Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Who sparks the tension?

I have mentioned several times in previous posts and do so regularly during political conversation the importance of timing in world events and politics. News Media often give the impression that world events are separate incidents and are usually disconnected from each other. With some exceptions of course, like some action-reaction reports. An example of the exception can be the "War on terrorism" as a reaction to 9/11. While on the other hand an example of disconnected events is Bush winning the elections and then 9/11 attacks.

What I mean to suggest is that 9/11 did not just happen to fall in Bush and the new Con's laps. Iraq was well on the Agenda and 9/11 was the perfect excuse. Is it just coincidence? I don't believe in coincidence. I don't believe that a super power like the US just sits back and waits for things to fall on its lap. Therefore, timing is crucial for understanding world events.

Without going into more detail I will leave you with several questions:

Is it coincidence that there is internal tension between Iraqis now? While there are tensions between the Lebanese? OK, how about tensions between the Palestinians at the same time? Is it coincidence that all these tensions were sparked by a series of violent incidents? A person killed here, and another one there? An explosion here, and another one there?

I don't believe in coincidence.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Saddam's Death Sentence

So finally the death sentence for Saddam has come to pass. I will not discuss the ignorant Arab reaction to it, its legitimacy, nor the politics behind the timings. I am here to propose an alternative death sentence for Saddam, please choose your favorite:

A- Drop him off by helicopter in an undisclosed location and let Iraqis have their way with him

B- Put him in a titanium sealed cage in a public square permitting things like tomatoes,slippers and spit to be hauled but nothing lethal.

C- Put him in a bulletproof glass cage below ground level permitting people to urinate on the porous glass cage eventually filling it up enough for Saddam to drown in it.

D- None of the above, please provide your own preferred method using the comment section.

In conclusion, there is nothing that we can do to Saddam that will bring back the people he killed, nor the injustice he created. Yet death by hanging is not enough for a man like him. I do apologize if this post sounds immature or vulgar. However the intent is to engage the Iraqi and non-Iraqi reaction to the sentence. If you think that Saddam has been wronged, please comment and tell us why.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Conspiracy Theorist

Yet Again! This Conspiracy Theorist (myself) is uttering nonsense. I was reading not too long ago about the European mission to the moon. This gave me (and all other free thinkers) more ammunition to challenge the Apollo Moon landings.

WHAT? Some may ask. "What are you uttering this time? What about the moon landing? I mean surely Iraq, Afghanistan, even September 11th we can understand. What does the moon landing have to do with all of this? You are truly a conspiracy theorist with a lot of time on your hands".

Yes Dear reader, the moon landing might have just been another lie. The US. Government has had experience in lying prior to Iraq 2003 , believe it or not.

Actually I started reading about the Moon landing right before I started this Blog. It dawned on me back then to what extent deception has been fabricated in the past.

So what am I talking about now? Well, I simply will suggest to the reader that the Moon landings never occurred. At least no Man has ever done that. The reasons for my doubt:

- The technology back in 1961 (When Kennedy announced intent to land on the man) to 1969 when Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong was supposed to have landed on the moon , simply was not adequate. As a matter of fact it is probably not adequate now to do so either.

- The track record of other US missions during the space race was worse than the Soviet's in terms of disasters.

- The Politics involved and secrecy till this day.

- Other reasons and incidents that raise a question mark, like the deaths of many of the Apollo personal.

Of course most people who read this post will not feel compelled to believe anything. That is simply because I don't intend to present any argument yet. At this time all I am suggesting to the reader is to consider the possibility, do some research, and then come back later and read my next Moon Landing post.

For now I will leave you with this quote from the BBC and then a question to ponder:

""So far in Europe we have demonstrated landing on a body with an atmosphere successfully, on Titan, and there are several reasons for the failure we had on Mars.

"On the Moon there is no atmosphere; you need a fully controlled landing, so your orbital velocity has to be reduced with a chemical engine. At the moment we do not have all this technology completely available in Europe, so this is what has to be developed."

How can the U.S approximately 40 years ago was able to send a man to the moon during the height/towards the end of the Vietnam war (suggesting expenditure) while Europe during peace time armed with 40 years worth of Technology only managed to Crash a probe on the moon?

