Je Suis Charlie
Posted by: Iver van de Zand on 07 January 2015
!
Sounds rather confused...
I suppose, Gianluigi, we should be grateful to you for being honest enough to reveal the underlying motivation for your somewhat confused ravings about conspiracy theories - disgusting.
Disgusting? Yes i surely am. But find disgusting that we invaded two countries on the base of.......nothing. If you do not consider Powell's drawnings of course. And i find disgusting watching soldiers distributing bibles to people that lost an entire life under a pile of ruins. And those criminals in uniform that were shoting at red cross tryin to evacuate children and women in Falluja will never be as disgusting as i am. As i'm not acting in the name of freedom but for some obscure, confused personal purpose. At the same time i'm disgusted by that infite line of coffins covered by flags that should protect those boys and girls and that sent into hell instead with the promise of a future. Which is the same disgusting thing that happens on the other side of the barricade but under another flag and god.
And i find disgusting that some people evoke (yes, evoke) freedom of speech while in some so called free countries if you talk too much you lose job, family and life in the end.
And i feel disgusted when in the name of freedom some decide to make fun of something that for millions of human beings is the last resource before starvation or slavery in some factories making toys for other slaves that want to defende their "lifestyle".
I'm so disgusting that i only see a waste of beauty, souls and potential.
Nauseatingly yours.
I've removed the picture that preceded the last few posts. The picture was offensive to many here. I get the point, but a hifi forum such as this is perhaps not really the best place to make it. Apologies to Digger that somehow your posts went too, but it's at least quoted by Gianluigi.
I've removed the picture that preceded the last few posts. The picture was offensive to many here. I get the point, but a hifi forum such as this is perhaps not really the best place to make it. Apologies to Digger that somehow your posts went too, but it's at least quoted by Gianluigi.
I'm deeply sorry Richard. I don't mean to insult or abuse anyone and despite my posts here people that know me in person know that i make respect for any person a point of honour. So please Digger take my sincere excuses. It was, of course, not against you or other members or other people in general. Only an extreme (stupid if you like) provocation. War on terrorists (just to simplify) is a kind of family thing here since the day i was born. We lived for years, in different moments, under close surveillance. When i talk about certain things i can't help but stand up from the chair.
Sorry again.
The hypocrisy of us westerners never ceases to amaze me.
It's all we've got Allen. Imagine if that veil of self serving ignorance was properly pulled back. It could be the end of a lot of things.
You really need to get off your high horse and learn some humility.
I cited the Ebola crisis as one example of western hypocrisy, off topic but since you picked up on it, let's get some facts straight. MSF are a charitable organisation, they rely heavily on volunteers. The number of international doctors number in the tens, not hundreds. Most of the health workers out there are nationals. I am not undermining MSF at all, they do a fantastic job in Africa but Ebola has overwhelmed the countries affected. Everyone of them deserves much more than a medal or commendation from a politician, but they are too busy linking arms for a photo shoot. The WHO have only just issued a Ebola Response Roadmap, just about a year after the outbreak. Since then, about 7500 human beings have suffered a horrific death. What have the western world done to help, only recently have they sent equipment and personnel out to create more treatment centres. Most of these centres can only treat about 50 people maximum. Actually, treat is a misnomer, because the western world pharmaceuticals have almost ignored any significant vaccine or medicinal response to this virus.
There was more media coverage of the Scottish referendum and the World Cup then there was about the Ebola crisis.
If you want to concentrate on these atrocities by muslim extremists, how much coverage has there been of the Boko Haram massacres in Nigeria, and the IS massacres in Syria? Not until western reporters and workers get murdered do the western governments respond with indignant righteousness.
You cite the difficulties of getting aid to african states, but what about western armies mobilising in Iraq and Afghanistan, didn't stop them there did it?
Wow dude, you are angry. Perhaps you need a lie down?
I'm not sure what this "humilty" I need to learn is (thanks for the command) - is it the humility to just accept your ill-informed blather without questioning it? I think you are conflating lots of different issues so you come across as a ranter.
To tackle your complaints - first, Ebola. While I am no fan of Big Pharma, what you don't seem to appreciate is that drugs and treatments often take years or even decades to develop. Once made, they have to be tested, first on animals, and then on humans. This takes forever, as you need large test samples in order to be sure your drug is actually working and is safe. This already lengthy process is probably hindered by the overly-cautious approach of the American Food & Drug Administration. But there are huge ethical issues around using untested drugs (vaccines particularly) on poor people in Africa, so maybe their caution is a little easier to understand when these issues are taken into account.
What is actually interesting is that Big Pharma and governments are throwing a lot of resource at the problem, and treatments are being tested at an unprecedented rate - as well as Zmapp, which has already been used, there are at least two other treatments in development.
I was at a party the other day and got talking to a very interesting and knowledgeable guy who was a virologist at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and he told me that one of the problems is the isolation of many of the communities worst-hit by Ebola (and to your point, both Iraq and Afghanistan are much easier to get to than, say, Sierra Leone). treatments for the disease require very high-tech facilities which do not exist in West Africa, so the drugs - which can also take a long time to manufacture, even when they've been tested and approved - have to be transported many thousands of miles, and they can destabilise and be made ineffective, particularly when they're being taken to very hot countries where refrigeration is rare.
There's also the problem, he told me, that this particular group of viral haemorrhagic fevers, like Ebola or Marburg, are still not very well understood. Even the West, with all its technology and wealth, would in all likelihood be completely overwhelmed by an outbreak of Ebola, so imagine the problems in trying to contain it in a country ravaged by war, poverty, superstition and poor communications.
There is just cause to criticise governments and bodies for their slow response, but the issue is far more complex than you suggest, and is nothing to do with politicians linking arms, Iraq or the Scottish referendum.
It is certainly true that the latter got much more coverage than the Ebola crisis, but as I said to Dr Mark somewhere above, this is just human nature, not conspiracy. We are naturally, and understandably, more interested in things that affect us directly. This is why a car crash in Acacia Avenue that kills one person is of more interest to the people of Acacia Avenue than a coach crash 1,000 miles away that kills 50. That may be hypocritical, but it is entirely natural. Same for the Scottish referendum - it directly affects everyone living in the UK; Ebola does not, even if we owe it to humanity to muster up a modicum of compassion for the victims, and make efforts to try and help (you can of course be critical of the speed or strength of the response).
It is not a numbers game, nor is it a zero-sum one.
A bit sweeping, I think. For example, the UK spent £11bn on foreign aid last year. Because of the deficit HMG had to borrow in order to make this commitment, too. Hardly self-serving.
So really, wind your neck in and jog on. You might want to change your avatar soon as well. I'm sure there must be another crisis looming soon, maybe the Euro is going to crash again, or your train fares have risen once more.
The reason for my avatar is my business, but if you must know, as a writer and hack, issues of freedom of expression are very close to my heart, and have been since 1989, when Salman Rushdie, a UK citizen, was put under sentence of death by Khomeni, a foreign ruler who had no jurisdiction over this country, for writing a book. That's right - a book. Which as far as I am aware, is not illegal in a democracy if it does not contain incitement to violence (I've read The Satanic Verses and it contains no such incitement).
As a result, we had to endure the sight of people here burning books - which most f them had never read - in the street (book burning was a very Nazi thing remember), Rushdie had to go into hiding for the best part of a decade and a number of people involved with the book were murdered.
The response, from the Government, the establishment and many in the liberal elite, which was to stand by doing nothing, or equivocation, was disgraceful.
Further to my post above, people tend to rally round when one of their own is killed. So, when a journalist is murdered, journalists rally round; when a policeman is slain, coppers tend to stand together; and when a Jew or a Muslim is killed, Jews and Muslim make shows of solidarity.
You are perfectly correct about the politicians at last week's rally in Paris. Hypocrites all - and what could be more absurd, or egregious, than representatives of tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia or Turkey marching for freedom. But for me, they did not matter. What really matttered, and what made the event so moving for me, was the fact that millions of ordinary people, of all nationalities, creeds and races were marching in quiet, dignified defiance against clerical fascism.Nothing to do with the politicians, many of whom were obviously trying to make capital out of the event.
And make no mistake - militant Islamism, as espoused by the likes of Boko Haram, AQ, Al Shabaab and the Taliban, is a deeply fascist ideology - one that seeks to subjugate - through violence if necessary - freedom of expression, thought and conscience, women, gays, atheists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, agnostics, the "wrong' kind of Muslims, journalists and anyone else who does not fit into their warped view of the world; and which espouses murder, rape, slavery, violence, paedophilia and every decent human impulse.
So my avatar stays for the moment. Even though train fares have gone up (and especially if it irritates you).
Nick Cohen put it very well in last week's Observer (a paper whose response, like that of its sister paper The Guardian, has, for a self-styled liberal voice, has been particularly pusillanimous). Please allow me to quote the following passage for you - for me this gets to the chilling heart of the matter, and puts it far better than I could.:
We have a blasphemy law. No electorate has approved it. No parliament has passed it. No judge supervises its application and no jury determines guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There’s no right of appeal. And the penalty is death. It is enforced not by a police bound by codes of conduct, but by a fear that dare not speak its name; a cowardice so total it lacks the courage to admit it is afraid.
So my avatar stays for the moment. Even though train fares have gone up (and especially if it irritates you).
Well said
Finally, AllenB, Dr Mark and others who seem willing to blame our current crisis entirely on the hypocrisy and double-dealings of Uncle Sam and his allies, and Israel: while the West has indeed been guilty of gross hypocrisy in its dealings over the years, let us not forget that militant Islam (which has of course found thousands of eager recruits following the catastrophic 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the horrors of Guantamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and Israel's appalling treatment of the Palestinian Arabs), and while (misguidedly in my view) supported in the past by the West when it suited, actually pre-dates 9/11, Iraq and even Israel's early '80s actions against the PLO.
I would actually date the rise of Islamist extremism to around 1967, and the Arabs' defeat in the Six Day War. This humiliation (and it was a complete humiliation), coupled with the failure of the Nasser experiment of secular socialism and pan-Arab nationalism; coupled with the growing wealth, power and influence of the fundamentalist, barbarous KoSA, led many Muslims to turn to fundamentalism. (As a side note, I think a good number of our problems with religious militancy could be solved if we took a much harder line with our "allies" - with friends like that, who needs enemies, eh? - Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are funding much of this fascist militancy).
The flames were further fanned after 1979 by the Shi'ite Islamic republic of Iran and by the situation in Palestine. The fatwa against Rushdie, for me a statement of intent by militant Islam, also predates 9/11 - by 12 years.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, that catastrophic as it was, the 2003 invasion of Iraq is not solely responsible for the mess we are in now, and it is certainly not the origin of Islamist extremism. And let's be clear, Islamist extremism is a threat to everyone, whether they ignore or appease it or not.
From your posts, we can be fairly sure that you're against Western hypocrisy and ill-advised actions in the Middle East. I think most right-thinking people are. But can I ask - what are you actually in favour of?
And make no mistake - militant Islamism, as espoused by the likes of Boko Haram, AQ, Al Shabaab and the Taliban, is a deeply fascist ideology - one that seeks to subjugate - through violence if necessary - freedom of expression, thought and conscience, women, gays, atheists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, agnostics, the "wrong' kind of Muslims, journalists and anyone else who does not fit into their warped view of the world; and which espouses murder, rape, slavery, violence, paedophilia and every decent human impulse.
Sorry - that should have read: "which espouses murder, rape, slavery, violence, paedophilia and the suppression of every decent human impulse.
Sorry Kevin. No. it started 1300 years ago.
From Wiki:
Muhammad spent his last ten years, from 622 to 632, as the leader of Medina in a state of war with pagan Mecca. Muhammad and his Companions had earlier migrated from Meccato Medina in what is known as the Hijra following years of persecution by the Meccans. Through raids, sieges, and diplomacy, Muhammad and his followers allied with or subdued some of the tribes and cities of the Arabian peninsula in their struggle to overcome the powerful Banu Quraish of Mecca.
