Toothless Nark Puggsin

I pity Thailand nowadays. Its military leaders do not seem to be able to get anything right. I do not doubt their sincerity in getting Thailand back on track, economically and socially. Only, there are 'professional protesters' standing by, ready to stage protests once an unpopular decision is made, like that of the appointment of Mr Somkid, once the No. 2 in the Thaksin government, to a senior government position.

The threat of protest forced the government and Mr Somkid to back down. Now I wonder why these protesters (read: PAD) are not the government instead? They seem to wield veto power over government decisions. But of course we know that there are talkers and there are doers. Unfortunately, in Thailand today, the talkers hold sway. And so long as this is so, the government, military or otherwise, cannot expect to do much. The No. 1 task is to keep these people's mouth shut. In fact, if not for these protesters, Thailand wouldn't be in the state it is in today. OK, so the Thaksin government is seen to be corrupt, but the situation hadn't degenerated to one of dictatorship. The constitutional process of government change through elections should have been taken instead of mass protests. You say that Thaksin's control is so strong that it is impossible to unseat him through the polls? But is a military coup an appropriate answer? I doubt many will say it is. Mass protests only presents half the answer, it is silent on the other half when the doing needs to be done.

My only regret over the entire episode is that I cannot visit Thailand nowadays without thinking twice. Vietnam looks to be a more attractive destination, business and holiday-wise. Heck, even Burma seem more peaceful.

Image source: http://www.chiangmai-chiangrai.com/

Decaffeinated

I was very frustrated yesterday morning when I tried to go to my normal 'haunts' on the net for my shot of caffeine. Yahoo.com just wasn't responding and I thought my 5-year-old Notebook PC was ready to give up the ghost. I thought I'd jog its heart a bit by shutting down the bugger and restarting it. You see, I am used to sending it into hibernation from day to day, because it takes sooo long to startup otherwise. The age is showing. Nope, it didn't work. I tried live.com, almost always reliable and quick. But this time around, it was more dead than alive. Something must really be wrong. Maybe my Internet Service provider screwed up this time, although it has been very reliable so far.

It was the same on my office computer, which boasts more muscle and a thicker pipe. Yahoo just took ages to get to, although I did get to it - eventually. Only it was sooo slow, and my Yahoo Messenger just didn't want to wake up. But almost every other site was jammed - including live.com. Well, when the darn thing won't work, it won't work. The office eventually informed everyone that the internet access was down and very likely due to something on a national scale. I didn't realise how 'national' it was until I got home yesterday evening and found out how the undersea fibre optic cable carrying the bulk of internet traffic in and around Asia was damaged by the 7.1 Richter scale earthquake off southern Taiwan.

Ah well, there was a silver lining in this. I started on and almost completed something that I had put off for ages yesterday. Yes, you guessed it, the internet wasn't necessary for it. How often our time is frittered away by our incessant surfing nowadays.

Today, I am back at broadband speeds again, as if nothing had happened. The good people must have diverted the internet traffic overnight and so we can get our daily shot of caffeine again.

There must be a lesson somewhere in all of this.

Image source: http://www.csh.rit.edu/~cyke/pics/no_to_decaf.gif

A cry of wolf

One of the saddest thing between the Palestinians and the Israelis is their seeming inability to broker a lasting peace. A while ago, there had been hope that one could be reached - and from a surprising quarter. Ariel Sharon, erstwhile hawk, who now lies on the brink of death due to a massive stroke, quit some of the occupied lands in favour of the fledgeling Palestian state in exchange for peace. But it would seem that not all in Palestine wants peace. This was demonstrated by the Hamas, an erstwhile terrorist organisation, coming to power. But this is, after all, politics.

But the landscape has recently been covered in blood again when the Israelis retaliated againsts terrorists both in Gaza and Lebanon, who, without provocation, killed and kidnapped some Israeli soldiers at the borders. Some may say that Israel's reaction was disproportionate to the crime, but that is for history to decide. What I find ludicrous is that the Palestinian Hamas is now calling for the elimination of Israel ('erase Israel') after 18 of its people were killed by the Israelis. I will not go into the details of this except to say that this situation has been stoked by the Hamas' decision to kidnap the Israeli soldiers in the first place. Now if the Palestinians and Hamas in particular are not willing to reflect on its actions but can only think, like Ahmadinejab of Iran, to wipe Israel off the map, then there is no hope.

Only shallow, naive people and people with an agenda that does not include peace with Israel in the first place will believe in the Hamas' latest cry of wolf. And all this time, they place the blame squarely on Israel's shoulders.

Mothers will continue to weep for their slain sons, brothers and husbands, sons will lose their fathers and mothers on BOTH sides.

Image source: http://www2.aya.yale.edu/

Veil of separation

I am reminded of the cowboys and indian movies that I used to watch on Saturday afternoons way back in the 1970s. Besides the Red Indians, a town was often terrorised by 'Cowboy' robbers who almost always masked their faces using a handkerchief or something similiar. They looked sinister and everyone except the town sherriff was afraid of them. The Red Indians never did rob banks. Instead, they tend to go for the throat.

Well, ok, much of this is fantasy and a slur and typecasting of certain types of people. If was unfair to cast Red Indians as always the evil aggressors and the 'white men' as whiter than angels. But the men and women with the covered faces robbing banks and shooting indiscriminately in the air and at people stuck. Which is why when I see people with covered faces, that sinister imagery comes to mind.

Some Muslim women veil themselves in public today. The veil hides everything except the eyes. Like the masked cowboys, they look sinister. I know that putting a veil over oneself is a very personal and religious thing, but when one lives in a community consisting of different people with different faiths and beliefs, you cannot blame anyone for saying that he wishes these women would lose their veils. That is what Jack Straw, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Salman Rushdie wished. I support them. If I read it correctly, even the Koran does not insist on the veil. So people who veil themselves are not so much following a religious injunction as much as they are submitting to an arbitrary human craving or rule imposed by certain people. At its worst, this is akin to slavery. Now, is such slavish behaviour something to be proud of, even in religious context?

It is sad that in the modern world today, in an age of universal suffrage where men and women have equal rights, duties and responsibilities, there are women who still go around publicly asserting their submissiveness. Now I am not saying that this is wrong per se, but that if you want to indulge in submissive behaviour, then do it at home and not on the streets and certainly not when you need to see your MP.

Otherwise, what message are they sending to the rest of the community? That they are separate, holier than thou, mightier in spirituality, or what? All of which reminds me that some time ago, the Singapore Education Ministry disallowed all Primary school students, particularly those from Muslim families, from wearing the tudung or headscarf within school compounds. The government's justification then was that it doesn't want a separate identity to be established within the school system, which might become divisive over time. What Mr Straw, Mr Blair, Mr Rushdie and Mr Brown have said echo this same position espoused by the Government in Singapore as early as 2002.

Orphans forever

Among the entertainment fraternity, Angelina Jolie did it first. Now Madonna is doing a me-too. Angelina has two adopted orphaned children - one a Cambodian and another an Ethiopian. She subsequently gave birth to a daughter with Brad Pitt, her current husband. So her family is now a veritable United Nations of sorts. Angelina is herself of Czech and English descent. Will blood become thicker than water in the years to come? Only time will tell.

Madonna has only just started the adoption circus. Her attempt to adopt a hardly orphaned child - the child's father is still very alive and kicking but who practically gave his child away - had faced difficulties but the Malawi High Court, in a travesty of common sense, has granted adoption custody to the singer. One wonders if there is not some under-the-table shananigan going on here. Well, lets be frank about this and call a spade a spade. This has been a highly sophisticated and legalised kid-napping.

Madonna's natural children are said to have taken to their new step brother. For now, that is. Will they grow up to love their coloured step brother and will the mother love all of them equally? Again, only time will tell. Then we will know if blood does not count.

Suffice to say that this type of 'doing good' is highly selective and benefits only a few - one to be exact. Can't these incredibly rich people see beyond one child to help more? They don't have to adopt everyone, just give them the wherewithal to grow up in a peaceful environment where they can be educated to lift themselves out of the vicious cycle of poverty - on their own and among their own peoples and within their own country. For after all, when a person grows up, they would want to know where they came from, and who their own people are. I would hate to think that 'orphans' transplanted out of their natural homes will remain orphans from their own people, culture and history - all the rest of their lives.