The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory, not enough to run any meaningful program to calculate and analyze data to help the Pilot balance the Lunar Module upon Landing and take off. Which means that the pilot would have had to do that manually. Only there is no atmosphere(air) on the moon to support Avionics. In other words nothing a pilot has learnt on Earth really applies on the Moon. Nor would any aircraft on earth work on the Moon.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Globe and Mail Comment Section

This is why we have a war in Lebanon

This Averbach fellow writes "Marlee H. #2 - not that I think anyone on this post can have their minds changed but Israel first started dropping notices of their intent on villages at the very begining of the war. Perhaps you remember the pictures of the residents, (all young males), ripping them up in contempt. Now frankly if I were a member of Hezbollah I too would have ripped up those messages in contempt to show how macho I was. The difference between me and them is that I would have sent my family and especially my children away instead of using them as sheilds." in response to Marlee's comments "Mr. Moderator, perhaps you can post this message, not sure why mine aren't getting posted - is it because I'm against the dropping of bombs, and I'm not sounding pro-Israel as the media would like us all to be? Thank Goodness Israel is dropping more leaflets to let people know they're going to be dropping more bombs.....shame the people can't go anywhere though, given the devastation of their bombs in the area. Also nice to see that they are planning to bomb the only road left for people to get out, this madness has got to stop. This supposedly is to keep Hezbollah from getting more missiles, perhaps then we should ensure the US can't get any more ammunition through to Israel to make the playing fields fair. And for all those worried about nuclear warheads coming from Iran, this is what the government wants us to believe when in actual fact Israel has 200 nuclear warheads at its disposal already, let's hope the US Government doesn't authorise Israel to use them "

Look at the text in red. This is why we have a war. Because such outrageous accusations made about the Lebanese people (whom some of you know as Hizbollah instead) as if they are not human. If Israel comes to terms with the fact that Non-Israelis are humans too, we would not have a war.

So Hizbolla do not love their children now do they? Of course not!!! They are not humans. How can you be a human being if you are fighting the Israelis?

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

An Open letter to Harper

The open letter below was written by some of the members of Shalom-Salaam Montreal, an Arab-Jewish dialogue group in Montreal to which I belong.

The Globe and Mail published it yesterday and it is available as a petition at the link below. I encourage you to sign it along with the 2,450 others who already did and ask people to sign as well.

July 24, 2006
Shame on you, Mr. Harper
The deliberate targeting by the Israeli army of civilian dwellings, cars and food convoys, the destruction of roads and civilian infrastructure, and the consequent death of hundreds of civilians is not a justified self-defence, nor does it constitute a moderate response, Mr. Harper.
"This is unequivocally a war of choice," wrote Israeli columnist Gideon Levy, a choice to destroy any political force that resists its occupation of Arab lands.
The idea that this is self-defence or a response to aggression is naive or cynical.
It is not fair. On July 18, you claimed that violence is not the solution. Why doesn't this apply to Israeli violence? Are you comparing the capture of two soldiers with the destruction of a whole country? After all, Israel also has several captured Lebanese, not to mention the 9,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, including members of the Palestinian parliament. Would this be a reason to destroy Israel? Do you realize the depth of your bias, Mr. Harper?
It is not self-defence. The crisis did not begin with the capture of two Israeli soldiers. It is part of the larger Middle East conflict. It started with the expulsion of two-thirds of the Palestinian population in 1948, and it was exacerbated in the 1967 war when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza.
"An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to create facts by building settlements in occupied territory," wrote former U.S. president Jimmy Carter in 2000. The violence that we witness today is a result of Israel's desire to enforce its occupation. It is not self-defence.
Supporting it is not Canadian. We, Canadians from diverse backgrounds -- including Jews and Israeli Canadians, Arab Canadians, English and French Canadians, and immigrants -- are outraged at your blind support for a policy of aggression that has resulted in the death of hundreds of civilians and massive destruction.
Your government's position is not fostering peace in the region nor Canada's reputation as an honest broker.
We demand that the government of Canada stop supporting Israeli violence, the destructive power of which is far more lethal than the combined violence used by militant non-state groups.
We demand that Canada adopt an objective position, based on international law as well as Canada's historical reputation as a peacemaker -- fostering a Canadian tradition of independent thought and action regarding international diplomacy -- as opposed to support for an unjustified war and a brutal occupation.
This letter was initiated by members of Shalom-Salaam, a Jewish-Arab Montreal dialogue group and has been signed by more than 2000 others. The authors include:

  • Abby Lippman
  • Caroyln Shaffer
  • Rachad Antonius
  • Ehab Lotayef
  • Jihad Bahlis
  • A. Maeser Lemieux
  • Ronit Yarosky
  • Stephen Block
  • Nada Sefian

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Shame ... Oh Lebanon

My heart weeps for you Oh Lebanon!