They also sent out raiding parties against Arabic-speaking communities ruled under the Roman Empire. Muhammad was believed by the Muslims to be divinely chosen to spread Islam in world, and Muhammad ultimately permitted warfare as one aspect of this struggle.[1] After initially refusing to accede to requests by his followers to fight the Meccans for continued persecution and provocation, he eventually proclaimed the revelations of the Quran:
<dl><dd><dl><dd>"Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged -truly Allah has the power to come to their support- those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, 'Our Lord is Allah'..." (Quran, 22:39-40)"</dd></dl></dd></dl>
After the first battle of Badr against the Quraysh, he is reported as having said "We have returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul)."[2] John Esposito writes that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord.[3]
You may well be right RK. This particular religious creed does seem to have been built on expansionist aggression and has a lot of inbuilt violence - death for apostasy for example, and violence against gays and unbelievers.
"Finally, AllenB, Dr Mark and others who seem willing to blame our current crisis entirely on the hypocrisy and double-dealings of Uncle Sam and his allies, and Israel: while the West has indeed been guilty of gross hypocrisy in its dealings over the years..."
Nothing i have written could or ever should be construed as exonerating militant Islam, and the "where to draw the line" with that religion in general seems a murky proposition with me. Obviously there are those who abhor the actions of certain Islamists, but I sometimes wonder if there isn't "silent majority" that while they would never participate in such acts, somehow think it is a good thing (at worst) or are willing to say nothing because they are in a minority status as to percentage of population, but were that to change to majority would give at the least tacit approval. And I am also sure some are just afraid of the militants in their own place, even outside the traditionally Islamic countries. I am not accusing anyone of anything in all that - I just don't know what is the reality of it all. We certainly do get a lot of conflicting information from many sources, including our governments and the(ir) press.
But most of the big, scary issues in the world today are the direct result of the neocons in the USA who absolutely control US foreign policy, and appear to be bent on world hegemony, and are willing to risk nuclear war if necessary to achieve their goals. They care nothing for human life...whether it is innocent children being droned, or our own misguided young military men and women, who give their life for a farce.
What I would favor would be not having troops stationed in over 100 countries, and spending money like we do on the "Offense Industry." We're spending ourselves broke. This economic game they have been playing is going to bite everyone on the @ss hard some day; I imagine the biggest big shots will front run it based on the inside information they have, but at some point this dollar based house of cards has to tumble.
As one of my favorite lines from The Godfather says:
Here, you may be getting to the crux of some of the issues, but to me, the issues arising probably find their fruition with the formation of the state of Israel in 1947/48. Before that, we know that Jerusalem had many different Arab leaders and caliphates over history, the longest of which probably being the Turkish Ottoman empire from the 16th century, until Britain took control at the end of the First World War, thus forming the state of Palestine.
Without reciting the whole history, and this area has indeed had a chequered history, Jews have always had a calling to return to Zion, off the back of the second World War and holocaust survivors wanting resettlement, Britain were unable to resolve the balance of this sudden influx and effectively washed their hands of brokering a solution acceptable to Jews and Arabs alike. In steps the newly formed United Nations that draws up a plan of partitioning. The Jewish Agency accepts the plan, the Arab League does not, fighting breaks out and the Jews effectively eject 1/4 million Palestine Arabs. When Britain's mandate finally runs out, the Jews declare the sate of Israel. The Arab-Israeli war breaks out in 1948 and even more arabs are expelled. Notably, Israel becomes a member of the UN thus cementing it's protective 'umbrella'. Israel's population swells over the ensuing years and further conflicts involve more land grabs from the Arabs.
The Suez Crisis in the 50's was maybe where the first military involvement of western countries in league with the Israelis to defeat Arab (Egyptian) forces was felt catastrophic, but what must run deep with many Arabs around the whole region is the allies and economic & military partnerships that Israel has nurtured and enjoyed with the 'western' world, where they are often viewed as the only trustworthy country in this volatile region. For many an Arab, Israel is always the enemy and western super powers are by association also seen as, untrustworthy at best, or the enemy at worst.
