It might be an outlandish and a complete sweeping statement to make, but the more and more I learn, the more I can't help but think, the US Marines/army are no better than the Taliban. Why do I think this? They're both headed by war mongering, militant, power hungry men. Both have no qualms about severly breaching human rights in their mission, and both would sooner use weapons than diplomacy to achieve it. The only difference is; the US do this under the cloak of "democracy".
I'm beginning to harbour a severe dislike for the US government and their military institutions, it comes close to my hatred for terrorism. The more I research into American institutions such as prisons, the more I discover just how much is allowed to be swept under the carpet. A point in case? Guantanamo Bay, how is this atrocity still allowed to be running as a fully functional detention facility? Do human rights mean nothing to a country who is supposedly one of the biggest advocates of democracy? It makes me so angry.
I'm beginning to believe that US militancy should be viewed on the same level as the extremism of the Taliban and it will only be, when people realise this and act accrodingly that wars that threaten all levels of society can be avoided. We need to stop terrorism, yes, but as Mahatma Gandhi once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
Monday, 23 May 2011
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Bin Laden was unarmed
New information has revealed that Bin Laden was actually unarmed when he was shot dead. This means that surprise, surprise, the US gorvernment Obama lied to you, to the world. Now I'm in no way defending Bin Laden's character, he was an awful man who orchestrated the most heinous crime, of my time, but you have to question the "democracy" of a country that goes into a mission on an order to kill. Of course they now claim that there was a firefight, but it didn't include Bin Laden but surely the Navy seal are trained extensively in how to deal with these types of situations? Surely they could have reduced the number of fatalities and brought Bin Laden to face his victims and explain his crime, that would have administered true justice, would it not?
The very concept of innocent until proven guilty has just flown out of the window because Bin Laden did not get a trial. Now so many of you are now probably thinking that I am a Bin laden supporter but actually everyone deserves a fair trial, even the most hardened, extremist Nazis were given a trial after the end of WW2 so why does it not apply here? If the man was unarmed he should have been brought to the US to face trial where ultimately an unbiased jury would decide his fate. Unless the US has MORE to hide from the public?
Ultimately Bin Laden was killed and by doing this the US has denied the victims of 9/11 the right to hear why he did what he did, from his own mouth. It just gets you thinking how much more agressive can this "democratic government" get? How much more are they hiding away? Can they keep blaming others, terrorists, Pakistan, the Middle East, for their role in breaching by a massive amount, the human rights they claim they want to protect?
The very concept of innocent until proven guilty has just flown out of the window because Bin Laden did not get a trial. Now so many of you are now probably thinking that I am a Bin laden supporter but actually everyone deserves a fair trial, even the most hardened, extremist Nazis were given a trial after the end of WW2 so why does it not apply here? If the man was unarmed he should have been brought to the US to face trial where ultimately an unbiased jury would decide his fate. Unless the US has MORE to hide from the public?
Ultimately Bin Laden was killed and by doing this the US has denied the victims of 9/11 the right to hear why he did what he did, from his own mouth. It just gets you thinking how much more agressive can this "democratic government" get? How much more are they hiding away? Can they keep blaming others, terrorists, Pakistan, the Middle East, for their role in breaching by a massive amount, the human rights they claim they want to protect?
Monday, 2 May 2011
Bin Laden's dead, but what does it mean for Britain?
I woke up today to the news that Bin Laden has finally been found and killed. His 10 year terror has been put to an end but I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m completely conflicted; on the one hand his death means that the world can let out that 10 yearlong breath they have been holding and the victims that survived, and families of the victims that didn’t can get some sort of closure for the atrocity that was 9/11. On the other hand what does his death mean for the world, for Britain and for any ally, which includes Bangladesh?
At this moment I honestly doubt that Bangladesh will be affected much, the country is not really a world player and though extremism there is on the rise, it is still such a small number that it will not affect the country as a whole. It is for Britain that I worry. The death of Bin Laden has brought on so much celebration across the country, and indeed across the world but people are not looking into the long-term consequences of this.
Whilst celebrations are underfoot, the world has just become a much more dangerous place. I can’t shake the fear that this could lead to a total war- that is a war that affects every member of society in all realms. Bin Laden’s death could, very much be another Franz Ferdinand assassination tale. I just feel like a world war is imminent and it is not solely because of the terrorists.
No one can deny that the west have been aggressive in their “war on terror”, they have we have become aggressive war mongers who have little qualms about the deaths of innocent civilians. US and British air raids have killed many innocent families which include children, yet they have been shaken off as “collateral damage”. Are we really o.k with this? If the same had happened here or in the US would we have been o.k with the victims being called accidents of the “war on terror”. It’s outrageous! This war has become, but maybe always has been, more than one against terror. It’s gone far beyond a war on terror and is now also an expansionist one. Oil, oil, oil? Is it such a precious commodity that governments will put the lives of children, even the lives of their own children, at risk? Why are we supporting a war which is on part driven by economic expansion? The money we spend on bulking up our armies could be used on more worthwhile things- education for all, maybe?
Again I’m conflicted: I hate this war for its innocent victims, I hate this war for its expansionist ways but I can’t deny that it is important to rid the world of terrorism. I can’t forget that if an isolationist approach was taken, Middle Eastern dictators would continue to commit heinous crimes against humanity. What do we do? Can we sit back? No. Should we be aggressive? No.
Diplomacy. Why can we not effectively use diplomacy? What is it about us global powers that means that time and time again international organisations made to prevent further wars (NATO, UN, etc.) fail? In any case Bin Laden’s death and ocean burial (another stupid move on America’s part) should be treated with a pinch of salt; we’ve yet to see the repercussions of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)