How Do We Know Which One Is The Real God?

Which One is the real God?

A common question that is asked when it comes to the belief of God is, which one is the real God? There have been thousands of different Gods throughout human history. How do we know which one is the real God?

The word God is used very loosely. It is sometimes used as an adjective to describe things or people. To answer which one is the real God, it is important to first understand the definition of God.

Definition of God in Islam

There are many different definitions and concepts for God in different religious and non-religious beliefs. From my current understanding, the only concept of God that has made sense to me is the concept of God in Islam.

In Islam, Allah (Arabic name for God) is a perfect omnipotent being with no beginning and no end. There is only one real God. God is beyond human understanding and any image you have of God in your head is not what God actually looks like. God is not an object or person and has no gender. God has no limitations in any aspect and anything is possible for him.

Many things do not fit this definition which are referred to as God. This definition makes it clear who the real God is in Islam and how to distinguish the real God from man made concepts for God. Here are some examples:

Is Jesus God? In Islam Jesus is not God because he is not an omnipotent being, he was a human. He needed to sleep, eat and was not perfect.

Is Zeus God? In Islam Zeus is not God because he is depicted as a person and a person cannot be God.

Is Brahma from Hinduism God? In Islam Brahma is not God because although he has 4 heads and arms, his image is based on a human.  He has human characteristics which means he is not perfect and does not fit the definition of God.

This definition rules out 99%  of things or people which are referred to as God. As far as I am aware, the only concept for God that is similar to the concept of God in Islam is in Judaism. However the God in Islam and Judaism is the same God. Muslims and Jews believe Abraham, Moses, just to name a few were prophets, were sent by God. If they believe the same prophets were sent by God then they must believe in the same God. The difference is that Muslims believe Jesus and Muhammad were also prophets sent by the same God but Jews do not.

No one has seen God

Another argument for who the real God is, is that no one has seen God. No one knows what God actually looks like. Therefore any images for God must be man made. This is the reason why many images for ‘God’ are depicted as people. Such as Jesus, Zeus or Brahma with human characteristics but with 4 heads and arms.

Whether it is the white man image of Jesus, the picture of Zeus, Brahma, or an old man with a white beard in TV shows or movies. These are all man made images and concepts about God.

This again proves most concepts about God is false apart from the Abrahamic God in Islam and Judaism which has no image for God.

Islamic explanation for the many man made concepts for God

Islam teaches that God sent prophets to people to remind them that he is the one real God and to worship nothing else but him. However mankind over hundreds of years kept forgetting God’s message and due to their desires they attribute other things to God. Mankind would start to worship idols and people as God through man made creations.

People who were well respected by their communities were eventually worshiped as God by ancient civilisations. When a respected leader or person of huge importance passed away. People would draw pictures, create graves and statues after them. Gradually over hundreds of years people would start to worship them as God, forgetting that there were just human.

A modern analogy to this is football. Some people refer to the Argentinian footballer Messi as the God of football. Football is like a religion to some people. Who knows whether after hundreds of years if people will make myths about footballers and will start to worship them as God.

It is this confusion that makes people ask which one is the real God. If you understand the definition of God from an Islamic perspective then it is easy to answer this question. There is one real God. No one has seen God therefore the images, people and idols that are called God are man made concepts about the one real God.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Is Slavery In Islam Encouraged?

Quran verses on slavery in Islam

A common argument is that slavery in Islam is encouraged, or that Islam did not eradicate slavery. In the Quran slaves are referred to as ‘those whom your right hand possess.’ The Quran actually teaches to free slaves in many verses:

And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake – then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased’s family [is required] unless they give [up their right as] charity – 4:92

And those who pronounce thihar (leaving their wife) from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said – then [there must be] the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do. 58:3

Allah will not impose blame upon you for what is meaningless in your oaths, but He will impose blame upon you for [breaking] what you intended of oaths. So its expiation is the feeding of ten needy people from the average of that which you feed your [own] families or clothing them or the freeing of a slave. – 5:89

And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. – 24:33

Sexual slavery in Islam is forbidden

Another common argument is that sex with slaves is permitted in Islam. This can easily be proved incorrect. There is no such thing as sex outside of marriage in Islam as it is one of the major sins. Sex is only permitted after marriage. Here is the verse taken out of context:

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. 4:24

If we look at the rest of the verse:

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. 24:33

It is clear that sex with slaves is not permitted. You have to marry your slave first which would free them. They would then be your wife and no longer your slave. Only then is sex permitted. Here are other verses also mentioning that you must marry the slave first before you can have sex:

And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. 4:25

And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. 4:3

Why did Islam not ban slavery

Slavery was not something that could be banned overnight. At the time of the 7th century there was no period in human history where slavery did not exist. Slavery dates back to the earliest known records of human civilisations in ancient Egypt, India and China.

