14 March 2010

Islam vs USA

At 2pm on a bright summer afternoon 100 people gathered in a hall to hear a debate between two speakers. The debate ended after 2 hrs and speaker A declared that outside was now evening. Speaker B declared that it was still daylight. Do you think that any of the 100 in the audience would have believed speaker A? Maybe yes, maybe not. Most would have looked at their watch and said “It’s only 4pm so it’s still daylight”. Some would actually wait until they stepped outside to look for themselves. Maybe a few would actually agree with speaker A because they supported all his previews opinions.

The above story is not obviously true. But it has become a common occurrence in today’s members of democratic societies to boast that they are free to their opinion, whatever this may be. Fine by me, so far. But being free to express an opinion means absolutely nothing if that opinion is not based on facts, well researched information and accurate observations. Speaker A was free to say that outside was night, despite the fact that the sun was still high up in the sky. His opinion, however, although respected was clearly wrong, clearly questionable, absolutely incorrect. So, freedom to express an opinion means nothing if that opinion is absolutely nonsensical. 

I am free to say that in my opinion USA is the smallest country on the planet in size, that putting your hands in the fire for 5min will actually increase your life expectancy by 1 year, that drinking 10 bottles of vodka each day will increase your IQ by 50%. I am free to express these opinions. But all of them have a zero value. Nothing. Garbage. Rubbish. Why? Because it can easily be proven, scientifically or otherwise, that all three of them are incorrect.

The danger of expressing these opinions, however, is that some people that took my word at face value without seeking a second opinion, or without actually asking the magic word ‘Why?’ may actually follow it and lose their hands due to severe burns or die from alcohol poisoning from drinking way too much vodka. My freedom to express any opinion I like, therefore, has stopped being just incorrect but has become dangerous, lethal.

Personally I do not agree to absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is similar to the law of the jungle. I am free to burn your house to the ground for no reason and you are free to come around my place and kill my family as revenge. That is absolute freedom. Freedom where every action is permitted. On the same grounds I am also not a supporter of absolute freedom of speech. Absolute means that I am free to accuse you of having done the most atrocious things and call on people to raise their guns and shoot you. You may say that although I am free to say so, no one would believe me. Well, the few hundred people that know me and don’t know you will definitely believe me, instead of you. So, your life is in danger after all. This is the power, a dangerous power in the wrong hands, of the absolute freedom of speech.

You may also say that obviously there have to be boundaries as to what can be said, so as to not incite hatred, etc. But the minute you start placing boundaries, exceptions, then that freedom stops being absolute.

What do I believe that freedom should be? I agree to what Jean-Jacques Rousseau had written in ‘The Social Contract’, when he stated that man can only be free under the law by embracing that law as his own. He explained, however, what that law was there to do (see below). That is why being free in society requires each of us to suppress our own desires for the interests of all. 

I would like to expand on this view as it forms the basis of this topic. Rousseau stated that for a society to prosper and be just its people have to decide on what the common will for the common good is, rather than their own good. So, I may think that I would like to have a job that pays me £1 billion a year. That is my own personal will for my own personal good. When thought of on terms of a whole society, however, it is evident that people would like to live in a place where everyone would have at least a home to live in, a job to earn money from, good educational, health and welfare system, safety, etc. Obviously some of them would like to go that extra mile and have a fantastic villa by the sea, or a private yacht, etc That is fine, as long as the needs of the common will are also satisfied. I consider that a society where every one of its members is provided with the main necessities for comfortable living is better than a society where some of its members live in extreme wealth while others in absolute poverty.

Therefore, the government that is elected by the people has to manage the country and its laws in a way that it would serve the common will of the people, rather than the will of the few, or the government itself. To govern, therefore, has to be seen as doing the best possible to achieve the common will of the people. If, then, in trying to achieve the common will, the government says to me that I cannot have a job that pays me £1 billion a year (because, for example, it would ruin the economy or will cause unemployment to rise as the employer would not be able to afford other employees), then so be it. Common will should be seen as above all individual ones. This is what Rousseau means by suppressing our desires for the common interest.

Another brilliant example in his book was this. Speaking of criminals he says “it is in order not to be the victim of an assassin that a man consents to die if he becomes one”. This is not necessarily to be taken as referring to the death penalty, but to the fact that if we accept that we have to be protected from criminals, we also have to accept the same rules of punishment if we become one. If we accept that it is for the common good that criminals should be punished, then we have to accept that we do not have absolute freedom to do whatever we like and we have to be judged by the same rules that judged our criminals when we also become one. How relevant this statement is nowadays!!!

So, for me absolute freedom is a big no no because it creates chaos. It is the law of the stronger oppressing the weaker with even greater power, it is the law of big fish eats small fish. The law of the jungle is not the law of common will for the peaceful co-existence of all animals, it’s the law of survival of the fittest. I do not want this to be part of my society because there will always be someone fitter than me around the corner. I want freedom which would give me the right to live and exist freely but within certain boundaries set out by law which should be there for my own and society’s protection and which would apply equally to every member of that society, regardless of status, race, sex, etc

Now that I expressed my opinion on absolute freedom, I will come to the main topic of this blog, which was influenced by an email a friend kindly sent me, copying me on a discussion between friends about Islam and the USA. It was evident that some of the people discussing this topic had strong views against Muslims and I was asked to try and help make sense of all this. Reading the specific comments made, which I will list later on, it became clear to me that the people making these comments made the same mistake that the people accepting speaker A’s opinion made. They took the information received by word of mouth, media, etc at face value, failing to ask ‘Why?’ and failing to do their own research on the matters discussed so as to reach their own, independent, individual conclusions. 

Daniel J Boorstin once said that “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.”. An ignorant person will simply say ‘I don’t know’. But a person with the illusion of knowledge on a subject, especially as serious as that of the relationship between Muslims and Americans, is more dangerous because in thinking they have knowledge on the subject they can express opinions that are incorrect and, mainly, dangerous.

I will now start by quoting some of the views expressed in those discussions and my response to them:

We have the right to defend ourselves and our country for something that the "Muslims" started.

The person making this statement states that someone has the right to defend themselves and their country for something someone else starts first. I will now use the same statement to show that actually Muslims have an equal right to defend themselves and their country for something that was actually started first by the USA.

Obviously, the person quoting the above assumes that the whole Islam vs USA conflict started with 9/11. I would like to offer this quick history lesson below, which will increase that person’s knowledge and maybe make them revise their opinion as to who started what first.

I would also invite that person and all of you to read the list below, despite its length. It’s all well when we think our opinion is correct. But as I said above, worse of all is the illusion of knowledge rather than ignorance. So when you make statements like the one above, it is best to compare your knowledge with what I give you in the list and if you still believe your opinion is correct, then so be it. You can find more details for any of the events described below in any history book and the internet.

Let’s start with the Israel-Palestine conflict, as most Americans believe that the conflict started by the Palestinian people.

By the beginning of 1900s Jews actually flourished in the Arab world, at a time when they were persecuted throughout Europe. At the beginning of 1900s European Jews tried to figure out a solution. A small minority adhered to Zionism, the idea that the only place they could be safe was within a Jewish state.

Zionist Jews had the idea that the most appropriate place for an Israeli homeland was the land of Palestine due to its religious ties with the ‘promised land’ of the Bible. At that time Palestine was populated by Arabs who had a high level of culture and education.

In 1878 the population of Palestine was 462,465, of which 96.8% were Muslim and Christian Arabs, with the remaining being Jews. Between 1882 and 1914 65,000 European Jews immigrated to Palestine.

The immigration increased under British rule, following World War 1 when Britain implemented the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine

This declaration was in direct conflict with Britain’s previous agreement, the McMahon-Hussien Agreement in 1915, who promised self rule to all Arab inhabitants throughout the region. In essence, the Palestinians saw a European power decide the future of a non European territory.

By 1922 Palestine’s population of 757,182, was split between 87.6% Muslim/Christian Arabs and 11% Jews. The first clashes between Palestinians and Jews begun during that period, as land and property were stripped from the Palestinians to make way for the Jewish settlers.

Between 1920 to 1931an additional 108,825 Jewish immigrants would arrive in the area. By 1931 the Jewish population had increased to 16.9% of the total population of Palestine.

Hitler’s rise to power increased the effect of immigration considerably. In just five years, between 1932 and 1936 an additional 146,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine, doubling their population.

Between 1937 and 1945 an additional 119,800 Jews would immigrate. The world was trying to make amends for the Nazi genocide of the Jews by increasing its attempts to make Palestine a Jewish homeland. In 1947 and as the conflict between the Jews and Palestinians was spiralling out of control, Britain turned the problem over to the UN. The UN proposed to divide the land to 2 states. The Arabs were to be given 43% of the land, even though they made up 69% of the total population and owned 92% of the land. 

Following this decision, the Jewish army began immediately occupying major cities in Palestine, using extreme form and ethnic cleansing methods. The most infamous campaign was the massacre at the village of Deir Yassin (for more information look it up on the internet). As a result, more than 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled before the first Arab soldier set foot in Palestine.

On 15 May 1948 Israel officially announced its statehood. The new state of Israel took over more than 78% of the land, against the previous decision of the UN. Most Palestinian villages were totally destroyed, making way for Jewish settlements. The events from that period created instability throughout the region ever since.

