Breivik committed mass murder yet the first utterance of his actions one week ago by the Global Media was extremist , terrorist and not murderer .Yet as we know in our world today most terrorists die while committing terrorism , at least the ones we have seen in Afghanistan .Yet in this case Breivik did not lose his life !
Yet you may say that Bin Laden was killed yet he committed terror .Which is the whole point….. he was not a terrorist per se .In fact I always wonder what type of martyr (he called himself a martyr ) walks with a gun..Bin Laden and his men have tons of guns .
At least the first Protestants and Apostles can be called martyrs because they were killed when they had no arms or weapons.
An armed mass murderer is not a terrorist .He is a murderer .If he murders for an ideology he or she is a Warrior , fighting a war .This is what the Taliban in Afghanistan know they are doing.
A murderer is a murderer irrespective of his ideology and Breivik fits that bill even if he had ideology that is against another ideology.
What is our bone of contention , our beef and mutton on the issue of terrorism ?
Well , a prominent politician and might I add courageous freedom activist from Kenya , Koigi Wamwere , who was formerly a Minister in President Kibaki’s government penned a lamentation for Norway , having lived there for years while in exile during the reign of former President Moi .
In his lamentation , he correctly questions Norway’s presence in Libya and why NATO is hypocritically attacking the Libyan people.
Yet he makes just one grave mistake…calls Breivik’s action terrorism.I beg to differ.
BREIVIK IS NOT A TERRORIST, BUT A MURDERER FOR A FEW STRONG REASONS :
1. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY AGREED LEGALLY BINDING CRIMINAL LAW DEFINITION OF TERRORISM…
This happens to be the first line of Wikipedia’s page on Terrorism .
The United Nations has NO UNITED DEFINITION .This is vague and dangerous, yet deliberately ignored .It allows those in power to call any dissent against them acts of terror, even if it is legal, passionate dissent in opinion .
How can you punish what you cannot define ?
This absence of a universal definition is evidence of the fact that some states can use terror and hide under the lack of a definition for the word terror.
Until there exists a clear definition like Murder and Rape, Breivik cannot be called a terrorist and so does Bin Laden,,they are Warriors and when they kill, Murderers.
2. THE SO CALLED CRIME OF TERRORISM CONSISTS OF OTHER CRIMES –Why repeat yourself /Double Jeopardy in Legal Language
It is lumped with murder, destruction of property and other crimes which are already existent in the written codes of conduct.
What is even funny about the whole thing is that the same nations that are claiming to fight terrorism fight it producing the same results …murder, destruction of property.
Thus terrorism is actually War and Anti Terrorism is a counter action created by Legal terrorists who also use terror Legally because they are the Law Makers of the World because they own the guns of the world and the systems of the World.
IN the West one may call Al Qaeda and Al Ashabaab ,Terrorism but in the Muslim world it is Holy War, irrespective of the so called interpretations of Muslim Scholars .
3. BOMBS HAVE BEEN WEAPONS OF WAR LONG BEFORE BIN LADEN CAME TO POWER
The use of bombs is being called a terrorist activity .What about the Blitzkrieg and Hiroshima ? They used bombs .the only difference is who is dropping the bombs .In one case it is individuals and the other case armies .The latter was an act of war and so should the former hence no need for a crime called terrorism when the weapons employed existed before the crime.
4. TERRORISM IS DEFINED AS AN IDEOLOGICAL WAR
There is no ideology that rules the world but Gun ideology .To call a terrorist an ideologue is to call all thinking humans terrorists because everyone has an ideology or school of thought of how the world should be run.
IN fact if people really gave their views of how they should rule the world we will never agree because there over 6 billion ideologies because there are over 6 billion people.
So people just herd themselves into a camp of their own choice based on very natural reasons such as culture , language , race , religion, environment , beliefs.
If terrorism is ideological then what is the holy ideology that the world needs ?Because one man’s meat is another man’s poison.
The conclusion of the matter is , Terrorism is a tool for the Elite to control the people of the world through fear , trying to imitate God who calls all to fear him.
Arthur Owiti
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Why the world mourns with Norwegians
It was very sad to learn about the July 22 shooting of 78 Norwegians by a seemingly deranged racist.
This tragedy is particularly touching to me personally because, for many years, I lived in Norway with my family, accommodated there as political refugees running from the one-party dictatorship.
Since part of my family still lives in Norway, I consider it my second home. Indeed, when I left Norway with some members of my family, I left a part of my soul there.
The tragedy that is now ranked as the worst in Norway since World War II is of great interest because Norway is home to the Nobel Peace Prize. When it is plunged into tragedy, a light of the world is put out.
When an act of madness happens in a place like Norway, something has gone terribly wrong with the world. If not even Norway is immune or safe from the madness of hate that afflicts the world, we must ask why.
When I lived in Norway 11 years ago, I wrote a book titled Tears of the Heart: A Portrait of Racism in Norway and Europe. In it I argued that though Norway was the custodian of the world’s morals, it was unjustifiably allowing a cancer of racism against non-white Norwegians and foreigners that though invisible to the world, was harmful to its image.
In the book, I quoted a racist leaflet that demanded “a full stop to all non-white immigration” and concluded: “The more immigration we have, the greater our problems get, and it is the politicians that must be held responsible.”
In Norway, it is the ruling Arbeiderpatiet or Labour Party that is held most responsible for the problem of non-white immigration, and it is Fremskrittspartiet or the Progessive Party that fights hardest to stop immigration of non-whites.
The youths killed at the Utoeya Island were members of the Labour Party and Anders Behring Breivik, who perpetrated the tragedy, is said to be a member of the Progressive Party.
Was Breivik holding Labour party politicians responsible for coloured immigration when he bombed offices of the Prime Minister, and then nipped its future leadership in the bud when he killed 85 Labour youths at their summer camp?
Whatever the motive, this violence is terrorism whose purpose was to make a political point. But no politics, religion, ideology, beliefs or convictions can be justifiable when innocent people are targeted.
This is why terrorism must be fought. It has absolutely no justification in a democracy where people have the freedom to complain against policies and even vote out the government they don’t like.
Even the argument by ideological and religious extremists that the end justifies the means is not justifiable where there is democracy.
In fact, violence hurts the cause it is perpetrated for more than the opponents of that cause. Defensive violence is only justifiable when people are under attack, and Breivik was not.
As we condemn an individual’s violence in Norway against innocent people, we must also condemn Nato — Norway is a member — governments’ offensive war against Libya either because they dislike Muammar Gaddafi’s politics, want the Libyan oil or wish to protect Libyan people.
Mr Wamwere is a former detainee and political exile during the Kanu rule.
