In Jakarta Koizumi said sorry about Japan's WWII atrocities, while in Tokyo 80 legislative members (though no Cabinet Minister) visited the Yasukuni shrine to revere war criminals.
This mixed Japanese behaviour seems to indicate that while Japanese leaders are keen to defuse Asian hostility towards Japan, there exists a hard core right wing element within the Liberal Democratic Party who are still unrepentantly arrogant about Japan’s wartime record and insensitive towards her neighbours’ resentment.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Who was Abraham? (10)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
My recount of Sigmund Freud’s investigation into Moses is based on a third party source, from Keith Laidler’s book ‘The Head of God’.
So Moses was left by his mother in a floating basket along the banks of the Nile.
“And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.” (Exodus 2:4)
The Egyptian princess came along and discovered him, knowing straightaway he was a child of the Hebrew slaves.
“Then said his sister to Pharaoh’s daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?” (Exodus 2:7)
Freud did not believe the story of Moses’ sister Miriam approaching the daughter of Pharaoh with an offer to look after the baby, whom the princess had then just picked up from the river, for the obvious reason it was impossible for a slave girl to ever approach any member of the Egyptian royalty unless he or she allowed it. Her personal bodyguards would not only have prevented that but probably made mincemeat out of Miriam.
The Egyptian royalty was matrilineal. This means that ascension to the Egyptian throne was decided by who married the principal daughter of the Pharaoh, thus explaining why sons of Pharaohs married their sisters to hold on to the throne. Should the crown princess marry someone outside the family, then that outsider and not the son of the previous Pharaoh would become the new Pharaoh.
Freud was absolutely correct in his observation that a girl of the depised Hebrew slaves would never ever have a chance of approaching a member of the Egyptian royalty, let alone such an august personality who was heir to the throne of Egypt.
“And the child grew, and she brought him unto the Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.” (Exodus 2:10)
Again, Freud thought that name and the biblical explanation of its significance was very dodgy. Freud was a Jew, so he knew a few things about Hebrew names. For the Hebrew baby’s name to bear the meaning the Pharaoh’s daughter intended, he would have been called Moshui, and not Mosche (Moses).
(I’ll stop here on the issue of names as the technicalities of Jewish names are best left to people who know Hebrew, but suffice to say Freud knew an etymological error when he saw one)
Freud also considered that it was utter nonsense to credit an Egyptian princess with knowledge of Hebrew etymology.
In Egyptian the name Mose means child. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the extra s was added to its end. The name Mose was patently Egyptian and a very popular one too in compound names.
One hears of Amon-mose, Ahmoses, Tutmoses, and Ra-moses (or Rameses).
Remember these names well, for we shall hear of some of them again.
Freud also knew that circumcision was an Egyptian rite called Sebi, that predated the Hebrew custom. The father of European history, Herodotus mentioned this in his first volume of Histories. Archaeologists noted the many mummies and wall paintings discovered, bore testimony to Herodotus revelation. Laidler mentioned that during biblical times the Semitic tribes were known as the uncircumcised, while most Egyptian males, particularly highborn and priests, subscribed to the rite-practice.
Why then would Moses, if he was Hebrew, impose an Egyptian custom on his Semitic people?
Freud remarked:
“If Moses gave the Jews not only a new religion but also the law of circumcision, he was no Jew but an Egyptian, and the mosaic religion was probably an Egyptian one.”
Laidler commented that on the face of it, there was one problem to Freud’s assertion. The Egyptians were polytheist, and thus monotheism was not an Egyptian practice. From the 1st Dynasty until the last, lasting some three thousand years, the ancient Egyptians worshipped many gods.
With one exception …
In those 3,000 years, for a brief 20-year period during the Egyptian 18th Dynasty, coincidentally around the time of the Exodus, a Pharaoh considered to be religiously heretic did practise monotheism.
The Pharaoh was Amenhotep IV, or more famously known as Akhenaten.
To be continued ……..
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
My recount of Sigmund Freud’s investigation into Moses is based on a third party source, from Keith Laidler’s book ‘The Head of God’.
So Moses was left by his mother in a floating basket along the banks of the Nile.
“And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.” (Exodus 2:4)
The Egyptian princess came along and discovered him, knowing straightaway he was a child of the Hebrew slaves.
“Then said his sister to Pharaoh’s daughter, Shall I go and call to thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?” (Exodus 2:7)
Freud did not believe the story of Moses’ sister Miriam approaching the daughter of Pharaoh with an offer to look after the baby, whom the princess had then just picked up from the river, for the obvious reason it was impossible for a slave girl to ever approach any member of the Egyptian royalty unless he or she allowed it. Her personal bodyguards would not only have prevented that but probably made mincemeat out of Miriam.
The Egyptian royalty was matrilineal. This means that ascension to the Egyptian throne was decided by who married the principal daughter of the Pharaoh, thus explaining why sons of Pharaohs married their sisters to hold on to the throne. Should the crown princess marry someone outside the family, then that outsider and not the son of the previous Pharaoh would become the new Pharaoh.
Freud was absolutely correct in his observation that a girl of the depised Hebrew slaves would never ever have a chance of approaching a member of the Egyptian royalty, let alone such an august personality who was heir to the throne of Egypt.
“And the child grew, and she brought him unto the Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.” (Exodus 2:10)
Again, Freud thought that name and the biblical explanation of its significance was very dodgy. Freud was a Jew, so he knew a few things about Hebrew names. For the Hebrew baby’s name to bear the meaning the Pharaoh’s daughter intended, he would have been called Moshui, and not Mosche (Moses).
(I’ll stop here on the issue of names as the technicalities of Jewish names are best left to people who know Hebrew, but suffice to say Freud knew an etymological error when he saw one)
Freud also considered that it was utter nonsense to credit an Egyptian princess with knowledge of Hebrew etymology.
In Egyptian the name Mose means child. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the extra s was added to its end. The name Mose was patently Egyptian and a very popular one too in compound names.
One hears of Amon-mose, Ahmoses, Tutmoses, and Ra-moses (or Rameses).
Remember these names well, for we shall hear of some of them again.
Freud also knew that circumcision was an Egyptian rite called Sebi, that predated the Hebrew custom. The father of European history, Herodotus mentioned this in his first volume of Histories. Archaeologists noted the many mummies and wall paintings discovered, bore testimony to Herodotus revelation. Laidler mentioned that during biblical times the Semitic tribes were known as the uncircumcised, while most Egyptian males, particularly highborn and priests, subscribed to the rite-practice.
Why then would Moses, if he was Hebrew, impose an Egyptian custom on his Semitic people?
Freud remarked:
“If Moses gave the Jews not only a new religion but also the law of circumcision, he was no Jew but an Egyptian, and the mosaic religion was probably an Egyptian one.”
Laidler commented that on the face of it, there was one problem to Freud’s assertion. The Egyptians were polytheist, and thus monotheism was not an Egyptian practice. From the 1st Dynasty until the last, lasting some three thousand years, the ancient Egyptians worshipped many gods.
With one exception …
In those 3,000 years, for a brief 20-year period during the Egyptian 18th Dynasty, coincidentally around the time of the Exodus, a Pharaoh considered to be religiously heretic did practise monotheism.
The Pharaoh was Amenhotep IV, or more famously known as Akhenaten.
To be continued ……..