In 1967, following yet more conflict, Israel occupied the remainder of Palestine (West bank and Gaza). During that war, more that 400,000 Palestinians were displaced.

The UN has passed numerous resolutions reaffirming the rights of the Palestinian people. Nowadays, Palestinian people have no rights whatsoever, Israel has defied every single UN resolution ( you can read all 221 of them here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel) and yet the US or any other western world country has done nothing to enforce these resolutions, even though the US and Britain declared war on Iraq despite no UN resolution to that effect.

Furthermore, since the end of World War 2 the USA has helped or backed coups in the following countries:

1949 Syria:       The USA backs the military coup that deposes the elected government of Syria. Colonel Al-Zaim becomes dictator and his government is immediately recognised by the USA. The CIA assists in the suppression of political opposition.

1952 Cuba:      A military coup occurs in Cuba. The elected government of Carlos Prio Socorras is deposed by Fulgencio Batista. The USA supports the new Cuban dictator who is a particularly brutal ruler. Under his regime, Cuba becomes a haven for drugs, gambling, vice and mobsters. USA business interests benefit. Freedom of speech is curtailed and hundreds of teachers, lawyers and public officials are fired from their jobs. Death squads torture and kill thousands of "communists".

1953 Iran:        Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah (king) of Iran takes power in a coup planned and supported by the USA and UK secret services (Operation Ajax). He topples the flourishing and popular democracy of Mohammed Mossadeq. Mossadeq had stated that the mineral wealth of the country should benefit its citizens. This did not please the Western oil companies. The parliament had nationalised UK oil concessions that were reaping 88% of the profits from the country's oil industry. Iran had offered the UK 25% of the profits. The UK responded by imposing a blockade on Iran and freezing Iranian assets. After the coup, oil concessions are given to USA and UK companies - Anglo-Iranian Oil is renamed British Petroleum.

1953 Guyana:   The UK (with help from the USA) overthrows the democratically elected government of Cheddi Jagan in British Guyana. Jagan would win 3 elections in 11 years and each time the two powers would prevent him from taking office using techniques like strikes, terrorism, legal challenges and disinformation. The new regime ensured the flow of cheap sugar and bauxite (an ore of aluminium) continued to the UK.

1954 Guatemala: The USA organises a military coup in Guatemala to remove the president, Jacobo Arbenz. Arbenz was the successor to the popular and reforming president, Juan José Arévalo.
The country had been democratic since 1944; Arévalo had permitted free expression, legalized unions and diverse political parties. The USA Embassy had described the government as having "an unusual reputation for incorruptibility"; the Guatemalans had described the previous ten years as "Ten Years of Spring".

After the coup, and for the next 31 years, repressive governments would rule with USA support. The CIA gives the new government lists of people to be eliminated, identifying political and intellectual leaders as military targets. Arévalo is driven out of Guatemala and dies in exile. Peasant cooperatives are destroyed, unions and political parties crushed, and dissidents hunted down. Many indigenous villages are cleared leading to urban sprawl and poverty. Thousands are killed by government death squads and many more flee the country.

One of those fleeing is a young physician, Che Guevarra. His face would adorn posters for a generation in the 1960s. Within a few years over 100,000 people, mostly the Maya, would be killed. The USA declares that the reason for the coup was to stop a takeover by the USSR. In actual fact, the USSR had little interest in the country, not even maintaining an embassy. The real reason is economic - American companies (especially the United Fruit Company in which CIA director, Allen Dulles, had an interest) would benefit from cheap labour, lax safety laws and a helpful government. The American company, Coca Cola, benefits when striking workers are killed by the military.

A USA document (US Policy Towards Latin America) admits that the major threat to USA interests is "nationalistic regimes [that implement] immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses".

1955: South Vietnam: Civil war begins in South Vietnam between factions who support the USA and French backed government and those who want unity with the (communist) north run by Ho Chi Minh. The USA backed Ngo Dinh Diem deposes the French backed Bao Dai. The USA continues their support of the south. President Dwight Eisenhower, admits that "had elections been held, possibly 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, the communist leader".

1957 Haiti:       Francis "Papa Doc" Duvalier takes over Haiti. Supported by the USA, he rules the country autocratically, corruptly and brutally until 1971. Under his regime and that of his son who succeeded him, 60,000 people would die. Thousands would be tortured by the Tonton Macoutes death squads. While Haiti would become the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, the Duvaliers would enrich themselves by stealing foreign aid money.

1960 Equador: The USA infiltrates the government of Ecuador and eventually removes the president, Jose Maria Velasco. The USA does not approve of Ecuador's diplomatic relations with Cuba and the government's refusal to clamp down on dissidents. The new leader also refuses to break relations with Cuba until threatened by a CIA backed military leader.

