Studio 25

Sexual Jihad?!... Thought of the day 27.10.2013

2013-10-27T18:34:00.000+02:00

On my long periods of procrastination I stumbled upon and article on the BBC website about... Sexual Jihad! Don't laugh, this is a serious matter! Many of us know how far fundamentalist are willing to stretch the boundaries of reason, and how they are willing to develop concepts based on their special book or their special relationship with divinity. We are already used to direct crimes like infanticide, slavery, misogyny, but the crimes of thought are more subtle, the crimes against reason are the ones that gives them an edge by validating what in other reference system would be truly considered evil.

Here is an article published online by BBC:

"Tunisian authorities say they have arrested a number of girls and women for providing sexual services to Islamist militants in Tunisia and Syria.
The Interior Minister says the women, some as young as 17, are allegedly offering sex to battle-weary militants as part of a campaign to improve morale.
For months there have been rumors about what the media has dubbed a "sexual jihad", but the scope of the practice and its possible links to the conflict in Syria have been shrouded in mystery."

Ahmed Maher (BBC News, 27.10.2013)

Appalled by the the primary idea emanated by those two words, I tried to dig little bit into it. i started by trying to connect those two concepts: Sex and Jihad.

Sexual: (adj.)

relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.

Jihad: (noun)

a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.

I tried hard to connect them on my own, and I failed to put them together. What is it suppose to mean, have sex until your enemies drop dead?!... And that is where I needed help to understand, and for that I needed help from special source, God's very own word relayed telepathically (but through the mediation of an angel) to his special prophet, the Qur'an. And even-though I did not find explicit information about it, I did realize that there are "loopholes" in the system that allows someone with a special interest to manipulate it in that direction. But i did find that the Qur'an regulates "adult breastfeeding" (?!?!), sexual relations with concubines (slaves), marriage that can be limited to couple of hours (nice loophole, isn't it?). Those marriage regulations are the escape door(Mut'a marriage). Couple that with the verse “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Yusuf Ali trans. 9:111), and you found the loophole for the sex. Now you only need to attach it to the jihad.

Many say, we misunderstand the word jihad, portraying it merely as a struggle, as a sacred duty of all muslims to spread the word of God. But those many fail to inform you that it never leaves out the physical struggle, the violent side of spreading the world. There is consensus among Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression, but do not exclude its use for expansion. And violence is carried out by men, and men need water, food, weapons, and sex to carry out its "sacred duty". Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Sexual Jihad, perfectly designed for your fighters, in perfect harmony with the teachings of Muhammad, with the will of God.

Yeap, you can actually build doctrinal validation for a stormy, crazy night of carnal love. Reports that this "incentives" have taken proportions may be exaggerated, but I am shaken more by its inception more than its very existence (prostitution existed long before islam or christianity), and successful attempts to validate it through what is supposed to be a moral code, the Qur'an and other islamic texts. And that begs the question: shouldn't they be revised as the grounding for morality?

The Fog of Fear

2013-04-23T15:07:00.000+03:00

The Telegraph in an article from Tuesday, 23 April 2013, warns everybody that Britain and US 'risk repeating Iraq invasion mistake with Iran'. Some would say it is a fair warning. But, is it?

"The same sort of lies and falsehoods are being uttered about Iran as were told about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ten years ago, and in some cases by the same people."

Manipulation of some kind? Let us take a look at what they are saying.
I would expect a respectable news deliverer as "The Telegraph" to have a clearer picture of the recent past and of the present. The facts are that the Baathist regime in Baghdad had a history of hiding a nuclear program (maybe not at the time of the invasion, but they clearly had a history); attach that history to an almost continuous state of war, repeated obstructions to the IAEA inspection teams, violent suppression of any political opposition (or, does anybody doubt that?) and a belligerent rhetoric, and you have a loose cannon. Up until now it is not complicated; the complications arise in interpreting all these facts, in developing policies to minimize, eliminate or quarantine the potential "time-bomb". Yes, they chose muscle over diplomacy, they fabricated, manipulated or misinterpreted "evidence" and they pictured everything in the color of "do or die". Divergent reports on WMD programs or connections to terrorist organizations, some of which were really far-fetched, were sidelined or disregarded. There was a huge media offensive in support of a "muscular" course of action. The psychedelic atmosphere was fueled daily, and we were fed tons of assumptions painted as facts. Some of us were able to see behind the smoke screen, but the vast majority bought the story and when majority was won, the ball started to roll downhill.
Connecting Iraq with Al-Qaeda was a huge blunder; the very idea that a repressive dictator would support an organization that undermined his very own authority is ridiculous.
In the midst of comparisons with those times and those decisions, some are simply not capable of seeing through a new smokescreen, but this time covering the other side. Maybe out of fear of repeating past mistakes, maybe out of an incapacity to see the differences between Baathist Iraq and Iran of now, there is tendency of generalizing instead of analyzing. A generalizing attitude that would induce a a tendency to either put Iran under the same assumption that led to military initiative in Iraq or, on the other extreme, start from a set of opposing assumptions.

"Nobody can say with certainty that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in secret. But it would be very hard for them to do so. This is because the country is a fully signed up member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has for the most part obediently respected its provisions, and continues to do so today.
This means that Iran's enrichment facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), as are its other nuclear facilities. Over many years the IAEA has verified that no nuclear material has been diverted from these facilities for possible military purposes.
Most experts consider that it would be impossible for Iran to produce weapons-grade uranium for a bomb without being spotted by IAEA inspectors.
It is certainly true that the IAEA is currently in dispute with Iran over some of its nuclear activities. But it is not in breach of its NPT commitments, and here the contrast with India and Israel, both allies of the west, is so very striking. Their nuclear facilities are almost entirely closed to international inspections, and Israel is in open defiance of UN security council demands to make them available for inspection.
The unfairness (grotesque from an Iranian point of view) is glaring.
Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, is the object of ferocious economic sanctions and threats of military action. By contrast Israel (with perhaps 400 nuclear bombs and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East) is the object of more than $3 billion a year of US military aid."

Indeed, nobody can say with certainty that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in secret. Well, they (Iranian government) can tell us all if they do, and even more, they can prove it. Instead, they chose to point fingers at Israel (not that I agree with their nuclear program). Apart from that, Israel is not a party to the NPT, neither are India or Pakistan, so they are not obliged to report to it. DPRK has left the treaty too. Iran didn't.

Well, yes, Israel has the A-bomb in their arsenal, but I don't remember them threatening Iran with extinction. I also don't remember them using it against its declared foes, that used the very same belligerent rhetoric against them. But that is not even the point; the point is that absolutely no one trusts Iran anymore.
British politicians fuel the myth. Last year Defence Secretary Philip Hammond spoke of how Iran is believed to be working 'flat out' to build nuclear weapons. while Foreign Secretary William Hague told The Daily Telegraph last year that Iran was 'clearly continuing their nuclear weapons programme.' Remarks like this from cabinet ministers add weight to the powerful narrative that Iran's nuclear ambitions must be curbed, enhancing the case for ever harsher economic sanctions and, if that fails to do the job, for military actions. Meanwhile the mainstream media is behaving as it did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when, instead of questioning every aspect of the case for military action, it became the cheerleader for war.

"This brings us to the biggest falsehood of all - the claim that Iran is defiantly refusing to engage reasonably with the west. If anything the opposite is the truth. More than once, the Iranians have shown themselves ready to negotiate.
They did so in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 atrocities, which was met with candlelit vigils in Tehran and denunciations by senior clerics. Iran provided intelligence briefings and help in the war against the Taliban, even going so far as far as to offer to rescue US pilots shot down over Iranian territory. According to James Dobbins, the diplomat who led the US delegation in the negotiations leading up to the 2001 Bonn agreement on Afghanistan, 'in 2002 and again in 2003 Washington actually spurned offers from Tehran to cooperate on Afghanistan and Iraq and negotiate out other US/Iranian differences, including over its nuclear programme.' In 2005 Iran floated another deal at a meeting with a European negotiating team at the Quai d'Orsay. It offered to open up all its nuclear facilities to intrusive international inspection, along with a series of other concessions, so long as the west recognised its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, a right to which it is entitled as a signatory of the NPT. This deal was (say foreign office sources) killed off by Tony Blair, acting on behalf of George W Bush.
A deal along the these lines could be struck today. But it would require America and the west to stop treating Iran as a pariah state, and instead as a proud, independent nation with legitimate regional interests.
If we fail to take this course of action, the consequences look bleak.
Within months the world could be plunged into a new round of war and bloodshed, with the added risk of global economic collapse. Such an outcome would not just be terrible. It is wholly unnecessary."

There is no falsehood that Iran is refusing to engage reasonably with the west. Iran has repeatedly shown itself ready to negotiate only on matters of minimal significance, not on core issues.

"The IAEA has long expressed concern about Iran's nuclear programme, but its latest report (November 2011) lays out the case in much greater detail than before.
Drawing on evidence provided by more than 10 member states as well as its own information, the IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".
It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb.
The report documents alleged Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponisation - the processes by which a device might be adapted and hardened to fit into the nose-section of a missile.
There are some allegations that are listed openly for the first time, including the claim that Iran has used computer modelling on the behaviour of a nuclear device.
Previously, the IAEA complained that Tehran had not fully co-operated with its inspectors, though it did say that Iran had displayed "greater transparency" during an inspection visit in August 2011.
In March 2012, it was announced that Iran had agreed to take part in fresh six-party talks and allow IAEA inspectors to visit its key military research site at Parchin, under certain conditions."

"The technology used to enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power can also be used to enrich it to the higher level needed for a nuclear explosion.
Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Security Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and other nuclear activities.
Under international law, an order from the Security Council is held to supersede rights granted by other international organisations. The Council has ordered sanctions under Article 41 of the UN Charter, which enables it to decide "what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions". The Council has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an arrangement allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence."

BBC News

And here is the official report of the IAEA that came out in February 2013: IAEA
Now, if we read carefully we should be able to detect that inspections did have restriction. Restrictions related with the core issue at hand: a potential military use. Affix to this the nature of the regime, their irrational behavior and bellicose rhetoric, and you have the recipe for a potential disaster on global scale. It is not a matter of the west against Iran, but one in which the whole world (apart form DPRK, I believe) is expecting Iran to use reason, not to flex their muscles.
No one in his right mind would want another war, but no one in his right mind can say it is an over-inflated crisis either. Right now, we should not push war as a solution, but at the same time we should not show our fear for it either; with fear comes irrational decisions and lesser judgments. We need to put it on the table and call it for what it is.

The Point of No Return?

