The Iraqi bloggers Google group, sadly like our absent blog-critic Semiramis says, has been reduced to another typical forum plagued with knock-knock jokes of all shapes and kinds (just who is this Irakien Rana anyway :) ?), however, I must say that I have found the first meaningful conversation just yesterday, when Sam Aziz posted a link to an interview with a Bahrini Shi'ite cleric called Dh'iaa al-Mossawi (translated):
If you don't have time to watch it, the man is the sort of a more tolerant, peaceful cleric with a somewhat universal vision of religious co-existence, he listens to classical music and he has pictures for Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King and Gandhi in his house, he says of the latter that we need to plant his 'genes' in the youth of Muslims, he refuses rhetoric such as the 'Jews, grandchildren of pigs and abes' stubbornly, and greatly criticises the backward ideological 'gallows' of current Islamic stagnation thought.
For people like Khalid Jarrar, a really nice guy but also a more traditional Islamist with all the predictable America, West and everything it stands for = Great Satan ideology, this was too much to bear, he replied in the thread that this guy was basically a wolf in sheep's clothing and that he's probably been in the West and is preaching a version of Islam for which America would love and is simply 'poison in the honey.'
I completely support al-Mossawi in every possible way, his black turban is the sort I would like to see, and sadly, isn't found or sold much lately - Islam is a great, great, great, great religion but unfortunately its people have greatly misunderstood it in every possible way, when we settled for being the greatest thing ever on the piece of earth, a mistake committed by Jews a looong time ago, we became content with what we are and we simply believe that everything our culture has is the be-all-end-all for humanity, again a common mistake - so that when Western culture came smacking us from our long slumber and took Palestine away, like all ideological losers in history we started to call everything they have as having Satanic connotations, that everything they do is a conspiracy and that we are always the poor people kicked around - True, we have been kicked around, but the major problem is not in them, it's in us - we need to admit our stupidity, arrogance and defeat and change our dirty, violent, stubborn youth into creative and understanding people that Islam needs to be built upon, we need more people like Dhi'aa al-Mossawi and Amro Khalid, those are the social reformists for which I have the greatest hope for and who I am betting on - lay down your weapons, we won't beat the Jews yesterday or in a million years if we keep on our hypocrisy, we must change ourselves first.
Look at the thread here, and tell us what do you think:
69 comments:
Well, I can't say that I have read up on the dude other than on your blogodrome thing and now here - and at the moment I certainly feel to sick to do so - but from what I have heard...:
*applauds the Kid*
I hope that made sense. I think I sold half of my brain first thing this morning or something.
*whimpers pitifully and crawls away again*
P.S.: Learning German, Mel's Crummy Course: Irakerin is Iraqi (female version).
Melantrys (Blogger hates me again...)
A car amplifier will give you a loud and clear sound on a consistent basis. It will boost the power flowing from the
receiver to the speakers. In doing so, it will reduce the stress put on all the other components of your car stereo
system, including the receiver.
Choosing the right car amplifier is important. Your decision should be based on five important features. Make sure
you address them all !
The first item on the agenda is the number of channels. This will depend on the number of speakers in your system.
Two-channel amplifiers will feed well two speakers or a single subwoofer. You will want to consider a four-channel
amplifier if you have any of the following combinations :
"because of
dictatorships which were supported by the West"
The West is not to blame for the various dictators that sprung up. They are all home-grown. Are you saying the West shouldn't trade with dictators? If so, how about Iraq lead the way and stop trading with dictators, withdraw from the UN because of all the dictators, and most of all, withdraw from the Arab League because it is full of dictators and a racist organization to boot. Note that democracy is a fairly new concept, so banning trade with dictators is pretty radical. Also, the dictators can still trade amongst themselves, it won't actually cause the dictator to be overthrown. It will probably lower your standard of living though, if that's what you were hoping to achieve.
"and now has come to
bite the West back in its ass."
What bit the West in the arse is people reading what is in the Koran. If the West doesn't want to be bit in the arse by that, it needs to teach children how horrible the Koran is.
"This point is valid in my opinion, the West only looks after its own interests"
This isn't true either. What interest did the West have in giving Indonesia aid after the tsunami? Or stopping the Kosovars from being killed by Serbs? Or pouring aid down a rat hole in Africa? The West is a benevolent actor, but don't expect us to commit suicide.
BTW, the West did do something about one dictator - Saddam. And most of the Arabs in other dictators opposed that, because they thought that Saddam was an Arab hero. Those Arabs at least were not interested in freedom for Arabs, they were just interested in having anti-Western rulers. Why would the West do anything to help these enemies? Why do you expect the West to commit self-harm? Giving aid to people who appreciate it is reasonable. Aiding and abetting an enemy is unreasonable.
Nice post Kid
It's true , we have to stop many things if we want to develop.
I remeber once a freind of mine asked me if religion faild in its mission as people are not following its ethical rules, I couldn't reply at that time , I couldn't admit it.
The roblem with most of the islamist that they don't look at our history,it took the prophit 23years to build an Islamic nation.
People had underwnt a rehablitation before being fully muslims who can do whatever Islam wants, now we can't do so because they want it in one week.
This is imopssible .
Regards
Be a human first. Only after you have achieved that consider religion. If God exists, He would much rather have you be a human not knowing about Him, than a religious bigot.
Also, people need to think for themselves and shouldn't need any Ayatollahs or Popes to formulate their life philosophy.
Mel,
Sorry to hear you've been sick(or is it a little "hair of the dog that bit you"?):). And I think Blogger hates just about everyone at some point in time.
Kid,
I think Sam Aziz is my hero.
...we should forsake this halal and haram mentality.god gave a brain to use it, not to put your hat on it. it is so simple that it hurts. whats good for you is good, and whats bad for you is bad. this is how i understand it.
I have noticed this in other debates. People are so focused on the messenger that they don't address the message. And it is the message that is the most important.
Doesn't matter if it was al-Mossawi or the West where it originated.
One thing that was brought up in the debate was the West's or America's support for Saudi Arabia or other dictatorships.
I think that is the wrong word. I think the better word is "enabler". You look at our relationship with the Saudi's and it's pretty clear that our need for oil was what allowed them to amass the wealth they did. Wealth that allowed them to purchase weapons from us and other western countries. It was and still is a vicious circle.
But it is the Saudi's who chose how to use that wealth. Just like other countries who run huge trade surpluses with us do. How did the Japanese choose to use the dollars they received in return for the goods they sold us? How are the Chinese choosing to use them?
The al-Sa'uds chose the system you see now. And they have chosen the Wahhabis to keep it intact.
Yes, we were part of the problem, but not all of it. In the case of the Sa'uds, they skimmed huge amounts from the contracts with our companies. The corruption and greed within the Royal family is amazing. One thing that Osama bin Laden is right about. And yes, there was also corruption and greed within Washington. The seduction went both ways.
Now people ask why we do not try to change this status quo? That is try to get rid of the dictatorships. Well, actually we did try to make a rather oblique start. It's called Iraq. And you can see how successful we have been so far.
I guess what I am trying to say, Kid, is don't let our mistakes get in the way of hearing the message. Sam Aziz is right. As are you.
