This afternoon my wife read an article in the Daily Kos about a boycott of Netflix. The reason is that Netflix bowed to a Saudi Arabian request not to make available an episode of a series that was critical of Saudi Arabia.
I cancelled our Netflix account which was rather easy.
But then I did my own reading about the boycott. See https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hasan-minhaj-responds-netflix-saudi-arabia_us_5c2cf80be4b0407e90875e85.
The request was limited to not making it available in Saudi Arabia. Still, I think I’ll let the cancellation stand. If I get any meaningful explanation from Netflix, I’ll consider re-subscribing. Meanwhile, we’ll visit the public library more often for DVDs.
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 02, 2019
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Dollar a gallon gas?
Oil ends lower as U.S. drillers add to rig count
2017-11-10 2:43 PM ET (MarketWatch)
Trump wants to open up Alaskan oil.
Will gasoline be down to a dollar per gallon?
Remember that many North Dakota drillers gave up because it was not profitable for them. Then OPEC dropped its production and prices got better for U.S. oil. See https://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529852301/boom-time-again-for-u-s-oil-industry-thanks-to-opec.
As the above MarketWatch item states, more production lowers prices.
2017-11-10 2:43 PM ET (MarketWatch)
Trump wants to open up Alaskan oil.
Will gasoline be down to a dollar per gallon?
Remember that many North Dakota drillers gave up because it was not profitable for them. Then OPEC dropped its production and prices got better for U.S. oil. See https://www.npr.org/2017/05/24/529852301/boom-time-again-for-u-s-oil-industry-thanks-to-opec.
As the above MarketWatch item states, more production lowers prices.
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Hypocritic oath and an ignored reading
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.
Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote. Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
"In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."
Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .
U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.
Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote. Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
"In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."
Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Islam prohibits music?
My wife has been visiting her sister outside Bradford, Ontario this past week. They often gathered around the TV to watch the news. But at home we don’t even have a TV, we get most of our news by reading three or more newspapers online.
I kidded her that every minute she watches TV news her IQ goes down one point. It would take her three minutes of reading a newspaper to gain it back. We went back and forth with text messages about what she found interesting and I countered with stories she probably wouldn’t see on TV.
To prove my point, I visited the Toronto Globe and Mail website to get a sample of news she probably wouldn’t see on TV. One story that jumped out at me was “Mandatory music classes hit a bad note with some Muslim parents” by Colin Freeze and Mahnoor Yawar. Strange, I didn’t know that Islam forbade music to its followers. After all there is “Ey Iran”, a patriotic Iranian song. And don’t most Islamic countries have military bands?
See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/mandatory-music-classes-strike-sour-note-with-muslim-parents/article31716832/.
I emailed a Muslim friend about this article. His response included that “music is not forbidden in Islam if the additional message (oral or video) in the music is not against any other principle of Islam.”
I looked up military bands and found that even the Saudis have one. The Saudis promote a very rigid form of Islam called Wahhabism. You would think if anybody would prohibit music, it would be the Saudis. The Saudi military band played the “Star Spangled Banner” for President Obama as well as playing the Saudi national anthem. I found a picture of Iranian military trombonists marching past then President Ahmadinejab. If Islam prohibited music, you would think the Ayatollahs would prohibit a military band.
I searched Talal Itary’s translation of the Qu’ran and found no mention of music.
Ah ha! it must be in the Hadith: a collection of commentaries that followed the writing of the Qu’ran. A Google search for “hadith" and “music” turned up some very strong admonitions about any music. For example, http://www.islamiq.sg/2011/04/hadith-evidence-music-haram.html. This article gives a very strong prohibition against music of any kind.
Other articles give a more generous interpretation of hadith: https://controversialislam.wordpress.com/music-banned-in-islam/. Supposedly other hadith have Muhammad suggesting sending a singer to a wedding: “The Ansar are a people who love poetry. You should have sent along someone who would sing, ‘here we come, to you we come, greet us as we greet you.’”
To think that all hadith apply to all Muslims is like thinking that all the Pope’s encyclicals or all the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod apply to all Christians.
What should apply to all believers, Muslim or otherwise, is the equivalent of “...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)
I kidded her that every minute she watches TV news her IQ goes down one point. It would take her three minutes of reading a newspaper to gain it back. We went back and forth with text messages about what she found interesting and I countered with stories she probably wouldn’t see on TV.
