Guantanamo Bay violates every possible standard laid out for an imprisonment facility; hence the rationale for building it on a naval base in Cuba. It denies prisoners protections guaranteed by the Geneva conventions, holds them indefinitely without laying charges and effectively bars them from having any chances at a fair trial.

Injustice and lies are the foundational pillars that hold up Guntanamo Bay. Prisoners at the facility are subjected to unprecedented forms of torture. This includes solitary confinement, forced feedings, sexual abuse, waterboarding and beatings. Many inmates have tried to commit suicide; six have so far have succeeded. Lakhdar Boumedine, who went on a hunger strike and was held for seven years without explanation, recalled: “Twice each day my captors would shove a tube up my nose, down my throat and into my stomach so they could pour food into me”.

Murat Kurnaz of Germany was captured while in Pakstian studying the religious sciences and wrongly detained for five years. He explained: ‘There were more beatings, endless solitary confinement, freezing temperatures and extreme heat, days of forced sleeplessness”. An FBI agent once observed that, “On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more”. What is sickening is that abuse at other U.S. detention facilities, such as Abu Ghraib and Bagram, is far worse.

Many of the ‘war combatants’ at the facility have been innocent civilians with no evidence of terrorist activities. They were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and were caught while fleeing the invasion of Afghanistan. The Tipton Three and many others fall in this category. Some were simply handed over to the Americans based on shady evidence in return for thousands of dollars. Kurnaz was an example of this.

Since most of the inmates at the facility are Muslims, religious persecution has been a complaint as well. There have been horror stories of Qurans being defaced and flushed down toilets. Prisoners have been reprimanded for praying in congregation. Some even reported attempts by guards to get them to renounce their religion.

Civil liberty groups rejoiced as Obama came into office, but his efforts to actually shut down Gitmo are laughable. The President has since signed executive orders that formalize the indefinite detention of prisoners at the facility. To top up the Patriot Act, he also added new provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that codify the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of terrorism. The NDAA also forbids the government from using money to build a new prison or to bring detainees to the U.S., even to face trial. This virtually ends any possibility of shutting down the prison and effectively builds on the detention scheme laid out by the Bush administration.

This establishment creates a two tiered justice system; one for the bad and one for the worst. The irony is, many times the evidence against the latter is so poor that it is insufficient to lay charges or bring them to trial. Guantanamo Bay is an apparatus that gives Americans satisfaction that the perpetrators of terrorism are being punished and their country is secure. This comes at the high cost of sacrifices in human rights, civil liberties and rule of law,not to mention the millions of tax dollars spent on it.

Once the beacon of freedom, liberty and justice; America is slowly losing her status as the bastion of democracy. Illegal wars, extra judicial killings, arrests of innocent civilians, opportunist and hypocritical foreign policies all add to the abuses going on at Guantanamo Bay. Ten years past 9/11 and after the killing of Osama Bin Laden, there are no signs of an end to this disgraceful institution.

Action Item:
Amnesty Internatinal Petition : End Detention at Gitmo

More information:
Guantanamo: By the Numbers
Notes From a Guantánamo Survivor

Well, they’ve done it yet again. Niqabi’s have somehow managed to make headlines all across Canada. It’s amazing how much influence this small group of women have on the national psyche. A few weeks ago I mentioned the niqab rage incident in Mississauga. Then there is the on going case of the woman who was sexually assaulted and wants to testify in court with a niqab.

This time it was Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenny who sparked the controversy. Effective immediately, he announced, all niqabs are banned from the oath taking citizenship ceremony. Any Muslim woman wishing to become a Canadian citizen must remove the veil during the ceremony he stated. Kenny said that the niqab ‘reflects a certain view about women that we don’t accept in Canada’.

Minister Kenny also clarified that this isn’t just about the judge being able to see and validate the recital of the oath, “This is not simply a practical measure. It is a matter of deep principle that goes to the heart of our identity and our values of openness and equality”. The niqab obviously violates all that we hold sacred in Canada according to Kenny.

So, what was the last time you heard of a woman refusing to take off the niqab before swearing the citizenship oath? Never. How many women even take the oath wearing a niqab? Probably an insignificant number. Neither Mr. Kenny nor his office could provide any statistics to back up the ban they so forcefully implemented. No one knew about this complaint up till this week. Clearly, this wasn’t a problem to begin with.