Image Source: http://www.cbc.ca/

Walking the talk

Mr Irfan Husain, a columnist for the Pakistani English-language Dawn newspaper, has written a well-considered, honest and balanced piece on the age-old conflict between the Muslims and Christians (read Western civilisation), the Pope and Rushdie, that I feel compelled to reproduce this in full here, with due acknowledgement to Dawn.

Irfan Husain
- News Comment

I HAVE a theory about riots: Those out on the streets often don't have a clear idea what they're rioting about. And invariably, they have a lot of time on their hands.

After all, how often do you find an employed person asking for leave to join the demo of the day? But when you have time to kill, you'll join any crowd that's out to protest, no matter what the cause.

When Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses inflamed parts of the Muslim world, how many people demonstrating had actually read the book?

I didn't either, but it wasn't for lack of trying: Struggling manfully, I ploughed through the first hundred pages before admitting defeat.

So, I never actually read the passages that gave rise to the famous fatwa. But I doubt very much if the people who rioted even saw the book.

The same is true for those now up in arms about the Pope's address at the University of Regensburg.

I have printed out the speech, and must confess that it's heavy going. The offending section is a tiny part of the paper, and it remains a mystery why Pope Benedict needed such an obscure quotation in his discussion of faith and reason.

Having said that, he has addressed an issue that needs to be debated: How should believers reconcile their faith with the dictates of reason? According to him, modern Christianity has bridged the gap, while Islam has not.

We can debate his conclusion, and criticise his choice of supporting material, but we can hardly deny his right to hold an opinion.

When some Muslims demonstrated their opposition to his views, many carried placards threatening the Pope with death. It seems that some Muslims' stock response to the slightest provocation consists of death threats and violent demonstrations.

These undignified protests reinforce the worst prejudices others have about some Muslims. After all, why should some cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper, or a papal address at an unknown German university, send hundreds of thousands pouring into streets around the world?

When we were children, when somebody said anything offensive, we would chant: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."

As we grew older, we learned that some words are deadlier than any stick or stone, festering long after bruises and wounds have healed. But, we were also taught to be stoical, and not to complain.

In a letter to the Guardian of Sept 20, San Cassimally of Edinburgh wrote: "As a Muslim, I am much more saddened and shocked by the murder of the Somali nun than by what the Pope said in Regensburg ... even if he knew exactly what he was doing."

I would add that I am far more horrified by the endless Muslim-on-Muslim killing going on in Iraq than by anything the pontiff could possibly say.

According to United Nations estimates, an average of a hundred Iraqis are being killed every day, almost invariably by other Iraqis. And all too often, many of the victims are tortured to death.

When Israel killed a thousand Lebanese civilians in a month of senseless bombing, Muslims (and others with a conscience) around the world were rightly incensed. But approximately the same number of Muslims are being killed by other Muslims every 10 days in Iraq, and there is no protest anywhere.

Before the invasion of Iraq, when Saddam Hussein tortured and gassed his own people with impunity, I do not recall any Muslims condemning him publicly.

Applying these same double standards, when Nato forces accidentally kill Afghans, we are furious. But when the Taliban kill innocent Afghans in suicide bombings, and assassinate teachers for teaching girls, we look the other way.

This kind of moral inconsistency is reflected in the treatment non-Muslims generally get in Muslim countries.

For instance, while the 300,000 Iraqi Christians were treated as equal citizens in Saddam's secular regime, two-thirds of them have fled the increasingly-Islamic nature of the present government.

Saudi Arabia, while funding Wahabi mosques across the West, refuses to permit non-Muslims to build their places of worship on its soil.

I am often asked why Muslims in Pakistan get so worked up about Bosnia, Chechnya and Palestine.

I try and explain in terms of the ummah, and the feeling of connectedness between, say, Indonesian Muslims and Turkish Muslims. But I fear this is only a small part of the real answer.

The truth is that the problems we face in much of the Muslim world are often so intractable that we escape reality by looking abroad.

Matters like poverty, disease, political instability and institutional meltdown are too difficult to be tackled by the inefficient and corrupt elites much of the Muslim world is cursed with. To deflect blame, they fulminate against the West for its perceived anti-Islamic attitudes.

It is this mindless, knee-jerk anti-West sentiment that sustains the jihadi groups, and is now propelling us to a very real "clash of civilisations".

As Islam becomes more heavily-politicised, it is evoking a strong reaction in the West. More and more, the Muslims who have migrated to Europe and America, as well as their children, are being seen as a fifth column.

The sight of perpetually-angry Muslims from London to Lahore, marching with placards calling for the death of somebody or the other, is moving normally liberal people to anger.

For me, the really worrying part of the Pope's address was his demand for the subordination of reason to theology: "Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought; to philosophy and theology."

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. This is precisely why I don't think faith and reason can ever be reconciled.

Japan's new PM

Shinzo Abe worries me.

He wants to change the Japanese Constitution, which has stood for 60 years, albeit drafted by its victors, the US. "I want to write the Constitution with my own hands", he said. Question: What is wrong with the present Constitution that has enabled Japan to recover and become an economic powerhouse second only to the US?

He does not discourage revisionist historians who play down and deny the horrors and the wrongs that the Japanese caused in Asia and Southeast Asia during WWII. He wants to encourage patriotism. I wonder if Japanese are not already patriotic? So what does Abe mean by patriotism?

He is non-committal on visiting Yasukuni. He should say 'yes' or 'no'. Anything else and he remains a suspect case.

Less than one week into the job and one of his appointed Ministers has been found out as a crook. How well does he know the people around him and how much control has he got over key appointments?

Shinzo Abe worries me.

Image source: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/

Osama alive or dead?

Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive? Some French think he is dead, the Americans would not commit on it in spite of its vast intelligence operations and network, and the Muslim world are one in insisting that he is alive.

When somebody doesn't appear in public, alive, for 5 years, his living existence is suspect. In another two years, the law will consider him missing and presumed dead.

Videos and audios can all be faked.

Period.

Translation: [37:164] Except only him who shall burn in Hell. (The Holy Quran : Chapter 37: Al-Saffat) - Source: http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=37&verse=163

The Thai Dilemma

They (coup leaders) are asking people with strong democratic principles to become prime minister of a government appointed by a dictatorship. And they are asking them to accept the post without any guarantees of some democratic freedoms...

as told to Dow Jones Newswires.

Well said. The Generals and even the Thai King, with all due respect, are deceiving themselves. The military junta will not soon cede power. It cannot. It has trapped itself in a conflicting and contradictory situation. Any civilian government installed by them will be nothing but a dead duck, a puppet beholden to the military, who will be defacto kings of Thailand until they voluntarily give up and retreat to their barracks where they belong in the first place.

That, or they do a Pakistan or a Myanmar - both of which represent extremes of possible though no more desirable outcomes.

Image source: http://www.cbc.ca/. Image originally owned by the Thai Army.

Politics and Shrines

I cannot understand why Shinzo Abe, the front-runner to succeed Koizumi as Prime Minister of Japan, says that he will visit the Yasukuni Shrine where many of Japan's Class 1 war criminals from WWII are interred. Koizumi says he did it because of a campaign promise he made to the electorate, but Abe says he will be doing it to keep up the practice. Obviously, Abe sees these visits as advancing his political cause, if nothing else. It doesn't matter if the visit is official or unofficial, as Abe promised the latter. As far as the Chinese and Koreans are concerned, paying homage to War Criminals in any guise is criminal enough.

Well, it looks to me that Abe does not really need to keep up appearances at the cost of good relations with its neighbours, Korea and China, as well as continue to hurt the sensitivities of many in Southeast Asia. It would be an unwise, unnecessary and possibly a suicidal policy given that Korea and China are becoming major powers in their own rights and that Japan will become increasingly isolated in the process. While we do not want to forever remind Japan about its war past, we also do not want them to forget.

Image origin: http://www.journeythroughjapan.org/

Shotgun religion

Islam continues to be plagued by extremists among its midst who very loudly and insistently push their religious agenda through the barrel of a gun, or should we, in keeping with the times and reality say, 'the cannister of a bomb'? With September 11 around the corner, we can expect these religious fanatics to want to commemorate the occasion with a couple of their own bombing exploits to hasten their entry into heavenly bliss.

