I think I read somewhere that with God anything is possible. World domination does not create peace and harmony. War does not create peace.
War is a way for governments to impose change for their own betterment on people that do not normally in their right minds want such a change.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Mission Impossible: Bar Set Too High for Iraq?
Finally, President George W. Bush has set goals and a definition of "victory" in Iraq. The White House recently released the President's "Strategy for Victory in Iraq" on their website. I haven't read the whole thing, but there's a nice little executive summary on the link. I might just print out the whole thing and use it for toilet reading or a bedtime story.
The executive summary shows a noble, almost humanitarian exercise from President Bush, and almost impossible mission to accomplish for the United States. I highly doubt that the United States itself can achieve within our own country what the President is outlining for Iraq.
I know what you are thinking. This is a plan for Iraq. Yes, it is. But, substitute Iraq in the executive summary with United States and see that in many of the goal statements, there is at least one point that even we in the United States have not accomplished in our almost 225 years of existence. How are we going to be able to accomplish these goals in a country that has lived thousands of years as a completely different culture and society than our own?
I think it is the intention, be it conscious or not, that the President will have this war persist in perpetuity. Yes, this is a time to start praying, if you haven't already done so already (if 9/11 didn't wake your spiritual senses, arouse them now). The Middle East has historically been a hot bed for unrest, and now our country thinks it can change all that by war, with little to no recourse or negative repercussions.
I think this Iraq War was originally played out to us as a quick war, just like the war on terror, we'd be in and out and it would hardly change our lifestyle and very few lives would be lost. Remember the 1990s Gulf War? Yeah, I'm thinking that when congress issued that blank war check to the President, that it would be just like the Gulf War. If you even just read this executive summary, you will see that the mission is not simple nor easy to accomplish.
The President wants to change the lifestyle and mindset of a people who have never collectively considered such a change. Changing someone else's mind is difficult to impossible, especially when they have been raised and conditioned to think otherwise. Now, we think that a war with all its violence and terror can change these people's minds to think more kind and considerate to each other, put aside their differences and live harmoniously? Get real.
War was not the answer from day one. We didn't need war to get Saddam Hussein out of power (that could have been accomplished covertly, by working with and empowering the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam themselves, thus giving themselves hope that they themselves could rebuild their country on their own). We don't need continued war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people (unless we just want to upset the rest of the Iraqis who weren't upset at us before). We need to change our strategy from war to peace with Iraq. Work with the citizens of Iraq, not war with them.
Let them build their country. Sure they may just build another country that hates the United States, but I think that will happen regardless now that we have ticked them off with our violent war strategy.
Let's consider some history for a perspective. So, what were the perimeters with World War II? How was victory defined and accomplished for World War II? When did rebuilding begin, before or after victory was achieved? If you think back in history, we have achieved victory by removing Saddam Hussein from his leadership position, just as victory was achieved in the European theater by the demise of Adolf Hitler. Rebuilding Germany did not happen during the war. (Oh, I could bring up Grandpappy Prescott Bush's involvement in WWII, but maybe later.)
Yes, I know that we are trying to defeat terrorism. Psst. We will never defeat terrorism with violence. War defeats humanity. The only winners in war are the war businesses. Time is lost, kindness is lost, innocence is forever lost in time. The hearts of all who are involved in war are permanently scarred, and the ability to love is extinquished. War breeds all things hateful.
Read about CNN's email responses on the Iraq plan. What do you think of President Bush's Iraqi victory plan?
The executive summary shows a noble, almost humanitarian exercise from President Bush, and almost impossible mission to accomplish for the United States. I highly doubt that the United States itself can achieve within our own country what the President is outlining for Iraq.
I know what you are thinking. This is a plan for Iraq. Yes, it is. But, substitute Iraq in the executive summary with United States and see that in many of the goal statements, there is at least one point that even we in the United States have not accomplished in our almost 225 years of existence. How are we going to be able to accomplish these goals in a country that has lived thousands of years as a completely different culture and society than our own?
I think it is the intention, be it conscious or not, that the President will have this war persist in perpetuity. Yes, this is a time to start praying, if you haven't already done so already (if 9/11 didn't wake your spiritual senses, arouse them now). The Middle East has historically been a hot bed for unrest, and now our country thinks it can change all that by war, with little to no recourse or negative repercussions.
I think this Iraq War was originally played out to us as a quick war, just like the war on terror, we'd be in and out and it would hardly change our lifestyle and very few lives would be lost. Remember the 1990s Gulf War? Yeah, I'm thinking that when congress issued that blank war check to the President, that it would be just like the Gulf War. If you even just read this executive summary, you will see that the mission is not simple nor easy to accomplish.
The President wants to change the lifestyle and mindset of a people who have never collectively considered such a change. Changing someone else's mind is difficult to impossible, especially when they have been raised and conditioned to think otherwise. Now, we think that a war with all its violence and terror can change these people's minds to think more kind and considerate to each other, put aside their differences and live harmoniously? Get real.
War was not the answer from day one. We didn't need war to get Saddam Hussein out of power (that could have been accomplished covertly, by working with and empowering the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam themselves, thus giving themselves hope that they themselves could rebuild their country on their own). We don't need continued war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people (unless we just want to upset the rest of the Iraqis who weren't upset at us before). We need to change our strategy from war to peace with Iraq. Work with the citizens of Iraq, not war with them.
Let them build their country. Sure they may just build another country that hates the United States, but I think that will happen regardless now that we have ticked them off with our violent war strategy.
Let's consider some history for a perspective. So, what were the perimeters with World War II? How was victory defined and accomplished for World War II? When did rebuilding begin, before or after victory was achieved? If you think back in history, we have achieved victory by removing Saddam Hussein from his leadership position, just as victory was achieved in the European theater by the demise of Adolf Hitler. Rebuilding Germany did not happen during the war. (Oh, I could bring up Grandpappy Prescott Bush's involvement in WWII, but maybe later.)
Yes, I know that we are trying to defeat terrorism. Psst. We will never defeat terrorism with violence. War defeats humanity. The only winners in war are the war businesses. Time is lost, kindness is lost, innocence is forever lost in time. The hearts of all who are involved in war are permanently scarred, and the ability to love is extinquished. War breeds all things hateful.
Read about CNN's email responses on the Iraq plan. What do you think of President Bush's Iraqi victory plan?
Monday, November 21, 2005
Pick Our Battles: Potter Pokes
Funny when you're trying to find something else online and wind up finding something that pertains to something that it is not intended... (See link in title.)
My mom listens to Christian radio quite a lot, religiously, I would say. And when Harry Potter came out, and then the Christian hype that it would make children Satan-worshippers, my mom heard it on Christian radio. And, you know Christian radio only espouses the truth.
When I happened upon this article on the web, I had to chuckle when I read it, because there were way too many undertones of other misgivings we hear so much as of late about terrorism and the Iraq war.
I'm not saying that everything we hear about terrorism and Iraq is parody (just most everything I hear), but that as Christians we need to pick our battles. And pick them wisely. Too often, we think that if we don't do something about it, some person under our watch will be damned to hell. Don't you think that our Christian God is too weak to do anything. Because he isn't.
God wants us to be vigilant to him, not to our enemies. Whenever we become more vigilant to our enemies (evil Harry Potter magic, or terrorism, or WMDs, or militant factions), the more we have turned our back on God (we can't think of both hatred and love at the same time). God will take care of our enemies, we just need to give our care to God.
So, what am I saying? We shouldn't fight terrorism? No, not exactly. As Christians, maybe we should fight terrorism the way God wants us to fight it... with God's love, not with selfish revenge. God will take care of the rest.
By the way, in this post Jen has been replaced by some spirit that actually thinks clearly and coherently, and values love above and beyond all else. I'm sure Jen will need to comment on her spirit's writing, so that she can retain her earthly desire to poke at things she really doesn't need to, unless it's for a laugh or two.