There is no one to protect you. Unable to defend yourself against falling bombs from the skies. Pounding tons of explosives fired from the sea. Who will save Thee from artillery shells hurled indiscriminately on your people and everything which brings you life support. The free and democratic countries all turn a blind eye towards your suffering. They do not see your dead children for they are not humans. They deserve no peace nor freedom for they are Barbarians. Nothing has changed since the late 1600's. Weren't the native North Americans Barbarians and deserved extinction? You will share the same fate. Accept that fate Oh Lebanon. Look on the bright side, in 200 years from now you will be given an apology and a right to open a casino on a small peace of land which was once yours.

The United Nations, United States, and United Kingdom are United in being slaves to your rapist. The country of Israel. A country which hijacked this world and hijacked its morality and conscience. After all it is only defending itself by raping you Oh Lebanon. It is only defending itself by maiming your children. By shredding your women and destroying everything you built in the last 20 years.

How else can it defend itself? How do you expect it to defend what it took away from you? Do you honestly think it will allow you to take back what is rightfully yours? How dare you resist its aggression Oh Lebanon? There are only one Chosen People.

Do you sincerely think it will allow you to stand for justice and support your raped Palestinian sister? There will be no such nonsense. For no one is human but the sons of Israel.

After all this is what God told us in the Old Testament.

How dare you kidnap soldiers? It is kidnapping isn't it? Those soldiers surely were unarmed. As soldiers usually are. They were helpless and sitting ducks. They were roaming around so peacefully until you kidnapped them.

How dare you ask for the release and exchange the kidnapped with prisoners? Those women and Children in Israel's prisons are criminals, terrorists and prisoners of war. How dare you ask them to be exchanged with unarmed helpless kidnapped soldiers ? How dare you asked for the exchanged of the helpless and unarmed with the dangerous armed killers that are your children?

How dare you Oh Lebanon stir the world's emotions? How dare you ask for justice of this democratic free world? How dare you ask from those countries who can make a difference to do something?

Do you honestly want to wake up their conscience? Let them sleep in their freedom. Do you honestly expect them to stop going to pubs and night clubs and stop smiling because you are being raped? Do you honestly want them to stop making more money and living a peaceful life to stop injustice in another part of the globe? You talk as if you share the globe with them?

How dare you be envious of their freedom? Are you human too?

How dare you Oh Lebanon ask this world to take charge and say enough is enough? How dare you ask: "Who will put an end to this injustice?". HOW DARE YOU!

Do you really expect people to make a difference? It is not humans responsibility to make a difference on this earth. For the earth is not theirs.

Look at the environment. What have you learnt Oh Lebanon from it? Do you see humans securing their own future? Do you see humans put an end to Global Warming? Do you see humans stand up for Big Corporations? Do you see humans stand up for anything right? Humans only stand up to what they are told to stand up for. They will stand up only if their emotions are stirred by mass media. Surely, though mass media will not stir emotions for anyone who is rapped by Israel.

How dare you Oh Lebanon? Shame on you Oh Lebanon. After all it is Arabic men who oppress and rape helpless women. This is unheard of in Democratic and Free countries.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

This is how they pick them ...

Probably just like Zarqawi the new so called "Leader" doesn't even have to exist. Rather he should have a short video footage and a criminal record somewhere (curiously enough in an allied country like Jordan or Egypt).

Even more proof that the Zarqawi stories were all fabrications. What we should learn from this and end up asking ourselves is "What about all the Zarqawi Operations in Iraq?" . "If Zarqawi's existence is a huge question mark. What about all the operations attributed to him? Is it possible that the same people who created the Zarqawi master mind be the ones behind all these operations? I sure think so ...
After all , who would have benefited most from the first Zarqawi attributed operation [ Bombing of the UN HQ ] ? The US of course. After all, they didn't want anyone to interfere in Iraq's post war re-building efforts.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Damn Conspiracy Theories

I find that it is common amongst the average person to brush off most things they hear/read on the internet as being Conspiracy Theories (a label also used by mass media). I find that behaviour odd personally. However understandable considering that the media programs an individual's way of thinking.

For example just like the two extra frames that the Pentagon released to show us the "airplane" crash on 9/11 recently. When CNN reported on it, they labelled the point of view which says that the Pentagon attack was staged as being a Conspiracy Theory. They brushed it off as being an old wives tale. Something absord. While that same reporter couldn't even spot the plane in the extra added frame.