Besides death and destruction, some of these extremists also wish to convert people to Islam through the barrel of the same gun. American Fox News journalists, Mr Steve Centanni, 60, an American correspondent, and his freelance cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, a New Zealander, who were later released, were reportedly at the wrong end of a gun when they 'converted' to Islam. I am not sure that both reporters have the conviction to remain Muslims, unless they are forced to look down the barrel of a gun again.

Adherents of Islam are exhibiting some rather oppressive behaviour in recent times. But since most of them are extremists to start off with, though one cannot understand their worldview, their actions are not surprising. What is surprising is that Islam can be oppressive even when it arises from the law of the land.

It was reported recently in Malaysia that a woman, aged 26, had renounced her Muslim faith to become a Christian. Nothing wrong with that in a country that professes freedom of religious beliefs. She legally changed her name to Lina Joy, but the State would not allow her to change her stated religion on its records, which remains Islam. Well, one can live with that too, I suppose. If one's faith is true, it really doesn't matter what others say, or what the National Records office states. Well, that is turning out to be a nightmare, it seems. Because her official religion is still recorded as Islam, she cannot marry a non-Muslim. Sadly, we are not talking about an extremist body anymore, but the Islamic Courts in Malaysia. What can be more legitimate than that? According to Syariah Law (Islamic Law Court), a Muslim cannot marry a non-Muslim. So we have a situation where a Christian cannot marry a non-Muslim because she is deemed still a Muslim although the law granted her a name change to reflect her new religious beliefs.

Islam is suffering from multiple identity disorder today. Do we ever wonder why Islam, both of the extremist and state-sponsored types, conjures up suspicion and distrust nowadays? It is not a Western-worldview problem anymore. Before it sets out to rule the world, it had better sort out its identity and existence in its own back yard first.

Image origin: http://www.claybennett.com/

Hornet's nest

From the peacekeeping point of view, I cannot understand how the Malaysian and Indonesian Armed Forces can send soldiers to Lebanon. These countries, especially Indonesia, has one of the loudest supporters of the Hizbollah cause. Even though the soldiers may not be as fanatic (one assumes), there is always the perception (and a fact) that they come from a country that is against Israel. Both Malaysia and Indonesia do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. So if the UN accepts their offers of troops for the peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon, it would be nothing short of waiting for a disaster to happen.

Even on this issue, Indonesia wants to argue against Ehud Olmert's objections that the peacekeeping force not include soldiers from countries that do not have diplomatic ties with Israel. This goes to show that Indonesia is not a neutral party after all. As few weeks ago, it was reported in the press that a number of Indonesian Jihadist - extremist Muslim - were preparing to fight the 'Zionists' over the recent conflict with the Hizbollahs in Lebanon. Even if the Indonesian army and the government were to dis-associate itself from these extremists elements, prudence dictates it not send any Indonesians to Lebanon. This is after all, a peacekeeping effort, not a 'Brother for Brother' party. Lebanon and Israel have had enough of the Hizbollahs without the injection of more terrorists on their soil.

Having 'won' the peace, the UN must act with extreme caution and prudence in ensuring that the peacekeeping force can and will keep the peace.

Image origin: http://old.gulfnews.com/

War and diplomacy

At last, both sides, the Israelis and the Lebanese (or should I say, the Hizbollah?) have finally agreed to a UN brokered ceasefire, effective Monday, 14 August 2006 at 0500 GMT. Even so, it is reported that both sides are still lobbing bombs at each other even after the accepting the agreement. We now hear that there are problems in the Lebanese government cabinet, where the Hizbollah has two representatives, about the implementation of the terms of the ceasefire.

Yes, all of us want to believe that the ceasefire agreement will end the bloodshed and bring permanent respite to the innocent Lebanese citizens. But the reality is that both sides are still simmering, ready to start the war all over again at the slightest opportunity or provocation. Both sides will view the ceasefire as a chance to regroup, relocate and rearm for another day. Fundamentally, no peace agreement has been reached, only a ceasefire. And when the war starts again, as it inevitably will, the world will see that nothing has been resolved. Diplomacy has merely won a stay of execution. The final solution will only be reached until one side destroys, or at least neutralizes, the other side permanently.

So yes, Mr Kofi Annan can claim a sort of belated diplomatic victory, but the UN, being the UN, can never bring lasting peace to the two sides. What is tragic about the whole incident is that the duly constituted and elected government of Lebanon was never able to exert any meaningful influence and control over the Hizbollah faction, in spite of the fact that it has at least 15,000 troops under its command. A government that cannot, or will not, govern and control the country and the various factions among it must ultimately take responsibility for the death of its people and destruction of its property. If it still does not recognize this fact, and take action to bring the Hizbollah under its control, then it should cede control totally to the Hizbollah. It should not continue with a pretense that serves to hoodwink charitable souls of the world, including the Lebanese women and children.

The Hizbollah, by some combination of warped logic and delusion, are claiming a victory in this conflict. It has sustained 900 over deaths (probably mostly civilians - which do not matter much?) on the Lebanese side versus 150 odd deaths on Israel's side. Much of their homes are buried in rubble and it will take a lot of charity from the rest of the world to rebuild their homes and feed their people. It is a strange victory when you have to depend on charity.

Israel, on the other hand, is more subdued over this war and is certainly not over the moon regarding the achievements (or lack) of its original objectives - the return of its two soldiers.

Do we now wonder why the fight is not over yet? Dare I say that the diplomatic world is facilitating a conflict more destructive than the first?

Image origin: http://www.opceasefire.org/

God and History

In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?

So ask Britain's most significant scientist since Isaac Newton. Dr Stephen Hawking posed the question but admitted that he does not have the answer. 25,000 people reportedly weighed in on the question. My take on this issue although it is now closed in Yahoo Answers?

The human race has sustained thousands of years through wars, natural disasters, famine and political intrigue more complex than today's. Some social upheavals in the past are even more revolutionary than today's, yet history has shown that these ebb and flow with the sands of time, many discredited and forgotten, only to be resurrected under another name in another time. As King Solomon, the wisest man that ever walked the earth was to write, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, that

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 1:2

He made the observation that

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. Ecclesiastes 1:5-11

Solomon's answer to the question posed by Dr Hawking, is that, yes, God willing, the human race can be sustained for another 100 years, 1000 years even. We give too little credit to the creator with this so-called conundrum. Let us not over-rate Dr Hawking here at the expense of the Almighty.

The discussion:
Yahoo answers on the conundrum
The rest of the chatter

Image origin: http://library.thinkquest.org/

Cycle of Tragedy

Once again, the tragedy of war was brought home with the death of more than 50 civilians in Lebanon, including women and children, all of whom were taking shelter from a bombardment launched by Israeli planes. The Israelis claimed that they had given prior warning for residents to flee. Indeed many did, but this extended family chose to stay. Apparently, the Hezbollah 'martyrs' are again hiding behind women's skirts and children's cots when they launched missiles against Israel in the vicinity of these now collapsed houses.

War is never pleasant, it is destructive of lives and property, of a livelihood and opportunities. The world admits that the Hezbollah provoked the conflict first where they continue to lob bombs into Israeli residential areas. So what happened to the women and children in Lebanon today could very well happen to Israel's women and children tomorrow. I think the Israelis want to stop, but if stopping means that the Hezbollah can re-group in Southern Lebanon to fight another day, then any such armistice, such respite from the carnage, can only be temporary.

Can the world community, and the UN in particular, which already has its hands full with Iran's and N Korea's nuclear ambitions, stay focused on keeping the two sides apart when the guns stop and rebuilding takes place? Is there political will in Lebanon and the rest of the world that is calling for a stop to the current conflict to rein in the Hezbollah and their openly avowed mission to destroy Israel? Will Iran and Syria stop fighting via proxy?

If the answers are NO, then, sadly, tragically, the war will go on, must go on for otherwise, it will just be a reprieve to salve the souls of participants and onlookers before another war begins. It is well to remember that this conflict was started by the Hezbollah for no good reason than to join in the kidnapping game than the Hamas first started in the Gaza Strip. Hezbolla never expected such as ferocious response from the Israelis. Thus was the relative peace and development for more than a decade in Lebanon broken, engulfing innocent women and children into a conflict which the Hezbollah was and remains trigger happy about. As much as bombs are lobbed into Southern Lebanon, missiles continue to rain down on Israel, though, fortunately for the Hezbollah, their missiles have not had been as accurate nor destructive as the Israelis'.

The Hezbollah was in Lebanon 10 years ago. If the Hezbollah is given a reprieve and peace comes again, how long will it last before they break the peace again? Another 10 years? The key question to ask, after all is said and done is, who broke the peace? and so who should mend it - permanently?

Image origin: http://www.graphicwitness.org/

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

The press went to town gleefully telling everyone who would listen (and of course everybody loves a juicy story) of how they got recordings of private conversations at the dinner table by Mr George W Bush and Mr Tony Blair, amongst others. Mr Bush reportedly said "Hezbollah to stop doing this shit", referring to the weeklong conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Hezbollah.

Well, I think its refreshing to hear that, because most of the sentiments that we express privately isn't all that different from the US President's - at least not mine. Many others would hold a diametrically opposite view, but few would want to be open about it - not that Mr Bush is - he was caught unawares.

While the G8 did issue a statement regarding the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, it got interpreted in a 1001 ways, so much for the usefulness of such joint statements. Nobody takes them seriously, and worse, they are not actionable.

As Israel continues to pound Southern Lebanon, I am hearing people condemn the US for not getting into the region to stop the conflict. Well, well, well. And I thought that people were condemning the US for going into Iraq. Damn if you do and damn if you don't. Foreign policy and adventures are always fraught with danger, but I would say the greatest danger lies with people who cannot decide one way or another. At least Mr Bush is staying the course and trying to complete the job that was left hanging in Operation Desert Storm. By the same token, I'd say let Israel complete its job so that Hezbollah will not soon stir the hornets' nest again any time soon.

Image Origin - http://www.ceosforcities.org/

The tragedy of war

As the bombs drop from Israeli planes onto Lebanon, I feel a tinge of nostalgia. I remember twenty years ago, when I was still in my youth, the names of places such as Sabra and Shatilla where Israel met with infamy, and the almost incessant news and reports of bombings and conflicts in Lebanon. Today, after 20 years of relative peace, war in Lebanon is again rearing its ugly head.

War is, obviously, never pleasant. And while self-righteous people go about provoking war, it is the ordinary people who bear the brunt of war. Their lives are suddenly disrupted, their homes subject to damage, if not destruction, their kith and kin separated, their livelihood adversely affected. I remember my mother relating how her life and opportunities were disrupted due to the Second World War in this part of the world. It was truely a tragedy.

And yet, people still provoke war. The Hizbollah and the Hamas have thrown the entire Middle-East yet again into a conflagration that will not soon go away. Whatever trust and opportunities that have been built-up over the last fews years with the eventual establishment of the Palestinian Authority is all but gone. Old foes such as Syria and Iran are working behind the scenes to further stoke the fire. More innocent lives will be lost.

Can Israel be blamed for protecting itself? After all, the incidents that provoked their present response were the blatant kidnap and capture of their own people by the Hamas and the Hizbollah. For Israel to continue holding the olive branch is nothing but suicidal policy. Can the Islamic world blame the Israelis, as the OIC under the leadership of Malaysia, has done? What if the role were reversed, that Israelis kidnap the Hamas and Hizbollah terrorists for ransom? What would the OIC say then?

Surely there must be impartiality and justice? But this has never characterised the relation between Israel and the Muslim world. What can anybody say that can bring this latest conflict to an end? Simply NOTHING, because the relationship has never been built on trust, if at all. Only the barrel of the gun will broker a truce, but peace will never come.

Painting is "The Visage of War" by Salvador Dali. Refer to http://clogic.eserver.org/

A teacher who destroys

Predictably, some Indonesia Muslims have jumped into the worsening Palestinian situation in the Gaza by urging its adherents to take up arms in Palestine. And the biggest 'head' in this rallying call is reportedly non other that Abu Bakar Bashir - he who protested and vehemently denied his role in the Bali bombing in open court. I don't know what kind of Muslim he is, but obviously he is a liar, a cheat and by any standards, an immoral person. Now, he wants to reprise his role as murderer as well. There is a Chinese saying - "Borrow a knife to kill people". Bashir is bent on borrowing, yet again, the young lives of Muslim youth to do his dirty work in the name of Allah. Does he want to rise to the seventh heaven on the coattails of the young and pliable Muslims in the schools that he runs?

