Covid19 - When things get so ridiculous

 Never has a medical and health problem been so politicised to the extent that the well being of the people been compromised to achieve political ends. By now those who are able would have read both sides of the narrative about the effectiveness of the different types of vaccines and their adverse effects that may lead to serious illnesses and even death.

Despite the fact that none of the vaccines has come up on top where there is a consensus that one is better in effectiveness and safety, supposedly responsible people are still taking the position that one should be used and not the other and refused to admit that the other could be equally good or even better. They have made their choice for their own interest or whatever, that die, die other people must accept their dictates to use only one type of vaccine.

The medical and scientific community are split as to which vaccine is the better choice, but the politicians are so darn clear, can you believe that, and adamant that their choice is the right choice. To make matter worse, their favourite choice has been proven to be dangerous, with some scientists calling it poison, with no proven track record, and still experimental and good only for emergency use, and its possible side effects waiting to happen.

How callous and audacious can such people be, to in some ways coerced or pressure others to accept their controversial choice of vaccines? How much do they know when the scientists and medical professions are still in disagreement, without a clear consensus that a particular vaccine is safe and effective? How dangerous is their position when the contrary view is that their favoured vaccine could even be unsafe and could kill? The benefits outweigh the risk? Is this a reasonable and acceptable statement when the risk is serious illness or death?

The people have a right to choose which vaccine they preferred to inject into their bodies. This is not about injesting chicken rice or nasi lemak. This is about injecting something that can take your life away. Now, who in his right mind, when he is not a medical expert, would dare to pressure people to inject controversial and dangerous substance into their body? Getting vaccinated in normal cases is a good call. Telling people to get vaccinated cannot be wrong, but not in this instance when the vaccines are not only controversial and unsafe but also a political football.

Yes, I also have two questions to ask before I listen to anyone on their recommendations? Today, other than the illiterate seniors, many of us are better informed and educated than the preacher. So, the first question to ask, is the preacher smarter and wiser than you? Two, is the preacher more well informed than you, a medical professional or just another pretender whose little knowledge acquired is from hearsay?

For your own good, please use your head and question whoever is asking you to inject something that is questionable, not just about its effectiveness, but also if it is safe to your health. 

And for goodness sake, if you are not a medical expert, do not ask or even coerced people to inject something into their body that could kill them. If you do that, you are being irresponsible, and ultimately responsible to the death of the person that listened to you.

At this point in time the vaccines are not only controversial, but subject to too much politiking that what is good or bad has been so muddled by political and business interests that the truth is furthest from the truth. What could be a terrible decision is for one to be injected with an experimental unproven vaccine when the reason is to open the economy, the priority is economics not your health?

The least a responsible govt can do is to allow the people the choice of vaccines as the people are not fools to have cotton or wool pulled over their eyes. This is not a case of what to eat or what to drink. This is a choice that could mean being alive or dead. The govt is not right to make this choice for the people. It is the life and well being of the people and it must be made by them, an educated choice, not a forced choice.

The more unfit and unqualified people are coming out to put pressure on the innocent people to get vaccinated by a vaccine that is anything but good and safe, the more suspicious one must be on the intent and purpose of the preachers and the goodness of the vaccine. 

If the recommended vaccine is really that good, there should not be so much controversy and unhappiness and reluctance on its use. When the experts in the medical and scientific community are of two minds, the non professionals should not be smart alecs.

Let the people have a choice on what vaccines to use. It is unacceptable, immoral, unethical, criminal to use political power to force people to accept the vaccine you want them to use and disclaim liability should they fall seriously ill or die. Remove the disclaimer if the govt wants to force this on the people and be held responsible for this action. You do not have the full knowledge to know what you choose is safe for the people. You may be morally and criminally wrong in your choice. You may be withholding the right vaccine from the people instead. 

If you are that sure, remove all the non liability clauses and accept full responsibility if you are wrong, if people die or suffer from adverse effects within 3 months after taking the vaccine.