1963 Dominican Republic: The democratically elected government of the Dominican Republic is removed by a military coup. Juan Bosch had become the first democratically elected president of the country since 1924. His program included land reform, affordable housing, the avoidance of exploitative foreign investment, civil liberties, and nationalisation. After the coup, USA marines are sent in to look after American business interests and support the new regime.

1963 Vietnam: A Buddhist monk, Thich Quang Duc sets himself on fire in Saigon in protest against the USA backed authoritarian government of South Vietnam. This government had discriminated against Buddhism, the dominant religion in the country. The USA, shaken because the immolation had been televised around the world, gives approval for a military coup that topples Ngo Dinh Diem (whom they had put into power in 1955). The ousted leaders are killed in cold blood. The South Vietnamese do not get a chance to vote for their leader. Seven more monks commit suicide in the ancient Vietnamese capital, Hue.
1963 Guatemala: The USA CIA overthrows the dictatorship of General Miguel Ydigoras in Guatemala. Ydigoras had been planning to step down in 1964 and hold elections. The USA feared that the previously elected president Juan José Arévalo (overthrown by the CIA in 1954) would regain power. The new regime does not hold elections.

1963 Equador: The USA CIA backs a military coup that overthrows President Arosemana of Ecuador, because of his independent policies. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964 Brazil:      A military coup occurs in Brazil. The new leader is General Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco who has support from the USA. The USA government sends the new regime oil during the coup. The previous president João Goulart had traded with communist nations, maintained diplomatic relations with Cuba, supported the labour movement, and limited the profits multinational companies could take out of the country.

After the coup, labour and trade unions are banned, criticism of the President becomes unlawful. Thousands of suspected communists (including children) are arrested and tortured. Land is stolen from indigenous people and their culture destroyed. The region's first death squads are set up and trained by the USA CIA. Over 70,000 would die between 1964 and 1985. Drug dealers, many of them government officials, are given protection because they maintain national security interests.

The West recognises the new regime and trades with it. There would not be a civilian government in Brazil until 1985.

1964 Bolivia:    The president of Bolivia, Victor Paz, is removed by a coup backed by the USA CIA. Bolivia had refused to support USA policies against Cuba.

1965 Zaire:       A military coup occurs in Zaire (formerly Congo). The new, USA backed, ruler is Mobutu Sese Seko who allows USA companies access to the country's cobalt, copper, and diamonds. In the coming years, Mobutu amasses a personal fortune of over $ 5,000 million. Every foreign company setting up in the country has to pay a "tribute" to the president.
Mobutu would rule brutally for 30 years during which time the Zairian people would become impoverished despite the country's huge natural wealth.
1966 Ghana:     Kwame Nkrumah, the leader of Ghana, attempts to lessen his country's dependence of the West. He strengthens military and economic ties to Eastern Europe, the USSR and China. Nkrumah is removed from power in a coup backed by the USA CIA. According to a CIA internal memo dated 25 February 1966 (declassified in 1977) the CIA and Ghana's military leaders had been plotting the coup for over a year.

1967 Greece:   In Greece, a military coup led by George Papadopoulos overthrows the interim government of Ioannis Paraskevopoulos, shortly prior to national elections . The coup had been planned by the Greek military, the American military stationed in Greece and the USA CIA. During the first month of the new regime 8,000 people are imprisoned and tortured. Greece is expelled from the European Commission on Human Rights, but continues to receive aid from the USA in return for housing American military bases. The country continues to be part of NATO and trade with the West. Greece would not return to democratic government until 1974.

1970 Cambodia: USA and South Vietnamese troops invade Cambodia. The King, Norodom Sihanouk, is deposed in a USA-backed coup by Lol Nol. The King had refused USA requests to participate in the Vietnam-USA War. The new leader immediately commits troops to this conflict. This unpopular policy strengthens minor movements like the Khmer Rouge, who would eventually become powerful enough to cause chaos in the country.

1970 Bolivia:    A military coup overthrows the government of Bolivia. The coup is led by USA trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary, Hugo Banzer with direct support from the USA. The previous president (Juan Jose Torres) had nationalised Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by USA companies.

Within two years, 2,000 people are arrested and tortured without trial. The native Aymara and Quechua people are ordered off their land and deprived of tribal identity. Tens of thousands of white South Africans are enticed to immigrate with promises of the land stolen from the indigenous people. Catholic clergy who aid the victims are harassed and killed.

1972 El Salvador: Jose Duarte wins the election in El Salvador but is immediately removed and exiled by the USA backed military. Just 14 families run most of the country's businesses, mainly coffee growing.

