Definitive day in the war on terrorism

Several people have been arrested in Oregon.  Bush administration proudly announced the arrests as definitive day in the war on terrorism.  What is their crime?  They intended to go to Afghanistan to fight for Taleban.  It looks like they never even arrived in Afghanistan, let alone to participate in any fighting.  They traveled to Hong-Kong, then went to China and from China tried to cross the border to Afghanistan.  One man was arrested because he was sending them money while they were wondering in China.

Does the whole thing make sense?  If one really wanted to go to Afghanistan, he would not fly to Hong-Kong and then go to China: everybody knows that China made its borders quite difficult to cross.  It was much easier to fly to Pakistan and from there to move to Afghanistan.  The men either pretended that they wanted to fight for Taleban or were just tourists in China.

Even if the men are guilty as charged, they actually did nothing to harm US and there was no evidence they planned to harm US in the near future.  How pathetic it is to claim such an arrest as "definitive day in the fight against terrorism"!


Little yellow press

I have received an e-mail from Tina Christopoulos <[email protected]>

> My name is Tina and I am the Co-Editor-in-chief of The Link, Concordia's
> Independent Newspaper.  I am  writing to ask you if it would be possible
> to interview you.  I've been  studying your case and the various reports
> that have been written about what happened ten years ago, and I can't
> shake the feeling that there is a lot more to it than meet the eye.

Wow, Concordia now has an INDEPENDENT newspaper!  Back in 1992, I offered The Link to publish information about fraud at Concordia and they refused.  So, I decided to take a new look at The Link.  I found an article which they published on the tenth anniversary.  The article is not signed, but Tina, as Co-Editor-in-chief, certainly had to read it.

Here are some quotes.

"Unlike Polytechnique massacre of Dec. 6, 1989, the three professors who died on that day are not being remembered officially by Concordia.  There is a permanent memorial erected in the memory of three professors, but no minute of silence, no commemorative speech on the tenth anniversary of this tragedy".

Concordia hypocrisy at its best: the author complains on lack of commemoration while being unable to give the number of professors right.  Well, I can tell you why Polytechnique is being remembered, while Concordia does its best to forget.  The man at Polytechnique killed people he did not know and who did nothing wrong to him.  I killed 4 members of a gang which threatened my life and was justified in my actions.  This is why not just Concordia, but all media did not utter a word on August 24, 2002.  In the country with "free press", is this just a coincidence?

"Violence in schools at every level is still a problem.  Whereas some schools have instituted programs to deal with it, others continue to overlook the daunting possibilities.  One of these possibilities was that of engineering professor Valery Fabrikant opening fire of the ninth floor of the Hall building, the culmination of increasingly irrational and disruptive behavior."

Why don't you give some facts of my irrational behavior?

"Daniel J. Flannery of Kent State University found that most anti-violence programs don't succeed well due to lack of resources."

American and Canadian stupidity to think that anything can be solved by throwing money at it.

"There is limited knowledge of what can effectively curb violence and studies of effectiveness of those programs have been cancelled since the money is needed in other areas of education."

I can tell you how to curb violence, and it will cost you nothing: stop abusing people, it is as simple as that.  You do not need any study; it is 100% effective.  People do not get violent out of blue.

"It is well known fact that Fabrikant sent out several internal memos that displayed increasingly irrational, paranoid behavior."

In previous quote it was "increasingly irrational and disruptive behavior"; now it is "increasingly irrational, paranoid behavior".  Wow, how about facts?  Little yellow press.

"Perhaps policy is not the most effective, or even most appropriate, way to deal with the problem.  The best way to protect the university's population is to remember and educate about what has happened in the past".

Well said, Tina.  Why don't you start by telling the truth for a change?

MacAualy affair

It is being discussed whether it was appropriate for MacAulay to give a $1000 a day contract to his friend for his friend's "strategic advice".  Of course, it is never appropriate to hire a friend for a public office, but this should not be the issue here.  MacAulay is supposed to be sufficiently qualified, so that he would not need any "strategic advice".  If he needs to pay someone more than his own salary, is not it better (and cheaper) to appoint that person to be a minister?


Is it difficult to be a minister?

A professional farmer, Easter, was appointed to be Solicitor General of Canada. What the hell does a farmer understand in the Solicitor General's affairs?  The answer is obvious: nothing.  If he is successful in this field, this means only one thing: you can leave the post vacant, nothing would change in governing of this country.  Chretien was joking that the only question he asked Easter was whether Easter had siblings. Easter's response was negative, so he was qualified to be Solicitor General. The funniest thing in this joke is that it is true: Easter has no other qualifications.

We have a banker (McCullum) serving as Minister of Defense.  I would have understood him to be a Finance Minister, but what does he understand in defense?  I was born in the country where a Health Minister was a prominent medical doctor, where Minister of Education was a professor of education with top scientific degree, where Minister of Industry was an engineer, etc.

How come nobody in the media or opposition ever asks questions about ministersí qualifications?

Question nobody asks

The snipers affair seems to be finished.  They were found when one of them bragged to the police about a murder committed in Alabama in September.  Police found in Alabama the boy's fingerprint.  He was identified, traced to Tacoma, then he was connected to Muhammad and the car - bingo.  I want to ask the following question: if it was so easy to identify the murderer in Alabama case, why were they not searching for the boy back in September?  They could have done all that in September and prevent all sniper killings in the first place.  Am I missing something?


This country will never learn

I wrote this posting on October 20, 2002. It looks like my prediction of on-coming shootings didnít make us wait for long. Just read it. Was I right or was I right?

On October 15, 2002, 55-year-old Richard Andersen, government employee in Kanloops B.C., has received a notification of his dismissal.  He went home, got his gun, returned to his work place, shot 2 of his supervisors and then shot himself.  First, government representative claimed that Andersen was fired for a cause, though he could not Bay what the cause was, then government claimed that he was fired due to layoffs, and later the government declared that Andersen was not fired at all: it was just a letter of discipline.  Why did the government change the story?  Because they wanted the Bhooting to look like an insane action of a disgruntled employee.

One of the so many stories I have heard in the past 10 years.  Back in 1992, I said that unless Concordia lesson is learned, there will be many more shootings.  Regretfully, I was right.  The media lied about me, calling me insane, paranoid, false scientist, having long history of violent behavior, etc.  All this is a lie.  Now government lies about the Andersen case.  Well, remember my words, you will have it again and again until you have the courage to tell the truth about the reasons behind shootings and make necessary steps to eliminate these reasons.

Here is why a perfectly normal person takes a gun and starts shooting:

1. Long unjustified abuse.
2. Inability to get away from it.
3. Complaints which get ignored.
4. Gets milked for money by several lawyers, with no positive results.
5. Incredibly corrupt judges who have no regard for the law and justice.

Andersen would not have started shooting if he knew that he could hire a lawyer and get reinstated at his job with proper financial compensation.  I assure you, he would have preferred to stay alive.

All the media always use the word "disgruntled" in these cases.  This word creates impression of a morose unsocial person, who is treated well and fairly, but who is always unhappy and gets extremely violent for no good reason. This is all false.

A normal person does not take justice in his own hands, unless he is convinced that there is no other way to get justice and that there is no respect for the law in the country.

Guess, when and where the next shooting will take place.