Why is it so hard to believe that a government could conspire? After all didn't they lie? We know they lie, we know they plan, and we know that they are very well capable of conspiring. After all they have enormous methods and means to do so.

We only think it is far fetched because we are programmed by the media to think that way. We are programmed by the media to think that the world of politics is what you see is almost what you get. In fact it is the exact opposite. What you see is nothing but a show.

Below is another so called Conspiracy maybe. However, I am sure people will believe this one. Since MSNBC is telling us it is ok to do so.

Friday, June 09, 2006


What does Landing on the Moon, Abu Mosaab Al-Zarqawi, Osama Bin Laden, and 9/11 all have in common?

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Boogie Man no longer needed

First of all I do apologize in advance for this post. It will be more of a thinking out loud than a proper article with a point to make.

It is funny I posted a piece just a few days ago about Zarqawi. It was the last post before this one. Feel free to check it out. I just heard on the news that he has been killed. A few days after I noticed how he has become useless to the media and the US mission. Has there been too many questions regarding him being a fictisous character?

I think I am really getting the hang of reading politics of the media or through the media. It is amazing how much you can find out just by following the news only from a "birdseye view" if you will.

It is like reading the news a month or so before Hariri was assasinated. Syria was all over the news from supporting the Iraqi insurgency to Lebanon and Hizbollah.

I wonder what this means? Does it mean that the US genuinly wants to secure Iraq? I believe that not until 2008 will Iraq see peace. So I have to wonder why are we hearing about this now?
Of course listening to Bush and Blair they imply clearly that things will not change. Maybe all this means is that they were losing support, and needed a boost to keep public pressure under control?

I also have to wonder about timings. Timing is crucial in understanding world politics and what is really going on. Firs the Canadian terror plot. Now a sign of success agains the "War on Terror". I can certainly foresee that a coillision of Western Puppet Nations (US , Britain and now Canada thanks to the new Conservative Government) will only escalate matters in the short coming future. Canada is already taking many steps in that direction. Unless the Canadian people stop Harper and his Right Wing staunch US Allies they will be dragging their country into a conflict they don't need to be part of.

However with NDP parliment members using ignorant phrases like "They hate our freedom"or if Candians allow themsleves to get brain washed by the media, then Canada will wake up one day not realizing that they have become just like their neighbour to the south. Electing an official who has brought his country no benifet. An official who has lied to his country over and over only to go into one war after another. What do the Americans really gain from a war that serves Israel? Why should a mother living in Ohio send her only son to die for a country like Israel?

Sunday, June 04, 2006


So whatever happened to Al-Zarqawi? Is he not useful anymore?
I guess sort of like Bin Laden after the invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden is now like an old once famous actor. Lets say William Shatner or something. He is now only useful in guest appearances from time to time.

Oh the timing! What does the future hold for you Oh Canada?

Timing is an important part of world politics. Often I find that asking the question of how come it just happened now? Can help you find the answer as to why something happens. We were told this morning that the Canadian police found out about a terrorist plot in and around Toronto.

I just can't help but wonder ... Why did September 11 attacks happen when Bush became president? Why not during the Clinton Administration? Why not 3 years into Bush's presidency? How come it happened when G. W. Bush's ratings were low? How come it happened when the life of his two daughters was under the microscope often on TV. How come it happened when there was a comic TV show just airing about Bushisims? Those shows which he had expressed displeasure about.

So timing can often answer several questions. Then comes another question, how come the Madrid attacks happened just before the Spanish elections? At a time when the opposition clearly expressed its intention to withdraw troops from Iraq? That was during the first year of the war.

Today! In Canada, I can't help but ask the "Why now?" question again. Why now Canada? How come it happens when Stephen Harper is the prime minister? Can Canada be turning into another United States? Can the Canadian government be playing the same trick the US government so skillfully played?

I mean look at the wars the US is waging. Even a controversial war like the invasion of Iraq still has support and backing. There are still some idiots out there who utter words like "We have to support our troops". "The military is protecting our democracy". "They hate our democracy and freedom". The 9/11 attacks were nothing but a ploy to give the US government more freedom in executing its long terms plans.

Moreover, just like the United States government needed public support. What it needs now is allied support. Now Stephen Harper is on the US bandwagon. We can slowly see Canada turn into another US.

I told a friend of mine not too long ago about how I can see Canada slowly turning into the US. How the CBC is airing shows covering the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. A mission which is far from being peaceful. They conduct daily assaults. The Canadian army is but another Arm supporting the USA. While the US army is stretched out in war torn Iraq.

Why this morning Canada? Why do you think that a terrorist plot was foiled under Stephen Harper's clock? You have to ask that question.

This blog is about finding out the truth. To find out the truth there are useful tools. The tools of the skeptics. Why? Where? Who? And How?

- Who benefits most from an event/conflict?
- How come it happens now and not 5 years ago? What if it happened 5 years later?
- What was in the news 10 days ago? 5 days ago? What is the news media really trying to tell you? Every story can be told in 100 ways. Each way will have its influence on the reader. One of sympathy, or to insight fear and hatred. Depending on how the story will serve steering public opinion.

Harper's government and the people who are pulling his strings want to bring the Canadians on board for another war. I fear the future. For those of you with good memories, lets hope you will remember this post and understand what I am trying to tell you then.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Rice admits multiple Iraq errors

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted the US has made thousands of tactical errors in Iraq, but said it was right to remove Saddam Hussein

Does this comment remind you of this Bitch?

Here is a reminder for those who don't see the resemblence :

"In 1996, she made highly controversial remarks in an interview with Leslie Stahl on CBS's Sixty Minutes. Asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Well the difference is that the first Bitch admits that they have committed errors. However, I don't believe that they would admit to committing errors if they really meant it. The only reason this Government would admit to making errors is if they actually want the world to think that they have made errors. When in fact it is deliberate.

After all, with making mistakes should come taking responsibility. However, no one is doing that in that government though.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Status Quo is good enough.

I was looking at some documentaries on the web last night and I came across this interesting piece about the CIA's operations. Here is what an Ex-CIA agent had to say:

"After the Oct crisis of 1962, Kennedy said that we would never physically invade the island(Cuba) if Khrushchev would remove the ballistic missiles. So therefore, the US was forced into a policy of trying to bring Castro down. Which meant disrupting the lifestyle of the Cuban citizen, doing whatever we could to sabotage the economy to discredit the revolution. One way of doing that of course was trying to control the amount of food coming into Havana, before distribution to the public and if we could do that by puncturing tires for a truck loaded with tomatoes for the market or if we could cause a truck of fresh food meat, or Milk, to be contaminated on the way into town. And I remember one particular instance where a brand new secondary school that has opened up in the country side was going to receive its week supply of fresh milk we bribed the driver of the truck, we knew where he stopped to have breakfast on his route we wanted him to take a few extra minutes so we could put cement powder in the milk. We declared war on school children, that shouldn't be the policy of US government.
We don't win friends and influence people that way declaring war on children and innocent civilians , a big mistake
but the US government orders it and participates in it and CIA's goal eventually was to increase frustration to the point where there will be a civil revolution within Cuba to bring him down

What is interesting to note is how such operations can easily be seen happening in a place like Iraq today. Things like lack of security and electricity.

Of course this won't be new to anyone. I strongly believe that the US doesn't want to have a secure Iraq. Whether is it participating in the bombings or not is not news to most people. What most people don't agree on however, is that since the US Government administration says that they want a stable democratically elected government; that means that they really do mean it. They say that the reason Iraq is not stable is because of the insurgency.

I believe that if the US government wants security and stability things will be in a much better shape if not totally secure. This is an indicator that the US would rather maintain the status quo in Iraq.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Bush casts his Iraqi Ballot

"George Bush sent a message via Khalilzad to Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, as head of the Alliance, telling him that George Bush doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister," he said.

Of course this comes as no surprise to me. However, there are some people that actually believe that the US wants to promote democracy in the Middle East.

Actions speak louder than words. People should learn to listen to actions and effects. Rather than what a spokesman of a certain entity would decalre.

The US military action or lack of it in Iraq speaks louder than their claisms to want to help the Iraqi people.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Iraqi PM 'prepared to step down'

Iraqi PM 'prepared to step down'

Even though I have no reason to disrespect Al-Jaafari , but I have to wonder how many lives will it take for someone to give up his seat? The longer it takes to form a government the more time those bickering over seats give for the seeds of civil war to be planted. Mind you I have little faith even in a formed government that it has any power or influence. The fate of Iraq is in the hands of its people.