1973 Chile:       Augusto Pinochet takes power in a USA backed military coup against the democratically elected government of Chile. President Salvador Allende is killed when the palace in Santiago is bombed. The USA had attempted to sabotage Allende's election campaigns in 1964 (successfully) and 1970 (unsuccessfully).

This is the end of 150 years of democracy in the country. According to Pinochet: "Democracy is the breeding ground of communism".

During the coup, hundreds are herded into a football stadium where many are executed by the military. At least 5,000 people are killed, tens of thousands are tortured, over 9,000 are exiled and around 250,000 are interred in concentration camps. Specially trained dogs are used to sexually molest female prisoners. Women are stopped in the street and have their trousers slit by soldiers: "In Chile women wear dresses". Many books are burned. These events are shown in the USA made film, Missing.

The USA and most Western governments recognise, praise and trade with the new regime that rules with terror for the next 17 years. The coup is the culmination of three years of USA planning. In 1970, the USA Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had commented on the results of the elections in Chile that had brought Allende to power:

"I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people."

During this period, the director of the CIA, Richard Helms, informed his staff that:

"President Nixon [has] decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him."

A report written by the USA's Marine Lt. Col. Patrick Ryan in Valparaiso asserts that 
"Chile's coup de etat was close to perfect". A few years later, Kissinger would assure Pinochet that "In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here... We wish your government well".

Three weeks after the coup, the USA's President Nixon authorises $ 24,000,000 in commodity credits to buy wheat. A second $ 24,000,000 in commodity credits to Chile for feed corn is authorised. Two destroyers are transferred to the Chilean navy.

Armando Fernandez Larios (responsible for killing 72 political prisoners) later moves to the USA where his extradition to a democratic Chile is refused.

In 2005, a film biography of Allende would have senior CIA operatives saying he was "an exceptionally civilised man". His warning about multinational companies at the United Nations General Assembly in 1972 has been proved correct. He warned of "a coming conflict between multinationals and democratic governments. They operate without assuming their responsibilities. They share no instinct for the common interest. The political system of the world is weakening as a result."

1980 Liberia:    In Liberia, the USA backed Samuel Doe takes power in a bloody coup. All opposition parties are barred from future elections. The president and his family become very rich from bribery and corruption. Revenues from petrol and hotel taxes go directly into the Doe's bank account. His fellow tribes people (4% of the population) are elevated into a ruling elite who savagely oppress the rest of the population.

According the USA newspaper, Chicago Tribune (22 August 1990), in an article by Howard Witt entitled "US Fingerprints - Not Heart - Are All Over Liberia", a USA official admits that "Our strategic interests are more important than democracy".

Witt describes Doe as a "brutish, nearly illiterate army sergeant" who seized power "after disembowelling the previous president in his bed".

The USA gives the new regime military and economic aid. USA companies Firestone and B F Goodrich prosper under the new regime.

1982 Chad:      In 1981, the USA CIA had set up, financed and trained a Chadian military force in Sudan. Led by Hissen Habré, this force overthrows the government of Chad, ruling for 8 years with American support. Habré's regime would kill tens of thousands of people and torture over 200,000. Many dissidents would simply disappear. In 2000, Habré would be tried for his crimes in Senegal.

1983 Grenada: USA troops invade Grenada to remove the leader, Maurice Bishop, and to replace him with a pro-USA government. During the invasion, nearly 500 people are killed, including 85 construction workers from Cuba. The invasion makes the island a "haven for offshore banks", according to the USA newspaper, Wall Street Journal. Reporters are banned from Grenada. Those who attempt to land on the island are arrested and imprisoned on USA ships offshore. This happens to Morris Thompson of the magazine, Newsday.

1987 Fiji:          Dr. Timoci Bavadra defeats the pro USA Prime Minister, Ratu Slr Kamese Mara, in Fiji after free elections. The new government supports a nuclear free South Pacific which is welcomed by the regional populace but opposed by the USA. The USA wanted its nuclear powered ships to use the country's ports.

32 days after this victory, Dr. Bavadra is overthrown by the pro-nuclear General Sitiveni Rabuka, with the help of the USA. For the first time in the history of the country, cases of illegal detention and torture are reported by Amnesty International.

The coup was greeted by a Pentagon source in the USA who told the Australian newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald: "We're kinda delighted... All of a sudden our ships couldn't go to Fiji, and now all of a sudden they can".

In 1972 when a previous Fijian government had attempted to bar nuclear ships, the USA ambassador, William Bodde, had stated that: "a nuclear free zone would be unacceptable to the USA given our strategic needs... The USA must do everything possible to counter this movement".

2009 Honduras: In June, the democratically elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, is ousted in a military coup and replaced by General Romeo Vasquez. Many see the hand of the USA behind the removal of the leader that was attempting to improve living conditions for its poorest citizens. There were five clues:

·         The USA did not condemn the coup but rather expressed "concern".

