Saturday, June 24, 2006

Terrorism


I think we all agree that terrorism (the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, in order to establish a political thought) is wrong. After the 2001 attacks in America, terrorism was given an ubiquitous exposure, as it was the most shocking attack on a more economically developed country at the time, which was supposed to be one of the world's political heavyweights.

I don't want to go into a detailed history of terrorism and how wrong it is, since it's blatantly obvious - but what I want to look at is the concept of 'two-way terrorism'. It's become glaringly obvious that the USA has taken great liberties in 'curing' the world of terrorism in the interests of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. They instill 'freedom' by stomping over a third-world country, rooting out the bad guy, and at the point where they should stop, they just keep on going, trampling civilians in the way. You would have thought they would have learned their lessons from Vietnam, but, unfortunately, they haven't.

Is this 'two-way terrorism'? Can we call the Bush administration a bunch of terrorists? They are forcefully imposing their view on others, using destruction and violence - and that's terrorism. When you hear people saying that the US created Al-Qaeda, they're not joking, it was the US who supplied them weapons to drive the Soviets out during the Cold War. In Vietnam, the French and the US more or less created the VietCong, provoking a reaction by sticking their noses into what they shouldn't have, each successive president sinking deeper and deeper into horrific military escalation, all in the good name of 'freedom'. As they did with Japan following the Second World War, I believe that the US is trying to make Iraq a physical barrier to the middle east, some sort of bulwark for long-term plans. To those at the top, losing civilians is inconsequential.

I do believe that terrorists like Osama bin Laden, Hitler and Stalin should be persecuted for unelashing destruction on humans. But the response should be treated with care. Why roll over the innocent civilians in the crossfire? No one seems to care about them. They have lives, just like the soldiers and the terrorists pumping bullets into their bodies.

Thoughts?

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

On "Strangers"


I was suspicious of the fact that newcomers to this site were sort of inhibited from posting their comments - Asvajit relayed this information to me when he said that they would feel too intimidated by the subject matter. But a comment from 'Annelie..xox' on the Da Vinci Code Post made me realise that I have to point something out - this is not an exclusive cult for a specific group of people! Anyone is welcome, we'd love to have your opinions. Post away, we're not going to make you a Sporkist forcibly. I don't see how, anyway...

The list of Sporkists on the right are those that have declared themselves to be Sporkists. If you agree with our views and wouldn't mind being a part of our peaceful revolution, go ahead and make noise about it.

Friday, June 09, 2006

"On alcohol, drugs, pre-marital sex, over-indulgence, and gluttony"

As requested by Electra.

The Sporkist view on the indulgence in anything, be it food or amphetamines, is simply thus:
Too much or too little of anything would be bad for you. Extremes, as in religion, are wrong.

And this works out for pretty much anything:
  • Food - too much results in obesity, too little in malnutrition
  • Alcohol/Narcotics (They're all drugs) - too much can result in death (after a vicious and depressing downward spiral) and too little can perhaps result in you being very stuck-up
  • Pre-marital Sex - this isn't quantifiable as such, but if you want to, go ahead. If you don't, just don't. Don't lash out others who feel differently

The list can go on. Just choose the part of moderation, gauge what's best for you, and try not to overdo it.

It's as simple as that.