Slaves depended on their masters for food and shelter. Immediately banning slavery would make former slaves homeless and unable to provide for themselves. There were slaves where their fathers, grandfathers and their entire family history was all in slavery. However some slaves were even better off than some free people, who were struggling to provide for themselves. Many free people would sell themselves into slavery if they struggled to feed themselves.

A modern day analogy would be computers. Hypothetically, if we found out that computers emit radiation which causes cancer. Could we then ban computers immediately? Of course not. Planes without coordination would be colliding with each other, cars would crash into each other without traffic lights, just to name a few of the problems that it would cause. Computers could only be banned gradually.

Computers are so embedded in modern  society similar to how slavery was so embedded in ancient civilisations. Islam knew it could not be eradicated immediately but gradually. Islam also taught to treat slaves better and to give them rights as slavery was being gradually phased out and becoming less common.

And Allah has favored some of you over others in provision. But those who were favored would not hand over their provision to those whom their right hands possess so they would be equal to them therein. Then is it the favor of Allah they reject? 16:71

Under Islam, a slave could ask their master to free them at any time. Slavery in Islam was more of an occupation for poor people to support themselves. They were given the same rights as free people such as marrying free people. Under non-Muslim slavery, slaves were considered sub-human and they were forbidden from marrying free people.

And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. – 24:33

If that is not enough, then here is another verse teaching to free slaves.

Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets and gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveler, those who ask [for help], and for freeing slaves; [and who] establishes prayer and gives zakah; [those who] fulfill their promise when they promise; and [those who] are patient in poverty and hardship and during battle. Those are the ones who have been true, and it is those who are the righteous. – 2:177

It can be concluded that anyone who claims Islam promotes slavery or sex with slaves is ignorant about Islam.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Is The US Government The Biggest Terrorist In The World


Definition of terrorism

Does the actions of the US government make it a terrorist state? Lets look at the definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence, especially against civilians, the pursuit of political aims. Now lets look at some of the actions of the US government that fits this definition.

Has the US government used nuclear weapons against civilians?

Two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in 1945 during World War 2 . This fits the definition of terrorism. The US government used violence and specifically targeted civilians to achieve their political aim of defeating Japan during WW2.

Common counter arguments to this are that nuclear bombs prevented further deaths as it ended WW2. Also that Japan deserved this for their horrific crimes during WW2. Both are true. However it still does not change the fact that it was terrorism. Civilians were targeted and there was a political aim.

The US did not have to target civilians in Japan. The US could have used the nuclear bombs on Japanese army bases or on the Japanese government. It was an act of terrorism.

August, 1945 : Nagasaki, Japan – Aerial photo of before and after of atomic bombing of Nagasaki during the Pacific campaigns of World War II. 

Has the US government used chemical weapons against civilians?

During the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971, Agent Orange is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military. Agent Orange was a mixture of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D.

Nearly 20 million U.S. gallons of chemical herbicides and defoliants were sprayed by US. As well as Vietnam they were also sprated in eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. 

The government of Vietnam has said that 4 million of its citizens were exposed to Agent Orange. As many as 3 million have suffered illnesses because of it; these figures include the children of people who were exposed to Agent Orange. Agent Orange caused deformation among Vietnamese babies.

US planes spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam

Has the US government supported dictators?

After the US backed Shah of Iran was ousted by Islamic revolution in Iran. The US government supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq war to topple the Iranian government. Support included several billion dollars’ worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.

Over 500,000 Iraqis and Iranians were killed as a result of the Iraq-Iran war.

Former US sectrary of defense Donald Rumsfield
meeting former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

Has the US government started illegal invasions of countries based on lies?

We now know that the 2003 Iraq war was based on lies. Over a million Iraqis, 4491 US soldiers, and wounded 33000 US soldiers were killed because of a war the US government started.

