Re: Iran Ayatollah Assails U.S. On New Nuclear Strategy.
I thought President Obama’s “Nuclear Posture Review” was not meant to be a threat to anyone but, as is more in our nature as a nation, a reassurance to those nations who do abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. For the Ayatollah to perceive this as a threat speaks loudly of a guilty conscience. Khamenei’s automatic assumption we are threatening Iran may warrant further investigation of Iran’s nuclear program. Though, meant or not, Obama’s “Nuclear Posture Review” is a roundabout threat to those countries who are in violation or were perched to do so. Iran has refused to stall its nuclear program, in spite of United Nations sanctions and fervent calls from the United States. I do not hold with the idea that we, the U.S. should police the world, but Nuclear power is something that can and will affect the whole world and it would be wrong for those with the power to stop it to stand idly by.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Post for April 9th: Israel's true face?
Re: Israel Lifts Order of Silence in Journalist’s Spying Case
In my opinion Israel is behaving suspiciously. Secretly holding a journalist under house arrest for nearly four months is not part of the program of an honest nation. The journalist is suspect of fraud and the theft with intent to harm Israel of some 2,000 military documents. It is thought that she used some of those papers to write her articles before being arrested. I understand not wanting sensitive information to be leaked to the public, or military intelligence leaked to anyone but the treatment of the journalist bring the whole operation as suspect. Gag orders, house arrest and potential jail sentences seem a bit extreme when it isn’t proved she stole or used the documents. It seems mostly to be a wrong place wrong time scenario. If Israel is seeking trust from the world and its allies it must begin to act in an upright manner, all these backhanded and under handed dealings are damaging to their image and to their state. What building can expect to stand on such shaky foundations?
In my opinion Israel is behaving suspiciously. Secretly holding a journalist under house arrest for nearly four months is not part of the program of an honest nation. The journalist is suspect of fraud and the theft with intent to harm Israel of some 2,000 military documents. It is thought that she used some of those papers to write her articles before being arrested. I understand not wanting sensitive information to be leaked to the public, or military intelligence leaked to anyone but the treatment of the journalist bring the whole operation as suspect. Gag orders, house arrest and potential jail sentences seem a bit extreme when it isn’t proved she stole or used the documents. It seems mostly to be a wrong place wrong time scenario. If Israel is seeking trust from the world and its allies it must begin to act in an upright manner, all these backhanded and under handed dealings are damaging to their image and to their state. What building can expect to stand on such shaky foundations?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Puppetmaster forever?
Is the United States the puppet master of the world?
It seems that way today. With every country following what seem to be simple suggestions that fit the agenda of the United States without actually having to come from them. A perfect example is in this article, “Western officials have long believed that North Waziristan is the single most important haven for militants…” is a subtle way of telling Pakistan that there is a threat on their own land and in order for Pakistan and the United States to become allies, they must first deal with this threat. Perhaps it is because the United States views the militants inhabiting this area as a threat to their power and standing with the rest of the world that they feel the need to create these radical viewpoints.
One thing that stands out to me is that many of the areas that the United States views as a threat to them or inhabited by militants tend to be in or around tribal areas. Tribal peoples are generally not a threat to anyone unless a wrong has been committed against their people. Often times the only fighting they do is to fight back. Perhaps it is the lack of development that allows the United States to view these people as a threat, but in all honesty, without development and expansion how are they even going to be able to fight back against the United States. Maybe if they got together with these militant groups, but then the United States would have to commit a crime against them.
Pulling the puppet strings, trying to make yourself and your country more powerful is not the correct way to command a country. Often time’s citizens of the United States say that President Bush was the man that “ruined” our image, but perhaps it is the lack of change that gives President Obama this honor. We should try to silence our government in matters that do not pertain to the safety of our citizens or soldiers. Often this is the area in which we get in trouble. International relations will never be continuous or civil if we do not make a point to stay out of other people’s business. This is why President Obama was elected. On a platform of change, and change he has not delivered.
Modesty
The members of the Duggar family, a rising American phenomenon, pride themselves on several things. Obviously, the number of children seems to be the most significant accomplishment of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s life as a married couple. However, a further search into their lives reveals a closely knit Christian family whose main focus is to raise their children to love God. Their conservative ways and interesting take on raising a family has captured American attention. An interesting characteristic of their family captured my attention the other day as I flipped on TLC and witnessed Michelle’s ultrasound of the newest baby. The clan of twenty one individuals crowded into the doctor’s office to witness the miraculous event. But come time to reveal the bulging belly under Mrs. Duggar’s shirt, a large blanket was placed over her belly, the children were shooed away, and only the nurse and Mr. Duggar were allowed to remain in the room. Michelle’s later comment on her ultrasound was that her and her husband believe in modesty; modesty that many Americans see as strict and excessive. Nine of the nineteen children in the family are female, plus Michelle and the wife of the Duggar’s eldest son. These eleven women are always clothed in calf-length skirts and high-necked t-shirts, cautious of what parts of their body they reveal to those not closely related.
Modesty is a topic of debate among many societies, but especially in religion. Typically modesty refers to the actions or dress of women. Peoples’ ideas of what actions are appropriate to make known to the general public, other people, and even their own family varies significantly. I bring up the Duggar family to illustrate just one example of an American family’s moral stance on the issue. I, too, come from a family of mostly females, so modesty is a large topic of discussion in my household. My sisters, mom, and I are always cautious of the length of our shorts and the depth of necklines on our shirts. We aren’t nearly as strict as the Duggar family, but we don’t advertise our bodies or expose vast amounts of skin either. I believe modesty is relative. A person should wear what they are comfortable in. If that means nothing, there are nudist colonies for that.
Many women of the Muslim faith have a similar view on modesty as the Duggars, but instead of covering their legs in long denim skirts, they cover the majority of their bodies when in public. The hijab, literally meaning “curtain” or “cover” in Arabic, can either refer to the head covering many Muslim women wear or to the full body covering that a smaller number of Muslim women wear. There is a seemingly ridiculous debate around the subject of the hijab, stemming from many misinterpretations regarding the purpose of the coverings. Many ignorant of the true reason behind wearing the dressings believe that women are expected to cover themselves for the purpose of suppressing them, restricting their movement with heavy clothing and forcing them into submission. The real reason is actually quite different, as well as liberating for Muslim women.
I wouldn’t have spent the majority of this editorial thus far discussing modesty if there was no purpose for it. The Qur’an instructs both men and women of Islamic faith to dress modestly. Specifically regarding women, the Qur’an states, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..." (Qur'an 24:30-31)
A young Canadian Muslim, Sumayyah Hussein, interviewed several other Muslim girls, asking their opinions on the hijab. Sumayya Syed, aged 16, stated, “…the hijab is not a responsibility, it's a right given to me by my Creator who knows us best. It's a benefit to me, so why not? It's something every woman should strive to get and should want." "You feel modest...and you feel like you're covered up. You have more self-respect. You have more confidence in yourself that you don't need to care about (how) you look," said Rema Zawi, also 16 years old.
In Muslim society, wearing the hijab is seen as an action taken to uphold modesty. In a society where religion and tradition governs, it is natural that the expectation of modesty be supported and enforced by the law. If the women desire to wear the hijab because they want to maintain their modesty, why all the uproar about the hijab being a suppressant to the woman of Islam? The hijab is just another form of modesty, much the same as the Duggar girls wearing skirts and my family being conscientious of the amount of skin we show. If modesty is for the benefit of all, why restrict it?
Modesty is a topic of debate among many societies, but especially in religion. Typically modesty refers to the actions or dress of women. Peoples’ ideas of what actions are appropriate to make known to the general public, other people, and even their own family varies significantly. I bring up the Duggar family to illustrate just one example of an American family’s moral stance on the issue. I, too, come from a family of mostly females, so modesty is a large topic of discussion in my household. My sisters, mom, and I are always cautious of the length of our shorts and the depth of necklines on our shirts. We aren’t nearly as strict as the Duggar family, but we don’t advertise our bodies or expose vast amounts of skin either. I believe modesty is relative. A person should wear what they are comfortable in. If that means nothing, there are nudist colonies for that.
Many women of the Muslim faith have a similar view on modesty as the Duggars, but instead of covering their legs in long denim skirts, they cover the majority of their bodies when in public. The hijab, literally meaning “curtain” or “cover” in Arabic, can either refer to the head covering many Muslim women wear or to the full body covering that a smaller number of Muslim women wear. There is a seemingly ridiculous debate around the subject of the hijab, stemming from many misinterpretations regarding the purpose of the coverings. Many ignorant of the true reason behind wearing the dressings believe that women are expected to cover themselves for the purpose of suppressing them, restricting their movement with heavy clothing and forcing them into submission. The real reason is actually quite different, as well as liberating for Muslim women.
I wouldn’t have spent the majority of this editorial thus far discussing modesty if there was no purpose for it. The Qur’an instructs both men and women of Islamic faith to dress modestly. Specifically regarding women, the Qur’an states, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; and that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands..." (Qur'an 24:30-31)
A young Canadian Muslim, Sumayyah Hussein, interviewed several other Muslim girls, asking their opinions on the hijab. Sumayya Syed, aged 16, stated, “…the hijab is not a responsibility, it's a right given to me by my Creator who knows us best. It's a benefit to me, so why not? It's something every woman should strive to get and should want." "You feel modest...and you feel like you're covered up. You have more self-respect. You have more confidence in yourself that you don't need to care about (how) you look," said Rema Zawi, also 16 years old.
In Muslim society, wearing the hijab is seen as an action taken to uphold modesty. In a society where religion and tradition governs, it is natural that the expectation of modesty be supported and enforced by the law. If the women desire to wear the hijab because they want to maintain their modesty, why all the uproar about the hijab being a suppressant to the woman of Islam? The hijab is just another form of modesty, much the same as the Duggar girls wearing skirts and my family being conscientious of the amount of skin we show. If modesty is for the benefit of all, why restrict it?
Israel/Palestin
Op/Ed
The conflict of Israel and Palestine is something that is talked about so much that some might say it is, "beating a horse with a dead stick," and if there is so much talk, why is there so little action being done on the success of solution to the conflict. Israel and Palestine have had their "odds and ends" on and off throughout history, however things have been especially heated since World War Two. Basically, the Jewish people needed a place to go, since obviously their home was destroyed, and much the world had much sympathy for them. Israel was what came to be the solution to the problem; Israel was declared a state, and the Palestinian people, who were sharing and living in the land, were told all of a sudden where they could and couldn't live. Since it is said in the biblical times, that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews, many of the Jewsish population believe that they have the divine right to own and live in the land, however the big conflict arises because the Palestinians have been living in the land for just as long, if not longer, than the Jews. So who has the right to live in the land? Obviously both sides have a legitimate point and reason for being there, but who is right? This is the main reason for all the war and conflict between the two states today. There has been constant fighting since the two states were created, and such drastic measures, such as completely shutting off power, and even food and gas to the Palestinians, have happened because of the fighting. When I say that the topic has been beaten over and over again, it's because it is true; everybody on both sides and around the world wants the fighting to stop; what is gained from people dying, especially when it is happening on both sides? Of course what needs to happen is a solution, but when the brightest people in the nation can't even come up with a descent plan, you know that's saying something. My point here is that this conflict is one that has no quick solution. There has been so much damage to both sides since the two states have been created, that it will take much more than just talking to solve this issue. In my opinion, the greatest healing power to the situation will be time. If laws and peace treaties are put into action, things will change, but will this change the hearts of the single individuals who are more than happy and willing to die for their country and its rights? My simple answer is no. This is happening right now in Iraq; America is trying to fix the mess that they've started, and it is not the people of the country as a whole that are causing the problem, it is those that are the fundamental Muslims who want to kill in Allah's name. These people are a small population of Muslims, however the biggest problem that is faced, is the fact that they believe that what they are doing is right and honoring to their religion and faith; we are the bad guys to them, and mainly because we do not have the same beliefs. This same analogy can be applied to the Israeli Palestinian conflict; there is virtually no way, at least not even a moderately easy way, to change the views of someone who is very passionate in what they believe. This conflict is going to take time: time to forget the pain that everyone is experiencing from the events, time to be able to trust one another, time to establish governments that respect each other, and even time to break down the physical wall that separates the two. Every single one of the solutions I present take a great deal of time and effort. There is no doubt that the people want peace; everyone, or most everyone, wants peace, even if they are the ones fighting. If the question: would you rather be fighting in war, or be spending time with friends and family in a safe environment? was asked to a wide range of people, I can safely say that over ninety percent would choose the friends and family. We know what both sides in the conflict want and that is to be able to live in peace, but it will take understanding and cooperation for this to happen. When one's mind is scarred from the effects of war, this lasts a lifetime and is not forgotten easily, if ever. This conflict can only be helped by time to realize what is best, and time to get past the past, which can and certainly will be the hardest thing to do.
