A year ago, I was having a conversation with my friend. We were talking about the Gulf War actually, when suddenly my friend gave me a hypothesis to think off. Here is the hypothesis,

Hypothesis: Imagine that there was a large nuclear warhead, fully armed and deadly, and was hidden somewhere inside the White House. The only way to detonate the warhead is through long-ranged a remote detonator, who do you think will have enough guts to execute it?

A puzzled question isn't? Well, here's the answer according to my friend..

Answer: If that remote was brought to space and thrown randomly down to earth, it can landed anywhere. But as long as it didn't landed on American soil, then it may not take long before somebody picked it up and push the red button.

I think it was intended to be a cheap humor, but the hypothesis did struck me deeply. Later months after that, I was watching the movie `Crimson Tide' which featured Denzel Washington as a C.O. of a nuclear submarine. In one of the early scene, one of the crew members said an unforgettable lines; "a lot of country would love to drop a bomb on us.."

The hypothesis above may seems harsh and I have no intention whatsoever to suggest violence against the American people. But it was actually the truth, and such hypothesis might be useful for us to realize what lurked deep in people hearts. Ask any non-US citizen how it feels to see disastrous movie like `DEEP IMPACT', `GODZILLA', and `ARMAGEDDON'. Ask their opinion about the scenes where New York City was destroyed by giant waves, huge dinosaur and big rocks from the sky. Asked them if they `enjoyed' the scene, believe me when I say that they `did'.

So why is that? Why are there so many anti-American feelings around the globe? Does the United States has become the `crook of the century' especially after the end of the Cold-War? The Americans might think that their government is the most beloved government on earth, but is it?

I don't think jealousy has anything to do with it. The anti-American sentiment are there across the globe and it is spreading like a cancer. Even in some country like Japan where the wealth accumulated is enough to prevent jealousy, the sentiment is still there and people talked about it. You might also say that it was the media to blame, but in this world where the American-based media like CNN, BloomBerg, Reuters, and lot others control most of the TV screen, it was quite impossible to say so. So is it because of skin colors? Well, the Russian are white as well as some European countries like the Czech and the Germans, but the sentiment is still there eventhough not obvious.

So why is it? And does the sentiment include the general population of US?

No, clearly not. The American tourists were free to go anywhere and the sentiments weren't there yet.

So who's to blame for?

It's pity that the whole country will have to face the hatred caused by a bunch of arrogant people especially those in a high places. Much of the hatred was caused by a bunch of politician, military personnel, and officer from White House, Pentagon and CIA center in Langley. The hatred also caused by a bunch of senator and congressional representative which seems doesn't know to control their big mouth. But the recent development in the world event is the existence of another bunch of people who couldn't restrain themselves from provoking other countries, and they were called `the human rights movement'.

Actually, the movements were originally established based on noble cause. I mean, if you could only read their mission statements, then you might get an impression that they were angels sent to earth by God. But thanks so much to the American newspaper, which introduced these movements to the world of rich and famous, slowly this movement were getting out of track. They become bias and can be bought. If the situation is popular, then they'll jump to join in. If it can generate funds, then surely they are willing to kiss somebody ass. In the end, they behave like lawyers, which as people know, are no longer interested in justice, but money and fame. (for all those lawyers who might read this and try to deny such statements, all I have to say is "please, give me a break will ya?")

Lets take a few examples through the world history. First let us see how the American Government behaved and see whether what they did fits the human rights principles which they keep harping on. During the World War 2, the American invented the first mass-destruction weapon which were known as `the atomic bomb'. But in 1945 when the bomb finally available, there were no needs for the bomb because the Germans and the Japanese were losing their post one by one in the battleground. The Japanese for example, were weakening because of continues lost on the Pacific sea. But instead of waiting for the white flag to raise naturally, the Americans flied their much beloved `EnolaGay' (is it a gay airplane?) and dropped not one, but two bombs on two cities packed with civilians!!

The question is, why Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why on civilians head? Why not try dropped it somewhere in Pacific Islands where the Japanese centralized their military activity? If soldiers die then it would be acceptable because soldiers killed and get killed in war. But civilians?! Why dropped 2 instead of 1? There is no need to use two bombs because one is enough to send the message to the Emperor. Is it such an American way to get angry to soldiers, but dropped bombs on civilians instead?

