Israel & Russia: Two Countries Responsible For The Indiscriminate Killing Of Children

 Politics  No Responses »
Jul 202014
 

Last week we have seen two “incidents” where two rogue states attempted to pursue a political end via direct action, or action via a proxy. I’m going to concentrate on the deaths of children because then certain apologists won’t be able to say: “But they could have been terrorists” … or at least won’t have much in the way of credibility if they do.

In the first case, we have what appears to be a Russian-backed independence movement firing off a missile to bring down a commercial airliner (MH17) killing 80 children.

In the second case, we have the Israeli military trying to stomp on Hamas, and as a result of disproportionate military force and an inability to target accurately, have killed over 50 children.

It is interesting to compare the two to see what similarities and differences there are.

In terms of how accidental those deaths were, it’s fairly obvious that the downing of MH17 was an accident given that it appears that the Russian-backed separatists were boasting about shooting down a Ukrainian military transport plane at the time the airliner was downed. It’s also self-evidently not in the interests of Russia or the separatists to shoot down that plane.

In the case of Israel’s thugs (oops! I mean their military of course), it is probable that the children were not deliberately targeted, but you do have to wonder given Israel’s past and present behaviour (according to the Jewish Virtual Library, the total number of Israeli deaths since 1860 is 20,000 and the total number of Palestinian dead is nearly 100,000) whether Israelis regard Palestinians as sub-humans whose deaths don’t really count.

In terms of an individual, anyone who shoots at a legitimate target and misses, and “accidentally” kills a child instead is guilty of manslaughter. I see no reason why nation states, governments, and the military should not be held to the same standard.

If you cannot shoot without risking civilian casualties, then do not shoot.

The most interesting aspect of these two incidents has been the reactions to them. In the case of the deaths caused by the Israeli indiscriminate military action, it seems to be more or less: “Oh no, Not again!” whereas the reaction to the deaths of the aircraft passengers has been quite justified outrage at the actions of the Russian-backed separatists, and the denials from the Russian government.

Where is the condemnation of Israel’s military action? And where is the condemnation of the USA for backing a bunch of thugs?

It is true that Hamas are also a bunch of thugs who continue to target Israel with poorly targeted missiles, but these are in no way comparable to what Israel is doing – recall those earlier figures of 100,000 Palestinian dead and 20,000 Israeli dead. And yes, it is quite possible that Hamas is using human shields to “embarrass” Israel with civilian casualties.

Yet in all the time I’ve been watching this unending conflict I have yet to see Israel embarrassed by any Palestinian dead.

Even ignoring the morality of indiscriminate killing of civilians, it is about time Israel realised that this sort of thing doesn’t work as demonstrated by the fact that it is still happening today. Perhaps they could try something else more radical – like talking to Hamas.

Without any real expectation of something like this happen I would like to see :-

  • Israel admonished and sanctioned for indiscriminate killing of civilians.
  • USA admonished and sanctioned for it’s military support of a rogue nation state (yes that does mean Israel).
  • Russia admonished and sanctioned for thinking us foolish enough to believe it’s denial of involvement in the shooting down of MH17.

Jean-Claude Juncker: Good For European Democracy

 Politics  No Responses »
Jun 282014
 

Given all the fuss over David Cameron’s hissy fit over the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker (henceforth “JCJ” as it is easier to type when I’m not entirely sober) as the European Union’s president, it may come as no surprise that something has been lost in the noise. And that is that JCJ has been appointed as the European Union’s president because he has effectively been elected by the European Parliament.

Most pan-European political parties campaigned with the intention that their leaders would be appointed European President … or at least that the European Parliament would ask that they would be appointed European President. And the European People’s Party‘s candidate was JCJ.

I would say in exactly the same way as David Cameron became Prime Minister except that didn’t happen as David Cameron did not have an overall majority.

To oppose JCJ’s appointment is anti-democratic. It is to oppose the will of the people. We should be celebrating the election of a president by the will of the people rather than being an appointment made by back-room deals as has always been previously the case. The acid test for the acceptance of democracy is to accept democratic decisions even when you disagree with them.