To prove my point, I visited the Toronto Globe and Mail website to get a sample of news she probably wouldn’t see on TV. One story that jumped out at me was “Mandatory music classes hit a bad note with some Muslim parents” by Colin Freeze and Mahnoor Yawar. Strange, I didn’t know that Islam forbade music to its followers. After all there is “Ey Iran”, a patriotic Iranian song. And don’t most Islamic countries have military bands?
See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/mandatory-music-classes-strike-sour-note-with-muslim-parents/article31716832/.
I emailed a Muslim friend about this article. His response included that “music is not forbidden in Islam if the additional message (oral or video) in the music is not against any other principle of Islam.”
I looked up military bands and found that even the Saudis have one. The Saudis promote a very rigid form of Islam called Wahhabism. You would think if anybody would prohibit music, it would be the Saudis. The Saudi military band played the “Star Spangled Banner” for President Obama as well as playing the Saudi national anthem. I found a picture of Iranian military trombonists marching past then President Ahmadinejab. If Islam prohibited music, you would think the Ayatollahs would prohibit a military band.
I searched Talal Itary’s translation of the Qu’ran and found no mention of music.
Ah ha! it must be in the Hadith: a collection of commentaries that followed the writing of the Qu’ran. A Google search for “hadith" and “music” turned up some very strong admonitions about any music. For example, http://www.islamiq.sg/2011/04/hadith-evidence-music-haram.html. This article gives a very strong prohibition against music of any kind.
Other articles give a more generous interpretation of hadith: https://controversialislam.wordpress.com/music-banned-in-islam/. Supposedly other hadith have Muhammad suggesting sending a singer to a wedding: “The Ansar are a people who love poetry. You should have sent along someone who would sing, ‘here we come, to you we come, greet us as we greet you.’”
To think that all hadith apply to all Muslims is like thinking that all the Pope’s encyclicals or all the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod apply to all Christians.
What should apply to all believers, Muslim or otherwise, is the equivalent of “...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.” _ Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light”, v. 22)
Thursday, December 24, 2015
There really are only two religions
What? You think there are dozens of major religions and thousands of sects within them. That may be true when you consider that many people believe in a long list of do’s and don’ts that are peculiar to their particular “religion”. But if you look beyond the creeds and admonitions, you will find that are only two basic belief systems: generosity to others and narrow systems of “we are right and you are wrong”. And all the major religions have many generous believers and far too many hateful believers.
In the third and fourth centuries there were major fights over what the exact natures were of God and Christ. Often these fights were more political than religious, often depending on the belief of the current Roman Emperor. Those who didn’t hold the right belief could be exiled and have their writings burned.
These persecutions of others in the name of Christianity continued through the centuries and into this century.
We have Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who set out to rid Spain of “heretics”, generally meaning Jews and Muslims. He was more merciful than some of his predecessors; he didn’t torture suspects without the testimony of at least two witnesses of “good nature”. John Calvin was instrumental in the burning of Michael Servetus at the stake along with his books. His crime: denying the Holy Trinity. The Ku Klux Klan upheld “Christian morality” by bombing black churches, killing innocent children.
On the other hand, we have many examples of Christian generosity. The Quakers were very active in the anti-slavery movement. Florence Nightingale tended to the wounded and dying in the Crimean War. Mother Theresa cared for the dying in India. Martin Luther King, Jr. called for non-violent resistance to segregation and other maltreatment of blacks and others.
Islam has been called a religion of peace, but human arrogance has subverted it, just as it subverted Christianity. Muhammad had not been dead long before his followers started bickering over who was his rightly heir. If I’m reading the Wikipedia entry on Sunni-Shia correctly, Sunnis believe the leader of Islam is selected by consensus and Shias believe the leadership is inherited by descendants of Muhammad. There are many more differences, many similar to the Protestant-Catholic split in Christianity.
Just like with Christianity, many wars have been fought between these two groups over the centuries. Meddling from “Christian” powers has exacerbated these differences in the last hundred years, opening the old sores of the Crusades. We have Muslim-Muslim violence and Muslim-Christian violence. Shias blow up Sunni mosques and Sunnis blow up Shiite mosques. Sunni Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Shiite Iran to gain to much influence and Iran doesn’t want Saudi Arabia to gain much influence. Into this antagonism is thrown the wild card of Daesh (aka Islamic state). Daesh shows about as much mercy as did the “Christians” mentioned above.
An interesting aspect of the Koran are the injunctions to have proof for your knowledge. This may be why in the Dark Ages of Christianity, Arab mathematics and science were making great strides.
I didn’t have time to check it out thoroughly, but some say that Islam means peace. Google Translate didn’t give me this, but a Wikipedia entry on Islam did say that Islam comes from the trilateral root s-l-m. One of these words is “salaam” for peace. Hm, close to the Hebrew “shalom”.
Charity, especially to the poor, is one of the five pillars of Islam. The word for charity is zakat, which also means purification.
One Islamic charity is the Red Crescent, the equivalent of the Red Cross. I haven’t read much about it recently, but it has been active in disasters.
Two well-known Muslims who come to mind with a more peaceful outlook are Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunis, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Malala is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by terrorists who didn’t think girls should be in school. Fortunately for her and many others, she survived the attack.
Muhammad Yunis is the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank provides low-interest, small loans to the poor. These loans have allowed many people to start small businesses to support themselves.
We often think of Buddhists as being pacifists. “One’s mind should be free from hurting or harming others” and several other sayings. Unfortunately, down through the centuries, Buddhists have been involved in wars and killing. Think of the “King of Siam”. The news has recently had many stories of Buddhist rioting against Muslims. Of course, the Taliban didn’t help by destroying Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon. The first Muslims killed by Burmese were in the 11th Century. In the 17th Century Muslims who fled India after losing a war of succession were killed after a dispute with a Burmese pirate king. Some modern Muslims have fled Burma to Thailand where they have been put in several refugee camps. There are also reports that the Thai military towed boatloads of Muslims out to sea and left them there.
Fortunately, we have Buddhists like the Dalai Lama. A refugee from his own country, he still manages to be cheerful and work to promote peace. He too won a Nobel Peace Prize.
If I put a damper on your Christmas cheer, I’m sorry. But remember that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of the “Prince of Peace”. I hope that the examples I gave of people of different faiths working for peace will give you hope for a brighter future. With our help, the religion of generosity will prevail.
Also in the Reader Weekly, 2015-12-24 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/12/24/6439_there_really_are_only_two_religions
In the third and fourth centuries there were major fights over what the exact natures were of God and Christ. Often these fights were more political than religious, often depending on the belief of the current Roman Emperor. Those who didn’t hold the right belief could be exiled and have their writings burned.
These persecutions of others in the name of Christianity continued through the centuries and into this century.
We have Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who set out to rid Spain of “heretics”, generally meaning Jews and Muslims. He was more merciful than some of his predecessors; he didn’t torture suspects without the testimony of at least two witnesses of “good nature”. John Calvin was instrumental in the burning of Michael Servetus at the stake along with his books. His crime: denying the Holy Trinity. The Ku Klux Klan upheld “Christian morality” by bombing black churches, killing innocent children.
On the other hand, we have many examples of Christian generosity. The Quakers were very active in the anti-slavery movement. Florence Nightingale tended to the wounded and dying in the Crimean War. Mother Theresa cared for the dying in India. Martin Luther King, Jr. called for non-violent resistance to segregation and other maltreatment of blacks and others.
Islam has been called a religion of peace, but human arrogance has subverted it, just as it subverted Christianity. Muhammad had not been dead long before his followers started bickering over who was his rightly heir. If I’m reading the Wikipedia entry on Sunni-Shia correctly, Sunnis believe the leader of Islam is selected by consensus and Shias believe the leadership is inherited by descendants of Muhammad. There are many more differences, many similar to the Protestant-Catholic split in Christianity.
Just like with Christianity, many wars have been fought between these two groups over the centuries. Meddling from “Christian” powers has exacerbated these differences in the last hundred years, opening the old sores of the Crusades. We have Muslim-Muslim violence and Muslim-Christian violence. Shias blow up Sunni mosques and Sunnis blow up Shiite mosques. Sunni Saudi Arabia doesn’t want Shiite Iran to gain to much influence and Iran doesn’t want Saudi Arabia to gain much influence. Into this antagonism is thrown the wild card of Daesh (aka Islamic state). Daesh shows about as much mercy as did the “Christians” mentioned above.
An interesting aspect of the Koran are the injunctions to have proof for your knowledge. This may be why in the Dark Ages of Christianity, Arab mathematics and science were making great strides.
I didn’t have time to check it out thoroughly, but some say that Islam means peace. Google Translate didn’t give me this, but a Wikipedia entry on Islam did say that Islam comes from the trilateral root s-l-m. One of these words is “salaam” for peace. Hm, close to the Hebrew “shalom”.
Charity, especially to the poor, is one of the five pillars of Islam. The word for charity is zakat, which also means purification.
One Islamic charity is the Red Crescent, the equivalent of the Red Cross. I haven’t read much about it recently, but it has been active in disasters.
Two well-known Muslims who come to mind with a more peaceful outlook are Malala Yousafzai and Muhammad Yunis, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Malala is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by terrorists who didn’t think girls should be in school. Fortunately for her and many others, she survived the attack.
Muhammad Yunis is the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank provides low-interest, small loans to the poor. These loans have allowed many people to start small businesses to support themselves.
We often think of Buddhists as being pacifists. “One’s mind should be free from hurting or harming others” and several other sayings. Unfortunately, down through the centuries, Buddhists have been involved in wars and killing. Think of the “King of Siam”. The news has recently had many stories of Buddhist rioting against Muslims. Of course, the Taliban didn’t help by destroying Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon. The first Muslims killed by Burmese were in the 11th Century. In the 17th Century Muslims who fled India after losing a war of succession were killed after a dispute with a Burmese pirate king. Some modern Muslims have fled Burma to Thailand where they have been put in several refugee camps. There are also reports that the Thai military towed boatloads of Muslims out to sea and left them there.
Fortunately, we have Buddhists like the Dalai Lama. A refugee from his own country, he still manages to be cheerful and work to promote peace. He too won a Nobel Peace Prize.
If I put a damper on your Christmas cheer, I’m sorry. But remember that Christmas is a celebration of the birth of the “Prince of Peace”. I hope that the examples I gave of people of different faiths working for peace will give you hope for a brighter future. With our help, the religion of generosity will prevail.
Also in the Reader Weekly, 2015-12-24 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/12/24/6439_there_really_are_only_two_religions
Monday, April 13, 2015
The perfect test for “blasphemy”
A Saudi blogger has already suffered fifty lashes for "blasphemy" by asking for more discussion of religion in Saudi Arabia. But can his accusers really know that he has committed "blasphemy" against Allah or that he is only disturbing their world view?
I propose the following test of blasphemy.
If a person is accused of blasphemy, he or she should be staked out just after sundown on a clear night in a field that is at least one hundred feet from any structure. If the person has actually insulted Allah, then Allah will send a lightning bolt to kill or injure the "blasphemer". After all, did not God send down fire to light Elijah's water-soaked offering?
If the accused is not harmed by a lightning bolt from Allah, then the accuser should undergo the following. The accuser should be tied to a ten-meter metal pole on the night of prolonged thunderstorms. If the accuser is killed during the night, then we can assume that it is Allah's will. If the accuser survives the night, then the accused and the accuser should ask forgiveness of each other.
And forgiveness is the basic tenet of all religions, irregardless of how the "believers" ignore this bedrock principle.
I propose the following test of blasphemy.
If a person is accused of blasphemy, he or she should be staked out just after sundown on a clear night in a field that is at least one hundred feet from any structure. If the person has actually insulted Allah, then Allah will send a lightning bolt to kill or injure the "blasphemer". After all, did not God send down fire to light Elijah's water-soaked offering?
If the accused is not harmed by a lightning bolt from Allah, then the accuser should undergo the following. The accuser should be tied to a ten-meter metal pole on the night of prolonged thunderstorms. If the accuser is killed during the night, then we can assume that it is Allah's will. If the accuser survives the night, then the accused and the accuser should ask forgiveness of each other.
And forgiveness is the basic tenet of all religions, irregardless of how the "believers" ignore this bedrock principle.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The myths of fighting terrorism
President George W. Bush used “War on Terrorism” over and over again, and, like many before and after him, thought that military might from air or ground could stop the terrorism. But these actions only foment more terrorism. In fact, these actions in and of themselves are terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Thursday, September 04, 2014
Is ISIS Islam's Ku Klux Klan?
The Ku Klux Klan has a corrupt version of Christianity. If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely. ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) has a corrupt version of Islam. If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely.
The Klan wore white hoods to hide their identity. ISIS wears black hoods to hide their identity.
The Klan is still alive and well in the U.S., maybe not as deadly as before, but just as hateful towards those they don’t like. See “At Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members”, Al Baker, New York Times, 2014-08-29. The Klan’s targets are immigrants.
The Klan bombed black churches. ISIS bombs Shiite mosques.
Christian leaders outside the South condemned the Ku Klux Klan. Those Christian leaders in the South who spoke out against the Klan would be intimidated overtly or covertly. An illustration of how much courage it took to stand up for the rights of Negros is “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee.
Muslim leaders outside the areas controlled by ISIS have spoken out against ISIS. One is Othman Atta, Executive Director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Some British imams have issued a fatwa calling ISIS “heretical” and stating that it is “prohibited to support or join” ISIS. A Muslim cleric in India declared ISIS is “not just anti-Islamic but are enemies of humanity as well.” I can’t verify it with multiple sources, but supposedly ISIS executed 12 clerics in Mosul because they would not swear fidelity to ISIS.
For more see “How Islamic State resembles the Ku Klux Klan”, Brian Denson, The Oregonian, 2014-08-24, http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/how_islamic_state_isis_resembl.html
Some are calling on President Obama to do something about ISIS and do it yesterday. But what can the United States do other than make matters worse? It is an outside power that really doesn’t understand all the dynamics of other countries and cultures. Look at the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were in turn caused by one man, Osama bin Laden, a former ally, who didn’t like the U.S. putting troops into his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden decided to strike back at the U.S. and did so several times. Will ISIS strike back in similar ways?
Consider that fighting ISIS may be fighting two enemies with different agendas. ISIS are a set of fanatical jihadists who want everyone to follow their way or die. They are allied with Sunnis who resent the Iraqi government, dominated by Shias, exercising too much control over the Sunni dominated areas.
Wouldn’t you think that Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would be under a bigger threat from ISIS than the U.S. would? All of these have bigger armies than ISIS. It seems only Iran is making any known effort to contain ISIS, and even that is trying to be done with a low profile.
The United States gave over one billion dollars in military assistance to Egypt in 2012. Egypt can easily spend that as it sees fit. It has an estimated annual military budget over seven billion dollars. ISIS supposedly has stolen over two billion dollars, but who will be selling it arms and how much of that money can it actually access and use, like gold bullion?
Saudi Arabia is a big customer of military suppliers. It has 233,500 active military personnel, over a thousand tanks, and over 200 attack aircraft. Should not that force be sufficient to overwhelm ISIS with firepower and personnel? ISIS has more than ten thousand fighters as of July 2014 and estimates keep climbing. Even if ISIS has 100,000 fighters, would they be a match for Saudi Arabia with all of its aircraft?
King Abdul of Saudi Arabia said recently, “Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.”
Turkey has been fighting ISIS at its border with some success, but groups like ISIS will keep coming back.
It seems this is another case of “Let’s you and him fight.” Let the U.S. come in and settle other people’s problem (or think it had) and let the U.S. take the blame if things go wrong. When it comes to war, Murphy’s law definitely applies.
So I have two big questions. Why haven’t Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran taken a much larger and forceful role in combatting ISIS? ISIS is a much greater existential threat to them than to the U.S. Is President Obama pushing on these countries to do more?
So, your Majesty, why not be the leader of the Islamic world and take on ISIS? Don’t you have the advantage of force, reason and speed? You don’t have to get your parliament’s permission, tacit or otherwise. And you don’t have to get the backing of your people.
Mel keeps wondering who elected the President of the United States as “leader of the free world.”
Published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/09/04/4020_is_isis_islams_ku_klux_klan, 2014-09-04.
The blog version includes corrections to the published version.
The Klan wore white hoods to hide their identity. ISIS wears black hoods to hide their identity.
The Klan is still alive and well in the U.S., maybe not as deadly as before, but just as hateful towards those they don’t like. See “At Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members”, Al Baker, New York Times, 2014-08-29. The Klan’s targets are immigrants.
The Klan bombed black churches. ISIS bombs Shiite mosques.
Christian leaders outside the South condemned the Ku Klux Klan. Those Christian leaders in the South who spoke out against the Klan would be intimidated overtly or covertly. An illustration of how much courage it took to stand up for the rights of Negros is “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee.
Muslim leaders outside the areas controlled by ISIS have spoken out against ISIS. One is Othman Atta, Executive Director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. Some British imams have issued a fatwa calling ISIS “heretical” and stating that it is “prohibited to support or join” ISIS. A Muslim cleric in India declared ISIS is “not just anti-Islamic but are enemies of humanity as well.” I can’t verify it with multiple sources, but supposedly ISIS executed 12 clerics in Mosul because they would not swear fidelity to ISIS.
For more see “How Islamic State resembles the Ku Klux Klan”, Brian Denson, The Oregonian, 2014-08-24, http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/how_islamic_state_isis_resembl.html
Some are calling on President Obama to do something about ISIS and do it yesterday. But what can the United States do other than make matters worse? It is an outside power that really doesn’t understand all the dynamics of other countries and cultures. Look at the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were in turn caused by one man, Osama bin Laden, a former ally, who didn’t like the U.S. putting troops into his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden decided to strike back at the U.S. and did so several times. Will ISIS strike back in similar ways?
Consider that fighting ISIS may be fighting two enemies with different agendas. ISIS are a set of fanatical jihadists who want everyone to follow their way or die. They are allied with Sunnis who resent the Iraqi government, dominated by Shias, exercising too much control over the Sunni dominated areas.
Wouldn’t you think that Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would be under a bigger threat from ISIS than the U.S. would? All of these have bigger armies than ISIS. It seems only Iran is making any known effort to contain ISIS, and even that is trying to be done with a low profile.
The United States gave over one billion dollars in military assistance to Egypt in 2012. Egypt can easily spend that as it sees fit. It has an estimated annual military budget over seven billion dollars. ISIS supposedly has stolen over two billion dollars, but who will be selling it arms and how much of that money can it actually access and use, like gold bullion?
Saudi Arabia is a big customer of military suppliers. It has 233,500 active military personnel, over a thousand tanks, and over 200 attack aircraft. Should not that force be sufficient to overwhelm ISIS with firepower and personnel? ISIS has more than ten thousand fighters as of July 2014 and estimates keep climbing. Even if ISIS has 100,000 fighters, would they be a match for Saudi Arabia with all of its aircraft?
King Abdul of Saudi Arabia said recently, “Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.”
Turkey has been fighting ISIS at its border with some success, but groups like ISIS will keep coming back.
It seems this is another case of “Let’s you and him fight.” Let the U.S. come in and settle other people’s problem (or think it had) and let the U.S. take the blame if things go wrong. When it comes to war, Murphy’s law definitely applies.
So I have two big questions. Why haven’t Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran taken a much larger and forceful role in combatting ISIS? ISIS is a much greater existential threat to them than to the U.S. Is President Obama pushing on these countries to do more?
So, your Majesty, why not be the leader of the Islamic world and take on ISIS? Don’t you have the advantage of force, reason and speed? You don’t have to get your parliament’s permission, tacit or otherwise. And you don’t have to get the backing of your people.
Mel keeps wondering who elected the President of the United States as “leader of the free world.”
Published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/09/04/4020_is_isis_islams_ku_klux_klan, 2014-09-04.
The blog version includes corrections to the published version.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Let’s you and him fight
The Middle East is in turmoil because there are fanatics who think their way is the only way and those who disagree should die. Many seem to think the United States should take responsibility for this mess and clean it up. But as we have seen from Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military cannot solve local and cultural political problems.
We are sending billions of dollars to Egypt, sell billions of armament to Saudi Arabia, and ostracize Iran. All three plus Turkey have a greater interest in regional stability. Why not encourage them to take leadership in attempting to solve the regional problems.
Consider also, that U.S. involvement in Middle East just encourages the recruitment of the susceptible for direct attacks on the United States.
Muslim opposition to ISIS is growing because ISIS is the anti-thesis of Islam. See “Top Saudi Cleric: ISIS is Enemy No. 1 of Islam, ‘Destroying Human Civilization’”.
Now if the Muslim states in the area would take more action than words in curbing ISIS.
