Now that Nato has directly targeted, bombed and killed Ghadaffi's family members, including 3 grandchildren all aged under 6, is this still a humanitarian effort?
Ghaddaffi may not be a great man but why target a home knowingly populated with other civilians including his wife, kid, and grand kids? is the thought that if Gaddafi's gets eliminated, then it was worth it? The end justifies the means?
Can anyone walk into a country with civil discord of any kind, pick sides and honestly claim to know what they're doing? I mentioned in a post before that it is never possible to know the facts on the ground about divided nations. You're likely to take sides from the people you hear from the most. In the spirit of democracy though, it does not negate the opinions, values and rights of the opposing side. Be they down, 30 to 70 or 50/50.
This killing of people's children is just disgusting. It was disgusting when they killed Saddam's kids and justified it with that they were horrible human beings. I'm not saying they shouldn't have been tried and given due punishment. But they cannot be targeted because their father's leadership is despised and that called fair. It was ridiculous that they bombed Ghaddafi's compound and killed his son after pearl harbour. And it is still abhorrent now with another son and 3 grand kids.
There isn't a better man than Obama in for the 2012 race yet. But I'm watching carefully. If Barack does not condemn this and make some appeasing effort, I'm flushing him down the tubes of disgusting politicians. And because he is officially running in 2012 now, he needs to make an official campaign statement. So we can know where he stands on this.
I said this whole Libya invasion thing was a mess. Why isn't Nato in Syria yet? They have the same atrocities going on?! Sick, sick.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
I disagree
I'm an avid supporter of Barack Obama. In fact, I have often claimed that he thinks in many ways the same way that I do. I have disagreed with him before. But never as much as I do now. This whole Libya thing - I'm sorry. I'm just not buying it.
I've spoken to enough people to know that whatever one thinks about what is going on in the middle East, and Libya in particular, is simply a matter of opinion. As always, opinions are always a factor of our principals, our experiences and in many ways our fears. So those are sometimes hard to change. But I believe that they should always be heard, understood, appreciated and the differences noted, respectfully. And for that reason, I don't want to disagree with the Libya bombings on grounds of morality and the role of the U.S. to a purported looming massacre in the hands of colonel Gadhafi.
Let me disagree on grounds of "what the hell are you doing?" At the current moment,there is a general consensus, even amongst the talking heads that generally agree with Obama, that this mission is fuzzy at best. Up to this moment, Obama has been hard pressed to explain himself clearly to anyone. If I, a real loyal who trusts the decision making process of this president, am having a really tough time with this one, I think we have a problem.
First and foremost, how can one prove that Libya is not dealing with a civil uprising? Despite all the protests we've seen on TV, and our general acknowledgement that Gadhafi makes us uncomfortable, to say the least, there is no denying that there is an obvious availability of Gadhafi supporters. If that were not the case, he would have been ousted by now. So who is the U.N or the U.S to take sides in this affair? if we're claiming democracy, how do we pick sides and still maintain its integrity? Because, let's be honest, the U.N. mandate allows for the arming of the rebels. That is taking sides.
Additionally, Barack committed funds to this mission. At the current time, the waging war against him from the republicans has to do with the deficit and spending. So why would he not engage congress first? I think what really ticks me off is that Barack has changed the tone again. Before all this, the Union collective bargaining war had just simply turned everyone towards democrats and Barack Obama. And what a momentum there was. So I ask, what the hell is this, that it was worth that loss?
Maybe, Barack thought this would help him look less timid. Look like a president who can make war decisions towards going to war. But the problem with this is that it alienates his voting base. That base tends to be more peace, less war. More resolutions outside of gun battles. And most importantly, more process oriented. The one thing that is definitely missing here - an understood mission and process to follow.
And while I agree by all means, stop a massacre before it happens, whenever a decision is made to "assist" an oil rich country, while the Congo and Sudan continue to bleed out, I am simply not buying that reason. It's BS, and I am calling it out. I just hate that I am calling under Obama's administration.
It's possible that I just disagree with Western intervention in majority of cases, and maybe that's why I disagree with this. But I think I especially don't believe in the "uproar" that was/is in the middle east as a very real thing. Except that it is real and happening. I'm of the school of thought that this is media driven, and Ii could put it this way, Japan, its earthquake, Tsunami and nuclear issues came a little too late to avert Obama's having to make a decision here. I am convinced that these revolutions have been kept alive by consistent attention from the western media. And that in itself would be valid if I believed the interest was genuine. I don't. I think the interest is only commercial to the media industry. So let's hope Barack knows better than I do what it is he is doing and what the end results will be. Because personally, at the current time, I believe strongly he's just responded to a product of media hype that may have had nothing to do with anything - in the long run.
I've spoken to enough people to know that whatever one thinks about what is going on in the middle East, and Libya in particular, is simply a matter of opinion. As always, opinions are always a factor of our principals, our experiences and in many ways our fears. So those are sometimes hard to change. But I believe that they should always be heard, understood, appreciated and the differences noted, respectfully. And for that reason, I don't want to disagree with the Libya bombings on grounds of morality and the role of the U.S. to a purported looming massacre in the hands of colonel Gadhafi.
Let me disagree on grounds of "what the hell are you doing?" At the current moment,there is a general consensus, even amongst the talking heads that generally agree with Obama, that this mission is fuzzy at best. Up to this moment, Obama has been hard pressed to explain himself clearly to anyone. If I, a real loyal who trusts the decision making process of this president, am having a really tough time with this one, I think we have a problem.
First and foremost, how can one prove that Libya is not dealing with a civil uprising? Despite all the protests we've seen on TV, and our general acknowledgement that Gadhafi makes us uncomfortable, to say the least, there is no denying that there is an obvious availability of Gadhafi supporters. If that were not the case, he would have been ousted by now. So who is the U.N or the U.S to take sides in this affair? if we're claiming democracy, how do we pick sides and still maintain its integrity? Because, let's be honest, the U.N. mandate allows for the arming of the rebels. That is taking sides.
Additionally, Barack committed funds to this mission. At the current time, the waging war against him from the republicans has to do with the deficit and spending. So why would he not engage congress first? I think what really ticks me off is that Barack has changed the tone again. Before all this, the Union collective bargaining war had just simply turned everyone towards democrats and Barack Obama. And what a momentum there was. So I ask, what the hell is this, that it was worth that loss?
Maybe, Barack thought this would help him look less timid. Look like a president who can make war decisions towards going to war. But the problem with this is that it alienates his voting base. That base tends to be more peace, less war. More resolutions outside of gun battles. And most importantly, more process oriented. The one thing that is definitely missing here - an understood mission and process to follow.
And while I agree by all means, stop a massacre before it happens, whenever a decision is made to "assist" an oil rich country, while the Congo and Sudan continue to bleed out, I am simply not buying that reason. It's BS, and I am calling it out. I just hate that I am calling under Obama's administration.
It's possible that I just disagree with Western intervention in majority of cases, and maybe that's why I disagree with this. But I think I especially don't believe in the "uproar" that was/is in the middle east as a very real thing. Except that it is real and happening. I'm of the school of thought that this is media driven, and Ii could put it this way, Japan, its earthquake, Tsunami and nuclear issues came a little too late to avert Obama's having to make a decision here. I am convinced that these revolutions have been kept alive by consistent attention from the western media. And that in itself would be valid if I believed the interest was genuine. I don't. I think the interest is only commercial to the media industry. So let's hope Barack knows better than I do what it is he is doing and what the end results will be. Because personally, at the current time, I believe strongly he's just responded to a product of media hype that may have had nothing to do with anything - in the long run.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Gun Trotting Bandits - Executions, Not Simply Injustice?
ON Thursday morning, I looked into the online version of the Kenyan Nation newspaper to find the big news, with pictures to boot. Police had executed some thugs, who had apparently surrendered. Of course it's shocking. More so that they did this in the very open. I can't imagine if one had their children in their vehicles while the cops carried out their actions.
On Wednesday evening, I received a phone call. My brother in law had been murdered. He was shot dead, execution style, right outside the gate to his house. The bandits carried his car keys but not his car. They killed him outside his gate, so that meant his wife and kids heard the commotion, the shots and were left to find the display the bandits had left behind.
On December 24th, 2010, I was in Kenya and at Kenyatta Market getting my hair braided. This crazy story was circulating. One of the braiders in one of the stalls wasn't in and had experienced tragedy in her family. Apparently, the night before, on her way home from work, she walked into a crowd of people gathered around some dead people. They had been shot by police. One was a robber. The other was an innocent high school student, whom the robber had used to shield himself from the police bullets with. The police had shot and killed both. The innocent high school student was her son.
So I am reading the comments on this story in the nation newspaper and noting the outrage in people's tones. I am trying to feel that outraged, but I can't. I keep thinking, as long as one can confirm these were robbers with guns, shoot them and kill them. For starters, our system will probably let them out of jail, perhaps even before they have served their time, due to corruption within our jail systems. And these people will go back to shoot and kill another family's father, son, brother, husband and friend. Let this gun trotting idiots die instead.