Kid
I watched the cleric and I think he made a very good points. I also liked what Sam Aziz wrote. I wish more people were like them.
I also went through discussion really quickly and one part of what Jarrar wrote terrified me. He wrote "it does include art amd shi3ir and litterature, as long as they dont include 7aram. "
How poor would be Islam and muslims and the word without music, how spiritually poor would be muslim poeple without the poetry of Khayam, Hafez and others.
Is this poem written by muslim for muslims should not be read? Enjoyed? Admired? Just because it dealt with "haram"?
O cup-bearer, set my glass afire
With the lght of wine! O minstrel, sing:
The world fulfileth my heart's desire
reflected within the golbet's ring
I see the glow of my love's red cheek
And scant of wit, ye who fail to seek
the pleasures that wine alone can bing!
Paul Edwards...
You keep cracking me up buddy! Obviously you need a lot of reading to do so please return to the cell because the break is over.
Condoleeza Rice steps up to give us the dish on this particular issue during a televised interview during the last G8 summit:
"The United States have always turned a blind eye towards the Middle eastern dictatorships in the past and this has resulted in extremism, we now seek to address that by promoting democracy there."
Why should the US turn a blind eye? it's not their country so that statement is somewhat vague and opaque in its connotations, suggesting that the US SUPPORTS these governments directly and indirectly in so many ways, making it a hurdle against what the people wants, that is not to say that many of these dictatorships began home-made, but they are certainly supported by the West. Any unexpected change of regime in Saudi Arabia for instance would greatly destroy the huge economy, and why did USA give a shit about Kuwait anyway do you think?
Of course, the West is not all evil, hence the humanitarain aids you speak of, but it's not all good either - it's simply interests. It makes sense and it doesn't offend anyone like you do with your Koran-bashing.
You didn't put me Caliph yet, come on...before the big bad guy does it to ya again in the shower.
I don't like the Jarrars much.
Any unexpected change of regime in Saudi Arabia for instance would greatly destroy the huge economy, and why did USA give a shit about Kuwait anyway do you think?
Yes, it would affect the US a great deal. But any unexpected change would have ramifications for the entire world, Kid. Like it or not, we are a great portion of the world's economy.
How the US helped Iraq in its invasion of Iran and how George Bush Sr betrayed the Iraqi people in 1991
Hey Kid, does Jordanian TV show these ads?
Anti-terrorism ads in Iraqi media
"You keep cracking me up buddy!"
You are unable to counter any of my points.
"The United States have always turned a blind eye towards the Middle eastern dictatorships in the past and this has resulted in extremism, we now seek to address that by promoting democracy there."
This is actually an excuse America has been using to try to blame itself for the problem and seek to fix it. Actually it was not possible for the US to do anything about the Middle East dictators, it was engaged in the Cold War. Even without the Cold War, it's technically not supposed to go and invade sovereign nations. And as I said, you didn't answer my points - are you proposing banning trade with dictators? Is Iraq going to lead the way etc?
"Why should the US turn a blind eye?"
It didn't turn a blind eye any more than any other country in the world did. It is not possible to solve all problems simultaneously.
"it's not their country so that statement is somewhat vague and opaque in its connotations, suggesting that the US SUPPORTS these governments directly and indirectly in so many ways"
Such as? Which particular action do you disapprove of? Allowing the Syrian dictatorship into the UN? Not doing anything to stop Syria from allying with the USSR during the Cold War? Failing to invade Syria in May 2003?
"making it a hurdle against what the people wants, that is not to say that many of these dictatorships began home-made, but they are certainly supported by the West."
Try to understand this simple mathematical fact. Forcing dictators to only trade with other dictators will lower the standard of living of the people living under that dictatorship, but not cause the dictatorship to be overthrown. Even if we could get all the democracies to agree to do that.
"Any unexpected change of regime in Saudi Arabia for instance would greatly destroy the huge economy, and why did USA give a shit about Kuwait anyway do you think?"
For the same reason we didn't want Iran to seize Iraq's oilfields. We don't want these dictators to get any stronger than they already are. At least when we have multiple dictators we have more options to try to find someone who will be our friend.
"Of course, the West is not all evil, hence the humanitarain aids you speak of"
It's not evil AT ALL. Looking after the wellbeing of your own citizens is not something evil. And like I said, the humanitarian aid (which you acknowledge) proves that the West doesn't just look after its own interests (as you stated previously).
"but it's not all good either - it's simply interests."
No, it is BOTH helping yourself AND helping others. What do you expect? What would you do if the position were reversed? And are you saying Iraq doesn't do the same thing? Do you personally only do things for the benefit of others, never for yourself? Exactly what standard are you judging the West by?
"It makes sense and it doesn't offend anyone like you do with your Koran-bashing."
Quoting from the Koran is bashing? Then rewrite the Koran. Start by removing this stuff:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/call_to_muslims.htm
Lynnette in Minnesota, can you email me? I'd like to see what level we can ally at.
Paul,
Democratic countries have laws that ban the support to groups that use terror as means to achieve its goals.
It might be all from economical to military support and some even see people trying to explain why the world has terror today as siding with the terrorists and therefore are trying to have laws against that too.
Now a dictatorship such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc all use terror to repress their people. So who is supporting these regimes? Western democratic regimes with weapons, money and political support. So why is that not forbidden as the above?
This is the hypocrisy in the democratic west, one rule for us one for others.
That’s why there will never ever be peace on earth as long as this is the rule of the powerful counties in the world.
The west knows from its own history that the religions effect on a society changed when people started having alternative options to turn to. Political freedom!
From there the possibility came to move forward on many levels in society including religion.
The base all along was that they had the political freedoms where they could express their political, social and economical views freely without fear. That made the church’s influence lesser an lesser.
When western democratic countries choose to support a dictatorship then they take an active decision to prevent that county’s people from having the freedom they have and the good effects it has had on their society.
This is in my view terrorism in a huge scale. But until now I have not seen one inch of this policy changing. No instead they forget their own history how they got where they got. And as I think both KK and Sam said we really should ALL be learning from history more. From west's history we learn that political freedom is the way to develop a country on all levels. So stop supporting those dictators and let the people in Asia and Afica devolop theri nations too as the west let itself do.
Nadia, "Democratic countries have laws that ban the support to groups that use terror as means to achieve its goals."
No, they have laws against supporting terrorist groups, not terror. And the US government makes a determination as to whether a group is considered to be terrorist or not. Saudi Arabia doesn't kill random civilians in order to make a political point, so it's not a terrorist organization.
Basically you have misrepresented US/western law. Did you do that deliberately? Why did you do that?
"It might be all from economical to military support"
Are you saying that the West should not provide aid to dictatorships? So the "Live Aid" concert to help the starving Ethiopians was wrong, because Ethiopia was a communist dictatorship at the time?
And you want dictators to buy arms from other dictators rather than the West? It sounds to me like you want the West to open a defacto warfront with all dictatorships simultaneously. What about when the West supplied arms to the Soviet Union during WWII? Was that bad? Would you have preferred the Nazis win?
And like I said, is Iraq going to lead the way in implementing what you consider to be better policies?