The US government has killed more Americans than the number of Americans killed on 9/11. 

The media will not be label the actions of the US government as terrorism. The word terrorist was created by people in power to generalise Muslims. Similar to how the n-word is a label created for black people. 

They are projecting the message that you can use violence as much as you want against civilians to achieve your political aims. It is not terrorism unless you are a Muslim.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

The West’s Hypocrisy On Chemical Weapons

Western governments using chemical weapons to achieve their political aims


Western governments have been using chemically developed weapons to help achieve their political aims in recent years. The first example of this was to help get rid of the dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq in 2003. 

Western governments wanted to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam for other reasons. However since Saddam used chemical weapons against his people over 20 years ago, the West used it as one of the excuses to invade Iraq in 2003.


Chemical Weapons were again used as a reason to get rid of the Libyan dictator Gaddafi in 2011. Again this was many years after Gaddafi had used chemical weapons, it was merely an excuse to invade Libya. 


The chemical weapons excuse tactic was also used to try and get rid of the dictator Assad from Syria. When there were reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria, all Western media groups blamed it on Assad without any investigation being carried out.

It was later found that the chemical attacks were carried out by the Free Syrian Army rebels that had joined ISIS, who were being supported by Western governments.


Chemical weapons was not used as an excuse to get rid of and to put pressure on the Iranian government. Instead Nuclear weapons was used as a scare mongering tactic to sanction Iran’s government.

This is despite Iran stating thousands of times that it is enriching Uranium for Nuclear energy. Meanwhile the US government keeps quiet on North Korea who actually have Nuclear weapons and has actually threatened the US.

Example of a Western government using chemical weapons

Agent Orange on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia

Agent Orange is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

The United States military sprayed nearly 20 million U.S. gallons of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia. 

US planes spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam

It seems very hypocritical of Western governments using chemical weapons as a reason to bomb third world countries or to support extremist groups to destabilize their countries. Particularly since Western governments are guilty of using chemical weapons themselves.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

What Is The History Behind Extremist Muslims

Name of the ideology extremist Muslims follow

The roots of modern day extremist Muslims can be traced to the last 200 years. When an extremist Muslim kills innocent people through suicide bombings what are the cycle of events that takes place? The media reports how many people are killed, world leaders state the obvious and condemn the attacks, and the cycle repeats. No one looks at or discusses the root cause of the problem.

The name of the ideology that Muslim extremists follow is Wahhabism. Wahhabism was founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the 18th century.

However where were all of the suicide bombings and terrorist attacks in the 19th and 20th centuries if Wahhabism is the reason for extremist Muslims. There are some other important factors that has played a role.

Saudi oil funding extremism

The first factor was the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938. Oil provided Saudi Arabia with vasts amount of wealth to spread it’s ideology Wahhabism throughout the Middle East and Africa.

The Saudis built thousands of Mosques and paid thousands of preachers to spread it’s ideology. The extremist Muslim preachers target poor regions in rural regions because most people there are uneducated let alone educated on Islam.

It is easier to brainwash people who know very little about Islam and follow cultural practices rather than people who are educated on Islam.

It has taken the Saudis a few decades from 1938 to create a generation of Muslim extremists in the Middle East and Africa who have joined extremist groups causing the problems we are now seeing.

Terrorism being used to defeat the Soviets

The next factor that played a very important role was the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan during the cold war. To defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the US funded Muslim extremists through Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. “Oddly” one of those extremists was Osama Bin Laden.

The Muslim extremists formed a group known as the Mujahideen who fought the Soviet Union forcing them to withdraw from Afghanistan. This was important because it was the first case in history where extremists were used and they were successful in achieving the political interests of the US.

Terrorist groups suddenly popping up in the last few decades

The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1986. Now lets look at the years when recent Muslim extremist groups were formed:

Al Qaeda – 1988

Taliban – 1994

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (IS) – 1999

Boko Haram in Nigeria – 2002

Al Shabab in Somalia – 2006

If the Mujahideen was created by the US, did the other groups just suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere on their own? Perhaps the groups turned to extremism after carrying out the work for the US’s political interests in the Middle East? Or maybe the US is also funding other extremist groups to get rid of other leaders like Gaddafi, Assad. That is for you to decide. However the link is clear between the US supporting extremist groups and then other extremist groups suddenly appearing around the same time.