Was the US Invasion of Afghanistan Legal Under International Law? - Part 5,6 & 7

According to the UK Parliament briefing papers, "the initial invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was therefore not conducted with the authorisation of a specific UN Security Council Resolution". Nonetheless, the UK and US claimed that the attack was justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter, as military action against Afghanistan was undertaken with the provisions of Article 51 covering self-defence. This raises questions about the authority of the UN and its scope as an international peace keeping body. If countries feel that they have the right to go to war without the UN’s approval then what legitimacy and power does such an organisation actually hold?

Furthermore, if states can act in such an aggressive manner without facing any repercussions, then what is to say that another such costly and damaging war will not occur in the near future?


It should be noted that:

1. International Law must be clearly distinguished from the use of force for revenge or punishment; states, like persons, must not act as vigilantes.

2. In criminal law, self-defence may be invoked in the face of an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. The threat must be immediate and the response must not be pushed beyond what is reasonably required to repel that threat. Therefore, in general, self-defence may not be invoked to justify physical retaliation to an attack a few weeks after it occurs. This is a key issue, as the rhetoric from the US government after 9/11 and just prior to the invasion made a direct correlation between the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the imminent action in Afghanistan.

3. In relation to the retaliatory nature of the invasion, International Law Professor Marjorie Cohn said that “the bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.”

Because International law does not allow for a State to enter into war on the grounds of retaliation for a prior act.

4. Such a feeble reason for going to war could be used by countless other countries too, in order to justify an invasion that they perceive to be legitimate. One such example being that ‘Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States’, as he was seen by the Islamic republic as a terrorist and enemy or Iran.

5. United Nations Security Council Resolutions:

In the aftermath of 9/11, the United Nations Security Council drafted two resolutions in response to the attacks, which contained information as to what would constitute an appropriate response.

The two resolutions adopted were resolution 1368 and resolution 1373, both of which dealt with ‘threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts’.

Neither of these two resolutions allowed for military action on the ground in Afghanistan as a result of the attacks, nor did either contain any aggressive language that could be used to justify military action.

Furthermore, the latter resolution, although affirming that terrorism is an issue that needs to be dealt with and an issue for which the UN would support ‘international efforts to root out terrorism’, also goes on to say that it ‘expresse[d] its strong support for the efforts of the Afghan people to establish a new and transitional administration leading to a formation of a government’. None of this alluded to the approval of any military force in Afghanistan by the US or any other NATO member.

6. Was ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ Legal Under International Law?

An important fact that needs to be considered when assessing the legality of the war in Afghanistan is the fact that the 9/11 attacks were a one-off, isolated incident and were not part of a continuation of attacks on the US and American civilians. In relation to this point, was there really a need for such an aggressive response to the 9/11 attacks? It can indisputably be argued that this war was not legal under international law, as the criterion that needs to be fulfilled in order for a war to be conducted legally is UN Security Council authorisation. In this instance no such authorisation was given to the US, the UK or any other NATO member.

7. In addition, the US’ claim in relation to Article 51 of the UN Charter which deals with self-defence, namely that it had a right to the use of force against Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is unfounded. The notion of preventative self-defence or retaliatory self-defence has no basis under international law.

The US’ rationale as justification for the invasion has two major issues of contention, the first being that the country it wanted to attack was not the main base of Al Qaeda and the second being that the US is a Sovereign State attempting to fight an organisation which has never claimed to have links to the Afghan establishment. Therefore, in accordance with the US’ thought process, the country that should have been pursued was Saudi Arabia. This is because Saudi Arabia was funding Al Qaeda and allowed for it to operate within its borders without any difficulties. Furthermore, Afghanistan had no direct link to 9/11 in the way that Saudi Arabia did, as none of the 9/11 terrorists were Afghan nationals but some were Saudi nationals.

8. The Repercussions of the War:

It has now been established that the war with Afghanistan was illegal under international law. But the repercussions of such use of force, whether legal or illegal, are also issues of grave concern that should not be overlooked. The intervention in Kosovo in 1998 was hailed a successful Western intervention, as it supposedly reduced and subsequently ended the massacre of Kosovans by the Serbs. However, if due analysis is given to this intervention then it can be argued that this intervention was just as bloody and pointless in its aims as any other Western intervention before or after it. The intervention lead to more violence being carried out by both Serbs and Kosovans towards one another, and as a result of the intervention there were ten thousand more civilian deaths.

Aside from the civilian casualties and that of NATO troops, the war in Afghanistan has led to an increase in the number of internal and external refugees. It has also deeply polarised and radicalised many young Afghan men, due to all the violence they have witnessed and suffered. The scores of radicalised young men has worked against the US and UK in eradicating Al Qaeda, its proxies in the region and other terrorist organisation with similar ideologies. This is because use of force which inadvertently targets civilians has inevitably led to more men adopting the very ideology the West is trying to eradicate. And Al Qaeda’s reach has now spread further afield to countries such as Somalia and Yemen since the war began.

9. The intervention did nothing to solve poverty and caused more people to flee the country, creating more refugees. The invasion has also led to an increase in malnutrition due to the restriction on the availability of food packages. Furthermore, the war has increased the opium trade in Afghanistan which is something that was contained and reduced during the Taliban rule of Afghanistan[32]. This is because more war lords who were previously incarcerated are back in control of various parts of the country.

 
10. The US had proliferated the Afghan War across the Afghan border into Pakistan, a nuclear state. This had led to the death of many innocent Pashtuns on the east of the Durand Line who have fallen victim to American drones. This is because the US had widen its operation, as the Taliban has gained more traction and operates within a far greater area of land. This is a very contentious issue and could be seen as an ‘act of war’, though the US is not at war with Pakistan but continued to act aggressively by using drones, which have killed civilians there.

11. This same principle can be applied to Pakistan too, as it was not party to the war between the US and Afghanistan but was claimed by the US as supporting and giving shelter to terrorists.

12. Another particularly severe issue in relation to war more generally is its cost. This is especially true of ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’, as this war has lasted 20 years, from 2001 to 2021. Its casualties and financial burden have been tremendous for the UK, US and NATO. And even with the withdrawal of NATO troops in 2014 and UK and US troops in June-July 2021, these costs will continue to rise, as some US troops are still left behind to protect certain key installations and institutions, and to train the locals. The actual costs, both in terms of human casualties and financial matters for the duration of the whole operation will never be made known. However, we can easily say that they must be very heavy and unsustainable.


Conclusion

It can be argued that the US invasion of Afghanistan was not legal under international law. This is due to the fact that the UN resolutions that were drafted after the 9/11 attacks did not expressly permit an aggressive approach in tackling international terrorism.

Furthermore, Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter were not adhered to. As a peaceful means to resolve the issue, it was not sufficiently considered and dialogue between the parties involved was not used as a means to end hostilities.

Also, the assertion made by the US that it was acting on the grounds of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter is deeply contentious. This is because in this case, one state was looking to invade another to eliminate a terrorist organisation that had no affiliation to any particular state.

Lastly, the most crucial aspect here that proves that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal under International Law was the fact that the UN Security Council had not given authorisation for the invasion of Afghanistan, which would have been necessary in order for the US to legally pursue Al Qaeda.


SSO - 31 July 2021

Credit is hereby declared:

This article is an adaptation and modification of an essay written by Rabia Khan for a Master's program at the University of London. It was written in January 2013 and published on 6 November 2013.

Random brief facts and truth. ( B ) The U.S. is an illegitimate country. It is a terrorist state and should be destroyed.

     The United States is an illegitimate country. It is a terrorist state and should be destroyed.

 The United States like to say China is an illegitimate country. Let's examine the facts. The United States being descendants of British evil imperialism established itself as a separate state from British colonisation of North America after the almost total genocide of the indigenous native Americans 240 years ago in 1776. But China, an ancient civilization is as old as the earth and it is the only ancient civilization still thriving today.  The Chinese government has almost 100 percent very strong support of the Chinese people. The U.S. government has less than 40 percent support of the people under the fake democracy of the dual mafia dictatorship of the Republicans and the Democrats.

Chinese government's policies are people's centered. The whole country can see in the progress and well being of its citizens. Chinese people are all united with one heart and spirit with the government to move the country forward.

The United States is ruled by the one percent Anglo-Saxon white supremacist elites , the rich exploiting oligarchies of the big bankers and business tycoons who control 99 percent of the country's wealth. America's representatives are selected by special interest groups who are selfish and only have self-interest and indulge in self-aggrandizement. 

The Chinese government always plan and talk about how to expand business and grow the economy. But the rogue U.S. government talks about permanent wars to sustain the Pentagon's Military Industrial Complex and how to exploit and destroy other countries for regime change to enable US  imperial control and hegemony. US is always interfering in other countries'internal affairs under the guise of bringing human rights democracy to these countries. US is actually making use of human rights and democracy as a dual tool kit to control other countries to fit its own imperial agenda.

China is always trying to enhance the improvement of the lives and well being of its country folks. But the US elitist government of Washington and its mafia gangsters in Wall Street and the CIA and Pentagon is always stomping their citizenery into the ground. Logic demands US strategy to protect its population but no, the one percent elites greed overules and the oligarchy dictates policy which is heading US into a crevice for self- destruction . But they will always scapegoat China or other countries for their own problems and debacles.

The Americans have no clue about the difference between communism and socialism. The US elitist government contrary to its aversion to socialism is hypocritically practising reverse socialism for the 99 percent poor to support the one percent rich elites as frequently seen in both their qualitive and quantitative easing worth billions and trillions of dollars going to the rogues, crooks and scoundrels in Wall Street, the White House and the Pentagon. Isn't this their policy, philosophy and draconian doctrinaire practice of Darwinism, an extreme form of Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal democratic captitallism which is clearly lack of human conscience and is full of inhumanity in spirit and kind. This American elite government is self-righteous and always thinks it has the right to grow rich and power at the expense of  destabilising and destroying other countries.

The United States with all its evil agenda to subvert the world to its domination and in which it came from nowhere but through the brutal genocide of native Americans is really an illegitimate country and should be destroyed. Hopefully the Coronavirus or Covid-19 will do just that.

Southernglory1

Monday, 2nd August, 2021

 

Covid19 - New York Times vaccine safety rankings

 

 
New York Times vaccine safety rankings

1. Sinopharm 

2. Sinovac

3. Kexing 

4. CanSino

5. Astrazeneca 

6. Pfizer

7. Moderna

8. John and Johnson 

9. Novavax 

10. Satellite 5(Russian) 

This is a very interesting and revealing data from New York Times. What is more revealing are things that were not said or written and readers would have to figure out what New York Times did not say or did not want to tell.

In the first place we need to take it that New York Times did not come up with the rankings by guessing but with statistics to support it or they would be sued or accused to spreading misinformation. Pfizer, Moderna, John and Johnson, Novavax would be very unhappy with their low rankings and be ranked lower than Astrazeneca.

Let me elaborate on this point first. Astrazeneca has very bad safety records and most European countries have banned its use. The Americans have a hoard of Astrazeneca vaccines and are giving it away for fear of adverse side effects. Japan too refused to use it and dumped what they had to Taiwan.

So, how dangerous is Astrazeneca? When the Americans, Europeans and Japanese think it is not fit and unsafe to be used, trust them and stop using them as the risk is too high, unacceptable risk. Some Asean countries are still using it out of no choice as they did not have enough supplies of other vaccines. It is a case of between the devil and the deep blue sea. 

Given the fact that Astrazeneca is unsafe, bad enough to use, why should any country be using vaccines that are more unsafe than Astrazeneca?  Pfizer and Moderna are both ranked lower than Astrazeneca. Logically they should be more unsafe and should not be used. Oh, the new slogan, the benefits outweigh the risk! 

How serious is the risk compares to Astrazeneca? Now one is talking about it or reporting it. They only reported the adverse effects of Astrazeneca. Imagine how much adverse data have been covered up, not to be reported. Imagine why so many silly leaders are still singing about how good Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are and encouraging their people to use them...when it is more unsafe than the already banned in many countries Astrazeneca?  Would or should Pfizer and Moderna be banned too? Why not?

The other important point to note is NY Times is anti China and always out to smear China and of course Chinese vaccines. For them to rank four Chinese vaccines at the top, safer than their darlings Pfizer and Moderna, must be something that they had no choice but to do so. There must be overwhelming evidence that proved that the Chinese vaccines are far safer than the American vaccines. Some stupid politicians are still trying to investigate if Chinese vaccines are safe and claiming ignorance and not enough data. Surely the NY Times rankings did not mean much to them, probably unreliable.

NY Times must have all the data of the vaccines on the table for comparison. And they had the gumption to rank Pfizer and Moderna lower than even a dangerous and banned Astrazeneca said it all. They could not do otherwise. The data must have all the adverse effects of Pfizer and Moderna that the public would not be privy to, not allowed to know. But NY Times know and has to admit the facts and thus cannot say they are safer than Astrazenca or safer than the Chinese vaccines, something that they were dying to do so. And Pfizer and Moderna would not dare to sue NYT to clear their names.

Now, what do you think? Why would countries be pushing for a much unsafe vaccine to their people instead of safer vaccines? Are they mad or irresponsible or there is something else that we don't know?

I am written sometimes back that this is a rare and unusual occasion when the white people deliberately chose to inject their people with poison, an act of God, to terminate themselves. Now the proof is here. They have safer vaccines but did not want to use but insisting on using less safe vaccines. How not the white men destroy themselves willingly when they chose to act based on political exigency?

The full impact of injecting poison into their bodies would only blossom in the near future, maybe 5 years or more. By then it would be too late for those injected with these unsafe vaccines. By then there is no way to rewind the clock. The rice would be cooked.

Good riddance for the evil crimes against humanity committed over a few centuries. The debt must be repaid.

With the finding that the mRNA vaccines did not or cannot prevent the infection, many are still stubbornly sticking to the belief that mRNA vaccines are still the panacea, the must have vaccines, the must jab to be safe. But this narrative is changing and the new narrative is that it would prevent an infection from getting worse with statistics selected to substantiate the belief. How real is this? Is it too much to admit that the narrative of the best thing to have is falling apart, not as what was bragged and believed? Only time will tell.

PS. You have been warned by NYT that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are less safe than Astrazeneca. In another word, poison, as some scientists have called them.

Was the US Invasion of Afghanistan Legal Under International Law? - Part 3 + 4

It is quite clear that insufficient efforts were made by the US to pursue peaceful solutions or further dialogues and negotiations, as President Bush had give an ultimatum of two weeks for the Taliban to hand over suspected terrorists. When this time frame is compared to that of other international conflicts, for example the Israel-Palestine conflict, in which it had taken a tremendous amount of time to broker deals. Conversely, the Afghanistan government was given hardly any reasonable time to comply or discuss its problems, issues or reservations.

The law that was used by the US to justify the need for the invasion was Article 51 of the UN Charter, which deals with the issue of self-defence.

President George W Bush announced, in a speech delivered after the first strike on Afghanistan, "We have called up reserves to reinforce our military capability and strengthen the protection of our homeland." It can be seen through this quote, and many others by President George W. Bush, that the US believed its actions were justified on the grounds of self-defence. This justification was used because it was alleged that if Afghanistan was not contained, more terrorist attacks would occur in the US and elsewhere around the world.

However, the issue of self-defence could be raised by the Afghan people themselves too, as resistance against NATO and US forces and their perceived aggression could in itself equate to individual self-defence, countering the collective, national self-defence that the US claimed.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were not carried out by one state acting aggressively against the US. They were the actions of a terrorist organisation that had no direct links to the government of any state. This logic could also be used by Afghanistan to argue that the response of Afghans who subsequently joined resistance movements did so in retaliation to a pre-emptive strike by the US, as the 9/11 attacks cannot directly be traced back to Afghanistan.

In relation to a state fighting a non-state actor, if it was necessary for the US to invade a country in order to eliminate Al Qaeda, then it can be argued that Saudi Arabia would have been a more logical choice than Afghanistan. This is because many reports over the years have suggested that Al Qaeda was formed, funded and trained by Saudi Arabia. This is affirmed by Wikileaks cables which mention this fact.

Legal scholar Olivier Corten states that there was ‘nearly unanimous political opposition to the Taliban regime’. Nonetheless even though there was strong opposition to the Taliban by various international organisations and states, regime change is not itself a substantial enough reason to allow for an invasion of one country by another. Thus, this justification for intervention by the occupying forces would not be seen as credible or permissible under international law. Furthermore, the Taliban were initially welcomed by the majority of the Afghan population when they came to power as they worked to eradicate ‘warlords and banditry’.

That is why an alternative narrative came into existence after the invasion had been going on for a while, namely that the invasion of Afghanistan by US and NATO forces was a humanitarian mission. And that the mission’s aim was to liberate the Afghan people and bring them democracy by eradicating the Taliban hold on the country.

Another important part of the Charter which needs to be mentioned is Article 2(3), which states that all disputes should be solved in a peaceful manner in order to ensure global peace and security. With this Article in mind, it seems that not enough effort was made to determine whether the objectives that the US wanted fulfilled by Afghanistan could be reached in such a manner. The threatening tone used by the former US President George W. Bush when addressing the issue, including the fact that he only gave the Taliban two weeks to hand over the suspected terrorists, suggests that this Article 2(3) was ignored entirely.

The issue of a state using force against a non-state actor is a contentious and compelling area that also needs to be analysed. Even though the Taliban was the only form of government in Afghanistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was not. Thus, the war in Afghanistan with the aim to eradicate a non-state actor could be seen as beyond the scope of necessity and proportionality. This is because Al Qaeda did not have the kind of influence and control that the Taliban did in Afghanistan, so invading the country in order to eradicate them could be seen in a legal context as disproportionate and therefore illegitimate.

One more key issue to consider here is the principle of State Sovereignty. Afghanistan was primarily invaded due to the fact that people who the US considered to be terrorists linked to the 9/11 attacks and living in Afghanistan at the time were not handed over to the US. But it seems dialogue and diplomacy could have been pursued in order to reach an agreement, rather than rushing to the conclusion that an invasion was the only means for the US to achieve its objectives. This is because International Law states that other means to resolve disputes should be looked into before considering the act of war. This is affirmed by Article 2(4) of the UN charter which states that:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

But due to the fact that the US government believed that it was acting to prevent further loss of civilian life by the perceived future threat of Al Qaeda, such objectives could be viewed as being humanitarian and not territorial or political, as was done in Kosovo, thus leading people to believe that such an operation was more legitimate than any other form of conflict.

However, George W Bush only gave the Taliban two weeks to hand over terrorist operatives and it seems that no other forms of negotiations were engaged in, so not all that could be done to prevent war was undertaken by the US and the NATO states that subsequently invaded Afghanistan.

Washington had failed to recognise the opposition to Al Qaeda, which was vast in the Muslim world. If the US had looked to work with such groups, the spread of Al Qaeda might have been better contained than it is at present.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the Taliban was reluctant to give up these alleged terrorists for numerous reasons, one of the main ones being that it could have caused unrest in Afghanistan if it was not a move that the majority of the Afghan population supported. And given that Afghanistan had already suffered a bloody and devastating civil war, this was a serious issue that needed to be considered.

Another issue to consider was the fact that declaring war on the basis of one terrorist attack could be seen as going against the principles of necessity and proportionality when looking to engage in war, even if a state is relying on self-defence as a justification for war.

SSO - 31 July 2021.

Credit is hereby declared:

This article is an adaptation and modification of an essay written by Rabia Khan for a Master's program at the University of London. It was written in January 2013 and published on 6 November 2013.