Volume of Interactions

Its everywhere. In Facebook. In the local (and international) newspapers. In the local chat rooms and Internet forums. Even over the proverbial office cooler. Muslims all over (and even our non-Muslim friends) are outraged over the attack of the pro-Palestinian humanitarian ships. Its state sponsored terrorism. Its murder by a Zionist state. Outrage, do you hear? OUTRAGE!

A great majority of people (i like to call such people "Followers") take things for face value. They don't examine the facts, they don't try to understand the history and issues behind an incident. The see everyone being angry over the attack, they read the surface context, declare themselves outraged and proceed to repeat what they think is the truth.

Consider the following.

- Israel gave the Gaza Strip back to the Palestinians (as part of a peace agreement) unblockaded. Hamas smuggled in as many as 10,000 rockets and, over time, lobbed them into Israel. Targetting civilians. Where was the outrage then?

- Israel initiated the blockade (similar to how the US blockaded Cuba during the Missile Crisis of the 1960s) to stop weapons reaching the hands of Hamas, as a means to protect its own people. Is a blockade to protect your own citizens legal from the perspective of international law? Its arguable, of course, but put yourself in their shoes -- if Malaysia was being shelled by Singapore with weapons supplied from Indonesia, wouldn't you want to stop that too? Singapore is a tiny island, it would be easy to blockade it with sufficient planes and warships.

- Israel (and Eygpt too, a Muslim nation) said: if the Muslim world is sending through humanitarian aid, you're welcome -- send them through our ports so that we can inspect the items (to make sure no one tries to sneak in a missile or two).

- Greta Berlin, one of the organizers of the "Freedom Flotilla", on May 27, 2010 (as reported by AFP), said - "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." This is where it gets tricky -- if the blockade is legal (and there are strong arguments to support this case), any attempt to break a blockade is an act of war. Just because civilians, not soldiers, were manning those ships doesn't mean that they are immune to the penalties of an act of war. If you engage in such acts against a nation state, you can't cry foul when the state responds, even if with deadly force.

- The fact that the flotilla chose to run the blockade instead of sending the goods through the ports designated for humanitarian aid,  reinforces the argument that the flotilla's intentions were not purely peaceful. If you willingly run a military blockade, despite repeated warnings, despite offers from the UN to mediate the impasse -- then, if things go badly, your moral position becomes much weaker.

- Everyone has seen the video of the boarding and the shootings. Israeli troops boarded the Mavi Marmara (presumably to stop it from running the blockade), they were surrounded by activists, some armed with pipes and crowbars, the activists attacked (did you see the video where a soldier was thrown off the ship?), the soldiers retaliated. Greatly outnumbered, surrounded, and attacked with weapons -- while its arguable the response was excessive, what options did the soldiers have? Stand there and take the beating? Run away? Not board the ship at all? If they didn't board the ship, the ship would have continued sailing into port, defying the blockade. They had to stop it.

- The thing about claiming non-combatant status is also a dicey one. You're a civilian, yes. Doctors, journalists, even plain sailors. But the moment you pick up a weapon and show an intent to use it, its very arguable that you lose that status (and relative protection) of a non-combatant. Does it warrant you being shot to death? Perhaps not. Perhaps the Israeli soldiers should have come prepared with non-lethal crowd control weapons instead. That's a question the commanding officer of the operation will have to account for. But can you stick to your high-moral ground and claim innocence? Perhaps you can't. The moment you chose to run a state sponsored blockade, you committed an act of war against that state. The moment you picked up a weapon to attack the soldiers, you step into a very grey area where your status as a non-combatant comes into question.

Who knows who really opened fire first. Did the Israelis shoot first? Did the sailors attack first? Was it an accident that just escalated out of control? We weren't there, so we can't possibly know the truth; we can believe what we want, depending on which side of the fence we are on, but in the end, its pure speculation.

So lets stick to the facts, and the things we can probably know for certain.

As a Muslim, there are several questions i want myself to answer. I suggest you ask yourself the same.

- Why is it ok for Hamas to murder Israeli civilians through rocket attacks? Were you outraged then? Or were you jumping in joy that a few more Jewish women and children were blown up?
- If your nation was under attack, would you do all you can do (including initiating a military blockade) to protect it? What if someone tried, belay that, openly declared that it was going to run a blockade designed to protect your nation, what would you do? Just let them through? What does that say about your nation's sovereignty then?

The people who talk about being "outraged" over these attacks -- they probably know nothing or very little about the history of the conflict or even why current events have come to pass. Being angry with a little knowledge is a very bad thing. Being a hypocrite is just slightly worse.

The past, present and future.

Aminulrasyid Amzah, 14 years old, was shot and killed last week by the police. The news are full of allegations now of what really happened: The police allege the shooting as an act of self-defence after Aminul tried to ram a police officer. Azamuddin Omar, also 14 years old, claims to have been in the car with Aminul when it all happened, and his version of the story paints a picture of a scared, innocent boy desperately trying to run away and get home when the police fatally shot him.

I don't know what really happened, only the police officers who were there, and, possibly, Azamuddin are the only ones who know the truth. One this is certain: whatever the truth is, both the police and Azamuddin have compelling reasons to lie.

Regardless of the truth, there is one question that needs addressing: where were Aminul's parents when he was shot? Did they know their son had "stolen" (taken without permission, allegedly) his sister's car in the middle of the night, picked up his friend and stayed out until 2am (on a school night) to watch football?

It might sound harsh, but Aminul's parents must shoulder some responsibility for the events that transpired that night. Seems cruel to heap more misery on them, but a spade is always going to be a spade.

In this case, the spade is clear -- Aminul was a minor. As a minor, his parents are responsible for his actions and for keeping him safe and educating him of the proper values of a law-abiding citizen.

Who let him out at midnight? His parents. Behaviour such as this is not a one-time thing, thats a guarantee: has he done it before? Take a family car without permission, stay out late without supervision from an adult guardian. Was he reprimanded by his parents for this behaviour? Obviously, they didn't stress upon him enough that what he was doing was wrong. So he did it again; on that fateful night, it cost him his life.

No one wants to ask these harsh questions of his parents, because they have suffered a great loss. But you can be certain that these thoughts are in their minds. If it was my son, i know it would be in mine. Did i make a mistake in his upbringing? Did i not teach him the proper values of right and wrong; stealing a car, sneaking out in the middle of the night, and running away from the police are NOT proper values, no matter how you want to spin the tale.

The fact that Aminul did all these things begs the question: did he not know any better? And if he didn't, whose fault is that? The fatal shooting is an outcome of a cause, not the cause itself. Let's not forget that.

Torrone's have been one of my favourite sweets since I was a little boy. The sweet barley flavour with a hint of mint is classic, unique and just so awesome.

There is something deeply satisfying about a good cup of tea, deep into the afternoon on a hard day at work. The aroma, the infectious flavour, the oaky, musty pinch it draws from the back of my throat. It a nice distraction, when distractions are not unwelcome; anything to take the mind off the grind for a few minutes, to give it a bit of perspective, a bit of humanity.

Didn't know that Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin was once known as Victory Avenue.

After 72 hours of crazy effort, the project i've worked on for 3 years is finally complete. Nice of the bosses to throw a small party to celebrate.

I've started using Hulu.com recently to watch current TV series episodes from the US, and its a real treat. It has a lot of the latest TV shows there, and the quality of the broadcast is pretty damn good. Full screen resolutions are sharp, streaming speeds (in the mornings or very late at night) are good. I've been watching the latest seasons of Chuck, V, and 24 with great success. There is only one problem: the streaming content is only available for residents of the USA. Hulu.com controls access via a system of mapping IP addresses. Therefore, if you're connecting to their servers from a non-USA IP address, you won't be allowed to access the video streams. How do i get around this? By using a proxy routing system to make the Hulu servers think that i'm accessing them from the US. The most convenient option i've found so far is to use a paid service such as Bolehvpn.net. Good service, good speed, and affordable pricing. For RM30 a month, i can watch American TV shows just like an American can. Isn't the Internet wonderful?

A friend, who is much wiser than me, once said, "it happens to everyone in life". Putting those words in the context of our conversion, she was referring to "good things". (Good things) happen to everyone in life. It almost sounds like something Forrest Gump would say; obvious when we hear it for the first time, but something we hardly pause to realise unless someone says it aloud. She's right, you know. Good things do happen to each and every one of us. It happens to the rich, it happens to the destitute, it even happens to victims of tragedies, death and disaster. You just have to sit still for a moment and think about it. The tragedy of the human condition is that we very often, sometimes when we need to the most, never realize those good things happening in our lives. We miss them altogether, and in a flick of time, they are gone, forever buried in our past, sometimes not even lingering as a memory. If only we could keep track of them all. Have a log, a diary of the good, then perhaps this world would be a better place. If only we could realize it when it happens. Have an alarm go off over our heads, "DING! This is a good thing! Don't let it pass!", then perhaps each of us would be just that little bit happier.

The stare of a soul with a clean slate. I'll bet many of us wish we could go back in time and experience that state once more. Even if only for a short 5 minutes, even if only for 5 seconds.