However it is common sense that groups who fight government armies and who take over countries need lots of recruiting, organising and training. The Taliban has existed for 23 years, why does no one question where their weapons are coming from and who has funded them over a period of 23 years?.

These are the questions the media and government leaders should be focusing on in order to combat Muslim extremists.

The reason the media and governments turn a blind eye on these questions is because the media and governments benefit from terrorism.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Industries And Groups That Benefit From Terrorism

Terrorism benefiting the Arms industry

One of the industries that benefits from terrorism is the Arms industry. The saying goes, money is the root of all evil. The more you look into the root cause of a problem you will eventually find it is caused by money and greed.

The Arms industry benefiting from terrorism is a no-brainer. Terrorism leads to conflict, which leads to wars, which leads to a demand for weapons, which leads to billions of dollars for arms manufacturers.

The media 

The second industry that benefits from terrorism is the media. It is important to realise that the different media organisations are businesses which want to make money through selling papers, magazines, advertisements and promoting agendas for the people that own them; such as starting wars.

There are very few impartial news organisations. News outlets try to create exaggerated and controversial headlines to sell papers and increase their profits. Terrorism gives them that opportunity.


The final group that benefits from terrorism are governments. After all, the main purpose of terrorism is to achieve political aims. It is the perfect method for governments to get rid of leaders they do not like.

How do you get rid of Gaddafi in Libya, you pay extremists to topple his government. How do you get rid of Assad in Syria, you pay extremists to topple his government. Unless there is country like Russia with political interests in Syria as well causing the plan to fail.

These three groups, Arms manufacturers, the media and governments work together to benefit each other. Governments start conflicts to create a demand for weapons to benefit the weapons industry. The media uses propaganda to convince the public to make it easier for the government to start conflicts. An example being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The reason these three groups work together is because they are controlled by the same group of elite and powerful people.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Was Every Reason For The 2003 Iraq War A Lie

Reasons used for the 2003 Iraq war

There were many reasons used for the Iraq War in 2003 by the US and the UK. The main reasons used were:

  • Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
  • 9/11 and “War on terror.”
  • Making Iraq a democratic country.
  • To get rid of Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein because he used chemical weapons on his people.

These are four very different reasons. It seems like they tried to use as many reasons as they could think of, to try and justify the Iraq war. Maybe they did this so when one of the reasons was proven as a lie they could backtrack and use the other reason.

They did not give one clear purpose for the Iraq war. Lets dissect each of the reasons used to prove why each one was not the true reason for the Iraq war.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

The WMD reason is very easy to disprove. We now know that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The secret services were wrong. How could the secret services claim there was evidence for something that did not exist in Iraq?

Should we look into the “mistake” to find out who made up the lie? I mean it did lead to the death of more than one millions Iraqis, the destruction of Iraq and has traumatised millions of Iraqi children for life. No lets brush it under the carpet, the secret services got it wrong, ask no questions.

9/11 and the war on terror

This reason again is easy disprove in light of the facts. The mastermind of the 9/11 attack was Osama Bin Laden. He was from Saudi Arabia and not from Iraq. He was not even residing in Iraq, he was in the mountainous regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time.

There were no suicide bombings in Iraq and absolutely no terrorism in Iraq. However they used 9/11 as a reason for the Iraq war, 9/11 was the perfect excuse if you did want to invade any country. The invasion of Iraq brought terrorism to Iraq.

Making Iraq a democratic country

The problem with this reason was the timing of wanting to make Iraq a democracy. Iraq was a dictatorship under Saddam from 1979 up until 2003. If this was the reason for the Iraq war, why did the West wait 24 years to make Iraq a democratic country?

As of 2017 there are 49 countries with a dictatorship. Was the name of the country being made a democracy drawn out of the hat? Why was Iraq chosen, perhaps it had something to do with Iraq’s oil reserves.

To get rid of Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein because he used chemical weapons on his people

Again the problem with this reason for the Iraq war is the timing. Why wait 24 years to get rid of Saddam? Many years after Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and Iran in 1980s, again why wait 23 years and then use this as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq. It is like the US waiting 23 years after the 9/11 attacks and then going after Bin Laden. Furthermore CIA files showed that the US helped Saddam use chemical weapons. On top of this, the US supported Saddam’s invasion of Iran.