We are sending billions of dollars to Egypt, sell billions of armament to Saudi Arabia, and ostracize Iran. All three plus Turkey have a greater interest in regional stability. Why not encourage them to take leadership in attempting to solve the regional problems.
Consider also, that U.S. involvement in Middle East just encourages the recruitment of the susceptible for direct attacks on the United States.
Muslim opposition to ISIS is growing because ISIS is the anti-thesis of Islam. See “Top Saudi Cleric: ISIS is Enemy No. 1 of Islam, ‘Destroying Human Civilization’”.
Now if the Muslim states in the area would take more action than words in curbing ISIS.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Let's you and him fight!
“There are people who would love to see America fight their war for them,” Kerry said. “But that is not their choice.”
– "U.S. coming under fire from Mideast allies, who see retrenchment", Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 2014-01-24.
Finally, the U.S. is recognizing that it is not the world's policeman and it cannot stop every "bad guy" from harming the "good guys". Generally when we fight the "bad guys", many of the "good guys" resent the U.S. coming in and disrupting their country.
I often wonder why the U.S. has to "train" a government's soldiers and police in counter-insurgency or whatever. It seems the ragtag bad guys do quite well with AK-47s and IEDs than the government does with it more powerful weapons. Could it be that the soldiers and police are in it only because it is a job, they can extort people, and they really don't have much faith in the government?
I often wonder why we don't say to corrupt or ineffective leaders "Shape up or we ship out!"
– "U.S. coming under fire from Mideast allies, who see retrenchment", Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 2014-01-24.
Finally, the U.S. is recognizing that it is not the world's policeman and it cannot stop every "bad guy" from harming the "good guys". Generally when we fight the "bad guys", many of the "good guys" resent the U.S. coming in and disrupting their country.
I often wonder why the U.S. has to "train" a government's soldiers and police in counter-insurgency or whatever. It seems the ragtag bad guys do quite well with AK-47s and IEDs than the government does with it more powerful weapons. Could it be that the soldiers and police are in it only because it is a job, they can extort people, and they really don't have much faith in the government?
I often wonder why we don't say to corrupt or ineffective leaders "Shape up or we ship out!"
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Syria – A letter to the President of the United States
I posted the following on "Contact Us" at http://www.whitehouse.gov.
Before you were born, the Department of War became the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, several times since the Department of Defense has become the Department of Offense with disastrous results for troops, our citizens, the economy, and other countries' views towards us.
If we are truly to have a Department of Defense, what is the threat that dictators like Assad pose towards the U.S.? Is he going to invade us? If we invade Syria you can rest assured that action will breed terrorists who will invade us.
If Assad is a threat to the region, don't Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have enough U.S. equipment to take on Assad?
If the U.S. sticks its nose into Syria, it will only give these countries cover to not take action themselves, leaving us as the fall guy when things go badly.
Before you were born, the Department of War became the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, several times since the Department of Defense has become the Department of Offense with disastrous results for troops, our citizens, the economy, and other countries' views towards us.
If we are truly to have a Department of Defense, what is the threat that dictators like Assad pose towards the U.S.? Is he going to invade us? If we invade Syria you can rest assured that action will breed terrorists who will invade us.
If Assad is a threat to the region, don't Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have enough U.S. equipment to take on Assad?
If the U.S. sticks its nose into Syria, it will only give these countries cover to not take action themselves, leaving us as the fall guy when things go badly.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Iran - Questions for American hawks
First, a little history. In 1914 the Archduke Frantz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo, Serbia. The Austrian government gave an ultimatum to Serbia, of which Serbia agreed to most terms except allowing Austrian police to participate in the investigation of the assassination. Rather than negotiate, Austria attacked Serbia. The consequences were as bad as all the participants believed they would be and worse. We are still living with those consequences nearly a century later.
Now many demands are being made of Iran concerning its nuclear ambitions. Many in the U.S. and Israel are ready to go to war against Iran if those demands aren't met. Have these hawks considered ALL the possible effects of such a war?
Let's ask some "trivial" questions first.
Many of these hawks want low taxes. If taxes are low and kept low, where is the money to come from to wage a new war?
Many of these hawks want low oil prices. If Iran is attacked, what will happen to oil prices?
Many of these hawks want to protect the unborn. If Iran is attacked, how many unborn children will die? Do you really think only soldiers will die in any modern war?