The conflict of Israel and Palestine is something that is talked about so much that some might say it is, "beating a horse with a dead stick," and if there is so much talk, why is there so little action being done on the success of solution to the conflict. Israel and Palestine have had their "odds and ends" on and off throughout history, however things have been especially heated since World War Two. Basically, the Jewish people needed a place to go, since obviously their home was destroyed, and much the world had much sympathy for them. Israel was what came to be the solution to the problem; Israel was declared a state, and the Palestinian people, who were sharing and living in the land, were told all of a sudden where they could and couldn't live. Since it is said in the biblical times, that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews, many of the Jewsish population believe that they have the divine right to own and live in the land, however the big conflict arises because the Palestinians have been living in the land for just as long, if not longer, than the Jews. So who has the right to live in the land? Obviously both sides have a legitimate point and reason for being there, but who is right? This is the main reason for all the war and conflict between the two states today. There has been constant fighting since the two states were created, and such drastic measures, such as completely shutting off power, and even food and gas to the Palestinians, have happened because of the fighting. When I say that the topic has been beaten over and over again, it's because it is true; everybody on both sides and around the world wants the fighting to stop; what is gained from people dying, especially when it is happening on both sides? Of course what needs to happen is a solution, but when the brightest people in the nation can't even come up with a descent plan, you know that's saying something. My point here is that this conflict is one that has no quick solution. There has been so much damage to both sides since the two states have been created, that it will take much more than just talking to solve this issue. In my opinion, the greatest healing power to the situation will be time. If laws and peace treaties are put into action, things will change, but will this change the hearts of the single individuals who are more than happy and willing to die for their country and its rights? My simple answer is no. This is happening right now in Iraq; America is trying to fix the mess that they've started, and it is not the people of the country as a whole that are causing the problem, it is those that are the fundamental Muslims who want to kill in Allah's name. These people are a small population of Muslims, however the biggest problem that is faced, is the fact that they believe that what they are doing is right and honoring to their religion and faith; we are the bad guys to them, and mainly because we do not have the same beliefs. This same analogy can be applied to the Israeli Palestinian conflict; there is virtually no way, at least not even a moderately easy way, to change the views of someone who is very passionate in what they believe. This conflict is going to take time: time to forget the pain that everyone is experiencing from the events, time to be able to trust one another, time to establish governments that respect each other, and even time to break down the physical wall that separates the two. Every single one of the solutions I present take a great deal of time and effort. There is no doubt that the people want peace; everyone, or most everyone, wants peace, even if they are the ones fighting. If the question: would you rather be fighting in war, or be spending time with friends and family in a safe environment? was asked to a wide range of people, I can safely say that over ninety percent would choose the friends and family. We know what both sides in the conflict want and that is to be able to live in peace, but it will take understanding and cooperation for this to happen. When one's mind is scarred from the effects of war, this lasts a lifetime and is not forgotten easily, if ever. This conflict can only be helped by time to realize what is best, and time to get past the past, which can and certainly will be the hardest thing to do.
Revamping the Soliya Connect Program to foster better relations
The Soliya Connect program encourages communication across the globe, but is it doing enough? Their main objective is to facilitate conversations between a diverse body of students through video conferencing. A good goal and a fairly affective process, however, to truly make the desired impact the scale is too small and the time spent, far too short.
Students from the west and east are all schedule to meet at a certain time online to talk about international issues, and to develop a dialog. The time these students commit to the Connect program is two hours once a week. At the end of the week I know I struggled to even remember what we talked about. The program is useful for aiding in giving a face to that “other” side and allowing free discussion of almost any topic. Though, it is not enough. Two hours once a week is forgettable. There are three main problems with the Soliya Connect program. First: the sessions are too short. Second: the overall scale of the program is too small for the desired change and third: the sessions are too crowded to fully explore the opinions of the other participants.
I would recommend, having gone through the Soliya Connect program that the program extend itself to two hours three times a week. This would allow the students involved to avidly participate in the group and with more time the prompts could be discussed more in-depth and in greater length. With the added sessions more could be explored by the groups and a much deeper impression of the experience would be carried away with each student.
The idea behind the Soliya Connect program is to foster a greater understanding between the west and the Middle East. By conversing with people from all over the world one’s thought process’ have to change as the mind is confronted with new data which nullifies the old. The program helps rid the participants of some of the unfounded stereotypes that all parties may hold of the other. In the long run this is extremely helpful to the progress of the relationship between the West and the Middle East, indeed the Middle East and the world. As a multitude of individuals with first hand positive experiences go out and are able to put an end to media fostered untruths. That is change, but it is too slow and too small. The program is more a trickle of sand patiently wearing away a great boulder. To see the change Soliya desires the program must grow and involve a greater number of people. To do this without increasing the third problem with the Connect program, there would simply have to be more sessions held with more facilitators.
Each session typically has ten people actively involved; eight students and two facilitators. The diversity is astounding and allows for the ability to sit back and just listen to what other people are saying. While that is enjoyable, when the issue is a hot one and everyone wishes to contribute to the discussion, there are too many people to be fully heard. The groups need to be more around the number of four or five with two facilitators.
The changes I propose might be a tad intensive for Soliya’s current scale but it could be something they could work up to. I recommend the program I laid out above be used with the students who really show a great interest in the discussions as a more advance version of the Soliya program. This would build a greater interest in the program and aid in the change between U.S. and Middle Eastern relations. Once Soliya gains more momentum they should make this intensive program the standard and elaborate off of it for those seeking further interactions. After that, they should again break and create more sessions of equal intensity to truly make that impact in the experiences of all these curious individuals.
The Soliya program was captivating and stimulating but overtime that wonderment experienced with honestly listening to another’s opinion fades away. The experience is too impermanent. However with more sessions, two hours three times a week, a greater sphere of influence to increase the rate of impact, and fewer students per sessions to allow deeper discussion that joy might linger longer and allow itself to shared and savored.
Students from the west and east are all schedule to meet at a certain time online to talk about international issues, and to develop a dialog. The time these students commit to the Connect program is two hours once a week. At the end of the week I know I struggled to even remember what we talked about. The program is useful for aiding in giving a face to that “other” side and allowing free discussion of almost any topic. Though, it is not enough. Two hours once a week is forgettable. There are three main problems with the Soliya Connect program. First: the sessions are too short. Second: the overall scale of the program is too small for the desired change and third: the sessions are too crowded to fully explore the opinions of the other participants.