Donald Rumsfeld, President Reagan’s Middle East
special envoy meeting Saddam in 1983, after Saddam
used chemical weapons.

We can only speculate on the real reason for the Iraq war. However what is certain is that reasons used by the US and UK governments were lies.

The fact of matter is that Iraq had no WMDs, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism, the West was happy for Saddam to be the dictator of Iraq for 24 years until Saddam did something that the West did not like and they wanted him gone.

The British government had a public inquiry into the Iraq War known as the Chilcot report. The report was published a few days after Britain’s vote to leave Europe, in order to avoid as much attention as possible.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Paper Money Is The Biggest Scam In History

History of paper money and commodity currencies

To understand national debt we need to start with the history of paper money. The first known use of paper money was in China in the 7th century. Around a thousand years later paper money was started being used in the West in the 16th century. Paper money was very similar to a receipt when you buy items.

People who had physical valuable materials such as gold, silver and copper coins would deposit them at a bank and in return they would receive an exchange bill. They could then use this bill to withdraw their gold coins from the bank, or they could trade the bills for other items and the new owner of the bill would now own the gold coins in the bank. 

Some of the advantages for this system were that your wealth was safe as you did not have to carry it around with you. Also it was more convenient to complete larger transactions as many bags of coins were not needed. 

This was the perfect system as the paper currency was backed by physical goods that had actual value. This type of currency is known as commodity currency.

The bank could only print notes if it had the equivalent amount in actual wealth such as gold. This is important because if people no longer believed the paper money had any value then every single person could exchange their bank notes into gold which will always have value as there is a limited amount on Earth.

End of commodity currencies and the start of fiat currencies

The US Dollar used to be backed by gold and Silver. In 1971 US president Nixon ended this. Now that the US Dollar is not backed by gold or silver it is no longer a commodity currency and it is now a fiat currency. Fiat currencies have no intrinsic value that is deemed to be money by the law of the government. Other countries followed this path soon after.

The only reason fiat currencies like the US Dollar, the Euro and the British Pound has any value is because people think it has value. There is approximately 13.5 trillion US dollars in circulation as of 2017. If all of the US dollars in circulation is traded for gold at the current rate of $39,850 per kg then 338,770 tons of gold would be needed.

Only 182,000 tons of gold has been mined in all of human history. There is currently not enough gold to back up the amount of US dollars in circulation, let alone the other Fiat currencies.

Problem with fiat currencies 

  • Bond – is a piece of paper issued by a country’s government, promising to repay borrowed money and a fixed rate of interest at a specified time to whoever owns the bond.
  • Central Banks are the types of banks owned by governments which can print currency. They distribute the printed currency to commercial banks. The name for the US central Bank is the Federal reserve.

The problem with fiat currencies is that they can be printed out of thin air with no actual value to them. They can be used to fund wars, get the country out of a recession, and to bail out the banks.

In order to print currency the government creates bonds and sells the bonds to the commercial banks. The commercial banks sells the bonds the central bank for printed currency including interest. The commercial banks hands the printed currency to the government and also lends it out to people.

Who is the national debt owed to

The national debt will never be paid in full by any country. When the currency is first made, you cannot print £1000 and then promise to pay £1000 plus interest, because there is only £1000 in existence.

To pay the interest the cycle has to repeated, more bonds need to be created to pay for the old bonds and their interest. The debt and interest will exponentially increase. Austerity and cutting spending can only reduce the amount the government needs to borrow by creating bonds, it cannot completely eliminate the debt.

Therefore the national debts are owed to the people who own bonds, foreign governments, central banks, investors, to summarise it up, basically the rich. Tax payers are the people who are paying for the bonds and the interest. The debt created by governments will have to be paid by future generations of tax payers.

The system has not failed yet because not enough people know about it. The governments keep printing more currency to paper over the cracks in our economic system.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Conflict Caused By Borders Created By The West

How borders are causing conflicts

Most of the conflict in the different regions of the world seem to be caused by border disputes. Whether it is between Israel and Palestine, Pakistan and India, or African countries.

Middle East

When the Ottoman Empire was defeated at the end of World War One in 1914, the UK, France and Russia secretly divided the land in the Middle East between themselves.  