Now let's look at some more global issues.
If Saudi Arabia feels threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions, shouldn't Saudi Arabia be the country to act? After all, the U.S. has sold them many, many advanced military aircraft. Shouldn't Saudi pilots be able to operate these aircraft efficiently and effectively? If not, why sell the aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the first place?
If the U.S. attacks Iran, this will be the third Muslim country the U.S. has invaded in a generation. What will be the reaction be of many Muslims throughout the world? Will there be a rush of Mujahideen to Iran? What side will various Muslim governments take?
Will a U.S. attack on Iran bring about the fall of many pro-U.S. Muslim governments. If so, which side will the new governments take? If the government of an oil-producing nation falls, will the new government continue or cease oil deliveries to the U.S. or to European countries?
What will the reaction of Pakistan be to an attack on Iran? Will the current generals do nothing? Will they be replaced in a coup by more hawkish officers? Officers who will be quite willing to aim nuclear weapons at U.S. forces or even U.S. territory?
There are more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan. Would Indian Muslims stage a coup and join in resisting a U.S. attack on Iran? India also has nuclear weapons.
What side will Russia and China take?
If Iran is attacked, what will North Korea's reaction be? It has been unpredictable and is not known for acting in its long-term interests.
I think it is safe to say that if the U.S. (or Israel) attacks Iran, many people will die who have nothing to do with the current Iranian government or its nuclear programs. Also, I think it is safe to say that the negative repercussions of an attack will last for at least two generations and maybe even a century.
Meanwhile, for over two generations the U.S. has called the largest offensive military force in the world "defense". At the same time. those who have been the biggest proponents of the military have done their best to sabotage a true defense - energy independence. They have opposed many efforts for alternative fuels and for greater energy efficiency.
"When will they ever learn?" "The answer is blowin' in the wind." They didn't.
Now many demands are being made of Iran concerning its nuclear ambitions. Many in the U.S. and Israel are ready to go to war against Iran if those demands aren't met. Have these hawks considered ALL the possible effects of such a war?
Let's ask some "trivial" questions first.
Many of these hawks want low taxes. If taxes are low and kept low, where is the money to come from to wage a new war?
Many of these hawks want low oil prices. If Iran is attacked, what will happen to oil prices?
Many of these hawks want to protect the unborn. If Iran is attacked, how many unborn children will die? Do you really think only soldiers will die in any modern war?
Now let's look at some more global issues.
If Saudi Arabia feels threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions, shouldn't Saudi Arabia be the country to act? After all, the U.S. has sold them many, many advanced military aircraft. Shouldn't Saudi pilots be able to operate these aircraft efficiently and effectively? If not, why sell the aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the first place?
If the U.S. attacks Iran, this will be the third Muslim country the U.S. has invaded in a generation. What will be the reaction be of many Muslims throughout the world? Will there be a rush of Mujahideen to Iran? What side will various Muslim governments take?
Will a U.S. attack on Iran bring about the fall of many pro-U.S. Muslim governments. If so, which side will the new governments take? If the government of an oil-producing nation falls, will the new government continue or cease oil deliveries to the U.S. or to European countries?
What will the reaction of Pakistan be to an attack on Iran? Will the current generals do nothing? Will they be replaced in a coup by more hawkish officers? Officers who will be quite willing to aim nuclear weapons at U.S. forces or even U.S. territory?
There are more Muslims living in India than in Pakistan. Would Indian Muslims stage a coup and join in resisting a U.S. attack on Iran? India also has nuclear weapons.
What side will Russia and China take?
If Iran is attacked, what will North Korea's reaction be? It has been unpredictable and is not known for acting in its long-term interests.
I think it is safe to say that if the U.S. (or Israel) attacks Iran, many people will die who have nothing to do with the current Iranian government or its nuclear programs. Also, I think it is safe to say that the negative repercussions of an attack will last for at least two generations and maybe even a century.
Meanwhile, for over two generations the U.S. has called the largest offensive military force in the world "defense". At the same time. those who have been the biggest proponents of the military have done their best to sabotage a true defense - energy independence. They have opposed many efforts for alternative fuels and for greater energy efficiency.
"When will they ever learn?" "The answer is blowin' in the wind." They didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)