My mom listens to Christian radio quite a lot, religiously, I would say. And when Harry Potter came out, and then the Christian hype that it would make children Satan-worshippers, my mom heard it on Christian radio. And, you know Christian radio only espouses the truth.
When I happened upon this article on the web, I had to chuckle when I read it, because there were way too many undertones of other misgivings we hear so much as of late about terrorism and the Iraq war.
I'm not saying that everything we hear about terrorism and Iraq is parody (just most everything I hear), but that as Christians we need to pick our battles. And pick them wisely. Too often, we think that if we don't do something about it, some person under our watch will be damned to hell. Don't you think that our Christian God is too weak to do anything. Because he isn't.
God wants us to be vigilant to him, not to our enemies. Whenever we become more vigilant to our enemies (evil Harry Potter magic, or terrorism, or WMDs, or militant factions), the more we have turned our back on God (we can't think of both hatred and love at the same time). God will take care of our enemies, we just need to give our care to God.
So, what am I saying? We shouldn't fight terrorism? No, not exactly. As Christians, maybe we should fight terrorism the way God wants us to fight it... with God's love, not with selfish revenge. God will take care of the rest.
By the way, in this post Jen has been replaced by some spirit that actually thinks clearly and coherently, and values love above and beyond all else. I'm sure Jen will need to comment on her spirit's writing, so that she can retain her earthly desire to poke at things she really doesn't need to, unless it's for a laugh or two.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Muslim Defense
Dennis Prager of the LA Times is finally asking Muslims the questions that many of us have been milling in our heads ever since 9/11. This linked article is fascinating to read, just because it brings to light many of the frustrations I've encountered in trying to understand the proclaimed peaceful Muslim religion and culture and why they aren't outraged about these militant Muslims giving them a bad name and reputation.
He brings up a good point about the virtual non-existence of Christian terrorists. I think that after the negative effects from the crusades, Christians learned that to be Christian you have to follow Christ's example. I guess to answer why there are Muslim terrorists, we have examine their example, Muhammad, and see where there are similarities and differences to make an attempt to understand their perspective.
Oh, no. Am I getting too serious here? Oops. Depression sinking in... Eeck.
Nothing like Howard Jones' "Things Can Only Get Better" to get my toes tapping. "Whoa, whoa, who-o-ah..." It's really playing on the radio as I type. Ironic, eh?
Maybe these terroristic Muslims are listening to the wrong music. Maybe the solution to terrorism, instead war and torture, is to have them listen to positive, hope-filled music (hey, it worked in Ghost Busters 2, didn't it?).
Instead of army bases, we need to set up dance halls and discos that solely play positive, up beat, non-violent music. Maybe that's what we all need.
SMILE! And listen to positive music! You can make a difference.
He brings up a good point about the virtual non-existence of Christian terrorists. I think that after the negative effects from the crusades, Christians learned that to be Christian you have to follow Christ's example. I guess to answer why there are Muslim terrorists, we have examine their example, Muhammad, and see where there are similarities and differences to make an attempt to understand their perspective.
Oh, no. Am I getting too serious here? Oops. Depression sinking in... Eeck.
Nothing like Howard Jones' "Things Can Only Get Better" to get my toes tapping. "Whoa, whoa, who-o-ah..." It's really playing on the radio as I type. Ironic, eh?
Maybe these terroristic Muslims are listening to the wrong music. Maybe the solution to terrorism, instead war and torture, is to have them listen to positive, hope-filled music (hey, it worked in Ghost Busters 2, didn't it?).
Instead of army bases, we need to set up dance halls and discos that solely play positive, up beat, non-violent music. Maybe that's what we all need.
SMILE! And listen to positive music! You can make a difference.
They knew the time had come...
Last night I was watching the School House Rock DVD with my son and was struck when I heard this from one of the tunes:
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
... There's a section where there is talking in this tune that isn't listed on the lyrics sheet, but that is what really got me. It said basically that a country shouldn't withhold the basic rights of its citizens and when it does the citizens should demand a new government. I will write the verbage down and put it here later. --Stay tuned! ...
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
That was the tune, No More Kings. For some reason, I think this is the way revolutions are supposed to take place. It takes the willing work of the people wanting freedom to do it on their own. The more they depended on the King, the more that the King demanded and the more the King took advantage of them.
I don't think things are too differently in Iraq right now, nor are they too different here in the US. Even here in the US, we are seeing how government is taking advantage not only of the situation in Iraq but also how we are losing basic rights for the cause of the fight against terrorists. US Leaders are coming out of the woodwork to state their disdain for the state of human affairs and rights from the US government to other countries and to our own people. Among those leaders is the former President Jimmy Carter, who's kind and gentle disposition doesn't normally see such public outcry as his article "This isn't the real America" in the LA Times. Read the article, then please post your comments to the following questions.
So, are you ok with losing some basic rights to fight terrorism?
Are you ok with anyone representing the US to torture or advocate violence to anyone for any reason?
Should torture and violence be a primary activity for anyone representing the US?
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
... There's a section where there is talking in this tune that isn't listed on the lyrics sheet, but that is what really got me. It said basically that a country shouldn't withhold the basic rights of its citizens and when it does the citizens should demand a new government. I will write the verbage down and put it here later. --Stay tuned! ...
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
That was the tune, No More Kings. For some reason, I think this is the way revolutions are supposed to take place. It takes the willing work of the people wanting freedom to do it on their own. The more they depended on the King, the more that the King demanded and the more the King took advantage of them.
I don't think things are too differently in Iraq right now, nor are they too different here in the US. Even here in the US, we are seeing how government is taking advantage not only of the situation in Iraq but also how we are losing basic rights for the cause of the fight against terrorists. US Leaders are coming out of the woodwork to state their disdain for the state of human affairs and rights from the US government to other countries and to our own people. Among those leaders is the former President Jimmy Carter, who's kind and gentle disposition doesn't normally see such public outcry as his article "This isn't the real America" in the LA Times. Read the article, then please post your comments to the following questions.
So, are you ok with losing some basic rights to fight terrorism?
Are you ok with anyone representing the US to torture or advocate violence to anyone for any reason?
Should torture and violence be a primary activity for anyone representing the US?
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
London Beat Rocks: Terrorism, Revenge or Finely Orchestrated PR Tactic?
Originally penned Friday, July 1, 2005
PM Tony Blair quickly announced that today’s bombings of public transport in London was terrorism. But was it?
It’s easy to cry “terrorism” these days. It is a household word used daily anymore. The Oklahoma City bombing was that way, too. (Why do I keep referring to that?) Oh, how terrible. It must be terrorism. Foreign terrorism. With Oklahoma City, we quickly put our collective foot in our mouth when we indeed found out that two US citizens inflicted the tragedy.
Sure. In some ways, the London bombings are terrorism, no matter who did it or why. It certainly inflicted terror in many commuters today and caused London to stand still for a while. So, why did this happen? You really think it is some European “al-Queda”? Really? I am going to give you two other scenerios to ponder.
Scenerio One:
The day after London was declared the place for the 2012 Olympics, a major component to the Olympic games—public transportation—was targeted. Is this coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
I know what you’re thinking. Sure, it took a group a while to plan such an attack, but it also took a long time to plan a bid for the 2012 Olympics, too. After 9/11, New York City heavily vyed for a chance to host the Olympics and win back the trust of the world’s tourists to visit their city again. Paris was also in the running for the 2012 Olympic games, only to be outdone by their competitive neighbor to the north.
These attackers knew that the Olympic commission would show favoritism toward London, and knew that their fair city would not be selected. A quick and decisive attack on the newly announced winner of the 2012 Olympics would get the Olympic Committee’s attention to the weaknesses of their selection and may get them to change their minds on the choice.
Scenerio Two:
Two of the world leaders at the G8 summit in Scotland has their #1 mission to be the battle against “terrorism.” How fitting, indeed, to have terrorism hit right after the G8 summit begins. Especially since the G8’s current top two goals are tackling global warming and aid to Africa (hey, wasn’t that Bob Geldoff’s mission in the 1980s??).
The terror attack on London today is fitting to change the G8’s discussions and focus instead on Bush and Blair’s terrorism campaign. Oddly enough, I can see how global warming and African aid are somehow linked to Bush’s war on terror. I hope you can follow me here:
1) Global warming is to reducing emissions in vehicles to reducing oil and fossil fuels consumption to reducing dependence on Middle East Oil to reducing Bush’s finances and reducing Bush’s allies, the Saudis.
2) African aid is to availability of yellow cake is to making WMDs is to claim war in Iraq. (Ok, don’t go there, you say.)
Do you see the tendency and need to orchestrate some type of ploy to change the topic at the G8?
Ok, alright, let’s just say that it truly was from the European al-Queda.
Scenerio Three:
Yup, they sure did it, the European al-Queda. They have been infiltrating European countries and changing the make-up from Christian to Moslem for at least a decade now. It is all a part of their plot to take over the world, first discreetly as they bring their Middle East families and move to northern regions, including Denmark and other Scandinavian countries that offer climes vastly different from their own.
These countries start figuring out that, hey, Muslims are now the second largest religion in the country, they are taking us over, and we need to change our immigration policies so that we don’t lose our traditions and identity. The European al-Queda goes into stage two of their plot to take over Europe and the world.
Stage two begins with the bombing of London, concurrently with the G8 summit and the announcement of the location for the 2012 Olympic Games. (Side note: The European al-Queda plans to take over the world in time to host the 2012 Olympic Games in battle torn Jerusalem where the games will take on a more barbaric twist. More of that to follow.) This stage continues with more bombings in other European hot spots, until the whole of Europe and most of America (no bombing in the USA necessary since we are already stripping ourselves of our own freedoms now) bows to their every whim, which will be a clandestine event where most of the world will not know that the European al-Queda is behind it all.
And then, stage three, covert Russian and Chinese government forces come public with their joint exercises with the European and Middle Eastern al-Queda groups. Come to find out that it was the Russian group, in a wish to continue the new cold war, wanting to get back at the USA and their allies that truly instigated the London bombings. With four para-military groups at the four corners of the world, they are able to corner any freedom-loving population and easily take them over.
Stage four is set with the 2012 Olympics, relocated to Jerusalem, the center of hot-bed activities on Earth, and now the center of the new Muslim nation. This holy city is inundated with the victors of the final world war and a feast of military prowess as they pit their enemies together in battles to the death in very twisted Olympic-style games.
Armagedon. Apocolypse. Muslim freedom. Far-fetched. Whatever you want to call it. This third scenario foreshadowing is mostly in jest, but in some ways, anything could happen. We, as a naeve society, never thought all the events of 9/11 and thereafter were possible on September 10, 2001.
PM Tony Blair quickly announced that today’s bombings of public transport in London was terrorism. But was it?
It’s easy to cry “terrorism” these days. It is a household word used daily anymore. The Oklahoma City bombing was that way, too. (Why do I keep referring to that?) Oh, how terrible. It must be terrorism. Foreign terrorism. With Oklahoma City, we quickly put our collective foot in our mouth when we indeed found out that two US citizens inflicted the tragedy.
Sure. In some ways, the London bombings are terrorism, no matter who did it or why. It certainly inflicted terror in many commuters today and caused London to stand still for a while. So, why did this happen? You really think it is some European “al-Queda”? Really? I am going to give you two other scenerios to ponder.
Scenerio One:
The day after London was declared the place for the 2012 Olympics, a major component to the Olympic games—public transportation—was targeted. Is this coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
I know what you’re thinking. Sure, it took a group a while to plan such an attack, but it also took a long time to plan a bid for the 2012 Olympics, too. After 9/11, New York City heavily vyed for a chance to host the Olympics and win back the trust of the world’s tourists to visit their city again. Paris was also in the running for the 2012 Olympic games, only to be outdone by their competitive neighbor to the north.
These attackers knew that the Olympic commission would show favoritism toward London, and knew that their fair city would not be selected. A quick and decisive attack on the newly announced winner of the 2012 Olympics would get the Olympic Committee’s attention to the weaknesses of their selection and may get them to change their minds on the choice.
Scenerio Two:
Two of the world leaders at the G8 summit in Scotland has their #1 mission to be the battle against “terrorism.” How fitting, indeed, to have terrorism hit right after the G8 summit begins. Especially since the G8’s current top two goals are tackling global warming and aid to Africa (hey, wasn’t that Bob Geldoff’s mission in the 1980s??).
The terror attack on London today is fitting to change the G8’s discussions and focus instead on Bush and Blair’s terrorism campaign. Oddly enough, I can see how global warming and African aid are somehow linked to Bush’s war on terror. I hope you can follow me here:
1) Global warming is to reducing emissions in vehicles to reducing oil and fossil fuels consumption to reducing dependence on Middle East Oil to reducing Bush’s finances and reducing Bush’s allies, the Saudis.
2) African aid is to availability of yellow cake is to making WMDs is to claim war in Iraq. (Ok, don’t go there, you say.)
Do you see the tendency and need to orchestrate some type of ploy to change the topic at the G8?
Ok, alright, let’s just say that it truly was from the European al-Queda.
Scenerio Three:
Yup, they sure did it, the European al-Queda. They have been infiltrating European countries and changing the make-up from Christian to Moslem for at least a decade now. It is all a part of their plot to take over the world, first discreetly as they bring their Middle East families and move to northern regions, including Denmark and other Scandinavian countries that offer climes vastly different from their own.
These countries start figuring out that, hey, Muslims are now the second largest religion in the country, they are taking us over, and we need to change our immigration policies so that we don’t lose our traditions and identity. The European al-Queda goes into stage two of their plot to take over Europe and the world.
Stage two begins with the bombing of London, concurrently with the G8 summit and the announcement of the location for the 2012 Olympic Games. (Side note: The European al-Queda plans to take over the world in time to host the 2012 Olympic Games in battle torn Jerusalem where the games will take on a more barbaric twist. More of that to follow.) This stage continues with more bombings in other European hot spots, until the whole of Europe and most of America (no bombing in the USA necessary since we are already stripping ourselves of our own freedoms now) bows to their every whim, which will be a clandestine event where most of the world will not know that the European al-Queda is behind it all.
And then, stage three, covert Russian and Chinese government forces come public with their joint exercises with the European and Middle Eastern al-Queda groups. Come to find out that it was the Russian group, in a wish to continue the new cold war, wanting to get back at the USA and their allies that truly instigated the London bombings. With four para-military groups at the four corners of the world, they are able to corner any freedom-loving population and easily take them over.
Stage four is set with the 2012 Olympics, relocated to Jerusalem, the center of hot-bed activities on Earth, and now the center of the new Muslim nation. This holy city is inundated with the victors of the final world war and a feast of military prowess as they pit their enemies together in battles to the death in very twisted Olympic-style games.
Armagedon. Apocolypse. Muslim freedom. Far-fetched. Whatever you want to call it. This third scenario foreshadowing is mostly in jest, but in some ways, anything could happen. We, as a naeve society, never thought all the events of 9/11 and thereafter were possible on September 10, 2001.
Have We Forgotten, Already?
Originally penned Monday, June 27, 2005
The tenth anniversary of one of the most saddening days in our country’s history was celebrated, almost in silence, compared to the issues we face daily with the current tension our country faces.