The splitting up of the Middle East was known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement which was named after the British and French statesmen, Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot. Britain had actually promised the Arabs their own land if they fought the Ottoman Empire for the British during WW1.

Britain betrayed the Arabs and took over and formed Mandatory Palestine in 1920 and Mandatory Iraq in 1921. The French took northern Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria. They created borders between ethnic groups such as Kurds which has caused conflicts.

Middle East controlled by Britain, France and Russia.

Britain betrayed the Arabs further by creating Israel after WW2 in 1948, a state just for Jewish people. Muslims, Christian and Jews lived in Palestine peacefully before the creation of Israel which has caused a never ending conflict in the region.

Map of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians


Map of the different African ethnic groups

There are many different ethnic groups in Africa. European colonialists created borders to divide African land among themselves. Again they created borders without considering the different ethnic groups which has lead to many conflicts. Most modern day African countries had their borders carved out by Europe colonialists.

South Asia 

In South Asia, Britain split India into two separate countries in 1947. Pakistan and East Pakistan (now known as Bangladesh) was formed as a state for Muslims. This was done to reduce the conflict between Muslims and Hindus.

However it started the conflict over Kashmir between Pakistan and India. Instead of uniting Muslims and Hindus as Indians they created two groups of people with different identities to create conflict in the region. 

Britain also created the Durand line, a border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Durand line split the ethnic group Pashtuns in half and has created the political conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Were these borders created to intentionally create conflicts?

We cannot say for certain whether the borders drawn out by Western countries were intentionally created to cause conflicts, or if they were created out of ignorance.

However there needs to be conflicts and wars in order for Arms manufacturers to make money. The largest weapon suppliers in the world do happen to mostly be in Western countries.

In summary, there is no denying that borders created where it was not needed has created many conflicts around the world. It has divided people and given them new identities to fight one another. Israeli vs Palestinian and Pakistani vs Indian and the list goes on.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on:

Politicians Lying; Does Democracy Need Reform

Politicians can lie without any consequences

The first issue which everyone will be familiar with is that politicians lie to win elections. They also lie to start illegal wars that benefit the politicians or the lobbyists supporting the politicians. Some examples of their lies being:

  • Reducing the UK deficit and running a budget surplus by 2017.
  • Reducing UK net migration to below 100,000 per year.
  • An extra 350mil a week for the NHS if Britain leaves the EU.
  • Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction leading to the 2003 Iraq war.
  • US president Trump promising a US-Mexico border wall and that Mexico would pay for it (of course they would).

It is understandable that not every promise can be fulfilled. However with the current system, politicians can make promises no matter how unrealistic they are in order to win elections. They could promise a free house, car and winning the lottery for every person.

Reform is needed to help prevent politicians lying. One suggestion could be that if the winner of an election breaks three or more of the policies they promised during their election campaign, then they would have to resign and another election must be held.

All politicians would have to create realistic deadline dates for each of their policies during their election campaign. This would help politicians think twice before lying about their policies.

You need financial backing to win elections

The second problem is that millions or in the case of the US billions are needed to have any chance of winning an election. Although politicians are relatively wealthy, the overwhelming majority cannot finance their own election campaign. 

This then leads to politicians looking for financial backing from wealthy individuals who own large corporations. However no one is willing to give out their money for free to politicians. The only thing that politicians can offer that no one else can, are policies that benefit the rich individuals and their corporations who are backing them, which is known as lobbying. This leads to policies not benefiting the general population but just rich individuals.

One solution to this is to reduce election campaign costs and to introduce a cap. This will help to make the election more fair for all candidates. It will ensure that no one has the advantage of having more money to advertise themselves more than the other candidates. Another obvious solution is to make lobbying illegal so that governments introduce policies that benefit everyone instead of the just lobbyists. 

Lack of diversity 

Another problem are the candidates who you can vote for during an election. The overwhelming majority of candidates were privately educated and come from elite families who are selected as leaders of their political parties by other people who were also privately educated and are from other elite families. People are given the free choice for which pre-selected candidate to vote for. A common state educated person has very little chance of being elected.

If you search for the list of political families in UK you will notice the amount of people who became politicians because their parent was also a politician. The next priminister of the UK will probably be from one of those families. They are chosen by elite families as an option for you to vote for.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below.

Share this page on: