http://triniworldnews.blogspot.com/?view=magazine
Trini World news is a new weekly e-zine that promises to change the face of the blogosphere in Trinidad and Tobago , check it out ! i'm writing a column on religious/spiritual issues as part of it.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Thursday, April 11, 2013
A tale of two rogue states : Iranian military vows to defend North Korea
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/iranian-military-chief-vows-to-defend-north-korea-from-us/2013/04/09/
The deputy chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Masood Jazayeri announced that Iran will stand by North Korea and defend it in a war between the United States and North Korea.And just to make sure Americans understand he means business, Jazayeri warned that “America and her allies will suffer countless thousands of victims” should Iran and North Korea be provoked into a war with the U.S.
I'v long suspected that the aggressive posture of North Korea in the last few months is actually a strategic move. Notice that the international focus has entirely shifted away from Iran towards the Korean peninsula and the threat of a potential war that could drag China , the USA and Japan into the fray.
My own theory is as follows :
1. North Korea is bluffing , and just wants to remind the world that while they will lose any war in the long term, they can still cause massive loss of life and damage to the world economy.
2. The bluff is a strategic move to allow Iran time to secure their own nuclear arsenal . Iran has already enriched enough uranium for several bombs and it is estimated they will have a working bomb by early 2014.
3. Once Iran becomes a nuclear power , the threat of not one but two rogue states in the face of a weaker USA will allow North Korea and Iran more freedom and security to do as they wish.
North Korea's agenda is simply ensuring the longevity of its regime , Kim Jong Un is a very young man and he intends to be in power for perhaps 40 years to come . Crippling economic sanctions may make that prospect unlikely.
Iran's agenda would be regional dominance. While it threatens to nuke Isreal , such an act will guarentee a massive retaliation from Isreal's own nuclear arsenal that would ensure the extinction of the Iranian regime.
Rather Iran will more likely use its nuclear arsenal as a shield not a sword : They will exercise their influence via proxy wars with terrorist cells such as Hezbollah and Hamas and try to bleed Isreal with a guerilla war.
If Isreal attempts a major land invasion of Palestine , Lebanon or Syria to wipe out terrorist strongholds Iran may then threaten to intervene ,allowing terrorist cells to hide under Iran's nuclear shield as well.
And of course, we must never underestimate how evil human beings can be. Like Hitler before him , Ahmadinejad has sworn to wage war against the Jews and to wipe Isreal off the map. Up until the day Poland was invaded the entire western world considered Hitler's statements to be mere rhetoric - History records otherwise.
One high yield nuclear weapon exploded above Tel Aviv would cause irreperable damage to the Isreali Population . The population of Isreal is only around 7.7 million and the global Jewish population around 12 million. The loss of a 'few million jews' in a nuclear war would mean the end of Isreal as a Jewish state.
Of course it will not come to that - Between the Right Hand of Adonai , Isreal's Iron Dome missile defense system and the strength of the IDF Isreal will succeed in any war. Most likely Isreal will conduct air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities before Iran can construct any functional atomic bombs.
The deputy chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Masood Jazayeri announced that Iran will stand by North Korea and defend it in a war between the United States and North Korea.And just to make sure Americans understand he means business, Jazayeri warned that “America and her allies will suffer countless thousands of victims” should Iran and North Korea be provoked into a war with the U.S.
I'v long suspected that the aggressive posture of North Korea in the last few months is actually a strategic move. Notice that the international focus has entirely shifted away from Iran towards the Korean peninsula and the threat of a potential war that could drag China , the USA and Japan into the fray.
My own theory is as follows :
1. North Korea is bluffing , and just wants to remind the world that while they will lose any war in the long term, they can still cause massive loss of life and damage to the world economy.
2. The bluff is a strategic move to allow Iran time to secure their own nuclear arsenal . Iran has already enriched enough uranium for several bombs and it is estimated they will have a working bomb by early 2014.
3. Once Iran becomes a nuclear power , the threat of not one but two rogue states in the face of a weaker USA will allow North Korea and Iran more freedom and security to do as they wish.
North Korea's agenda is simply ensuring the longevity of its regime , Kim Jong Un is a very young man and he intends to be in power for perhaps 40 years to come . Crippling economic sanctions may make that prospect unlikely.
Iran's agenda would be regional dominance. While it threatens to nuke Isreal , such an act will guarentee a massive retaliation from Isreal's own nuclear arsenal that would ensure the extinction of the Iranian regime.
Rather Iran will more likely use its nuclear arsenal as a shield not a sword : They will exercise their influence via proxy wars with terrorist cells such as Hezbollah and Hamas and try to bleed Isreal with a guerilla war.
If Isreal attempts a major land invasion of Palestine , Lebanon or Syria to wipe out terrorist strongholds Iran may then threaten to intervene ,allowing terrorist cells to hide under Iran's nuclear shield as well.
And of course, we must never underestimate how evil human beings can be. Like Hitler before him , Ahmadinejad has sworn to wage war against the Jews and to wipe Isreal off the map. Up until the day Poland was invaded the entire western world considered Hitler's statements to be mere rhetoric - History records otherwise.
One high yield nuclear weapon exploded above Tel Aviv would cause irreperable damage to the Isreali Population . The population of Isreal is only around 7.7 million and the global Jewish population around 12 million. The loss of a 'few million jews' in a nuclear war would mean the end of Isreal as a Jewish state.
Of course it will not come to that - Between the Right Hand of Adonai , Isreal's Iron Dome missile defense system and the strength of the IDF Isreal will succeed in any war. Most likely Isreal will conduct air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities before Iran can construct any functional atomic bombs.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
6 month's jail for grabbing a woman's bottom - Why Sexual assault should be punished severly
A MAN was sent to jail yesterday for six months for grabbing a woman’s bottom as she walked along the street.
Michael Junior David, 30, of Cocoyea, San Fernando, told the court that he was guilty of indecent assault and committed the act because he did not have a girlfriend.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Mark Wellington heard that it was at 8.15 a.m. on Emancipation Day (August 1) last year that the victim was walking along Drayton Street, San Fernando with her mother.
“The defendant walked up to the VC (victim) and grabbed her on the butt with his hand after which he walked away smiling,” police prosecutor Cleyon Seedan said.
The young woman reported the incident to police and David was arrested and charged with indecent assault.
Wellington yesterday asked David about his actions.
Standing in the prisoner’s dock, David said: “Ah doh have a girlfriend.”
Wellington asked if that gave him permission to touch the woman, to which David said: “I was not thinking straight.”
David, who had one conviction in the past for larceny, was sentenced to six months with hard labour.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Man-jailed-for-grabbing-womans-bottom-202037731.html
It is simply astounding in our society how often women are sexually assaulted by men who get away with their crimes. Worse yet , these same men will then concoct lies and say "She asked for it" or spin a story the opposite way to say that the woman in question was coming onto them and proceed to call her a whore , and thus add the crime of slander to sexual assault.
Every minor sexual assault should be accompanied by jail time ,and women should be encouraged and applauded for upholding their rights . Not only will this result in greater respect for women, it will deter future cases of sexual assault and perhaps even rape.
I'd like to assume that a rapist starts small and develops habits of taking advantage of women over years before he graduates to the full offence of rape. Nipping sexual assault in the bud can then be seen as killing a nest of viper eggs before they hatch.
Michael Junior David, 30, of Cocoyea, San Fernando, told the court that he was guilty of indecent assault and committed the act because he did not have a girlfriend.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Mark Wellington heard that it was at 8.15 a.m. on Emancipation Day (August 1) last year that the victim was walking along Drayton Street, San Fernando with her mother.
“The defendant walked up to the VC (victim) and grabbed her on the butt with his hand after which he walked away smiling,” police prosecutor Cleyon Seedan said.
The young woman reported the incident to police and David was arrested and charged with indecent assault.
Wellington yesterday asked David about his actions.
Standing in the prisoner’s dock, David said: “Ah doh have a girlfriend.”
Wellington asked if that gave him permission to touch the woman, to which David said: “I was not thinking straight.”
David, who had one conviction in the past for larceny, was sentenced to six months with hard labour.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Man-jailed-for-grabbing-womans-bottom-202037731.html
It is simply astounding in our society how often women are sexually assaulted by men who get away with their crimes. Worse yet , these same men will then concoct lies and say "She asked for it" or spin a story the opposite way to say that the woman in question was coming onto them and proceed to call her a whore , and thus add the crime of slander to sexual assault.
Every minor sexual assault should be accompanied by jail time ,and women should be encouraged and applauded for upholding their rights . Not only will this result in greater respect for women, it will deter future cases of sexual assault and perhaps even rape.
I'd like to assume that a rapist starts small and develops habits of taking advantage of women over years before he graduates to the full offence of rape. Nipping sexual assault in the bud can then be seen as killing a nest of viper eggs before they hatch.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
RE: 'removing God from the constitution' part 2
One of the chief arguments raised for removing 'God' from the constitution is that not everyone in society agrees on who 'God' is , and many don't believe in a deity at all.
