The Nomad and the Olive Branch

DISCLAIMER: This topic is not against the nature or necessity of a military force. This topic addresses a disturbing social and political phenomenon that absolves armies from the same accountability that applies to every armed group. But then again, this world isn't a just and fair place. Moreover, take note that I do not support nor condone any military, militant group, or insurgent organization, nor any actions which - BS semantics aside - are clearly unjustifiable. Lastly, before you read on, I acknowledge my biases for "underdogs". This bias, however, does not detract from the gist of the topic itself. After surfing over several political forums, mainly "politicalcrossfire.com" (where, as many of you might already know, I post occasionally), I've come across a rather disturbing trend. There is a prevalent notion that the military of a nation is somehow above the law and for some reason does not have the ability to commit acts of terrorism or war crimes....

It is not uncommon that one changes one's views in light of what one encounters in life, and how one's world is suddenly shaken, but not completely stirred, in the face of an iminent groundbreaking notion... Well, maybe not that groundbreaking, but one's foundations in thought are altered nonetheless in ways that manifest themselves in action and words. Most importantly, one's attitudes shift in their entirety, and all issues related to that particular topic change. But what, pray tell, could that particular subject be in this meager post? The title's the giveaway here, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Allow me, then, to explain what you may perceive as my change of heart. In my early years into my awakening towards socio-political situations on the global scale, I was a nationalist of sorts. I had my mind set on the nation that is the Palestinian people, a "righteous" nation "oppressed" by Israel. One day, I had thought to myself...

I mean, come on: who's better at spreading democracy like it should be done than the U.S. government? And who's even better at colonial suppression than the U.K.'s? Ever since the end of World War II, the U.S. government established itself as a superpower by nuking two separate cities in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese, all under the pretext of "saving the lives of millions"? This is not to relieve blame from the Axis Powers, but to highlight the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. However, the U.S. government kept using that pretext to elect governments that serve its interests all around the world. After all, it is the U.S. government, the no. 1 hombre of freedom and democracy, that is choosing those governments, so why should we be pissed? My horrible sarcasm aside, the U.S. government has hid behind the auspices of freedom and democracy to mask its subduing post-colonialist neo-imperialist interests the world over. But I must...

Africa is probably the poorest continent on the face of the Earth if not one of the poorest. It has always had a bad reputation thanks to your local indoctrination cent... I mean, news station. Over the past few centuries, Africa was host to tens of Empires occupying its lands, enslaving its people and plundering its wealth. Because of its substantial dependence on Western economies to keep it surviving, much of Africa has grown into a haven for third-world countries to exist, let alone develop thanks to the political, tribal and fanatical pressures that have squeezed Africa almost devoid of any progress. Nowadays, almost anything that has to do with Africa is exploited, even, believe it or not, charity; on that note, this post promises to be not a Bono speech about "saving Africa". Let's take a look first at what made Africa what it is today, starting with one of the most famous and yet most understudied accounts by modern men, that of the 2 explorers Henry Morton Stanle...

I really don't like to talk about war in general: it's an ugly, murky "fact of life" that we all have to deal with, all driven by the selfish desires of madmen and people who seek to sow discord between human beings for all the wrong reasons you can think of, whether it be "racial differences" or simply because "these" people are somewhat "trying" to "kill" you, because "they" pose some "clear, present and imminent danger" to you and others. Of course, it can get more complicated than that as people compete for resources, power, and anything that can be of advantage to them. But in many cases, there is what we call "ethnic strife". Why the heck should there be ethnic strife? Could it be based on some family feud that evolved into a conflict between tribes that are supposedly of different ethnicities? I mean, why do we human beings have to invent such labels and use them to justify our own selfish po...