Maybe Saddam was more popular than we thought he was. It is either that or Iraqis hate foreign occupation so much that they can would form a coalition with the Devil to fight the occupation. Either way, The unrest in Iraq is not done through "insurgency" or a minority of foreign Arabs from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. These are extremely well organized efforts penetrating every level of Government and society. With that said the same questions asked 3 years ago are still valid:

- Why aren't the borders secured yet?
- How long does it take the United States Army to secure a country?
- How long does it take for the United States to learn from its so called "mistakes" ?
- Is the United States Government in dire need of Project Managers? Does the US need PMI courses? Surely, they had a goal, project schedule , dealines to meet?
- What will it take for Iraqis to think in isolation of their emotions ?
- Is it not clear for us to see that the US doesn't want to secure the country?
- Is it not obvious that the US might have an agenda beyond that which it advertises?
- Is it not obvious that the future of Iraq lies in the hands of Iraqis?
- Is it not obvious that supporting a local tribe leader, religious leader, or ethnic represntative only paves the way for a divide and eventually a Civil war?
- Is it not obvious that no one benefits from market bombings and kidnappers?
- Aren't the obstacles in Iraq's way to security well defined?
- Isn't the bickering between Government officials childish?
- Do you really want someone who is more concerned about his seat to take care of your affairs?
- Who benefits from Civil war and violence between Iraqis? The answer is clearly not Iraqis, then the next question is vital
- Why are Iraqis so stupid to allow themselves to be manipulated by anyone and everyone?

Iraqi is on the brink of Civil war. Regardless of what the optimists might say. Optimists are not in touch with reality. Iraq is already socially divided. The Media (from CNN to Al-Jazeera) has been brain washing us with phrases like "Sunni Triangle" since day one. No one was able to see those signs. Not even now. Its a conspiracy and everyone from Bush to Al-Jazeera, to the Ghost of Zarqawi are conspiring against you and me.

Only YOU can change that.

The starting point is simple:

A- Identify all the obstacles(foreign intervention, baseless killing of Iraqis and other civilians, sectarian, ethnic, and separatist politics) without daemonizing any groups.
B- Start with yourself. Change your attitude. Most likely you are someone in need of it.
C- Speak out every time you see something wrong.
D- Keep asking for positive change.

Finally most likely, my words will not echo very far. We will find that a year from Iraq will look like a country swept by Mongol invaders a hundred times in both directions.

Friday, March 03, 2006

How long does a Super Power need to restore Security?

Well I can do what CNN does and bring a panel of experts and ask them questions. However, since I don't have the funding nor the resources I will just use common sense. To be able to answer that question let us look at similar situations across the globe. Going back in time ... We are lucky enough to find many similar situations which we can draw parallels from.

We have Afghanistan and Somalia amongst several others. So how long did it take the US to bring security back to those countries? Well the answer is infinity. That's right, both of those countries are still unsecure. Which makes you wonder, is it possible that the US Super Power is unable to secure a small nation(relatively) like Iraq?

Maybe it just doesn't want to. I have written an e-mail prior to the start of Occupation Iraq in 2003. I had predicted the outcome of the US intervention and what could come out of it. At a time where most Iraqis were optimistic. I think it is worth noting that Iraqis were thinking with their emotions rather than using their logic. Most of them wanted Saddam so bad that they decided to cling to the straw that is the US promise.

[ based on the saying: A drowning person would try to keep afloat even by clinging to a straw ]
or am I mixing up proverbs? If I am , I don't think that George Bush is better than I, and I quote:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas... [doubt] probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on ... [pause and doubt]... shame on you. Fool me [doubt and confusion].. {Mumbles}When you're fooled, you can't get fooled again."

In my forecast I said that Iraqis shouldn't expect life after Saddam to get any better. I wasn't able to forecast lawlessness. I did think that Civil War would breakout. I imagined that many people would die as a result. I did think that people would suffer long term health hazards due tenvironmentalapollutionon caused by Military intervention and Weapons (Depleated Uranium .. etc). It was easy to make predictions as all I had to do is look at the US other example (Afghanistan). I was right ... Iraq has become another Afghanistan ...

The United States Government and Military Officers are not stupid or short sighted. A common minconception oftereferreded to by some news sources. Stating that the US had made miscalculation in Iraq or that they have made mistakes. They haven't, they are having things the way they want them.

Lawlessness serves the US Military machine. After all most targets are Iraqi Civilians and not US camps. All pro-war factions that control the US Government (US Military, Oil Tycoons, Big Corporations, and Zionists) albenefitet from a war torn Iraq.

In fact if the US really intends to restore security and have made a mistake, you would think that by now they would figure out what a commoner like me figured out. Securing the boarders and then Collecting arms and weaponry. No attempts have been made to conduct such efforts. In three years, even you can bring lawfulness to the Animal Kingdom.

Of course many people would argue this point ... Sure lets argue. Lets say it is "not that easy" There is more to it. They have made mistakes ... etc. Better yet, lets say they can't. Well then the next best thing to do is GET OUT! At least that way Iraqis will take it out on each other. Which is bound to happen sooner or later. Only this way, it will be sooner and thus bringing the light at the end of the tunnel closer as well.

Finally, I hope that there aren't any more optimists out there thinking that things will get better based on the Status Quo. The only way things can get better is through change.

As for what that change might be? Welthat'sts a whole different post, maybe even many posts.

While the rest of the world population is sound asleep ...

According to the BBc

Gangs 'kill freely' in Iraq chaos

"Hundreds of bodies showing signs of torture or execution arrive at the Baghdad mortuary each month, a senior UN official has told the BBC."

While ....

"Kurdish and Sunni Arab leaders are unhappy with Mr Jaafari, and have said they will not join a national unity government with him at its head."

I feel guilty just by living a normal life knowing that many people in Iraq are not. I feel pangs of conscience everytime I receive a paycheck or purchase an airline ticket. Despite the fact that probably the most I could do is Blog. While our "Leaders" are bickering like children on a piece of pie.

I suggest that our leaders live outside the Green Zone, so that they can appreciate the seriousness of the situation there. Meanwhile they live in the Green Zone as though they are living in a foreign country. Maybe then they would make security a priority over bickering. Which brings us to the next question. Does the Iraq Government have the ability to stop the violence? If the answer is No, then that only makes me want to write the next post.

Monday, February 27, 2006

Iraq: Who is to blame and what is the solution?

Below is an e-mail I sent to two people each subscribing to a different camp of thought.They had sent too many e-mails back and forth discussing and often arguing about who is to blame and what is the solution to Iraq's problem.
The e-mail is about a year old, I thought though that is still relevant here. One blames Iraqis for digging their own hole, and hence the need for social reform. While the other blames foreign occupation and the need to rid Iraq of that influence.


When I see an e-mail from both of you, all I can say is I agree with what both of you have to say. The thing is, I don't see any contradiction between each of your point of views. Does Iraq need reform? I think you both would agree that they people do need reform. Does Iraq and its resources need to be for Iraqis only? I am sure both of you will still agree. Do we need to have zero foreign intervention? Again yes I am sure both will agree.

We all agree that we have a problem. At least I am assuming ... The first step to solving the problem is understanding it. Therefore we need to know what is the problem at hand? X tends to see the problem being the United States intervention , either prior to the occupation or after. Y seems to see the problem being the Iraqi people again pre and post occupation. In my opinion the answer is both. Foreign intervention utilizes people who are willing to sell their souls for some benefits which the foreigner is willing to offer. Be it empty promises of a better life or financial gain. We know that Saddam was helped into power by the United States. He is an Iraqi who needed reform. I can also see our active politicians running after personal gain now as well. They might not be as brutal as Saddam but they are still corrupt (At least most).

Maybe the disagreement comes in which is our priority? Reform then independence? Or Independence then reform? Well its sort of like the chicken and the egg dilemma.

I believe the answer is actually in lack of a charismatic, smart, clean , and effective leadership.
Someone who would bring all of Iraq under under one flag and have one goal (that of providing a better living for all Iraqis). Iraq is full of good people and intellectuals. Unfortunately it is also full of bad people as well. Especially after years of living under a corrupt government. Maybe the percentage of good versus bad (for lack of a better word which comes to mind) might change based on time and historic events. Foreign intervention will always be there (if allowed) so would those people who would step over everyone else for their personal gain. Iraq is not the only country which has such people, in fact the whole world is like that. The Soviet Union collapsed with the help of such people in my opinion. The west surrounded them with two rich economies and promises of a lifestyle based upon primitive human desires. This is what the whole world subscribes to nowadays. The American Dream so to speak. An empty promise which people tend to fall under its spell. This is Globalization for the few to get richer and the rest to work for them. This happens even in "First World Countries" so to speak. Italy, is a good example despite the majority of the people not wanting to go to war with the Americans, Berlusconi did it anyway. One should ask why do all the rich, developed and "Democratic" countries all follow the United
States policies so blindly? Their economies depend a great deal on the United States or a local group of people who subscribe to this policy that the US also subscribes to.

