Again, in case anyone missed it, I am currently in Alaska, and this being the case it can be rather difficult to keep up on the news, though I get brief updates. However, I did listen to the news a bit today thanks to our XM radio. Of course, much of the news is still centered upon the bombing in Boston, and more specifically the backgrounds of those who are responsible. Chechnya is just north of the Caucasus and has a violent history. In the 90's, Chechnya, as I gather, tried to separate itself from its mother Russia, with violent results. Apparently Russia attacked, decimating the capital city of Chechnya. When Chechnya was finally granted independence this wasn't enough to stop the violence, and essentially two governments were formed, leading to more violence. As we have seen all over the world at various times and places, when a country is in such a divided state, factions can arise that may use terrorist tactics to wreak havoc on the public and those in power alike. It seems to be a common theme among separatist states. Such tactics aren't usually successful. In addition to being completely misguided, they can, in fact, backfire, causing these terrorists to become the villains themselves, even though they might seek to be heroes, patriots or revolutionaries in the public eye. This is obviously due to their complete disregard for human life. Indeed, the line of the innocent and whom they regard as guilty parties, or the enemy, becomes so blurred that it doesn't matter. Their cause is one that is sought by complete anarchy. There are many names such people or groups go by, like rebels, or separatists. In the case of the Boston bombers they have been labeled, "Islamic Separatists," a blend of both religious philosophy and political idealism.
Such separatism is generally localized, where it is thought it will have the greatest effect. This violent faction doesn't go outside its boarders or apart from whom they have conflict with, and don't concern themselves with countries or people far removed internationally. Yet, there is another faction that seems to believe their cause has greater impact or chance of success when taken on a global scale, as might be the case with the Boston bombers. So even in cases of, "Islamic Separatists," you may very well have at least two different factions, one focused on immediate territory, while another is focused on the international community.
In addition to all this it should be mentioned that after the 90's conflict, Chechnya became somewhat of a hub for Islam. Advisor Stephen Yates, said on Fox News, they had an influx of Islam and extremism after Russia's initial smothering of Chechnya's move to break off. I recall his words from memory, so my facts or quotes might be subject to a little error, but regardless it is interesting that such places in the world, those that are immersed in turmoil, often become centers for extremism. I find that it may be the case that such influx of extremism can be equated or illustrated in a smaller scale, like those of riots, or demonstrations which erupt into anarchy.
In many of these, there are those individuals that use such gatherings as an excuse for violence, they themselves being prone to it. In fact, there are those when questioned about their motives during a hostile demonstration which have no idea what the underlying cause or motivations are, only that they can use it to enact and indulge in their own violent desires, while still being covered in the veil of some greater cause.This being said, and this obviously is just a hypothesis, perhaps these countries of turmoil attract such extremists, just in the same way demonstrations do, because it offers an excuse to display acts of violence, which they secretly desire. Thereby, instead of being a lone nutcase at least they can be seen by their cohorts as martyrs or hero's of the ideal with the violent acts they profess, carry out, and make evident in death or destruction.
There is another distinction that I would like to make concerning those extremists who employ these acts of destruction and terror overseas. The reason why will become apparent. You've got ones who are lone, whom plan and carry out these acts of their own accord or volition, convinced that in some way progress is being made in the name of the cause. Then you have those who remain in contact with their leaders and planners who may fund and help organize an assault. According to the intelligence community within the government, many of these latter extremists communicate via the Internet.
Yates stated that the internet has great power and is, "sovereign," and hinted at the dangers it poses to national security. Such talk I've learned to be weary of and in my mind it sets up a red flag, one which may precede a government "power grab." When we look at what the government is doing today, and has been doing, we see that they've been slowly taking away our rights as granted by our constitution. In fact, if our freedoms were represented by yellow pills, the government would be as Pac Man. All I hear lately when politicians speak is, "waga-waga-waga-waga-waga."
Our rights have already been infringed upon post 9/11, and indeed before. Our privacy has been trespassed by our leaders who "represent" us, as well has our right to bear arms, and these have all been taken by means of utilizing fear and outrage the public justly feels after a terrible event. I am far from saying, of course, that a conspiracy is taking place, or that the government has a hand in all these disasters, I am only stating that the government uses these events as the means to their end, to gain more power over the people. This seems to be the case on both the right and the left and is not limited to just the USA.
By Yates saying such things, I began to see a future a message out of Washington D.C., that they must monitor our Internet use for the sake of our protection. Many might respond to this with, "As long as we're safer," or, "I have nothing to hide." That may be so and I hope it is the case, but this would undermine what this fabulous country was founded upon, the right to be free. I would feel my freedoms slipping away even more then I already can, if my e-mail was read by a Washington think tank, or if they tracked my movements to such a degree they knew every little outfit I purchase for my cat, "Chief Tuckapaw." It's unfortunate but such concessions of freely handing our rights away is equitable to handing away our very country.
On this point, let me just say that concerning these terrible events, I am very sorrowful and feel great compassion towards the victims and those who have lost loved ones. Furthermore, I in no way intend this entry to be a condemnation of people who are sympathetic and have heart felt emotions concerning such things and are willing to do anything to see that they don't happen again. I can both understand and relate to it.
Yet, I pose the question, why should we let violent morons who don't give a damn about people's rights, even the most basic human right, the right to live, be the very reason we give up our rights? Why is it always seem to be the case that the victims and innocent have their rights revoked while they are passed on abundantly to the guilty? Maybe it's true. Maybe we have buckled under these sadistic losers and in the end gave them a power that even they couldn't have scarcely imagined.
Such violent people(s) are of course not always backed by or take up some cause or goal, some just commit random acts of violence, which have no rhyme or reason, as most violence doesn't. It is only in the self delusion that violence leads to some goal, but again, there are those that need none. Two days ago on 4/20, the pot smokers holiday, there was a gathering in Colorado to celebrate. This gathering was estimated as possibly being attended by as many as 80,000 people. I don't know what the finally talley was, but this is beside the point. During sometime in the evening someone opened fire, shooting off a handgun. Nobody was hit, but panic soon erupted among the crowd. The suspect was allegedly caught on camera and the Colorado police are now searching for the perpetrator.
Now I'm not a pot smoker and haven't been for a long, long time. Personally, I just don't like the feeling it gives me and I stay away from it. Yet, when it comes to pot legalization, I am for it. I am sick of my tax payer dollars going to incarcerating, in the grand scheme of things, small time "criminals," who just happened to be caught with a dime bag. Also, having done it myself, I feel it's not that bad, and there is a contradiction between allowing alcohol to be legal and making pot illegal. To me it doesn't make sense, but I will quickly state I'm not for drug legalization across the board.
At any rate, this moron, instead of partaking in a celebration, which must have included plenty of candy, chips, ice cream, and soda, decided to ruin everyone's hazy gleeful time, by shooting a gun off. The backlash could be that the voters of Colorado might regret their decision. Assuming that this person smokes grass, weed, pot, herb, whatever, he is perhaps the biggest idiot in all the state of Colorado. Moron! What was the purpose, to see people panic? What if people were crushed in a horrible stampede? It takes a sick mind to get off on such things, and he should be nabbed immediately and investigated, for such minds are not usually content with one riotous act, and he may have committed crimes in his past. Of course, this will probably be on the news making it an argument for gun control as well as the revoking of the legalization of marijuana cigarettes and all forms it can take. Who would've though pot smokers could be so violent when you have shows like "Archer," to occupy their time.
Another fascinating thing on the news is the charge that the FBI and law enforcement took too long in tracking down the Boston bombers. Here we go again with misdirected blame. You've got to wonder why people still get involved in law enforcement for they're more frequently blamed than the criminals, especially when it comes to high publicity, atrocious crimes like what happened in Boston. Even inanimate objects come into blame, like guns, or video games. It seems as though both the public and media has a need for the blame to be equivalent to the tragedy. That is, in short, the outrage at what occurred in Boston is too massive to project upon one individual, or a couple as the case may be, and in addition someone else needs to answer for the abomination.
Many point to the fact that at least one of the brothers was investigated in 2011, and here it is nearly two years removed and people are pondering why anything wasn't done then, despite it being way prior to the actual bombing. In actuality, I can kind of understand it, but we forget that law enforcement is entangled in bureaucracy. This is why those people who commit the most heinous of crimes, at times, get off on a measly technicality, which is outrageous. This is a further example of how rights are taken from the victim or innocent and given unto the guilty. Thereby, it is no wonder that in such investigations no actions can be taken, especially when no crime has been committed. What kind of country would we live in when people are arrested just because they're suspected of being capable of some future crime, the nature of which would have to be theorized?
I, in fact, applaud not only the people of Boston, but also law enforcement who was able to track these horrible people down in a matter of a few days. They even went as far as to shut down a whole city to get the perps, and the character and diligence of the people of Boston helped lead to the apprehension, especially concerning the individual who was observant enough to discover where the remaining suspect was hiding out. Since they don't hear it enough, I say good job Boston, and a great job to FBI and law enforcement. Despite all the critics and yes, there have been mistakes in the past, the law enforcement community did an amazing job in Boston, followed all leads, and communicated efficiently with the public and media to track the suspects. An example of how things need be handled indeed. Way to go.
With the kind of people they apparently have in Boston, I just may need to move there or at the very least visit.
No comments:
Post a Comment