·         The ambassadors of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua were arrested by the military - these are countries that Manuel Zelaya had good relations with but are opposed by the USA and its media allies.

·         General Romeo Vasquez is a graduate of the USA School of the Americas - previous dictators like Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina, were also trained there.

·         The USA is the largest trading partner of Honduras and has a military base at Soto Cano so it is inconceivable that the coup could have been planned without the knowledge of the USA.

·         When the story was covered by the UK television broadcaster, the BBC, they only interviewed people who supported the coup even though there were so many demonstrations in support of the president, the military had to introduce a curfew.

Many countries condemn the coup and state that they will not recognise the new government. Dan Restrepo, the adviser to USA president, Barak Obama, states that it "is waiting to see how things play out" and accuses countries like Venezuela, who have condemned the coup, of interfering.

A United Nations resolution is passed declaring that Manuel Zelaya is the lawful president of the country. The USA supported the resolution but did not recognise the removal of Manuel Zelaya as a coup d'etat. Had the USA done so, it would have to suspend aid to Honduras.

I apologise for the length of the list above. The above are some of the coups supported by the USA. It is evident, from the history of events above, that not only it was not the Muslims that ‘started it all’ but quite the opposite. Ever since the 1950s USA has been instrumental in throwing democratically elected governments and installing dictators which not only suppressed the people of the respective countries but have also offered the resources of that country to USA companies for peanuts, gaining their own personal wealth.

I would argue that the people of any of the countries affected above have every right to do whatever necessary to defend themselves and their country from the USA, which not only interfered in their affairs but have deprived them of their basic human rights by installing dictatorships in place of the democratically elected leaders.

Furthermore, it is also obvious that the USA has been and still is instrumental in the slow ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, supporting Israel in every atrocity it continues to make. So, next time you hear about problems in Israel, do not just assume it was ‘those Muslims doing it again’. There are Muslim and Christian Palestinians. And if Muslims have suddenly came to settle in your own state with the support of a superpower and you were suddenly evicted from your own home and your freedom/human rights were taken away, I’m pretty sure you would have considered fighting back with whatever means necessary for your own rights and your own family.

Therefore, if the person who said the above statement believes that a country has the right to defend itself for something that someone started first, then by definition Arab countries and all the other countries in the list above have the right to defend themselves. I do not support the means of that defence in the same way that I do not support the means of ‘the war on terror’. I am only here to explain the cause of it, not the effect. And the cause is the USA, rather than Muslims.

I don’t think people understand what it is really like to wonder everyday if their child, sibling, wife/husband, or any other relative or friend is going to live to see tomorrow. (Talking about American soldiers fighting abroad)

As I am not directly affected, I will let the following 7min video to answer the above statement. I would like you to please click on the link below and watch the video, it will only take 7 minutes of your time and it will certainly show you that you are not the only one with such concerns. You will see that there are a lot more people understanding such concerns and in a greater scale.

I hope that the person making the above statement has watched the video and realises that, although it is very distressing to worry about your loved ones at the comfort of your own home, it is even worse when you see your loved ones suffer with your own eyes and you are unable to tell them that everything is going to be fine.

I would also draw your attention to what one of the ladies said about suicide bombings. It is all well to judge an action by its effects, but it is best to determine its cause first, before making that judgment. When everything has been taken away from you unjustly and you have nothing left to lose, desperation can lead you to actions that you would never otherwise consider as sane.

Shall we let Osama Bin Laden's cousin join the ranks of our men and women? Muslims hate America. Period, period, period, dot!! And terrorism is going to get this country from the inside.

To the person making the above statements, I will point out that although Osama’s cousin may not yet have been invited to join the ranks, he has long been invited and accepted to be part of the political scene in the USA.

The bin Laden family is a well connected Saudi family with strong connections to the inner circles of the Saudi Royal family. Salem bin Laden, cousin to Osama, invested through James R. Bath, the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, some money in Arbusto Energy, a company run by George W. Bush

Several members of the Bush family are investors in the Carlyle Group, a defence contractor and investment fund with numerous interests in the Middle East, which also has joined business interests with the Bin Laden family business, Saudi Binladin Group, a global construction and equity management conglomerate grossing $5 billion U.S. dollars annually, and one of the largest construction firms in the Islamic world, with offices in London and Geneva.

As you can see, there is no need for Osama’s cousin to join the ranks of the USA army, as he has already the contacts to actually run that army if he wanted!! But let’s be honest here. If my sister was a criminal, does this mean that I would be one as well? Of course not.

As for Osama himself, he started his life as a terrorist by receiving training and funding from the US itself. Operation Cyclone was the code name for the US/CIA program to arm the Afghan mujahedeen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989. Operation Cyclone is one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken; funding began with $20–30 million per year in 1980 and rose to $630 million per year in 1987.

