Written by Ellrohir on 12.09.2012 at 16:46

because someone in USA did a movie to mock Muhammad....

It's not happening for the first time. Even South Park made a fun on him and not only him, even other leading god's( Vishnu, Buddha, Jesus and many more) are been attacked. So, what's a big deal?

If Muhammad is been made a center attacking stuff by everyone....what can everyone do about it? okay, how many times Jesus Christ is been attacked? 10? 20? fucking 1000 times. Did Christians went haywire and fucking attacking everyone?! How many Buddhists reacted when Lord Buddha showed in South Park that he doesn't know how to sit in a conference table properly and many such acts that has been portrayed.

You know what?.....Prophet Muhamaad is a loose character to take a easy dig in because he may have a funny history stack behind him. AND importantly he has. wooof!

Look, i love Muslim religion and I respect what they incorporates. But, killing or threatening isn't a specific solution for anything. I remember Family Guy took a funny gorge stint on Lord Vishnu showing sitting on cloud with Jesus and talking about what Indians did on Christmas and whatever. It was showed in a good humor and I suppose it wasn't even 0.1% offensive. Did someone react? I suppose no one. So, I think people should learn to ignore it. After all, these TV show makers are only making MONEY about it. This is open business.

@Candlemass :

Quote:
Cherished as what, is the question...for a different discussion, in a different thread.
I think it was clear that women in the Quran (or the Bible) were not my point, but the demands for respect on the grounds of "mutual respect", in principle was. To be consistent at least they could say "I'll shut you up because I value Islam more than your freedom of speech". That would be coherent in my opinion. And that's instead of using "mutual respect" as grounds because then you have to censor holy books, clerics, etc and that's not what they want.

You're generalizing here, although I think the reaction was not to scale concerning the movie this is one case where Muslims, as a nation, have risen up and declared their discontent with a "western product", the grounds of mutual respect are there I know that for a fact from my community, friends and fellow Muslims. The existence of extremists among the Islamic nation, although is harmful to our rep, definitely doesn't represent us nor our religion.

I didn't get the point of the last sentence, why should the holy books be censored if the grounds are "mutual respect" ?

Quote:
I've added a comment about results. Well, results? Heard there has been some looting going around. Islam got an even badder rep then what it already has in Western countries. And probably the real wanted result, maybe next time someone will be afraid to express himself. Deterrence.

This is the point where I agree with you, I refuse the extreme actions that some Muslims have taken, it was the moment when the protesters moved from expressing themselves in a civilized peaceful way into attacking the embassies and other shit; that I stopped defending them. But again, I don't want people to generalize, not every protest lead to chaotic extreme actions and those who acted like idiots only represent themselves and the bunch of people cheering for them.
But back to the original point, and I repeat, Muslims have the right to protest over this stupid movie and that is not shutting up the movie-maker rather than declaring discontent with his offensive product.

Written by InnerSelf on 15.09.2012 at 00:44

I didn't get the point of the last sentence, why should the holy books be censored if the grounds are "mutual respect" ?

This is the point where I agree with you, I refuse the extreme actions that some Muslims have taken, it was the moment when the protesters moved from expressing themselves in a civilized peaceful way into attacking the embassies and other shit; that I stopped defending them. But again, I don't want people to generalize, not every protest lead to chaotic extreme actions and those who acted like idiots only represent themselves and the bunch of people cheering for them.
But back to the original point, and I repeat, Muslims have the right to protest over this stupid movie and that is not shutting up the movie-maker rather than declaring discontent with his offensive product.

You are correct, on face I'm referring to the fundamentalists. Which I don't know if are "the most" or the minority.
Islam isn't referred to mostly as a nation or ethnic group, but as a religion. A way of life or a bunch of beliefs.
Western or not is irrelevant. It could be an ex-Muslim who made that film in Pakistan.

Because the "holy books" tend to not only offend but prosecute any one who doesn't believe in or conduct their lives according to. On the grounds of principled and not only pragmatic "mutual respect" (where people keep quite or polite about it) you would have to censor them.
To the extent that people truly represent themselves, I'm not sure. I don't see a person simply representing himself if he is doing it in the name of a religion or culture, may his version be "correct" of "false".

Violence isn't a way of simply showing "discontent", it is threatening by nature. They are burning flags, cars, buildings, throwing rocks and petrol bombs, chanting "Death, death to America, death, death to Israel." And this is happening in a huge number of countries: Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, they attacked a German embassy (why?), rioting and killing in Sinai (why?), someone was in an attack on an KPC store in Lebanon (why?). And this is a partial list of what's going on right now, because of someone, who no one knew before, made an unimpressive film offending Mohammad. No one rioted over this picture.. Don't get me wrong, Islam isn't the only religion killing people, but it isn't an excuse.
This doesn't look like anger at the film maker; what it looks like is an attack on Western values.

Quote:
Because the "holy books" tend to not only offend but prosecute any one who doesn't believe in or conduct their lives according to. On the grounds of principled and not only pragmatic "mutual respect" (where people keep quite or polite about it) you would have to censor them.

Once again you're generalizing, which makes your point invalid. A not so small number of Muslims act like douches with "non-believers", but the Holy Quran doesn't say they should, it calls ,as does the prophet Muhammed, for tolerance and respect "and again this is a fact". The misinterpretation of the Quran by the close minded Muslims makes it so hard for us to defend the religion, especially when they act like their applying some sort of Godly justice with their pathetic actions.

You can say : some Muslims offend and prosecute non-believers. You can't say that the Quran encourages them to do so.

Quote:
To the extent that people truly represent themselves, I'm not sure. I don't see a person simply representing himself if he is doing it in the name of a religion or culture, may his version be "correct" of "false".

this sort of statements spouts injustice reactions, if you're to put all Muslims under the same roof I'd be next to the maniac who blew up the US embassy in Libya !

Quote:
Violence isn't a way of simply showing "discontent", it is threatening by nature. They are burning flags, cars, buildings, throwing rocks and petrol bombs, chanting "Death, death to America, death, death to Israel." And this is happening in a huge number of countries: Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, they attacked a German embassy (why?), rioting and killing in Sinai (why?), someone was in an attack on an KPC store in Lebanon (why?). And this is a partial list of what's going on right now, because of someone, who no one knew before, made an unimpressive film offending Mohammad.

4 isn't a huge number, now is it ?!
I'm not defending violence, I'm (among a large group of Arabs and Muslims) denouncing it.

Written by InnerSelf on 15.09.2012 at 01:47

Once again you're generalizing, which makes your point invalid. A not so small number of Muslims act like douches with "non-believers", but the Holy Quran doesn't say they should, it calls ,as does the prophet Muhammed, for tolerance and respect "and again this is a fact". The misinterpretation of the Quran by the close minded Muslims makes it so hard for us to defend the religion, especially when they act like their applying some sort of Godly justice with their pathetic actions.

You can say : some Muslims offend and prosecute non-believers. You can't say that the Quran encourages them to do so.

this sort of statements spouts injustice reactions, if you're to put all Muslims under the same roof I'd be next to the maniac who blew up the US embassy in Libya !

4 isn't a huge number, now is it ?!
I'm not defending violence, I'm (among a large group of Arabs and Muslims) denouncing it.

Generalizing doesn't make your point invalid, bad generalizing makes your point invalid. And I'm not interested in presenting a generalization.
I'm an Atheist, there is no "false" or "correct" Islam for me. But there are people motivated by their conception of Islam.
According to them the Qur'an encourages them, it's not hard to see why since it isn't without intolerant or violent passages on face.

OK, I understand your worrisome comment. What wording would you think be better?

Yeah, 4 countries is a lot. And that isn't the right number. Quote: "this is a partial list". You can open the news for a few more at least.
Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, India and Indonesia so far if the BBC isn't not mistaken.

Anyhow, this is Open Questions to Muslims from The Secular Outpost:

"Let me preface this post by saying I know very little about Islam.

After reading the news about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. embassy in Egypt, I'm really starting to wonder about how the attacks fit together with "mainstream" Islam. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here are the facts as I understand them.

Morris Sadek, an Egyptian-born Christian who lives in the U.S., made a movie which shows the prophet Muhammad having sex and calling for massacres. At the risk of stating the obvious, Sadek's movie does not represent the views of the U.S. Government.
This "movie" is not being shown in movie theaters, but is available online.
Many (all?) Muslims consider any depictions of the Prophet to be offensive.
...

Here, then, are my questions for any Muslims who happen to read this.

*Do the actions of these protesters represent "mainstream" Islam? If not, do you condemn their actions?
* If you are an American, do you believe Islam is compatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press, even if that means someone like Sadek has the freedom to insult the Prophet?
*Why does it seem that, whenever sometime burns a Koran or insults the Prophet, there are some Muslims who retaliate by destroying property or killing people that have nothing whatsoever to do with that?"

Written by InnerSelf on 15.09.2012 at 01:47

You can say : some Muslims offend and prosecute non-believers. You can't say that the Quran encourages them to do so.

havent heard any Muslim speaker stepping out in the spotlight and say that loudly into media

edit: but i was told by a person (privately, because of fear) on the other hand, that it actually IS written in Quran to kill the nonbelievers...i know there are also many ugly things in Bible, but most of the people dont take them literally nowadays...and if someone does, he clearly wont be praised by other Christians...

Written by Bad English on 15.09.2012 at 13:12

This movie proves muslims are half barbarik, I doubt more how 1% europians anmd americans who's religuse fanatics (we can call them terrorists) would react , how many Norvegians get violent when Varg burned churches, islam freedom and ''democracy'' there, gone Mubarak etc when they act like this , there is no logic, ppl are not ready for freedom, grow in mind , dont act like barbars, dont burn and dont hate everybody.

Allegedly agree for the first part, but I think that's the reason for the need of freedom and democracy. Democracy and freedom is not like people can be gone act crazy barbarians. The more you free (of everything, even religious), the more you are at ease living cloaked by democracy both election and law. As far as I know, in China Vietnam where is not freedom, people are confined and suppressed which lead to frustration that turning to crime, non peace action. Of course its more psychological as regarded, though... : )

Quote:
Generalizing doesn't make your point invalid, bad generalizing makes your point invalid. And I'm not interested in presenting a generalization.
I'm an Atheist, there is no "false" or "correct" Islam for me. But there are people motivated by their conception of Islam.

You did present a bad generalization ! but I'm not going to venture in this point any longer as it's irrelevant for now.

Quote:
According to them the Qur'an encourages them, it's not hard to see why since it isn't without intolerant or violent passages on face.

So you've read the Qur'an and are well aware of its passages ?

Quote:
Yeah, 4 countries is a lot. And that isn't the right number. Quote: "this is a partial list". You can open the news for a few more at least.
Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, India and Indonesia so far if the BBC isn't not mistaken.

I take back what I said about the "huge" thing as I wasn't well aware of how much this thing spread.

Quote:
Anyhow, this is Open Questions to Muslims from The Secular Outpost:

"Let me preface this post by saying I know very little about Islam.

After reading the news about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. embassy in Egypt, I'm really starting to wonder about how the attacks fit together with "mainstream" Islam. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here are the facts as I understand them.

Morris Sadek, an Egyptian-born Christian who lives in the U.S., made a movie which shows the prophet Muhammad having sex and calling for massacres. At the risk of stating the obvious, Sadek's movie does not represent the views of the U.S. Government.
This "movie" is not being shown in movie theaters, but is available online.
Many (all?) Muslims consider any depictions of the Prophet to be offensive.
...

Here, then, are my questions for any Muslims who happen to read this.

*Do the actions of these protesters represent "mainstream" Islam? If not, do you condemn their actions?
* If you are an American, do you believe Islam is compatible with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press, even if that means someone like Sadek has the freedom to insult the Prophet?
*Why does it seem that, whenever sometime burns a Koran or insults the Prophet, there are some Muslims who retaliate by destroying property or killing people that have nothing whatsoever to do with that?"

1. I've already answered that.
2. I'm not an American but I try to get you some sort of response from from my relatives there.
3. every action spouts a reaction, it's not something related to Muslims only but to humans as a whole. There are many examples of protests turning into and riots leading to the death of innocent people.