Then there is a questionable ways on how the White House handled the Iraqis and the Lockerbie issue which involved 2 Libyans. Based on logic, a few millions of Iraqis civilians deserve more human rights then one Saddam Hussien. It is also the same in the Lockerbie issue, the majority of civilians have more rights for food and better economy, and thus shouldn't be punished for the sake of two Libyans. But what did the American do? What did the United Nations do? And most of all what did the Human Rights people do on that issue? While the Americans and the UN Security Council executed a deadly six years embargo on the Libyans, the Human Rights movements just keep silent and smiled from distance. People were dying because of the embargo against Iraq and they weren't loud enough in condemning it. People were unable to better their lives in Cuba because of the American, but they also didn't say a word about it. Are these the kind of people who claimed themselves as the knight in shining armor? Excuse me.. Uhuk! Uhuk! Uweek!

There're so many other examples like in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Haiti, in Afghanistan, in Vietnam, in China, In Palestine and even in the United States itself. But as I said they only bark where the echo is loud or where there were no sign puts by the White House saying "DO NOT BARK HERE". Sometimes they did roared like Godzilla, but when Uncle Sam start petting their head, they turned the volume down and start bark like a puppy. That's how they treat Indonesia, when Suharto was still up there, they roared but when Suharto is down, they tuned the volume down eventhough bloods were still flowing (even worse!) in Indonesia today.

Other examples of such a `disturbing behaviour' by the Human Rights Movement is on how they react to a direct Human Rights intervention by the United States. This is a country who punish people to death because of `FX nerve gas' (Algeria & Afghanistan) and `Nuclear Test' (Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, & India) while they themselves stored more FX nerve gas and nuclear warhead to wipe the entire earth population! The US army even used nerve gas and chemical warfare in Vietnam, and now they claimed that they are the ultimate upholder of the so-called human rights?? And what did the human rights movements do on these issues? Well, maybe they did `whispered' something, compared to how loud thier voices are in Anwar Ibrahim issue then it's nothing. Most of the times, they just stood there like the Statue Of Liberty - pretty enough but useless as a rock. These facts can be judged by the way their failure to condemn the United States eventhough the US refused to sign the land mine treaty and the US refusal to recognise the establishment of the War Criminal Court Of Justice.

The so-called Human Rights movements also failed to follow the ultimate rules of the Human Rights itself. You see, even in Human Rights there's a common rules which said `some rights are far more important then other rights'. For examples, everybody knows that the `right to live' and `the right to defend oneself' is far more important than the `right for freedom of speech'. If you asks hungry people or people at war, they'll for sure doesn't give a damn on `free speech' at times like that. But today we have seen the ultimate `turn-around' in Human Rights movement. `Free Of Speech' become everything, and the other rights is nothing. It is funny to think that they fight for free of speech more than anything, I mean... can a man talk or make a speech if he's dead?

Lets take a tour through out human history and see how it relates to one another. When BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA declared independence from Yugoslavia, the Human Rights movements clapped their hand around and urged the world to recognise BOSNIA for thier guts to stand and speak for themsleves. It was a glorious moment in the `free speech' era. But later when the Bosnian were slayed, killed and gunned down by the Serbs, the American imposed a ban against any military support to Bosnia. So what did the Human Rights movement do about that deadly ban? People were dead because they were unable to defend themselves. Turki, Egypt, Iran and even Malaysia were accused by CNN for `exporting' guns and bullets to the Bosnians. The ban was actually a direct intervention against the first rule of Human Rights which is `TO LIVE' and `TO DEFEND ONESELF'. Did they bark loud enough? Yeah.. yeah.. they did put a shows by condemning the Serbs for the mass-raping and the holocoust. But as I said, it was just a show to amuse us.

And let us take a look on the double standard practised by the American in `Bosnia' issue and `Kuwait' issue. When Kuwait were attacked by Saddam Hussien, the Americans exported all their heavy arsenals to protect Kuwait. The reason was `Kuwait was a small country and were unable to protect itself'. Okay, fair enough but how about Bosnia then?.... Okay! So the American Administration didn't want to help Bosnia? that's acceptable. It's the Americans tax payers money and it's the American guns we're talking here. So it's up to them on how to use it and who might get it. But at least if you don't want to help, you shouldn't stop others who might want to help!! It's a cruel and arrogant thing to do... and amongst all.. it's inhumane. As I said before, it prevented the Bosnian from exercising their first human right principle which is `to live', and the so-called Human Rights Movement didn't do anything about it.

