B22 - Reading between the lines

Hi again,

Well I'm being activated into issues of power and abuse of power. I don't know where all this is going but I'll know when I get there, in the mean time I'll just express what I what I'm seeing, hearing and feeling. In the course of my journey I’ve come to know more about what’s really going on, not by what is being said, but by what is not being said, in reading between the lines.

In the ’06 Jan. 27 edition of the Times and Transcript, (Moncton NB, Canada), the front page headline read, “Harper wouldn’t “cosy up” to US.” Now while Stephen Harper blew some hot air flexing his independence muscles on Canadian sovereignty in the Artic, it became quite apparent that he was of the “Bush” mindset and agenda when he stated that although it was not an official “party” or “Canada” position, he hinted that he would not be recognizing the recently elected Palestinian Hamas government stating that they were terrorists, then added that he supports the Israelis and their right to “defend” themselves. What he carefully omitted or denied saying, but implied, was that Israel is justified in attacking Palestinians and that the Palestinians have no right to defend themselves and that if they attack Israel, they’re deemed terrorists who need to be eliminated.

Then on C-12 of the same issue there’s a picture and headline stating that “Hamas sweeps Palestinian elections” capturing 76 out of 132 seats in a democratic election ending four decades of (keyword) “corrupt” rule of the Fatah party. Tired of being abused by their government and by the Israelis, the Palestinians held a free election and decided that they needed a change. True democracy in action, and isn’t that what “freedom” and Bush says his agenda is all about? So what’s the problem? If democracy is “good,” then why is the Palestinian political party “Hamas” labeled terrorists? And why is the so-called “Free World” afraid of this democratic election? Could the real reason be because they’re seeing what “real” democracy and freedom is; where the Will and issues of the people are given a real voice and not the façade of a voice only at election time. Where the Will of the people is expressed and not the will of the political parties via the hidden agendas of the “back room” boys that control them.

Is a persons desire to be free of oppression evil? Stephen Harper just won the Canadian federal election and part of his mandate was to end the “corruption” of the existing Liberal party. Is Stephen Harper evil for desiring to remove the corrupt Liberals from power? Does ending political corruption defines a party as being terrorists, and if so, shouldn’t Harper and his conservatives also be labeled terrorists?

Since 911, the term terrorist applies to any person or group that is fighting back, that doesn’t bow to personal, political or religious intimidation, oppression, cohesion, exploitation and control; that refuse to follow traditional dogma, that questions hidden agendas and are upsetting the status quo of those in POWER. It’s interesting that in both politics and religion it’s the old “do as I say, don’t do as I do” rule. Terrorist, radical, traitor, heretic, witch, pagan, etc. same paint, different brush. And while you may disagree that religion and politics are bed fellows; that doesn’t change the fact that they are.

After 911 and the failed Afghanistan “war on terrorism,” the Bush administration invaded Iraq under the pretense that Saddam Hussein was involved with terrorists and that he had weapons of mass destruction? But then when none were found, (but of course they already knew that) the US changed their story to say that now they were liberating a ravaged country from the hands of a sadistic dictator and were going to bring “Democracy” to this impoverished land because “Democracy” means freedom for the people as it gives them choice and power. If democracy was his true agenda, he would praise the Hamas, instead of labeling them terrorists. Of course the hidden agenda is not democracy at all, but control of the Arab oil supply and creating a military base in the Middle East, but of course that’s flatly denied as the truth would remove those in power. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, Bush is the also, the only difference is that Saddam didn’t pretend he wasn’t. Another point is all this is that the Hamas are an Islamic based religion and in conflict with Judaism and Christianity. (Religion and Politics)

In the ’06 Jan. 23 issue of the Times and Transcript, there was an article where Israel was basically threatening to use nuclear force to fight terrorism. (Now the question that is who sold Israel its sophisticated modern military weapons and its nuclear arsenal? I’ll give you one guess and your right. The other day, France basically joined Israel’s ideology, fearing and condemning Iranians as terrorists wanting to expand their nuclear program. Countries with a well organized military presence and nuclear weapons have a hidden agenda, they don’t want to give up control and anyone who complains and acts out against being dominated and controlled by these countries are deemed terrorists who must be eradicated. Excuse me but there’s a big difference between someone throwing a rock at an invading army tank and someone using a nuclear weapon or threatening to do so if you don’t do as they say. Sure, things are escalating, but guerilla tactics and suicide bombers are unfortunately the most effective weapon these impoverished countries have in their arsenal against these well organized and sanctioned “military terrorists.”

If you think that all these “foreign” issues have nothing to do with “our” democracy and freedom, I’ll give you another example that brings this a little closer to home. In the same issue there was another article stating that (in Canada) if you defaced or destroyed your election ballot, or you created a disturbance in public, that you are committing an illegal act, punishable by a jail sentence and a criminal record. But, if you defaced your ballot in private, or you chose not to vote, that was OK. So what that’s saying is that you can’t openly or publicly disagree or criticize the political democratic system. DENIAL of self expression is acceptable, but any vocal expression or physical action of distain, disgust or anger is not acceptable even if the people that it’s directed at are not present. Yep, that’s the democracy and the freedom we’re fighting to save? Sadly, democracy only offers the façade of freedom. You have only to look at our neighbors to the south to see how their own personal freedom and liberties have been all but abolished in the “name of” freedom and in “protecting” their freedom. Don’t be fooled, we as Canadians, are only one step removed from the same conditions. Food for thought.


No comments: