It's been over a week since the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, one of the leading Hezbollah terrorists, and Mossad has taken the blame. I have no information if it was the Israeli government who killed this man but it seems they have already been accused by the Hezbollah leadership. In a previous post i proclaimed my support for these assassinations and i reiterate that once again.
This man was evil; his deliberate attacks on civilians led to an enormous loss of life not only within the Middle East but he is also believed to be behind the 1994 bombing of the AMIA centre which killed 85 people.
Whilst it would have been preferable to have this man face justice in an Israeli courtroom he was notorious for his paranoia; often changing his clothes, sleeping in separate houses every night and strangely having no bodyguards. He did this in order to avoid any kind of information being leaked to the various intelligence agencies that were hunting him.
However whoever did assassinate him did an astounding job (it was believed that the small explosive was placed in the headrest of his car-seat) and whilst i'm sure Israel did have a hand in it, it could not have been done without the support of their Arab neighbors. Hezbollah is a threat to the entire region with its tentacles, funded by Iran, being able to reach into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordann and various other countries. This way why three Arab states openly aligned against Hezbollah (and by default, allying with Israel) in the beginning of the 2006 war.
Many of them are afraid of what would happen should Hezbollah and Iran get too strong (they're also deeply concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapon) and topple their regimes. Many, like the Mubarak regime in Egypt, are far from perfect. The Egyptian dictatorship has oppressed citizens and media alike and routinely imprison political opponents who wish for democratic change. However they are also funded largely by the Americans who have given this dangerous regime a modern and very deadly army. Mubarak and many other Middle Eastern governments are fearful of Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Egypt, for they could soon gain power, and so are hoping for their downfall.
Whether or not Israel planned this assassination is irrelevant. There are plenty of Arab states who wanted Mughiniyeh dead and they could have taken care of this problem themselves.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
What's wrong with gun control?
There has been another tragedy today in America. As of writing 4 students are dead, 17 are wounded and the gunman committed suicide before the police could arrive. According to reports the gunman simply walked into the classroom, raised his weapon and open-fired on the students without saying a word.
The gunman has thus far not been named but i'm quite certain that he suffers from a mental disease; whilst this is bad enough one has to wonder how he managed to get ahold of a firearm in the first place. This will be the subject of an intense investigation and will hopefully renew calls for gun control in America.
Whilst most countries have effective gun control, Australia and Britain have each outlawed firearms for the majority of civilians, the United States is the only major Western power not to do so; the reason is wrapped up in it's history and constitution. The United States was formed through rebellion against the British government who they had fled to avoid religious persecution hundreds of years ago. When the constitution of the United States was written in 1787 and the Bill of Rights written in 1789 America was battle-hardened and scars from the recent conflicts with England were still fresh. So an amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights, deemed so important that it followed freedom of speech, and it was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This amendment is arguably the most controversial of all the Bill of Rights; it is cherished by the NRA and worshipped by the militias who consider it their patriotic duty to raise a citizen army.
Yet it is also the clause that allows guns to remain free on the streets of America.
There are several procedures in order to obtain a weapon in the United States. First one must undergo a background check to make sure that you are not a criminal or that you suffer from a mental disorder, after that your weapon must be registered and locked up safely. You're not allowed to bring weapons into certain buildings and some states do not allow weapons to be concealed from public view. Those that follow these rules and regulations are often very happy with their purchase and often during their lives never have to brandish their weapon in self defence. However those that do not acquire their weapons legally are affected by no such stringent rules. Rather for paying only a few hundred dollars on the black market they can acquire handguns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and the such which have their serial numbers removed to prevent any trace being made back to any other gun owners. These illegal weapons are the cause of many gang shootings in the United States and are untraceable.
Many gun supporters disagree with the outright banning of firearms, rather they say that should firearms be given to all Americans then a shooter would only be able to get a few shots off before being shot dead by a potential victim. This theory is moronic. Gun control works; in all major countries where gun control is effective there has been a noticeable drop in gun-related violence and shootings. Australia, after the Port Arthur Massacre in which more than 30 people died, banned guns outright. There has always been strong support for this position. Many don't wish to see Australia turn out like America, diseased with weaponry. If all citizens were to be given guns it would lead to more death and violence. Removing guns from the hands of potential killers is the only way to severely halt gun violence; whilst there is no way that you can successfully remove guns from a country banning them does make it harder for ordinary citizens to get their hands on them.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. The outdated amendment is often taken out of its' historical context and that ignorance is the cause of the powerful gun lobby. A greater understanding of the constitution and the outright banning of guns is the only realistic effective gun control.
The gunman has thus far not been named but i'm quite certain that he suffers from a mental disease; whilst this is bad enough one has to wonder how he managed to get ahold of a firearm in the first place. This will be the subject of an intense investigation and will hopefully renew calls for gun control in America.
Whilst most countries have effective gun control, Australia and Britain have each outlawed firearms for the majority of civilians, the United States is the only major Western power not to do so; the reason is wrapped up in it's history and constitution. The United States was formed through rebellion against the British government who they had fled to avoid religious persecution hundreds of years ago. When the constitution of the United States was written in 1787 and the Bill of Rights written in 1789 America was battle-hardened and scars from the recent conflicts with England were still fresh. So an amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights, deemed so important that it followed freedom of speech, and it was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This amendment is arguably the most controversial of all the Bill of Rights; it is cherished by the NRA and worshipped by the militias who consider it their patriotic duty to raise a citizen army.