What does this have to do with Iraq? Well this is an argument for why reform in a certain sense is not a solution. For even, if we do wake up tomorrow with all Iraqis becoming responsible British Citizens, (sarcasms) this will still not solve our problems. It might give us a better life, but we will still be under slavery. On the other hand shouting and chanting national or religious slogans isn't doing us any good either. The answer is the good mix of both. We need to adopt a
better ideology than what we have now. Islamists need to learn more about their true religion which I believe in its truest form would include an Iraq for all Iraqis including non Muslims. We could even call it something else. After all our history has proven that such a nation worked for us in the past. I don't see why it wouldn't worked in the future.

That is my humble opinion, I hope that both of you find common ground that we can move forward. I understand that each would not like what I am suggest but with an open mind and some constructive discussions maybe you could convince me otherwise.

Monday, February 20, 2006

To speak or not to speak ...

Here is a what's on BBC news online this morning:
"British historian David Irving has pleaded guilty in a court in Vienna to charges of denying the Holocaust."

Is it irony that David Irving's freedom to speak will ultimatly curb his freedom behind bars? Its a good thing that this trial has been going on during the outrage of Muslims over the infamous cartoons. Which of course if anything, highlightes Western hypocricy and double standards. One doesn't need to look too far or do too much research to find out that their proclaimed freedom of speech is not that free after all. The only freedom one has is to insult those with no power or influence. In this case of course being the Muslims.

It is interesting to notethe following according to the BBC :

Czech Republic

The Arabs don't make it to the "top 10" if you will quite often. However one thing I find better in the Arabic society than Western cultures is their political awareness. In other words, they know that desptie all the mumbo jumbo that is broadcast in their news or printed in their newspapers that it is all lies. They don't trust their local news, they don't trust their governments and they know that things are not as they seem.

Unfortunatly, western countries exploit this matter. North Americans live their lives in denial thinking that their press will expose conspiracies, corruption and bad apples of society.

Let me tell you , I would rather be lied to and know it. Then to live in denial of being used and manipulated while I am under the impression that I am free and in control.

Do we rather have known enemies or back stabbing friends?

Friday, February 17, 2006

Collective Punishment

Is Collective punishment good or bad?

It seems to be a universal notion that collective punishment is a bad thing. After all, how can you punish someone for a crime a totally different entity committed! Right? I mean look at 9/11 , look what happened there. Were the "terrorists" trying to punish the US government? It sure didn't seem like it. After all the targets were all civilian. At least the ones with casualties.

Obviously, punishing the innocent Office Asistant Mother of 3 children who happened to work in the WTC is not fair. It surely is a bad thing isn't it?

If people disagree then please feel free to elaborate in the comments section, otherwise, lets get down to business. There goes the US Gov. once again trying to punish yet another nation for not joining the band wagon of capitalism. After all if you are not capitalist, then you are against human rights, democracy, and Freedom. The lovely great divine values we all worship.

Back to US Gov's latest business, that would be of course Iran. After all, they are building Nuclear weapons. Iran is a dangerous nation, I mean trust me ... look at their record in the past 30 years. They invaded Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. They also bombed the hell out of other countries like Pakistan, Sudan,Libya had military operation in Panama, etc. The list is longer but I guess I made my point. Sorry what is that? That wasn't Iran? Then who was it? Oh the US, right. But the US doesn't have Nuclear weapons. Nor does it have biological weapons. They don't commit war crimes. They certainly respect human rights don't they? I mean look at Guantanamo Bay. I guess the reader gets the point.

Needless to say, Iran's file needs to go to the Security counsel. After that they will have one of two options. Either suffer economic sanctions or suffer the harmless Depleted Uranium shells courtesy of Uncle Sam. I mean that is the civilized democratic, freedom loving world order's way of doing things. After all Bush said he has nothing against the Iranian people. He is only punishing their government isn't he?

Look how the economic sanctions didn't punish anyone except Saddam Hussein in the 12-13 years they were enforced. Only 1,500,000 Iraqis died then. Mostly children ...
Please don't confuse that with TERRORISM, those two things are not the same at all. I mean terrorism is targeting the civilian population. The sanctions targeted Saddam only.

Excuse me! Are you trying to draw parallels between 9/11 and the sanctions? Terrorism my friend is targeting a building KNOWING that it is civilian and flying something into it. Something with high explosives.

More like the bombing of the Al-Jazeera crew in Baghdad you mean? When they had informed the military that they will be occupying rooms in that specific hotel?

OK stop asking those question, you are confusing me. Its not fair that you compare a free democratic, capitalist country with Third world countries like Iraq and Iran. Its just not fair ...

Bottom line is, they are not democratic, freedom loving countries. After all they are rogue nations. If you don't believe me ask George W. Bush.