'This is the democratic state in the Middle East'
'Pointing guns into the face of civilians'
'THINK! Why are you doing what you're doing?'
Loud mouth cow who loves a good old rant, mostly against hypocrisy and injustice but anything that takes my fancy really. Hoping my rants make some sort of difference... FYI I'm Muslim yet also sane, go figure... Thanks for reading.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Monday, 19 December 2011
I don't want to hate right-wingers but they make it so hard not to!
*Inspired by Twitter and 'Cross Talk' on Russia Today*
I have fairly recently joined Twitter, so I have had to discover and refine the art of summarising my musings in 160 characters or less. I usually hate social media as I am an unsociable sort but I find the phenomenon of Twitter quite fascinating. It proves that there is a market for everything as it appears that you can find people all over the world who are exactly like you, or near enough. This has proven spectacular results with regards to mobilisations such as the Arab Spring and Occupy.
I also love reading people's twitter descriptions about themselves, and as an OCD wannabee wordsmith of sorts, I fiddle with mine on a weekly basis. How to summarise ones entire being in 160 characters? 'Die-hard lefty' me thinks and I love that there are so many other liberals in the world, if not in governments, at least they are on Twitter! So what defines left and right-wing? Well the terms originated from the French revolution according to the seating of Parliament. Those who advocated secularisation and eradicating social and economic inequalities sat on the left, those who believed inequality was inevitable and natural and were pro-aristocracy, monarchy and Church sat to the right. It is a fascinating and exhausting divide to this day and one in which more social media interaction can just exacerbate. (The tweets from @moronwatch, dedicated to exposing right-wingers on twitter is particularly informative and hilarious.)
I also notice that there are some who state that they do not want followers who do not have the same views, this is disappointing to me as the only way to change people's minds is through dialogue and if possible embracing them in a way. Plus personally, although sometimes it is torturous and near enough heart-attack inducing, I seek out right-wing views to see what their views are on certain things, it always unsurprisingly serves to remind how stupid and brainwashed they can be and at times just outright disgraceful. One American right-winger invited to today's 'Cross Talk' on Russia Today, on the subject of Newt Gingrich said he 'did not like the Palestinians anyway' and cited the 'fact' that on 9/11 'THEY danced around when 9/11 happened'.
WOAH NELLY (sound of cars screeching to a halt). No he diduuuunt. Yes he did. Cue me effing and blinding at the TV. It's no shocker that right-wingers are typically anti-immigration, pro-Israeli to the point of defying common sense and generally just stupid, but this crossed the line to outright racism.
FIRST of all, 'that' footage was long ago found out to be misinterpreted, i.e. it was filmed before 9/11 so 'they' were in fact dancing over something totally unrelated. The fact that the footage came out in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to further demonise Muslims when surely there were more important things to be concerned about is deeply suspicious not to mention disconcerting.
SECOND of all, even if this obvious fact was not pointed out to this douchebag more than a decade after 9/11 had surpassed, can you blame an entire race of people on the actions of few? Bigot much?
THIRDLY, the crimes against humanity that the US government has perpetrated on the Middle East is of microscopic proportions in comparison with celebrating the murder of innocents, as sick as that would be, which I repeat THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY DO.
FOURTHLY, it would be almost be funny if it was not so tragic, that so many people do not even think that outsiders have a reason to hate America. Of course I would never advocate hating an entire people for the crimes of its governments, cos then I'd be just like right-wing douchebag of the day but the reasons why 9/11 occurred to begin with, must be acknowledged. The fact that this has not happened and that politicians have simply said that 'the terrorists are jealous of our freedom' is an absurdity and a gross lie perpetuated to the masses to redirect the hate and absolve state liability. To use a British example, when little Madeline McCann was abducted, who were the blameworthy? At first, there was much animosity toward the slow reaction of the Portuguese police in investigating the missing child. Then there was the obvious indignation that her parents should not have left a small child alone in the first place, no matter how near they were and how safe the place was meant to be. In all the hubub that ensued, not much was mentioned of the evil perpetrator(s), although admittedly he/she has yet to be found. Yet when it comes to the ability to surpass lax airport security and the interventionist and immoral foreign policies of some Western governments, the blame is attributed solely to the terrorists who take advantage and take revenge.
Who is to blame? The incitement to hatred or the ensuing hatred? Is it an either or? Although I am a die-hard lefty, I can stomach the right, what I CANNOT stomach, is the downright WRONG.