It is obvious that this ban is yet another sleazy bigoted move by the Conservatives to score political points and gain some short term popularity. And it’s worked quite well. At a time when their government is under heavy criticism due to the mess they created in Attawapiskat, playing the Muslim card is the best way out. Prime Minister Stephen Harper used similar tactics in September when he warned us all that the greatest threat to Canada was ‘Islamicism’ – whatever that is.

Regardless of the motivations behind it, the ban carries many implications. Disallowing the veil at a symbolic event like the citizenship ceremony sends a strong message that the niqab is not welcome in Canada; it certainly flies flat in the face of the tolerant and welcoming society we aim to foster. As the Toronto Star aptly put it, the ban coerces Muslim women to fit into the mainstream – ‘behave and look just like us, or pay the price’. So much for the individualism we value so much.

Jason Kenny, like most, believes that he is liberating the niqabi’s from the oppression imposed on them by their husbands and fathers. Not only is his assumption completely false; the reality is that he is restricting their freedom and engagement with society by disallowing them to become citizens. Perhaps – this is just a wild idea – by allowing them to become citizens, we might have a greater chance of integrating these new comers into our social fabric?

This unnecessary ban impacts a few and is largely political and symbolic; much like the Hérouxville ban on the public stoning of women. In and of itself, I don’t think many niqabi’s would have refused a polite request by the judge to reveal their face in the first place. If validating the oath recital was so important, this requirement could have been easily communicated through a simple memo to the parties concerned.

Making a national spectacle over a non-issue has sparked endless debates on multiculturalism, religious accommodation and Canadian Muslims. It has further helped ‘otherize’ Muslims has created an ‘us verses them’ dichotomy. You can either be a niqabi or a Canadian – that’s what the ban represents. It’s left some women with the awkward choice between citizenship and religion.

My fear is that measures like these are the stepping stones to full public bans. They help immunize the public to the singling out and marginalization of Muslims. The core arguments used for the niqab could very well be applied to the hijab too – what is to prevent that from being banned next?

See my letter the Toronto Star and  Hamilton Spectator 

My soul cringes with disgust every time details of the Shafia murders are revealed. So much so that I have difficulty finishing the articles detailing accounts of what the Shafia sisters were going through. But unlike most people following the trial, my disgust and anger is twice that of anyone else – partly as a human, and partly as a Muslim.

Every now and then we hear of people committing unspeakable crimes. Here in Canada, the most recent one was that of Russell Williams. While public outrage and anger was directed at Williams alone during his trial, this certainly is not the case for the Shafia trial. Afghan Muslim immigrants have allegedly committed the Shafia murders. The blame in this case has been relegated to everything but the accused, it seems. Different groups are now using this unfortunate tragedy as an opportunity to advance their respective agendas.

Right-wing media outlets have already started using the incident to attack multiculturalism and its failure in Canada. They argue that it is political correctness and accommodation of immigrants that doomed the four women. Being overly sensitive towards Muslims is what caused the authorities to overlook the ‘honour killing’ that was about to take place. How these people mix-up religious accommodation with abuse towards women is beyond me. Even the most extreme interpretations of multiculturalism don’t call for accommodation of moral vices.

The Islamophobes are using it to warn us of the impinging threat that Muslims pose to this nation. The Shafia sisters, along with Aqsa Pervez, will now become the poster children of their movement. They will use this incident to further their case that Islam is, in fact, what inspired this crime. Statements from Quran establishing the sanctity of human life, the prohibition of such despicable acts and the commandment for the good treatment of women by the Prophet Muhammad are meaningless for this group.

The secularists are using it to prove the evils associated with religion, and the misogyny that they claim to be inherent in it. Their belief that Muslim women are forced to wear headscarves is further strengthened and their mission to liberate the ‘poor Muslim woman’ has gained more momentum. Their inability to differentiate patriarchal tribal customs from the normative practices of Islam is unfortunate, to say the least. These uninformed superficial attempts only end up inflicting more harm upon Muslim women, who, for the record, are quite capable of speaking for themselves.

Since the label of an ‘honour killing’ has sensationalized the murder and has sparked a series of unnecessary debates, I for one will attempt to set the record straight. Mohammed Shafia, if you are in fact guilty, then you are a sick man. Killing your own kin is one of the most despicable acts humanly possible; doing so in the name of preserving honour is even more perverted. The dysfunctional family you fostered was your own doing. Now you’ve punished your daughters for your poor parenting.

You’ve dishonoured not only yourself but your co-religionists too. Average Canadian Muslims like me will bear the brunt of your misdeeds. We will spend the coming ages explaining to people that our faith condemns, in the strongest terms, the heinous act you committed. We will have to go the extra mile to convince people that Muslim women observe their faith out of their own free will, and not under the Nazi-style hegemony you had imposed on your family. Freedom was all your family yearned for, but you deprived them of it. I hope you too are treated in a similar fashion, with your freedom restricted behind bars for good.

It was supposed to be just another shopping trip when Inas Kadri ventured out to the mall with her two little children last August. As she was browsing through the shops and checking out the sales, a woman approached her and started cursing and yelling at her. This woman swore at Kadri, who wears a niqab, about her religion and told her to “Leave our country. Go back to your country”. In her anger and rage, this woman took her hate to the next level and pulled off Kadri’s niqab. All this was caught in the mall’s security camera.

Last week, Kadri’s attacker, 66- year old Rosemarie Creswell, was given a one-year suspended sentence for assault. The judge also ruled she must serve 100 hours of community service, and suggested she educate herself about Muslims by attending a mosque. Creswell wrote a letter of apology to Kadri and said that, ‘Since that day, I have researched Muslim customs. I now have a much greater appreciation for what I did to you’.

This level of hate is generally unheard of here in Canada. What shocks me even more is that the act was committed in my own city of Mississauga; one of the most densely populated Muslim cities in the nation. Sheridan Center is an area surrounded by a large immigrant population and women wearing hijab is a common sight.

While the niqab is certainly not popular in Canada, as is evident in Quebec’s Bill 94, assaults on women wearing it is a first. It’s hard to gauge at this point if this is a fringe incident or a part of broader rise in anti-Muslim bigotry. This past summer’s movement to ban Friday prayers from Toronto schools and the apathy shown after PM’s remarks on ‘Islamicism’ are certainly indicators of growing uneasiness many Canadians have towards Muslims.

Inas Kadri’s intelligent and brave handling of this assault is a testament to her courage and confidence. Reporting such crimes is extremely important and many victims unfortunately are unable to do that. Doing so not only meant the attacker was brought to justice but it also allowed the average person to see the type of racism many Muslims experience. It also helps humanize niqab wearing women who often times are looked upon as the epitome of backwardness and subjugation.

As an outspoken woman with a degree in computer engineering, Kadri certainly helps bust many myths people have about niqabis. When asked about her decision to wear the veil, during an interview on national television, she made it clear; “Not my father, not my husband, not no one at all” she said, “it’s me, and it’s my choice.”

Re: Islamism’s War On Women, editorial, Sept. 21.

I was disappointed to read this editorial regarding “Islamism’s war on women.” The National Post once again is propagating views of the secular Muslim Canadian Congress and demonizing the views of mainstream Muslims. Raheel Raza’s statement that the “legal code known as sharia has no basis in [Islam]” is a testament to her ignorance, and represents complacency on your part.

The National Post might not like how Muslims practise their faith. You might not like that men and women are required to pray separately or that women have to wear a headscarf. However, labelling these practices as radical and demonizing those who adhere to them is not something I’d expect from your editorial board.

Waleed Ahmed, McMaster Muslims for Peace and Justice, Hamilton, Ont.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently declared that the greatest threat to Canada was ‘Islamicism’- whatever that is. Sure, we might be familiar with ‘Islamism’, ‘Islamist’ and ‘Islamesque’. But even the word processor on my computer doesn’t recognize ‘Islamicism’.

The unfortunate reality is that our Prime Minister has coined a new term in the lexicon which is aimed at using Islamaphobic sentiment for political advantage.

The average Joe who has never met a Muslim, knows nothing about Islam or is out of touch with the political landscape of our world is now convinced that Muslims like me are the greatest threat to this nation. He hails PM Harper for speaking up, saying things like they really are and for not bowing down to political correctness. His next vote is going to Harper.

Harper and his supporters defend his statement by saying that he was referring to Muslim terrorists and their ideology. However, by using such loose and imprecise terminology with constant focus on the word ‘Islam’, he is appealing to a large uninformed part of our society. This crowd is increasingly skeptical of Muslims and is affected by xenophobic rhetoric from the US and Europe.