The U.S. government has been criticized for allowing Pakistan to channel a disproportionate amount of its funding to controversial Afghan resistance leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a friend of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda troops. In the late 1980s, Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, concerned about the growing strength of the Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein.” How true he was!

Not only that, but the USA helped Islamic terrorists to move to Europe, as the following article in the UK’s Spectator publication explains

So, it’s not a question of ‘Shall we”. Your own government has done it already and has funded, trained and supported the very people that it now seeks to destroy. Well, they say that you reap what you sow.
As for the “Muslims hate America” and “terrorism will get this country from the inside” comments, again the person making that comment failed to question the cause that brought about the effect. I explained the cause in the list I gave previously. As for the terrorism part, your government should expect to be treated the same way it treated all these countries it affected by overthrowing their democratically elected governments. It’s about time that the pupil overpowers the teacher.

Let’s move on to the next statement. A pretty heavy one it is too:

Some may call me racist due to my views with this but oh well I am an AMERICAN and I have that right. I can think what I WANT to think and if you don’t agree with me too fucking bad. No Muslim should be allowed to serve. Reason being all it takes is one Muslim that is hell bent on violence to kill a person that is trying to save an innocent life. I am not saying their all bad. There very well may be a lot that want peace but we can not risk it. They have killed before and it will happen again.

Wow! Where do I start with this one? Well, he is an American and has the right to express any views he likes? What exactly does that mean? That non Americans do not have that right? Is there a law that actually forces non Americans not to speak their mind? Can I see that law please, because unless I have been asleep for the past 2000 years I am not aware of such a law. In fact, I only need to have been asleep about 500 years, since the USA is not that old as a country anyway.

Let’s look at the above statement from a logical point of view, something that the gun ho speaker above seems to lack or not be aware of. It’s not just Americans that have a right to their opinion. And yes, my friend, you can think what you want but unless you can support your thought with factual information I will certainly not give a fuck about it.

You may think that Iran is a country in Europe, or that the UK is in Africa. You can think indeed what you want. But if you just think what you want for the sake of it, and don’t give a fuck about whether your thought is right or wrong, then you join the queue of people called ‘stupid’. Are you insulted? Well, I have the right to express my opinion, I can think what I want to think and if you don’t agree with it too fucking bad. Your words, not mine. In fact, my accusation is substantiated because the dictionary definition of ‘stupid’ is “lacking normal intelligence or understanding”. Therefore, if you don’t care that what you think may be completely wrong and you fail to seek information to substantiate that thought, then by definition you are stupid.

I will now examine the statement that all it takes is one Muslim to kill a person trying to save an innocent life. I will start by the video below, which I challenge anyone who watches it to stay with dry eyes. Please watch it from 0.40 to 4.11 in the timer.

As you can see, it also takes an Israeli to kill an innocent American girl who tried to fight for the rights of an innocent family.


  • Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.

  • A sniper employed by Blackwater USA opened fire on innocent Iraqis killing 3 Iraqis from the roof top of the Iraqi Justice Ministry. See the video of the news report about the incident below (it’s in English)

·        Internal statistics presented to US Iraq commander General David Petraeus, and subsequently leaked to the McClatchy news service, shed some light on the extent of civilian killings. In the 12 months since July 2006, according to McClatchy’s sources, the US military has officially admitted to killing or wounding 429 Iraqis in 3,200 “escalation of force” incidents—situations where US troops on patrol, manning checkpoints or escorting vehicle convoys have opened fire on men, women and children they considered a threat. The figures indicate that civilians are shot at by US forces somewhere in Iraq at least every three hours. 

  • An example of how well US forces ‘keep the peace’ in Iraq, on a video from UK’s Channel 4 news.

  • Add the above to the hundreds of thousands of killings the US supported and funded in the list of coups at the start of this blog and it is evident that it also takes one corrupt US president (of many) to kill thousands of innocent people, that may have also been members of the family of the future Muslim suicide bomber.

It is evident that it takes an American as quickly to kill innocent people.

I also laugh at the statement “there may be a lot of Muslims that want peace”. Shows the ignorance of the person making that statement. It’s like saying there may well be a lot of Americans who want to see an end to the conflict. The MAJORITY of every person on this planet, whether Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc wants peace. It is the very minority which causes the problem and makes ignorant people assume that if a few do it then the lot must also do it. It’s not the American people that go to war, it’s the very few which form the American government. It is not the Muslim people that want to kill everyone, it’s the few fundamentalists. The same way that ignorant Americans believe whatever the government tells them, the same way ignorant Muslims fall for what the few fundamentalists tell them. Same coin, different sides.

