RadicalViews.org - RadicalViews.org

Which of These Two Men Got Life?

What a difference a name makes! Two young men, university students in their twenties, have been sentenced by a Federal District Court. One received a five year sentence; the other received life without possibility of parole. Both were born and raised within a short distance of each other. One is Bethesda, Maryland; the other in Falls Church, Virginia. But, one is Muslim. Can you guess which one?

What "Israel" gets away with

The following questions elicit the same answer in each instance. No other country in the world conducts itself at home and in world affairs with such impunity as Israel. This raises the question, why does Israel get away with it time and time again while other countries are condemned and punished? It is time that we demand answers from are leaders and insist that Israel be held accountable for its breaches.

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: ISRAEL

Question: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
Answer: ISRAEL

Britain, You Better Wake Up

The more I read about the Chilcot inquiry the more disturbed I am. The fallacy imbued in the heart of British ‘democracy’ is staggering. While some commentators are concerned with questions to do with the legality of the war, the most crucial issue here is actually the disappearance of ethical judgment from our public and political life. Rather than being concerned with morality and ethics British politicians are concerned with legalism. In other words, if someone would manage to prove that the war was ‘legal’ then the murdering of a million and a half Iraqis would be well justified. Let’s all face it, our politicians are corrupted to the bone.

In fact the Chilcot inquiry is in itself a pretty disturbing concept. As George Monbiot pointed out a few days ago in the Guardian CIF, in the world of British ‘official inquiries’, it is the government that appoints its members and sets its terms of reference. “It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury”. As if this is not enough, none of the Inquiry members is an attorney. None of its member are qualified in the art of questioning. Consequently, the inquiry doesn’t have any legal ability, capacity or teeth. It is a farce.

Why Does Adultery Matter in a Secular Society?

"Secularism prohibits the imposition of any religion, except the religion of secularism"

According to the UK laws, adultery is illegal, but not a criminal offence; almost all the western secular societies uphold this view. Adultery only has relevance within the institution of marriage, which is rooted in religious texts. A fundamental tenet of a secular society is that religion is reduced to a personal choice; it is the prerogative of the individual to uphold or to abandon it. Therefore, they can formally marry in a Church, or cohabit, or participate in an open relationship where adultery has no meaning.

If secular societies placed any values on the institution of marriage, it would have classed adultery as a criminal offence, like the Sharia laws. Yet, the response to the revelation of the adulterous affair of the former England Captain, John Terry, gives the impression that a crime has been committed. Furthermore, there appears to be some kind of moral indignation towards John Terry from the masses, indicated by their silence after he is removed from his position as Captain and the numerous posts on the various websites. Any impartial person would be compelled to point the blatant hypocrisy by citing the old Biblical statement, “let those without sin cast the first stone”. This sort of response reveals the twisted and contradictory nature of secularism. Consider the following points, which illustrate this innate contradiction.

With Blair-Bush Lies, Muslims Died

“For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men” - Jeremiah 5:26-29, (Bible: Old Testament)

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.” – Alexander Solzhenitsyn

For 100 years the Arab and Muslim world have known that when it comes to European and American imperialistic designs on the Middle East there are two separate universes with separate political, economic, racial and legal standards. With self assured arrogance, hypocrisy and double standards western powers reserved the "right of might" to inflict devastating invasions, occupations, mass murders, ethnic cleansing and the Anti-Jewish cleansing of Europe by gifting a land, without ownership or right, to European Jews who proceeded to emulate European colonialism to attack and ethnically cleanse an innocent people from their land. Israel was born by England's illegal gifting of a foreign land and subsequently immorally supported by the United States at the expense of a hapless population living under the most dire and brutal of occupations.

Islamophobia - Making Fools out of the Cleverest of People

Whilst last week saw a lack of professional courage to highlight the growing Islamophobia in the UK by researchers tasked to survey British social attitudes, this week has been defined by several academics and intellectuals choosing to manifest their growing boorishness in a feast of public declarations of Islamophobia.

It started with Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, speculating in his Psychology Today blog, "Whats Wrong with Muslims", was followed by the declaration from African Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka that Britain is a "cesspit" of Muslim fundamentalists and was topped off by the prominent philosopher Roger Scruton expounding his belief that Muslims needed to start drinking wine in order to become more liberal.

The Litmus Test for the Legality of Iraq War

“No one had attacked anyone. There wasn’t any new W.M.D. We could have taken the time and got it right”

- Claire Short

Here is the litmus test. Imagine this scenario. Tony Blair’s son is in a critical condition, and fighting for his life. He is in a luxurious private hospital, funded by his wealthy war-profiteering father, the pictures are broadcasted, and many of the Iraqi parents who lost their children or struggling to keep them alive, can see their ‘benevolent’ liberator in action. Anyway, ten leading physicians from various countries advise Blair of a certain medical operation to save his son’s life. Shortly after, Dr. Goldsmith dissents, he is a prominent doctor from an American-Israeli Hospital, and after some deliberation suggests an alternative course of action.

Which way Tony Blair is likely to go? The answer is obvious; any human being would opt for the former and go with the overwhelming majority opinion - because he would act ‘sincerely’ for the interest of his son. Any genuine father would take the decision based on his conviction of the facts, whereas a crooked father would pick an opinion to support his ulterior agenda. Like a father who may look to profit from the death of his wealthy son.