Critics of 'God' being in the constitution argue that the presence of the word 'God' in the constitution is intrinsically Judeo-Christian and imposed such a worldview on other faiths ,and those of no faith.
My counterargument is as such :
The Oxford dictionary defines God as widely as follows :
The Merriam-Webster dictionary has the following definition :
Critics of 'God' being in the constitution argue that the presence of the word 'God' in the constitution is intrinsically Judeo-Christian and imposed such a worldview on other faiths ,and those of no faith.
My counterargument is as such :
The Oxford dictionary defines God as widely as follows :
noun
The Merriam-Webster dictionary has the following definition :
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler
As we can see here the word ' God' can be interpreted to mean the God or supreme being ( Or energy, or concept etc.) of ANY religion known to man. So the presence of 'God' in the constitution does not in my view discriminate against any particular faith or belief system.
God can also be taken to mean a person or thing of supreme value, a powerful ruler, an image that is worshiped. To give an example , the myth of Santa Claus who has the supernatural ability to move at near-light speed on christmas eve in order to deliver presents can fall under the definition of 'god' if you consider leaving milk and cookies for him a form of 'worship' (meal offerings to a deity being a common part of most religions).
Regarding athiest and agnostic persons , how can a group of people who don't believe in a concept feel discriminated or slighted by that concept being present in the constitution?
I dont believe in Santa claus , and i dont feel slighted by the promotion of his existence and bbenevolence in music and movies , so i have trouble understanding how an athiest can take issue with 'God' in the constitution.
Onto a bit of theology : Calling upon the proper name of God is generally a fundamental part of worship in any religion , and each religion uses unique names to identify the supreme being :
Christianity :
Jehovah , Yahweh or Yahwah which means " I am Always" , or "I am That I Am"
Also Jesus or Yashua which means " God (Yah) is Salvation".
Hinduism : Vishnu, Brahma, Lakshmi, Parvati, Krishna etc.
Islam : Allah
Al-Quddūs : The Holy , The Divine
Judaism : Adonai which means , Lord , the Most High
God can also be taken to mean a person or thing of supreme value, a powerful ruler, an image that is worshiped. To give an example , the myth of Santa Claus who has the supernatural ability to move at near-light speed on christmas eve in order to deliver presents can fall under the definition of 'god' if you consider leaving milk and cookies for him a form of 'worship' (meal offerings to a deity being a common part of most religions).
Regarding athiest and agnostic persons , how can a group of people who don't believe in a concept feel discriminated or slighted by that concept being present in the constitution?
I dont believe in Santa claus , and i dont feel slighted by the promotion of his existence and bbenevolence in music and movies , so i have trouble understanding how an athiest can take issue with 'God' in the constitution.
Onto a bit of theology : Calling upon the proper name of God is generally a fundamental part of worship in any religion , and each religion uses unique names to identify the supreme being :
Christianity :
Jehovah , Yahweh or Yahwah which means " I am Always" , or "I am That I Am"
Also Jesus or Yashua which means " God (Yah) is Salvation".
Hinduism : Vishnu, Brahma, Lakshmi, Parvati, Krishna etc.
Islam : Allah
Al-Quddūs : The Holy , The Divine
Judaism : Adonai which means , Lord , the Most High
Ha'Kodesh : The Holy One
El-Shaddai : God Almighty.
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh : I am That I am ( I am Always)
If the constitution used the name of God from a particular religion you could claim it discriminates against other groups , but it uses the generic term 'God' which can be interpreted in non offensive and non discriminatory ways.
The Constitution of North Korea is a good summation to my argument , it states in its preamble :
Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics.
So from a the perspective of North Korean Jurisprudence The Trinidad and Tobago Constitution says :
"“The People of Trinidad and Tobago have affirmed that the Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the Supremacy of The People (God)"
If you were to adopt such a broad view of the word 'God' in the constitution , it would be indeed impossible to find it wrong ,or offensive.
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh : I am That I am ( I am Always)
If the constitution used the name of God from a particular religion you could claim it discriminates against other groups , but it uses the generic term 'God' which can be interpreted in non offensive and non discriminatory ways.
The Constitution of North Korea is a good summation to my argument , it states in its preamble :
Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics.
So from a the perspective of North Korean Jurisprudence The Trinidad and Tobago Constitution says :
"“The People of Trinidad and Tobago have affirmed that the Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the Supremacy of The People (God)"
If you were to adopt such a broad view of the word 'God' in the constitution , it would be indeed impossible to find it wrong ,or offensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)