Candy is then put on the other pan until the two sides balance. But to discover the truth, researched information is fundamental to proving or disproving what people say—and even what you say. Before making a judgment, contents of opinions ought to always be examined (e.g. for ‘rocks’ among the pieces of ‘candy’ opinions) and the opposite side of opinions investigated thoroughly. Next, gathered facts to counter-balance opinions determine if the truth side is heavier. Or, if you have picked out the candy you want and put it on one pan, enough weights (truth) are put in the other pan to see how it balances—the “Flipside” Investigation Concept.
Hence, you have a better view of reality from which to devise action Plans A, B, and C. Let us now look at the other side of what the USA calls a “success” from having killed three Somali pirates in order to rescue one American and then hypocritically tooting their own horn about being morally right. How is it that “killing” people, morals, and “success” can be used in the same sentence? Those who do this are admitting they are Brutes—i.e. operating out of the “Dark Side” (hatred, evilness, and sadism) of their character. A constantly recurring pattern in European history is as follows. After deciding what belongs to others that would give them a sense of superiority and privileged luxuries, the first step in taking it is to declare their victims to be the enemy or subhuman in order to justify killing them. They do “killing” better than anybody else. In turn, their victims retaliate and that is further justification for Brutes to seek out and kill the enemy. The same applies if their victims are standing in their way. To illustrate, during the “Scramble for Africa” by European powers in the 19th century, the best of all that the Somali people had was raped and the people were left in shambles to fight each other in order to survive on what remained. Primary survival for the Somali depended heavily on fishing.
Being militarily weak but well located in the horn of Africa—with the Gulf of Aden to the north and the vast Indian Ocean to the east— in 1991their coastal waters became particularly attractive to foreigners. From Southern Europe, the Far East, Spain, Italy, Greece, the United Kingdom, Russia, Norway, Korea, China, the Philippines, Taiwan, and elsewhere, foreigners came into Somali territory to fish. Since they lacked a license or permission, this constituted piracy (“sea robbers”). When the Somali people objected, the foreigners would shoot at them, pour boiling water over the fishermen, or run over the Somali fishing boats and take their fish. Europeans in particular would apprehend the Somali people who were trying to defend their territory and then call them pirates. Meanwhile, these foreigners engaged in dumping industrial waste, toxic waste, and nuclear waste into Somali waters, which of course compromises the health of both the Somali people and the fish. The Somali people complained to world organizations (e.g. United Nations and European Union) but were consistently ignored. Thus, in order to try to protect what belonged to them they had no choice but to fight. The best way they knew how was instituting their own forms of piracy. In defense, each foreign country would protect its illegal fishermen by means of warships patrolling Somali waters. These foreigners constantly spy on or arrest Somali fisherman under the excuse that they may be pirates—a policy that discourages Somali people from fishing in their own toxic waters. Can you imagine Europeans’ world outrage reactions if the situation was reversed?
Hopefully, you see the necessity for researching both sides of an issue. There is no substitute for going to the trouble to learn the truth before taking action.
|< Prev||Next >|