I would recommend, having gone through the Soliya Connect program that the program extend itself to two hours three times a week. This would allow the students involved to avidly participate in the group and with more time the prompts could be discussed more in-depth and in greater length. With the added sessions more could be explored by the groups and a much deeper impression of the experience would be carried away with each student.
The idea behind the Soliya Connect program is to foster a greater understanding between the west and the Middle East. By conversing with people from all over the world one’s thought process’ have to change as the mind is confronted with new data which nullifies the old. The program helps rid the participants of some of the unfounded stereotypes that all parties may hold of the other. In the long run this is extremely helpful to the progress of the relationship between the West and the Middle East, indeed the Middle East and the world. As a multitude of individuals with first hand positive experiences go out and are able to put an end to media fostered untruths. That is change, but it is too slow and too small. The program is more a trickle of sand patiently wearing away a great boulder. To see the change Soliya desires the program must grow and involve a greater number of people. To do this without increasing the third problem with the Connect program, there would simply have to be more sessions held with more facilitators.
Each session typically has ten people actively involved; eight students and two facilitators. The diversity is astounding and allows for the ability to sit back and just listen to what other people are saying. While that is enjoyable, when the issue is a hot one and everyone wishes to contribute to the discussion, there are too many people to be fully heard. The groups need to be more around the number of four or five with two facilitators.
The changes I propose might be a tad intensive for Soliya’s current scale but it could be something they could work up to. I recommend the program I laid out above be used with the students who really show a great interest in the discussions as a more advance version of the Soliya program. This would build a greater interest in the program and aid in the change between U.S. and Middle Eastern relations. Once Soliya gains more momentum they should make this intensive program the standard and elaborate off of it for those seeking further interactions. After that, they should again break and create more sessions of equal intensity to truly make that impact in the experiences of all these curious individuals.
The Soliya program was captivating and stimulating but overtime that wonderment experienced with honestly listening to another’s opinion fades away. The experience is too impermanent. However with more sessions, two hours three times a week, a greater sphere of influence to increase the rate of impact, and fewer students per sessions to allow deeper discussion that joy might linger longer and allow itself to shared and savored.
Should I Stay or Should I Go?
When President Bush declared war on Iraq in 2003 few people would have predicted the mess that this action would cause in the future. Today, seven years later, we have begun to see the consequences of his actions. Because of Bush’s decision in 2003 President Obama is facing one of the most crucial decisions of his presidency. On becoming president Obama vowed to have American troops out of Iraq by August of this year. However things have changed since that promise was made and this action is no longer in the best interest of the Iraqi people. When the promise was originally made it was assumed that Iraq would have a stable democratically elected government by now and, as has been shown by other articles in the New York Times, stability is not going to happen any time soon. Yet, the President is planning to stick to his original deadline of August. However, without the American forces there to support the fledgling government in Iraq that the U.S. has tried so hard to create, this government will most likely collapse.
The only government that works is one that has been given legitimacy by the people. Iraq’s government is not recognized by a majority of its people and it continues to lose respect with its many recounts and talks of tampering. During the first election in 2005 only a small amount of Iraqis even voted, how can a government be expected to survive without the support of the people that it is governing? Also, as shown in another New York Times article, violence is still common all around Iraq. The article, published a week ago, spoke specifically about bombings in Iraq that only generated more distrust in the government and showcased the continued actions of Al Qaeda. All of these facts point to an unstable government that has only survived because of American presence. If America was to pull out right now the government would most likely fall, especially because Al Qaeda is always lurking on the fringes, waiting for any opportunity to regain power in Iraq.
However, although the government continues to be unstable, the Iraqi forces have continued to progress and grow into a formidable force. A statement given by a deputy national security advisor stated that recent Iraqi-lead missions show that the Iraqi troops are showing progress and the ability to provide their own security. However, no army, no matter how well trained, is effective without strong leadership. The government that is currently in place right now is nowhere near stable enough to provide the type of leadership needed to effectively use this strong new army. For a long time American forces have been the support for the Iraqi government and the leadership for the Iraqi army, if they were to pull out now the results could be disastrous.
However, while staying in Iraq forever is not the solution to this problem, neither is pulling troops out right now. If the president was willing to enact a more gradual pull out rather than the immediate pull out that he is planning now that would allow more time for the government to gain stability and legitimacy from the people and also the skills to use their army effectively to keep Al Qaeda at bay. The Iraqi people want peace and stability, however they do not feel that the government is providing them the security that they need amidst all of the violence still going on in Iraq. If a gradual pull out were to take place the Iraqi politicians could use the holes left by the American troops to prove to the people that they would do whatever it takes to keep them safe. Also this would give the Iraqi leaders more experience with the troops and they would learn how to utilize them to the Iraqis advantage. Yet, while the Iraqi government would be given these opportunities to prove itself, American troops would be standing by in case of more violence, to continue training the army and to help the Iraqi government become the strong force that it needs to become.
No God but God?
Islam is the faith of murderers and the vile! This statement is claimed among many nations and has been for many years. I would venture to say that the Islamic community is exactly the same as ours, except for one big difference. They are still people, living breathing and walking. They still go to school and work, trying to raise a family. They communicate with others and build relationships just like anyone else. The only big difference I see between an Islamic man and a Christian man is the God that he believes in.
The prophet Muhammad was believed to have a personal encounter with God as a 40 year-old sometime around 610. He had ventured into a cave and so happened to meet with the spirit of Allah, which nearly crushed him in order to get the point across, telling him to preach that there is only one God and that we should surrender to him. Muhammad, following his new orders as the prophet of God, began to preach this message, thus creating Islam in its truest form. Since then, the religion has exploded into many different sects including the Sunni, Sufi and Shi’a tribes.
Christianity has many different sects of its faith as well; Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant and non-denominational are just a few. All believe one truth: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He died for our sins, rose again, and reigns. Jesus was born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem and when He was about thirty years old He began His ministry to all people, performing miracles and teaching.
Both of these men are seen as prophets by many groups. A Christian would say that Muhammad was simply a man, and a Muslim would say that Jesus was a prophet, but no son of God. However, the question still remains: Is the God they were referring to the same God, and was this God teaching the same thing? A practicing Muslim would say yes, because there is only one God, and a Christian would say absolutely not!
