Saddam's "crime against humanity," is it rightly justified?

Those of you that are following the current events, you'll be most likely being repeatedly bombarded by the news of Saddam Hussein's impending execution (well, they've just executed him a few hours ago). However, what you probably didn't notice, and the western media's failure in disclosure, is the way Saddam was convicted based on his "crime against humanity." Today's BBC read:

Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court on 5 November after a year-long trial over the killings of 148 Shias from the village of Dujail in the 1980s.

A trial in a second case, alleging genocide against Kurds, continues against him.

So, how come Saddam was not convicted and sentenced to death for his alleged genocide against the Kurds? What about the hundreds of Shias he murdered in the aftermath of post-Gulf War uprisings in the early 90's? What about the 1.5 millions of Iranians who died in the atrocity of Iran-Iraq war? Why did the prosecutors hang him in a hurry? Why didn't they give him impartial just in arguably the most important trial of this year?

Saddam was not convicted for the aforementioned genocides and atrocities because the US, Britain, and their allies, often termed "one of us," had all committed similar atrocities against either domestically or in a foreign soil. For the US, it was the murder of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War. Remember the "Highway of Death," where both American and British bombers targeted fleeing civilians and soldiers, whom had no protection whatsoever against attacks from the air, with precision bombs, strafing after strafing? How then, does the US-backed Iraqi court judge whether Saddam has committed a war crime or a crime against humanity? How do you think they did that?

The US-sponsored criminal court prosecutes any "crime against humanity" case, since the post-World War 2 era, base on what the perpetrator had committed. If the dictator had committed crime which neither US nor Britain has committed in similarity then it is to be judged as "crime against humanity," however, if the dictator committed crime which both countries and their allies has committed in similarity and intensity, such as the brutal massacre of civilians and defenseless soldiers along the "Highway of Death," and US-sponsored Kurdish massacre by the Turkish government, the crime is not to be tried as "crime against humanity." Sometimes, it is not even used as evidence in the "trial."

This is very true as we have witnessed in Iraq recently, notably the trial of Saddam Hussein.

One cannot find what I mentioned above amongst any of the western media, it is only mentioned in literatures written by intellectuals whom are critical of US foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky. This bias in prosecuting a criminal for the war crimes he/her committed has been stated explicitly in several of Chomsky's books, interviews, and documentaries. This agenda of the elite states behind the prosecution of Saddam would clearly answer Robert Fisk's questions in his most recent article from Independent:

But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?

No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.

Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.

And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our "bunker buster" bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our "victory" - our "mission accomplished" - who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement.

Of course, the atrocities conducted by the "real" sponsors of the criminal states would always be disguised under the pretext of humanitarian aid and liberation against the dictatorial regimes. The crimes we committed are simply not to be questioned. They're aid and assistance to the "impoverished," although most of them are measured in similar intensity as "crime against humanity." This is not what the US policy makers want you to know!

Who exactly is revolutionizing the media?

So who exactly is revolutionizing the media? Is it really 'you,' as stated in Time's 2006 Person of the Year? Or, is it 'they,' the few multinational conglomerates who dominates the airwaves, newspapers, and the Internet? In a recent commentary from the Christian Science Monitor, 'you' are no longer the backbone in shaping and revolutionizing the 'media', but it is 'them' who do all the molding and manipulation to direct public opinion for their own use. An excerpt from the commentary reads:

Time's cover suggests that everyone has played a role in the world's new, dynamic media environment. But its premise is flawed. The evidence shows that only a small percentage of Americans are really contributing to the Web in meaningful ways - or even at all.

Surveys show that about 70 percent of adult Americans have been on the Internet at some point. That's a big number, but what do those people do?

Only 8 percent - about 12 million? - keep a blog, according to a recent survey from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Of those bloggers, 84 percent blog as a "hobby" or say it's "not something I spend a lot of time on." And 37 percent of them say "their personal experiences" are their primary topic.

To be fair, other studies that also measure the Web proclivities of users ages 12-18 do show more Net activity, so the potential for growth is there. But looking at YouTube, one can't help but assume a great deal of their time is spent posting amusing video clips. Someone has to put up all those Aqua Teen Hunger Force cartoons.

What the media revolution and Web 2.0 have really done is create a new and interesting class of media. It's not mainstream - at least not yet - but it certainly isn't "You." It's actually more "Them." And if Time really wants to make "Them" the Person of the Year, then why not? There are worse choices.

