Wednesday, May 09, 2007

out of the mouths of babes

memri is a media watch that monitors the media in the middle east. they appear to be an american based non proft org so i can already hear the screams of bias from all those that will be opposed to the contents of this post but read on...

i have chosen not to post the actual broadcast because it is offensive and much like bullard i dont want to give them what they crave which is more exposure so click here or here (alternatively youtube and search mickey mouse hamas) and you can view the clip for yourself and form an opinion....

these clips put into perspective how someone could convince another to strap themselves up only to splatter themselves in a public place taking as many innocents as possible with them. it sits uncomfortably with me that this is the subject of children's television or that 10 year olds are phoning in declaring that this is 'the time of death'.

are there not un conventions against the use of children as soldiers of war or prohibiting recruitment of child soldiers because it is against the child's fundamental rights to be just that - a child. is this perhaps part of the recruitment strategy in that we brainwash and coerce while infantile youths absorb the every convincing word of a mickey mouse look a like and then we only recruit once the age of 18 has been reached, thereby circumventing any questioning of the strategy of the general in charge of the suicide surge?

i admit i watched in disbelief and with much skepticism but still it remains whether from another perspective this type of broadcasting would be tolerated? would it be ok to propagate the annihilation of the mormons, would it be fine if an underground station in mid-70's sa run by umkhonto we sizwe transmitted the end of the white man, would the un tolerate an israeli children's tv show calling for the expulsion and end of the palestinians? i know the answer to the above is a definite no and if you feel otherwise there should be a good long look in the mirror that succeeds reading this and then you should have your head checked!

how can there be a negotiation for peace when you grow up believing that there is an oppression that you need to overcome with war. why is the message that only one religion can survive to the exclusion of all others? why is mickey mouse not preaching or calling for peace? why is the mouse asking for war and for little tiny tots to take up arms? why hasn't disney sued for intellectual property infringements?

if some feathers can be taken out of the sa cap, the lesson should be equality for all, not equality for us to the exclusion of anyone different from us; a peaceful solution can be found without taking up arms and the only road to peace is through a dialogue between sides that believe in a peace where both can still exist rather than one where only the other can survive.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 05, 2007

crap choices

if forced to chose do you pick (a) to live in a country that has chaos but freedom, or (b) a country that is ruled by fascism or maybe extremism? its a tough one to call. another version is would you (a) live where you know that your fundamental rights are protected / respected / exist but run the risk of being hijacked / shot at / killed, or (b) live in a country that is ruled by religious fundamentalism with a belief system that is not your own and fundamental rights don't really exist but you can sleep safely at night provided you obey the law?

i think that a lot of people may chose option (b) though instinctively they may want to chose option (a). (a) may be better as you as an individual are recognised but the possibility of death is a probability and hence this sways you to chose option (b), give up your freedom to walk around as you please, forced to dress a certain way, equality as you understand it goes out the window but at least you aren't a dead man...

i tried to reason this out earlier and was faced with 2 more choices... is life better in a country that oppressed the majority of its people (a) when the day comes that everyone is free but the crime rate is up, death toll ridiculous, and hijacking common practice or (b) the majority remains oppressed but you can sleep better at night? now i would definitely chose (a) because i cant tolerate, let alone live in or condone a place of oppression. so why was the line so blurred earlier? they are all really asking the same question!

as the cry for help continues unanswered by the un i have to wonder whether life for those in war torn countries is better with a rule by religious hijackers even if anyone is sleeping better tonight?

Labels: , , ,