The Quran is quoted as saying, “…but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth his wealth, for the love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy…” (2:177) Inferring from this passage, a righteous man or a “good” man is one who believes in Allah, the end times, angels of Allah, the Quran and the prophets. A good person is also one who cares for orphans and the poor. This teaching is not too far from the Christian book, the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37 NIV) It also says “I have shown you in every way…that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35 NKJV) Jesus here is saying that we should love God with all of ourselves, and that we should take care of the poor, needy and the weak.
These two teachings, while from a different script, seem to have the same meaning. Yet as I researched further, I found another main focus of the Islamic tradition. “When he reaches maturity, and reaches the age of forty, he should say, ‘My Lord, direct me to appreciate the blessings You have bestowed upon me … and to do the righteous works that please You…I am a submitter.’ It is from these that we accept the righteous works, and overlook their sins. They have deserved Paradise.” (46:15-16) This tradition focuses on good deeds. It seems here that an Islamic man would not receive paradise unless he lives up to the standards of good living. If this man decided to dishonor his parents, he would receive his due reward (46:19), and not receive paradise.
Many would say that Christianity holds this same doctrine, but I venture to say that it does not. Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (NKJV) Titus 3:5 also says “not by works of righteousness which you have done, but according to His mercy He saved us…” The Christian doctrine clearly states that good deeds will not determine a man’s heaven or hell, but his faith in Jesus Christ alone determines his fate.
This may be one of many differences between Islam and Christianity, but it is a solid divider of the two worlds. Islam is a religion based on works, and Christianity is one based on Faith. The two will never be the same. It is now up to us, the readers and believers, to choose which one is right: works, or faith.
The prophet Muhammad was believed to have a personal encounter with God as a 40 year-old sometime around 610. He had ventured into a cave and so happened to meet with the spirit of Allah, which nearly crushed him in order to get the point across, telling him to preach that there is only one God and that we should surrender to him. Muhammad, following his new orders as the prophet of God, began to preach this message, thus creating Islam in its truest form. Since then, the religion has exploded into many different sects including the Sunni, Sufi and Shi’a tribes.
Christianity has many different sects of its faith as well; Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant and non-denominational are just a few. All believe one truth: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, He died for our sins, rose again, and reigns. Jesus was born to a virgin mother in Bethlehem and when He was about thirty years old He began His ministry to all people, performing miracles and teaching.
Both of these men are seen as prophets by many groups. A Christian would say that Muhammad was simply a man, and a Muslim would say that Jesus was a prophet, but no son of God. However, the question still remains: Is the God they were referring to the same God, and was this God teaching the same thing? A practicing Muslim would say yes, because there is only one God, and a Christian would say absolutely not!
The Quran is quoted as saying, “…but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth his wealth, for the love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy…” (2:177) Inferring from this passage, a righteous man or a “good” man is one who believes in Allah, the end times, angels of Allah, the Quran and the prophets. A good person is also one who cares for orphans and the poor. This teaching is not too far from the Christian book, the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus is quoted as saying “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37 NIV) It also says “I have shown you in every way…that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35 NKJV) Jesus here is saying that we should love God with all of ourselves, and that we should take care of the poor, needy and the weak.
These two teachings, while from a different script, seem to have the same meaning. Yet as I researched further, I found another main focus of the Islamic tradition. “When he reaches maturity, and reaches the age of forty, he should say, ‘My Lord, direct me to appreciate the blessings You have bestowed upon me … and to do the righteous works that please You…I am a submitter.’ It is from these that we accept the righteous works, and overlook their sins. They have deserved Paradise.” (46:15-16) This tradition focuses on good deeds. It seems here that an Islamic man would not receive paradise unless he lives up to the standards of good living. If this man decided to dishonor his parents, he would receive his due reward (46:19), and not receive paradise.
Many would say that Christianity holds this same doctrine, but I venture to say that it does not. Ephesians 2:8-9 says “For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (NKJV) Titus 3:5 also says “not by works of righteousness which you have done, but according to His mercy He saved us…” The Christian doctrine clearly states that good deeds will not determine a man’s heaven or hell, but his faith in Jesus Christ alone determines his fate.
This may be one of many differences between Islam and Christianity, but it is a solid divider of the two worlds. Islam is a religion based on works, and Christianity is one based on Faith. The two will never be the same. It is now up to us, the readers and believers, to choose which one is right: works, or faith.
Burqa Ban?
I’m sure at some point in all our lives, we have all had that terrible dream: you go to class/work/a party only to realize you’ve arrived completely naked. Needless to say, we are all thankful when the alarm goes off and we wake up in bed. However, this nightmare is quickly becoming a reality for women across France. Over the past several weeks, The New York Times has published several articles discussing the proposed French bill which would bar the burqa (a full body covering sometimes worn by Islamic women) throughout public places in France. It is time French citizens to step up and put a stop to this law.
French Preside Nicolas Sarkozy claims the complete burqa ban is important because the ban protects French values and would grant Islamic women more individual freedom. I am not denying that in some instances, the burqa can become oppressive, but certainly not in all cases. To some Muslims, the burqa or hijab is a sign of modesty. In these cases forcing Muslim women to go to public places without the hijab is the equivalent of requiring them to go naked.
In the high school I attended, we were required to wear uniforms everyday. Despite students’ endless complaining, the administration had one response the generally shut us up. A uniform means that all students look the same. Nobody can judge you based on what you are wearing; rather, your actions and words will speak for you. Let yourself be judged by whom you are not what you wear or what you look like. This statement is also true for Islamic women wearing any form of covering. Rather than oppressing these women, in free nations like France, the hijab can be an equalizing force. These women must now be judged for their skill and personality instead of how they look.
Since the French revolution, the motto of France has been “liberty, equality, and brotherhood” (in French of course). Liberty and equality? It is time for France to take a serious look in the mirror. This new law reeks of inequality and suppression. Furthermore, in the French constitution, Article 2 reads that France, “shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law. . .It shall respect all beliefs.” Banning a religious practice that is not harmful to the state of public well being does not provide equality or show respect to all beliefs. Further, this constitutional provision is extends to “all beliefs”, not just to traditional Western Judeo-Christian beliefs. As such, the practice of Islam is constitutionally protected in France.
Despite President Sarkozy’s efforts to ban the burqa, there are some signs of hope for Islamic women. The Supreme Court of France has warned President Sarkozy that if the burqa bill is enacted, the Court will likely rule it unconstitutional. Further, Arab nations are rallying with their fellow French Muslims in decrying this bill. Despite the growing opposition to the bill, not every country is threatened. According to recent New York Times articles, Belgium and Quebec are both considering enacting similar laws.
As the French government continues to push this law I challenge the French leadership and citizens to look closely at the individual rights at risk. The bill denies Muslim women freedom of expression and freedom to conform to the tenets of their chosen religion. President Sarkozy decries the burqa as oppressive to women and suppressing their rights. My question, Mr. Sarkozy, is: are you truly liberating these women or are you merely oppressing them in a different fashion?
French Preside Nicolas Sarkozy claims the complete burqa ban is important because the ban protects French values and would grant Islamic women more individual freedom. I am not denying that in some instances, the burqa can become oppressive, but certainly not in all cases. To some Muslims, the burqa or hijab is a sign of modesty. In these cases forcing Muslim women to go to public places without the hijab is the equivalent of requiring them to go naked.
In the high school I attended, we were required to wear uniforms everyday. Despite students’ endless complaining, the administration had one response the generally shut us up. A uniform means that all students look the same. Nobody can judge you based on what you are wearing; rather, your actions and words will speak for you. Let yourself be judged by whom you are not what you wear or what you look like. This statement is also true for Islamic women wearing any form of covering. Rather than oppressing these women, in free nations like France, the hijab can be an equalizing force. These women must now be judged for their skill and personality instead of how they look.
Since the French revolution, the motto of France has been “liberty, equality, and brotherhood” (in French of course). Liberty and equality? It is time for France to take a serious look in the mirror. This new law reeks of inequality and suppression. Furthermore, in the French constitution, Article 2 reads that France, “shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law. . .It shall respect all beliefs.” Banning a religious practice that is not harmful to the state of public well being does not provide equality or show respect to all beliefs. Further, this constitutional provision is extends to “all beliefs”, not just to traditional Western Judeo-Christian beliefs. As such, the practice of Islam is constitutionally protected in France.
Despite President Sarkozy’s efforts to ban the burqa, there are some signs of hope for Islamic women. The Supreme Court of France has warned President Sarkozy that if the burqa bill is enacted, the Court will likely rule it unconstitutional. Further, Arab nations are rallying with their fellow French Muslims in decrying this bill. Despite the growing opposition to the bill, not every country is threatened. According to recent New York Times articles, Belgium and Quebec are both considering enacting similar laws.
As the French government continues to push this law I challenge the French leadership and citizens to look closely at the individual rights at risk. The bill denies Muslim women freedom of expression and freedom to conform to the tenets of their chosen religion. President Sarkozy decries the burqa as oppressive to women and suppressing their rights. My question, Mr. Sarkozy, is: are you truly liberating these women or are you merely oppressing them in a different fashion?
A Throwback to the Iranian Revolution: A look at the Green Revolution of 2009
“The enemies must know that the [Green movement] protests, which are a caricature of the pre-revolutionary ones, cannot undermine the system.”
- Ali Khamenei, August 2009
Despite the recent criticisms by both the United States media and the United States government regarding the country of Iran’s nuclear and political policies, there is a great amount of change that is occurring in Iran, particularly in the youth population: a movement from the hardcore fundamentalism of the Iranian Revolution to an ideal of a more moderate and modern political affiliation
On June 12th, 2009, the tenth presidential election was held for the new leader of Iran, between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a conservative and controversial figure) and three other challengers (Mir-Houssein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezaee, and Mehdi Karroubi). Despite a good deal of speculation by outside sources that Mousavi would gain the popular vote, votes came in with a two-thirds majority that Ahmadinejad had won the election. Almost immediately, however, the three oppositional candidates immediately rejected the official results, indicating that the polls had been manipulated, as Ahmadinejad was not believed to have won. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameini, immediately stood up and took Ahmadinejad’s side in what should have been an act of decision by the Islamic republic’s clergy, but a revolution immediately began against the decision by a surprising amount of youth individuals in a movement that is now referred to as “The Green Movement.”
The effect of this movement was an immediate clamp-down by the Iranian government on the opposition, in a movement that echoes back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The government began locking down the internet and cell phones that were being utilized in Iran, stopped electricity and food, and began violently silencing protesters who would gather against the election results. What is important to understand about this revolution, however, is that a majority of the people who were protesting were younger students protesting against the aggressive regime. However, it is not so much the movement itself to me that is as important as the method and group that began the movement.
The revolution was also known as the “Twitter Revolution,” because of the excessive amount of young Iranian revolutionaries who utilized online social sites such as Twitter and Facebook in order to organize, and thus the groups that were mostly involved were young college students. Modern politics frequently emphasizes the fundamentalist viewpoint in the Muslim world, but before this revolution, few media outlets really looked at the Iranian people as moderate in viewpoint. Despite the many lives that have lost after the June elections, this revolution provided more of an understanding of the less extremist views of Iran. Iranians aren’t just nuclear-power hungry extremists hoping to kill everyone in the United States. Iranians are people, just like us in the United States, and the media could do well to help the populace of the United States understand this.
- Ali Khamenei, August 2009
Despite the recent criticisms by both the United States media and the United States government regarding the country of Iran’s nuclear and political policies, there is a great amount of change that is occurring in Iran, particularly in the youth population: a movement from the hardcore fundamentalism of the Iranian Revolution to an ideal of a more moderate and modern political affiliation
On June 12th, 2009, the tenth presidential election was held for the new leader of Iran, between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a conservative and controversial figure) and three other challengers (Mir-Houssein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezaee, and Mehdi Karroubi). Despite a good deal of speculation by outside sources that Mousavi would gain the popular vote, votes came in with a two-thirds majority that Ahmadinejad had won the election. Almost immediately, however, the three oppositional candidates immediately rejected the official results, indicating that the polls had been manipulated, as Ahmadinejad was not believed to have won. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameini, immediately stood up and took Ahmadinejad’s side in what should have been an act of decision by the Islamic republic’s clergy, but a revolution immediately began against the decision by a surprising amount of youth individuals in a movement that is now referred to as “The Green Movement.”
The effect of this movement was an immediate clamp-down by the Iranian government on the opposition, in a movement that echoes back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The government began locking down the internet and cell phones that were being utilized in Iran, stopped electricity and food, and began violently silencing protesters who would gather against the election results. What is important to understand about this revolution, however, is that a majority of the people who were protesting were younger students protesting against the aggressive regime. However, it is not so much the movement itself to me that is as important as the method and group that began the movement.
The revolution was also known as the “Twitter Revolution,” because of the excessive amount of young Iranian revolutionaries who utilized online social sites such as Twitter and Facebook in order to organize, and thus the groups that were mostly involved were young college students. Modern politics frequently emphasizes the fundamentalist viewpoint in the Muslim world, but before this revolution, few media outlets really looked at the Iranian people as moderate in viewpoint. Despite the many lives that have lost after the June elections, this revolution provided more of an understanding of the less extremist views of Iran. Iranians aren’t just nuclear-power hungry extremists hoping to kill everyone in the United States. Iranians are people, just like us in the United States, and the media could do well to help the populace of the United States understand this.
Survival of the Fattest
In a time of digital advancements and unprecedented prosperity, many of the world’s nations have fallen victim to the not-so-nice side effects of modernity. With all the gadgets and gizmos of the 21st century, people of all walks of life are becoming more and more stagnant and lazy. This has lead to an increase in obesity in many countries and has expedited the associated demand for medical attention.
One contribution is the automobile industry. Thousands of automobiles are produced everyday in the United States, Germany, Italy, and Japan, which provide ease and accessibility for many people. This differs from a time when more people walked everywhere and when being active out of doors was much more commonplace. Do not get me wrong, cars have proven their worth, but they also come with a price on health. Instead of standing and exercising, cars allow people to sit whilst they travel. Also, the emissions from cars have caused major respiratory problems in highly populated areas and have been associated with the global warming crisis.
Another aspect is the rise of the fast food industry outside of the U.S., from whence it originated. Fast food chains such as McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) have emerged in placed like Japan and the Middle East. The average number of calories in a hamburger is 550, which for an average 150 pound person is one third of their basal metabolism. One third! That is a huge number of calories to consume at one time. Add to that fries and a soft drink and a person could have well over half of their daily calories in less than an hour. This in combination with the stagnant lifestyles many people lead results in weight gain and health concerns.
It is not too surprising that the United States is the largest country in the world. People size that is. It is estimated that 30 percent of the American population is obese and two thirds are considered overweight. This is due to the extravagant proportions in our meals and sedentary lifestyles. Although we lead the world in this pandemic, many other countries are beginning to show more signs that they are not as slim as they once were.
Countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have climbed the ranks of obese states, the cause of which has been pointed to rising socio-economic standings and traditions. Qatar is ranked sixth in the world for prevalent obesity. It has the highest ranking of obesity in boys in the Middle East and Maghreb. Saudi Arabia is ranked in the top twenty states.
One such tradition is that food brings people together. Families often eat together and eat often. Friends will offer food to those who come to their house and it is considered impolite to refuse any of it. This presents a Catch-22 for many people; they want to polite and thus eat, but then are very full and cannot eat anymore. This dilemma opens the door for obesity, which has begun to take a stronger hold in the state. However, this tradition is a direct counter against the effects of globalization because the Qatari wish to maintain their cultural identity and continue living as they have done for many centuries.
And yet, the effects of globalization slowly seep into the country. With all its wealth from the oil industry, states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been able to rise in socio-economic strength in a relatively short amount of time. Hence, many of the urban areas have begun to open fast food chains like McDonalds and KFCs. Combined with the existing mentality of constant eating, the number of calories a person would take in by eating at the fast food locations would be enormous. Ironically, so will their bodies.
Another factor in the obesity concerns is the climate of the Middle East. In the summer months it can reach a humid 110 degrees. This has pushed many Saudis and Qataris to resort to automobiles for travel. With the wealth many people have and the accessibility to the car industry, more people own cars and use them for recreation and personal transportation.
The last tradition that has caused concern is families marrying cousins together. This practice has long been known to increase the probability of genetic disorders and mental disabilities. But, clinging to cultural identity, many families do not want to see things change and wish to keep their family lines close. Therefore, when all of the factors are added up (heavy habitual eating, marital traditions, unhealthy food choices, and lazy modes of transportation) the resulting obesity is not quite very inconspicuous. And it has not gone unnoticed by many medical professionals, who are working to change some of people’s traditional habits.
Medical professionals are now working on programs that will shift the focus from treating obesity to preventative measures. Many Middle Eastern students have come to the U.S to receive training in working with new preventative programs and to learn how to handle the disabilities factor that goes along with obesity. Sadly, they represent a minority of the people in the Middle Eastern countries who wish to see their people return to healthy Body Mass Indexes (BMI) and learn how to balance the new ideas of the advanced technological world with the established traditions of their cultural identity. Only time will tell if these progressive ideas come to fruition in both the Middle East and elsewhere affected by this pandemic.
Kellye Tamura
30 April 2010
In response to "Wealth and Tradition Pull Qatar Towards Unhealthy Choices" (27 April 2010)
Greeley, Colo.
Different day, Same story
Re: Israeli Rightists Stir Tensions in East Jerusalem
(April 25, 2010)
Even though America is clearly standing behind Israel, this kind of a gross overstatement of one group of people’s pain is not acceptable. The peace talks are not back on track, Israel and Palestine are not willing to do this on their own, and it’s about time that the American media stops trying to lead us to think otherwise. The conflict is defined by many long years of conflict and history beginning with the Jewish populations forced evacuation of the area that came to be known as Pakistan. The solution to this conflict (if there can be a solution other than time) cannot under any circumstances be American forced, unless we intend to keep American military forces in control of this area until the end of time. It may just be my opinion, but this sound too close to a military occupation against the will of the people. Saddam Hussein anyone? Ideally, peace to the Israeli and Palestinian people would come naturally, but since it hasn’t, it can’t be the doing of the biased parent, America, to force a peace deal between the two that it isn’t willing to monitor with extensive military personnel.
The times they aren't a-changin'
In Germany millions watched as a new wall was erected separating East and West Germany. After World War II Germany was divided into different states ruled by world powers to control conflict and to stop the unity of a German world power. The wall lasted from 1961 until 1989 and threw the country into a time period of personal, economic, and developmental struggles. When the people made the decision to tear the wall down its impact reverberated around the world. Here was a people done with the separation, and a concrete wall that was making the distinction between two groups of people who at the base of everything were human. This decision was not made by outside powers forcing them to tear it down, it was made of their own volition.
The Palestinian and Israeli conflict is on many people's minds as the world watches Israel building a wall for protection, closing off the Palestinian neighborhoods. While this concrete wall is a new construction of the 20th century, the historical significance of a wall and its mistaken protection is a story echoed over centuries of pain. When cultures define themselves as something different from each other they can co-mingle or they will feel the need to separate. And during the colonial era we see many lines being drawn through countries, tribes, and families that do not make sense except for the outside viewer. The drawing lines of Africa speak well on this topic as many tribes were displaced with the creation of countries within the continent by British, French and Belgian decisions. No African committee was heard, and colonists did not due research into the area. It was more the significance of quantity of land and the creation of port cities than the displacement of human beings that was on the mind of colonial powers.
The Israeli wall is similar to the wall of Berlin because in essence people are people and a wall cannot bring you protection. As discussed in Mind 182 we argued the point that how bad could the fighting truly get without the wall. Supporters of the wall argue that it does provide a sense of protection from the violence created by the Palestinians. But a wall serves as a threat for the other side, and cuts them off from advantages such as jobs, healthcare, and supplies necessary to live. The question is, how is this not a repeat of history, and will it not solve itself? Who should be the provoker in this conflict? Who should take the higher ground and fight peacefully? Conflicts can never be solved with violence and this is no exception. Only when both sides are willing to listen and not be the blind leading the blind will any issue be resolved. It is not a simple task, in fact it is rather daunting. But it is not an outside aggressor that is going to bring change and a solution, but rather a force inside that must stand up and take action. In South Africa it was Nelson Mandela, in India it was Gandhi and in America it was Martin Luther King Jr. We have these figureheads that youth and generations afterwards can look up to and this needs to occur in this new conflict.
With this conflict comes pain on both sides, and an instability to economy, social structure, and general lifestyle. Even though destroying the wall is not the only solution it is one that may help heal wounds faster. After a while people will come out of the shadows of oppression and fight for their people to have a voice in their community. A solution will come, the problem and question is how. This event was created by people and must be ended by the people in that area. Because in the end no matter how hard other world powers push, it is in the people's hands to do the right thing in action.
The Palestinian and Israeli conflict is on many people's minds as the world watches Israel building a wall for protection, closing off the Palestinian neighborhoods. While this concrete wall is a new construction of the 20th century, the historical significance of a wall and its mistaken protection is a story echoed over centuries of pain. When cultures define themselves as something different from each other they can co-mingle or they will feel the need to separate. And during the colonial era we see many lines being drawn through countries, tribes, and families that do not make sense except for the outside viewer. The drawing lines of Africa speak well on this topic as many tribes were displaced with the creation of countries within the continent by British, French and Belgian decisions. No African committee was heard, and colonists did not due research into the area. It was more the significance of quantity of land and the creation of port cities than the displacement of human beings that was on the mind of colonial powers.
The Israeli wall is similar to the wall of Berlin because in essence people are people and a wall cannot bring you protection. As discussed in Mind 182 we argued the point that how bad could the fighting truly get without the wall. Supporters of the wall argue that it does provide a sense of protection from the violence created by the Palestinians. But a wall serves as a threat for the other side, and cuts them off from advantages such as jobs, healthcare, and supplies necessary to live. The question is, how is this not a repeat of history, and will it not solve itself? Who should be the provoker in this conflict? Who should take the higher ground and fight peacefully? Conflicts can never be solved with violence and this is no exception. Only when both sides are willing to listen and not be the blind leading the blind will any issue be resolved. It is not a simple task, in fact it is rather daunting. But it is not an outside aggressor that is going to bring change and a solution, but rather a force inside that must stand up and take action. In South Africa it was Nelson Mandela, in India it was Gandhi and in America it was Martin Luther King Jr. We have these figureheads that youth and generations afterwards can look up to and this needs to occur in this new conflict.
With this conflict comes pain on both sides, and an instability to economy, social structure, and general lifestyle. Even though destroying the wall is not the only solution it is one that may help heal wounds faster. After a while people will come out of the shadows of oppression and fight for their people to have a voice in their community. A solution will come, the problem and question is how. This event was created by people and must be ended by the people in that area. Because in the end no matter how hard other world powers push, it is in the people's hands to do the right thing in action.
Nausea at Torture
Re: Report Details Torture at Secret Baghdad Prison
Author: Sam Dagher
To the Editor:
“America is the symbol of democracy, but then you have the abuses at Abu Ghraib,” Mr. Maliki said. “The American government took tough measures, and we are doing the same, so where is the problem and why this raucousness?”
While I read this article, besides fighting back vomit I was pondering why someone would do anything like this. I cannot understand how a human being could torture another human being and sleep that same night. The horrors told of in this article make me sick to my stomach, so much so that recollecting them is painful. However, when I look at the above quote from the article, questions arise in my head. America truly is the symbol of democracy, but then why are we performing these acts? Maliki's claim, while broad, is truthful. America did abuse its detainees at Abu Ghraib, and maybe this spawned the idea for such treatment in the Baghdad prison. If America truly is the symbol of democracy, we need to get our act together and shape up, so that we are not encouraging this kind of horrendous, pointless torture.
Author: Sam Dagher
To the Editor:
“America is the symbol of democracy, but then you have the abuses at Abu Ghraib,” Mr. Maliki said. “The American government took tough measures, and we are doing the same, so where is the problem and why this raucousness?”
While I read this article, besides fighting back vomit I was pondering why someone would do anything like this. I cannot understand how a human being could torture another human being and sleep that same night. The horrors told of in this article make me sick to my stomach, so much so that recollecting them is painful. However, when I look at the above quote from the article, questions arise in my head. America truly is the symbol of democracy, but then why are we performing these acts? Maliki's claim, while broad, is truthful. America did abuse its detainees at Abu Ghraib, and maybe this spawned the idea for such treatment in the Baghdad prison. If America truly is the symbol of democracy, we need to get our act together and shape up, so that we are not encouraging this kind of horrendous, pointless torture.
Recount Chaos
Re: Iraq: Recount to Take Weeks
Author: Tim Arango
To the Editor:
I think it is so awesome to see the people of Iraq having a voting right. This new sense of chaos is no better than before, but it comes with the freedom of the vote. It is so encouraging to see this country and these people able to express themselves in the way they want! Although I am not encouraged that suicide bombings are taking place, I am reminded that things always get worse before they get better. These men and women are having a voice for the first time and it is a chaotic time, so the violence is understandable to an extent. I am eager to see how things will change once the votes are recounted.
Author: Tim Arango
To the Editor:
I think it is so awesome to see the people of Iraq having a voting right. This new sense of chaos is no better than before, but it comes with the freedom of the vote. It is so encouraging to see this country and these people able to express themselves in the way they want! Although I am not encouraged that suicide bombings are taking place, I am reminded that things always get worse before they get better. These men and women are having a voice for the first time and it is a chaotic time, so the violence is understandable to an extent. I am eager to see how things will change once the votes are recounted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