Yet it is also the clause that allows guns to remain free on the streets of America.
There are several procedures in order to obtain a weapon in the United States. First one must undergo a background check to make sure that you are not a criminal or that you suffer from a mental disorder, after that your weapon must be registered and locked up safely. You're not allowed to bring weapons into certain buildings and some states do not allow weapons to be concealed from public view. Those that follow these rules and regulations are often very happy with their purchase and often during their lives never have to brandish their weapon in self defence. However those that do not acquire their weapons legally are affected by no such stringent rules. Rather for paying only a few hundred dollars on the black market they can acquire handguns, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and the such which have their serial numbers removed to prevent any trace being made back to any other gun owners. These illegal weapons are the cause of many gang shootings in the United States and are untraceable.
Many gun supporters disagree with the outright banning of firearms, rather they say that should firearms be given to all Americans then a shooter would only be able to get a few shots off before being shot dead by a potential victim. This theory is moronic. Gun control works; in all major countries where gun control is effective there has been a noticeable drop in gun-related violence and shootings. Australia, after the Port Arthur Massacre in which more than 30 people died, banned guns outright. There has always been strong support for this position. Many don't wish to see Australia turn out like America, diseased with weaponry. If all citizens were to be given guns it would lead to more death and violence. Removing guns from the hands of potential killers is the only way to severely halt gun violence; whilst there is no way that you can successfully remove guns from a country banning them does make it harder for ordinary citizens to get their hands on them.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. The outdated amendment is often taken out of its' historical context and that ignorance is the cause of the powerful gun lobby. A greater understanding of the constitution and the outright banning of guns is the only realistic effective gun control.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Super Tuesday
It has been over a month since i last posted. I apologise but i was on a very relaxing vacation.
The US election has been defying every pollster and pundit every week. Since Obama's win in Iowa and Hillary's win in New Hampshire everyone simply said that Super Tuesday would define a candidate.
Super Tuesday is when more than 22 states hold their primaries and is traditionally a nod to the future nominee of each party. John McCain is the expected nominee with Mitt Romney pulling out and Huckabee too far behind to be a significant threat. However Huckabee's continued presence in the Republican primaries is evident that the conservative base does not trust McCain with their nomination just yet.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton however are in a very tight race. Whilst Obama won more states he did not win the large delegates. Clinton won fewer states than Obama but won the states with the larger delegates. It appears that whilst more states liked Obama the electoral college swings in favour of Clinton.
The recent primaries held today in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C had Obama taking all of the delegates. It appears now that Obama has surpassed Clinton by 107 delegates. Whilst this is not a huge number of delegates it is important as it shows that the Obama-train is full steam ahead. With this momentum he won't have much trouble unseating Clinton in the next primary. Whilst i'm hesitant to call these primaries, considering everything that has been polled, i'm quite certain that Clinton will win several more primaries in the near future. However with Obama's momentum and the fact that his campaign is receiving over a million dollars a day in support (clinton's is around half that) and the free media exposure it is obvious that Barack Obama was the (no-pun intended) dark horse of the 2008 Presidential race. No one expected him to make a dent in the race but he has surprised us all. What we are seeing today and will continue to see in the future is the audacity of hope. A people so tired of two terms of Bush (and possibly afraid of another term of Clinton) that they will latch on to the charismatic leadership of a man demanding change for the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
The US election has been defying every pollster and pundit every week. Since Obama's win in Iowa and Hillary's win in New Hampshire everyone simply said that Super Tuesday would define a candidate.
Super Tuesday is when more than 22 states hold their primaries and is traditionally a nod to the future nominee of each party. John McCain is the expected nominee with Mitt Romney pulling out and Huckabee too far behind to be a significant threat. However Huckabee's continued presence in the Republican primaries is evident that the conservative base does not trust McCain with their nomination just yet.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton however are in a very tight race. Whilst Obama won more states he did not win the large delegates. Clinton won fewer states than Obama but won the states with the larger delegates. It appears that whilst more states liked Obama the electoral college swings in favour of Clinton.
The recent primaries held today in Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C had Obama taking all of the delegates. It appears now that Obama has surpassed Clinton by 107 delegates. Whilst this is not a huge number of delegates it is important as it shows that the Obama-train is full steam ahead. With this momentum he won't have much trouble unseating Clinton in the next primary. Whilst i'm hesitant to call these primaries, considering everything that has been polled, i'm quite certain that Clinton will win several more primaries in the near future. However with Obama's momentum and the fact that his campaign is receiving over a million dollars a day in support (clinton's is around half that) and the free media exposure it is obvious that Barack Obama was the (no-pun intended) dark horse of the 2008 Presidential race. No one expected him to make a dent in the race but he has surprised us all. What we are seeing today and will continue to see in the future is the audacity of hope. A people so tired of two terms of Bush (and possibly afraid of another term of Clinton) that they will latch on to the charismatic leadership of a man demanding change for the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
