The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto Re-Iterates Everything I Dislike About the Middle East

I read and watched with stunned silence at the news yesterday that former Pakistani Prime Minister and up until yesterday, opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. While I am hardly a fan of anything from that side of the world and Islam in general, I do admire Mrs. Bhutto's staunch defence of democracy, and up till the last minute, her courageous willingness to fight for her people, even in the face of death threats (I understand that she survived an assassination attempt only a month or two ago). And while I am hardly the feminist type, it is refreshing to see a strong-willed, intelligent woman try to put some sense into a part of the world that seems to be stuck in an endless cycle of senseless violence.

Maybe it's just me, but when you look at the news and read a newspaper these days, do you quickly flip by any news from the Middle East? I know I do. I may occasionally glance at an article if it mentions the death of children, but even that, I confess, I seem to have developed a numbness or insensitivity. It shouldn't be this way, but years and years of reading about the Middle East have dulled my senses. Is it that I don't care what goes on there? Perhaps. But I think it goes deeper than that, and it is not necessarily a geo-political irritant that I have with that area. I think it comes down to the fact that it would appear as if the prevailing cultural mindset puts such a small premium on the value of life. I imagine that those who reject this way of thinking have moved elsewhere, but for those who remain, it seems like a never-ending spiral of suicide bombings, slaughtering of innocents, fighting over something as trivial (and utterly stupid) as land.

Sure, some may say that this opinion is not uncommon these days, what, with the tragedy that was September 11 and all. I would not go so far as to say that. Some people with already inbuilt hatred of Muslims simply used September 11 as a catalyst to justify their own bigotry and hatred. Yet, if you look at everything in that region nowadays, is there really anything to like about it (we're not talking about historical appreciation here, as I am aware and agree that that region is rich with history)? Nowhere is really safe to live or work - some car bomb can go off in a crowded market, or some crazy lunatic can strap explosives to himself (usually it's a he). The sad thing is, these people have been indoctrinated into violence from an early age. Perhaps this can ultimately be blamed at the feet of Islamic fundamentalism, but the fact that Muslims in North America are generally not a violent community would indicate to me that it is not necessarily a Muslim thing, but a regional thing.

Sure, there have been assassinations and / or executions here in North America for high ranking officials (J.F.K. and several other U.S. Presidents), or for people who fight for a moral framework and equity (Martin Luther King) , or those who fight for the rights of their people (Louis Riel). But the death of a prominent politician are far and few between in North America, perhaps due to better security, but I believe (though I can't corroborate this in any way) that there is probably less assassination attempts in the Western world simply due to the higher value placed on life. Yeah, you may not agree with me, and may call me names and as such, but it is unlikely that you will try to take my life (you can try, but I am armed pretty well). And such is how politics and their subsequent disagreements get resolved. I don't like the person who represents me - I don't vote for them. I don't like someone's opinion? I don't hang around them or read their rather lengthy blogs. I don't like how a store does business (*cough* Future Shop *cough*)? I engage in a lifetime boycott of those bastards. But my disagreement with someone or some group will never get me to the point where I will incite or inflict violence on them. This is why I believe that, no matter what bleeding heart liberals will tell you, Western society is generally more civilized than Middle Eastern societies. It would be hard for anyone to convince me otherwise. Sure, I may be the victim of a mugging or a street attack, but that is not the norm. We also don't hand assault rifles to our children and teach them to kill those with whom we disagree. We don't denigrate women to subservient status (although I am a staunch opponent of the femi-Nazi feminists - usually butt-ugly - in the West who perpetually call for the destruction of all things male).

I remember playing a video game in the late 80s/early 90s. It was a really cheap two-coloured video game that more or less played like the game Risk. It was a hoot. The game was called Conflict and to no surprise, much of the action happened in the Middle East. Tensions were always high and the political alliances or opponents were as volatile as nitroglycerin. I remember playing the game in my teens and wondering, "why on earth is there so much conflict there?" Even as a child, I'd turn on the TV or read the Edmonton Journal and not a week went by that something nasty wasn't going on in the Middle East. Over time, it seems to have gotten worse, and we hear of gruesome and sad stories of dictators who obliterate their own people in the most heinous of ways. Even the more subtle of dictators like the current self-imposed leader of Pakistan, Musharaaf, has their own ways of dealing with those who seek democratic reform - it would not pass me by if Bhutto's assassination was somehow connected to the current government in Pakistan.

I suspect that there's not much of a solution here. You can talk all you want about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but I suspect that even with a fully independent Palestininan state, those two groups will continue to be at it, since that is simply their history (not unlike the Protestant/Catholic tensions in Ireland that will be there till the end of time). Condoleeza Rice, as much as I like her, is wasting her time in that region, trying to broker a peace plan, as is her boss George W. Obviously, nobody wants to see the the people in the region kill one another constantly, but until there is a collective lightbulb moment that recognizes that life is precious and that you don't solve all your problems with violence, there will continue to be assassinations of champions of democracy like Mrs. Bhutto or anyone else who refuses to live with the status quo in that region. I don't believe that there will ever be peace in that region in our lifetime, if ever at all.

Thoughts on The Virginia Tech Massacre (4/16/2007)

For the past week, I've been watching coverage of the Virginia Tech Massacre. So sad to see these things happen, and so many promising individuals having their lives snuffed short. I am absolutely astonished at the amount of talented individuals who were in the right place at the wrong time. I was watching CNN on Tuesday night and they brought on one of the parents' and brother of one of the victims (Reema Samaha), and I was sitting there thinking, "How they must be hurting right now - their daughter and sister were killed just yesterday." My heart goes out to all the families who lost their loved ones.

Since I've had a week to digest all the news coverage, both in print, radio and TV, and have had some time to reflect on this whole tragedy, several interesting things come to mind.

One is that people seem to keep thinking that guns are the problem. I am not so sure of this. I think a gun in the hands of a mentally unstable person is the problem, no different than a knife in the hands of an mentally unstable person is a problem. I don't think banning guns is the answer here, since bad guys will always have guns or access to guns, whether legally or illegally. I read that the Virginia Tech campus had a zero-gun tolerance rule that resulted in expulsion. Despite this, a lone deranged gunman still got onto the school grounds with a gun and killed so many people. I wonder had some teachers, security, etc. of the campus had guns, whether they would have reduced the amount of casualties. I just read last night about a former Miss USA who is in her 70s or 80s who avoided being robbed because she packed heat. No one was hurt but she didn't fall victim. If bad guys have access to guns, I'm certainly hoping that some good guys will have guns as well. Banning guns outright is not sensible, since they will exist anyway, despite whether they are easy to get or not.

All that being said, I am shocked at how easily the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, was able to acquire a gun and ammo. In Canada, in order to possess a firearm, you have to pass a course, fill in an application for a gun license, pay a fee and they do a background check on you. As part of the application, if you are married, your spouse has to sign off on you getting the gun. This is more than reasonable in order to deter unstable types from buying guns, but the problem is, most gun crimes are not committed by law abiding gun owners. So why penalize the recreational shooters and the hunters? Also, in Canada, the guns and ammo are locked away in gunstores (even getting an under 500FPS airgun or airgun ammo, which does not require a Possession and Acqusition Licence (PAL)) requires ID, and they careful who buys the guns.

In this case, with Cho, they did a one minute background check - likely for criminal activity, but the problem here is that you can have mental problems and not be a criminal. While I don't favour banning guns, I think some sort of a psychiatric interview or exam with potential registrants may weed out people who probably shouldn't own a gun legally. By no means do I think this will eliminate all of the wackos out there, but it will at least make it harder. But then again, if they can't get a gun legally, they may just get a gun illegally.

My other comment on Cho is that he is a coward, pure and simple. OK, so he was picked on and people made fun of the way he talked, etc. I grew up in a small town with mostly Caucasians. I was bullied, I was the subject of racist jokes - but guess what? You don't hide in a corner and get all pissed off about everyone and start planning their executions. You show that you are stronger than they are - and also that people will grow up and do change. In fact, several people who were really bullies early on ended up being good friends in high school. But if you internalize it and play to the stereotypes, and then think everyone is against you, it's just going to destroy your mind. I read of how many people tried to approach Cho to engage him in conversation and dialogue and he refused. That is his problem and his decision, for which he cannot blame others.

I have a bit of a concern about how the media has been handling the release of Cho as the shooter. Notice the first detail they gave out is that he is an Asian male. Why is that of any significance? I'll tell you why - America still has a race problem, whether it's overt or not. I found it disturbing that they mentioned that detail, rather than a "23 year old male". It reminds me of the Oklahoma bombings and how initially, the first bit of detail released was that it was a middle east guy. It seems like the news wants to report this, in an effort to say, "whew, it wasn't a white guy." If it was a white shooter, would the media have reported that the suspect was a "Caucasian male"?

My final two comments are controversial ones, and one doesn't really have a lot to do with Virginia Tech, but it has been on my mind. After hearing the bad news last Monday (I was sick in bed, but listened to the radio when I woke up), on Tuesday I heard and saw every station giving the Virginia Tech Massacre front page coverage (and unfortunately giving Cho more coverage than he should have had), I also heard that there was yet another bomb blast in Baghdad, killing around 163 people. To North American news outlets, this was a peripheral news story. 163 people got killed by a suicide bomber. Yet it seems to me that the media doesn't care about these kinds of stories. I started wondering why and think I came up with a couple of reasons. 1) People in North America, no matter what they claim, don't care about the middle east? Why? I think it's because of this, "They are all islamic terrorists so let them just kill themselves off." The thought here seems to be people are more innocent and are more sadder victims to violent crime in North America than in the middle east. Yet, kids and innocent people are being killed everyday there. 2) Perhaps the North American people are just desensitized to how many of the same news stories about suicide bombers blowing up themselves and others are featured on the news every week between entertainment and sports. It's like something that's not worth batting a lash over. "People die in the middle east - so what? It's a part of life out there. " I think that kind of thinking has really made Westerners complacent and more self-centred than ever before. Don't get me wrong - I've thought that before when I scan the news channels, but it's like, I don't get it - people die in one part of the world and it's like old hat. People die in North America and it's 24X7 news.

I'm just saying that we need to be careful in not only viewing tragedies on this side of the pond as sad events. There are things going on in other parts of the world as well.

My second comment is in how, all of the sudden, the secular media and secular people in general, upon stumbling into these incidents, all the sudden invoke "prayer" as part of their reaction. I know George W. Bush is a born-again Christian, but I have seen CNN anchors and reporters and entertainers who are admittedly athiests or have no "religious affiliation" say "our thoughts and prayers are with you." Like, what the hell does this mean? You spend your time slamming God and the Bible in your reporting or entertainment, yet now you say you will pray to Him for these families. Please, people - do me a favour and don't be so hideously two-faced. I'd rather you just say that you offer your sympathies rather than sheepishly say you will pray for the person. I very seldom say this unless I actually mean it, and I'm a born again believer. The fact is, it is fashionable to pretend to care - by next week, you'll be back doing whatever you're doing. It's not different than Christmas and how people turn on this phony "Christmas spirit" crap, but when boxing day comes, they are in a parking lot giving their fellow bargainhunters the finger. Please don't insult Christians by saying you'll pray for people when 364 days a year, your actions show that you don't even acknowledge God's presence.

Now...back to wackos with guns - if you look at the Dawson College shooter from last year, he was into the goth scene but if you look at his vampire website, he is shown in not-all-that-different poses with guns as Cho. And that guy was a loner as well. I am starting to think loners should probably not have guns, at least legally.