I believe that some out there in this country are so unhappy and misguided inthat the can actually be swayed or cohered into frivolous causes such as the Al Quaeda movement, to which is about as twisted as you can get when looking at the makeup of this particular ideology even from afar.
The many leaders of this and other violent movement have fallen over the last eight months thanks to the activities orchestrated by certain world leaders including the United States. I would say that this whole thing can now be looked at as a bad dream and dark chapter in our history.
However, the remnants of such in a movement may linger around for a while longer simply because of being likened to any other group that propagates hate and intolerance, they will always hang around to feed off of the weak of mind looking to vent a violent message to the mass before committing the act of suicide.
I also believe that this same type of mentality will continue on in looking for new causes that are conducive with a particular negative mindset such as can be seen propagated by some half-baked political and religiously based extremist sites that seemingly are promoting hate and intolerance over the web.
That are more so operating under, and are protected by the first amendment while abusing free speech via pushing propaganda geared to harm, or to even endorse and or condone killing while apparently committing acts of sedition or treason against the American government in some cases. Of course this is just my opinion.
I know, I know... I'm a dinosaur in the fact that I believe that words whether written or spoken, can be just as deadly of a weapon such as a gun or sword, and that whatever one says must be backed up with fact to be considered truth and credible. Yes, a old and distorted way of looking at things on my part, as some may believe.
I believe in equal and factual criticism when it comes to any organization or group and not, a one sided criticism, or a one sided and twisted criticism to fit one's own political or religious hates. I also believe, that even though a person has the right to vent opinion over the Internet, they simply need to be made responsible for the statements that they make and or the events that occur as a result of their particular statements made.
Social media is a world forum that needs to be taken seriously, as we all know, and that when on a global stage such as this, accountability needs to be invoked by the governing authorities and individual site owners; is this asking too much?
In other words, if you have a hate site spewing out hateful and seditious messages against one's own country and government, then that person making such statements should be required to take full responsibility for their statements and stand behind the statements they make on whatever forum it was made, or held accountable to the body of government or person the statement was directed at.
The old saying of " we are as good as our word" has stood true long ago and still stands true today. If a person cannot make an honest statement and stand behind it, in my opionion, they should not state lies and or un truths especially on the Internet to a global medium. In my opionion, honesty is the best policy in this case, and once words are out there whether in spoken or written form, one cannot take them back, once they are heard or read, am I not correct?
If a particular site promotes a violent view and further encourages it's members to act out in a violent way against an individual or group, this type of behavior far exceeds the boundary of having the American priveledge of free speech, or the freedom of expression in a given opinion, as far as I'm concerned. It goes beyond view or freedom of expression when it is directly linked to any violent actions taking place in society on whatever level, or seeks it's own merely to do damage to an innocent person, group, business and so forth.
For example: Anwar Awlaki promoted hate speech and activity against the American government and people to which was considered sedition and treason by the American government because he was an American citizen.
An American citizen, who took it past free speech via taking it a step up by encouraging and promoting violence and civil unrest against the people of the United States, by the American people and foreign insurgence alike, to accomplish the mission of mass murder on U.S. soil etc.
When this American born citizen propagated, condoned and took part in these negative and murderous activities against the innocent past the realms of free speech, he was then considered to be a enemy of the state and federal government especially, when he decided to conspire with a premeditated enemy action within a hostile region of the world etc.
The government was well within it's right to terminate this man with extreme prejudice as far as I'm concerned. Individual’s as the one in question; should they be captured? Should be tried in a military court? As their activities are of a military nature and considered a crime against a Country or Nation.
To try the enemy soldier otherwise in a civil court is folly. Civilian Criminal and Civil courts aren’t equipped to handle military actions against the United States no more so, then a military court could address a matter of a lower federal status or civil nature.
For example, when a foreign solder or civilian is acting in the capacity of a solder that further takes up arms in a unrighteous and harmful cause against an innocent civilian population, then this is a military action, be that person a part of a regulated army, or civilian group acting in a military capacity against a government or the civil population.
In short, when a person picks up a gun or straps a block of bomb to themselves to strike out at, or kill any armed or unarmed person in society, or a part of society such as government, then this should be considered an act of war on whatever level, and that person or group should be tried in a court that deals with military matters.
Again, this is just what I think. In essence, we're splitting hairs so to speak in what we should do with a enemy solder or group when we should take it for what it really is; which is an attack by enemy forces with the intentions of causing extreme damage to the civilian population and government structure on the whole.
The world is heading in the right direction concerning the termination of violent factions in the world yet, we still have a ways to go before this problem is fully eradicated. I think the war on terrorism has many fronts to it and the Internet being its primary front in the distribution of hate and intolerance speech that leads to psychological as well as physical harm in some instances against the innocent.
Many negative things have been said about President Obama but he at least, had the fortitude to approach the problem of Terrorism head on as did other leaders in the world, and to this my hat is off to all. Again, kill the ideology of terrorism and you kill the movement of terrorism.
Concerning the issue of Internet Terrorism, free speech and weak minded people or on a collision course with personal destruction. I think that all people are created equally with the intrinsic rights to be treated fairly and humanly but, I don't believe all people are created equally emotionally or intellectually and hence the problem.
The folks I'm speaking directing in reference to are those whom obviously have psychological issues from the start, and those whom are easily lead by suggestive or direct speech. It is these persons, whom are affected for the most part as they can be induced to commute violent acts via the twisted and many times untrue reasoning given and or propagated by hate sites.
In short, the big draw is in that a person with an existing death wish can go out and do something violent while thinking it beneficial for the world that moreover God allegedly approves of, and will reward as a result, as some corrupt ideologies teach over the open air ways.
There will always be a pool of deranged idiots teaching perverse and twisted ideologies over the Internet that will cater to another pool of mixed up, misguided and confused pathological personalities, that are all to willing to vent out in a violent and heinous ways to make a point, or merely just to make their point, no matter how insane that point might be.
When we allow hate sites and groups to exist in America, this is likened to giving a gun to mass murderers especially, when some of these teachers of genocide possess some level of charisma about themselves and come off as quite likeable in the start.
What comes to my mind in particular concerning this is the rate of suicide with many of America's young people that have suffered being bullied in their schools, their own neighboorhoods, and relentlessly bullied over the Internet and many times by groups of people that make the victim's suffering and ridicule public which only amplifies all the other arenas of bullying that particular young individual has had to deal with on a daily basis, which many times, especially and sadly to say, with especially being shamed and or ridiculed over the public Internet, is in many of these suicide victims "the straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak, as that victim still has to make themselves get up in the morning and attend school, and even more sadly upon arrival to classes is publicly laughed at and ridiculed, hated by their classmates that have read Internet posts by school clubs or groups, etc. Is it then, any wonder or unusual that young person commits suicide?
The rate of suicide in America's younger population is to say the least astronomical and extremely haneous. In years past, we would never see this type of vicious behavior and hatred that is steadily growing rampant amoung our young.
If you like someone enough sometimes what they say doesn't have to make sense and or, people are willing to take what they say as truth at face value, even though they know better deep within. It's all about sick minds that want to belong to something whom are more so, willing to go out with a bang for the sake of glory. In other words, all one has to do is read it in print on the Internet. Another old saying " do not believe everything you read in print" well sadly to say, many people take what they read in print as true and literally at face value especially if there is no other person out there to prove the statements un true.
Some folks will simply turn their heads or shut down their conscience and accept what is said simply because they wish to go with the flow, or find personal glory in what another says even through there might be a chance that it's not true and thus the problem.
Many in our societies today have become accustomed to the graphic written cruelty and even lies not honesty being backed up with proof of the writer's statements that the Internet allows under the First Amendment of Free Speech. Imagine if you will, the great men who wrote The United States Constitution just for a few moments, then decide if you feel or think that the forefathers of our great nation would be pleased with some of the horrendous things that are actually being allowed on the Internet today, grossly abused under the Free Speech Act, what would they think has become of America, honesty, and the integrity that Free Speech is really all about?
I feel that when our forefathers wrote the Constitution that they never dreamed that the liberty of Free Speech would be so abused and misused even to the point of the American people and people abroad destroying each other under the guise of written words, "The Free Speech Act."