Come to think of it, it is really 'they' who is in control of the popular masses. In North America, multinational conglomerates are also "persons" where a "person", in legal term, is officially defined "to include any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation or other organization, or any government entity." The issue of media control is nothing new, but it has been studied and documented since the "modern-age" of communications began in the 80's. As mentioned in Noam Chomsky's book Rogue States, the multinationals are "to ensure that private [multinational] agencies will control the media and thus be able to restrict [your] thought to vested beliefs." Furthermore:

They seek further to "nullify the customs of ages" by creating "new conceptions of individual attainment and community desire," business leaders explain, "civilizing" people to perceive their needs in terms of consumption of goods rather than quality of life and work, and to abandon any thought of a "share in the decisions which often profoundly modify their way of life," as called for by Vatican extremists. Control of media by a few megacorporations is a contribution to this end. Concentration has accelerated, thanks in part to recent deregulation that also eliminates even residual protection of public interest. In the latest edition of his standard review of the topic, Ben Bagdikian reports a decline in controlling firms from 50 in 1984 to 10 today - huge empires such as Disney and General Electric, though the spectrum has broadened with Rupert Murdoch's entry.

Although this book was written back in 2000, everything in it still holds dearly true up to this day. Their ultimate goal is to indoctrinate the masses with an undeniable urge in "materialist consumption" in which "the negative aspects on others are considered completely irrelevant." This method of mass control is being dramatically simplified, with the help of merger and acquisition booms, and the emergence of a countable number of megacorporations, it has become significantly easier to direct popular masses and opinions to other non-senses, away from the state imperialism and terror, humanitarian aid, violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, apartheid, Global Warming, and Globalization.

So, are 'you' really revolutionizing the media, as stated in Time? Or, are 'you' the victim of a premeditated common goal set by the top 1%? Either way, I sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas, and a wonderful New Year!

"You" named Time's Person of the Year

Congratulations! All of us who shared personal stories, thoughts, political opinions, public diaries, photographies, pictures, homemade musics and videos have been named Time's Person of the Year. This prestigious award is an annual event which Time uses to commemorate a major contributing person, group, entity, idea, and place to the humanities for the entire year, be it good or bad. However, commemorating the users of Internet is hardly attributed from the fact that an average user would actually use the Internet to do good deeds. It is for sure the majority of Internet users are much more able to freely voice their opinions and criticisms nowadays, but how many are putting it to good use?

Undoubtedly, the Internet communities has grown significantly over the past year. Take a look at our own community, the blogosphere. It is predicted that "the blogging phenomenon is set to peak in 2007", but how many of us are willing to stand up and fight for a better world? How many bloggers are indulging themselves in materialistic and consumerism non-sense? What exactly is "user-generated content"? Is it simply to bypass all thoughts so to spread non-sense, junk, empty, shallow, and culture-prohibitive contents? To simply imitate what other people, or news has to said without the critical examinations by ourselves? How can this be the "founding and framing the new digital democracy" when this is simply another form of implicit mind-control, modeled by the government, elite businesses, and major conglomerates?

Like what I mentioned earlier here:

Consumerism and empty pop culture are transforming you and me into mindless, thoughtless, buying-on-impulse zombies. One who is oblivious to the current worldly events.

The idea of the freedom of expression over Internet is no different than the whole pop culture of consumerism. One is no longer logging online to view the worldly events, unbiased news, critical opinions, and activism, but to simply indulge in non-sense such as sharing videos over Youtube, Myspacing, Orkuting, and etc. To perceive this as a new age in the "new digital democracy" is just rhetorically incorrect. It is not a democracy but a twisted form of Fascism, wasteful spending, mind-control, and propaganda. What "you" must do is to resist this form of mind-control and stupidity, and open your lungs to breath the fresh air, to see more broadly, and be aware of what is happening around you. We can no longer close our eyes.

This century will be the utmost critical in determining the survival of the entire human race. If we shun our eyes and ignore Globalization, and Global Warming, more people will suffer and die, and the effects of which will linger on to harm the next generations of you and me. It is up to us to determine how much these two significant events will forever shape and adversely influence the human race. No one else could determine this.

For those enlightened souls, other topics I've blogged over the year include:

1. End of cheap oil: 1
2. Global Warming: 1, 2, 3, 4
3. Human rights: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
4. Consumerism and wasteful spending: 1, 2, 3
   
5. Globalization: 1, 2, 3
   
6. Invasion of privacy: 1

Enjoy!

Iran holds Holocaust conference

Well, after the fiasco this past September. Mr. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, has amazed us once again with the gathering of a Holocaust Conference this week in Tehran. Quoting from BBC's article and Independent:

President Ahmadinejad's long-promised Holocaust conference opened in Tehran yesterday to an audience including infamous revisionists, racists and anti-Semites. The only speakers who confirmed the Holocaust as a historical fact were a group of rabbis who criticised its use to justify Israeli abuses against Palestinians.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned the scale of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews died.

Its main aim is to create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust

Participants include a number of well-known "revisionist" Western academics. American David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, is to present a paper.

But a number of Jewish rabbis are also there. One, British Rabbi Ahron Cohen, said he had come to the conference to put the "Orthodox Jewish viewpoint" across.

"We certainly say there was a Holocaust, we lived through the Holocaust. But in no way can it be used as a justification for perpetrating unjust acts against the Palestinians," he said.