The teachers' vocation has always been an honourable one. But in him, we see a teacher not as a shaper of lives for the better, but a teacher bent on destroying lives. It is unfortunate that he was even released from prison so early. Now he has the freedom to go about committing more crimes against humanity. Going by what he is doing now, he should have been locked up for good.

Image origin - http://www.aijac.org.au/

Moderates need to play ball

And you thought you've heard it all. About the extreme 'moral' requirements that extreme Muslims practice and enforce on others. An example from recent months is the no-kissing/ no-hugging / no-touching rule between male and female in public, and therefore no public display of affection. In Iraq, extremists have gone even further. The Associated Press reported, about 3 hours ago, that in Baghdad, gunmen stopped a car carrying the Sunni Arab coach and his two Shiite players, asked them to step out and then shot them.
And their 'crime'? This, according to leaflets distributed by these extremists:

Wearing shorts by youth are prohibited because it violates the principals of Islamic religion when showing forbidden parts of the body. Also women should wear the veil...

As expected, moderate Muslims and clerics have come out to condemn this act and state that there is nothing wrong in wearing shorts like those than an athlete would wear during training and competition. The problem is that the Islamic religious agenda has effectively been hijacked by these extremists for some time now. The moderates are now seen to be forever playing catchup and apologising for the actions of their fellow religious brothers. In the long run, this will not do. Justice must be seen to be done, not just talked about and verbally condemned.

Mere pronouncements without the active pursuit and prosecution of these extremist factions do no good in righting the increasing perception that Islam is a religion of hatred, revenge, and even worst - lawlessness. We need to see action in the pursuit and elimination of these factions worldwide, wherever Islamic extremists ply their brand of hate religion and moralistic judgements. Continued inaction will lead to gradual erosion of adherents and condemn the religion to defections and desertions, for who can live under a cloud where what he/she believes in is equated to violence, hate, and selective lawlessness.

The ball has long been on the moderates' court. The way I see it, either they do something concrete to right this wrong quickly, or they join those whom they refuse to actively discipline - a guilt by association. The third alternative is to abandon a religion that has gone horribly wrong.

Opiate of the masses

Karl Marx, that father of communism and its chief atheist, called religion the "Opiate of the masses". I suppose what he believes is that religion is a drug that the masses are driven to take and in the process, becomes addicted to it. Non-religion is therefore the only rational process and thought that mankind should adopt, if not believe in. I do not agree with this sage (as some still consider him to be one). His own 'religion' today is in shambles. It has not withstood the test of time.

On the other hand, I am horrified to learn that schools in Saudi Arabia, which is supposedly friendly to the West, routinely teaches its young ones to, among other things, hate Christians and Jews, and advocates Jihad, or Holy War against all infidels, of which Christians and Jews are identified as. If this is what is being taught systematically in Saudi Arabia's public schools, then I cannot imagine what schools in Iran teach their young. In fact, I am now paranoid of every Muslim school, official nor non-official, sanctioned by the state or not and even if that school is located and administered in Muslim countries that are considered to be moderate in the practice of Islam. It is no wonder that terrorists run amok so freely nowadays and this will not abate so long as young, impressionable kids are taught routinely to hate, that Allah wants Muslims to hate. The message I am getting is that Islam teaches hate, is intolerant of other beliefs and peoples, and is a law unto itself.

All the defences thrown up by countries to defend themselves from terrorist attacks will be ineffective so long as you have waves of youths who are ready to die for their Islamic religion the way they are being trained and intoxicated in schools in Islamic countries. What can you do when leaders in the community, the teachers, the adults, use a religion's holy book to teach such frightening things, not only sanctioning acts of violence against infidels, but actively promoting it? The only problem with Osama Bin Laden is that he brought Islam's teachings to its only logical realisation. With generations of Muslim youth raised on these beliefs, it is not difficult to see that peace will never come to Israel, not in my lifetime, not ever, in spite of the bests efforts of sincere, peace-loving peoples.

Perhaps Karl Marx was right, in some cases, after all.