Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Obama's Libya Speech.
We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qadhafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Gadhafi's regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qadhafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes.
Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. ...Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misrata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed and apartment buildings were reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.
We knew that if we wanted - if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world...... [When speaking of international action] To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.
It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country, Libya, at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qadhafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests....There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security; and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
My Media Sources
If you just want to discover random secret information in the world, I would (without a doubt) recommend Wikileaks. They publish raw information and documents so you will have to get used to the formatting, however, the documents can be highly organized and easy to go through (that is why they are there). The site has 23,000 website domain names (to elude governments). The main U.S. page is all in numbers: http://213.251.145.96/ and the information you will gate is filtered to the major releases they have put out. I prefer the layout of their older site (and on all their mirror sites) here. I'm currently using Wikileaks to investigate the yearly Bilderburg meeting that world leaders (governments and businesses) have in extreme private every year (will post when I'm done!).
I would also like to point you toward another one of my older posts on the news titled "News that Matters." Highly related to this post and the more popular one, you may find it interesting.
You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!
Friday, March 25, 2011
Six suspected motorcycle gang members arrested in the wake of a 2009 bar fight in Preston appear to be moving closer to a trial.
Court records show that six men charged for their roles in the beating and stabbing of a Norwich man at the Brookside Cafe have continued to reject undisclosed offers in their cases. The cases are now on the trial list with an undetermined start date.
Records also show that senior assistant state’s attorney Vincent J. Dooley upgraded charges last month, charging each of the men with first-degree assault. The six men, “members of an organization known as the Legion of Doom, did intentionally cause serious physical injury,” to victim Kevin Kennedy, Dooley wrote.
Police arrived at the former Brookside Cafe on Route 2A at 1:38 a.m. June 28, 2009, to find large groups of people scattering in all directions. Witnesses told police the six men had beaten Kennedy, who was hospitalized with multiple injuries, including a knife wound to his leg.
The fight started when Kennedy bumped one of the gang members, police said.
Witnesses said as many as 20 gang members spread out in different areas of the bar’s porch and started chanting, “LOD,” and “860,” code for “hands-on fight,” before rushing Kennedy, police said.
Kennedy, who was dragged outside the bar by friends, was followed by a group and repeatedly kicked and punched in the head while he lay on the ground, police said. Some witnesses said members of the group yelled racial slurs.
Witnesses said the accused men were speaking in code and wearing black leather vests with red, white and gray Legion of Doom patches on the backs of their vests.
The following men are now charged with first-degree assault:
Carlos Aguinaga Jr., 28, formerly of Gales Ferry; Michael C. Cavaluzzi, 25, of Peekskill, N.Y.; James C. Condict, 28, of 113 Georgia St. in Groton; Steven A. Franchino, 27, of Middle Village, N.Y.; Ricky T. Gray, 44, of Brooklyn, N.Y.; and Justin Schwartz, 28, of Flushing, N.Y.
Gray faces the most severe charges. He faces two counts of first-degree assault, tampering with evidence, inciting a riot and inciting injury to a person.
Attorneys for the men, many of whom have filed motions for separate trials, could not be reached Thursday for comment.
Clarrification on: Libya Intervention?
This mostly includes enforcement of the no-fly zone, however the coalition is looking at more creative uses. The joint military of the nations have begun to use their air-power to help strengthen rebel attacks against Qaddafi, recently capturing key cities. This move began after the full implementation of a no-fly zone was enforced. It was only begun after military leaders established that the Libyan air force can not function and the army severely restricted. For those worried that Libya is a precursor to a 2003 Iraq, David Gergen will allay your fears.
With this said, if you want to read why I support the intervention in Libya, and what I want to see of U.S. foreign policy in the future, click here.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Writers (graff artist) and bboys love the arts the same way Stock Brokers and Stick Up Kids like robbing people.~Crazy Legs
Libyan Intervention?
Since the implementation of the International Coalition's (European nations, the United States and now several Arab nations) no-fly zone as a result of UN Resolution 1970 there has been the fierce debate of whether the actions are justified. I've talked to different friends and family, as well as readers as far out as California, Lebanon and even Egypt to get their opinions on the issue; the debate is far from partisan with support and opposition coming from many different political followings in the spectrum and sometimes, seemingly, from them all. Even John Stewart spent his most recent show overwhelming attacking the intervention (for the first 3/4th of it).
Before going forward, I would like to make an important assumption: That those who partake in this debate want Libyans, Egyptians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, and Iranians (etc) to live in free societies and have the freedoms we all value. The ultimate goal is freedom for the people, and any arguments against that are irrelevant because we have fundamental philosophical disagreements.
Allow me to point out some important facts that seem to be lost in the discussion, followed by my affirmative reasoning for my support (I've been writing this for a while and have a 1001 thoughts going on, so forgive me if I miss any good points on either side).
"Inconsistency:"
The changes in the region are historical in scope but also in speed. With such fast changes, the world seems to assume that nations like the United States have predetermined outlines of what actions to take given these once in a lifetime events.
This assumption has led many people to attack the President's administration on "inconsistency." The argument is made by all sides (inside and outside the U.S.) yet doesn't recognize the historical and real-world situation. The point still remains that there is no plan that any President could have prepared for such a situation. If the issue is of "inconsistency" then it must surely be true that the only consistency that U.S. foreign policy has ever had, has been its persistent support of these dictators. This "wobbling" policy is not weakness or a sign of no leadership, it is a sign that the government is changing it's position.
On, Jan 25th, the Obama administration met to discuss the developments in Egypt. According to the LA Times article. During the meeting, Obama recognized that a change in policy was needed to have human rights and freedom as a more central goal. I talked about the change in policy in a previous post titled "U.S. Changes Foreign Policy." With the change in policy, it is no wonder that there have been mixed messages as well "inconsistencies" in front of probably the most important time in the Arab World's history. There is no doubt that Obama is walking a fine-line with Qaddafi, but it is to act reasonably, not emotionally as they establish a better policy for the region.
History by who's side?:
With accusations of inconsistency, others have pointed out to historical evidence that international interventions have not worked in the past. Look at Bosnia, Somalia, and (what opponents call) a never ending list of failed intervention. I do concede that there is an interesting list of international interventions that haven't lived up to people's expectations, however, we must also remember times when the international community didn't intervene, most infamously: Rwanda. What was the response? Complete and utter outrage (and rightfully so). The United States is in a lose-lose situation with opponents of military intervention. No intervention means the death of thousands (in Libya's case) and millions in Rwanda. Intervention breeds accusations of imperialism and "oil hunting." With no options that will appease their opponents, what should we do? Not intervene at a time when President Clinton said it was the largest mistake in his career? Or jump in and try to help out where we can? I choose the latter.
"Other Options":
The history debate is surely an interesting one, and is usually followed when opponents say that the United States could have used it's other means first before considering military action. Oh how short our memories are! We forget that days before France and England began their push in the U.N. for a resolution, Qaddafi declared all out war on "drugged up protesters." We forget that he was gaining ground using his army that had supreme weapons over the rebels (with minimal help from the air-force). We forget that the SAME people opposing a no fly zone were the loudest protesters complaining to the international community of Qaddafi using his air-power to bomb the uprising. We forget that just a day before the U.N. Resolution 1970 was passed, Quaddafi's army was moving swiftly to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold, and would have destroyed the uprising in its place. We forget how "taking our time" would have led to accusations of "acting too late!!!" We forget how military intervention WAS the last option given the time constraints.
We even forget how the same "other option" proponents were outraged when the United States didn't publicly respond to what was going on in Egypt (as it quietly was pressuring Mubarak to make changes, and eventually go using their diplomacy). Hypocrisy is all I see, as well as a severe case of Alzheimer. Oh how we forget!
Fiscal Responsibility:
Opponents has even gone so desperate as to make the fiscal responsibility argument: We can not afford to fight. I call the argument desperate because it seeks to play on the outrage of overspending governments, especially in the United States and Europe, but moreso because the argument lacks good intent. If you are worried about fiscal responsibility (in the U.S.), everyone knows that what needs to be addressed are major programs like Social Security and Medicare. Yes, military spending should also be looked at (and cut in certain places in my opinion) however, the costs are expected to total a mere billion dollars. I use the word "mere" because a President Obama was scrutinized earlier on in the U.S. for making small "billion dollar changes" that didn't truly address larger fiscal issues in his 2011 budget proposal.
