Tuesday, 2 March 2010



Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Extremist Views of the British Media

The recent series of programme televised mainly by the BBC and Channel 4, covering the Muslims in Britain, points to a single agenda of marketing the notion of ‘extremist’ views of some Muslims. What is an extremist view? There is no open discussion on that point; any Muslim is labelled as an extremist for showing sympathy towards the oppressed masses who are fighting for ‘freedom’ in the occupied lands of Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Such views are not specific to Muslims, many non-Muslims and in particular the leftwing organisations, express similar views and sentiment on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. However, they are never labelled as extremists. It means - if the white face of George Galloway is replaced with an ethnic face, then you have an extremist who has been radicalised! It is funny how George Galloway is never classed as a militant, someone who is radicalised, or an extremist, even though he expresses such opinions so candidly.

To label someone as an extremist for defending their homeland, is no different to labelling Winston Churchill as a militant, and Britain as an extremist nation for reacting against the bombing raids of the expansionist Nazi Germany. Now the situation is reverse. Britain is riding on the expansionist US and Israel. Israel extends its settlements by uprooting the Palestenians; the US extends its military bases around the world to ensure its ‘freedom’ to exploit others is maintained.

The notion of extremist views is further characterised by the media claim that such opinions are held by a minority of Muslims, and stems from extreme interpretation of the religious texts, rather than a response to the events of war, mass killing, occupation and a theft of land and resources.

Consider the typical organisation of Islam4UK with its extremist views. Majority of the Muslims and non-Muslims in this world would concur with the political views of Islam4UK, even if they did not express their allegiance to such an organisation. The proof is simple. Just examine the issue of Palestine, Afghanistan and the fabricated Iraq war; majority of the nations and people of this world consider these wars as heinous crimes committed on innocent people. If the extremist views are meant to be a minority view, then what about minority view over the Iraq war? Even the legal experts endorsing the war inside the British government, was clearly a very small minority view.

According to that criterion of minority, Britain and the US are extremists for going against world opinion by launching a war without UN authorisation. They did not have the testicles to live up to their own ideals of majority rule (democracy), by subjecting their case to the UN General Assembly vote. What about the lone veto constantly used by the US to support Israeli war crimes, a terrorist nation with extremist views that is engaged in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Is that not an extremist action by the US, as it stems from a minority position?

If the extremist views were a consequence of interpretation, then it implies the views have no connection with the war, mass killings, theft of resources, and the occupation of the Muslim countries. That is absurd. How do you explain the non-Muslims who share the same ‘extremist’ views on those issues? Have they been brainwashed by the Muslim extremists?

Then comes the usual repetition of the events of 7/7 and 9/11, as if they were without any cause, marks the beginning of the history of conflict. What does 9/11 have to do with the UK? If the connection is one of, Americans are the English speaking secular and Christian brothers, then that is also applicable to Muslims in the UK who identify with the oppressed Muslims in occupied lands. As for 7/7, this is a minor event compared to the mass casualties inflicted on the innocent people of Iraq and Palestine.

The British media should know that if you throw a brick through someone’s window, retaliation would naturally follow. It may be considered an extreme view, but it is a logical view, rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition, upheld by all nations. One cannot alter this reality, no matter how many spineless moderates are lined up by the media-gun to force a constant apology. No matter how much you howl terrorism, people can see the real mass terrorism inflicted on people who have done no harm to this country. Madrid and 7/7 had a cause; they were a reaction to the direct and indirect atrocities committed by the British and the Spanish government in Iraq. Until those countries decided to join the Zionist-neo-con driven war, the Muslims have been living peacefully in both countries for decades.

Rather, the British media is engaged in the broadcast of extremist views that causes offence to the millions of Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide. Its militant journalists spread lies and hate, constantly incite violence through justifying war and carnage as self-defence; these heartless journalists write with the ink drawn from the blood of the innocent people in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. They justify the fascist outlook of Blair and his ilk, who thinks killing hundreds of thousand of innocent people, is somehow a noble cause for humanity. However, even Nazis like Adolf Hitler had grounds to fight, after the disproportionate suffering inflicted on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles. What is Blair’s excuse? Is it Iraq’s WMD?

Blair and his henchmen are the real extremists, with extremist views that should be sitting with Radovan Karadzic who is a small criminal in comparison, and they should all be answering for their war crimes.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK

Published on 02/03/2010

Posted by Yamin Zakaria at 03:11

Friday, 19 February 2010
Homosexuality and Zionism

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.

- The Bible (Leviticus 20:13)

For those who will rant and rave, waving the usual politically correct card of homophobia, to stifle any discussion on this issue, need not bother reading past this sentence. They are part of the neo-liberal cabal, who are not interested in genuine free speech, and gag the opposing view by categorising it as incitement to hate. The tactics employed are identical to the Zionist dominated media that prevents any criticism of Israel, by labelling it as anti-Semitic.

Zionist-Israel is an exception. It is the only ‘democracy’ (for Jews only) in the Middle East, and the only country that has managed to portray itself as a victim of terrorism, after slaughtering 1500 civilians in Gaza in response to a few home made devices landing in their back garden. The only country that does not have to abide by UN resolutions unlike its neighbours, it has nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and many other privileges. Like Zionist-Israel, homosexuality is also the exception from the norm! So, are there any other common traits between Zionism and the phenomenon of homosexuality?

Regardless of one’s conviction, nobody can dispute that homosexuality is self-destructive for the human race; it works against the natural process of procreation, because the semen can only function inside the vagina of a woman, and not in the rear end of another man! For sure, no society would survive, if homosexuality or celibacy became the norm. The biggest irony is homosexuals come into existence through heterosexual activity. Therefore, the constant noise about the rights of homosexuals is meaningless, without protecting the rights of heterosexuals, to whom they owe their existence. Ask the most liberal heterosexual, he or she would never want a child that has homosexual traits, as everyone has the yearning to see their grandchildren.

Similarly, Zionism is also destructive for the human race. The fundamental doctrine of Zionism is based on the servitude and if necessary, the annihilation of the non-Jews (Goyem or Gentiles). The ends justify the means, when it comes to ‘saving’ the chosen race of God. Even though Israel with its secular pretence may claim to distance itself from the nasty Talmudic Laws, but their policies at many levels are shaped by the basic Talmudic ethos of ethnic cleansing, and terrorising the non-Jews in the region. Nobody notices the edicts of the fanatical Rabbi calling for the murder of non-Jewish infants.

Let us put the debate of – is homosexuality nature or nurture – aside for the moment. There is a need to protect all minorities; however, there is clear distinction between legal protection, and aggressively encourage something. It is difficult to fathom, why homosexuality is increasingly pushed in our heterosexual faces, to the detriment of the majority and more importantly, the danger it poses to the survival of human race. Similarly, why the constant noise about the suffering of Jews in 1945, as if they have a monopoly over this issue? It was the Japanese, the Germans and the Russians who suffered most during the Second World War. If the Israeli-Zionists were really victims of a holocaust, how can they murder innocent Palestinian civilians en masse? How can victims exhibit such heartless and cruel behaviour towards innocent civilians, who had no connection with Nazi Germany?

Like it or not, the semen belongs inside the woman’s vagina, for that is the reason why the homosexuals exist. The irony is, if they want more homosexuals they need to participate in the process of procreation. Therefore, why should the rest of humanity spend time, effort and money to give them recognition and worse propagate it, when the homosexuals have ‘deliberately’ ceased to contribute in the vital role of ensuring the continuity of the human race? At best, they may claim to have some kind of handicap for which they should be given some aid, and most certainly, they are not on par with the heterosexual community, or have the chutzpah to complain about heterosexuals who are the cause of their existence.

Then they bring forward the claim of the mysterious homosexual gene. How did the liberals with their evolutionist mantra miss this? Surely, homosexuality works against the principle of natural selection as it encourages the termination of human race. If there is such a thing as the homosexual gene, then it is a ‘liability’ for the human species, it should have been eliminated by the process of natural selection long time ago.

Another way to assess any phenomena is to examine the results, so the old Biblical statement reads, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Can anyone point out a society that has flourished through homosexual activities? Does a homosexual couple provide a stable family unit? How can it? There is no outcome, like children, a real family and a future. In most cases homosexual relationships breaks, as they primarily attach themselves for sexual reasons; there is nothing else to keep them together permanently.

In fear of the label of homophobic, like the fear anti-Semitism, many remain silent, even though they despise the acts, find it repulsive. Let us be candid, for the normal heterosexuals, acts of homosexuality causes disgust; as does the killing of innocent and defenceless people by the descendent of the victims of Holocaust. From Adam to the last Prophet of God, Mohammed (saw), they were all healthy heterosexual men; all the texts of the Abrahamic faiths condemn acts of homosexuality unequivocally, and human reason tells us, homosexuality and Zionism is suicidal for the human race!

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK

Published in 19th Feb 2010

Posted by Yamin Zakaria at 03:43 13 comments Links to this post
Monday, 8 February 2010
Why Does Adultery Matter in a Secular Society?
"Secularism prohibits the imposition of any religion, except the religion of secularism"

According to the UK laws, adultery is illegal, but not a criminal offence; almost all the western secular societies uphold this view. Adultery only has relevance within the institution of marriage, which is rooted in religious texts. A fundamental tenet of a secular society is that religion is reduced to a personal choice; it is the prerogative of the individual to uphold or to abandon it. Therefore, they can formally marry in a Church, or cohabit, or participate in an open relationship where adultery has no meaning.

If secular societies placed any values on the institution of marriage, it would have classed adultery as a criminal offence, like the Sharia laws. Yet, the response to the revelation of the adulterous affair of the former England Captain, John Terry, gives the impression that a crime has been committed. Furthermore, there appears to be some kind of moral indignation towards John Terry from the masses, indicated by their silence after he is removed from his position as Captain and the numerous posts on the various websites. Any impartial person would be compelled to point the blatant hypocrisy by citing the old Biblical statement, “let those without sin cast the first stone”. This sort of response reveals the twisted and contradictory nature of secularism. Consider the following points, which illustrate this innate contradiction.

• There is a relentless push towards individual freedom, which subjects them to a sexually permissive culture from the cradle to the grave. Then the liberal laws that manifest in the ethos of sexual freedom permit all kinds of sexual activity, from participating in group-sex, homosexuality to the various forms of deviant sexual practices. The Jerry Springer show may serve as a useful guide here. Throughout life, they have been trained to seek sexual fulfilment without moral restraint, but once they get married, suddenly the moral barometer is raised, and they are expected to uphold the biblical commandment of “thou shall not commit adultery”. It is safe to assume that most football players are not committed Christians, and marriage will not transform them into virtuous monogamous men, after receiving years of ‘education’ and ‘training’ on how they should mate with the opposite sex. They cannot suddenly discard their established traits and close down the hormone channels.

• How would the media have reacted, if John Terry were involved with a man rather than a woman? There would have been a lot more sympathy and understanding in fear of being labelled as a homophobic, there is a drive to make homosexuality a norm. Thus, according to the secular guide, homosexuality is considered morally acceptable, but not an adulterous heterosexual relationship. Many would argue, a sexual act between a male and female is the norm, and a necessity, to which all homosexuals owe their existence is an undisputed fact! Whereas many (if not most) people, find a sexual relationship between two males abhorrent even if they do not speak out in fear of the liberal bullies.

In 2007, three of the Manchester United players allegedly ‘roasted’ a 19-year-old girl; the entire team with the exception of Cristiano Ronaldo was at the sleazy Christmas party, there was also a serious allegation of rape. The incident was not taken seriously by the authorities, nobody was punished in anyway, the tabloids covered the incident as a bit of gossip, and the graphic description was designed to titillate the readers rather than express moral indignation; most definitely, sex sells. There are many other similar incidents, and many more that nobody notices, especially if the players are from the lower divisions.

A young footballer, with money and fame, physically in peak condition with a six-pack abdominal, makes him a valuable catch for many women. Even the talentless duo of Jedwards led to young females bearing themselves in front of their house. For many of these women, catching these players or pop stars is an instant ticket to fame and fortune, not to mention a good time as well. This sort of behaviour did not led to a media outcry, the secular message is, the Muslims should bring up their daughters with such ‘honourable’ virtues rather imprison them in their veil (Hijab)!

The competition is fierce amongst females. It reminds you of a human cattle market, the players are exerting the demand with their money and fame; the women are supplying their flesh. Nobody is forcing these individuals to behave this way; they are exhibiting what free society is about. They are having fun. Is this what Bush and Blair is exporting to the Islamic world with their bombs and bullets, hoping that Muslim women would be emancipated with such traits?