To put this into more detailed perspective, the definition of the word honesty means, "fairness and straightforwardness of conduct" " adherance to the facts" "sincerity " which was a word that began in the 14th century, which in essence means, " uprightness of character or action", it means to set the standard and refusing to lie, steal, or decieve in any way, it implies to be trustworthy and responsible, to take responsibility in one's personal as well as professional life, INTEGRITY.
That is what the "Free Speech Act" was based on when created originally, but the American people have abused and grossely misused and corrupted it.
Yes, the hate sites and groups are a problem however, not one without resolve and resolution, in my opinion. If limitations were placed on speech in making a person or group responsible for what they preach, condone and take part in, without hindering free speech itself, much of the ideology promoting violence, civil unrest and destructive vigilantism would greatly diminish if not disappear completely.
Free speech is like anything else that can be misused or abused in promoting things of a un-benifishial nature in society and yes, we can protect freedom of speech and expression to such a degree that we actually become guilty of violating the laws in which we are attempting to enforce, how? By allowing some to actually harm others through the abuse of a given medium such as free speech.
If speech just stayed on the level of opinion and or, expression of opinion through speech, art, music and other non-harmful modes of expression, there wouldn't be a problem yet, it doesn't stop there and that's the over all dilemma.
Like I said, abuse of speech has many facets to it and often times it's used to oppress, or even incite radicalism amongst a normally peaceful population, and that's why we as a Nation, a global society, should get a handle on this problem that faces us on the Internet today.
As far as I'm concerned, hostile and oppressive speech only leads to eventual violence that doesn't belong on the Internet, or on any other public forum be it in the form of a demonstration, rally, debate, or found through the technical mediums such as radio, T.V. etc. Moreover, anything else used as a vehicle that can be used to reach and harm innocent people anywhere, in any way, shape or form should be included as a governed medium.
I think that we as a global community need to stop and reassess what we allow to be put out over the Internet and further, draw the line in what is acceptable and what isn't concerning what is good and or, that serves us as the global society and what doesn't.
In other words, it's ok to blow the whistle on negative goings ons in a particular company, state or government as long as the information is factual. The intent is effective to some degree in stopping corruption however, to take it past that in inciting a riot, or to cause other civil unrest isn't condoned, or acceptable protocol on any level.
Citing the case of Mubarak and the Egyptian demonstrations: In this instance, the Egyptian people took their grievances to the Internet to expose what was generally considered to be caused by a Tyrant, they primary did this through Twitter and other social networking sites, to which turned out to be a pretty efficient form of communication that organized and mobilized a Nation.
The driven force to the people was seemingly the concern of a Nation in which felt that a real threat existed in the governing body, to which in the end turned out to be a clear and present danger to all the citizens of that particular country, judging from the film footage. A clear and brutal regime that did in fact, cause the death of many innocent people in it's attempt to retain power.
When the Internet was used in this way to orchestrate, organize, mobilize and to spread the word of alarm, it not only made the world aware of the problems that existed in this part of the world, but also placed political pressure on others in foreign power to aid the oppressed people in need.
Basically, there was no more covert or hidden actions that the cell phone couldn't capture and upload to the Internet and thus, the dirty laundry was airing out on the global stage. In short no more hiding or concealing the tyrants murderous acts, as had been the case years ago.
The carnage and torture that had been leveled against the local inhabitence of a region for thousands of years was no more with the flick of a switch and the press of a button, and this was a good thing. The Internet has also played a part in getting rid of tyrants in other ways via the spreading of information concerning the whereabouts of wanted criminals such as Bin Laden and others whom are no longer with us lol. Again, an awesome thing.
However, even though this put the Egyptian people on the road to freedom it was not without the great cost of life yet, is a good model to use in referring the positive uses of the Internet and social media, as we all know.
The former Egyptian government recognized this to be a threat and attempted to shut it down as a result, but to no avail. With the use of social media combined with peaceful assembly, this was the formidable opponent to the tyrannical government that eventually convicted it in the eyes of the world and hence, the tyrannical regime ordered the slaughter and torture of numerous innocent civilians as a result.
The downside to any gathering, or public mass demonstration is in that it does command the attention of all concerned, including the ones being protested against to which may use unjustified force as a option, and their will be some factions that will look to spark off riots within the civilian population mixed in with those opportunist whom only seek to pilferage, burn or loot.
In my observation, I would conclude that governments over all might find it in their interest to take a proactive part in Internet communications to stay in touch, or to keep their finger on the pulse of the world especially, since this seems to be the weapon of choice for the Internet Terrorists. To know what and how the people are feeling so that a government may respond accordingly in a beneficial way.
I also believe that the Internet should be governed to regulate it's activities as was the case when it was first created and used years ago, when the F.C.C. was the main form of enforcement etc. People for the most part will not approve of this suggestion however, it is needed in order to get rid of the crap and undesirable persons that make the Internet a bad place to be as it stands now.
Really, the only persons that I can see resisting the control of the Internet would be those that plan to misuse it, or engage in some unlawful activity through it, plain and simple. In essence, the Internet should be a enjoyable place full of fun and learning, and not a place filled with hate sites or terrorist who's only desire is in creating anarchy or mayhem.
The F.C.C. In America
Eventually, the governing bodies of the world will have to regulate the Internet much like the F.C.C. regulates telephones, C. B’s, radio and television. I really don't see why the Internet isn't incorporated into the jurisdiction of the F.C.C as the computer is in fact, a communication device.
The way it worked years ago was in that a person, or operator was required to file for a license and was issued a call number that was in turn registered with the F.C.C. This in itself not only made operators identifiable, but kept operators ethical in operating their communication devices.
If we were to go back to the old system of communications regulations then this would in fact, get past the issues of the first amendment as operators could still offer their opinions however, they would have a license number displayed upon making any post much like a IP address; except this number would be listed with the F.C.C. connecting directly back to the operator.
Concerning anonymity and whistle blowing: Even though whistle blowing has it's uses on the Internet concerning the activities of a government or otherwise, whistle blowing on a company, or government office should be taking place through the federal chain of command to be effective and thus, not the Internet. Even though the Internet is the people's court unfortunately, it's not a court of law to which needs to exist in order to prosecute.
So, here's a way around the free speech issue, or helpful in not impeding a persons free speech but making them accountable for any statements they might make, unlawful speeches, or activities, A way around whistle blowing in that it would allow whistle-blowers to sound the alarm through federal offices or sites instead of the generalized boards to which no one reads any way .
These suggestions are a viable way to make the Internet safe while cleaning up the criminal element such as Internet Terrorism and other unlawful activities. Of course, should other governments choose to implement such a set of planes, this would be a good thing as well.
There's always the chance that unethical governments will take advantage of such a system however these, and most governments currently have the capability to shut down mass communication devices as it stands. The governments that have attempted to do this in the past for unethical reasons have been exposed and came under stringent political pressure to re-activate the services of a innocent population, to which they did etc.
Collectively, there's always the potential for misuse, or abuse of any prescribed resolution to a problem as human history reflects, and it's only a matter of time before something created for the good of the public will be turned against the public.
Unfortunately, regulation is as only good as the regulators and their ethical intent yet, the Internet as it stands, can be a very good thing in light of social media and the folks that use it ethically and correctly. But also a thing with the potential for gross damage at the same time. Again, why? Simply because there will those whom will always use this wonderful creation with ill intent, or for reasons of greed, power and control over others.
One thing is for sure, and that is, the Internet isn't long for this world and or, its days are numbered in the way that it's currently set up. Why? For the reason that some will eventually come along and find a technical way to fully control it to the negative and so, unless certain and effective ways are found to regulate it beforehand, it will in fact, spiral out of control as a result of ending up in the wrong hands.
Further, unless the governments understand that not all of speech is a good thing and that the criminals have moved off the street and onto the Internet, it will only get worse via technical crimes, or Internet Espionage.
Governments must also understand that these high tech criminals need to be pursued aggressively not only through interlope but throughout the states and provinces in order to weed out these hostile factions that could harm the Internet and its users overall.
Withdrawal Of American Troops
As I've said in the past pertaining to the stabilization of near and far Eastern countries, it will never happen. Whether we stay or go, I'm afraid that this region of the world will by its very nature remain a violent geographical part of the world full of political and religious unrest and conflict.
I believe that to withdraw our troops is the best way to go especially, when these same troops are needed on our own borders to enforce national security. Some feel that these eastern countries will become Communist block countries and some will stay semi democratic and this is a real possibility.
However, Cuba, China and Russia are red block countries to which we still have reasonable relationships and trade with that operate on the laws of fairness. People are people no matter the language, flag, or political structure they stand under.
Some of these Countries aren’t democracies yet, they are still modern and resealable people who have a good grasp of what it is to be a civilized Nation and so, the persistent stigma of the cold war socialism must be allowed to die if Nations are to co exist with each other on a peaceful plateau.
The time must eventually come when we as a Nation must accept other political systems and further, leave the smaller progressive Nations alone for the reason that they can never grow with us there acting in the capacity of the international policeman keeping them apart, or impeding them in an way.
I think it's not only wonderful but smart, in bringing most of our Troops home as this will serve our Nation in many different positive ways and further, stop the un-needed and unwanted expenditures of foreign occupation.
It's one thing to dispatch a peace keeping force to a Country when wanted by that Country, and when we can afford it yet, the fact of the matter is, is that we can't afford it, and they really don't want us there and hence, this gives us every reason to pull out of such lands.
Another point that I'd like to make, is in that we really haven't done much good in these Countries over the last nine to eleven years, and I don't believe that any other Nations will have much success with them either should they decide to take a stab in shoving their system of government down their throats.
As far as the cold world thinking goes, in that we should leave these troops in place all over the world to safe guard America's interests, we can do that from home without having a physical presence in a foreign land via technology.
Now even though there's a rather large, and sought after natural resource in this area of the world, we should respect the ownership of this resource and negotiate when necessary while persistently pursuing green energy concepts here at home. To pursue SAFE and excitable ways in extracting these national resource pockets without harming the environment.
To keep researching alternative green flues that will ultimately power America and free us from our dependence on foreign oil and gas. You know, we're going to have to this at some point in time be it now or later, but it will have to get it done just the same, there's just no way around it.
And so, it's better to take the bull by the horns and get it down now while we still float on the resources of others, rather then pay our soul to the company store after we've totally exhausted our own natural resource in the next fifty to one hundred years.
When you look back into history at some of the greatest Empires that ever were, you can see that one of the biggest mistakes they made were in spreading their Troops to thin that seriously weakened not only their troop strength but their regional borders as well.
Again, looking at the demise of certain Empires, the causes were found to be inward conflict and thinly spread troops along with bad economic and trade practices that contributed greatly to their downfalls. In short, a countrie's national security is as good as its troop concentration around it's borders, as can be seen more specifically in the case of the ancient Empires such as Greece and Rome.
The Empires in question expanded their reach past their capability to govern and became fragile as a result and moreover, by leaving their actual borders insignificantly unenforced and open to attack.
Having strategically placed troops in the world is a good thing in those areas of high risk, or countries that could possible be considered a threat, and the input of the Generals should be taken to heart and weighed against what is frivolous for the country and what's in the country's best interest.
Troops left in the capacity of reconnaissance or training for a specific amount of time would be acceptable but not in the capacity of peace keeping or otherwise, in my opinion. Also, we must start the process of being fiscally responsible in what is realistically affordable militarily and what is merely unnecessary and irresponsible in national spending.
It is unlikely that other Communist based countries would formally attack the United States in light of the debt that is owed and the trade that exist back and fourth. Unlike the United States in its past administrations, these countries aren’t seemingly interested in governing and feeding 300 million additional mouths. Basically they wish to collect the debt and prosper mutually off of trade deals etc.
Besides, why attack a nation formally engage in conflict, or declare all out war with a certain country when you can take it legally at anytime by taking possession of that country through its own legal process in obtaining leaned properties and so fourth.
So, the threat of a perceived supper power declaring war is again Unlikely especially when their economy is doing well and they have a viable tap for natural resource. Even should a potential strike be looming out there in the shadows, it wouldn't do any good to have the consideration of American troops dispersed throughout the world and away from our national borders.
Concerning the matter of strategically places military bases, I would say that this might be a prudent move yet, these bases could be worked with skeleton crews and again, leaving just enough troops there to run the base while sending the rest home to guard the borders etc.
As far as the potential threats are concerned in the middle eastern regions of the world, these countries simply don't have the technology at this time to make long range strikes to American soil and thus, more apt to strike out at each other rather then ourselves.
Even though we would withdraw the main body of our troops to which isn't really doing any good currently in these east block countries, they could always return back in force should they take part in terrorism against us, or openly strike out at the United States.
Years ago, the United States could afford to keep up its operations in the world however, today is a different matter and set of circumstances that disallow us from carrying out this same strategy without causing ourselves fiscal harm in the process.
I personally believe that the Middle East block countries can be considered as volatile regions in the world that should be monitored concerning their production, and usage of, long range strike vehicles or missiles, especially when any nuclear devices could be fited to a given weapon that changes it to what is commonly considered to be a weapon of mass destruction with a long range strike capacity.
Even though some would disagree with me on the outlines given above it's important to understand that I preferably operate on the premise of neutrality, fairness and condone the complacence of foreign laws when in the realms of a country as a guest via their written or expressed consent be it a base or a personal visit.
But on the other hand, I also believe that the world and its leaders should act in both a prudent and responsible fashion when considering the rights of another nation and the stable, or volatile condition of a particular country especially when it comes to long range weaponry that has the capability of striking foreign soil.
In short, a sovereign country has the the right to do pretty much as it will as long as it doesn't pose a viable and or, eminent risk of harm to another nation or group of people. If the country is shaken by revolution on a frequent basis and hence, a good chance may exist that deadly technology could fall into the wrong hands then of course, any responsible world leaders should intervene to avoid such risk to all concerned.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Statements Regarding U.S. Withdrawal
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says and I quote: “the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq will not increase Iran's involvement with Iraq” end of quote. I guess we will have t take this statement at face value yet, on the flip side he does make some valid points in his statements following below.
He was quoted as saying, "U.S. troops should have left sooner and that Iraq should decide for itself how to provide training for its military personnel" and he's correct in saying this as all Countries have the right to govern themselves without pressure from any outside Countries especially when there's no immenate threat present that a Country might present to another Nation.
If Iran intends to act as a arbitrator for peace between Syrian and it opposition then this is the proper in every way and something that all governments should encourage. However, I don't agree with the statement that the "U.S. and other Western powers involved in the NATO mission in Libya had exacerbated the conflict in the country", but that's a matter of personal opinion.
Quote: “Ahmadinejad told CNN Iran has never had intentions of hurting Saudi Arabia”. “He was responding to a question about U.S. accusations that members of Iran's military elite were involved in an assassination plot on the Saudi ambassador to the United States”. Who's to know what another's intentions were and only time will tell regarding this?
Quote: “A U.S. grand jury has indicted two Iranian men who are accused of being involved in the alleged plot against Saudi envoy Adel al-Jubeir”. “The U.S. says one of the suspects is a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds force”. Well, this would certainly have long reaching ramifications if the connection were made by the United States in linking this situation back to Iran.
I think that we have to realize that there are many factions within the typical middle eastern government and that a President may, or may not be aware of everything going on within that government, Iran is no exception to this rule as this even occurs in larger more established governments like our own.
Of course, if this action was linked back to Iran and or directly back to Ahmadinejad, then this would most certainly be a problem that could be approached in several different ways ranging from charges applied to him and administration on a International stage to sanctions.
Even though this was a act of war on another country this incident wasn't intended to be a act of war against the United States by whomever perpetrated the event. However it does show a brazened and daring show of disrespect towards the U.S that shouldn't be tolerated on any level as Diplomats of any country should be safe from attack when on our soil.
The thing about a nasty situation as this would be that we have to be very slow in pointing the finger of blame at any leader before we have the hard proof of that leaders involvement and to do so otherwise, is just to cultivate harsh feelings between the two and possibly cause a International incident as a result.
|