Terrorism: The authentic big picture

By Johnny D. Symon

(Originally published September 8, 2006)

With the latest suicide bombing, or so it appears, against the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, — where an estimated death count presently stands at 16 (at least three of those are American soldiers), and which occurred soon after NATO called for it's member countries to join a major offensive against insurgents in the south — it's time yet again to reflect on the background history of this problem region.

Over 1,000,000 Afghan refugees live in Pakistan, though it's nigh on impossible to present an accurate figure. Pakistan is a popular resting place, or watering hole, for Afghans, and there's a simple reason why. It goes by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

One of Gandhi's famous statements goes like this;

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

Now Gandhi was a strict pacifist who helped lead the Indian people into expulsing the British and their control over that country. I personally know Indian people who lament the loss of the British and their sound governance. But being a pacifist Gandhi went on to help hand over a piece of India that led to the birth of Pakistan; "We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

Is modern day Pakistan really what Gandhi had in mind? Was that the vision he held for that fledgeling country? Or simply put, being a pacifist, was Gandhi ill equipped to make sound decisions on such matters? ... I choose the latter view! The product of Gandhi's decision not only cost him his life, when an irate Indian Hindu burned him out for agreeing to allow the separation, but the subsequent loss of life from 1947 to present day is even more difficult to measure.

So nowadays, very few of sound mind choose Pakistan for their next vacation. But not only that, many business people give the place a wide berth too, for if you're lookin' to have your throat cut there are few places in the world more likely to do the business than that new born country of "Prankistan!" It's record on human rights is abysmal, especially against women. But due to our friendship with General Moochgiraffe who runs the region, we tend to overlook some of the unsavory things that continue on in his country.

At present most Western leaders, together with the UN and the European Commission, have bandied together to deal with Iran's Nuclear Program, while on the other hand, they do little about Pakistan and it's quest to "isotope" the world!

So some of you may now be thinking also about North Korea, because we ain't dealin' with that region, or Pakistan, as severely as we treat Iran! Despite the fact that North Korea's addicted to firing missiles with nuclear capability into Japanese waters!

So why are we kid-glovin' North Korea and Pakistan on their Nuclear Vision, to concentrate our efforts on Iran?

Well, as unpalatable as this news may be, nonetheless it has to be said; Out of the three countries who pose us problems Nuclear-style, ONLY Iran is a major producer of oil and gas! North Korea don't have none, and that's a fact.

Now here's the crunch, and again it's a matter of fact; Iran is indeed a problem with their nuclear dream, but it's no greater a problem than the one Japan faces with North Korea. And my views on Iran's nuclear program happen to be worlds apart from the joint EU, UN and Western leaders, because, unlike President G W Bush, I happen to believe in The Right to Bear Arms!

And you know? There are many Western nations with huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons ... and no one says a dickey bird! I have no objection to this either, I'm a pro-nuclear guy, as well as a proponent of the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and personally speaking, I've owned and carried fire-arms all my life, and still have not gained a desire to use them against innocent people. But when the day comes around that Big Brother figures to disarm it's people, with the excuse that since you have 'em you might well decide to wrongfully use 'em, I'd have a few things to say about it. And here's some of what I'd say; "Now look here. Neither my family or myself have a history of weapons violence ... I'm a sane guy, as sane goes. Furthermore, it's common within countries that profess democracy to only deal with folks who are suspected of, or having tried to commit, a crime, to regard them as innocent till proven guilty. And if I'm not accused of being involved in a crime, the gun stays!"

I regard the right to bear arms and protect your family as one of the mainstay fundamentals of a democratic nation. Therefore, I find it real difficult to deny Iran, as a sovereign nation, the right too. And it ain't my business who the Iranians vote for, it's theirs, especially since their present leader gained 62% of their vote last time round. So, since I'm out in mid-field with my views, here's how I would deal with Iran if I was the President of the United States;

I'd say, "Now look here Mahmud, my old friend, let's come to some kind of understanding here. The United States is a nation that upholds the right to bear arms. Our people have that right individually to own hand guns, and our nation has a right to own weapons also, and that includes nuclear, as do our allies. And because of this, I have no objection to you bearing arms also. But, there's one clause that we all, man, woman, and president, must abide by, and that is, if we set about using them wrongfully, the man or woman goes to jail, and the president destroys his own country. And you too must abide therefore by the rules. If you set about using them for offensive reasons, you and your country will frazzle, otherwise have fun dude!"

Now what do you think would be the result of that discourse. Bearing in mind that unlike North Korea and Pakistan, Iran is one of the world's largest oil and gas producers? Why, the answer is simple and true, but the result is most definitely not the one desired by the UN, the EU and even George Bush himself, because the price of crude would drop like a stone, and our industry would begin to recover from the pain of high fuel prices! The average car owner would head out and buy that big old Ford truck instead of opting for a rice-burning dwarfmobile. That's the result most feared by the UN, the EU and even George Bush himself ... and that's why they leave North Korea and Pakistan be on their nuclear dreams, while screwing down Iran on theirs.

Ambrose Redmoon once said;

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment
that something else is more important than fear."

I believe that the West are acting through fear as well as, ecologically speaking, a hidden agenda. Only fear leads humanity to imprison itself, and only the high price of crude will lead the US to adopt the crazy agenda of the ecological movement. And I've used his words before, therefore I'll use them again ...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety."

— Benjamin Franklin

Do we regard the right to bear arms as forming part of "essential liberty?" Therefore, should we not grant nations the essential liberty of bearing arms themselves? Is not our present policy a denial of this fundamental right, in it's largest scale?

The result of a pacifists decision was murder and mayhem in Prankistan, and I believe Gandhi acted through fear. Might not therefore our biased policy against Iran, that at present provides pleasure for the greenies and the leftists, and weighs down on the average American at the gas pumps, also lead to further murder and mayhem Iranian style?

So since I've placed myself, hypothetically, in the Whitehouse chair, I'll hypothetically say something further to Iran's Mahmud, together with all the other Islamic world leaders, and it goes like this; "We in the West abhor terrorism and will endeavor to wipe all trace of it from good old planet earth, and I know that most of you also hate terrorists and terrorism, even though our present policy that's led to a massive hike in crude prices has made you wildly rich as the producers! So I ask for your help; Let's all fight terrorism from within our own borders, and let's do it right. But let's also understand and agree to a new anti-terrorist plan ...

Each country entering into the agreement and some while later gets accused of being behind an act of terrorism or funding terrorist activities, or even training them etc., shall be regarded as innocent till proven guilty. The other plan members shall investigate the matter together and when it's all complete shall act as judge and jury. If proven guilty of involvement in something that led to another 9/11 in one of the member countries, and the atrocity was by the hand of Islamic terrorism, we reserve the right to extradite ALL Islamics from our shores. We must all take responsibility for our behavior, and must suffer the consequences of our actions!"

I believe that if an agreement included the 100% removal of Islam from the USA if another 9/11 occurred, it would turn out to be the best deterrent possible in ensuring that it never happens again!

I reckon it's time to re-gather our thoughts folks, and re-acquaint ourselves with the authentic big picture.

Have a great weekend ya'll, Johnny D.

© Johnny D. Symon