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Japan To Be Reminded of Her Heinous Past!
While a Japanese court has rejected a compensation claim by victims of Japanese germ warfare atrocities during WWII, China ups the ante in the current war of grievances by asking UNESCO to consider the ruins of the Japanese germ warfare site, well-known among Chinese as the very notorious Unit 731, as a world heritage protected site.
The Chinese referred to the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz in Poland and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in Japan as precedents for UNESCO protection of war ruins.
Related posting:
Rich, Powerful but Unrepentant – A Vexing Japan
The Chinese referred to the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz in Poland and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in Japan as precedents for UNESCO protection of war ruins.
Related posting:
Rich, Powerful but Unrepentant – A Vexing Japan
Disloyal Chickenhawk a Tautology?
If there is anything worse than a chickenhawk, it’s a disloyal chickenhawk. But then, am I not indulging in tautology to call such an animal a ‘disloyal chickenhawk’?
John Bolton’s supporters suggested that as US Ambassador to the UN he would bring discipline to that organization, but how can a man who had lacked discipline to be a loyal team player in his country’s Administration ever achieved that in an international agency?
Bolton has notoriously sabotaged his erstwhile superior officer Colin Powell by deliberately withholding vital information that consequentially embarrassed the former Secretary of State on the diplomatic front. He tried that with Condoleezza Rice but the smart lady booted him out of the State Department.
His intentional withholding of information on the UN Security Council’s disinclination to investigate Iran's nuclear program the way the US wanted it done, and the worldwide popular.support for the re-election of Mohammed ElBaradei as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had caused the US to lose enormous political face and prestige, when deprived of those important intelligence assessment and thus essential prior negotiations, the US blundered unwittingly against global preferences, and lost humiliatingly.
It has been one thing to bully intelligence officers into ‘reorganizing’ their reports to ‘suit’ Bolton’s secret agenda but it is certainly another, in any language or culture, to disadvantage his own government by deliberately withholding information vital to the conduct of the country’s diplomatic business.
Bolton did both, and took his misconduct to a higher level than mere browbeating of public officers. That has been why Rice had him out of her hair like a flash the moment she was Secretary of State.
This man ought to be sacked for his maverick misconduct that has caused untold political damage to the USA. But unfortunately the Republican Party who holds the majority (by one) in the Senate hearing on Bolton’s appointment is likely to confirm his nomination along party lines because it doesn’t want to lose an inch to the Democrats, even on an appointment that has been fraught with stupidity from the start, and may bring future adverse fallout for the USA.
Related posting:
US send Chickenhawk to Dovecote
John Bolton’s supporters suggested that as US Ambassador to the UN he would bring discipline to that organization, but how can a man who had lacked discipline to be a loyal team player in his country’s Administration ever achieved that in an international agency?
Bolton has notoriously sabotaged his erstwhile superior officer Colin Powell by deliberately withholding vital information that consequentially embarrassed the former Secretary of State on the diplomatic front. He tried that with Condoleezza Rice but the smart lady booted him out of the State Department.
His intentional withholding of information on the UN Security Council’s disinclination to investigate Iran's nuclear program the way the US wanted it done, and the worldwide popular.support for the re-election of Mohammed ElBaradei as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had caused the US to lose enormous political face and prestige, when deprived of those important intelligence assessment and thus essential prior negotiations, the US blundered unwittingly against global preferences, and lost humiliatingly.
It has been one thing to bully intelligence officers into ‘reorganizing’ their reports to ‘suit’ Bolton’s secret agenda but it is certainly another, in any language or culture, to disadvantage his own government by deliberately withholding information vital to the conduct of the country’s diplomatic business.
Bolton did both, and took his misconduct to a higher level than mere browbeating of public officers. That has been why Rice had him out of her hair like a flash the moment she was Secretary of State.
This man ought to be sacked for his maverick misconduct that has caused untold political damage to the USA. But unfortunately the Republican Party who holds the majority (by one) in the Senate hearing on Bolton’s appointment is likely to confirm his nomination along party lines because it doesn’t want to lose an inch to the Democrats, even on an appointment that has been fraught with stupidity from the start, and may bring future adverse fallout for the USA.
Related posting:
US send Chickenhawk to Dovecote
A Great Red Over A Red Giant Anytime!
Last 5 days I was on holiday, free from the stress of work. I was even Internet-free. All I had were 5 bottles of red, a dessert wine, a nice tawny port, two books that I meant to read (just managed one-third of one), two fishing rods and a pair of thongs (Japanese slippers).
I drove to a seaside town, booked into a holiday unit, paid $10 for a week's fishing licence, and spent some glorious time either strolling on the magnificent beaches or sitting on one of the jetties of the harbour, with my fishing lines out for no apparent reason than the pretence of fishing.
While on the beach I became a bit philosophical and wondered when our G2 sun becomes a growing red giant, how the golden sand will start to melt into glass crystals before vaporising into some sort of noxious fumes. Needless to say, by then the sea would have boiled away.
Mankind itself will also be gone unless it has the commonsense to pool its resources and invest it into searching for an alternative home among the stars and building the transportation to get there, for future humanity. Being children of the stars, we must return to the stars for our survival.
But alas, perhaps that event is just too far into the unforeseeable future (5 billion years more) and thus not sufficiently motivating for today’s world leaders, politicians and big tycoons to care about.
OK, that was too mind boggling, so instead of worrying about a solar red giant, I opened a bottle of red every night and savoured it with appreciation.
While at the jetty, I indulged instead in visual enjoyment, the sight of hundreds, if not thousands of multi-hued minnows darting in and out among the pier pilings, nibbling eagerly at the crumbs I gently showered on them. I even caught a few, not out of skill but due rather to the sheer avarice of those greedy little fellows, chomping mindlessly on the hooks of my fishing lines.
One species looked like a small (approx. 2/3 palm-size) bawal putih (silver Pomfret or pampas argenteus), though it was dark purplish in colour. Its shape was definitely more like a bawal putih than a bawal hitam (black Pomfret or parastromateous niger). I threw them back to live another day and returned to my visual examination of the various shades of shadow and darkness among the small boats, fishing trawlers, schooners, the bottom of the jetties and the darker dancing waves. It was very therapeutic.
Great getaway!
I drove to a seaside town, booked into a holiday unit, paid $10 for a week's fishing licence, and spent some glorious time either strolling on the magnificent beaches or sitting on one of the jetties of the harbour, with my fishing lines out for no apparent reason than the pretence of fishing.
While on the beach I became a bit philosophical and wondered when our G2 sun becomes a growing red giant, how the golden sand will start to melt into glass crystals before vaporising into some sort of noxious fumes. Needless to say, by then the sea would have boiled away.
Mankind itself will also be gone unless it has the commonsense to pool its resources and invest it into searching for an alternative home among the stars and building the transportation to get there, for future humanity. Being children of the stars, we must return to the stars for our survival.
But alas, perhaps that event is just too far into the unforeseeable future (5 billion years more) and thus not sufficiently motivating for today’s world leaders, politicians and big tycoons to care about.
OK, that was too mind boggling, so instead of worrying about a solar red giant, I opened a bottle of red every night and savoured it with appreciation.