Also tell me, are you really just trying to defeat the West, which is why you are trying to get us to open a warfront with all dictators simultaneously? Is your real goal to harm the West?
Also, when did you expect this "no trade with dictators" policy to have originally taken effect? Did you want the first democracy in the world to suddenly announce that it would cease all trade with the entire world now that it was a democracy? That would be Iceland.
Also, what about countries that don't have a high quality democracy, like Singapore. Can we trade with them?
"and some even see people trying to explain why the world has terror today as siding with the terrorists and therefore are trying to have laws against that too."
That is freedom of speech. There are no laws against that in the West. You're just lying now. Or at least, you're theorizing about future laws. You can't actually fault current laws.
"Now a dictatorship such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt etc all use terror to repress their people."
You've named countries that are not actually enemies of the West. Why don't you name Syria and Iran instead? That way we can kill 2 birds with one stone. We get rid of the terror and we also get rid of an enemy.
The reason you named friendly countries is because you know those countries are going to vote for anti-Western governments, and your real goal is to harm the West.
Tell me, are you pleased that we stopped Saddam from ruling with terror? Will you also be pleased when we stop Iran from doing the same?
"So who is supporting these regimes? Western democratic regimes with weapons, money and political support. So why is that not forbidden as the above?"
You want to know something? Technically, under the Treaty of Westphalia, we are not supposed to look inside a country. We've signed up to agree that they can do anything they want. Why don't you campaign to get us to scrap that treaty? Did you know that when NATO protected the Kosovars from the Serbs it was a complete violation of that treaty? The Serbs had done absolutely nothing outside of their borders. They were no threat to anyone at all. I didn't hear any complaints from the Arab street about that illegal war. Why is that? I did hear complaints from them when we toppled Saddam, who used terror more than any of the other dictators you mentioned. Just admit it. This isn't about stopping terror. This is just about getting anti-Western governments in so you can start harming the West.
"This is the hypocrisy in the democratic west"
Ha! It's you that is hypocritical. Our policy is consistent. We protect ourselves first, and then try to protect others. We try to spread rational, humanist, non-subjugating government IN THAT ORDER. All our wars are consistent with that long-term objective.
Serbia is no longer an enemy. It was recently admitted into NATO PfP. We're trying to be friends with it. They have changed. Anyone who changes into the above becomes our allies. You watch what happens now. The West will no longer support Kosovo, they're going to support Serbia.
"one rule for us one for others."
Who is "us"? We have one rule for our enemies (ie we try to defeat them) and we have one rule for our allies (ie we try to protect them). If you are an enemy, why do you expect us to act differently? How would you act if you were in our position?
"That’s why there will never ever be peace on earth"
There won't be peace on this earth until every single person on this planet becomes:
1. rational
2. humanist
3. non-subjugating
or better yet:
1. anti-dogma
2. anti-non-humanist
3. anti-subjugator
Or at least, close to that. Doesn't have to be perfect.
"as long as this is the rule of the powerful counties in the world."
What exactly is the rule of the weak countries? Do they not trade with dictators? Do they support their enemies? Iceland is pretty weak. It has no military at all! It chose to join NATO. What does that say to you?
"The west knows from its own history that the religions effect on a society changed when people started having alternative options to turn to. Political freedom!"
The reformation happened long before democracy. Why don't you have a reformation in Saudi Arabia so that when we get around to liberating Saudi Arabia, we have a whole lot of allies cheering their new-found freedom instead of a whole swag of enemies who need to be killed?
"From there the possibility came to move forward on many levels in society including religion."
No, you're distorting history and throwing out a carrot so that you can try to get anti-western governments in charge of the oil so that you can have an embargo and cripple our economies. Nice try, but we're not falling for that. :-)
"The base all along was that they had the political freedoms where they could express their political, social and economical views freely without fear."
It's not perfect, but there is a level of freedom of speech in Egypt already. You can see that from the Egyptian blogs. We can also see from those Egyptian blogs that the majority of Egyptians are anti-Western. The question the West needs to ask is whether we drop nukes on them or de-Nazify them. What would you suggest?
"That made the church’s influence lesser an lesser."
Egyptians are free to do this already.
"When western democratic countries choose to support a dictatorship"
Like we did the Soviet Union during WWII. Go on.
"then they take an active decision to prevent that county’s people from having the freedom they have and the good effects it has had on their society."
We trade with China. That doesn't mean we're preventing them from having freedom. Far from it. We're doing everything we can to get them freedom. Encouraging them to adopt the free market is part of that process. Your theory is simply wrong.
"This is in my view terrorism in a huge scale."
You haven't addressed terrorism. You've simply pointed out that in some countries the dictator is a nicer person than the people he rules over, and that Bush's plan to spread democracy throughout the Middle East will be disastrous and is conceptually flawed.
"But until now I have not seen one inch of this policy changing."
You're not looking very hard. The US pressured Egypt into holding multi-candidate presidential elections. You also saw one dictator get replaced with a democracy.
"No instead they forget their own history how they got where they got."
Western democracy has produced some complete disasters, like Hitler being elected. We now know that we need to implement LIBERAL democracy. We know from the Palestinians that democracy for a radicalized population causes them to elect their favourite terrorist group. We know from basket-cases like Haiti that letting uneducated people vote for communism doesn't work either.
We know from Africa that the Africans were far better off under colonial rule than being independent.
"And as I think both KK and Sam said we really should ALL be learning from history more. From west's history we learn that political freedom is the way to develop a country on all levels."
No, we've learned that people need to be educated and have a wealthy middle-class in order to be able to sensibly choose their government.
"So stop supporting those dictators and let the people in Asia and Afica devolop theri nations too as the west let itself do."
Ceasing trade with all dictators will cause us self-harm. How about instead we just start with overthrowing the subset of dictators who are our enemies? Then there will be more democracies in the world and we MAY be in a position to cease trading with the remaining dictators. But ceasing trading with them is just going to punish the citizens, not the dictator. It would probably be better to liberate them. Each country needs to be independently analyzed. It's a bit far in advance to be planning that, as we still have enemy dictators that we haven't defeated, and we're having a lot of trouble just getting permission from the left-wing to take them down.
Paul,
I don't really do alliances per se. I tend to be more of an independent type of person. There are some people who at times I agree with and at other times not. Like you will find anywhere.
I try to keep my e-mail private, except for a few exceptions. No offense intended.
Nadia,
So who is supporting these regimes? Western democratic regimes with weapons, money and political support. So why is that not forbidden as the above?
That would be called sanctions. And you will notice the result in Iraq circa 1991 - 2003.
Which is why I hope they are very careful about how they are applied to Iran, if they sanction them further.
We seem to have only two choices from our end, sanctions(totally shunning a country) or military action. Which would you choose?
No, the change has to be on the other end of the equation. From within.
I am always so amazed how many come to the defence of the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and not the people in Saudi Arabia. It’s the same in Swedish forum too. Often the ones who are for US actions in Iraq with the argument its all about bringing freedom are the same ones arguing in favour of continuing the support to Saudi Arabia’s regime. Really Paul credibility goes out faster and faster these days.