Finally, I will end my blog with a question to my American speakers above. The US boasts of being the land of the free, and prides itself that freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

Can you then explain to me why in all its history the US has suppressed anyone supporting the communist and socialist ideologies? You hear Americans talk of communism and it’s as if they speak of the greatest evil of the planet, worse that Osama himself.

People suspected of being communists were deported, jailed, barred from speaking freely, all this in a country supposed to pride itself of its freedom of speech. Countries that were suspected of having a democratically elected government that harboured communist ideas had their governments overthrown by the US simply because this did not agree with the American way of life. It seems to me that US’s definition of freedom of speech is that you are free to speak as long as your speech supports American ideologies. That is not free speech, it is exactly the same limited speech as the one forced on the people of the communist countries.

I could go on for ages on the subject, to show that what today’s’ communist countries have is not communism; in the same way that the supposed democratic countries have is by far not a democracy in its specific definition. But I will leave this for another blog.

I will close with another link, which indicates that the US is far apart from supporting freedom of speech, even on its own people:

As you can see, it seems the US does exactly what it accuses communist and Muslim regimes of doing. I’m starting to believe that in the US national anthem, the sentence ‘Land of the Free’ has actually being mis-spelt and that the correct one is ‘Land of the Fee’, because it seems that in the US (as in pretty much every other country) everything has its monetary price. You pay the fee, you can become god himself.


  1. Hi there, I enjoyed every bit of your blog and good work there mate. I must also not fail to tell you that the US even though biased in their dealings in world affairs, they have in a way been able to keep this world of ours as one and in peace to an extent. You can imagine what countries like Russia, Germany, China etc would have done to smaller countries of this world. The US in my opinion have been able to keep these countries at bay from taking over the smaller ones. The US is as corrupt and biased as any other Nation you have mentioned above but in a way if you believe in God I think God is using them as the world police, to check on the negative and dangerous activities of war hungry nations like Iran, Iraq etc. I will use my country Nigeria as a case study. In all the places (Christian)states, the few muslims that live there want to possess and occupy the lands there by hook or crook. They have succeeded in creating more harm than good in most peaceful states in Nigeria. Recently, I'm sure you've heard of the Jos crisis? Jos is predominantly a Christian state with more than 99% population being Christians. Muslims went their as coal miners in the 50's and now they are claiming part of that state as theirs and have since engaged that peaceful state in a blood bath of recent. I am sure if you check on the meaning of Islam you will understand why Islam as a religion does not preach peace but violence.

  2. Excellent blog!

    Only one comment though, regarding your opposition to the "absolute freedom of speech".

    Limiting free speech to only "proven" facts would be the end of free speech! How come?

    Well,as any lawyer, matamatician, philosoph, or scientist will tell you, proving anything is literally impossible!
    There is always a percentage, smaller or larger, of any proof, that is simply accepted as "true".

    The law uses two levels of burden of proof,the stronger, "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal cases and the weaker, "balance of probabilities" for civil cases.
    Neither of these, however, GUARANTEE the proof,and the lawyers will be the first to admit that beyond certain point, the law simply "assumes" certain "accepted" "truths".

    In mathematics, proving anything requires you to accept certain "axioms" which are unprovable but accepted as "truth".

    In science, every so many years the "accepted and proven theories" get proven to be "not so true"...

    So in eliminating "unproven" claims from free speech, we would be left with only the facts accepted as "true" by "the legal system" or by "the society" or by "the science"....

    There would be, thus, no value in having "free speech" if you could only say what is already "known" or "accepted".

    It would simply be called "education", which of course, has its values, but is "by definition" not "free speech".

    Without the option to say that which is not already known or accepted as "the truth", free speech becomes useless and extinct and becomes education, doctrine, religion, journalism...or one of numerous other vehicles for transfer of "accepted" knowledge.!

    Yes,of course, there might be a risk of somebody falsely accusing you of terrible crimes, but the benefits of "absolute free speech" for the development of humanity and its ideas surely outweigh the risk of occasional wrong accusation (unless it happens to me ,of course!!!) (just joking!)

    Especially keeping in mind that any such "victim" could use the very same tool of "absolute free speech" to launch their defence or a verbal "counter attack".

    No wonder that a very clever man once said:
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    What do you think?

  3. Hi Andrej

    Thank you for your comments. In my blog I stated that I was only against 'absolute freedom of speech' not 'freedom of speech'. Maybe I did not make clear what I meant by that.

    Basically, I am all for freedom of speech, however not for freedom to incite hatred, making racist comments, etc...Therefore, I have no problem with someone stating an opinion even though it is not based on facts...but I do not want to have someone saying 'kill this' and 'hate that', which is were the term 'absolute' comes in.