It is also desperate because of what it means. What if the United State decided not to get involved because of this argument? What would we have told the world? "Sorry, we didn't want to chip in?" or "Although priceless, human rights could not be paid for today." I certainly don't want to imply that we should be spending non-stop in military funding and further increasing our national debt. What I'm saying is opposition to an operation that will take a little over a billion (or even 2) is not a viable argument. Where we can, I think the United States and others, should fund and support the establishment of free societies. With U.S. involvement significant, but poised to decrease over time, funding shouldn't be an issue soon enough. The same applies here and fiscal responsibility can no longer stand as a strong argument (if it ever was).
Constitutionality of Actions:
A new argument has arisen against U.S. intervention in Libya: Obama's decision to get involved was unconstitutional and is a power that isn't delegated to the President. I certainly don't know enough about the discussion to tell whether it is or isn't, however, I can predict that it will center around words like "war" and what they entail. Furthermore, the discussion may become less extreme and simply concentrate on discussing transparency to Congress by the President on such a major decision. However, as seen on the John Stewart show, a Constitutional scholar once said:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation"The scholar was Barack Obama as an Illinois Senator in the early 2000s.
Regardless of where this smaller debate goes, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. His actions may have been constitutional or not but it is irrelevant to the larger debate of intervention in Libya and other places. The legality doesn't dictate the ethics of the decision, which is what we are discussing. One of the first things I learned in my legal classes is that just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical and vice verca.
The rest of the arguments I've heard:
There have also been (reasonable) outrage concerning the United States' long held double standard. Support for some dictators, opposition against others based on who the U.S. deems should stay in power. This outrage is certainly reasonable and although I don't believe that the Obama administration is going to switch decades of consistent policy within the next few months, I do see his change in policy to be a positive one. I'll speak about what I'd like to see in a bit.
Opponents have also argued, that if you support military intervention in Libya then you must support it in the horrible crackdown in Bahrain, Algeria, Yemen and more. Conversely, if you support no intervention, then no military intervention should ever be on the table (such as U.S. rhetoric against Iran). I think this is a very 1 dimensional approach and one that is a bit illogical. To say a copy paste approach should direct foreign policy is not considering the extreme differences in circumstances. Different countries have different relations with different powers, so where possible, the U.S. should take advantage of close diplomatic ties, and where not, consider military action.
This debate is extremely important because it discusses what exactly U.S. foreign policy should be based on. My arguments supporting intervention in Libya is usually followed by the argument that the U.S. shouldn't have its policy to spread democracy around the world. While I strongly disagree with the statement, I will say that no nation should be in the business of fomenting or forcing regime change or democracy down anyone's throats. Support for locally inspired uprisings is what is necessary.
My Vision:
This is what I'd like to see out of a revamped U.S. policy for the region:
1. Keeping military intervention as a last option (as I believe it was at a critical point in the Libyan conflict).
2. A centralization of human rights and improving living conditions (and freedoms) for all people in the region.
3. Where possible, nations should use their diplomatic efforts as well as possible sanctions to pressure governments to change (as they did with Mubarak, and applied to Qaddafi).
I support a U.S. goal to spread democracy and improve living conditions wherever possible for several reasons (Joe Klein makes his case for U.S. aid for Egypt- post revolution). First, poor living conditions help create a pool of recruitment for terrorist organization. Second, political reformation allows for other much more peaceful channels to alleviate political, social and economic frustrations. Such a policy is similar to basketball promotion in dangerous U.S. cities. Give them the alternative and they will stop selling drugs, shooting each other, etc. Third, the support of democracies at early stages places the United States in good faith with the newly elected governments. Fourth, America's image will improve around the world as well as our influence.
Fifth, the chances of a nation electing "Islamic radicals" may vary from nation to nation, however, with a democratic system in place, we can be assured that at some point (especially with fresh pro-democracy protests), no one will stay in power for too long. As Professor Fouad Ajami said concerning Libya:
These people have known hell for four decades. We should not worry about the vacuum that he would leave behind."
"We should not worry about the so-called jihadists will somehow fill the vacuum. All these are really boogeymen in a way. We should focus on what this man has been, on the terror he has been, on the crimes he has committed, on the Lockerbie -- on the attacks on civilian airliners, on all of this, his whole track record. That's what's in front of us."Finally, democratic nations tend to go to war far less (because declaring it is much more difficult) and tend to have far less trouble with accepting terrorist organizations on their grounds. We are stuck with the only conclusion (and one I've been advocating for some time now) that it is in the United States' and the world' interest to promote democracy, freedom, and economic opportunity wherever and whenever possible. At no other point have I seen these two interests come together so well; we must take advantage of it. I want to see a foreign policy where books and jobs are used to fight the guns and bombs of terrorists.
Perhaps the strongest argument I have in support of intervention in Libya are the sound, pictures, and videos of celebration by Libyan rebels in and around Benghazi that rejoiced at the last minute vote and airstrikes that saved them; the Libyan protesters calling for international intervention; the jubilation and confidence born in the bloggers, fighters and protesters. These are the real world truths of the power of the coalitions' intervention. Study them well.
Monday, March 21, 2011
TECH Update: Big Moves
Google Wins in Court:
Google's Streetview project for its Google Maps has won in a German court. This is great news for the company and allows it to continue it's work throughout the country. At least for me, I've used the service extensively to map out an area I plan on visiting that I've never been to before. I hope this all works well!
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Victory for Some, Losses For Others
The proposed amendments include limiting the president to two four-year terms, capping emergency laws to six months unless they are extended by public referendum, and placing elections under judicial oversight.
You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!
Saturday, March 19, 2011
A MESSAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL PHASE 2
The late 1960s and early 70s ... burn baby burn. It seems appropriate, that during a time period of political debate, racially heated atmosphere and struggle, black and Latin power let their voices be heard. Writing became a voice of many of the youth in the inner cities of New York.
Philadelphia had its cool earls, Philadelphia phils, names of whichever rang a bell in New York City where the writer who made a name for himself like Comet, Ajax, or Mr. Clean, was a Greek kid named Demetreus who says he adapted the form after seeing the name Julio 224, on upper west sidestreets in his neighborhood.
The late 1960s and early 70s ... burn baby burn. It seems appropriate, that during a time period of political debate, racially heated atmosphere and struggle, black and Latin power let their voices be heard. Writing became a voice of many of the youth in the inner cities of New York.
Philadelphia had its cool earls, Philadelphia phils, names of whichever rang a bell in New York City where the writer who made a name for himself like Comet, Ajax, or Mr. Clean, was a Greek kid named Demetreus who says he adapted the form after seeing the name Julio 224, on upper west sidestreets in his neighborhood.
Adapting the moniker "Taki 183," and using a thick marker, "Taki," as he called himself, scribed his signature with a vengeance throughout New York City and the Tri-State making it part of his job as a messenger - thus becoming the culture's first official born icon and king.
In time, through influences such as his, writers became somewhat of a sport ... calling themselves "writers" and their signatures hits, they eventually moved the practice to New York City's underground subway system. Spray paint was introduced, they say, by a writer named R.A. 184, also of Manhattan. While in the meantime, Brooklyn was also making its mark while creating (as was Manhattan) a distinctive style of its own. Brooklyn's scribe seemed precision-cut and ornamented, adorning arrows and calligraphic swirls and neatly rendered letters. Undertaker Ash, The Last Survivors, Flowers Dice, App super . The latter two combing the named of two writers. While names like King of Kools and Fuzz or Dead, incorporated images as well as drew marker rendered letters to impact their names visual esthetic.
Manhattan's was a style - mixed with swerves and curves and traditional handwriting, its Js and Ts were often cropped by disconnected curls and combinations of letters that merged or force to represent underlines such as Cay and Spy 161's y's. The uniqueness of signatures or hits, as they called them, stood out amongst Frank 227, SJK177, Tan & 0202, 744, JOE 136, Jec Star and Junior 161 who were among the first kings of the first subway lines bombed (Manhattan 1, 3, A Lines). While Barbara and Eve 62 became the first female superstars, the ever-evident influence of mentors like Joe 182 and Babyface 86 was clear with its adorning crown still shown as more and more names appeared at a rapid pace.
Bombing the system did indeed seem to be the inner city youth's battle cry and with that, last but not least, the fever caught on. Amongst its very early writers, who combined their own styles were SLU II and El CID, followed by LEE 163d!, the Bronx first king, who along with Phase 2, set another unprecedented stage for bombing, where writers like Super Kool would catch on an take the trend to heights as yet to be known. Its early influences were Uncle Rich, Johnny 800, Pior 168, Lionel 168, Tracy 168, M&M 177, and a DJ known in the Bronx as Kool Herc who's face in the letters K-O-O-L changed about as much as his beats in a Jam.
Super Kool's summer of '72 brainstorm, forever changed the writers approach to writing. By placing his name on the side of the train in thick extra letters, the master piece was born and adapted by the entire writing movement, as was his next venture - a masterpiece that started at the top of the car to its bottom practically from one end to the other. He also introduced a spray cap which enabled one to fill in their pieces with more efficiency and also write their signatures large with less effort. With the culture ever evolving and adapting different paths to "Get Up," (have ones name in as many places as possible), the transformation of the letter as it was known, was taking place, bombing had to reckon with the style factor and concepts such as 3ds. At the same time while cars and scenic backgrounds came into the picture to compliment its most important element - the name - which in the light of respect, one seemed to cherish as they did life. Indeed. To go over one's name was indeed as if to break a law, which could result in the harshest of penalties. The name was one's honor, one's claim to existence, thus an area where violation was virtually intolerable.
From the early to mid 70s, writing now with a basic foundation, had more or less a blue print for up-and-comers seeking to fill its ranks. As time past into the later 70s and 80s, those picking up and taking on its trade continued metamorphosing the letter, defining style and continuing the evolution that's been a trademark of aerosol writing.
Hence forth in the 90s, the science of the letter and the sport of getting up/around remains as a forum for youth worldwide to adhere to and become practitioners in, which in itself, is a testament to its longevity and the strength of its existence, as a force to be recognized and reckoned with.
PEACE!!
Friday, March 18, 2011
U.N. Resolution 1970 AKA Sweet Justice
I am absolutely ecstatic at the news that the United Nations Security Council has passed draft resolution 1970 (2011) AKA SWEET JUSTICE. I'm usually not one to blog after breaking news because I prefer to provide analysis after seeing the effects of some event, however, this is different. I have been advocating for the implementation of a no-fly zone as well as different arms embargo in previous posts on the subject.
To read the resolution click here. It isn't very long, just 8 short pages and written in the typical UN resolution language. If you want to skip all the pre-ambulatory clauses just jump to page 3. I am very glad to see that, in the resolution, there is deep cooperation with the organizing nations and the League of Arab States. Most action taken are to be reported to both Secretary-Generals of the United Nations and the League.
Details of the Resolution:
First, it establishes that protection of civilians is the NUMBER 1 goal of the resolution. It says that any nation should take all action necessary to protect civilians excluding "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory". I am very happy with that clause because it allows the international community to help level the playing field while not risking too much intervention by foreign countries.
Second, it establishes a no-fly zone where no plans are allowed in the air except those for humanitarian goals (which will be searched anyway). It also calls for any and all nations to provide assistance and do their part to enforce the ban. Furthermore, no nation can accept the flight of any planes with goals other than humanitarian ones into their airspace or territory that violates the provisions within Resolution 1970.
Third, and just as important, is the enforcement of an arms embargo toward the Libyan government. It becomes the duty of all nations to ensure that they are not helping traffic any arms toward the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Libya). They are to check their seaports, borders, etc.
A very important provision is in clause 16 on page 4 that recognizes the use of armed mercenaries in the fighting and orders all nations to do their part to limit the transfer of armed personnel into Libya.
Fourth, a new but UN endorsed Asset Freeze of all assets of the Libyan government as well as officials within the territories of Member states. This would secure those assets for the Libyan people and away from their corrupt government. There will also be a travel ban on most of the members of the Libyan government.
Finally, A "panel of experts" is going to be formed to analyze the measures taken in the operation (oversight committee).
All this on top of two envoys to Libya from the UN and League of Arab States to help end the fighting.
What is most important is that the resolution calls for a immediate ceasefire on all sides before the implementation of all these restrictions. It seems that European nations like France and England will lead the effort with the United States following close by. Massive celebration has been filmed in Benghazi as protesters' calls for a no-fly zone were finally answered.
Although he constantly seems like he has been snorting cocaine, Qaddafi is showing he is smarter than just a mad dictator. Hours after the passage of the resolution, he canceled his final push in Benghazi (rebel stronghold) and decided to just surround the city. Next the Libyan government (as I hear it from Al Jazeera Arabic) has declared a cease-fire on its side and is inviting envoys and the United Nations to see the "reality" on the ground. With no major effort on the side of the government, the justification for the for an attack on Libyan ground forces falls flat. France and England believe that the resolution allows member states to impose a no fly zone regardless of the status of a ceasefire. To catch the latest updates go to Al Jazeera's live 24/7 online stream.
I assume that the cease will not lead to long-term peace because rebels and protesters will refuse to make an agreement so long as Qaddafi is in power. This may give the ruler a more legitimate stance against the protesters, trying to convey himself as the peaceful missionary. I believe that will be the public image that the government tries to play until the international community's attention is elsewhere. Clashes have broken out in fledgling protests in Syria, a state of emergency declared in Bahrain and Yemen and foreign troops have helped crack down on Bahrain's major protests. Added to the disaster in Japan, it may not be long before the international community loses its attention span and looks elsewhere. For the Libyan people, let's hope that doesn't happen.
You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Bahrain Crackdown and the Media
Monday, March 14, 2011
Fourteen people are to appear in the Nelson District Court tomorrow following a major police operation aimed at preventing the Red Devils increasing their foothold in Nelson.
Police dogged the movements of visiting Hells Angels and other motorcyclists on their Saturday poker run, sending a clear message that new gangs are not welcome in the Nelson region.
Following on from Friday's raids, which led to the arrest of all the key Nelson members of Hells Angel offshoot the Red Devils, police stuck close to the patched gang members, their associates and supporters on the organised ride, varying from 60 to about 100 riders at various stages.
They issued 43 infringement notices and green stickered eight bikes, meaning they could be ridden home but then have to be taken off the road.
Fourteen people will appear in court tomorrow, and three have been remanded in custody until April 1.
About 350 people attended a Fight Night at the Trafalgar Centre on Saturday night which police said did not result in any incidents requiring their intervention.
They said the Hells Angels left town yesterday morning to catch a Cook Strait ferry.
The poker run cost $20 to sign up for and the proceeds were destined to go to Nelson private sports medicine and ambulance company Medimax, operated by former St John officer Maxwell Clark.
The Nelson Mail was told that the organisers of the poker run – an event in which each rider draws a card at a series of stops to make up a poker hand, with the winning hand to receive $1000 – had all been locked up after the raids at the Red Devils' headquarters and many private homes, and that there was confusion around its staging.
But it went ahead, with riders and passengers getting a briefing from a patched Hells Angel at Isel Park in Stoke before they set off for Mapua soon after noon.
They were told to expect no tolerance from the police for any traffic violations and that they should not race to catch up with other riders, should stick with the pack and observe temporary speed limits around road works.
There was a heavy police presence at Isel Park, where Nelson Bays area commander Brian McGurk mingled with the gang members and other riders, attempting to converse with them.
Hells Angel patches were prominent, with about a dozen worn. There was one man wearing a Headhunters patch and one Hells Angel also wore a Nomads patch. No other gang insignia was obvious.
None of the gang members agreed to be interviewed but one Hells Angel spoken to briefly before the ride pointed out Mr McGurk and said the heavy policing was because "that man has an illness".
He questioned the cost of the large police exercise on Friday and of Saturday's policing, saying that the money would be better spent on helping Christchurch recover.
He also suggested that there were more disgraced police in prison than Hells Angels.
"We've got 30-odd members in New Zealand and only two of them are in jail at the moment," he said.
The group, which included many Nelson motorcyclists including eight of the Black Horse Social Motorcycle Group's 14 members, went first to Mapua and gathered at both the Grossi Point reserve and at the Golden Bear Brewing Company's bar. Some bought hot food from children conducting a Christchurch earthquake fundraiser beside the bar. Many police were evident in and around Mapua and on the roads.
The run left for Kaiteriteri at 2pm, arriving to find that police cars blocked access to the store, petrol pumps and motor camp.
It left for Motueka at 3pm, with the group splitting up to take several different roads. A large contingent headed for the Moutere Inn on the inland highway, but found "closed – private function" signs at the turnoff and carried on to Appleby.
Just over the Appleby Bridge and just before their destination, the Traveller's Rest hotel, they were greeted by a large number of police, including armed offenders squad members wearing sidearms, and put through a checkpoint where they were breath-tested and had their motorcycles inspected. There were 14 police cars, some unmarked, the booze bus and a paddy wagon at that point. As well as numerous patrols following the motorcycles and cars stationed at strategic intersections, several police photographers were in action throughout the afternoon.