Paul, No military, economically or political support should ever be given to a dictator directly from any democratic country.
For once look at it from the perspective of the people who live under a dictatorial regime and you will understand why.
You see their mission in life is not to sacrify their life for people living in the west decade after decade. Because that is exactly what you are asking. And that has been the west policy the last 40 years. People are fed up.
You must understand that looking after what is best for these million of people must be the focus too.
And living in a country where political freedom will get you in jail, tortured or killed is really something they do have a right to say NOOOOO to without you calling them anti-west or terrorists.
I want these countries to have the same democracy that Sweden has.
Where the people in the Middle East Africa, Asia they themselves decide their own polices and rules and how to develop their economies.
Exactly as all the western democratic counties have given their people the right to do.
For example I want Iraq’s oil industry to be publicly owned. I believe that Iraqis should start up all the manufacturing of petroleum products from zero to final product. So Iraqis will not only sell oil it will also sell the final petroleum product to the international markets too.
Its Iraqis recourse and they should have the right to decide what to do with it.
This will bring millions of jobs to Iraqis and many small companies and factories can flourish!
These plans in Iraq and hopefully in other nations too might mean that a couple of millions people lose their jobs in factories based in Europe or the US, but that is not Iraq’s problem.
Iraqis and other people in Africa and Asia have scarified enough.
It time the masses in these countries start looking after themselves as the west has been doing for its people the last 200 years.
If then other people see these views as an action of anti west well then you need to think again.
Its not, its views based on being pro-Iraq, pro-Iraqis, pro-people living in Asia and pro-people living in Africa!
As for the law I talked about I read that about 1-2 years ago. Blair’s and Howard’s teams talked about it, and Frisk wondered if he would ever be allowed to enter Australia at the time. Researchers in England talked about its effect on freedom of speech. So no I don’t make things up. Bush and his team of supporters are doing enough of that for the rest of us to realize it only make things worse.
Lynnette in Minnesota, "I don't really do alliances per se."
What a shame.
"We seem to have only two choices from our end, sanctions(totally shunning a country) or military action."
Exactly.
"Which would you choose?"
I know I want military action myself. Not interested in having my standard of living lowered for no purpose whatsoever.
"No, the change has to be on the other end of the equation. From within."
That is a technical impossibility against a properly-organized modern military. The Iraqis tried in 1991 and got slaughtered. The Iranians tried in 1999 and got slaughtered. That's what happens when you go up against automatic weapons. This was a lesson learnt in WWI. And the people there were actually armed. Made no difference. Slaughtered all the same.
Are you in search of a good amplifier? Then I would suggest you check out the JL car audio 500/1 amplifier. This
amplifier is very efficient and will give little, if any, reason to worry. Here is something more about this
product.
It is a class D amplifier. What does this mean? It means that it belongs to the class of highly efficient amplifiers
that are up to 90% power efficient. This is a great advantage as it means your battery will not be easily run down.
It makes the most efficient use of power when compared to other amplifier classes. And for your car, this is an
invaluable feature.
This amplifier features a 12 inch polymer-coated subwoofer and a 12 inch polymer-coated passive radiator. These two
are responsible for providing ample bass.
Nadia, "I am always so amazed how many come to the defence of the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia and not the people in Saudi Arabia."
Why do you expect us to come to the aid of our enemies instead of someone who is helping us?
"Often the ones who are for US actions in Iraq with the argument its all about bringing freedom"
It is about bringing freedom. Bringing freedom to our Iraqi allies. Haven't you noticed that the ones urging freedom for Saudi Arabian enemies are the same ones who were urging that we leave Saddam in power?
"are the same ones arguing in favour of continuing the support to Saudi Arabia’s regime."
What do you call "support"? We trade with them. This is quite normal. Trade with dictators has been going on for the whole of human history.
"Really Paul credibility goes out faster and faster these days."
Yes, YOUR credibility. You want us to bring freedom to our enemies but not bring freedom to our allies. If you want us to bring freedom to people, then encourage us to free those living under enemy governments, such as Iran, and convince us that we can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
"No military, economically or political support should ever be given to a dictator directly from any democratic country."
First of all you need to clarify what you mean by "support". Trading with dictators, and even allying with dictators, is quite normal. It would be dangerous for us to start antagonizing friendly dictators when we still have enemy dictators out there. If you are serious about freedom, then concentrate on getting us to take out the enemy dictators, then we can start looking at neutral dictators, then move on to allied dictators. Note that we can't just go and betray an allied dictator.
"For once look at it from the perspective of the people who live under a dictatorial regime and you will understand why."
For once look at it from our perspective. Why would we help our enemies? I know what it's like from their perspective. They hate us and their dictator is stopping them from attacking us with state resources.
"You see their mission in life is not to sacrify their life for people living in the west decade after decade."
They're not sacrificing their life for the west at all. They're sacrificing for their dictator. The dictator is an autonomous actor. Don't try blaming the West for your dictators. You've had dictators for thousands of years. If you want the West to spill blood and treasure to overthrow a dictator, you should tell us why it will make the world a better place.
"Because that is exactly what you are asking. And that has been the west policy the last 40 years. People are fed up."
Dictatorship has been policy for thousands of years. Islam has been policy for centuries. If you're fed up, change religion so that you become allies and then we are more likely to help allies than enemies.
"You must understand that looking after what is best for these million of people must be the focus too."
What's best for those millions of people is if they replace Islam with secular humanism. Then they will be allies. Just like the people of say Burma. We're not even freeing the Burmese at this point in time. Don't expect us to free enemies when we are having trouble getting permission to free allies. Why aren't you campaigning to free the Iranians? What country are you in?
"And living in a country where political freedom will get you in jail, tortured or killed is really something they do have a right to say NOOOOO to"
Same as Iran. And Burma.
"without you calling them anti-west or terrorists."
The Iranians and Burmese aren't anti-west or terrorists. Why don't you give priority to them? Why are you instead trying to give priority to someone who you expect will harm the West?
"I want these countries to have the same democracy that Sweden has."
That's fine. So do I. Sweden is not a hostile country. How do we get all the remaining dictators replaced with regimes that look like Sweden? We seem to have a common goal. Let's work on it together. In my calculations, Iran is the next target to take down. We will most likely replace an enemy dictator with an allied (or at least neutral) democracy. This means we have less enemies in the world to deal with. And 70 million people get their freedom. Is there any country in the world with higher priority than Iran?
"Where the people in the Middle East Africa, Asia they themselves decide their own polices and rules and how to develop their economies."
Yes, these sovereign countries are free to implement crackpot economic theories if they insist that they can do a better job than what has been working in the West for centuries.
"Exactly as all the western democratic counties have given their people the right to do."
We've given India the right to do that too, and they plunged their country into poverty by implementing crackpot economic theories (self-reliance). And then they turned around and blamed it on the West. And they allied with the Soviet Union too. Wasn't that fun?
"For example I want Iraq’s oil industry to be publicly owned. I believe that Iraqis should start up all the manufacturing of petroleum products from zero to final product. So Iraqis will not only sell oil it will also sell the final petroleum product to the international markets too."
