Go against terrorism

What the terrorists in France has aimed is separation and conflict between Islamic people and the others. We should go to the way opposite to them. From that standpoint, Prime Minister Merckel was quite right when she announced that Islamic culture belonged to Germany.

What is going on in Europe or in the Middle East is not, I believe, an issue unrelated to us. For example, the riot in Syria is reported to be partly due to the drought in the farming area in Syria. About one million prople, who could not live in the devasted farming area due to the drought, have gone into big cities, where there had already been the same number of refugees owing to Iraq War. In those too densely populated cities, there happened conflicts and struggles among people due to the poverty, the lack of food, the different races, the different religions/factions or the other problems. The drought is most likely to be due to global warming. We could not be being unrelated with this issue.

With the right of collective self defence permitted against our constitution by the present cabinet, our government is likely to send the JSDF to the Middle East. They say it won't be involved in any war there. Even if their operation is limited to the logistic support to the other country's military, the JSDF must be regarded as an enemy to the opposite side, most likelily some Islamic country or organization. It would be much more probable that JSDF might be involved in war and we would be the target by the terrorists even in our country.

We should behave against the terrorist's aim. There is room for the islamic radicalism infiltrates among the people in the Middle East. It is necessary to disentangle the problems multilayered over there in one by one fashion. In doing so, we need to respect each other in religion, philosophy and political ideas. It is no use to try to destroy the other completely. It would cause the vicious cycle of hatred. I would strongly approve Merckel's announcement and the other movements in various countries to appeal for the integration of the people as the same human being.


  1. Shin,

    With regard to your JSDF involvement in the world, it is likely that Japan, as the rest of the civilized world, will have to deal with the terrorist problem sooner or later. Perhaps your government has decided to intervene prior to the realization of nuclear weapons by the disruptive forces. It is, without a doubt, the most dangerous and potentially destructive situation we face today. Indeed, recent events demonstrate that the terrorists have issued a warning to Japan. Unfortunately, disengagement would only encourage them.

    From your post, it appears that you believe “global warming” or “climate change” is a scientific fact that represents a serious threat to mankind. Would you please expound on the process that led you to that conclusion? My wife and I, as well as a number of colleagues, have been unable to come to that conclusion. Our examination began with a belief that the proponents of the theory were correct. We simply sought corroboration, which has not been convincing. This request of you is not meant to insult or demean your statements, it is a sincere request for more facts on the subject.

    As you know, I am trained in law and economics. My wife has an advanced degree in mathematics and was a teacher for many years. While we are not without analytical skills, we are not scientists. However, the practice of law is evidence based. I have examined the question of a global catastrophe due to man-made changes to the earth’s climate and have been unable to find convincing evidence of that alleged fact. It seems every examination I have undertaken of the proponents’ position very early on met with a dead-end. Nearly always, the proponents state a premise that you must simply take as a matter of faith, without true scientific basis. In addition to that, such proponents will initiate with a statement that carbon in the atmosphere has increased over the last century (true – but by percentage or ppm insignificant), that man is the cause (probably true), then go immediately to unconnected conclusions such as the planet continues to warm (not true for the past decade, at least) and weather extremes as never seen in mankind’s history have recently occurred and will continue to occur (not true on the first count, time will tell on the second). For historic weather extremes, one need only view news accounts over the past two centuries. There have been and will continue to be weather extremes. The proponents that claim hurricanes are more frequent and virulent than ever before simply do not present evidence. Increased property damage due to hurricanes is not an accurate measure, given that our populations are much greater, particularly those populations living in traditional hurricane target areas. You may recall that in the 1970’s, climate change proponents claimed a global freeze was imminent due to man-made activity. Today, the opposite is the call. It is a fact, however, that there will be another ice age, probably within a few thousand years, in which most of North America will be encased in ice. Our conclusion is that the present day climate movement is more of a political movement than scientific.

    I have colleagues more learned than I am who have reached the same conclusion. One has referred me to a website - http://wattsupwiththat.com/, which is an impressive compendium of analysis on the issue. I encourage you to visit that site. Also, as stated above, I look forward to more information on the subject.



    1. Taylor,

      Thanks for the comment.

      At first, I wanted to emphasize that the issue going on in the Middle East, especially in Syria in this case, is not only a political one. But there are multilayered facets in this issue. The drought in the farming areas there has made many refugees come into big cities, that has caused the riots among races or religions etc. I believe the global warming could be one of the major causes of the warming. It is not my intention to discuss about it in this post. Since i have been interested in this global warming, I would go on discussing about it elsewhere.

      One of the sites explaining this unequivocal phenomenon is here;


      As you know, I am not a meteorologist at all and an amateur as a global physics. It should be discussed if the global warming, though I believe it is real, is going on or not on scientific basis. The ultimate conclusion should remain as a hypothesis for the future whatever the probability might be. It the global warming is highly suspected, I believe we should get ready for that. For the result could be devastating to the next generation. It should be a problem of probabil;ity. We should not ignore the probability of global warming from the standpoint of the economic richness at present.

      I am concerned about Iraq-gate. Our government has decided to conduct collective self defence which is clearly against our constitution. It comes from "bitter" experience in the Gulf War, where Japan was criticized not to have sent in troops and soldiers there despite of donating more than one hundred million USD, Obviously, our government would send our JSDF to the Middle East. It is quite questionable if it is a right decision. Because the war with Iraq had been due to the US and the other western countries having supported Husein for the past years when the western world had been opposed to iran. The military industries in those countries have earned so much money in this support to Iraq. If the war against Iraq has had no rationality and fairness owing to this possible Iraq-gate, collective self defence conduit in the Middle East would have least reason for us.


    2. My friend Shin,

      Your statements regarding the total mess in the Middle East are not lost on me. I agree completely that the Iraq incursion and diplomatic efforts in the area have been disastrous. In a previous life, I worked in the region and interacted with numerous counterparts. When I was there, there were elements of the current terrorist insurgence, but it was well suppressed. Were it not for the oil reserves, I doubt we would have remained engaged. However, we are where we are now, and the question is: what do we do now? Disengagement would probably be equally disastrous.

      With regards to climate change, I have a number of times been on the NASA site, as well as those of NOAA and other U.S. Government agencies (though I am unsure as to why any agency but NOAA is charged with that mission). The main problem I see to their seemingly impressive mass of “evidence” is that it is nearly all outcome-based reasoning. Also, the purveyors of the sites are on the government dole and take their marching orders in a political manner. In other words, they have a vested interest in providing certain conclusions. In the U.S., we have a healthy history of distrusting the government. For my generation it came with the loss of nearly 60,000 of us to a politically prosecuted war (as well as hundreds of thousands of others maimed and/or disabled). In the current Middle East adventure, we have lost nearly 7,000 of our children and 50,000 wounded, with countless others permanently scarred. Again, political and not military considerations bear the responsibility for much of the damage. Today, our foreign policy is in total disarray. We don’t have much faith in our ability to solve the problem.

      The site I forwarded to you has provided to me the most cogent analysis of the debate. Many, if not most of the posters do not have a dog in the fight. They tend to apply scientific and deductive based reasoning to the issues. And, I guess that is the point. There are well qualified and thoughtful people who challenge the government paid proponents’ data, methods and conclusions. That is enough for me to be skeptical, if not conclusive to the issue.