While at the jetty, I indulged instead in visual enjoyment, the sight of hundreds, if not thousands of multi-hued minnows darting in and out among the pier pilings, nibbling eagerly at the crumbs I gently showered on them. I even caught a few, not out of skill but due rather to the sheer avarice of those greedy little fellows, chomping mindlessly on the hooks of my fishing lines.
One species looked like a small (approx. 2/3 palm-size) bawal putih (silver Pomfret or pampas argenteus), though it was dark purplish in colour. Its shape was definitely more like a bawal putih than a bawal hitam (black Pomfret or parastromateous niger). I threw them back to live another day and returned to my visual examination of the various shades of shadow and darkness among the small boats, fishing trawlers, schooners, the bottom of the jetties and the darker dancing waves. It was very therapeutic.
Great getaway!
Monday, April 11, 2005
Who was Abraham? (9)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
The Book of Genesis shows so many discrepancies and inconsistencies that many wondered why or what the authors were up to. Even Sigmund Freud, yes that famous father of psycho-analysis, noticed the puzzling way the biblical personalities and events were written up.
As a Jew, Freud was invariably interested in the story of the Jews’ greatest prophet. He wasn’t satisfied with the biblical tale of Moses. He might not have been the first to notice the weird and bizarre discrepancies, but he was probably the first to put his observations into print. In 1937 he published his thoughts on the matter in a book titled Moses and Monotheism.
Let us leap forward from the Abraham story to Moses because of the involvement of Freud, one of the greatest minds in modern history. His observations will also have a bearing on our discussion.
As the Book of Exodus tells us, the reigning Pharaoh was getting worried with the way “the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.” (Exodus 1:7)
After a number of failed attempts to curb their population explosion, he decided to kill all male Hebrew children.
"And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive." (Exodus 1:22)
Moses was born of a Levi family. His mother hid him for as long as she could from the massacre commanded by Pharaoh. When she felt she could not do so successfully any more, she built a small ark made of bulrushes, water proofed it, placed Moses in the floating basket, and set it among the rushes near the Nile’s bank, whence the Pharaoh’s daughter chanced upon the basket, saw and adopted the child, named him Moses meaning ‘I drew him out of the water’.
Now, a royal person such as the Pharaoh’s daughter wasn’t exactly given to nursing an infant, so Miriam, Moses' sister, who was strategically lurking nearby and waiting for the right moment, approached Her Royal Highness, offering a wet nurse service which the princess happily accepted. Of course Moses' real mother played the role of the nurse. Everything fell comfortably into place, and Moses grew up not only safe from the Pharaoh’s slaughter but as an Egyptian prince.
Sigmund Freud thought it was all a bit fishy, and that was not because of the Nile. In his book Moses And Monotheism, he wrote on his personal feelings regarding his exposé on Moses:
"To deny a people the man whom it praises as the greatest of its sons is not a deed to be undertaken light-heartedly, especially by one belonging to that people"
He agonised that as a Jew, he was about to disabuse the Jewish people with his discerning observations on the true origin of their greatest prophet.
Sigmund Freud believed Moses was not a Hebrew but an Egyptian.
To be continued ……..
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
The Book of Genesis shows so many discrepancies and inconsistencies that many wondered why or what the authors were up to. Even Sigmund Freud, yes that famous father of psycho-analysis, noticed the puzzling way the biblical personalities and events were written up.
As a Jew, Freud was invariably interested in the story of the Jews’ greatest prophet. He wasn’t satisfied with the biblical tale of Moses. He might not have been the first to notice the weird and bizarre discrepancies, but he was probably the first to put his observations into print. In 1937 he published his thoughts on the matter in a book titled Moses and Monotheism.
Let us leap forward from the Abraham story to Moses because of the involvement of Freud, one of the greatest minds in modern history. His observations will also have a bearing on our discussion.
As the Book of Exodus tells us, the reigning Pharaoh was getting worried with the way “the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.” (Exodus 1:7)
After a number of failed attempts to curb their population explosion, he decided to kill all male Hebrew children.
"And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive." (Exodus 1:22)
Moses was born of a Levi family. His mother hid him for as long as she could from the massacre commanded by Pharaoh. When she felt she could not do so successfully any more, she built a small ark made of bulrushes, water proofed it, placed Moses in the floating basket, and set it among the rushes near the Nile’s bank, whence the Pharaoh’s daughter chanced upon the basket, saw and adopted the child, named him Moses meaning ‘I drew him out of the water’.
Now, a royal person such as the Pharaoh’s daughter wasn’t exactly given to nursing an infant, so Miriam, Moses' sister, who was strategically lurking nearby and waiting for the right moment, approached Her Royal Highness, offering a wet nurse service which the princess happily accepted. Of course Moses' real mother played the role of the nurse. Everything fell comfortably into place, and Moses grew up not only safe from the Pharaoh’s slaughter but as an Egyptian prince.
Sigmund Freud thought it was all a bit fishy, and that was not because of the Nile. In his book Moses And Monotheism, he wrote on his personal feelings regarding his exposé on Moses:
"To deny a people the man whom it praises as the greatest of its sons is not a deed to be undertaken light-heartedly, especially by one belonging to that people"
He agonised that as a Jew, he was about to disabuse the Jewish people with his discerning observations on the true origin of their greatest prophet.
Sigmund Freud believed Moses was not a Hebrew but an Egyptian.
To be continued ……..
Sunday, April 10, 2005
The not-so-humble Basil
The Hindus considered the basil plant (ocimum sanctum) as sacred. They called it Tulasi or Surasah in Sanskrit, Tulsi in Hindi, Tiruttizhai, Tiruttilai or Tulasi in Tamil, Sivatulasi in Malayalam and Oddhi in Telugu - I have added just the Tamil, Malayalam and Telugu names for the plant as these are the three major southern Indian languages spoken in Malaysia.
In Malay, ocimum sanctum is called Oku, Ruku-ruku or Sulasi. As in the case of Malay, languages of countries with significant Hindu influence in their culture, like Thai, Khmer, Indonesian, Laotian, and Burmese also have their own versions.
The above names are those for the sacred basil, as obviously there are other types of basil, for example, Kemangi, Daun selaseh, Selasi jantan in Malay.
The Hindus believed the basil or Tulasi is sacred to Lord Vishnu and a reincarnation of his consort Lakshmi, or that of some of his avatars, like Rama and Sita.
Steward Lee Allen in his book, In The Devil’s Garden – A sinful History of Forbidden Food, provided a variation to the Hindu myth. An Indian girl named Vrinda (incidentally also another name for Lakshmi) was so distressed by her husband’s death that she committed Sati, the Hindu act of devotional self immolation by widows.
The title Sati means 'Righteous' - Hindus believe the first Indian woman to commit Sati was Parvati, consort of Lord Shiva. She did so to protest strongly against the wrongs and insults to her husband, rather than as a devoted widow joining her deceased husband in death. When a woman commited Sati, she would hold a sprig of Tulasi in her hands.
Back to Stewart Allen's story, the gods was so impressed by Vrinda’s devotion that they turned the ashes of her hair into the Tulasi, the sweet and fragant basil or ocimum sanctum (photo of sacred plant). They ordered their priests to revere the sacred plant.
It seems that some Indian courts still make Hindus take an oath by placing their hands over this holy plant, akin to Christians doing so with the Holy Bible. Apart from its use by Hindus as a purifier during religious ceremonies, the sacred basil is also employed by Indians to keep snakes and mosquitoes away, and for general health purposes.
Alexander the Great was responsible for the basil going from India to Europe, where it became popular as a herb, particularly with the Italians. Steward Allen humorously narrated how the Italians, being Catholics, slowly modified Vrinda's unacceptable suicide into a tale of an Italian maid, Lisabetta, deeply distressed by the death of her lover. She cut off his head, buried it in a pot, grew a basil in the container, and watered the plant with her tears. The plant grew by leaps and bounds because of the special fertiliser. Its amazing growth attracted pilgrimages from people.
The name basil is derived from Greek basileus (king), because of the royal fragrance of this herb.
I frequently partake of the delicious Vietnamese dish Pho Dac Biet (combination beef noodles soup), which uses fresh basil as fragrant garnishing. The next time I do so, I’ll certainly treat the basil with its ancient and amazing pedigree with more respect.
In Malay, ocimum sanctum is called Oku, Ruku-ruku or Sulasi. As in the case of Malay, languages of countries with significant Hindu influence in their culture, like Thai, Khmer, Indonesian, Laotian, and Burmese also have their own versions.
The above names are those for the sacred basil, as obviously there are other types of basil, for example, Kemangi, Daun selaseh, Selasi jantan in Malay.
The Hindus believed the basil or Tulasi is sacred to Lord Vishnu and a reincarnation of his consort Lakshmi, or that of some of his avatars, like Rama and Sita.
Steward Lee Allen in his book, In The Devil’s Garden – A sinful History of Forbidden Food, provided a variation to the Hindu myth. An Indian girl named Vrinda (incidentally also another name for Lakshmi) was so distressed by her husband’s death that she committed Sati, the Hindu act of devotional self immolation by widows.
The title Sati means 'Righteous' - Hindus believe the first Indian woman to commit Sati was Parvati, consort of Lord Shiva. She did so to protest strongly against the wrongs and insults to her husband, rather than as a devoted widow joining her deceased husband in death. When a woman commited Sati, she would hold a sprig of Tulasi in her hands.
Back to Stewart Allen's story, the gods was so impressed by Vrinda’s devotion that they turned the ashes of her hair into the Tulasi, the sweet and fragant basil or ocimum sanctum (photo of sacred plant). They ordered their priests to revere the sacred plant.
It seems that some Indian courts still make Hindus take an oath by placing their hands over this holy plant, akin to Christians doing so with the Holy Bible. Apart from its use by Hindus as a purifier during religious ceremonies, the sacred basil is also employed by Indians to keep snakes and mosquitoes away, and for general health purposes.
Alexander the Great was responsible for the basil going from India to Europe, where it became popular as a herb, particularly with the Italians. Steward Allen humorously narrated how the Italians, being Catholics, slowly modified Vrinda's unacceptable suicide into a tale of an Italian maid, Lisabetta, deeply distressed by the death of her lover. She cut off his head, buried it in a pot, grew a basil in the container, and watered the plant with her tears. The plant grew by leaps and bounds because of the special fertiliser. Its amazing growth attracted pilgrimages from people.
The name basil is derived from Greek basileus (king), because of the royal fragrance of this herb.
I frequently partake of the delicious Vietnamese dish Pho Dac Biet (combination beef noodles soup), which uses fresh basil as fragrant garnishing. The next time I do so, I’ll certainly treat the basil with its ancient and amazing pedigree with more respect.
Rich, Powerful but Unrepentant - A Vexing Japan
The Chinese showed their outrage at the very thought of a Japan, unapologetic about its barbaric acts of genocide and savage war crimes against the Chinese (and other Asian people) during WWII, being considered for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council (UNSC). They conducted massive protests in Beijing and variosu Chinese cities.
The protestors grew violent and indiscriminately harassed the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, while vandalising other Japanese establishments. Other Chinese cities saw the same emotional outbursts. What may have aggravated the Chinese (and Korean) anti-Japan emotions has not been only the evil cruelty of WWII, but Japan's unrepentance shown in its attempt to revise its barbaric and heinous past.
The Japanese government's mantra of not being able to interfere with the publication of revisionist books on Japan's wartime history or approval of these books for use by its Education Ministry is unsupportable when viewed in stark contrast to Germany's policy of legislating anything Nazi, including even the denial of the Holocaust, as illegal. The Japanese behaviour has been diametrically opposite to its WWII Axis partner, further emphasised when its prime minister, Junichiro Koizuma even had the insensitive audacity to visit the Yasukuni shrines to pay respect to Japanese war criminals, those very people who had perpetrate savage atrocities on the civilian citizens of Japan's neighbours.
Unfortunately, the thing about Chinese, and indeed other East Asian nationalities, has been their incorrect belief that violent or vociferous acts, like the ones perpetrated by the Malaysian so-called Reformasi movement inspired by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim in September 1998, would make their targets take notice and succumb. The terrible side effect of violent demonstrations is that these would be viewed by the rest of world as hooliganism at best, or state-instigated or personality-instigated hooliganism under more critical or cynical assessments. Thus, violent protests may well end up being counter-productive.
They could achieved better results if they had demonstrated peacefully and in dignified silence, with sensible placards or posters of Japanese WWII acts of atrocities. They could emphasise their deep revulsion with similar massive protests, regularly and unrelentingly but all conducted with solemn restrain and dignity.
Anger or outrage is best served cold.
If the aim of their campaign is to deny the seemingly unrepentant Japanese a seat in the UNSC, then they should conduct their activities more meaningfully, like writing to governments, especially to those countries that would have a say in the selection of new members for the proposed expanded UNSC, and powerful lobby groups around the world and especially the media.
If the Chinese intends to be a major voice in the international community, they must play the game of the West. Whether the East likes it or not, it is the West that sets the benchmark for what is considered acceptable behaviour. Japan recognises that and has been singing along with the western tune in its decade long bid for a seat in the UNSC. In typical Japanese fashion, as it had done with the International Whaling Commission, Japan has also advertised a little sweetener (bribe) for potential supporters.
Actually I see one easy solution to all this brouhaha, but will a recalcitrant Japan participate?
Japan needs only to extend a full apology to its former victims!
Related:
Asia Times Online China’s quandary over Japan’s UN bid
Previous Ktemoc Konsiders posting: Japan Unfit for World Leadership
BolehTalk posting Japan Must Look to Germany’s Example
The protestors grew violent and indiscriminately harassed the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, while vandalising other Japanese establishments. Other Chinese cities saw the same emotional outbursts. What may have aggravated the Chinese (and Korean) anti-Japan emotions has not been only the evil cruelty of WWII, but Japan's unrepentance shown in its attempt to revise its barbaric and heinous past.
The Japanese government's mantra of not being able to interfere with the publication of revisionist books on Japan's wartime history or approval of these books for use by its Education Ministry is unsupportable when viewed in stark contrast to Germany's policy of legislating anything Nazi, including even the denial of the Holocaust, as illegal. The Japanese behaviour has been diametrically opposite to its WWII Axis partner, further emphasised when its prime minister, Junichiro Koizuma even had the insensitive audacity to visit the Yasukuni shrines to pay respect to Japanese war criminals, those very people who had perpetrate savage atrocities on the civilian citizens of Japan's neighbours.