Written by InnerSelf on 15.09.2012 at 23:59

There are many examples of protests turning into and riots leading to the death of innocent people.

this can surely happen, but such protests usually dont start with written signs demanding decapitation of infidels...

Written by InnerSelf on 15.09.2012 at 23:59

So you've read the Qur'an and are well aware of its passages ?

1. I've already answered that.
2. I'm not an American but I try to get you some sort of response from from my relatives there.
3. every action spouts a reaction, it's not something related to Muslims only but to humans as a whole. There are many examples of protests turning into and riots leading to the death of innocent people.

1. care to repeat yourself? [I missed it maybe?]

The Qur'an isn't unambiguously pacifistic and "self-defense" can be interpreted in many ways. There is no correct way to interpret the holy texts, since there is no theological truth to be found in my opinion. You can also be a pluralist. It's not the point. To make myself clear, that makes no difference to what I'm saying.
I'm not looking to condemn every ideology "based" on the Qur'an. Only the one that demands that people react like they did.

I can understand a few things by 3. You are trying to use a tu quoque. You are trying to trivialize. You are misrepresenting mt thoughts. To further clear myself:
I didn't say this is a "special" mode to Muslim (some British men just rioted outside a French embassy because of nude pictuers), but the riot because of a film, allegedly, concerning Islam is the subject.

Your apologetics (which is one problem with religious liberals, they do the apologetics for the extremists without condemning them without reservation) make is sound like the some in the Muslim community or your surrounding can use rational emotive behavior therapy.
Not everyone react like that after taking offense to their religion, we have gone over it. And no you are wrong, it is cultural and personality based and not "humans as a whole". In some cultures it separates adults from children. Something goes on between an action and a reaction, it's called self-control or the lack of it.

Gets me wondering if it's just Muslims now have decided to rejected everything Western, early Islamic civilisation lead the way in universal values, such as algebra, an astrology, translated Euclid an many other ancient works, alot if not most of the mathmatical symbols an numbers used in the West originate from India/todays Middle East region. Its easy to forgot that Medieval Europe before we picked up on Islamic scripts (translated an spread during the Renaissance) was an extremely religious place, alot more intolerant then the Middle East is today. An from those scripts was born tools, an people able to the explain the world better then a religion ever could.

Now the Middle East doesn't lead the way, even Turkey, which has a mild Islamic government is introducing the teaching of the Qur'an into state funded schools. Slowly taking Darwinism out the curriculum. You get the Arabian states, that shrewdly brought in outside help an knowledge to build up there petro-industries an now live a life that is far removed from anything that ever existed within the region before. Gone is the need to have a functioning, creating an destroying private market economy, with the need to give an take with relations to the outside world, or any other trade apart from oil an gas. An the outside world is hardly going to create partnerships in the Middle East outside the petro-industries (or defensive industries) because it isn't worth the security costs. Isn't worth getting blown up by a random to make a buck or two if at all. Security comes first, before jobs come along.

Needs a few Muslim Kierkegaard's, but likely Nietzsche's (who inspired a nation to world war) to come along an grab the main stream culture in my opinion to have a more secular demography similar to the West. Long road, an even then Europe isn't functioning, the EU isn't democratic like the USA, maybe the place needs the Chinese model, huge security, wild west style private sector that's gobbled up by the state when it gets too big, state controlled banks, secular eduction, with enough checks an controls an parnerships in place with the outside world. A patched up communist/market lead hybrid.

Top Egyptian cleric urges global ban on Islam attacks.
"criminalize attacks on Islamic symbols and on those of other religions". Are reasons for tolerating religion are not specific to religion but apply to all claims of conscience? Can someone point out to me why religion is excluded as special? Why not ban attacks on none-believers or polytheists in religious holy books?

Most fittingly, International Blasphemy Rights Day, held each year on September 30, is administered by the Center for Inquiry as part of its Campaign for Free Expression.

Quote:
The Qur'an isn't unambiguously pacifistic and "self-defense" can be interpreted in many ways. There is no correct way to interpret the holy texts, since there is no theological truth to be found in my opinion. You can also be a pluralist. It's not the point. To make myself clear, that makes no difference to what I'm saying.
I'm not looking to condemn every ideology "based" on the Qur'an. Only the one that demands that people react like they did.

But you still seem to lump all of those "ideologies" into one and then condemn them. I'm not talking about the "self-defense" passages in the Qur'an but the ones that clearly calls for toleration and respect.

Quote:
I can understand a few things by 3. You are trying to use a tu quoque. You are trying to trivialize. You are misrepresenting mt thoughts. To further clear myself:
I didn't say this is a "special" mode to Muslim (some British men just rioted outside a French embassy because of nude pictuers), but the riot because of a film, allegedly, concerning Islam is the subject.

Your apologetics (which is one problem with religious liberals, they do the apologetics for the extremists without condemning them without reservation) make is sound like the some in the Muslim community or your surrounding can use rational emotive behavior therapy.
Not everyone react like that after taking offense to their religion, we have gone over it. And no you are wrong, it is cultural and personality based and not "humans as a whole". In some cultures it separates adults from children. Something goes on between an action and a reaction, it's called self-control or the lack of it.

You're stereotyping me, putting words into my mouth based on that stereotype and then suggesting therapy !. I'm not trivializing and am certainly not apologizing for something I didn't do nor had anything to do with aside from the fact that those who made those actions were Muslims like myself.
I already said that I among a large group of Muslims condemn these actions, I don't know why you're circling back to this point over and over again.
I do believe that those actions are based on disturbed cultural background, the point where I disagree with everyone is that this background is not solely of a religious nature, what I mean is that several factors lead to these reactions : First, the misinterpretation of the holy text. second, and this is sadly something deep-seated in our community, the awful educational system (which is a product of the dictatorships ruling our countries). third and last, the absence of proper religious education (and this is related to the former point).
And again, and so you don't ask, I'm not trivializing nor am I putting the blame on something and someone other than the people who did what they did.

Written by InnerSelf on 16.09.2012 at 15:51

You're stereotyping me, putting words into my mouth based on that stereotype and then suggesting therapy !. I'm not trivializing and am certainly not apologizing for something I didn't do nor had anything to do with aside from the fact that those who made those actions were Muslims like myself.
I already said that I among a large group of Muslims condemn these actions, I don't know why you're circling back to this point over and over again.
I do believe that those actions are based on disturbed cultural background, the point where I disagree with everyone is that this background is not solely of a religious nature, what I mean is that several factors lead to these reactions : First, the misinterpretation of the holy text. second, and this is sadly something deep-seated in our community, the awful educational system (which is a product of the dictatorships ruling our countries). third and last, the absence of proper religious education (and this is related to the former point).
And again, and so you don't ask, I'm not trivializing nor am I putting the blame on something and someone other than the people who did what they did.

Does any criticism or suggestion sound to you offending or "stereotyping"? Now THAT is very stereotypical. I was clearly referring to what you said, not where you come from or your "group".
That view pf people that you pronounced, from wherever you picked it up, you could happily suggest them REBT. I've read Albert Ellis for myself and his great. Helped tens of millions of people around the world, to deal better with the world. It fits with what you said, not where you come from.
Apologetics isn't apologizing, it's defending a position.
I think I was clear I was not referring to all Muslims or the "nature" of Islam. If someone wants to use rhetoric about the "true" interpretation of X, so it will fit better with modern and open societies, I don't mind. But it's not the point.There is no nature of Islam in my eyes and no point is discussing that. The "true" or "false" interpretation is irrelevant to the criteria I'm speaking of. There are ideologies/conceptions/interpretations that don't want to play according to the democratic game rules, which motivate people to react as some Muslims did.
When someone speaks out of ignorance or intolerance you can point it out and prove him wrong with confidence without violence.

No I did not take offense in your suggestions, you said and I quote : "Your apologetics (which is one problem with religious liberals, they do the apologetics for the extremists without condemning them without reservation) make is sound like the some in the Muslim community or your surrounding can use rational emotive behavior therapy."
That sounds like stereotyping to me, the "religious liberal" thing. I'll surely look up Albert Ellis as the description on the YT video you linked sounded like something I might be interested in.
The way you seem to view Islam and religions as a whole is a lot different from the way I do so I think it'll be really hard to find common grounds concerning this specific issue.

Written by InnerSelf on 16.09.2012 at 16:19

No I did not take offense in your suggestions, you said and I quote : "Your apologetics (which is one problem with religious liberals, they do the apologetics for the extremists without condemning them without reservation) make is sound like the some in the Muslim community or your surrounding can use rational emotive behavior therapy."
That sounds like stereotyping to me, the "religious liberal" thing. I'll surely look up Albert Ellis as the description on the YT video you linked sounded like something I might be interested in.
The way you seem to view Islam and religions as a whole is a lot different from the way I do so I think it'll be really hard to find common grounds concerning this specific issue.

Heh...seems like the joke is on me. Sorry, I thought you were referring to something else.
This is a very nice example.
Let's put it this way, so far, what do we not agree on concerning this specific topic?

I believe that this situation is a result of the actions of Muslims, whereas you seem to think that Islam itself as an ideology provoked it.

Written by InnerSelf on 16.09.2012 at 18:42

I believe that this situation is a result of the actions of Muslims, whereas you seem to think that Islam itself as an ideology provoked it.

Books don't provoke things, conceptions of them by people do. And that is what matters to me. So, so far I was saying a version of Islam, not Islam "itself". Giving it another thought, it is a mistake given what I currently know.
I can say I can agree with you partially. I don't know what is "true" (or to be less abstract the canonical interpretations) of Islam (I'm skeptical if there is such a thing) and I don't find that relevant. But it doesn't follow that if a Muslims did something, even if it is related to his religion, that it is his conception of religion is what that motivated him to do so.. You have to establish another proposition in order for it to follow.

InnerSelf: Ok, i think am getting you now...but now you need to get us as well - i believe none of us has any problem with peaceful Islam belief, at least i dont have...

but - there is a crystal clear connection between Islam belief and some Muslim people, who appear to be fanatics and who hate us, wishing us death...so how can you expect us not to blame your religion, when it is this religion that turns some Muslim people into mindless beasts...what do you suggest we should do but hate and defend what is important, valuable and sacred for us - like the freedom of expression (that also includes mocking other people's faith)?

question - can you, "normal Muslims", do something to silence the fanatics? and so prove us your faith is really peaceful and can coexist with our society? or will you just sit back yelling "That has nothing to do with us and Islam! Stop hating us!"?

Since the end of WWII the Arabic/Islamic community went through massive changes i.e : the end of colonization and the chaos that followed. This paved the road for dictators to rise into power. And I've said this before, you can't simply ignore the effects of almost 60 years of chaos and oppression, and oppression is probably the best environment for extreme ideologies to thrive.
I don't see any solution for this in the near future aside form the transition into democracy, which will be inevitably slow .

Israel and Iran: A love story?

http://www.ted.com/talks/israel_and_iran_a_love_story.html

The main problem in West Asia\Egypt has 5 letters. I-S-L-A-M. Get rid of this cancer-like disease and there are more than half of the problems less there.

Written by InnerSelf on 16.09.2012 at 20:13

....

as a syrian, what do you think about Assad's recent speech and his offers for ending war? what do. other syrians think? I think he's making more trouble for his people... am I right?

Written by Candlemass on 28.12.2012 at 15:54

Israel and Iran: A love story?

http://www.ted.com/talks/israel_and_iran_a_love_story.html

not really ! but the people are trying to say that they are not part of the political games the government want to fuel

There is a very simple question to answer this problem.
If Isreal stops send attacks , what would happen ?
Is The Palistinians stop sending attacks what would happen ?

If the Isreal stops , palistinians will continue to attack

If the Palistinaians stop attacking, Isreal will cease attacks.

Therfore, the responsibility lies with Palistinians to cease fire. Since they will not, they will not find peace.

Written by InnerSelf on 16.09.2012 at 20:13

Since the end of WWII the Arabic/Islamic community went through massive changes i.e : the end of colonization and the chaos that followed. This paved the road for dictators to rise into power. And I've said this before, you can't simply ignore the effects of almost 60 years of chaos and oppression, and oppression is probably the best environment for extreme ideologies to thrive.
I don't see any solution for this in the near future aside form the transition into democracy, which will be inevitably slow .

Well said.

Integrating radical groups to the democratic process could be a good step towards those groups becoming institutionnalised (and thus, less prone to terrorist behavior). While excluding them from it can only mean that they will revert to other ways (i.e. violence) of expressing themselves.

The oppressive regimes of the past brought these groups to use violence as a way of expression. One hopes democracy changes that in a positive manner.

Written by Bad English on 11.01.2013 at 20:47

Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 12:26

Written by Candlemass on 28.12.2012 at 15:54

Israel and Iran: A love story?

http://www.ted.com/talks/israel_and_iran_a_love_story.html

not really ! but the people are trying to say that they are not part of the political games the government want to fuel

I saw film about Glasgow a jewsih and palestinian families
jew said, here is our food, our fest we share this whit our palestinian friends, all together have some good wine and whisky
palestinians said, we all are friends we ARE NOT RELIGIUYS bewcause religion fuck up midle east ......

so true worls

Anti-colonial nationalism. Ethnic Nationalism. Romantic ultra-nationalism which "peace activists" (European ideologues) and "patriots" (Neo-fascists) tend to hold. Exaggeration and mystification were always human tendencies.

Written by Candlemass on 13.01.2013 at 11:11

Written by Bad English on 11.01.2013 at 20:47

Written by Guest on 07.01.2013 at 12:26

Written by Candlemass on 28.12.2012 at 15:54

Israel and Iran: A love story?

http://www.ted.com/talks/israel_and_iran_a_love_story.html

not really ! but the people are trying to say that they are not part of the political games the government want to fuel

I saw film about Glasgow a jewsih and palestinian families
jew said, here is our food, our fest we share this whit our palestinian friends, all together have some good wine and whisky
palestinians said, we all are friends we ARE NOT RELIGIUYS bewcause religion fuck up midle east ......

so true worls

Anti-colonial nationalism. Ethnic Nationalism. Romantic ultra-nationalism which "peace activists" (European ideologues) and "patriots" (Neo-fascists) tend to hold. Exaggeration and mystification were always human tendencies.

no! why do you really make it this complicated ! Why do I have to feel a special hatred for the people were born in a specific place ? huh? just because the media says ? Those so called peacemakers activist are trying to spread the same notion.Don't you think so?

Written by Guest on 13.01.2013 at 12:23

Written by Candlemass on 13.01.2013 at 11:11

Anti-colonial nationalism. Ethnic Nationalism. Romantic ultra-nationalism which "peace activists" (European ideologues) and "patriots" (Neo-fascists) tend to hold. Exaggeration and mystification were always human tendencies.

no! why do you really make it this complicated ! Why do I have to feel a special hatred for the people were born in a specific place ? huh? just because the media says ? Those so called peacemakers activist are trying to spread the same notion.Don't you think so?

No. That's why I use inverted commas. This isn't about a pragmatic sense of trying to find common grounds and getting along fairly as individual human beings (we should try and achieve that in my opinion). There is much more involved in this.
A more suited term would be"Justice activists", then the question "what justice exactly?" arises more naturally.
They are not working in the spirit of the enlightenment and deny the notions of classic human rights and humanism.
Many of them, if not most, work in the framework of Frantz Fanon and anti-colonial 'studies'. Labeled as ideology by philosophers, like Gray Edwards.
With the search for "true identity", basing politics on ethnic identity (not rational principles), nativism (in the wide sense), mystical/romantic connection to a certain territory which fits it and the group essentialism makes it very hard distinguishing them for regular old time fascists.
Now you understand why history (not personal of course) has become such a central notion. They seem to agree on everything except the identity of "the natives".

This is a gross oversimplification, but it's a start of an understanding.

Today at noon, shelling from Assad's air forces on the Campus of the University of Aleppo. As a "coincidence" today was the first day of our mid-terms, the time when everyone from all of Syria's universities have their exams. Many students, civilians passing by the street and displaced people living in the dorms died and the sight and scent of blood was unholy.



EDIT : 20 of these students from the faculty of civil engineering were assassinated today by air strikes by the criminal and coward Assad regime!