I totally agree with what the rabbi said. I know Holocaust doesn't justify the oppression of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but it does not give an excuse to deny it. Mr. Ahmadinejad will only further widens the existing rift between the west and east, and put Iran in an awkward position once again for its defense of the Palestinian and Iraq issue.

Once you've seen the horror, sorrow and misery the European Jews had to endure during World War II, I promise you that you would not wish to deny it in any way or form. This catastrophic event is something which we should remember by heart and hope the lesson learned would not allow it to repeat on the future generations. It is those who deny it are the true supporters of an oppressive regime and it is those who back it are the true followers of gender inequality and human rights abuse.

This also holds true for all other historic human rights violation, especially on Japan's repeatedly denial of the Nanjing Massacre and the use of women prisoners as "comfort women" during WWII.

History is a wonderful subject, it allows us to reevaluate our past mistake and improvise for the better. We should all learn from history for the betterment of the next generation. This is especially true with the current events, particularly in Global Warming. One well-documented example of how we could learn from the past is in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, where he examined historical evidences on what caused glorious societies of the past to collapse and how these could be correlated to today's world. It's an interesting and intriguing read. I highly recommend it for those who has an appetite for historical facts.

Google, the ULTIMATE evil?

Google - v. to execute an online search of anything, from a reputable online search engine giant Google.

Google - n. world domination, the invasion of privacy, the suppression of freedom of speech, and a working partner of authoritarian and totalitarian state.

So, what exactly is Google? How do you define Google? Is Google merely a harmless online search engine? Or, is it an entity that is more powerful than you could ever imagine? What is its ultimate purpose? For sure, it cannot be "do no evil", since with abundant capitals available from its overblown share price, one of its foremost purpose must be "to serve the interest" of its shareholders and uphold its corporate value by maximizing profit through asset, contracts, and business acquisitions. With this in mind, is there a more sinister, darker, and hidden intent of Google?

A typical user of Google will find its wide range of applications simple, user-friendly, trendy, up-to-date, purposeful, and just purely astonishing. From its spy-eye lookalike Google Earth services to its widely popular, chat-integrated Gmail functions, Google means reliable information transfer, reputable, and up-to-date information database all accessible with a few mouse clicks. Furthermore, it brings great convenience to the end-user off-line through an integrated desktop search engine, allowing one to look for long-lost files in the local hard drive with ease. So, what is there not to like? With the great convenience and support Google brings, what would I, as an end-user, has to lose or sacrifice?

Well, what, you, the end-user often don't know is with great convenience it comes with a hidden cost - the voluntary surrender of all your personal and privacy information. Let's start with Google's Gmail. It seems a great way to build up your contacts, email addresses, telephone numbers so to allow you to send, reply, forward any information you wish with ease to friends, colleagues, relatives, and your loved ones. Convenience enough? What about its personalized homepage service? It allows you to organize news, current events, and other information in an easily identifiable and readable manner. Nice. What about the Google Earth service? One which allows you to pinpoint the location of your family's house, where you've lived, studied, and worked. What about Google Calendar? Where you could map out dates, anniversary events, birthdays of all and everything about you. What about Orkut, the "online networking" community? Where you could disclose everything you possibly ever wish to disclose about yourself, such as your affiliation, political stance, religion, relationship with someone, and even relating yourself to a physical being with photos. Should I go on? Do you know how much information you've voluntarily surrendered to Google?

With each and every online service you sign up on there comes a price of disclosure. However, if the information is dispersed over many companies there wouldn't be a problem since it will be impossible to consolidate them as a whole. But, with Google being the only service provider of all the services you use, it could only mean one thing.

What Google's ultimate goal is to reconstruct a virtual profile of you, in religion, race, name, critical personal information, sex, school you went to, whom you've chatted, emailed, talked to, you name it. The list goes on and on. It could then profile an individual for its next level of data mining. What's this next level you ask? It could be a wide range of things including, from the least harmful, targeted advertisement, user-specific search results, to the most dangerous, the disclosure of information for prosecution and imprisonment of your online activity. Well, you might say that would never happen, but with the gazillion of information Google collects everyday from its billions of users, it's only a matter of time before this happens in a First World society (this has already happened, on several occasions, in totalitarian and authoritarian states such as China and Russia, respectively).

"Great power comes with great responsibility", but this responsibility is often overshadowed and diminished by peer pressure, a desirable expansion of the market, and to meet the bottom line. Although Google may sound much more friendly than its dearest rivals, Microsoft and Yahoo, it is still a corporation with an aim to meet its bottom line to fulfill the insatiable shareholders. It is no better than a typical conglomerate.

Google is aiming for total world domination, starting with the control over your privacy. Once you started using any product offered by Google, you’ll notice they would always “voluntarily” provide you with more of their “essential” services. Only after you’ve used them would you realize your voluntarily act of surrender of all private and confidential information. By then, it’s already too late. You’ve already given it your soul! So, are you the next victim awaiting dissection? It's up to you to find out!

At least that’s how I felt.