Unfortunately, the thing about Chinese, and indeed other East Asian nationalities, has been their incorrect belief that violent or vociferous acts, like the ones perpetrated by the Malaysian so-called Reformasi movement inspired by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim in September 1998, would make their targets take notice and succumb. The terrible side effect of violent demonstrations is that these would be viewed by the rest of world as hooliganism at best, or state-instigated or personality-instigated hooliganism under more critical or cynical assessments. Thus, violent protests may well end up being counter-productive.
They could achieved better results if they had demonstrated peacefully and in dignified silence, with sensible placards or posters of Japanese WWII acts of atrocities. They could emphasise their deep revulsion with similar massive protests, regularly and unrelentingly but all conducted with solemn restrain and dignity.
Anger or outrage is best served cold.
If the aim of their campaign is to deny the seemingly unrepentant Japanese a seat in the UNSC, then they should conduct their activities more meaningfully, like writing to governments, especially to those countries that would have a say in the selection of new members for the proposed expanded UNSC, and powerful lobby groups around the world and especially the media.
If the Chinese intends to be a major voice in the international community, they must play the game of the West. Whether the East likes it or not, it is the West that sets the benchmark for what is considered acceptable behaviour. Japan recognises that and has been singing along with the western tune in its decade long bid for a seat in the UNSC. In typical Japanese fashion, as it had done with the International Whaling Commission, Japan has also advertised a little sweetener (bribe) for potential supporters.
Actually I see one easy solution to all this brouhaha, but will a recalcitrant Japan participate?
Japan needs only to extend a full apology to its former victims!
Related:
Asia Times Online China’s quandary over Japan’s UN bid
Previous Ktemoc Konsiders posting: Japan Unfit for World Leadership
BolehTalk posting Japan Must Look to Germany’s Example
Friday, April 08, 2005
US sends Chickenhawk to Dovecote
Bush’s nominee to the US Ambassadorial post in the UN, John Bolton has been accused by a former State Department official, Carl Ford, of interfering with and attempting to influence intelligence reports on targeted countries like Iraq, Cuba, Syria, etc.
Bolton was alleged to have intimidated intelligence officers, and even barred those who disagreed with him from intelligence policy meetings. He has even resorted to have the professionals who dissented posted out.
Bolton is of course a core member of the notorious right wing think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which has advised President Bush, through its belligerent policies and its members serving in the Bush Administration, to attack and invade Iraq. The American global diplomatic disaster for the last several years could be traced to PNAC members in the Administration.
But typical of right wing hawks, Bolton has been correctly identified as a chickenhawk.
Bolton is known for his hatred of the UN. It may seem strange that the US would want such a man at the UN as its representative at a time when President Bush, in his second term administration, wants to re-build bridges with the World.
Probably the principal reason why he has been nominated as the US Ambassador to the organization that he loathes, despite several career demerit points - being part of the coterie who had misled Bush on Iraq, interfered with intelligence processes, sabotaged his previous boss, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on the Korean nuclear disarmament issue, and worked towards dismantling a host of international treaties that had contributed to US interests as well as global peace and stability for the past several decades - may be related to the report that Condoleezza Rice doesn’t want him in her State Department.
Like Wolfowitz, Bolton may have been kicked sideways to the outer. Can you blame Rice?
Bolton was alleged to have intimidated intelligence officers, and even barred those who disagreed with him from intelligence policy meetings. He has even resorted to have the professionals who dissented posted out.
Bolton is of course a core member of the notorious right wing think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which has advised President Bush, through its belligerent policies and its members serving in the Bush Administration, to attack and invade Iraq. The American global diplomatic disaster for the last several years could be traced to PNAC members in the Administration.
But typical of right wing hawks, Bolton has been correctly identified as a chickenhawk.
Bolton is known for his hatred of the UN. It may seem strange that the US would want such a man at the UN as its representative at a time when President Bush, in his second term administration, wants to re-build bridges with the World.
Probably the principal reason why he has been nominated as the US Ambassador to the organization that he loathes, despite several career demerit points - being part of the coterie who had misled Bush on Iraq, interfered with intelligence processes, sabotaged his previous boss, former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on the Korean nuclear disarmament issue, and worked towards dismantling a host of international treaties that had contributed to US interests as well as global peace and stability for the past several decades - may be related to the report that Condoleezza Rice doesn’t want him in her State Department.
Like Wolfowitz, Bolton may have been kicked sideways to the outer. Can you blame Rice?
The Law of Might is Right!
The USA and Colombia has an extradition agreement, which allows for criminals to be send to the country, where the offence was committed, to face trial.
200 Colombians have since been extradited to the US to face criminal charges for drug trafficking.
But the US Ambassador to Colombia said recently that a group of American soldiers who have been arrested for drug smuggling will not stand trial in Colombia. Apparently the agreement allows the American troops to be above Colombian law.
Bogota has to tread carefully because it’s so dependent upon American aid. It is the third largest recipient of US aid after Israel and Egypt. Undoubtedly it will and must kowtow to Washington’s stand that no US troops will ever stand trial in Colombia even if they commit serious crimes.
The United States has a ’status of forces agreement’ (SOFA) with many host countries where US troops are deployed, that denies the host nations from prosecuting US troops for crimes committed on their soil, except in the most minor of cases.
While US apprehension at the arbitrary and draconian legal system of some nations may be understandable, the agreement even extend to countries whose legal systems are, according to Chalmers Johnson, every bit as, and perhaps more sophisticated than the US’. This just goes to prove it’s not so much the fear of US soldiers receiving unjust treatment, but rather the US government putting its personnel above the laws of sovereign countries.
Some countries have termed SOFA as an unequal treaty, which only works to the benefit of criminally inclined US troops, while some, particular those in the Middle-East, have been so embarrassed at the insult to their sovereignty that they have remained silent about its existence.
The US has frequently used a combination of threats and bribery to force countries to put American troops beyond the reach of their laws.
Might is Right!
200 Colombians have since been extradited to the US to face criminal charges for drug trafficking.
But the US Ambassador to Colombia said recently that a group of American soldiers who have been arrested for drug smuggling will not stand trial in Colombia. Apparently the agreement allows the American troops to be above Colombian law.
Bogota has to tread carefully because it’s so dependent upon American aid. It is the third largest recipient of US aid after Israel and Egypt. Undoubtedly it will and must kowtow to Washington’s stand that no US troops will ever stand trial in Colombia even if they commit serious crimes.
The United States has a ’status of forces agreement’ (SOFA) with many host countries where US troops are deployed, that denies the host nations from prosecuting US troops for crimes committed on their soil, except in the most minor of cases.
While US apprehension at the arbitrary and draconian legal system of some nations may be understandable, the agreement even extend to countries whose legal systems are, according to Chalmers Johnson, every bit as, and perhaps more sophisticated than the US’. This just goes to prove it’s not so much the fear of US soldiers receiving unjust treatment, but rather the US government putting its personnel above the laws of sovereign countries.
Some countries have termed SOFA as an unequal treaty, which only works to the benefit of criminally inclined US troops, while some, particular those in the Middle-East, have been so embarrassed at the insult to their sovereignty that they have remained silent about its existence.
The US has frequently used a combination of threats and bribery to force countries to put American troops beyond the reach of their laws.
Might is Right!
Thursday, April 07, 2005
US Ambassador for Oil
US oil interest will continue to be well looked after in Iraq. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Afghanistan has been nominated as the new US ambassador to Iraq, replacing John Negroponte.