One middle-aged Hells Angel wearing a "vice president" badge and clearly a senior figure said he would not be interviewed because he did not trust the media to fairly and accurately report what he said.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Jihad Emails: A Prequisite
When he mentioned that many Muslims believed that Islam was a peaceful religion I continued:One thing I’ve constantly recognized from this debate about Jihad (or any religious discussion) is that both non believers (and/or atheists) and extremists interpret the religion the same way. Atheists do so to denounce the “extremists” as evil and extremists do it to find justification for their attacks against Atheists (among others).
(I would recommend reading the link from Islamopedia). I said this in reply to his statement that believers tend to have a biased view of their religion because they have been raised that way (which I generally agree with):Muslims never shy away from the aggressive texts of the Quran, because they don’t have to. No Muslim that I’ve ever known has ignored the aggressive side of Islam and only dealt with the peaceful one, because without the two the religion isn’t what it is. Islam does condone violence in very particular instances. Otherwise peace and mercy are supreme. My status on Facebook was sparked by an article I read about how Jihad has been misconstrued today to justify the killings BETWEEN Muslims and between Non Muslims and Muslims, instead of being used for what it is meant to be used for: defense. This is the article: http://islamopediaonline.com/editorials-and-analysis/debating-jihad-yoginder-sikand It was posted on Islamopedia, a website that my sister is a part of but it was extracted from another news source.
I don’t have a protective stance for my religion. I have to deal with Walter (an atheist friend) all the time and he’s constantly challenging my belief and all that. If I found something unreasonable in my religion I just don’t accept it because it is so. I like to think that I’m a reasonable follower, not a blind one.
Islam, Islamic documents, edicts, and Sharia law are not stagnant. This is A HUGE misconception with most of the people in the world. They are constantly changing, being debated, and implemented based on different interpretations. Just keep that in mind as time goes by. :)
Furthermore, an important tenet in Islam is ijtihad, the duty of everyone to learn analyze and understand the texts on their own. In Islam interpretations and knowledge (even in the sciences) is promoted and not restricted.
As for a central tenet of Islam, prophetic messages are not restricted to the prophets mentioned in the Quran and some of the other texts. In fact, Muslims believe there have been thousands of prophets within their communities, but those in the holy books were either the most influential or powerful. -- this is what I was talking about when I mentioned learning about Islam from a Muslim than from Google or even a christian or a person of any faith. On this point, I can't defend any of the other Abrahamic faiths, as they can't defend mine and I wouldn't expect them to. Belief in faith and then defending it is more convincing and powerful than not.
As I've posted several times on this blog, I recommended a woman who gave a TED Talk some time ago, here she is:Many people aren't recognizing that a religion isn't a solid block. It has nooks and crannies. It is beautiful in some parts and fucked up in others, they need to realize the complexity of the belief system. People think there are rules 1, 2, and 3. Anything that is slightly different isn't Islamic, and only those rules lead to "true" Islam. There are thousands of interpretations, teachings, edicts, and philosophies studied by hundreds of thousands of leaders, and billions of Muslims over its history. People are oversimplifying the people, belief system, and structure. Where you see a wooden plank, I see the Golden Gate Bridge.
Then I talk about the nature of Islamic interpretation:
Given all that I’ve said, there are important implications: first, if every Muslim has a duty to interpret the Quran and Islamic teachings we establish that, to the ability and subjectivity of those interpretations, all are correct. In fact, Muslims believe that the only one who knows the “true” meaning of the Quran and Islam is Allah (I would say God, but the two aren’t linguistically equal, but they speak of the same being). Now, from an interpretation to interpretation basis, one holds their belief believing that the interpretations of others are wrong and so humans should try their best to interpret and apply Islam as they can best understand it (with good intentions). So the extremist positions aren’t necessarily wrong from the Godly objective standard as they are from the subjective standard.
As you can tell, the issue of Jihad still hasn't been directly addressed. As the title implies, this is all you need to know before entering this discussion. I hadn't realized how long and in-depth these emails actually are. This post alone is just half of my first email to begin the conversation. There will be plenty more to come! Feel free to throw any of your comments about what's been said in the comments.Likewise, the progressive interpretations aren’t necessarily right or wrong based on those same standards. We can only do our best to understand it, I along with most others, have come to the conclusion that people like Osama bin Laden is wrong in his interpretation and we strongly believe that we are correct in our belief and will work on that, but that is only to our human ability to reason.
You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!