In one of the statement issued by the American Administration (thru Mr.Rubin), they stated that "everybody must get a fair trial in an open court" and "everybody must be allowed to defend themselves". Hmm.. seems fair enough and I agreed. But I do doubt the credibility of the people who made the statements because it seems to me that they only know how to say it, but not how to do it. Lets us look back on the recent event when the President signed a piece of paper which allowed a missile attack on Afghanistan and Algeria. First they hold a closed session to discuss the attack, not even the accused (Afghanistan and Algeria) knew they were being accused. God knows what was it that convinced them to launch the missiles. When asked for public checking, they said they cannot expose the evidence nor the details because of `national interest'. Then the President (whom is facing a political difficulties because he had re-defined the real purpose of `cigar') came forward and said that the evidence which convinced him to launch the attack is a `pile of dirt'. Excuse me... A DIRT????... and he even refused to let the public to examine the precious `evidence'.

A DIRT?!!!!... Didn't he know that 40% of the earth surface is covered with dirt? There's even a ton of dirt in my backyards and if he wanted it, then he can get it for free! It's unbelievable that the President Of The United States could launch missiles attack because of a pile of dirt. I think the ICJ (International Court Of Justice) should record this event as the most hilarious `evidence' ever exists. I mean, a prosecutor can bring murder weapon with blood still dripping to court and still it would be argumentative. But the White House, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the United Nation could simply punish two sovereign countries based on EXHIBIT A.. which is.. jeng! jeng! (music please!).. `A PILE OF DIRT'!!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!... and these people talk about justice?

The American media is even biased. They manipulate the sources and hide the truth. It's so bias that it is worse than sucks! the TIMES for example, Mahathir pictures were choosed carefully, and only pictures with Mahathir look like a Mob godfather would be approved for display. My penpal once said, "They're unfortunate that there is no picture of Mahathir holding a toy-gun because if there is, then surely it will win the Pulitzer!". Not only that, when they cannot get visuals bloody enough to show in CNN, they used the Indonesian visuals and described it as Malaysia!! Also the way they described the Indonesian demonstration sucks! Take Reuters and AFP for example, whenever they have to mention the demonstration, they will say it like this;

"IT WAS THE DEMONSTRATION WHICH FORCED SUHARTO TO STEP DOWN" (full stop)

Sound noble isn't it? It gives the impression that the only unlucky person affected by the demos is Suharto alone. I wonder when they are going to mention it properly, which in my opinion should sound like this;

"IT WAS THE DEMONSTRATION WHICH WAS RESULTED IN HUNDREDS OF DEATH, AT LEAST 160 RAPES, AND BUILDINGS BURNED. IT WAS ALSO THE DEMONSTRATION WHICH LEAD TO THE SOCIAL UNREST IN BANYUWANGI TODAY, WHERE THERE WERE REPORTS ABOUT VICTIMS BEING BEHEADED, HUNG AND BURNT ALIVE. IT WAS THE DEMONSTRATION WHICH SPARKED VIOLENT RIOT WHICH FORCED PRESIDENT SUHARTO TO STEP DOWN" (full stop)

Got my point? Now let us see how they described the situation in Malaysia.

"THERE WERE RIOTS IN MANY PLACES IN MALAYSIA LAST WEEK"

Uh uh! Sounded like El-Salvador in 1980s isn't? Probably those who read such statements will get an impression that dead bodies were laying all over Kuala Lumpur and buildings were burning like a warzone. The truth is, it should sounded like this;

"THERE WERE DEMONSTRATION ALONG JALAN TUANKU ABDUL RAHMAN LAST SATURDAY. AS USUAL, THE DEMONSTRATIONS WERE HELD ONLY ON SATURDAY AND NOT EVERYDAY. THERE WERE IN ABOUT 500 PARTICIPANTS AND THE POLICE MANAGED TO DISPERSE THEM IN ABOUT 6.00 PM. THERE WERE NO VIOLENCE EXCEPT ONCE WHEN 100 YOUNG DEMONSTRATOR CLASHED WITH THE POLICE IN KAMPUNG BARU WHICH RESULTED IN TWO POLICE GETTING BEATEN. THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS BEING BURNT OR PEOPLE GETTING KILLED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO DEMONSTRATION BEING HELD SINCE THE TRIAL OF ANWAR IBRAHIM STARTED"