Zalmay Khalilzad is of course closely linked with Cheney. He worked for UNOCAL, a US oil conglomerate, and was instrumental in arranging deals between the oil company and the Taliban, with the Administration's approval of course, before the Americans attacked their erstwhile ally, the Taliban Afghans.
He is also a core member of the Project For A New American Century (PNAC), a right wing pro-Israeli think tank, whose core members include Wolfowitz, Pearle, Eliot Abrams, Feith (some of the most powerful Jewish American chickenhawks), Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc, who all called for the US to attack Iraq during Bill Clinton’s time. Except for Pearle, who fell on his own sword and left last year, all of them remain part of the Bush Administration.
We can see why Bush was so easily led by his nose into invading Iraq on a fabricated casus belli, that of non-existent WMDs and the invented al-Qaeda link.
Zalmay Khalilzad is of course closely linked with Cheney. He worked for UNOCAL, a US oil conglomerate, and was instrumental in arranging deals between the oil company and the Taliban, with the Administration's approval of course, before the Americans attacked their erstwhile ally, the Taliban Afghans.
He is also a core member of the Project For A New American Century (PNAC), a right wing pro-Israeli think tank, whose core members include Wolfowitz, Pearle, Eliot Abrams, Feith (some of the most powerful Jewish American chickenhawks), Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc, who all called for the US to attack Iraq during Bill Clinton’s time. Except for Pearle, who fell on his own sword and left last year, all of them remain part of the Bush Administration.
We can see why Bush was so easily led by his nose into invading Iraq on a fabricated casus belli, that of non-existent WMDs and the invented al-Qaeda link.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Who was Abraham? (8)
Based on the works of scholars, who will be revealed when the blogging for this topic ends. Works of other authors may be included, but where these are done, full acknowledgement will be made.
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? (Genesis 17:17)
This tells us that the age gap between Abraham and Sarah was 10 years.
So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him: and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. (Genesis 12:4)
Abraham was already 75 years old when he was instructed by God to leave Haran after his father died. Therefore Sarah was sixty-five years old. It also tells us that there was a gap of at least 25 years between entering Egypt and having their son Isaac.
And it came to pass, that, when Abrams was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
The princes also of Pharaoh also saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. (Genesis 12:14-14)
When entering Egypt, Abraham wanted Sarah to pretend she was his sister. The biblical reason was that he was afraid of being killed if it was known she was his wife, for he anticipated Sarah would attract lustful attention. And he was right. Pharaoh was told of her beauty, took her into his Palace and rewarded her ‘brother’ generously.
Here, two questions begged to be asked.
(1) What did Egyptians see in a 65 year old Hebrew woman that made them acclaim she was fair, and recommend the beauty to the Pharaoh, and why would a Pharaoh, who could have any woman in the land, want an old crone as his lover?
(2) Did the Pharaoh have his naughty ways with Sarah after taking her into the Palace?
Other questions that popped up are:
(3) What was a pastoralist like Abraham doing in a cosmopolitan city like Ur? One would expect him to live in a tent in a rural area, but we are told he came from Ur of the Chaldees? (Genesis 11:28)
(4) But the Chaldean civilization came about in 900 BC, more than half a thousand years after the biblical Abraham. So, was Abraham really from Ur of the Chaldees?
(5) Then, what would be the likelihood of a foreign commoner, a mere pastoralist even allowing for his beautiful wife, coming into contact with the royal house of Egypt, namely the princes and the Pharaoh? (Genesis 12:15) Can a great empire like Egypt be so 'small' that a mere foreigner, on entering its border, would come into contact with or to the knowledge of its princes?
(6) Why is there a leitmotiv surrounding Abraham and Sarah of the man and wife pretending to be brother and sister, a King taking (or attempting to take her) the wife, God intervening to return the wife to the husband, and the husband profiting greatly from the separation? The leitmotiv may be discerned in:
(a) Abraham and the Pharaoh (Genesis 12:11-20)
(b) Abraham and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) – Sarah was even older by then, around 90.
(c) Isaac and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 26: 7-16) – we aren’t too sure whether this was the same Abimelech for it was then more than 50 years later, but the King had a chief captain of the army named Phichol (Genesis 26:26) as was in the case of the earlier or Abraham’s Abimelech (Genesis 21:22).
(7) Why was Sarah told to change her name from the original Sarai to Sarah, in Hebrew meaning Princess? (Genesis 17:15)
What were the authors (or author) of Genesis trying to say, or do?
To be continued ……..
Advice: Those who may take offence in seeing biblical (OT) quotations or liberal discussion of OT biblical characters should not read this topic.
Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? (Genesis 17:17)
This tells us that the age gap between Abraham and Sarah was 10 years.
So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him: and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. (Genesis 12:4)
Abraham was already 75 years old when he was instructed by God to leave Haran after his father died. Therefore Sarah was sixty-five years old. It also tells us that there was a gap of at least 25 years between entering Egypt and having their son Isaac.
And it came to pass, that, when Abrams was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
The princes also of Pharaoh also saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. (Genesis 12:14-14)
When entering Egypt, Abraham wanted Sarah to pretend she was his sister. The biblical reason was that he was afraid of being killed if it was known she was his wife, for he anticipated Sarah would attract lustful attention. And he was right. Pharaoh was told of her beauty, took her into his Palace and rewarded her ‘brother’ generously.
Here, two questions begged to be asked.
(1) What did Egyptians see in a 65 year old Hebrew woman that made them acclaim she was fair, and recommend the beauty to the Pharaoh, and why would a Pharaoh, who could have any woman in the land, want an old crone as his lover?
(2) Did the Pharaoh have his naughty ways with Sarah after taking her into the Palace?
Other questions that popped up are:
(3) What was a pastoralist like Abraham doing in a cosmopolitan city like Ur? One would expect him to live in a tent in a rural area, but we are told he came from Ur of the Chaldees? (Genesis 11:28)
(4) But the Chaldean civilization came about in 900 BC, more than half a thousand years after the biblical Abraham. So, was Abraham really from Ur of the Chaldees?
(5) Then, what would be the likelihood of a foreign commoner, a mere pastoralist even allowing for his beautiful wife, coming into contact with the royal house of Egypt, namely the princes and the Pharaoh? (Genesis 12:15) Can a great empire like Egypt be so 'small' that a mere foreigner, on entering its border, would come into contact with or to the knowledge of its princes?
(6) Why is there a leitmotiv surrounding Abraham and Sarah of the man and wife pretending to be brother and sister, a King taking (or attempting to take her) the wife, God intervening to return the wife to the husband, and the husband profiting greatly from the separation? The leitmotiv may be discerned in:
(a) Abraham and the Pharaoh (Genesis 12:11-20)
(b) Abraham and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) – Sarah was even older by then, around 90.
(c) Isaac and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 26: 7-16) – we aren’t too sure whether this was the same Abimelech for it was then more than 50 years later, but the King had a chief captain of the army named Phichol (Genesis 26:26) as was in the case of the earlier or Abraham’s Abimelech (Genesis 21:22).
(7) Why was Sarah told to change her name from the original Sarai to Sarah, in Hebrew meaning Princess? (Genesis 17:15)
What were the authors (or author) of Genesis trying to say, or do?
To be continued ……..
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Two Generals from North America
This is a re-published posting - my previous (same) posting appeared to be corrupted, losing some vital sentences. I have retained the same publishing time stamp.
Tonight I saw two TV programmes, each about a general. Both are North Americans – one from the United States of America and the other a Canadian.
The first was a documentary about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal titled ‘Big Storm – the Lynndie England Story’. The synopsis in the TV guide stated she joined the army to see the world, but the world saw Lynndie England instead – in graphic photos and films of prisoner abuse in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison.
It was a documentary about US Defence leaders shoving responsibility and blame downwards - apparently they weren't believers of Truman's "the buck stops here." My earlier topic showed that Lt General Ricardo Sanchez, the US top military man in Iraq, had in fact authorised those illegal interrogation techniques.
In the programme, viewers also saw Senator John McCain slicing Donald Rumsfeld up at a Senate Inquiry on the Abu Ghraib torture. The latter and one of his generals were attempting to evade a question by McCain about the ‘line of command’, but the Senator, a former military man himself with extensive military and combat experience, and a stint in the notorious ‘Hanoi Hilton’ didn't allow them to get away with it. One could see the sorry saga of the cover-up and the delegation of blame downwards. The documentary also indicated that the use of torture was not an isolated case at Abu Ghraib but a widespread and systemic problem in the US military stretching from Guantano Bay to Afghanistan.
The director of the documentary Twan Huys stated "Is she guilty? Yes. Is she ultimately responsible? No. This (American) government is very clever at painting reality as they see it, or as they want it."
Huys added that Lynndie England has been made the poster child of torture in prisons. This reminds me of how the Pentagon fabricated the Jessica Lynch heroic rescue, and stage-managed her image into that of an iconic American heroine.
The second documentary was a focus on Lt General Roméo Dallaire, a Canadian general serving with the UN in Rwanda, and his valiant but futile efforts to stop the genocide. His repetitive appeals for intervention by the major western powers were ignored. It seemed that Rwanda-Bururndi didn’t have any strategic interest for the West. The tragic consequence was the genocidal slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis by the governing Hutus.
George Moose, then U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs, in an interview revealed how the US actually blocked any effective response by the world to the genocide. He mentioned U.S. preferred decision to support a drastic reduction of U.N. peacekeeping forces and to evacuate Kigali. He exposed the rationale for rejecting General Dallaire's appeals for reinforcement and the US evasion in referring to the word ‘genocide’.
Dallaire was so traumatised by the slaughter and blamed himself for his ‘failure’ to stop the genocide that he attempted suicide and took to drinking. He mentioned the genocide in these terms:
"My soul is in those hills, my spirit with the spirits of all those people who were slaughtered ..... Lots of those eyes still haunt me, angry eyes, or innocent eyes. But the worst eyes that haunt me are the eyes of those people who were totally bewildered. They're looking at me with my blue beret and saying, ‘What in the hell happened?’"
He resigned from his UN post, and now dedicates himself to the wretched Darfur genocide. He was recently recognised for what he actually has been, a hero, who was let down by western nations ignoring the crisis (no oil in Rwanda-Burundi?). The Canadian Governor-General, Adrienne Clarkson (don't let her name fool you - she's of Chinese ethnicity) decorated him with the Pearson peace medal.
The film Hotel Rwanda attempted to depict his story, but critics complained that the film has unfairly and inaccurately put Dallaire in a bad light as a weak UN commander. However, Dallaire said he didn’t mind as the film would be good in highlighting to the world about a tragedy that ought not to have happened.
He said rather succinctly that Africans like Rwandans don’t have the sort of powerful lobby the Jews enjoy, thus the film would be excellent in reminding people they shouldn’t just stand by the sideline as unconcerned onlookers while a genocide was going on.
Tonight I saw two TV programmes, each about a general. Both are North Americans – one from the United States of America and the other a Canadian.
The first was a documentary about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal titled ‘Big Storm – the Lynndie England Story’. The synopsis in the TV guide stated she joined the army to see the world, but the world saw Lynndie England instead – in graphic photos and films of prisoner abuse in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison.
It was a documentary about US Defence leaders shoving responsibility and blame downwards - apparently they weren't believers of Truman's "the buck stops here." My earlier topic showed that Lt General Ricardo Sanchez, the US top military man in Iraq, had in fact authorised those illegal interrogation techniques.
In the programme, viewers also saw Senator John McCain slicing Donald Rumsfeld up at a Senate Inquiry on the Abu Ghraib torture. The latter and one of his generals were attempting to evade a question by McCain about the ‘line of command’, but the Senator, a former military man himself with extensive military and combat experience, and a stint in the notorious ‘Hanoi Hilton’ didn't allow them to get away with it. One could see the sorry saga of the cover-up and the delegation of blame downwards. The documentary also indicated that the use of torture was not an isolated case at Abu Ghraib but a widespread and systemic problem in the US military stretching from Guantano Bay to Afghanistan.
The director of the documentary Twan Huys stated "Is she guilty? Yes. Is she ultimately responsible? No. This (American) government is very clever at painting reality as they see it, or as they want it."
Huys added that Lynndie England has been made the poster child of torture in prisons. This reminds me of how the Pentagon fabricated the Jessica Lynch heroic rescue, and stage-managed her image into that of an iconic American heroine.
The second documentary was a focus on Lt General Roméo Dallaire, a Canadian general serving with the UN in Rwanda, and his valiant but futile efforts to stop the genocide. His repetitive appeals for intervention by the major western powers were ignored. It seemed that Rwanda-Bururndi didn’t have any strategic interest for the West. The tragic consequence was the genocidal slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis by the governing Hutus.
George Moose, then U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs, in an interview revealed how the US actually blocked any effective response by the world to the genocide. He mentioned U.S. preferred decision to support a drastic reduction of U.N. peacekeeping forces and to evacuate Kigali. He exposed the rationale for rejecting General Dallaire's appeals for reinforcement and the US evasion in referring to the word ‘genocide’.
Dallaire was so traumatised by the slaughter and blamed himself for his ‘failure’ to stop the genocide that he attempted suicide and took to drinking. He mentioned the genocide in these terms:
"My soul is in those hills, my spirit with the spirits of all those people who were slaughtered ..... Lots of those eyes still haunt me, angry eyes, or innocent eyes. But the worst eyes that haunt me are the eyes of those people who were totally bewildered. They're looking at me with my blue beret and saying, ‘What in the hell happened?’"
He resigned from his UN post, and now dedicates himself to the wretched Darfur genocide. He was recently recognised for what he actually has been, a hero, who was let down by western nations ignoring the crisis (no oil in Rwanda-Burundi?). The Canadian Governor-General, Adrienne Clarkson (don't let her name fool you - she's of Chinese ethnicity) decorated him with the Pearson peace medal.
The film Hotel Rwanda attempted to depict his story, but critics complained that the film has unfairly and inaccurately put Dallaire in a bad light as a weak UN commander. However, Dallaire said he didn’t mind as the film would be good in highlighting to the world about a tragedy that ought not to have happened.
He said rather succinctly that Africans like Rwandans don’t have the sort of powerful lobby the Jews enjoy, thus the film would be excellent in reminding people they shouldn’t just stand by the sideline as unconcerned onlookers while a genocide was going on.