You need to learn modern economic theory. Regardless, I don't care if the Iraqis implement stupid economic policies. So long as they don't abuse human rights and so long as they don't pose a threat to anyone else in the free world, I don't care. Well, I do care, but I'm not going to force them to follow modern economic theory. So long as they have freedom of speech they can learn that themselves. I will force them to have freedom of speech.
"Its Iraqis recourse and they should have the right to decide what to do with it."
Sure. So long as they don't use it to support terrorism or something, I don't care.
"This will bring millions of jobs to Iraqis and many small companies and factories can flourish!"
What brings jobs is entreupeners in a capitalist society. Not crackpot economic theories. Haven't you tried enough crackpot theories in the Middle East already? Isn't it about time you simply sat down and read modern economic theory?
"These plans in Iraq and hopefully in other nations too might mean that a couple of millions people lose their jobs in factories based in Europe or the US, but that is not Iraq’s problem."
No, that won't happen. Feel free to do whatever you want. Our economies will work fine.
"Iraqis and other people in Africa and Asia have scarified enough."
You've usually sacrificed because instead of learning from the West you insisted you knew better than us and wanted independence so that you could have sadistic dictators and implement whacky economic theories. When are you going to wake up and realise you were far better off under colonial administration? You need to at least get back to that point. You had clean government with rational policies. It was the best we knew how to do. So far all over the world, every ex-colony has produced a worse result than it had under colonial rule. You need to start taking personal responsibility for your mess and ASK FOR HELP. The West is willing to help. We give foreign aid of various sorts. We can teach you economic theory, and we can monitor your governments for corruption etc.
"It time the masses in these countries start looking after themselves as the west has been doing for its people the last 200 years."
The West was trying to develop your countries when they were colonies too. If your history books didn't lie about it, you would be in a better position to figure out what you did wrong. The colonies were already being run as best we knew how to run an economy.
"If then other people see these views as an action of anti west well then you need to think again."
It's actually anti-yourself, not anti-west. All these poor choices you make keep on hurting yourself, not the West. We're willing to help, but you need to stop thinking that you know better than the West. So far none of these ex-colonies/Islamic countries have produced a damn thing of any use to humanity for centuries.
"Its not, its views based on being pro-Iraq, pro-Iraqis, pro-people living in Asia and pro-people living in Africa!"
You should work pro-West into your determinations, given that the West is what is producing basically everything useful in the world.
Paul one can not be for freedom and at the same time support the regime in Saudi Arabia as you do.
Paul,
That is a technical impossibility against a properly-organized modern military.
What made the Iranian Revolution in 1979 different? Technically it worked. The Shah was removed and ties with the United States were severed. Which is what they wished. Unfortunately, of course, that revolution was based on the wrong ideology.
I agree with Sam Aziz.
It's the same everywhere, though it might manifest its self in differant ways. Its not about religion, or ideology, or land, or whatever. Its about who holds the power.
For example: most Americans "disagree with the war in Iraq." Which sounds stupid, but it MEANS that we want out. Unfortuanitely, most Americans aren't in power. Its the rich politicians, who don't care, because they aren't sendin their sons and daughters over there to get blown up.
And Ghandi was from India, which is Eastern... Jesus was from the Middle East. Only Dr. King is American, and he was following the two of them. So, these are hardly Western ideas. All three of them got killed, but they became very sucsessful in bringing about change. They overthrew their opressors through nonviolence.
So, anyway, us westerners aren't all... like the jerks that rule our "democracys." Of course, there is hope- we're haveing a presidential election next year, and no one who supports our current president, or who resembles him in any way is going to get elected. Though I have a sinking feeling that the whole thing is fixed. Too many people in my country, however, seem more concerned about weather or not "American Idol" is fixed...
Oh- maybe I don't know much, but... um... Why overthrow the Jews?
Nadia, "Paul one can not be for freedom and at the same time support the regime in Saudi Arabia as you do."
I support freedom for my allies. My enemies I want locked up or killed or converted into neutrals or allies.
Is this a rational position to take? Would you take this position if you were in my shoes? Or would you help your enemies?
Regardless, if you want freedom for both enemies and allies, then why don't we start with the countries we can agree on? Specifically, Iran. Any reason you don't want Iran liberated?
Lynnette in Minnesota, "What made the Iranian Revolution in 1979 different?"
The Shah wasn't prepared to mow down the demonstrators. The Mullahs are. You must be prepared to play by the same rules as the bad guys, if your survival is at stake. It doesn't help anyone if the bad guys take over. That is why it was necessary to support the USSR during WWII, and support various dictators during the Cold War. It is the only rational choice to make. If you have any complaints, you need to take it up with the bad guys that made this necessary.
Geez!!
You'd think that if "Paul Edwards" was really so much about freedom he would shut up for a second and stop trying to beat whatever point he's trying to force into everyones heads.
Sounds like "Paul Edwards" doesn't have very many humanitarian interests at heart when he says things like "I support freedom for my allies. My enemies I want locked up or killed or converted into neutrals or allies."
Who ARE your allies "Paul Edwards??"
People who live in nations where they think and feel exactly the same way about "the west" as you??
How about other human beings in general??
Did you forget that we don't choose the flag or the regime we're born under? We didn't choose these lives... none of us received that option. It is guaranteed that this type of fate
is simply going to have great effect on how we view the politics of the world.
What a fine representative of America you are Paul Edwards!! You make me proud to be an American--NOT!!!
Maybe there are more important things in general than worrying about "correcting" people about their views on America??
Several times during your flag waving tirades you have basically declared the people who disagree with you to be enemies of the west.
It would appear that you have come here simply to burn bridges rather than foster healthy relationships.
Lets not forget that America is great, but, during the last few years it has become incredibly difficult for an Americans these days to afford a decent education. American children ranked last amongst wealthy countries in just about all categories. It's becoming harder and harder for people here to make ends meet. Unless you're one of the super lucky ones pulling in tons of money each year. Sure sure America is a nice place to live but its becoming quite clear to most of us that our leaders don't exactly have the most human of interests at heart. Just look at whats happened to the lives of everyone in Baghdad because of our leaders irresponsible exploits! So far we've talked a lot of talk and only delivered an unsafe and virtually inhospitable environment, by "western" standards.
"Which is why we have 2 years left to liberate as many people as possible. I've proposed a plan for doing that, which kicks off with the liberation of Iran in December 2007. I believe all the enemy STATES can be taken out before the Republicans lose office, but I don't think there will be time to rescue the Burmese etc."
Are you totally f*cking CRAZY!?
I hope we can make a good difference in the lives of the people who live in Iraq. But HOW can we make a positive difference in their lives and fight a war on THREE ,or more as you propose, fronts??
You are completely out of your mind and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone anywhere!
You sound like some great big anti-American joke.
""So, anyway, us westerners aren't all... like the jerks that rule our "democracys."
You'd be a lot better person if you had the same morals as the current US or Australian governments."
So funny you choose to mock that quote by mentioning the morals of AUSTRALIA! If AUSTRALIA wants to talk the talk then they need too walk the walk and find some way to SEND MORE TROOPS! If they really are so pious and want to help the Iraqi people then they need to get their butts over there and help provide some SECURITY!! Cause it seems to me like counting on the Iraqi police and military is a great big problem for many people living there!!
Paul Edwards:
In the process of killing off (or locking up without trial) your perceived "enemies" you happen to also be killing innocents - and every time you do that you create more ENEMIES, right? Or would you be understanding if the US government did a WACO on your town because there were terrorists there and your family was killed?
---------
Back in the 50's and 60's, there were bombs going off in racially segregated churches in the southern USA. Now if the targeted group had decided that bombing the churches of the people who attacked them was a proper response, we would have had a race war here in the USA.
But, in your world view, they would have been fighting for "freedom".
And in South Africa, if the racial group that came to power (over a decade ago) had decided to strip all power from the other (formally dominant) group and extract revenge on them - there would be war in South Africa today, unless genocide was already a fact on the ground.
But, in your world view, they too would have been fighting for the "freedom" they deserved.
In the process of killing off (or locking up without trial) your perceived "enemies" you happen to also be killing innocents - and every time you do that you create more ENEMIES, right? Or would you be understanding if the US government did a WACO on your town because there were terrorists there and your family was killed?
I meant your family was killed by the US government intervention, not the terrorists.
Paulie, you're fun but i honestly it's becoming a bore. stop trying, nobody will listen to you.
I am unable to counter any of your arguments and I will embrace your wisdom, from now on, I am one of your allies against your enemies. I believe, I believe.
please?
Hello KK and others!
Re: more political freedom in Sweden led the church to loose more power over society in the country.
In the middle of the 1800 free public associations became accepted in Sweden. That was one big step towards democratic freedom. The freedom of meeting became wider. And public school, with access to it, was introduced to help the development in society.
Now the starting of freedom of speech, freedom of associations and more public control over political institutions led the church loosing more and more power over the people and finally led the way to what happened in 1921.
In 1921 was the first national election where people had universal and equal voting rights. It was first now woman had the same political rights as men.
So the political development had led people starting questioning different issues in society.
Last nigth they had a 1.5 hour long documentary about Egyptian bloggers on TV. The bloggers who want a democratic Egypt, where human right are respected.
They are against Mobarak, he is a dictator with a brutal way of ruling.
Some more free time!
So what happened since the mid 1800 is that the Swedish church started being more moderate. With the new freedoms it also came the freedom to start what it called in Sweden “fri kyrkor”, in English it means “free churches” independent of the state where private donations were used etc.
Most of these churches were led by a person who had a very fundamentalist interpretation of the bible.
But since there had started to be more political freedoms and all its effect on the society and people on a personal level it meant people started having more options to turn to for “fulfilling” their need to feel they have a meaningful life with a purpose in it all.
Some find they could find the community feeling the churches gave before in different society associations instead.
Instead of just praying to God you could go out and get involved in changing the things you thought were wrong.
But nevertheless there were people who did not like this change and joined these new free churches where there were still strict Christianity preached.
My husband has attended some of these churches in the 80 and 90 and its scary he says. So why did he attend them. I combination of learning what’s out there and chose what’s suites you best. He ended up in the state church/protestant moderate.
So yes fundamentalist Christian do exist in the very democratic free Sweden.
Just to give an example of a Church not so far away from us; all they preached was about hell and how the devil is coming and sin of humans.
Some have a strange thing about not having curtains for they represent the underpants of the devil. Some have the views that that if you have a handicap they you deserve it because it god’s punishment for something you have done in your life.
Other don’t see TV or films, because it’s making a copy of something God have created.
Some believes effect a lot of people life for example in Palestine and Iraq. There are those who actively work on making Jews move to Palestine and where these then settle in the occupied parts. The reason is because for Jesus to come back all Jews have to be in Israel.
And when they are all there they must abandon Judaism and turn to Christians and then Jesus will return.
There are churches who actively work for this.
Other see the war in Iraq as something that needs to be supported and the more worse it gets the more it’s an indication that the end is near and Jesus is coming.
And now I remember an article I read about the Christian Reconstructions movement in the US. These even believed in stoning people who have committed adultery.
That fact is the majority of people in the world are moderate religious people or moderate atheist people. Then we have the fundamentalist and they are found in all societies.
The way to lesser their power is to build a free society with many options for people to develop and grow! Education makes a huge difference and having a society where people meet other cultures and people from other countries is the best way to combat intolerance and ignorance which are the two pillars for the fundementalist.
A lot of people in the muslim world are very angry to be living under dictatorship where their human righs are taken away from them. Its anger based on politic not religion. These millions of people deserv the right to all the options political freedom brings with it so that they can develp a better country for themselvs and kids.
The sooner the support to dictators goes away the quicker the development will happen!
Ummm...one little correction.
Paul Edwards is from Australia. He is not American.
Yes, I understand what you were telling me, Paul. Which is why the outcome in 1991 in Iraq was different than that of 1979 in Iran. Saddam was willing to do that(as was Asad at Hama).
Which is why the change has to come from within. Continually playing by "Hama Rules" will only get you exactly what you have had in the past.
The Iranians had their revolution, but they didn't make enough change in themselves to make it stick.
Iraq won't work either if all they do is use Saddam's methods over and over again.
And when I say "revolution" I mean in the sense of change to something better. Not keeping the same type of people, but changing their hats.
As to the War on Terror, there are many battlefields in that. Military action is only one.
I thought we all already agreed that the War on Terror was a joke?
I don't think Zarqawi did.
hmmm....mmm..... congratulations on your achievement?
Thank you, but I can't really take the credit.
That's for those who are in the line of fire trying to remove the odd head chopper or two.
Nadia
There are Egyptian bloggers in Egypt, and the egyptian bloggers. You are saying that all of them want democratic egypt where human rights are respected, but the meaning of democracy is different for different bloggers and human rights means also different things for different bloggers. I did not see the program, but there are all kinds of bloggers in Egypt, from jihadists to pro-western. It was the same during revolution in Iran, democracy and revolution had different meaning for different people. The result is known.
'we won't beat the Jews yesterday or in a million years if we keep on our hypocrisy, we must change ourselves first.' Don't you think beating the Jews should be the least of your priorities given the situation in Iraq? What have the Arabs ever done for the Palestinians except use their plight to distract their people from the corruption and persecution going on in Arab countries. How come no one ever considered over 800,00 Jews who fled Arab countries as refugees? Is it because they were able to establish themselves in their adopted countries and never looked back and were never used by Israel or any other country as pawns? It is such a shame that whenever an Arab has a problem the first one to blame is the Jew. Are we that important?
Oh dear, Kid, you haven't banned the verbose, nay, logorrheic Pauly, have you? If so, such a pity. NOT!!! Ha Ha Ha, Hohoho, snort, snicker, chortle, guffaw, ROFLMAO. Well, actually, I don't generally like to see commenters banned, but a few really do get to be annoying to the breaking point.
Ella I must say I do not understand what your point is at all??!!!!
You seem to have a problem with people having different opinions.
Mobarak is a dictator and these bloggers and activist are working hard on developing their country into a democratic one where human rights are respected!
If you are Egyptian I say sure go ahead and work for a better Egypt you too, but if you are not Egyptian well then don’t stand in their way of getting rid of a dictatorship.