Now I am not unaware of the ugliness of my intuitive emotion. How dare anyone kill a surrendered man? It's horrible. I agree. But is it worse than the fact that this surrendered man kills innocent people? If I believed that the system would take care of these thugs correctly, tuck them away somewhere and let them rot there to die; especially where the death penalty is now eliminated in Kenya, I might be OK and insisting on the 'don't shoot surrendered gun trotting thugs', mantra. But I don't believe in it. And what about these cops? Who keep engaging in gun fights with the same set of thugs repeatedly? I understand why they shoot them to eliminate them. The truth is, our system is not ready for gun trotting violence wielders.
So here is what I'd propose. An outright gun on guns in the open for everyone. Any violators can expect to be shot dead. Legally. Yes, I'm proposing a shoot to kill order for all gun wielding thugs.
What about the innocent bystanders, such as the high school student I mentioned earlier? I'm proposing better training for the police. And an additional clause to the shoot to kill order. Simply, once an innocent person is added to the mix, a 'hold fire' mandate.
But am I sorry for the executed thugs? Not at the current moment. Perhaps my emotions are a little raw at the current moment. Am I aware that it is a degenerate society that would execute a surrendered man? Yes. But to that I say, it is a degenerated man that would shoot an innocent man. The cops did not shoot innocent men. They shot surrendered crooks. It is not the same thing. And I for one, want that difference noted and appreciated. If my father, brother or husband was a cop, I'd be sure that I advised that they shoot these idiots before they get shot. I'm fighting for the cops on this one. I'm not claiming they were right. I'm asking that we pass a law that makes them right. That should deter any gun trotting thug without a death wish. All others, well, their wishes can be fulfilled as desired. And meanwhile, those responsible should start drafting laws, creating spaces and cleaning up the system, so that in the future, the shoot to kill order will no longer be necessary.
I'm surprised by myself too. I didn't know I had this cold space in me.
On Wednesday evening, I received a phone call. My brother in law had been murdered. He was shot dead, execution style, right outside the gate to his house. The bandits carried his car keys but not his car. They killed him outside his gate, so that meant his wife and kids heard the commotion, the shots and were left to find the display the bandits had left behind.
On December 24th, 2010, I was in Kenya and at Kenyatta Market getting my hair braided. This crazy story was circulating. One of the braiders in one of the stalls wasn't in and had experienced tragedy in her family. Apparently, the night before, on her way home from work, she walked into a crowd of people gathered around some dead people. They had been shot by police. One was a robber. The other was an innocent high school student, whom the robber had used to shield himself from the police bullets with. The police had shot and killed both. The innocent high school student was her son.
So I am reading the comments on this story in the nation newspaper and noting the outrage in people's tones. I am trying to feel that outraged, but I can't. I keep thinking, as long as one can confirm these were robbers with guns, shoot them and kill them. For starters, our system will probably let them out of jail, perhaps even before they have served their time, due to corruption within our jail systems. And these people will go back to shoot and kill another family's father, son, brother, husband and friend. Let this gun trotting idiots die instead.
Now I am not unaware of the ugliness of my intuitive emotion. How dare anyone kill a surrendered man? It's horrible. I agree. But is it worse than the fact that this surrendered man kills innocent people? If I believed that the system would take care of these thugs correctly, tuck them away somewhere and let them rot there to die; especially where the death penalty is now eliminated in Kenya, I might be OK and insisting on the 'don't shoot surrendered gun trotting thugs', mantra. But I don't believe in it. And what about these cops? Who keep engaging in gun fights with the same set of thugs repeatedly? I understand why they shoot them to eliminate them. The truth is, our system is not ready for gun trotting violence wielders.
So here is what I'd propose. An outright gun on guns in the open for everyone. Any violators can expect to be shot dead. Legally. Yes, I'm proposing a shoot to kill order for all gun wielding thugs.
What about the innocent bystanders, such as the high school student I mentioned earlier? I'm proposing better training for the police. And an additional clause to the shoot to kill order. Simply, once an innocent person is added to the mix, a 'hold fire' mandate.
But am I sorry for the executed thugs? Not at the current moment. Perhaps my emotions are a little raw at the current moment. Am I aware that it is a degenerate society that would execute a surrendered man? Yes. But to that I say, it is a degenerated man that would shoot an innocent man. The cops did not shoot innocent men. They shot surrendered crooks. It is not the same thing. And I for one, want that difference noted and appreciated. If my father, brother or husband was a cop, I'd be sure that I advised that they shoot these idiots before they get shot. I'm fighting for the cops on this one. I'm not claiming they were right. I'm asking that we pass a law that makes them right. That should deter any gun trotting thug without a death wish. All others, well, their wishes can be fulfilled as desired. And meanwhile, those responsible should start drafting laws, creating spaces and cleaning up the system, so that in the future, the shoot to kill order will no longer be necessary.
I'm surprised by myself too. I didn't know I had this cold space in me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)