Harper’s sophistry allows him to gain political support and at the same time dismiss any criticism on grounds that he was referring to violent extremists. The Progressive Conservatives have employed similar divisive politics in the provincial campaign for the October elections by labeling new Ontarians as ‘foreign workers’.

The Norwegian PM responded to the recent terror attacks by vowing for more democracy and a more open society. Our Prime Minister, on the other hand, uses the pretext of ‘Islamicism’ to re-introduce two controversial pieces of anti-terror legislation which were thrown out in 2007. Both aim to sacrifice personal rights and freedoms to give us an illusion of security. It is interesting to note these laws were never employed by police when they existed, yet the PM feels the need to introduce them again ten years later.

The most notorious terrorist attacks in Canada include the Air India bombings, which were carried out by Sikh militants, the Montreal Massacre, executed by an anti-feminist and the Quebec October Crises, which was lead by militant separatists. History tells us that terrorism can happen on our soil from a multitude of extreme groups, so why all the fear mongering about Islam, considering Muslim militants have never attacked Canada? Why put 800,000 Canadian Muslims under the lens of suspicion out of fear of a hypothetical threat from an obscure minority ?

In conclusion, I would argue that it’s not ‘Islamicism’ that is a threat to Canada. Rather, it is Harper’s sleazy and divisive politics which threatens our multicultural tapestry. It’s his agenda to bring back expired, undemocratic legislation which threatens our freedoms and personal rights. And it is his unbending desire to autonomously run this country that threatens our democracy.

The Post alleges that these murders are honour killings based solely on the fact that they were committed by South Asian men. No statement from police investigations reported this and neither have the perpetrators of this heinous crime made remarks alluding to such an intent.  For all we know at this point , these two murders could have driven by jealousy, anger or revenge. Also interesting to note is that the National Post, to my knowledge, is the only major Canadian newspaper to have reported this story in such light. Perhaps the others ones decided to be a little more cautious before passing judgment.

The problem with the term ‘honour killing’ is that it stereotypes the ethnic background and religious beliefs of the perpetrators . Usage of this term sensationalizes the murder and redirects the anger from the killer to the ethnic or religious community to which they belong. It takes away the real debate, which is on a form of domestic violence, to unnecessary debates on immigration, multiculturalism and religion; none of which are issues at stake. Crimes will take place as long as there are humans in Canada; they might be committed by ethnic immigrants or natives like Karla Hamolka or Russell Williams. Murders motivated by jealousy aren’t labelled ‘jealousy killings’; the same should be applied to other crimes.

Aqsa Parvez’s story is prime example of this phenomenon . She has now become the poster child for groups that attack Islam and demonize Muslims.  Her story is frequently quoted to demonstrate how barbaric Islam is and how backwards its adherents are. This has gotten to the point where many people sincerely believe that Islam endorses or even condones such odious crimes. People fail to see that honour killings are medieval forms of domestic violence and are endorsed by no one. Members of the Sikh community have also committed these crimes in Canada; it obviously doesn’t mean their faith calls for it.

Should we not have an open debate on honour killings if it is a problem in our community? People could also make the argument that generalizations are fair if its reoccurring from a particular group of people. Statistics however point otherwise. Out of  around 5500 homicides committed in the past 9 years,  13 have been honour killings. This is about .23% of all homicides; hardly enough data to make such vast generalizations. At this point, its more important for us to have debates on other forms of domestic violence.

Barbara Kay’s suggestion to introduce specific legislation for honour killings is even more absurd.  She argues that famliy members often aid the father, who usually carries out the killing, and they too should be automatically charged. Again, this generalization is based on the 13 cases in Canada? Such legislation would only be harmful as it would automatically cause innocent family members to become suspects. It would also cause investigators to make assumptions about the crime without evidence to support it and would compromise its validity.  For example, they might throw the book at the father automatically while it might have actually been the mother who was responsible.

This suggestion was rightfully turned down by the courts who said that a murder is a murder, regardless of motive. Just like we don’t have specific legislation for crimes of passion and jealousy, we shouldn’t have one for honour killings. Each crime is to be treated by on a case by case basis . We ought to trust the justice system to be competent enough to identify the criminals and exact on the them the punishment they deserve.

The Toronto District School Board has recently come into a lot of heat for accommodating Friday Prayers at school for Muslim students. The controversy was sparked when the Canadian Hindu Advocacy group objected to this practice, which has been happening for several years at schools in Toronto and surrounding regions.

Many major Canadian newspapers have published editorials calling an end to this practice and have offered numerous arguments; public opinion seems to be in their favour too. One of the main arguments proposed by supporters of the ban is that religious services shouldn’t be offered in a secular publicly funded school. If the Lord’s Prayer had to be banned, then Muslims too shouldn’t be allowed to offer their prayers they argue.

The main flaw in this argument is that Lord’s Prayer is not analogous to Friday Prayers. That is, Friday Prayers are a voluntary service organized by the students while the Lord’s Prayer was administered by the school and all students were expected to participate. The school is not indoctrinating a particular creed; it’s simply accommodating religious needs of students who choose to practice. If the issue is with an Imam coming to lead the prayers; this can be changed and students could lead as is the case in most schools (including the one I attended). Interesting to also note is the bigoted notion that the Imam might be preaching intolerance and hate.

One must not forget that religious practice is not banned from public schools; I quite clearly recall the Christian club at my school assembling for prayers and organizing other religious events. We still have Christmas assemblies at public schools too. Also, keep in mind that these prayers only take place from November to March during school hours. This is because the prayer time varies seasonally and it expires before the end of the school day during those months.

Another blatantly false accuation being made is non-Muslims are not allowed to enter the cafeteria during prayer. People of other faiths aren’t even prohibited in mosques, let alone a temporary prayer space. Infact, these prayers are often supervised by a non-Muslim teacher and in my personal case, my non-Muslim friends would drop by the cafeteria during prayers. Not only are they allowed, non-Muslims are generally encouraged and welcome to attend Muslim prayers.

The fact that Friday Prayers can only be offered in congregation leads to the other main argument, and perhaps the fiercest one, against this practice. Men and women are segregated in congregational prayers and girls usually sit behind the boys. This setting is said to be discriminatory towards women and opponents argue that it is against social values of gender equality taught at school.

This is yet another example of self righteous secularists looking at Islamic practices from their myopic worldview and passing judgment. They are out to rescue the ‘poor Muslim woman’; whether she asked for it or not. Did any of these girls complain to them about being subjugated at school? Did it not occur to them that these girls voluntarily pray in this setting? Little do they realize that by making such petty arguments they are actually hurting Muslim girls that want to pray. They also assume that Muslim girls would want to intermingle with the opposite sex during prayers; I can tell you with complete confidence that suggestion would cause them nothing but discomfort. Muslim girls are not obsessed with superficial displays of feminism.

Segregation during prayers is something done simply for the purposes of modesty. This is something the worshippers do themselves with knowledge of how prayers are normally conducted; not something forced on by the school. Islamic prayers involve a series of physical movements (e.g. bowing and prostrating) performed in unison and it would be considered immodest for men and women to perform these actions side by side.

Mosques often have separate prayer halls for women that are sometimes above the men’s prayer hall; would one conclude that women are superior to men just because they pray above them? If this in fact is such a big deal, then women could also pray alongside the men’s rows provided there is a barrier between them. Remember, segregation doesn’t equal discrimination. If that were the case then complaints should also be launched for having segregated gym classes and bathrooms at school.

One contention that I would have never expected to see raised was the alleged stigmatization of menstruating girls. This again is another example of extreme secularists and feminists viewing Islam from their lens of superficiality. Actually, Muslim men often complain about how menstruating women are relieved from the obligation of prayer and fasting while they have to perform these duties regardless. As Shahina Siddiqui pointed out, this is exemption is meant to be a compassionate accommodation and is something appreciated by Muslim women; especially those with PMS issues.  It is not tied to the gender of the worshiper; rather it is tied to fulfillment of some pre-conditons of the ritual prayer (Salah) which apply to both men and women.

People fail to see that these ‘third class’ menstruating girls attended the prayer sessions despite it not being a religious requirement upon them. It demonstrates that they feel a part of the community and see benefit in attending the sermon. No one knows who’s menstruating and who’s not and thus no one can tell anyone not to pray; these girls do this out of their own will inline with religious requirements. In fact, many menstruating girls pray regardless of their period and its quite probable that this happens in this particular congregation too. If these girls were in fact subject to the subjugation and mistreatment being claimed, why would they even attend prayers? There is more than meets the eye.

If the school board bows down to public pressure and bans theses prayers, then know that Muslim kids serious about their religion will continue to pray. However, instead of the cafeteria they might resort to secretly praying under a staircase, a storage closet, out in the parking lot or even the bathroom. Accommodating prayers for students means they don’t have to make the difficult choice between faith and education. Having attended a school which did accommodate my prayer requests, I know what a blessing that is.

The situation in Libya has changed drastically since and so has the objective of the intervention. NATO is now calling for regime change and will not withdraw its forces unless Col. Gadhafi is removed from power. This is not what Canada signed up for. This is no longer about protecting civilians; this is about forcibly toppling a leader that doesn’t support the agenda of Western powers and Canada has no place to be there.

NATO’s intentions are no longer in line with the Security Councils’ resolution as removal of Col. Gadhafi was never a stated. Also, there is no reason to believe the his ousting will lead to stability in Libya or protection of its civilians. The alternative to Ghadafi is a group of disorganized and untrained rebels who’s ability to run the country is questionable. Thousands of Libyan refugees are fleeing the country as NATO (using Canadian jets) intensifies air strikes on Tripoli, attacking civilians along with Gadhafi’s forces.

Sadly and surprisingly, Elizabeth May was the only MP in the House of Commons to reject the extension of Canada’s mission in Libya. I congratulate her for standing up and being the only one to represent the voice of Canadians, while the rest bowed down to party politics and pressure from Harper. A recent poll by the Globe and Mail showed that 71% of Canadians are against the mission.

As Jeffery Simpson pointed out, Canada went into Libya with little knowledge and lofty ideals. The government has been quite successful in tricking Canadians; there was virtually no public opposition to this military mission disguised as humanitarian aid. What will happen next is anyone’s guess, but I hope and pray that it doesn’t get more ugly and that peace soon prevails in Libya.

First off, watching images of people dancing in the streets and partying to celebrate the killing of a human, regardless how evil, did not sit well with me. What do you even chant when you celebrate, “Wohoo! We killed Osama!”? How does this make you any better than these very terrorists who, I presume, rejoice similarly when they kill? I understand being relieved and feeling jubilant about the death of an evil person, but partying to it seems inhuman. But then again, human nature is a funny thing and had I too lost someone during 9/11, I might have felt the need to do the victory dance.

The second thing that surprised me was that no video or pictorial evidence of Osama bin Laden’s death was presented. To top that, his body had already been disposed off into the sea! How is that you capture the world’s most wanted man and then don’t even bother taking a picture? Perhaps the circumstances didn’t allow it, but then you get rid of the body only hours after killing him too! If we know anything about the Americans, it’s that they like putting on a show. Videos and pictures emerged almost immediately when Saddam Hussein was captured; I would have thought they’d like to show off what they hunted.

What is even more shocking is the lame and inaccurate excuse given to dispose off the body. A US official said, ‘We are ensuring that it is handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition’ and other news outlets reported that the early disposal was done to keep inline with the Islamic tradition of burial within 24hrs. Another reason given was that it was done in order to prevent the grave site from becoming a shrine for extremists.

The reasoning is quite laughable. Burying at sea is generally disallowed in Islam and the norm is to bury on land, so I don’t see how they are trying to follow Islamic practices. Also, while generally the dead are to be buried as soon as possible, there isn’t a set time limit of 24 hrs that one has to adhere to. And finally, since when did the US military become so cognisant about the religious rites of dead terrorists!? They go on abusing rights of the living in prisons like Guntanomobay but when it comes to the dead body of Osama bin Laden they dispose it quickly to honour his religious rights? Something is fishy. Also, Abbottabad is a city over a thousand kilometers away from the sea, why would they go all the way out to throw him there?

This event comes right in time for the 2012 elections; Obama’s ratings no doubt will sky rocket and he will most likely return for a second term. In his address last night, Obama made sure to emphasize the personal pronoun ‘I’ as he described his heroic leadership in the capture of Bin Laden; his heroism was further reiterated by White House officials explaining how he followed and lead the raid in real time. Well played Sir.

I am no conspiracy theorist but I am just asking some very obvious questions about the mysteries of this incident. It’s still too early and perhaps more information will be revealed regarding these big questions; until then I am sure theorists will be busy working on what could possibly become the greatest conspiracy theory of all time.

I hope that Osama’s death gives some closure to the hundreds of families that lost loved ones during the dreadful attacks on 9/11. I also hope that it doesn’t result in series of revenge attacks and that it gives Western powers the impetus to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan in order to end the War of Terror. We aught not to worry that bin Laden wasn’t tried in a court, for right about now, he’s answering to God.