Ex-Iraqi Jew,
I think what KK meant was exactly that beating the Jews SHOULD be 'the least of our priorities'. Muslims are too focused on Israel when we should be focusing on our many 'internal' problems.
'How come no one ever considered over 800,00 Jews who fled Arab countries as refugees? '
Personally I never heard of them. Last time I checked those Arab Jews (or ex-Arab Jews as you seem to prefer)were invited to leave their countries and settle in Israel.
I suppose if there were Jewish refugees we didn't consider them because we were a bit overwhelmed by the number of Palestinian refugees.
But if you really feel strongly about this then let's consider them...
How exactly would you like it to be done?
You said so yourself we live in corrupt societies, so even if an individual muslim may have no grudge against any given individual jew (and this is a fact you know, the grudge is against Israel its not like Islam forbids befriending Jews), we have no power over our governments and who they choose to persecute (if indeed jews were persecuted in Arab countries). I mean of all the problems Arabs have to deal with you think they would stop to 'consider' Jewish refugees who believe they are ex-Arab and have a very powerful state representing them in the area? Im sorry if it's harsh I mean you're important but not 'that important'.
Nadia,
I thought it was so funny that you mentioned some of the things that you did about churches!
"Just to give an example of a Church not so far away from us; all they preached was about hell and how the devil is coming and sin of humans."
I remember when I was a small child, no older than 7, we lived in a small country town in the southern U.S.
My mother was Korean and she did not feel comfortable there at all. I think the entire time we were there she only met one other Korean woman whom she was able to become friends with. She was so lonely and she had no one to talk to much of the time. I remember she even forgot how to say certain words in Korean as she spoke on the phone.
One day we were invited to go to a country church. So we went.
I have to say that it was one of the most terrifying experiences I'd ever had up to that point!!!
The preacher was running around the small stage yelling and screaming so loudly! You couldn't even understand what he was saying except when it came to words like "the devil, Satan, Hell, fire, damnation", and some more things about burning... he made sure to pronounce those particular words with great care and ferocity!
At some point during his satan-rich diatribe I became full of terror because I started to wonder why my mother had brought me to a satanic church???
Did Koreans worship the devil!?? My family tried to teach me about God, but a lot of things about organized religion made no sense to me whatsoever... I had never been taught anything about Korean spirituality so this seemed like a semi-rational conclusion...it may have been wrong on many levels, but that didn't make it seem any less of a possibility...
I had never placed much faith in Christianity or any other form of religion, but I knew for SURE that being there in the "Church of Satan" had to be the WRONG place to be!!
I remember being afraid to ask my mother if she was going to start worshiping the devil openly, but I did tell her that the preacher was very scary and I was very confused as to what he was getting on about.
Imagine my surprise to learn that I had just visited a Christian church!! It was some extreme form of Southern Baptism!
Mobarak is a dictator and these bloggers and activist are working hard on developing their country into a democratic one where human rights are respected!
Yep, I think that's what the Iranian students thought too at the time of their revolution. But you never know when someone may be playing a shell game, though. Gotta be careful to make it stick in the end.
Sentientdevice,
I'm so sorry to hear that you had that experience, though I find it to be completely believable. Its the extremests that make christianity such a joke sometimes.
I feel that that's how things are with everything. All religions, govt's, etc.
And, for the record, there's plenty to bash us Christians about that can be found in the Bible, so don't take the koran bashing to heart, guys. We all should keep in mind that our holy books were written by men, not God. And that there are extremests in both religions, but that they don't make up the majority. Common sense, and acceptance are the only things that will finally bring us the peace that I know we all want.
Actually Quran was written by God.
There are a lot of peaceful verses in Quran that holds a completely different approach to the often used verses about war and destruction. One must know the particular circumstances in which those verses were revealed.
Thanks. Looks like I need to study up on theology...
But I agree. "To everything there is a season." (One of my favorite songs, by the Birds.)
Pandora You missed my point. My point is Jewish refugees from Arab countries are not important because they have moved on. They do not still hold the keys to their houses waiting for some country to fight for their return. We are just a small number of millions of refugees that came about as a result of wars, famine etc... My point is this fixation with Jews by Arabs. I remember the favorite curse in Iraq after 'Ibn al kalb' was 'Ibn el Yahudi'. The hatred is inherent in their psyche.In fact we have more in common with Arabs and their heritage and culture than we do with the culture of our adopted western countries. We should be friends.
The HE(ART) of Peace, is the way forward.
* * *
The Last War
Freedom, Peace and Security will NEVER be won nor secured by the sword, another war will always need to be fought to end the fear of the sharp blade against the vital thoughts of change.
The last war will be waged without soldiers or freedom fighters, without blood shed or death, no rockets red glare, no bombs bursting anywhere.
The last war will not cause suffering, broken hearts, splintered spirits, or shattered bodies and souls, the creation of nature and man will not be crushed under the rolling thunder of armored machines, chemicals will not rain down from above, maniacal viruses will not attack from within, suicide terror raids, genocide, and nuclear holocaust will have no place in the last war, the casualties will be the end of competition, industry, government and religion which plan for and carry out the destruction, addiction and control of others.
The last war will be waged BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE, a war where all things will be TREATED as equal, a war employing weapons of MASS COOPERATION, battles fought and won with tolerance for all, understanding of difference, awareness of responsibility, a war in which compassion and love conquer and destroy the final evil enemy of humankind, the last war, the mother of all wars, the war to end all wars, must be waged upon fear.
We the People, declare a global war on fear.
How do we the people start this war, how do we wage this war, how do we the people win the last war ?
We start by turning away from those who support fear, by denying our services, our employment, our political, financial, moral and spiritual support to those who build and profit from the economy of competition, addiction and war.
We wage the last war by demanding that our energy and environment be clean and renewable, by demanding that the thousands of billions of dollars spent yearly on making the weapons and means of war be shifted and added to the nearly meaningless hundreds of billions which is reluctantly parted out for social, health, education and domestic infrastructure.
We win the last war by simply entrusting our votes, our support, our children's and grandchildren's lives to those of US whose words and actions - DELIVER - compassion, love and truth.
We the people can, will and must defeat fear.
©Bruce Larson*Moore
World*Peace - Profit
?How*Much?
Good sentiments, Bruce :)
Hey ex-Iraqi jew...you bring to point an interesting topic which i may discuss more in future posts.
The same connection can be made between (my own) Christianity, and Homeophobia in western civilization. And the fact that EVE ate the apple can be directly connected with chauvinism, and the fact that women are less likely to get promoted than men.
dear iraqi konfused kid,
i have a similar sentiment to anastasia and ex-iraqi jew- i understand you are saying that "defeating the jews" should NOT be the most important thing on the Iraqis' and Muslims' mind, that the most important thing is developing one's own society and having a better, truer view of one's own religion, and practicing it better as well. I agree with that but here is my issue--
it is like as if, in america, a politician said: "we should not focus on defeating the muslims, we must focus on practicing christianity in a true way". I agree that muslims should focus on truly practicing islam, christians on practicing true christianity--- but you are both still buying into this idea that there is something wrong with jews or muslims, and that you need to defeat them. whether by self-improvement or by direct fighting, its the same thing--- you do not know jews or muslims, but you have grown up in a cultural context where you learn bad things about them. so you believe they must be defeated. الشكر لله that you realize that the only way evil can be defeated is by making yourSELF better-- but you are still believing that الآخر is evil. and I think that it is maybe because you don't know him...
