The Not Debate

Tonight, a nation will tune in as we watch the first Presidential Debate of the 2004 campaign season. Two men will face off on the issues, each expressing their views, which starkly contrasts categorically. We will all be educated on the very important topics that affect our lives, and what takes place tonight will have a profound impact on how we vote come November 2nd.

NOT!!!

I'd like to think that tonight's debate will matter in how people vote. I'd like to think that I'd learn something valuable about issues that matter to me as a United States citizen. But undoubtedly, I will wake up tomorrow as frustrated as ever about the apparent lack of substance that this political race has conjured up. Furthermore, I'm sure to be outrageously frustrated at the "debate" since I'm sure that no true debate is possible, considering the 30+ pages of rules that the "debate" is supposed to follow.

This Presidential Presentation (as CNN's Lou Dobbs has dubiously dubbed it) will
be so scripted that one might wonder whether or not we are really watching the
candidates or animatronic likenesses of them spouting pre-recorded responses.

The debate will last 90 minutes. A specific number of questions will be asked to each candidate. The candidate will then have 2 minutes to answer the question and the other candidate will then be allowed to give a 90 second rebuttal. No camera shots are to be given of a candidate who doesn't have the floor at that moment. Finally, no candidate is to interject while the other is speaking.

Now I don't know what debates you've seen in the past, but I know that this doesn't qualify as a debate based on what I've seen all my life.

Another reason that this debate sucks is because there are at least four other Presidential candidates (including Green Party, Libertarian Party and Constitutional Party candidates) out there who really have opposing views and are actually willing to discuss the issues to the end of educating the American voting population. The most prominent being the Independent candidate Ralph Nader who, in my opinion, deserves a place on the debating stage.

I hate to blame one side for such silliness, but anybody with open eyes (indeed, open ears) knows that most of these rules have been established by the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign agreed to them because he needs the opportunity to look good versus Bush somehow.

Clearly, the other candidates were left out because they might actually say something worth listening to. Furthermore, they might say something that really contrasts with what Bush has to say (unlike Kerry who seems to disagree with Bush...but not really). And one of the greatest new sins in this country is to say something that opposes Bush, because you're then seen as unpatriotic and as a traitor. Needless to say, tonight's debate will further prove to me why a two-party system sucks.

So, if you're seeking to gain something significant by watching the debate tonight, I hate to break it to you, but you won't. And if you do, you probably haven't been watching the pathetic news coverage on the "Race to the White House" during the past few weeks, because we will certainly get a heavy, compacted dose of the same rhetoric that has been airing 24-7 for two months straight.

Although I feel like we all might actually come out dumber after witnessing such chicanery (a la Adam Sandler's Billy Madison), I do think everyone should watch. Who knows? Bush might actually face reality, and Kerry might actually decide on a position. But whatever you do, don't bet on that!

-Maelstrom

All the World's Terrorists (Part 2)

And so it is in the world today. Violent, as in decades past, with a group to call the enemy: Muslims. Many people in the USA won't shop at "their" stores, or set foot in their communities. To have a Muslim as a friend is to border on traitor status. And if you think that I'm just talking out of my butt, I must let you know that these are American actions and sentiments that I have seen, heard and witnessed for myself.

I think the whole charade is silly and foolish. Rarely, if ever, can one whole group be blamed for the crimes of a few of its members. Indeed, I've read and heard a number of Muslims say that those terrorists that brought down The Towers are not Muslims. I don't know if I can go that far; if the terrorists wish to lay claim to the Islamic faith, without knowing them, I don't believe I can tell them that they are not Muslims. However, I do believe that I'm safe in saying that the terrorists do not espouse the upright and righteous teachings of the religion, which most Muslims do hold dear.

“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally
certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.”

-Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television

Such a significant statement from a socially prominent Muslim has raised many eyebrows in both the Arab and non-Arab worlds. Certainly, I don’t believe that most of the world’s terrorists are Muslims, nor do I believe that al-Qaeda comprises most of the world’s terrorists. However, as far as global terrorism is concerned, al-Qaeda (and men claiming the Islamic faith) does seem to own the market. They have no home state like most terrorists organizations; therefore the geographical range they affect is broad. That is part of the reason why it is futile to declare a war on such a form of terrorism; they aren’t specifically government sponsored or funded, and can exist anywhere.

I believe that al-Rashed’s comments were at the least very timely. They at least make people on both sides of the religion consider the atrocities that have occurred in the name of jihad, and will hopefully bring about some serious change on both sides. I do hope, however, that his comments aren’t taken out of context. It’s easy to read the headline “All the World’s Terrorists are Muslims” (the headline that the article ran under) and make the next illogical assumption that all Muslims are Terrorist.

As for me, among my vast group of friends, associates, and extended family, there is a significant contingent of Muslims. I can say that I have never known ANY of them to be violent and ALL have been condemnatory of the many sick acts that have been carried out by groups like al-Qaeda. Likewise, I have a brother who spent two years living in a Muslim community in southern France and a few months in Egypt as well. He too speaks of the hospitality with which he was greeted and treated. (I had the great opportunity of spending a week in France with him and can too attest to the kindness of the many Muslims I met there)

From my vantage point, there are rotten eggs in every religion, and any human being has the capacity to commit wrong. Just look at the couple hundred Catholic Priest that have given their religion a bad name, or the Christian mad-man that walks into an abortion clinic and slaughters ten people because he feels it’s the right thing to do even though his Christian Bible clearly states that “Thou shalt not kill.” To label all Catholic Priests as child molesters or all Christians as murderers would be wrong and inaccurate. Likewise, the majority of Muslims aren’t terrorists.

However, I do have one issue with Muslim community. There are many prominent and significant Muslim Potentates throughout the world. And despite the many murders that have taken place in the name of Islam-acts that most Muslims disagree with-none of these figures has stood up and openly denounced them. This is troublesome for me because, as I have described, I know most Muslims to be peaceful, kind individuals with amazing qualities.

It is clear to me that the influence of such high-ranking religious leaders is vast. All one would have to do is look at the conflict in Najaf, Iraq a few weeks back. Months of negotiating with Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr brought about fighting until it escalated into a bloody three-week battle. No end was in sight until the major Shiite religious figure, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, stepped in. He was able to accomplish in one day, what war planes, gunfire and multiple deaths could not-peace in the city of Najaf.

This occurrence let me know the power of a representative of the religion. It left me wondering, “Why couldn’t such influence be used to stop Islamic Extremists?” Now I’m not saying that the Islamic terrorists would quietly and immediately lay down their arms, but I do believe that it would unite “moderate” Muslims in a way that would discourage the terrorists from carrying on the way they do. Even more importantly, it would cause the world to know that all Muslims are not terrorists.

Many non-Muslims have extrapolated that the reason for the silence of Muslim Clerics is because they agree with this violent definition of jihad. I’m not trying to imply that at all. From my research, it seems to be the pattern of Islamic leaders to be silent on world issues that don’t directly affect the inner-workings of the religion. I’d also argue that maybe the leaders don’t know how to address the issue of global terrorism because Muslims are an oppressed people in most of the world and one of the easiest ways to be heard and to reverse oppression is to fight your oppressors violently. (I should note that these aren’t my complete thoughts, but excerpts from them; my complete thoughts could go on for pages and pages).

For non-Muslims to derive that the Muslim leaders are in favor of the terrorism, as a reason for their silence, isn’t really bad logic. There is a philosophical argument (I can’t remember what it’s called) that says that if people can affect a positive change, but sit back and say/do nothing, then they are in support of the wrong and are also to blame. It is likened unto a person walking down the street, witnessing a rape or robbery, but just continuing to walk down the street without helping because “it’s not my problem.”

In closing, all I am saying is that if Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s actions aren’t indicative of most Muslims (indeed, the teachings of Islam), then it is high time that a high ranking Islamic figure, official, Cleric, etc. stands up and openly denounces their actions, and makes it clear that Islam is not the religion of terrorism.

-Maelstrom

Check out the al-Rashed's Full Article at this site (I do not endorse the message board below it):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207638/posts

All the World's Terrorists (Part 1)

Before writing this blog, I want to make it clear that I know I am about to step into very murky waters. There are so many different angles to this one topic, and I can't begin to speak to even a few of them. However, I do believe that this is an important topic given the current world condition. I'll try to be as direct and focused as I can be, and do welcome any and all criticisms/responses.

One day, three years ago, a war on an intangible object was declared. And though it seemed a very noble gesture to declare a "War on Terror," I think there was a more specific target than the umbrella title would suggest. That target was Islamic Fundamentalist Terror, and not the kind of terror that created Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City Bombing. Many Muslims (and some non-Muslims) would argue that it was an assault on the religion itself.

So now Russia wants to join with the United States in its Global Campaign Against Terror. In this endeavour, I just wish that both countries would be honest and recognize that you can't stop something that isn't run by a state or country. There is a reason why it is an intangible, ideological concept to stop "terror." It has always existed, and will continue to exist in centuries to come. Finally, don't act like we're going to fight terror everywhere when we really mean that we are trying to end Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism. That reminds me of the war on drugs, which was really a governmental ploy to punish blacks and latinos with drugs by posing stiffer jail sentences for drugs that were more prominent in those communities.

In any case, this war on Terror seems to have left out a whole litany of known terrorists organizations and indeed rebel governments that are heavily influenced and run by terrorists groups. If we were really trying to bring down Global Terror, then one might think that we would have started in our own backyard. There are multiple terrorists organizations right here in the good ole' USA. Probably the most well known being the Ku Klux Klan. The group is still in existence and is indeed responsible for tens of thousands of Blacks and other minorities (and even some White people who supported the Civil Rights Movement) systematic and government supported lynchings, rapes, and extensive mistreatment.

In Europe, one of the most prominent terrorist organizations exists as the Irish Republican Army (IRA). They are a Catholic group bent on fighting the Protestants in their area in order to regain a sense of first class citizenship. Though much of the fighting has come to a hault since the late 1990's, I'm sure that very few Americans think of them when they hear the word terror. In Spain, there is the Basque separatists group known as ETA, that seeks to have their own land within the country. Throughout the continent, there are many more.

And then there's South America. Honestly, when I first learned about terrorism and guerrilla warfare, it was with respect to groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) in Columbia. These groups literally own parts of the country, and have enough power and influence to force the government to do things against its will. The same is true in many other South American countries like Peru and Argentina.

But trust me, nobody ever thinks of these groups when they hear "terror." At least not in the United States. We think of a brown person somewhere in the Middle East, with the Qu'ran in one hand and an assault rifle in the other, saying "Praise Be to Allah." And as a Black man in a country where it's not "popular" to be my skin color, because that skin automatically qualifies me as a criminal, this "terror" profiling doesn't sit too well with me.

-Maelstrom