The day was almost a blur to me as I was preparing for my wedding that weekend, but the reality came to me slowly after the event. On a sunny, spring day in 1995, terrorists bombed the Murray Building in Oklahoma City. That bleak day in April, most everyone thought that it was an attack from foreign terrorists. Only a few years earlier, foreign terrorists attempted to blow up the World Trade Centers in New York City with the same concept: rigging a rental van with explosives. This time it was again a rental van with home-made explosives that saw the fate of several hundred people in that government building in Oklahoma City.
No one ever thought it would be home-grown terrorism.
After all the investigations, the evidence and the trials, two citizens of the United States of America had their due process, were convicted and punished for their crimes—legally.
Another sad day in our country’s history is practically emblazoned into everyone’s memory: 9/11. Before September 11, 2001, if someone mentioned the numbers 9 -1 - 1, someone would have thought you were talking about the nation-wide emergency response phone number. (Was it a coincidence that this national state-of-emergency happened on 9/11?) I think much of the world mourned on September 11, 2001 after seeing the events of terrorism unfold on that fateful day, and realizing that not only US citizens but many foreign nationals died as a result of carefully crafted plans by known international terrorists were executed. People died on that day, and our national “innocence” died on that day, as well.
It wasn’t like these terrorists caught us blind-sided, as was the case with the Oklahoma City bombing. I remember seeing a news clip on The Daily Show when George W. Bush celebrated a birthday in July 2001 by golfing with his dad, the former 41st president, George Bush (remember the baseball caps with “43” and “41” on them??). The scene held the younger Bush fielding questions in his golf cart from reporters (valid reporters, not a Daily Show reporter). One reporter asked Dubya about the rising reports of possible terrorist threats in the US. Dubya casually blew off the reporter’s question as a non-issue, while he diligently picked off sod between the spikes on his golf shoes. Apparently, that sod was a more pressing issue to the President. The elder Bush could be seen next to his son with steam just about to burst from his ears. I can vividly remember saying to my husband, Dubya will live to regret that statement. To this day, not one news department (not even The Daily Show) has rebroadcast that revealing news clip. This is just one of many examples that we as a government, and as a people, knew that terrorist threats were mounting in the United States.
Sure, this happened before, even when Bill Clinton was in the White House. And, most all of those threats ended with terrorist attacks against American interests abroad. The only time terrorists had previously launched a large-scale attack on US soil was the mostly unsuccessful first attempt to annihilate the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993.
However, the terrorist threats in 2000 and 2001 seemed different to me. They seemed to take on a different aura about them. And it seemed the more terrorist threats were reported, the more it seemed the Bush Administration was brushing them off. This seemed so against the nature of the presidency not to at least validate these terrorist threats, and not to make any attempt to protect the citizens of the US.
Then, the morning of September 11, 2001 happened. Oddly enough, the vice president was “running” some air training session with some aerial bombers around the Capitol city. The president was reading children books in an elementary school in Florida. The media estimated that around 11,000 people work in and around the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks, however a little over 2,000 people lost their lives. It didn’t seem that there were 9,000 people that rushed out of those buildings alive on that fateful day. Odd that thousands of people would not be at work on 9/11, isn’t it? There were people that knew something was up that day. And then there are people, even to this day, think that we were caught by complete and utter surprise with these terrorist attacks.
It was quite evident that these were foreign terrorists, a militant Muslim faction, attacking on 9/11. The more investigation into these acts, the more we find out that they were quite frank about their actions. They felt justified and we feel victimized. What is the justification? Who ultimately has victimized us as US citizens?
Now, as we continue in a war waged in other countries against other citizens, many as innocent as those lost in Oklahoma City and the attacks of 9/11, the actions of our government in waging wars continues to give justification to these militant groups, and adds to their numbers those disenfranchised with the way the United States treats their country and their people.
We cannot and should not forget the lives that these senseless acts of terrorism stole from us. Nor should we ever forget the lessons we should have learned from this terrible event.
The tenth anniversary of one of the most saddening days in our country’s history was celebrated, almost in silence, compared to the issues we face daily with the current tension our country faces.
The day was almost a blur to me as I was preparing for my wedding that weekend, but the reality came to me slowly after the event. On a sunny, spring day in 1995, terrorists bombed the Murray Building in Oklahoma City. That bleak day in April, most everyone thought that it was an attack from foreign terrorists. Only a few years earlier, foreign terrorists attempted to blow up the World Trade Centers in New York City with the same concept: rigging a rental van with explosives. This time it was again a rental van with home-made explosives that saw the fate of several hundred people in that government building in Oklahoma City.
No one ever thought it would be home-grown terrorism.
After all the investigations, the evidence and the trials, two citizens of the United States of America had their due process, were convicted and punished for their crimes—legally.
Another sad day in our country’s history is practically emblazoned into everyone’s memory: 9/11. Before September 11, 2001, if someone mentioned the numbers 9 -1 - 1, someone would have thought you were talking about the nation-wide emergency response phone number. (Was it a coincidence that this national state-of-emergency happened on 9/11?) I think much of the world mourned on September 11, 2001 after seeing the events of terrorism unfold on that fateful day, and realizing that not only US citizens but many foreign nationals died as a result of carefully crafted plans by known international terrorists were executed. People died on that day, and our national “innocence” died on that day, as well.
It wasn’t like these terrorists caught us blind-sided, as was the case with the Oklahoma City bombing. I remember seeing a news clip on The Daily Show when George W. Bush celebrated a birthday in July 2001 by golfing with his dad, the former 41st president, George Bush (remember the baseball caps with “43” and “41” on them??). The scene held the younger Bush fielding questions in his golf cart from reporters (valid reporters, not a Daily Show reporter). One reporter asked Dubya about the rising reports of possible terrorist threats in the US. Dubya casually blew off the reporter’s question as a non-issue, while he diligently picked off sod between the spikes on his golf shoes. Apparently, that sod was a more pressing issue to the President. The elder Bush could be seen next to his son with steam just about to burst from his ears. I can vividly remember saying to my husband, Dubya will live to regret that statement. To this day, not one news department (not even The Daily Show) has rebroadcast that revealing news clip. This is just one of many examples that we as a government, and as a people, knew that terrorist threats were mounting in the United States.
Sure, this happened before, even when Bill Clinton was in the White House. And, most all of those threats ended with terrorist attacks against American interests abroad. The only time terrorists had previously launched a large-scale attack on US soil was the mostly unsuccessful first attempt to annihilate the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993.
However, the terrorist threats in 2000 and 2001 seemed different to me. They seemed to take on a different aura about them. And it seemed the more terrorist threats were reported, the more it seemed the Bush Administration was brushing them off. This seemed so against the nature of the presidency not to at least validate these terrorist threats, and not to make any attempt to protect the citizens of the US.
Then, the morning of September 11, 2001 happened. Oddly enough, the vice president was “running” some air training session with some aerial bombers around the Capitol city. The president was reading children books in an elementary school in Florida. The media estimated that around 11,000 people work in and around the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks, however a little over 2,000 people lost their lives. It didn’t seem that there were 9,000 people that rushed out of those buildings alive on that fateful day. Odd that thousands of people would not be at work on 9/11, isn’t it? There were people that knew something was up that day. And then there are people, even to this day, think that we were caught by complete and utter surprise with these terrorist attacks.
It was quite evident that these were foreign terrorists, a militant Muslim faction, attacking on 9/11. The more investigation into these acts, the more we find out that they were quite frank about their actions. They felt justified and we feel victimized. What is the justification? Who ultimately has victimized us as US citizens?
Now, as we continue in a war waged in other countries against other citizens, many as innocent as those lost in Oklahoma City and the attacks of 9/11, the actions of our government in waging wars continues to give justification to these militant groups, and adds to their numbers those disenfranchised with the way the United States treats their country and their people.
We cannot and should not forget the lives that these senseless acts of terrorism stole from us. Nor should we ever forget the lessons we should have learned from this terrible event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