If you did, you'd see he's just like you.
you use the jews as an example of people "making the mistake of thinking they are the best", which you hope muslims don't do. ya3zizi alwld al7yran, if you meet many jews, religious and not religious, you will find that they are like muslims. some misunderstand their religion, and use it as a way to feel better than others. some realize that kill albshr kheer ubrke. and sometimes it is complicated- sometimes you have a person that genuinely is close to god and spiritual and true in his heart in his religion, and at the same time is not free from racism in his heart. a person is full of many different things, mixed together.
the reason I am taking the time to write this, is that it is a first step to realize that you cannot achieve anything real, anything worth achieving, if you don't start withyourself. but it is a second step to realize that "beating the jews" is actually not the thing worth acheiving.
and that the jews were not the first nor the last to practice hypocrisy. human beings were, and are.
aside from that- i enjoy your blog because it is nice to see those that are not either-or with regards to modern values and love of justice and respect of others and religion. they go together, in the base. keep speaking of how great great great a religion islam is, it is good to see. and more importantly, keep illustrating it by becoming a better person (as you seem to be always doing). allah y7fzak wy3teek al3fia way3tee al3fia likill 3ra2 wakll illi by3anu feel3alim killu, inshaallah.
Lisa,
Hmm... naw. I have no desire to defeat anyone, actually:) I'm sorry I came off that way!
I've never had a problem with Jews. It's only certain Christians that bring me greif. I hate that my friends have to connect my religion to people who have caused them pain in its name :(
But I wonder. While we're on the topic of religion- the problem with religion seems to be that so many people have the mentality that if one religion is right, than all the others are wrong.
But what if they're all right?
"My point is this fixation with Jews by Arabs. I remember the favorite curse in Iraq after 'Ibn al kalb' was 'Ibn el Yahudi'. The hatred is inherent in their psyche.In fact we have more in common with Arabs and their heritage and culture than we do with the culture of our adopted western countries. We should be friends."
Ok got your point. I agree, we should be friends :)
We don't have Kuwaiti Jews so I honestly don't know what Arab Jews have to go through. Muslim Arabs of different countries hate each other to bits so what would the feeling be towards an Arab Jew?! I can only imagine. You are right 'yahudi' is sometimes used as a derogative term. It's sad.
May I tell you a secret?
I've always wanted a Jewish friend :D
How silly i feel almost guilty saying it. I suppose if we want people to believe there are moderate muslims we have to believe there are moderate Jews.
'Actually Quran was written by God.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
A people wonder why the Middle East is a mess.'
Jeffrey Im sorry but I don't get the correlation here.
Do you have a problem believing that the Quran itself is written by God or do you have a problem believing there is a God at all?
If it's the first i don't see how its messing up the Middle East because most muslims who believe the Quran is written by God are not living in the middle east.
If it's the latter I still don't see the correlation because most people who believe in God still don't live in the middle east.
If you want to be sarcastic at least put a little brain in it.
"Muslim Arabs of different countries hate each other to bits so what would the feeling be towards an Arab Jew?!"
I don't hate other Arab Muslims. And I have never felt that an a person from the Middle East hates me becouse I am an arab from another country either.
And the day I find out that I don't like someone from the Middle East it will be becose of the same reasons I sometimes don't like a Swedish person too. That they lied to me or that they hurt my feelings. We just can not agree with all people all the time.
Hate is a very strong word and with all what Bush's polices have made out of Iraq I still don't hate Bush as a person. I hate the policies he comes up with, I hate his view about brining peace with bombs. So its his actions I disagree with.
So dearsest Panodra I dont agree with your view above, and I still like you! ; )
Ex iraqi jew, the ach bishop in Sweden urged once for a boycott of Israel. Based on that Israel claims it’s a democracy and therefore must end its illegal occupation of Palestine and end its apartheid rules. This is the view of many people in Sweden too. This is the view of British academics who want a boycott too and can be found in many other countries too.
People who are against this boycott or against any criticism of Israel seem to have lost all the arguments so now the only thing is the mantra that these people hate Jews, are anti Semites and want all Jews killed. It’s really getting pathetic in my view.
But this is where the discussions end up. One argues don’t build your barrier on Palestinian land; don’t cut your barrier thru a Palestinian family’s property making it impossible for them to work on their farm that now is on the other side of the fence. Don’t build more illegal settlements on Palestinian land. The other argues you hate Jews.
So it does not matter if you are a Muslim, Arab, Christian, Swedish, Jew, American you will have people from all part of the world who see Israelis actions of building on Palestinian land as illegal, who view Israelis building more illegal settlements on Palestinian land as illegal. So the power is really with Israel, end the illegal settlements, and build the barrier on your on land.
Just last Thursday a person I know joined the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, he'll be there till Summer.
http://www.eappi.org/
They work for:
# Expose the violence of the occupation
# End the brutality, humiliation and violence against civilians
# Construct a stronger global advocacy network
# Ensure the respect of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
# Influence public opinion in home country and affect foreign policy on Middle East in order to end the occupation and create a viable Palestinian State
# Express solidarity with Palestinian and Israeli peace activists and empower local Palestinian communities/churches
# Be an active witness that an alternative, non-violent struggle for justice and peace is possible to end the illegal occupation of Palestine
- Nadia
That's coz you're a sweetheart nadia. When I said that, I meant there are individuals in certain Arab countries who hate those from other countries, not entire populations. Kuwaitis for example can have a difficult time in some countries because there are Arabs who see them as siding with the 'Big Devil' America. In Jordan in particular, Kuwaiti students often face rascism whether it's name calling, robbing or even beating. In Kuwait you will find people who hate Palestinians because they can't get over the way many of them backstabbed us during the invasion.
Yes hate is a very strong word but it signifies emotion not necessarily action. There are people who can hate vehemently and still have the self control to hide it. It's not what's on the surface that counts, it's what's deep within.
And I hate George Bush as a person.
Pandora, the things you wrote about, that is why I hate war. When war happens it brings death and destructions with it. Later, many years’ later people will still feel the war effects thru the emotional pain of the lost of a friend, a lover, a son or a mother because of the war. This is very difficult to overcome even for those who try. It might come out as you described by abusive words and even physical attacks. : (
When I lived in Britain, I rented a room from a woman who still had nightmares from WWII and the bombings of London. She said she still found it difficult to talk to German people. This was in the 90:s so now there is a new German generation grown up that had nothing to do with WWII but she still did not like them.
I hate war.
And I hate those who run the weapon industry.
Pandora - here is a site you might find interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_and_Daoud_Al-Kuwaity
Thanks :) that really was interesting. I asked my mother since she was a big fan of Um Kalthom if she ever heard of them, she said she never did. I kept insisting hoping to rekindle her memory till she got quite annoyed. It's like they never existed.
Post a Comment