So Mr David Cameron, whilst you think you are protecting Britain’s interests, you are also opposing the will of the people – which is beyond contempt and exactly the sort of thing we expect from Britain’s politicians (said in exactly the same tone of voice I would use for the phrase paedophile).

The Sectarian Conflict in Iraq

 Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Jun 162014
 

There is a fair bit of news around at present with respect to the current sectarian conflict in Iraq, including the news of mass killings by ISIS. And of course we have a number of talking heads appearing on TV talking about the causes of the sectarian conflict. And often blaming the US intervention in Iraq.

Which is of course a complete red herring.

The previous regime in Iraq kept the lid on sectarian conflicts between Shias and Sunnis with extreme repression. Even a very superficial look at the history of the conflict shows that sectarian conflict was almost inevitable after the removal of Saddam Hussain.

And the blame for that conflict lies with the extremists within both Shia and Sunni communities – not with the Americans or British who fought to remove Saddam Hussain. Whilst the western forces may well be guilty of many things – including human rights abuses – this sectarian conflict is not something they brought about.

Ultimately sectarian conflicts in Iraq can only be solved by the Iraqis themselves.

 

Faith-Based Schools: Just Say No

 General, Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Jun 092014
 

The issue of certain faith-based schools is in the media today. Specifically whether certain schools in Birmingham were targeted for take-over by islamic extremists. Lots of allegations floating around with lots of denials.

Determining the truth of the matter is not likely to be easy – do I believe Tory ministers or religious nutters? By nature, I’m inclined to ignore both.

But there is a simple answer to this problem. Take any sort of faith out of all schools; schools are supposed to be about education and not about fairy stories. Any kind of faith activity should be classified as an extra-curricular activity that takes place outside school and has no interference with the normal school curriculum.

It is probable that most faith based schools are relatively harmless, although even the best will lead to a sense of exclusion for those in attendance whose faith does not match that of the school. And of course teenagers are probably the most likely group to change religion or reject religion altogether.

But whenever faith-based schools are permitted, there is always the chance that some form of extremism may creep into the curriculum. And that includes all religions – there are extremist christians who want to block the teaching of evolution as well as extremist muslims, hindus, etc.

Ban ’em all.

The “Crime” Of Apostasy

 Politics, Religion  No Responses »
Jun 052014
 

Apostasy can be loosely defined as renouncing a religion either to become an atheist or to convert to another religion. It has been in the news recently because of a Sudanese woman sentenced to death for apostasy.

Of course in her case it’s not apostasy, but following her childhood religion – her mother was a christian and her absent father was a muslim. But Sudan does not recognise the mother’s religion in such cases.

However you slice it, the concept of apostasy is ridiculous – it basically forces people who have “lost their way” to pretend to follow a religion. Forcing someone to go to a mosque (or a church, etc.) will just annoy and bore the victim. And yes listening to some holly roller prattle on about his imaginary friend is very boring.

It is noticeable that only islamic countries have a criminal sanction for apostasy, and probably only for deserting islam. In fact that is not quite true – other countries have had laws against apostasy … or herest which to an unbeliever is pretty much the same thing. After all apostasy is along the lines of “you don’t believe in what we believe” and heresy is merely a slightly different flavour of “you don’t believe what we believe”. The “best” example of a christian country executing someone for apostasy is probably Poland,

Although there are plenty of other examples.

But countries with a history of christianity have progressed on from a primitive medieval society that executes people for “crimes” as ridiculous as apostasy. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of it, apostasy is another group’s convert. And executing someone for being a protestant, a jew, a muslim or an atheist is nothing more than persecution of a minority group and will sooner or later (hopefully very much sooner) lead to all sorts of problems with such a society.

After all, a persecuted minority does not have much interest in protecting the status quo – they might well want to start a revolution and kick out the leaders.

Islamic law-makers need to look at implementing apostasy laws even handedly and prosecute christians, jews, and atheists who convert to islam – because they are apostates too. And of course babies are not born with a knowledge of islam, so they can be considered apostates as well. If you threaten to execute islamic apostates, then you need to threaten to execute all the other apostates too.

And then you might realise just how foolish laws against apostasy are.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries