Was the assassination of Osama Bin Laden correct?

After the assassination of Osama Bin Laden that occurred on 2 May 2011, a debate rose up around this incident, One side of the debate felt that the decision to assassinate Osama was correct, as he was a threat to countries and innocent citizens, but the other side maintained that Osama should have been given a fair trial, just like any other wrongdoer, as every human deserves the right to have a fair trial. I feel that the assassination was the correct decision, as Osama was a threat to the world, and him living would cause the al-Qaeda terrorist group to have hope. Additionally, Osama tarnished America's reputation as a superpower, as it managed to cause such a massive destruction and kill so many lives in the 911 incident.

Firstly, the reason why Osama should not live is that the fact that he is alive, can give hope to his terrorist group. the very aim of capturing Osama is to get rid of him so that al-Qaeda will be forced to disband due to the lack of a leader. However, if the USA actually just captured him, he can still inspire followers due to his very presence, and thus it will be impossible for al-Qaeda to disband. Therefore, Osama should be assassinated.

Another reason why he should be assassinated is that through the 911 tragedy, Osama and al-Qaeda had actually disgraced the USA's reputation as a super power, as they got affected so much by a terrorist group. If Osama was not killed, the USA would have shamed themselves even further, and thus the only way to repair their tarnished reputation for once and for all was to get rid of the leader of the group, who was Osama. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary for the USA to kill Osama.

Finally, Osama should be killed, as if he was merely captured, there would be a chance of him escaping again. This would motivate the al-Qaeda group to increase their rate of bombings on USA, which would not help anyone. In fact, the al-Qaeda may put so much pressure on the USA and cause them to actually release Osama. This would not be beneficial for anyone at all, and thus the simplest and quickest way was to kill Osama.

Shylock: Victim or Villain? (MOV)

           Shylock, a major character in Merchant of Venice. However, should he be classified as a bloodthirsty villain seeking for revenge, or a victim of the Christians' bullying? There is much debate about this topic, but I feel that Shylock is a victim. He lost his daughter, religion and money all due to the Venetians, and in the end, when forced to convert to Christianity, he would be shunned by both the Jews and the Christians. 

           I feel Shylock is a victim, as at the end of Merchant of Venice, he is only person with a bad ending. His entire fortune was given to Antonio, the one who insulted Shylock the most, and Lorenzo, who stole his only daughter. This makes him a victim, as in addition to not having his revenge on Antonio, Shylock is forced to give away his money, the only possession that he really loved, to his arch enemy Antonio, who insulted him and his religion, and Lorenzo, who stole Shylock's daughter who was the second most important in his life. That was like adding insult to Shylock's injuries, as he had to give his most precious possession to two people in the world that he hated most. Therefore, Shylock is a victim.

           Additionally, Shylock was also forced to convert to Christianity. In addition to being the religion that his enemies have, converting to Christianity also turns Shylock into a "in-between", as his Jew friends will desert him, but the Christians would also not want to associate with him. Even his daughter, who was once always by his side, would no longer be seen as related to him any more, being on the side of her lover, Lorenzo. Therefore, Shylock has truly been turned into a lone man, whom no one would want to know nor like. Therefore, Shylock is a victim.

Cyber bullying

In today's society, cyber bullies are everywhere, hiding behind a mask of anonymity and sending hurtful comments from behind a laptop/desktop screen. It is a very serious problem, and can cause much psychological harm to the victim, resulting in effects such as depression for the victim. The victim would also certainty suffer from low self esteem, a long term effect which will affect the victim's future life. Therefore, I feel that it should be stopped at all costs.

Firstly, cyber bullying can cause problems such as depression in the victim, which might then lead to a suicide. In recent years, there has been an increasing spate of cases of suicide, due to cyber bullying by classmates. Sometimes, the bullying is due to the pent up anger/stress inside the bully, and thus he/she releases it by taking pleasure from hurting others. However, this is the wrong way to relieve stress. Though the bullies might feel relieved, the victims do not. Action must be taken against cyber bullying, to ensure that this is prevented.

Additionally, the victims suffer from long term effects such as low self esteem, which can then affect them in their future, causing them to become timid or affecting their school/work performance. Also, the victims sometimes turn into bullies themselves, due to their low self esteem, hence they want to establish superiority over something to prove that they are strong. This will not be good, as how can our society progress if it is made up of just bullies and victims? Therefore, cyber bullying should be stopped.

In conclusion, bullying should be stopped at all costs. It harms our society by reducing the number of talented workers we have, as well as cause tragedies to happen, in the form of suicides or shootings.Quoting Randy Harrison,"The bullying stopped once I claimed myself and proved that I wasn't afraid. A lot of it was when I was hiding when I was younger." If the victims of bullying stop hiding and start seeking help, bullying can be eliminated.

Arranged marriages

Marriages can be split into two categories, one of which is the love marriage commonly seen in movies, where after a long trial of hardship and such, the two lovers get married out of true love. However, there is a lesser known type, where marriage is arranged between parents of the to be husband and wife without their consent. Often, the to be couple have never even seen each other before, and their marriage is their first meeting with each other. One may think that arranged marriages only happened in the past, and would be impossible in today's society of outspoken youth. In fact, arranged marriages are still largely practiced in South Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and to some extent in Southeast Asia and East Asia.

"What is so wrong about arranged marriages?", some may ask. They feel that arranged marriages are beneficial for the parents' offspring, as the parents use the benefit of experience to help their child choose partners that they feel are most suited for them, with the best values. This would solve one of the problems in a love marriage, where the two sides marry on impulse and end up divorcing after the initial feelings fade.

However, I prefer a marriage of love, rather than arranged marriages. Imagine that one day, your parents suddenly announce to you that they have arranged a marriage to an unknown girl for you. What would be you be feeling? Shock, surprise or indignation? Marriage is an important part of a person's life, where he/she is partnered to another person for the rest of their lives, or until their divorce. Having to live and sleep with a stranger whom you just met is not a very welcomed situation. 

Additionally, in an arranged marriage, your parents or a relative chooses the partner for you. Mismatches, where the partner they chose does not get along with you well, are very likely to happen, as after all, they choose the partner that they like best, and not the one whom you might prefer. Living long term with someone who you cannot get along with well is not a very appealing prospect, and this would almost certainty lead to a divorce.

In conclusion, I feel that love marriages are preferable to arranged ones, as the chance of a mismatch is reduced, and it is better to get to know your partner better rather than find out who he/she is only on the day of marriage. Even though in arranged marriages, parents who are more knowledgeable help you choose a partner with the best values, if you are not compatible and do not get well with each other, the marriage will not succeed,

Should US have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan?

At the ending stages of World War 2, the US dropped the atomic bombs, Little Boy, upon Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and Fat Man upon Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, in a bid to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible. Till today, there had been numerous debate about this issue, and whether the atomic bombs should have been used to end the war. Personally, I agree with the US's action to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, as otherwise, there would have been more casualties, and Japan would have fought to the last, causing the war to be dragged on for much longer, prolonging the suffering of the both the prisoners and the civilians caught in the war. Also, for the US, it was preferable for the Japanese to die rather than its own citizens. Therefore, due to the reasons stated above, the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan.

The world's biggest bun fight

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/11/hongkong.bun.festival/index.html?hpt=C2

I was just surfing through the internet when I found this article about the Cheung Chau Bun Carnival, which looked very interesting. 

The Cheung Chau Bun Carnival is held on the island of Cheung Chau, and coincides with Buddha's birthday and a public holiday in Hong Kong. Being such a popular event, it attracts thousands of visitors to the island, all wanting to join in the festive atmosphere, watching the performances and buying souvenirs.


The scaling of a 'bun mountain' is the main part of the Cheung Chau Bun carnival, and in this game, participants are supposed to collect as many buns as they can and reach the top of the bun mountain, all in just two minutes. For safely purposes, the buns are covered in plastic, and the audience is watching from a safe distance.


This event is the first of its kind in the world, and this unique event attracts tons of curious visitors to the island of Cheung Chau, turning it into a lively island. This is definitely an event not to be missed, and if I have the chance, I will definitely go there the next time.

How do I define normal?

Normal is a measure of what is acceptable in current society. People who fit in society are called normal people, while other people are called abnormal. People called abnormal are just a minority who have some traits different from the majority of normal people, like differences in their attitude, beliefs, physical traits etc.

When it comes to evaluating if a person is normal or not, I use myself as the basis of comparison. If that person is too different from me, in his actions or behavior, I will think that he is weird/abnormal, while if that person has some similarities to me, I will feel that he/she is a normal person. 

However, focusing too much on normality may cause people to have to do things that they do not want to. Just because  "Everyone is doing it" does not mean that one has to do it as well. However, many people are influenced by this, and may end up doing things that they do not want to do, like stealing just because all my friends do it etc.

Also, people feel that they have the right to criticize others, just because they are different. However, there is bound to be people who act differently, and even if they are different, one still doesn't have to right to ridicule others.

In summary, I feel that the definition of normality depends on the current society and the person himself/herself. Also, focusing too much on normality, and doing things because others are doing it is not a valid reason. Also, no one has the right to criticize or ridicule people who are different, as there are bound to be people who are different from oneself.