See also http://anbarrockny.blogspot.com/
Tweet
I also love reading people's twitter descriptions about themselves, and as an OCD wannabee wordsmith of sorts, I fiddle with mine on a weekly basis. How to summarise ones entire being in 160 characters? 'Die-hard lefty' me thinks and I love that there are so many other liberals in the world, if not in governments, at least they are on Twitter! So what defines left and right-wing? Well the terms originated from the French revolution according to the seating of Parliament. Those who advocated secularisation and eradicating social and economic inequalities sat on the left, those who believed inequality was inevitable and natural and were pro-aristocracy, monarchy and Church sat to the right. It is a fascinating and exhausting divide to this day and one in which more social media interaction can just exacerbate. (The tweets from @moronwatch, dedicated to exposing right-wingers on twitter is particularly informative and hilarious.)
I also notice that there are some who state that they do not want followers who do not have the same views, this is disappointing to me as the only way to change people's minds is through dialogue and if possible embracing them in a way. Plus personally, although sometimes it is torturous and near enough heart-attack inducing, I seek out right-wing views to see what their views are on certain things, it always unsurprisingly serves to remind how stupid and brainwashed they can be and at times just outright disgraceful. One American right-winger invited to today's 'Cross Talk' on Russia Today, on the subject of Newt Gingrich said he 'did not like the Palestinians anyway' and cited the 'fact' that on 9/11 'THEY danced around when 9/11 happened'.
WOAH NELLY (sound of cars screeching to a halt). No he diduuuunt. Yes he did. Cue me effing and blinding at the TV. It's no shocker that right-wingers are typically anti-immigration, pro-Israeli to the point of defying common sense and generally just stupid, but this crossed the line to outright racism.
FIRST of all, 'that' footage was long ago found out to be misinterpreted, i.e. it was filmed before 9/11 so 'they' were in fact dancing over something totally unrelated. The fact that the footage came out in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to further demonise Muslims when surely there were more important things to be concerned about is deeply suspicious not to mention disconcerting.
SECOND of all, even if this obvious fact was not pointed out to this douchebag more than a decade after 9/11 had surpassed, can you blame an entire race of people on the actions of few? Bigot much?
THIRDLY, the crimes against humanity that the US government has perpetrated on the Middle East is of microscopic proportions in comparison with celebrating the murder of innocents, as sick as that would be, which I repeat THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY DO.
FOURTHLY, it would be almost be funny if it was not so tragic, that so many people do not even think that outsiders have a reason to hate America. Of course I would never advocate hating an entire people for the crimes of its governments, cos then I'd be just like right-wing douchebag of the day but the reasons why 9/11 occurred to begin with, must be acknowledged. The fact that this has not happened and that politicians have simply said that 'the terrorists are jealous of our freedom' is an absurdity and a gross lie perpetuated to the masses to redirect the hate and absolve state liability. To use a British example, when little Madeline McCann was abducted, who were the blameworthy? At first, there was much animosity toward the slow reaction of the Portuguese police in investigating the missing child. Then there was the obvious indignation that her parents should not have left a small child alone in the first place, no matter how near they were and how safe the place was meant to be. In all the hubub that ensued, not much was mentioned of the evil perpetrator(s), although admittedly he/she has yet to be found. Yet when it comes to the ability to surpass lax airport security and the interventionist and immoral foreign policies of some Western governments, the blame is attributed solely to the terrorists who take advantage and take revenge.
Who is to blame? The incitement to hatred or the ensuing hatred? Is it an either or? Although I am a die-hard lefty, I can stomach the right, what I CANNOT stomach, is the downright WRONG.
See also http://anbarrockny.blogspot.com/
Monday, 12 December 2011
God versus Atheism
*Inspired by http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402381*
This topic sparks such furious debate and contrary to what some may think, as a believer in God I do like to hear different points of view! Furthermore, I do not hear the 'other side's' point of view in a jaded way simply in order to reinforce my own views like both sides do. I have watched a documentary by perhaps the most famous champion of atheism, Richard Dawkins and found it very interesting. He is certainly articulate and makes good points, just to drive the point home, that religion is shit, much of the documentary was centred on Palestine/Israel. There are many feuds all over the world in which it can be said that religion is the root cause. To use the above example however would be to trivialise this issue at best, and pandering to ignorance at the worst. I digress...
What I do not appreciate in this never-ending argument is the bitterness of some atheists and the way in which they belittle believer's arguments instead of counteracting it.
"Though my email address is BibleL7, I was not always a believer. Most of my life I was in fact Atheist. I had no reason to doubt that believers were foolish and thus less intelligent. However at the age of 37 I found out different."