A lot of history since then may have lead to where we are today with Islamic fundamentalism and extremism, but as I have said before, the western world needs to examine closely what they have done and are doing that is raising this angst towards us and this post war era marks the start of the deep divisions that exist even to this day. As we know, even within any Arab state, there are many, many divisions by ethnicity, tribe, faiths and beliefs upon how the Quran is interpreted, which leads to almost constant conflict between muslims within (violent and non-violent), but also now to those who interfere from outside.
Your flat earth historical analysis of the Middle East is just dazzling and I admire its complete lack of hypocrisy.
While you are at it, you might as well point out to your lost Islamist souls ravaging Europe that they are targeting the wrong countries and people since the crux of their misery and anger lies elsewhere in the east. The killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and on a smaller scale in Pakistan, Syria and Yemen, all done by western forces in recent years (not to mention older colonialism and ancient crusades) are nothing in comparison to the creation of the state of Israeli and its occupation of the West Bank. Focus on the Jews, man!
I feel so proud of my little country which is constantly being used as a remedy to all the headaches caused to the west by the Islamic terror. There is no need to look oneself in the mirror and ask any painful questions. You just open the medicine cabinet, you take two Ugly Israeli aspirins and voila, the headache is gone and the easy answers are at you fingertips.
Good night.
Well, self-serving just about sums up western society politics for the last 30 years or so.
Try 150. And when we're talking about any religion, try thousands. People think there wasn't history before the BBC invented it, or that somehow the past is not connected to the present, or maybe that it can be selectively connected. Self serving delusion.
I agree that Western nations have their fair share of blame (and responsibility) for the current state of affairs in the Middle East. But I grow tired of hearing only blame for NATO nations, without any consideration of the historical role played by the Soviet Union, or that of modern day Russia.
Prior to the Six Day War, it was Soviet-supplied arms that surrounded Israel. Egypt massed Soviet-made tanks in the Sinai, and deployed Soviet-made ships to blockade the Strait of Tiran. These actions precipitated the war, and so it was Egypt's Soviet-made Migs that were destroyed on day one. It was also a Soviet-made missile boat that sank one of Israel's two destroyers off Port Said in October 1967, a few months after the so-called cease-fire. So how did we get to that point?
In January 1957, the US adopted the Eisenhower Doctrine. The goal was to prevent the ongoing spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East. Nasser's promotion of pan-Arabism was viewed as a threat. The Soviets were the arms supplier to the Egypt, Syria and Jordan military alliance. In a move that would be regretted to this day, Eisenhower tried to isolate Nasser and reduce his regional influence by transforming Saudi Arabia into a counterweight. In short, Nasser's Pan-Arab vision was viewed primarily, and regrettably, through Cold War lenses.
It is incorrect to believe that Western (and in particular, US) support of Israel was somehow engineered by a small, yet powerful pro-Zionist lobby. Influential perhaps, but not rising to the ludicrous stereotype portrayed by a recently removed post. Israel became an ally of the West because they supported the primary goal of Western foreign policy from the end of World War II through 1991: halting Soviet expansion.
Ironically, with the rise of Putin's Russia, his continuing support for Syria and Iran, and his invasion of the Crimea, it is amazing how so much, yet so little, has changed. IMO, until there is peace between Russia and the West, there can be little chance of peace in the Middle East.
Hook
I can't identify any Nation that is currently squeaky clean in all its dealings with its own peoples, other nations, or groups of people with international-cultural or religious links. Many people, including politicians, claim they know the solution to "other" peoples' shortcommings and very few of these "other" people, if any, like being told how to behave. This also applies throughout history. So these arguments on the forum over who (historically) did what, to whom, and when are largly irrelevant IMO, especially events that happened years ago.
We should try to do better. Some Nations and some people do try. However, dealing consistently and equally at all times, with all Nations and all groups of people is also impractical. We need to be realistic.
It is my view, that the UK's attempts to do better, both recently and at present, is preferable to the recent and current attempt by ISIS to do better.