So, why should adultery matter in a society where marriage is declining? The answer is obvious - it is an act of betrayal. For those who are cohabiting through a civil partnership it depends on the initial agreement formed by the couple. Regardless, secular society teaches and encourages one to explore and expand the sexual boundaries without moral restraints, which contradicts the values of commitment to ones spouse or partner. This is like teaching a man to be greedy and ruthless, and then expect him to show generosity after he has made losses.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalview.org)
London, UK

Published on 08/02/2010

Posted by Yamin Zakaria at 17:12 0 comments Links to this post
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
The Litmus Test for the Legality of Iraq War
“No one had attacked anyone. There wasn’t any new W.M.D. We could have taken the time and got it right”
- Claire Short

Here is the litmus test. Imagine this scenario. Tony Blair’s son is in a critical condition, and fighting for his life. He is in a luxurious private hospital, funded by his wealthy war-profiteering father, the pictures are broadcasted, and many of the Iraqi parents who lost their children or struggling to keep them alive, can see their ‘benevolent’ liberator in action. Anyway, ten leading physicians from various countries advise Blair of a certain medical operation to save his son’s life. Shortly after, Dr. Goldsmith dissents, he is a prominent doctor from an American-Israeli Hospital, and after some deliberation suggests an alternative course of action.

Which way Tony Blair is likely to go? The answer is obvious; any human being would opt for the former and go with the overwhelming majority opinion - because he would act ‘sincerely’ for the interest of his son. Any genuine father would take the decision based on his conviction of the facts, whereas a crooked father would pick an opinion to support his ulterior agenda. Like a father who may look to profit from the death of his wealthy son.

Using that litmus test on the legality of war - was Tony Blair really convinced of the wavering opinion delivered by Goldsmith at the last minute, which was at odds with the vast majority of the legal experts. It is beyond doubt that he was not looking to be persuaded, because he was already committed to the American plan. All he needed was a fig leaf to cover his private parts, so that he can do the usual war dance around the ‘Bush’, praying for a slice of the profit from the gods; Goldsmith provided that fig-leaf, which is transparent to most people, causing revulsion.

Claire Short claims she was conned. No, she conned herself in the first place. The world could see that Iraq was a broken country that did not even have a conventional force, let alone WMDs. Yet, Claire Short, sitting in the heart of the Cabinet, could not see through all the signs that she is now citing in the Chilcot Inquiry that clearly points to one thing: Blair has already made his mind up about the invasion.

Furthermore, she tried to sugarcoat her decision to remain in the Cabinet by suggesting that the neo-con Blair would get a state for the oil-less Palestinians and the UN would takeover the Iraq operation. Even in the early days, one can see Blair is more suited to be a member of the Israeli Knesset rather than a Middle East Envoy. To be candid, Claire Short succumbed to her weakness, and it is not really worth dwelling on that. To err is human; to forgive is divine and one can apply that to Claire Short.

Blair as an individual has profited from the Iraq war, and he is making good money through the recession. For sure, you will not find any unusual items on his expense claim form. Maybe, he will donate some of that money to the Iraqi children born with deformities or to the many made orphans as their parents became collateral damage. Then the media would market those images, and it might finally ‘convince’ all the sceptics that the Iraq war waged by the profit making Capitalist nations was in fact driven by altruistic reasons.

Apart from the financial costs, the lives lost on all sides, facing an economic recession, what has the invasion achieved for the UK? Had it made the country safer, meaning was it in some danger before? 7/7 dose not count as it is a consequence of the war and not a cause. If you are in doubt, just check the date of the events.

Alternatively, has Tony Blair placed UK on the radar of the Jihadist and the future Jihadist from Iraq? The children will grow up knowing the cruelty shown by the Americans and that can be understood to an extent as a reaction to 9/11. An angry America had to spill some blood in the old tradition of the Wild West, it needed to quench its thirst for vengeance. Not that American is an innocent victim, far from it; she is an arrogant one, the judge, jury and the selective executioner of UN resolutions!

But, how would the future generation of Iraqis see the British role? The UK was not attacked by 9/11 or by Iraq; if anything the British have invaded and killed thousands of Iraqis during the period of the First World War. In fact, Winston Churchill used chemical weapons on the Kurds, long before Saddam Hussein. Yet, once again, they participated in this crime of aggression with a great deal of zeal. The Blair episode reminds you of that money making kid in the class, who would team up with the biggest bully and quietly incite the bully to extort money from other children. Later in life, the money making kid would become a banker in the City or a lawyer, who always show sympathy for the Israelis! Yes, he does have a heart and some ethics!

We are no longer living in the old days of the British Empire, where massacres could be suppressed, and if it leaked, one could use ‘diplomacy’ and bribery to quieten it; then with the passage of time it would vanish from people’s memory. Today, the age of information ensures that such things will remain fresh in the minds of the future generation. We cannot alter the past, but by addressing the present, and in particular, by addressing the crime of Blair, it may help to secure the interest of our nation. The future generation of Iraqis may see that the British population have a heart, not just the millions who marched against the war, but the vast majority disagree with this arrogant and heartless war criminal, and they have tried to do some justice.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
UK, London

Published in 03/02/2010

Posted by Yamin Zakaria at 02:51 1 comments Links to this post
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Does Blair’s Testimony Clarify the Motive behind the Iraq War?

"No matter how skilfully he ducked and dived today, Tony Blair's legacy will forever be that of the illegal, immoral Iraq war.
- Angus Robertson of the SNP

The ineffectual Chilcot Inquiry was never designed to account Tony Blair; rather it appears to have served as a lesson for future Prime Ministers not to make ‘administrative’ errors like submitting dodgy dossiers. Moreover, it gave Tony Blair an opportunity to present his side of the story in a casual manner.

If innocent people were killed because of an illegal war, then a crime has taken place. Therefore, Blair should have faced a panel of experts from neutral countries, selected by the UN. The process would have focused on the legality of the war, and the consequence for the innocent Iraqis; depending on the outcome, it might have formed the basis for a criminal prosecution.

Regardless of the purpose of the Chilcot Inquiry, there was expectation from all sides that it would clarify the motive behind the decision to join the US-led war, and Blair’s testimony should have played a key role. That is on the assumption that the information revealed by Blair and others is accurate and comprehensive. Nevertheless, his testimony has raised further questions on the following three issues:

a) The 9/11 Link

Blair claimed, 9/11 was the turning point; that is when Saddam Hussein became a threat. Is he suggesting Iraq was behind 9/11? Saddam Hussein was a staunch Arab Ba’athist and an Arab Nationalist, whereas 9/11 was allegedly the work of Al-Qaeda planned from the mountains in Afghanistan; the two groups are ideologically poles apart and there were no historical connection between them. Even his close assistant, Jack Straw, did not perceive 9/11 had increased the ‘threat’ posed by Iraq; only the Americans decided to view it in that light and Blair followed this like a disciple.

So, what is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq? The only connection I see is one of vengeance for the US. Blair decided to join in like a vulture behind as the injured and angry US lion. Iraq is predominantly a Muslim country; the Muslims had to pay regardless of their guilt or innocence. They would be civilised through the bombs and bullets of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’! Such crude ideas are difficult for Blair to spell out, and the people are expected to read between the lines.

b) Saddam’s Threat

Saddam was weaker economically and militarily in 2000 than in 1991, and he was even weaker in 2003, yet paradoxically, the threat level from Saddam Hussein went up after 9/11 according to Blair! Arrogant Blair was Bliar’ing here.

To date, it is still unclear how Saddam Hussein posed a threat when the Chemical and Biological Weapons were all destroyed, along with the capability to renew such activities, after the First Gulf War of 1991. Even the conventional force was stripped of its capability through a decade of rigorous sanctions; the UN inspection team lead by Scott Ritter systematically ensured the Iraqi force was paralysed. For that reason, the “smoking gun” would never be found. This is self-evident from the invasion in 2003.

One can also argue the world was safer place in 2000 than in 1991, as Saddam did not launch any further strikes against his neighbours, let alone challenge the might of the US hegemony in the region. Therefore, the containment policy was working.

c) Saddam’s Potential Threat

One can rationally understand the notion of an actual threat or an imminent one, but how does one conjure up a potential threat from a country that is progressively getting weaker. Even more absurd, how can anyone justify and invoke a war based on potential threat? It is perplexing, how Blair as a lawyer can construe the argument that one can be punished for his intention. This confirms his arrogance and dishonest nature.

Iraq was not Germany pre-1939 rebuilding its military capability; it was confined to its borders and getting progressively weaker through the rigorous sanctions. Even if Saddam managed to acquire some primitive WMDs, he would be in no position to threaten anyone, let alone the mighty US forces in possession of ‘real’ WMDs.

Blair then elaborated the world is a safer place after the removal of Saddam, but this cannot be the basis to attack another country. In any case, this sort of claim is just sheer non-sense, no nation would want their country destroyed and occupied by a foreign force to remove a dictator. The smug Blair is implying the war was good for the Iraqis who were the biggest victim. Since the invasion, the civilian casualties have continued to mount in Iraq and they face numerous problems; all were absent prior to the invasion. As Blair spoke of a better Iraq, new generation of Iraqi children are born with deformities due to the use of Depleted Uranium. In Fallujah for example, the doctors are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants and a spike in early life cancers.

Regardless of the facts, Blair proceeds to blame others for the situation, as if the invasion was a reaction to that and not the cause of the violence and sufferings.

So has the region become any safer subsequent to a regime change? Has the oil-less Palestinians been given a fraction of the attention that was given to the oil-rich Kuwaitis? On the contrary, peace in the region continues to mean pieces (not just land, organs of dead Palestinians too) for Israel, who has launched two savage wars on the civilian population of Gaza and Lebanon, and constantly threatening to bomb Iran. In defiance of the UN, Israel continues to build more settlements in occupied territories. However, since it is Israel killing Palestinians and looting their lands and body parts, it does not count for much in the books of neo-con Blair who was also sabre-rattling against Iran. Of course, he will always do that behind the US might. Remember, a vulture always feeds on the leftover, after the lion has finished the kill.

On that Middle East issue, the so-called Middle East envoy blamed the Palestinians entirely, unlike the moderate and pretentious two-faced Jack Straw. According to Blair’s line of argument, the Israeli forces acted in self-defence by slaughtering the 1500 defenceless civilians in Gaza, like the Anglo-US forces from distant land came to Iraq and fought a war in ‘self-defence’! The Middle Easy envoy deserves a shoe full of excrements!

However, the testimony of Blair did clarify the following.

• It confirmed the Iraq war was instigated by the Americans for a regime change, and Blair subscribed to this in 2002. This is corroborated by the testimony of Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s ambassador to the US. According to Jack Straw, regime change was illegal, a clear violation of the UN Charter, and carried little support amongst the closest allies of Blair in the Cabinet.

• Therefore, Blair made the case for war based on the mythical WMDs of Saddam Hussein. Accordingly, Blair alludes to disarming Iraq’s mythical WMDs as synonymous with regime change. Its magic, they mean the same thing. So in the ‘logic’ (or arrogance) of Blair, 1441 not only authorised war, but also authorised a regime change!

That still does not answer why Blair joined the US-led crusade. At the time, Blair camp said, British interest would best be served by siding with the Americans, not just by giving political support but military too, even though the US did not need military support from UK, which Blair confirmed in the testimony. It was not an individual decision; the ruling elite within the UK permitted this important action. Did they hope for a small slice of a large US cake by offering their services to the American Empire? Is that why the Americans often portray the butler in Hollywood movies as a Brit?

The decision to join the US war was not based on any perceived threat to the UK, which has only come into effect because of that action. It was most likely based on some strategic and/or economic interests. But, there were no real short-term benefits gained, the bulk of the lucrative contracts went to the US companies; the vulture was not even allowed to feed on the Iraqi carcass it seems. Maybe, the US government will reciprocate in the future in some other way. This would be tested when Britain faces another crisis like the Falkland. My guess is, Blair and his cabal made a substantive error in joining the US-led war, without securing Britain’s share of the war booty, unless this is kept hidden like the Sykes-Picot treaty.

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
UK, London

Published 31st January 2010

Posted by Yamin Zakaria at 17:08 0 comments Links to this post
Thursday, 28 January 2010
An Illegal War is State-Terrorism
“we were convinced that all the fissile material that could be used for any weapons purposes had been taken out of Iraq, and we knew that we had eliminated and destroyed the whole infrastructure that Iraq had built up for the enrichment of uranium.”
- Hans Blix, in a BBC Interview, Jan 2003

As the toothless Chilcot Inquiry collates the evidences from the various individuals, not many are asking some basic questions regarding the Iraq War. As a layperson, the following questions come to my mind:

• What aggression did Iraq commit against the US and the UK that could have justified the war? How did the people of Iraq ever cause any harm to the people in the UK or the US?

• Where are the weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which was the primary pretext for waging aggression on Iraq?

• Why was the UN Inspectors not given further time to finish their job, given that they had unimpeded access to inspect any place in Iraq and that they failed to find any evidence contrary to Iraq’s earlier declaration to the UN?

• In the absence of such weapons, why is the UN not taking the criminals to task at the international war crimes tribunal and order the belligerent nations to pay war reparations to Iraq?

I see the above questions are at the heart of the issue regarding Iraq war. The only answer I can conclude is – the new world order is governed by the brute force of the Wild West; far from some noble principle that is applicable equally to all nations. I do not want to “move on” like Blair, I want to see justice. I want to see criminals like Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Jeremy Greenstock face the gallows for the slaughter of innocent Iraqis, yet these armed robbers are parading themselves as ambassadors of peace. It is disgusting!

The evidence given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, at the Chilcot Inquiry revealed that he had conveniently changed his mind after meeting the American Lawyers, and added pressure from Jack Straw and possibly few others, just weeks before the actual invasion is launched. Note, whilst he is mulling over this, the British troops are already there, poised to attack a nation that has been systematically disarmed for a decade. Therefore, the British government still would have gone into war with the Americans, even if Goldsmith managed to standby by his conviction. Nevertheless, if he did remain firm, it would have helped, even if it could not halt the war.

It should have taken a “smoking gun” to change someone’s mind on a serious issue of this nature, which Hans Blix and his team of inspectors with unrestricted access could not find in Iraq. Given the circumstances under which the sudden change of mind occurred, it shows that Lord Goldsmith is a feeble man; all he needed was a little ‘push’ to rubberstamp the war that was already on the verge of being launched. Unlike some of the other principled individuals, he could not standby his conviction, and if needed resign from the post. Perhaps, the folks from Spooks whispered in his ear about the fate of Dr. Kelly! So, his ears only consulted those who were bent on going to war. Indeed, it was a one-sided conversation.

Why did he not consult other lawyers with an opposing view concurrently? Why did he not consider that other major powers in the UN Security council were of the view that UN resolution of 1441 did not authorise war? Why did Britain go back to the UN Security Council to seek a second resolution if the first was adequate? Being a democracy, it is imperative to discuss such matters with the Cabinet, but Jack Straw denied Lord Goldsmith that opportunity, obviously, Jack did not want to be late for the war party.

People say lawyers are shark, but Goldsmith proved to be a spineless cod! His ‘fatwa’ is like the ‘fatwa’ given to the Saudis during the First Gulf War at the last minute by some cleric, to permit the US Forces to setup base inside Saudi Arabia. By the time the Fatwa was given, the US armed forces had already arrived at the shores of Saudi Arabia, as if the fatwa was necessary. Again, the basic question, what did the Iraqis do to the Saudis?

There is no doubt the majority opinion amongst the prominent legal experts is that the UN resolution of 1441 did not authorise war, and more pertinently, this was view held by the majority of the nations inside the UN Security Council, including France and Russia with Veto powers. Therefore, the war had no mandate from the UN Security Council; it was a unilateral and barbaric act of aggression by the Anglo-US regime. Without a legal backing – the invasion was state terrorism dispensed to the innocent civilians of Iraq.

Some argue the war was necessary, as Saddam posed a threat to the region, but the region was not calling for war, with the exception of Israel. Maybe that was enough, serving Israel is enough to prove that the West are no longer anti-Semitic and they can redeem their past sins by the punishing some innocent third party, once again. Israel is a nation that routinely engages in killing innocent civilians, and is busy in the process of ethnic cleansing to make the land pure for the chosen race of God, add to that 'accolade', they are harvesting the organs of dead Palestinians in the true spirit of the shylocks!

Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK

Published in 28/01/2010

Posted by Yamin Zakaria at 05:29 0 comments Links to this post
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Women's Rights
"I do find it astonishingly hypocritical for the West to incessantly argue against polygamy when one would hard pressed to find a virtuous monogamous man amongst them!"

"Had Islam and Muslim men been the real oppressors of women, the feminist movement would have arisen from within the Islamic societies"
Posted by Yamin Zakaria at 10:04 0 comments Links to this post

Robert Spitzer, Psychiatrist Who Eliminated Homosexuality as Mental Disorder, Dies

Robert Spitzer

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist who was one of the leaders in establishing universal standards to describe mental disorders and helped remove homosexuality from the list of pathologies, died on Friday in Seattle at the age of 83, reports the Associated Press.
According to his wife, Columbia University Professor Emerita Janet Williams, Dr. Spitzer died of heart problems.

Throughout his career, Dr. Spitzer worked on several editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (D.S.M.), including the DSM-III, which he worked on with Williams. His work helped all in the profession agree on what they were seeing by defining all of the major disorders, which was a major breakthrough in the profession.

“Rather than just appealing to authority, the authority of Freud, the appeal was: Are there studies? What evidence is there?” Dr. Spitzer told the New Yorker magazine in 2005. “The people I appointed had all made a commitment to be guided by data.”

His “commitment to be guided by data” led Dr. Spitzer to believe that homosexuality should be removed from the list of mental disorders in the D.S.M. in 1973. It’s a conclusion he came to after meeting with gay activists and determined their sexuality couldn’t be a disorder because they were comfortable with it.
Though there was a fierce debate between members of the psychiatric profession over the designation of homosexuality at the time, Dr. Spitzer continued to press forward and reiterate his findings (?). “A medical disorder either had to be associated with subjective distress — pain — or general impairment in social function,” he told the Washington Post.

Spitzer’s work is believed by many to have aided in the advancement of gay rights, including Dr. Jack Drescher, a gay psychoanalyst in New York who tells the Times, “The fact that gay marriage is allowed today is in part owed to Bob Spitzer.”

Tags: People, Health

Psychiatrist who championed 'gay cure' admits he was wrong

Dr Robert Spitzer apologises for 'fatally flawed' study, published in 2001, which claimed gay people could be 'cured' if properly motivated
Gay activists
US gay and lesbian groups are likely to be delighted by Robert Spitzer's apology. Photograph: Sara D. Davis/Getty Images
One of the most influential figures in modern psychiatry has apologised to America's gays for a scientific study which supported attempts to "cure" people of their homosexuality.
The survey, published in 2001, looked at "reparative therapy" and was hailed by religious and social conservatives in America as proof that gay people could successfully become straight if they were motivated to do so.
But Dr Robert Spitzer has now apologised in the same academic journal that published his original study, calling it "fatally flawed". "I believe I owe the gay community an apology," his letter said. "I also apologise to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works."
Spitzer's letter, which was leaked online before its publication in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, is sure to cause delight among gay civil rights groups and stir up anger among social conservatives, who have used the study to combat the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of human society.
Reparative therapy is popular among Christian conservative groups, which run clinics and therapy sessions at which people try to become heterosexual through counselling. Gay rights activists condemn such practices as motivated by religious faith, not science, and call them "pray away the gay" groups.
Spitzer's study looked at the experiences of 200 people undertaking the therapy, including subjects that had been provided by religious groups. He then asked each person the same set of questions, analysing their responses to the therapy and their feelings and sexual urges afterwards. He concluded that many of them reported feelings of changes in their sexual desires from homosexual to heterosexual.
Spitzer's stance was notorious, because in 1973 he had been instrumental in getting the American Psychiatric Association to stop classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in its diagnostic manual: a move seen at the time as a major victory for gay rights.
His 2001 study caused a huge stir because many people felt that it was not rigorous enough for publication. The central criticism was that Spitzer had not paid enough attention to the fact that subjects might lie about their feelings or be engaged in self-deception.
For more than a decade Spitzer shrugged off the attacks and stood by his work, but he has now admitted that his critics were right. "I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject's reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject's accounts of change were valid," Spitzer wrote.
In an interview with the New York Times last week, Spitzer, who is 79 and suffers from Parkinson's disease, described how he had written his letter of recantation in the middle of the night after agonising over the study's impact.
He had also recently been visited by a gay magazine journalist, Gabriel Arana, who had described to him his own experience going through reparation therapy and how damaging it had been and how it had led to thoughts of suicide. "It's the only regret I have; the only professional one," Spitzer told the New York Times, which described him as being almost in tears as he talked about his decision to admit he was wrong.
"In the history of psychiatry I don't know that I've ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologised to his readers. That's something, don't you think?" Spitzer told the newspaper.
Gay rights group Truth Wins Out published the full text of the letter on its website and hailed the moment as a major step forward. "Spitzer's apology to the victims of 'pray away the gay' therapy … marks a watershed moment in the fight against the 'ex-gay' myth," the group said.

 But, the same Dr Robert Spitzer admitted before he died that HE WAS WRONG AND THAT HOMOSEXUALS CAN BE CURED IN MANY CASES!

1 comment:

  1. Even the names THEY give themselves and adopted by most of us are misleading!
    I AM GAY, and have always been since I was around 12 years of age, but I was never and never will I be a HOMOANUSSEXUAL pervert!