Israel Chucking Garbage Over its Fence
We have all heard of the word NIMBY – Not In My BackYard. People don’t want nuclear stations, hugh rubbish incinerators, radioactive waste dumps, rubbish tips or airports in or next to their neighbourhood.
But have you heard of CISBY – Conveniently In Someone’s BackYard? Well, I wonder whether Israel should be accorded the dubious honour of creating this term.
No prize for guessing where Israel is using as its garbage dump!
International law? Israel hasn’t heard of it.
But have you heard of CISBY – Conveniently In Someone’s BackYard? Well, I wonder whether Israel should be accorded the dubious honour of creating this term.
No prize for guessing where Israel is using as its garbage dump!
International law? Israel hasn’t heard of it.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Bolivian Human Rights 0 : US Mining Rights 1
The US authority has refused entry to a prominent Bolivian human rights lawyer, Fernando Rodriguez, because they claimed he has met with Bolivian terrorists. His US visa which was valid for the next 10 years has been cancelled. With that, he was immediately put onboard a plane back to La Paz.
However, the US authority has not provided any details of Rodriguez’s connection with so-called Bolivian terrorists, nor has it identified any terrorist groups in that country. Maybe that's due to the fact that there is NO terrorist activity in Bolivia.
Oh, incidentally what was Rodriguez going to the States for?
Well, he is the co-founder of the Bolivian chapter of the Inter-American Platform of Human Rights, Democracy and Development. He was to present evidence of abuses by US petroleum, mining and logging companies against indigenous groups before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission in Washington. The Commission is an arm of the Organization of American States. Rodriguez had made a similar presentation to the Commission last year.
Looks like he won't be able to do that now - how fortuitous for the US companies.
It has also been known that the former US ambassador to Bolivia had threatened Bolivians against voting for Evo Morales, the indigenous leader of a major opposition party on the eve of the 2002 presidential elections. Evo Morales is an indigenous rights campaigner, and a thorn in the side of the US companies.
Maybe there is an al Qaeda link, or WMDs in Bolivia? Perhaps Osama bin Laden is lurking there? On the other hand, the Iranian ayatollahs could have a secret nuclear enrichment plant in La Paz?
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Israeli Goose, Palestinian Gander!
Israel honours Egyptian Jews who operated as terrorists in Egypt in the 1950s. Egypt is of course pretty miffed at this double standards.
The Jewish terrorists were operating 50 years ago in Egypt, by carrying out bomb attacks for the political objective of destabilizing relations between Egypt, the United States and Britain.
Back in 2002, the Israeli Knesset honoured the memory of a killer thug like Avraham Stern, leader of the terrorist group LEHI, who murdered a civilian, a UN diplomat named Count Bernadotte of Sweden.
Count Bernadotte was the United Nations Security Council appointed mediator for peace in the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. It is ironical that Bernadotte, as head of the Swedish Red Cross during WWII, successfully obtained the release of 21,000 prisoners, including 6,500 Jews, from extermination in Nazi camps, only to die at the hands of a Jewish terrorist assassin Yehoshua Cohen.
It needs to be noted also the honoured Israeli hero, Avraham Stern wanted to collaborate with the Nazis – just beat that, the Knesset honouring a turncoat who elected to fight on the side of the Holocaust perpetrators.
Among the group planning the assassination of Count Bernadotte was a man named Yitzhak Shamir, who went on to become PM of Israel. The first Jewish terrorist who became PM of Israel was of course Menachem Begin.
Then, there is the third notorious Israeli PM, Ariel Sharon, who has been associated with the Sabra-Shatila massacre, Sharon has been indicted as a war criminal. He is well-known for his over-the-top Nazi-like brutalities against Arabs, yet ironically elected by the children of the Holocaust to be the Prime Minister of Israel.
So what’s the difference between these Jewish terrorists and Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, PLO, Hezbollah, etc?
The Jewish terrorists were operating 50 years ago in Egypt, by carrying out bomb attacks for the political objective of destabilizing relations between Egypt, the United States and Britain.
Back in 2002, the Israeli Knesset honoured the memory of a killer thug like Avraham Stern, leader of the terrorist group LEHI, who murdered a civilian, a UN diplomat named Count Bernadotte of Sweden.
Count Bernadotte was the United Nations Security Council appointed mediator for peace in the Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. It is ironical that Bernadotte, as head of the Swedish Red Cross during WWII, successfully obtained the release of 21,000 prisoners, including 6,500 Jews, from extermination in Nazi camps, only to die at the hands of a Jewish terrorist assassin Yehoshua Cohen.
It needs to be noted also the honoured Israeli hero, Avraham Stern wanted to collaborate with the Nazis – just beat that, the Knesset honouring a turncoat who elected to fight on the side of the Holocaust perpetrators.
Among the group planning the assassination of Count Bernadotte was a man named Yitzhak Shamir, who went on to become PM of Israel. The first Jewish terrorist who became PM of Israel was of course Menachem Begin.
Then, there is the third notorious Israeli PM, Ariel Sharon, who has been associated with the Sabra-Shatila massacre, Sharon has been indicted as a war criminal. He is well-known for his over-the-top Nazi-like brutalities against Arabs, yet ironically elected by the children of the Holocaust to be the Prime Minister of Israel.
So what’s the difference between these Jewish terrorists and Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, PLO, Hezbollah, etc?
Why US is anti-ICC! (2)
US torture of Iraqi POWs sanctioned by top US military commander, now also accused of perjury.
No worries Ricardo, the ICC will not be involved.
No worries Ricardo, the ICC will not be involved.
Agent Orange II?
Narcotic-stan and Agent Orange II?
Also - US reneged on Agent Orange medical-scientific studies for Vietnamese and American veterans who served in Vietnam.
Also - US reneged on Agent Orange medical-scientific studies for Vietnamese and American veterans who served in Vietnam.
Vale Pope John Paul II
Pope John Paul II has passed away today. I won’t elaborate on his papal achievements or failings as the world press will be teeming with these. But I like to list 3 major issues that I personally reckon as the main issues of his career:
(1) His reconciliation efforts with the Jews, Muslims, Greek Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, (his unsuccessful attempt with) the Russian Orthodox Church, and other Schools of Christianity.
(2) His somewhat belated but still-welcomed willingness to confront and purge the Catholic Church of perverts, paedophiles and scoundrels, instead of burying the Church’s head in the sand of infallibility.
(3) His refusal to give in to liberal Catholics on the ‘pill’. This issue is something for the Catholics to debate among themselves as to whether the Pope had been resolute in his faith or merely stubborn in an out-of-date ideology.
Requiescat in pace, papa!
(1) His reconciliation efforts with the Jews, Muslims, Greek Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, (his unsuccessful attempt with) the Russian Orthodox Church, and other Schools of Christianity.
(2) His somewhat belated but still-welcomed willingness to confront and purge the Catholic Church of perverts, paedophiles and scoundrels, instead of burying the Church’s head in the sand of infallibility.
(3) His refusal to give in to liberal Catholics on the ‘pill’. This issue is something for the Catholics to debate among themselves as to whether the Pope had been resolute in his faith or merely stubborn in an out-of-date ideology.
Requiescat in pace, papa!
Friday, April 01, 2005
Why I am Against the Death Penalty!
This is why I am against the death sentence, an irreversible barbaric act of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’ which could wrongly execute the innocents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)