I think. on this basis, I am more aligned with Kevin's views and not so enthusiastic about AllanB's views.
Britain seems to enjoy good relationships with several countries in the Middle East.
Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, The Emirates, Oman. We even get on with Egypt, Iran and the Palistinians in the West Bank and Ghaza. Dealings with Yemen have been difficult for about 40 years. And of course Syria has been difficult these past few years.
Did I miss any ?
One thing I can't grasp is how anything that calls itself a religion can countenance murdering someone just because they don't want to join their organisation*.
steve
* Or whatever thy call it.
Dear Allen,
The West is in a particularly difficult spot getting onto sovereign states in other continents, and having a go at sorting the situation out.
All at once the West gains one more enemy group to contend with, and as often as not gets into trouble with former friends as well.
In my view it is time that the UK at least completely got out this kind of adventurism.
We should strengthen our own intelligence and defence capacity to defend ourselves from our existing terrorist enemies at home, rather than go round starting new animosities ...
For example it was utter folly to get involved in the Lybian toppling of Gaddafi.
He was an old enemy, who by then we had the measure of. Even Saddam Hussein was no problem to us in reality.
ATB from George
Dear Allen,
I think that we have to be utterly careful about due process in dealing with any home-grown terrorists.
On the other hand, I think that after due process, very long prison sentences indeed may be justly applied where the case is proved.
What we must at all events avoid is the Guantanamo kind of thing. To stoop to that level would be to loose the moral argument, in my humble opinion.
ATB from George
Britain seems to enjoy good relationships with several countries in the Middle East.
Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, The Emirates, Oman. We even get on with Egypt, Iran and the Palistinians in the West Bank and Ghaza. Dealings with Yemen have been difficult for about 40 years. And of course Syria has been difficult these past few years.
Did I miss any ?
Yeah, and Blair was best buddies with Gaddafi if you recall.
Care to expand on not being too enthusiastic about my views, I assume you meant me, only my name is spelt with an 'e'
I suppose I should have included Turkey, Lebanon and Cyprus in my list, all of whom have reasonable relationships with the UK.
The North African countries west of Egypt are not part of the Middle-East, so I didn't include them.
"They hate us because we're free..." - GWB
http://itvs.org/films/kill-team
Sure Dubya (and Barack), it's all about our freedom...
I know guys who were in Iraq who have some pretty interesting stories as well. Not to the degree of this film, but shameful nonetheless.
I agree that Western nations have their fair share of blame (and responsibility) for the current state of affairs in the Middle East. But I grow tired of hearing only blame for NATO nations, without any consideration of the historical role played by the Soviet Union, or that of modern day Russia.
Prior to the Six Day War, it was Soviet-supplied arms that surrounded Israel. Egypt massed Soviet-made tanks in the Sinai, and deployed Soviet-made ships to blockade the Strait of Tiran. These actions precipitated the war, and so it was Egypt's Soviet-made Migs that were destroyed on day one. It was also a Soviet-made missile boat that sank one of Israel's two destroyers off Port Said in October 1967, a few months after the so-called cease-fire. So how did we get to that point?
Hook,
It was the Soviet Union who started the ball rolling in early 1967 by providing Egypt with false intelligence maintaining that Israel is concentrating its army along the Syrian border and is about to attack it. The Israelis completely denied it and invited the Russian ambassador to tour the Syrian border to verify their claim. The ambassador declined not wanting to be put in a position that might contradict what was coming from the Kremlin.
Nasser believed the Soviet's claim, forced the UN to evacuate its peace keeping force from the Sinai peninsula, moved his own army and air force along the Israeli border and blocked the straights of Tiran. The rest is history. The Six Day War broke out and completely transformed the Middle East.
Now, if that war did not happen Israel would probably be sitting today within its 1948 ceasefire lines with no occupation in sight, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would have remained in the hands of Jordan which annexed (illegally?) the territory in 1954, the Egyptians would be sitting in Gaza and the Palestinians would be demanding their Arab brothers to cede the land to create a state of their own.
Haim