One response was to say that they did not believe that the above commenter was an atheist based on the fact that he had capitalised 'atheist'. You cannot win an argument by telling people what they used to or currently do believe, in fact that sort of talk sounds fairly Taliban-esque. This type of militancy devalues their argument, and they become just as bad as religious extremists who see other points of view as nothing other than ridiculous. In any healthy debate, emotions should be checked at the door. Furthermore, it is probably one of the only debates in which the sides are extremely unlikely to change their mind, and both would also NOT agree to disagree. Others included,
"Thanks... for that sermon. However, your "They teach evolution as fact instead of a theory" comment only supports the findings, which is that low intelligence people are more likely to believe in a god / fairy / dragon etc."
The thing is that unintelligent people, who are often religious, will not look at the facts. They have little utility to understand the scientific method and will dismiss study after study that shows the relation between low intelligence and religion.
How a person of intelligence can generalise huge swathes of people in this manner, is again, very much in the same vein as the Taliban/Hitler/Militant Communist. The person of faith also contributed,
"It answered questions that no evolutionist or big bang theory believers ever could. And that was just the first chapter."
To which someone responded,
Although the analogy is crap and patronising, this point is fair enough as I always say, check your sources, and if you do not want to believe in a thousand+ year old book made and probably altered over the years, please do not think that many studies and stories you read today are not made and perpetuated by hidden and sometimes not so hidden agendas. With regard to the study in the article itself, I would seriously question their definition of intellectuals. This itself panders to elitism which is all about titles and formal education, which many impoverished yet highly intelligent people have not had the opportunity to pursue. According to Mensa, intelligence is mental agility, or quickness of mental comprehension, note that it is not attributed to self-important titles. The debate will rage on I am sure but conveniently so, my thoughts are summed up by some other comments,
"Thanks... for the drive-by sneers... Such disdain is a typical reaction of some "intellectuals" to arguments they disagree with but cannot refute."
"Even if it were true that intelligence is correlated with atheism, it only provides more proof that intelligence is not the same as wisdom."
"Sad isn't it? When we don't understand something much bigger than us we call those who believe in it un-intelligent."
The existence of God can only be put to rest once we die and get to see if there is indeed an afterlife, a punishment, judgement etc. so actually none of us, not intellectuals nor dummies nor religious or atheist zealots, know whether there is a God for a fact. Let's put our faith in that.
See also http://anbarrockny.blogspot.com/
Tweet
This topic sparks such furious debate and contrary to what some may think, as a believer in God I do like to hear different points of view! Furthermore, I do not hear the 'other side's' point of view in a jaded way simply in order to reinforce my own views like both sides do. I have watched a documentary by perhaps the most famous champion of atheism, Richard Dawkins and found it very interesting. He is certainly articulate and makes good points, just to drive the point home, that religion is shit, much of the documentary was centred on Palestine/Israel. There are many feuds all over the world in which it can be said that religion is the root cause. To use the above example however would be to trivialise this issue at best, and pandering to ignorance at the worst. I digress...
What I do not appreciate in this never-ending argument is the bitterness of some atheists and the way in which they belittle believer's arguments instead of counteracting it.
"Though my email address is BibleL7, I was not always a believer. Most of my life I was in fact Atheist. I had no reason to doubt that believers were foolish and thus less intelligent. However at the age of 37 I found out different."
One response was to say that they did not believe that the above commenter was an atheist based on the fact that he had capitalised 'atheist'. You cannot win an argument by telling people what they used to or currently do believe, in fact that sort of talk sounds fairly Taliban-esque. This type of militancy devalues their argument, and they become just as bad as religious extremists who see other points of view as nothing other than ridiculous. In any healthy debate, emotions should be checked at the door. Furthermore, it is probably one of the only debates in which the sides are extremely unlikely to change their mind, and both would also NOT agree to disagree. Others included,
"Thanks... for that sermon. However, your "They teach evolution as fact instead of a theory" comment only supports the findings, which is that low intelligence people are more likely to believe in a god / fairy / dragon etc."
The thing is that unintelligent people, who are often religious, will not look at the facts. They have little utility to understand the scientific method and will dismiss study after study that shows the relation between low intelligence and religion.
How a person of intelligence can generalise huge swathes of people in this manner, is again, very much in the same vein as the Taliban/Hitler/Militant Communist. The person of faith also contributed,
"It answered questions that no evolutionist or big bang theory believers ever could. And that was just the first chapter."
To which someone responded,
"Anyone can answer questions by 'making up' answers. If the bible had claimed that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the 'Great Green Arkleseizure' would you also live in perpetual fear "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief"?"
Although the analogy is crap and patronising, this point is fair enough as I always say, check your sources, and if you do not want to believe in a thousand+ year old book made and probably altered over the years, please do not think that many studies and stories you read today are not made and perpetuated by hidden and sometimes not so hidden agendas. With regard to the study in the article itself, I would seriously question their definition of intellectuals. This itself panders to elitism which is all about titles and formal education, which many impoverished yet highly intelligent people have not had the opportunity to pursue. According to Mensa, intelligence is mental agility, or quickness of mental comprehension, note that it is not attributed to self-important titles. The debate will rage on I am sure but conveniently so, my thoughts are summed up by some other comments,
"Thanks... for the drive-by sneers... Such disdain is a typical reaction of some "intellectuals" to arguments they disagree with but cannot refute."
"Even if it were true that intelligence is correlated with atheism, it only provides more proof that intelligence is not the same as wisdom."
"Sad isn't it? When we don't understand something much bigger than us we call those who believe in it un-intelligent."
The existence of God can only be put to rest once we die and get to see if there is indeed an afterlife, a punishment, judgement etc. so actually none of us, not intellectuals nor dummies nor religious or atheist zealots, know whether there is a God for a fact. Let's put our faith in that.
See also http://anbarrockny.blogspot.com/
Monday, 28 November 2011
Topless Fighters versus The Arab League
... They could not be a bigger juxtaposition but yet I don't know who is the bigger joke. This group of Ukranian women, protest topless to fight against prostitution and sex tourism. There is only a few of them but they have unsurprisingly gained a lot of media coverage. OK fair enough if you want to protest but protesting against female sexual exploitation by becoming the epitome of exploitation? They proclaim to be 'neo-feminists; their explanation has been that,
"We're different from classic feminists. In order to gain a voice, they had to become like men. But we want a real women's revolution. Our naked protests are part of the fight for women's liberation. We have the right to use our bodies as weapons. It was men who made breasts into a secret."
I do not wish to give them any more publicity actually, but they have said something which has just pissed me right off. They want to take their 'message' to other countries, they have already done so in Italy in front of the pope. Not content with appearing half naked in front of the Catholic Church, they also hope to spread their 'message' i.e. protesting topless, to Muslim countries, including Iran, fully knowing the possible consequences of their actions. I was not bothered by them until they spouted this kind of patronising superiority, making my eyes roll, nonsense. Speaking of the Muslim world that they speak of, there is so much wrong with what's happening at the moment the last thing that would be needed, if ever, is European topless women running the streets.
Then there is the Arab league, I had not even heard of these clowns until Britain, France and the US wanted to bomb Libya. They were the go to guys for the government to reference on Question Time et al in order to back up the decision to intervene/bomb the shit out of Libya. 'Well if the Arabs want us to bomb Libya it must be the right decision' Err the most disastrous decisions in the Middle East have been caused by despots condoning the bombing of their fellow Middle Easterns, have we already forgotten Iraq v Kuwait and Iraq v Iran. Both Western proxy wars backed by donkeys such as Mubarak and the Saudi regime.
The Arab League - let's review their decision making over the past year - Let's go into Libya. The Libyans themselves apparently asked for it, but they wanted a NO FLY ZONE, and instead got Britain, France, the US and NATO to specifically destroy Gaddafi targets thus ensuring a successful coup, plus a few civilians here and there. But what's a little civilian blood to secure some business interests and get rid of a loopy guy who you never really liked anyway.
Letting the Gulf states go into Bahrain with mercenaries in tow, to quash the Bahraini uprisings, where the authorities here killed at least 40 entirely peaceful protesters, threatened to rape school girls who participated in protests, destroyed Shia mosques, injured many people, imprisoned and tortured the doctors, dentists and nurses who were tending to the injured. Even when a report came out from Bahrain itself exposing some of their activities and absolving Iran of any involvement, the royal regime still claimed Iran was behind the protests.Cringeingly pandering to Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh, giving him four different tailor-made agreements to step down whilst ensuring he receives immunity from prosecution, despite months of unrest and many being mercilessly killed by his unapologetic forces.
Now the Western puppets are going to impose economic sanctions on Syria for not complying with their demands to stop killing protesters. It's as if they are eating Starburst, and are not eating the orange ones cos they're the ones that taste a bit crap.
Yet silence when it comes to Palestine, (cue barrel of hay rolling past) remember them? They have been tirelessly resisting their overt degradation, the theft of their land and the murder of their children for decades. Even with all their oil, money, protests good and bad, a sudden interest in protecting civilians of other countries, nothing has changed at the top.
See http://raraproductions.blogspot.com/ & http://anbarrockny.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)