2013-04-18T13:42:00.001+03:00

"Pyongyang, April 18 (KCNA) -- The Policy Department of the National Defence Commission (NDC) of the DPRK released the following statement Thursday:
An acute situation that has persisted on the Korean Peninsula since the end of last year is now putting the peninsula on the verge of war.
Much upset by the development, U.S. President Obama on April 11 reportedly stated in public of his intention to seek a negotiated and diplomatic settlement of the situation, saying that he does not want a war on the Korean Peninsula.
The chief of Chongwadae of south Korea, who is accustomed to currying favor with her master, let the "minister of Unification" make public a "statement". She even loudly spoke of "the authorities' proposal for dialogue to tide over the situation", a U-turn from her previous attitude of stoking confrontation. She used to say that there can be neither dialogue nor dispatch of a special envoy at present.
The rhetoric about dialogue raised by the master and the stooge almost at the same time is a political decision made by them out of their calculation that they can never bring the DPRK into submission with military threats and "sanctions".
It will be very much gratifying if they took a proper political decision to bring under control the grave situation prevailing on the Korean Peninsula with true interest in dialogue and negotiations.
But matter is that the U.S. and the south Korean puppet regime cried out for starting dialogue in an appropriate environment, in an appropriate time and under appropriate condition despite their loud claim that the U.S. and south Korea made a U-turn toward dialogue and negotiations. The preconditions for dialogue raised by them include a stop to "provocative" remarks which the DPRK has so far been engaged in and demonstration of its intention to realize denuclearization and suspend missile launch. These are absurd ones.
The U.S. and south Korea are opt-repeating "provocation" and "threats" from the DPRK, describing them as a stumbling block in the way of dialogue hoped for by them, while making the story of "north-south dialogue first and north Korea-U.S. dialogue next" an established fact as if the north had agreed to it.
In this regard, the Policy Department of the National Defence Commission (NDC) of the DPRK brings to light the nature of the prevailing situation and clarifies once again the principled stand of the DPRK.
There is a Korean saying which goes "Thief calls stop thief".
The U.S. and all kinds of hostile forces following it are the very ones who pushed the situation on the Korean Peninsula to such a grave phase as now.
But the masterminds of the tense situation are portraying the DPRK as "provoker", while describing them as victims. It appears that they are not afraid of divine punishment.
The "provocation" charge brought against the DPRK by the U.S. has become undisguised since they called the DPRK's legitimate and peaceful satellite launch as a "missile launch".
The DPRK's working satellite Kwangmyongsong 3-2 was confirmed to be going around its orbit by the North American Aero-space Defense Command. Russia and several other countries also admitted this and shortly ago a scientific and research institute of south Korea photographed the DPRK's satellite and made it public. But with their eyes shut to this stark fact, the U.S. and the south Korean puppet regime are stepping up provocations against the DPRK.
No wonder, the world public has now become increasingly vocal, condemning the U.S. and its allies' vicious provocation of getting the UN Security Council pass the "resolution on sanctions" and calling the satellite launch a "missile launch" as a "deception that disgraced justice and conscience" and an "act of blind men unable to discern skirt from trousers".
The UNSC's "resolution on sanctions" following the DPRK's legitimate satellite launch was a prelude to an open provocation by the U.S. and the south Korean puppet regime to inveigle all the forces following it to the worldwide campaign for isolating and stifling the DPRK. The nuclear war exercises being staged against the DPRK for nearly two months is a vicious, all-out military provocation.
The U.S. even brought to south Korea and to waters off it super-large nuclear-powered carrier task force equipped with nuclear warheads, B-52, B-2 and other nuclear strategic bombers, nuclear-powered submarines capable of launching cruise guided shells and guided shell destroyers and even F-22 Stealth fighter formation to be used for making maiden strikes at the targets of the DPRK's army in the early days of war. They have stepped up the military provocation in an all-round way which now has reached the most dangerous phase of nuclear blackmail.
The DPRK has never termed the U.S. satellite launches missile launches and attempted to urge the UN to adopt resolutions on sanctions under that pretext. It has never threatened and blackmailed the U.S. by deploying its elite armed forces in waters off the U.S.
If the U.S. and south Korean puppet forces are not wolves in human form, they should properly understand the word provocation and feel ashamed of their brigandish behaviors.
It is another provocation against the DPRK that the U.S. urged the former to show the "will for denuclearization" as a precondition for dialogue.
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula remains the unshakable will of the army and people of the DPRK.
The joint declaration on denuclearization adopted by the north and the south early in the 1990s was a gain common to the nation as it was initiated by the DPRK with such will.
The U.S., however, introduced nuclear weapons into south Korea and its vicinity in league with puppet forces and began to escalating threat and blackmail against the DPRK, bringing this precious gain to naught.
In order to cope with the U.S. escalating hostile policy and nuclear blackmail against the DPRK, it was compelled to have access to just nuclear force for self-defence.
Accordingly, nothing is more foolish and brigandish than pressurizing the DPRK to show its "will for denuclearization" first.
The nuclear force of the DPRK will always remain in the hands of its army and people as the most powerful means to protect the sovereignty of the country and its supreme interests and deal a retaliatory blow at the strongholds of aggression against it till the world including the U.S. is denuclearized.
Not content with terming the DPRK's toughest countermeasures "provocations", the U.S. and south Korean puppet regime went the lengths of ceaselessly hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK and its social system.
The army and people of the DPRK are demonstrating their just will to stand up against the enemies' moves to isolate and stifle it and nuclear war moves against it. They are, however, describing this will as one for "consolidating the heir's system", "enhancing image" and "rallying unstable ranks". This is the thrice-cursed politically-motivated provocation.
This is nothing but rigmarole let loose by the imbeciles who know nothing about the DPRK.
The bad-tempered U.S. and south Korean puppet regime can never imagine the tears of emotion shed by artillery women when the Supreme Commander took them to his arms and the warm feelings of service personnel and people shouting "hurrah" after jumping into cold sea waters.
As long as they persist in all sorts of provocations against the DPRK, its army and the people will steadily escalate the tough political and military counteractions as the days go by.
The U.S. and the south Korean puppet regime should make a bold decision to take the following practical measures if they want to shirk off the historical responsibility for the prevailing grave situation on the Korean Peninsula, escape sledge-hammer retaliatory blows of the army and people of the DPRK and if they truly stand for dialogue and negotiations:
First, they should immediately stop all their provocative acts against the DPRK and apologize for all of them.
As the first phase, they should take the measure of retracting the UNSC's "resolutions on sanctions" cooked up under absurd pretexts.
They should bear in mind that doing so would be a token of good will towards the DPRK.
The south Korean puppet forces should promptly halt all their anti-DPRK rackets, not linking their own mishaps such as Cheonan warship sinking incident and the "March 20 hacking case" to the north.
Second, they should give formal assurances before the world that they would not stage again such nuclear war drills to threaten or blackmail the DPRK.
Dialogue can never go with war actions.
Frequent nuclear war maneuvers will only strain the situation and totally block the way of dialogue.
The army and people of the DPRK will not be taken in by sophism that the nuclear war drills being staged under its very nose are annual and defensive military actions for defending the U.S. and guaranteeing the security of south Korea.
Third, they should make a decision to withdraw all nuclear war means from south Korea and its vicinity and give up their attempt to reintroduce them as their immediate duty.
They should bear in mind that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula can begin with the pullout of the nuclear war means introduced by the U.S. and this may lead to the global denuclearization.
The chief of Chongwadae should not forget that the prospect of south Korea may be rosy when the north's nukes are considered as a property common to the nation but south Korea is bound to go to ruin when it remains under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
The situation on the peninsula is directly linked with peace and security in Northeast Asia and the rest of the world.
The army and people of the DPRK together with the world peace-loving people who sympathize with justice and value conscience will closely follow the future behavior of the U.S. and its followers."

DPRK NDC Policy Department Statement (available on KCNA website)

Some fools just don't get it.

They want the world to believe the responsibilities lay only with the "top dog" USA and its "puppet ally" south Korea. They want us all to believe that sanctions were the cause of this. It simply sounds like the bully that used to take my lunch money; he did not just take my money, he also tried to make me feel guilty that I had those money with me, and that i deserved it. When i reported him, he went on to say i provoked him to a fight, and i probably lost my money in the brawl, a story that was believed by his parents, but not by the school master; when he saw me going home later that day (probably waited for me), he asked for even more to "forgive" my wicked actions. I was not brave, so for one week all my money went to him, until i stopped taking money with me at all. Looking back, I wish I had the courage to punch that punk, win or lose the engagement.
As for North Korea, it is pretty similar. Yes, they are poor, but not poor enough to stop developing nuclear weapons. Yes, they are playing the victim of the sanctions but don't care sufficiently to stop developing nuclear weapons. And when I say them, I mean the leadership; the true victims are the ordinary people. I sympathize with them, I know partly what they are going through because I was one of them, I lived the paranoia, I lived the hunger, the repression, the loss of identity, the lies, the indoctrination, the policing of thoughts...

Thought of the day 04.17.2013

2013-04-17T13:29:00.003+03:00

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns."

A Few Good Men, Director Rob Reiner 1992

China has revealed the structure of its military units, in what state-run media describe as a first.
The army has a total of 850,000 soldiers, while the navy and air force have a strength of 235,000 and 398,000, China said in its defence white paper.
The paper also criticised the US's expanded military presence in the Asia Pacific, saying it had exacerbated regional tensions.
China's defence budget rose by 11.2% in 2012, exceeding $100bn (£65bn).

The defence white paper, which state media describe as China's 8th since 1998, emphasised China's "unshakable national commitment... to take the road of peaceful development".

'Strategic deterrence'

The white paper reveals details of China's military structure. According to state-run news agency Xinhua, this is the first time such information has been disclosed publicly.
Correspondents say this appears to be part of an effort, on the part of the Chinese military, to become more transparent.
The territorial army has 18 combined corps in seven military area commands: Beijing, Nanjing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Shenyang, Lanzhou, and Jinan.
The air force has 398,000 personnel and an air command in the same seven military areas, while the navy commands three fleets: the Beihai Fleet, the Donghai Fleet and the Nanhai Fleet, the paper said.
The paper also describes the role of China's second artillery force, which contains China's nuclear and conventional missile forces.
The force is crucial to China's "strategic deterrence", and is "primarily responsible for deterring other countries from using nuclear weapons against China, and carrying out nuclear counterattacks and precision strikes with conventional missiles," the paper said.

More: BBC News - China 'reveals army structure' in defence white paper

Thought of the day 04.16.2013

2013-04-16T13:09:00.000+03:00

"Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to Snowball."

George Orwell, Animal farm

(Reuters) - Two bombs packed with ball bearings tore through crowds near the finish of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and triggering a massive hunt for those behind an attack the White House said would be treated as "an act of terror".

Officials said more than 100 people were wounded by the devices, which were packed with gunpowder and shrapnel to maximize injuries, according a senior law enforcement official briefed on the investigation who declined to be named.

"I saw people who looked like they had their legs blown off. There was a lot of blood over their legs. Then people were being pushed in wheelchairs," said Joe Anderson, 33, a fisherman from Pembroke, Massachusetts, who had just run the race holding a large U.S. flag.

Some victims would require further surgery in the coming days, said Peter Fagenholz, a trauma surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"We're seeing a lot of shrapnel injuries" from small metal debris, Fagenholz told reporters outside the hospital. Doctors treated 29 people, of whom eight were in a critical condition.

An eight-year-old boy was among the dead, the Boston Globe reported, citing two law enforcement sources briefed on the investigation. A two-year-old was being treated at Boston Children's Hospital for a head wound, the hospital said.

White House officials and investigators said it was too early to say whether the Boston attacks were carried out by a foreign or homegrown group or to identify a motive.

The attack was the worst bombing on American soil since far-right militant and U.S. citizen Timothy McVeigh set off a massive truck bomb that destroyed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.

Two years earlier, Islamist militants bombed the twin towers of the World trade Center, killing six people and wounding more than 1,000.

More, here: Investigators hunt for clues in marathon bombing | Reuters

Thought of the day 04.15.2013

2013-04-15T13:22:00.000+03:00

"Because he makes me laugh. Because, fuck knows why, he adores me. Because he needs somebody to look after him and nobody else knows how. Because everything about us is wrong and I never ever want to be right. Because I wake up in the morning and see him sleeping next to me with his stupid dyed hair and his stupid painted nails and his stupid toy monkey and I remember I love him so much I don't know what to do, I love him I love him I LOVE HIM."

Richard Rider, Stockholm Syndrome

(Reuters) - Late socialist leader Hugo Chavez's chosen successor Nicolas Maduro won Venezuela's presidential election by a whisker but now faces opposition protests plus a host of economic and political challenges in the OPEC nation.
The 50-year-old former bus driver, whom Chavez named as his preferred heir before dying from cancer, edged out opposition challenger Henrique Capriles with 50.7 percent of the votes in Sunday's election, according to election board returns. Capriles took 49.1 percent, a difference of just 235,000 ballots.
Capriles, whose strong showing beat most forecasts, refused to recognize the result and said his team had a list of more than 3,000 irregularities ranging from gunshots to the illegal re-opening of polling centers.

"I didn't fight against a candidate today, but against the whole abuse of power," said Capriles, the 40-year-old governor of Miranda state, demanding a recount.

"Mr. Maduro, you were the loser ... This system is collapsing, it's like a castle of sand - touch it and it falls."

A protracted election dispute could cause instability in a deeply polarized nation with the world's largest oil reserves.
Though some opposition supporters chanted "fraud", banged pots and pans and burned tires in protest, Capriles did not call them onto the streets en masse.
Maduro said he would accept a full recount, even as he insisted his victory was clean and dedicated it to Chavez.

"We've had a fair, legal and constitutional triumph," Maduro told his victory rally. "To those who didn't vote for us, I call for unity. We are going to work together for the security and economy of this country."
The election board said Maduro's win was "irreversible" and gave no indication of when it might carry out an audit.

Maduro's slim victory provides an inauspicious start for the "Chavismo" movement's transition to a post-Chavez era, and raises the possibility that he could face challenges from rivals within the disparate leftist coalition.
His supporters set off fireworks, and some sang and danced in the streets, but celebrations were far more muted than after Chavez's comfortable re-election last October.

'CHAVISMO' CHALLENGED

"On one hand, we're happy, but the result is not exactly what we had expected," said Gregory Belfort, 32, a computer technician looking slightly dazed with other government supporters in front of the presidential palace.

"It means there are a lot of people out there who support Chavez but didn't vote for Maduro, which is valid."

Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Maduro and said he expected good relations to continue with a country where Moscow has significant oil investments.
Maduro's narrow win came as a shock to many ardent Chavez loyalists, who had become accustomed to his double-digit election victories during his 14 years in power, including an 11 percentage point win over Capriles last October.
Maduro's campaign was built almost entirely on his close ties to the late leader and emotional anecdotes about Chavez's final days before succumbing to cancer.
The narrow win leaves him with less authority to lead the broad ruling alliance that includes military officers, oil executives and armed slum leaders. It had been held together mainly by Chavez's iron grip and mesmerizing personality.
"This is the most delicate moment in the history of 'Chavismo' since 2002," said Javier Corrales, a U.S. political scientist and Venezuela expert at Amherst College, referring to a brief coup against Chavez 11 years ago.
"With these results, the opposition might not concede easily, and Maduro will have a hard time demonstrating to the top leadership of Chavismo that he is a formidable leader."
It will also add to the difficulty Maduro faces in moving from campaign mode to actually governing a nation with high inflation, a slowing economy, Byzantine currency controls and one of the world's worst violent crime rates.
Last year's blow-out state spending ahead of Chavez's re-election helped spur economic growth of 5.6 percent in 2012. This year, many private economists expect growth of 2 percent or less.
"These results require deep self-criticism," said Diosdado Cabello, the powerful head of the National Assembly whom many Venezuelans see as a potential rival to Maduro.

"It's contradictory that some among the poor vote for those who always exploit them," Cabello added on Twitter. "Let's turn over every stone to find our faults, but we cannot put the fatherland or the legacy of our commander (Chavez) in danger."

(Additional reporting by Daniel Wallis, Eyanir Chinea and Mario Naranjo in Caracas, David Adams in Miami, Alexei Anishchuk in Moscow; Editing by Kieran Murray, Andrew Heavens and W Simon).

Full article, here: Tight win for Chavez's heir spells uncertainty for Venezuela | Reuters

Thought of the day 04.10.2013

2013-04-10T19:44:00.003+03:00

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
Howard Tayler

LONDON — On the eve of a meeting with the Syrian opposition, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that the Obama administration was weighing “stepped-up” efforts to support the rebel fighters, and that such proposals had been “front and center” in administration discussions over the past week.

More: Kerry Says U.S. Is Weighing New Aid to Syria Rebels - NYTimes.com

Thought of the day: 04.09.2013

2013-04-09T12:37:00.000+03:00

I cannot help but remember the famous Aesop fable, the one with the boy who cried wolf...

North Korea intensified threats of an imminent conflict against the United States and the South on Tuesday, warning foreigners to evacuateSouth Korea to avoid being dragged into a "merciless, sacred, retaliatory war".

More, here: North Korea warns foreigners to leave South | Reuters

Jesus: The First Secular Politician?

2013-04-08T12:47:00.000+03:00

"Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Pretty powerful words, aren't they? And they are even more remarkable when coming from a Jew living in a rebellious province in Middle East, under Roman occupation, 2 millenniums before.
His existence (as recorded by the Bible) is arguable, his teachings subject to alterations, but his legacy permeates our times. And, although his legacy created a system of beliefs that continues to this day to dominate aspects of politics, I cannot help but ask myself: "Was he a philosopher, prophet or a politician? Or, was he all of that together?". It is a question that dated way back, (and in my opinion) even before the first gospel was written. The answer I found for myself was just as ambiguous as his (alleged) actions and statements were. Was that deliberate? No one knows!

And it is not the only sign that points to a separation of powers; driving out sellers and money changers from the temple only piles up on this, and its relevance lies in the anger towards such activities.
And we come to our days, when we have states that do not allow you to hold public office if you are not christian (or muslim). They say that they follow the word of their savior, Jesus Christ, and I say bullshit. I say that they are mixing Caesar with God. I say they are mixing money changing with religion, and sometimes confusing between the two of them: hoping for spiritual redemption from money, and buying their way with God.

Thought of the day 04.05.2013

2013-04-05T12:26:00.001+03:00

Shattered dreams or plain lunacy?

"Thou canst not touch the freedom of my mind."

John Milton

More: Opinion: Egypt, give Bassem Youssef a break - CNN.com

Thought of the day 04.02.2013

2013-04-02T13:17:00.000+03:00

"Either way you push the matter, there is political capital to be gained"

More: Sagan incident raises questions over podium girls | Blazin' Saddles - Yahoo! Eurosport UK

Thought of the day 04.01.2013

2013-04-01T12:51:00.000+03:00

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War
More: South Korea vows fast response to North; U.S. deploys stealth jets | Reuters

One Language

2013-03-09T12:47:00.002+02:00

Imagine!

Just dare to imagine every corner of the world being open to you. Imagine travelling from China to Lithuania, and being able to ask for a cup of tea without the need of an interpreter or book. Imagine, travelling from India to Africa and not feel a foreigner lost in a world of unknown sounds, of unintelligible blab, a planet with a common platform of expression.

A common platform of expression. How realistic is that? How will this concept impact interactions between individuals and between individuals and society? The tool to be used is common sense. Since society has at its core individuals and communication a common platform is essential in reversing social fragmentation. Mind you, we are talking about a unified means of expression rather than replacing core cultural values.

"Language creates society
This relation is not apparent in static societies ; it is easy to assume that society antedates language. Even ‘primitive’ societies are no exception. A ‘primitive’ society is one where language use is primitive, and indicates hunter-gatherer tribes ; yet a tribe cannot be established until the necessary linguistic signs for authority are created.
Society cannot be created until a group of people has some values in common. And values require a language to embed them and articulate them. It is language that brings people together and keeps them together. Language always precedes society. Even in small groups this relation holds: for example, in a political discussion group the people come together because they already have, or want to learn, a common political language."

(ref. "A Modern Thinker")

I make no secret, I am a staunch supporter of integration, of a One World, One Society idea. And this idea is not about breaking ethnic groups, tribes or nations apart, nor enforcing it. It is about educating ourselves in the view of the benefits it can bring. It is about parallel encryption of notions, knowledge, universality. It is about a kindergarten kid learning that "Hi, mom!" can be said also as "Hola, mama!" or "你好，妈妈 !". It is about an adventure in the life of our kids, being able to understand "Tom and Jerry" irrespective of their birth place, to laugh while watching "Ну, погоди!" even if you were born in Spain.
There are critical voices, that raise the possibility of forced assimilation, of the dangers of the "melting pot" effect, giving examples from the past, but i would say that the "English experiment" has huge advantages in about a quarter of the world, mirrored in the "Spanish experiment" with about the same effect. Yes, the initial reasoning was exploitation, but the variables of the "World equation" have changed. The biggest asset we had until now is on a descending trend, with knowledge taking its place. You don't believe me? Well, find the biggest companies in the world, and see what they trade in a proportion of more than 50%. The answer is not the same as 100 years ago, the answer has changed into Technology, Services, Information. They trade more in the knowledge than into raw materials.

Esperanto: Failure or insufficient support?

"The major obstacle in the way of further progress, both in the United States and elsewhere, is simple ignorance of the scope and possibilities of Esperanto research. Library collections are poor, knowledge of the language among scholars in relevant fields is slight or non-existent, and the resources for changing this situation are severely limited. But modern trends in linguistics would seem to favor the exploration of this unique linguistic and social phenomenon. As Pere Juliý has pointed out in a particularly persuasive article (1989), formal theory must shift to accommodate empirical linguistic fact. There is a tendency in linguistics, he suggests, "to allow the formal techniques to dictate the conception of the subject matter rather than the other way round". But there are signs that this is changing. Perhaps this modest review will hasten the process."

(ref: Juliý, Pere. 1989. "Linguistic theory and international communication." Language Problems and Language Planning)

Yes, so far, Esperanto is a failure! But not due to its intended applicability, the returns of a global policy to pursue a universal platform would be of huge consequences. Its failure is related to the ignorance and lack of support.

A reference to programming languages I believe is more than sufficient in emphasizing the importance of the matter. It all started with mathematics: when everybody spoke of addition in the same terms, about integrals using the same notations, it all started to make sense. It continued with ENIAC, FORTRAN, COBOL, SIMULA, B, C to the programming languages used today, languages with an very important attribute: Universality

Breaking the strike

2013-02-06T12:41:00.000+02:00

Democracy, elections, freedom of speech, individual rights: pillars of a healthy, ideal society. Or, so it is in theory, where one can just a chose the perfect model of democracy, with the perfect model of elections, with the ideal model of a voter/individual. But what do you get when you translate all this in reality, when you remove the faulty premise that all is built around the perfect individual? What do you get when you intersect interest groups and elections? And what do you get when your individual rights are in conflict with the interests of a group?

We are in Cyprus, and the year is 2013. Let us say I am an immigrant worker (just a generic construction worker) somewhere in Paphos. I think I am legally working (though I am not sure – every time I ask my boss about my “asphalia” he goes crazy, calls me names and threatens me with dismissal, and I don’t have the guts to report it since the times are rough and I know I will end up surely being dismissed anyway). I never work only 8 hours/day (even though that was the initial agreement), and every time it rains I do not work and therefore do not get paid for that day. Let us say also that a certain interest group declares a strike in the name of all… construction workers. And slowly I start to get squeezed in a corner: I express solidarity and run the risk of starving my family, or break the strike (which, anyway, is a political game where I am just a pawn, serving somebody else’s interests).

“BUILDERS continued their island wide, indefinite strike yesterday with no apparent end in sight as trade unions SEK, PEO and DEOK have threatened that measures may escalate.
In a statement released yesterday, PEO gave its full support to the builders in their fight against their employers.
“For a long time, employers in the construction industry in Cyprus, citing the crisis and difficulties in the industry, have started an attack on the working class. They have systematically dismissed large numbers of workers and replaced them with cheap labor, increasing unemployment and the impoverishment of the families of thousands of workers,” the statement said.
The builders have organized demonstrations for today after the decision to continue their strike was made yesterday during meetings across Cyprus. They criticized their employers for taking advantage of cheap foreign workers, essentially taking the industry back ten years and destroying the trade union movement.
The central council of the Building Contractors' Association in Cyprus will meet today to consider a proposal from the Labor Ministry.”

Source: Cyprus Mail

Let us say that I decided to break the strike. It is my right to do so. It is everyone’s right to protest, as it is mine to pursue my interests. But it is almost impossible. I spoke with friends and acquaintances about it, and no one dares to break it. The amount of threats they received scared them enough to comply, while in some cases violence was used to stop people from working. I tried to search news about it online: nothing! I search the printed press: nothing! In Paphos, Paralimni, Larnaca I can personally count at least 6 events of this nature, with only one incident (in Paphos) being reported in an obscure “property news” website. What is the guardian of democracy – the press doing? Are they sleeping on the job? Yes, the news about the negotiations are interesting, and yes, the workers are entitled to protest, but how about individual rights? Is the syndicate becoming a mafia organization, building itself on intimidation?

Some might argue that there is no connection between syndicates and the threats, but I cannot see it any other way, not when for almost every attempt to break the strike there was a gang showing up at the working site with clubs and metal rods, ready to show they mean business.

We are talking about social dialog, but that is taking place only among government and those affiliated with a movement or syndicate, and that leaves out individuals whose dignity, rights and even physical integrity may be threatened in the process.
I do not defend immigrant workers (on the contrary, the fact that some accepted to work for illegally, for little money is part of the problem; in this way employers learned that abuses -towards the state and workers- are allowed, especially since the control entities are so weak and corruptible), nor the government or the strike, but I do want to point fingers at all groups. As long as you forget the discrete composition of society, you will just argue interests of one organization, and as long as you fail to show solidarity with your peers you cannot expect improvement in you work condition, and you fail to protect one’s right to disagree you cannot claim you have a healthy society, and inalienable rights for its participants. We cannot allow freedom to exist only in historical speeches, we need it to be part of our day to day life, and we need government to protect it, and syndicate to respect it.

Today, in modern Europe, we cannot afford to have such issues, while preaching others over democracy, while advocating pacifism and non violence. We cannot fix problems by creating others. We cannot forget about each one of us.

What Muslims should actually be angry about - The Commentator

2013-01-31T14:06:00.000+02:00

"There are many things that could legitimately offend people of the Islamic faith - YouTube videos, teddy bears, and cartoons are not included

Do people have their priorities straight?

In this age of riots, murders, and embassy lynchings over YouTube videos, teddy bears, and cartoons, it is worth highlighting the politicised, selective, and hypocritical nature of such Islamist-inspired fury. There are many things that should offend those who are seemingly shocked by benign and ignorable mockery of religion. These include:
- The systematic destruction of Islam's heritage in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Since the Saudi royal family conquered the Hijaz region, mausoleums, mosques, grave yards, and other significant buildings connected to the history of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad and his companions have been bulldozed to make way for motorways, shopping centres and five star hotels.
- The fact that the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) in Pakistan continue to blow up girls’ schools and violently attack young teenage girls for wanting to attend them.
- The systematic persecution of Ahmedis, Shias, Christians, Hindus, and other minorities in Pakistan who, if not being accused of blasphemy, are being hunted down by thugs claiming to be inspired by Islam.
- The destruction and vandalism visited upon the ancient city of Timbukto. Since the al-Qaeda affiliated Ansar al Dine took over the city, mosques have been attacked, mausoleums raided, and other holy sites destroyed, including tombs of great saints.
- The systematic and widespread practise of female genital mutilation (FGM) that Muslim clerics in North and East Africa defend and promote. A practise that is vile, disgusting, inhumane, and recognised as such around the world.
- The hysterical anti-Semitism that emanates from pulpits all over the Middle East. A form of bigotry that is largely accepted and rarely goes challenged.
- The destruction of Buddist temples and Christian churches in Indonesia that has increased since Islamist parties have begun to make gains in South East Asia.
- The destruction of the Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban, statues that stood for hundreds of years and held great significance for Buddhists around the world.
These are the grievances that should inspire protests and anger but alas they are ignored in favour of ones that can be attributed to the evil West and Israel, however fictitious and spurious the linkages.
The selective nature of the outrage thus points to a much deeper malaise infecting the minds of the faithful. A political narrative is at the heart of this and it is a narrative that provides simple answers, deflection, and solace at a time when the faithful should be doing some long overdue soul-searching and confronting their own shortcomings.
Gravitation towards a grievance and victimhood culture is the easy option because it doesn't compel Muslims to ask the difficult questions such as why we preside over some of the most corrupt, unequal, sexist, dysfunctional, and authoritarian societies on earth.
Instead, Islamist parties, seeking to galvanise the masses behind their apocalyptic message, encourage Muslims to look west and seek answers in the foreign policies of the US and the UK. Unfortunately, many Western leftists also encourage this defeatist and self-deprecating trend in the vain hope that it supports their cause.
The primary victims of this phenomenon are Muslims themselves who are left dis-empowered and undermine their own agency by placing all responsibility elsewhere. The winners are Islamists and Jihadists who continue to wage war against art, culture, women, and vulnerable minorities, safe in the knowledge that most Muslims are distracted by their obsession with the next Danish cartoon or American YouTube clip.
It is not easy to initiate rational conversation in such a context – ask those who have tried.
Ghaffar Hussain is a counter terrorism expert and Contributing Editor to The Commentator. Follow him on Twitter @GhaffarH "

Full article can be seen here: What Muslims should actually be angry about - The Commentator:

Tolerating Intolerance

2012-10-27T00:57:00.000+03:00

No need to say much, the clip says more about intolerance than I can say in a thousand words.

It happens in Sweden, the country that offered asylum to many people in suffering (at one point in their life), that became citizens of that country. Now, some of those very people are present in this video, attacking core values of the democratic society that gave them shelter, food, medicine and respect.

LiveLeak.com - Muslim student go crazy in campus showing anti-Islamic amateur film in Sweden 2012

The world is huge, and nobody is forcing you to watch the movie if you find it offensive You can chose to be a good human being, mind your own business, while others mind theirs, or you can chose to be policing cultural events, like a good fundamentalist muslim.

If you chose to tell me what to say, think or do, than I will say to you "Get over it! Grow up!"
"According to my standards, your prophet, despite his "divine" credentials, is a murderer, pedophile and a rapist. Yelling at me, threatening me, blackmailing me, or attacking me into submission will not work!"

America's nonreligious population on the rise — RT

2012-10-10T13:34:00.002+03:00

Well, some are worried, some are not... Some would say it's a bad thing, some would say it was about time.

"The number of religiously unaffiliated Americans has risen, while Protestants are for the first time ever no longer a majority, a study reveals. The so-called “nones” vote primarily Democratic, giving Obama a boost in the upcoming election.
The survey, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and released on Tuesday, says one in five Americans describe themselves as atheists and agnostics, or choose not to identify themselves as religiously affiliated when it comes to their faith. The figure is an increase from the 15 per cent reported five years ago.
The number of Protestant adults in America has reached a low of 48 per cent — the first time Pew has reported the share to be under at least one half of the nation. Catholics account for 22 per cent of the adult American population, with the remaining 10 per cent divided between other faiths and those who replied that they were unsure.
Senior Pew researcher Greg Smith says the change comes at a time when older, traditionally more religious generations are being gradually replaced with younger people who are less religious and more likely to question religious institutions. While most of the "nones" believe the church can do good to society by bringing communities together and helping the poor, they also say it is too focused on money, power and politics.
The change may also be attributed to the way people discuss religion, especially those who seldom or never attend religious services. While in a 2007 Pew report some of them still identified with a religious group, the latest findings show people more often speak about their spiritual connection with nature and the Earth – and even pray daily – but still say they are "not religious.” The report says the increase has occurred across all income and education levels and both genders. When it comes to ethnicity, though, the growth is more significant among the country's white population.
The trend has clear political implications. Americans with no religion tend to vote for Democrats, support reproductive rights and marriage equality, while Republicans traditionally rely on more religious voters, according to the survey. John Green, a political science professor at the University of Akron in Ohio, says the rise of the "nones" could reshape the political landscape in the US, with unaffiliated Americans becoming "the single largest faith-based or religious group.”“It may be in the near future that the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democratic Party coalition as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party coalition,” he adds.
The growth in the number of "nones" is not expected to stop, or even slow down. Pew researchers say unaffiliated young adults are not expected to become more religiously active as they age.
Even so, the US remains one of the most religious developed nations. Fifty-eight percent of Americans say religion is very important in their lives – twice as much as in many European states."

For original article, follow the link: America's nonreligious population on the rise — RT

Reuters: Libyan Islamist militia swept out of Benghazi bases | Reuters

2012-09-22T20:27:00.001+03:00

It takes courage to stand up for something. It takes even more courage to do it when when you stand up against a group known for its violence, with a fundamentalist understanding of religion and politics, that has the tools, financing and support to enforce its views by way of murder, terror and intimidation. It is one of the first signs of real freedom we actually see. We know that the revolution against Gaddafi was confiscated by fundamentalists, for they had the weapons; no ordinary citizen (without a political agenda) would carry a weapon as they have no use for it. We know that control is exercised through militias (no need to inform you about their allegiance), and those groups influence politics (even if it is not the voice of majority) in a game of veiled blackmail for "security".

It is a sign for the government that they need to rush expansion of its own security services, to minimize its reliance on these (at best) militias, if they want a stable, functioning state as soon as possible. And a stable functioning state exists when law and order is enforced by the general rule of law, not of divided, subject to interpretations, corruption and ones interes, ad-hoc decree.

Full article:

An Islamist militia was driven out of the city of Benghazi early on Saturday in a surge of anger against the armed groups that control large parts of Libya more than a year after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

"A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia, which some U.S. and Libya officials blame for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed, said it had evacuated its bases "to preserve security in the city".
In a dramatic sign of Libya's fragility, after sweeping through Ansar's bases the crowd went on to attack a pro-government militia, believing them to be Islamists, triggering an armed response in which at least 11 people were killed and more than 60 wounded. The invasion of Ansar al-Sharia's compounds, which met little resistance, appeared to be part of a sweep of militia bases by police, troops and activists following a large demonstration against militia units in Benghazi on Friday. Demonstrators pulled down militia flags and set a vehicle on fire inside what was once the base of Gaddafi's security forces. Hundreds of men waving swords and even a meat cleaver chanted "Libya, Libya", "No more al Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"

"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," demonstrator Hassan Ahmed said. "They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled.
"This place is like the Bastille. This is where Gaddafi controlled Libya from, and then Ansar al-Sharia took it over. This is a turning point for the people of Benghazi."
Adusalam al-Tarhouni, a government worker who arrived with the first wave of protesters, said several pickup trucks with Ansar fighters had initially confronted the protesters and opened fire. Two protesters were shot in the leg, he said. "After that they got into their trucks and drove away," he said. Protesters had freed four prisoners found inside.

Libya's government had promised Washington it would find the perpetrators of what appeared to be a well planned attack on the U.S. consulate, which coincided with protests against an anti-Islam video and the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

PRESSURE ON OBAMA
The attack and the outrage directed at the United States over the video across the Muslim world raised questions about President Barack Obama's handling of the so-called Arab Spring. Although Ansar al-Sharia denies any role in the consulate attack, the latest events in the cradle of Libya's revolution appeared at least in part to vindicate Obama's faith in Libya's nascent democracy.

"The killing of the ambassador, and a preceding set of serious security incidents, are a wake-up call to the new government to actually start to improve security," said Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya. "And now they've got backing from the street in Benghazi to do just that."
Libyan political scientist Ahmad al-Atrash told Reuters: "People in Benghazi and all over Libya want to get these militias under control ... The overwhelming feeling is against any element that keeps the situation unstable." The second half of Friday night's protest proved his point.
Continuing to chant anti-Ansar slogans, the crowd, swelling into the thousands, moved on to attack a separate compound where the powerful pro-government Rafallah al-Sahati militia, safeguarding a big weapons store, opened fire on the assailants. As looters later tried to leave the scene, vigilantes wielding clubs and machetes tried to prevent them driving off with heavy weapons. Officials at three hospitals told a Reuters correspondent they had a total of five dead and more than 60 wounded from the night's violence. Police found six more dead bodies near the compound on Saturday morning, police officer Ahmed Ali Agouri said. "We came as peaceful protesters. When we got there they started shooting at us," student Sanad al-Barani said. "Five people were wounded beside me. They used 14.5 mm machineguns." Nasser Abdelhaaq, a Rafallah al-Sahati commander, said the brigade had returned to their compound on Saturday morning. He suggested that the crowd had been deliberately manipulated to turn on Rafallah al-Sahati, an officially approved militia that also has Islamist leanings. "Twenty-five percent of those who came were there as saboteurs," he said. "Some of them, we know who they are, they were working with Gaddafi's security brigades." While the compound was being looted, the government texted Benghazi mobile phones asking citizens to go home and "not allow saboteurs to destroy your noble and successful demonstration".

RELIANT ON MILITIAS
Libya's new rulers know that, while militias pose the biggest threat to their authority, the state's weak security forces rely on former rebel units, armed with heavy weapons, that fought in the uprising. Like the rest of Libya, Benghazi is still prowled by dozens of armed groups operating openly, usually with the official permission of a government that is powerless to stop them.
Ansar al-Sharia's overt Benghazi presence was never huge. But it was one of the few groups operating openly without official licence. Its leaders proclaim democratic government to be incompatible with Islam, and the presence on the streets of pickup trucks bearing their Kalashnikov logo was an affront to the government's authority. Ansar al-Sharia and other Islamist militias have bases elsewhere in eastern Libya, notably around the coastal city of Derna, known across the region as a major recruitment centre for fighters who joined the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

The attack on the U.S. consulate seems to have provided a strong impetus for local authorities to rally support behind the weak national government. Thousands of Libyans marched in Friday's "Rescue Benghazi Day" in support of democracy and against Islamist militias. "It's obvious that this protest is against the militias. All of them should join the army or security forces as individuals, not as groups," student Ahmed Sanallah said. "Without that, there will be no prosperity and no success for the new Libya."
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was well liked, and many Libyans condemned the attack on the consulate despite being angered by the anti-Islamic U.S.-made film that triggered it. Some protesters' placards read: "We demand justice for Stevens" and "Libya lost a friend". Others had mixed views. "I am out today to defend Benghazi. Killing the ambassador is a completely separate thing," said 26-year-old Amjad Mohammed Hassan, a network engineer. "I don't give a damn about the killing of the ambassador because the Americans offended the Prophet. I am just here for Benghazi."

(Additional reporting by Omar al-Mosmary, Mohammed Al-Tommy; Writing by Marie-Louise Gumuchian; Editing by Kevin Liffey)"

Original article can be found here: Libyan Islamist militia swept out of Benghazi bases | Reuters

To Kill or Not to Kill?... (the Video)

2012-09-17T21:37:00.000+03:00

Or, learning how to bow before fundamentalism Islam.

"Sam Bacile" is famous over night. His clip on YouTube is a big hit. I saw it, and it is plain rubbish, artistically speaking. But that doesn't matter, when it is about Islam and its Prophet it is like dropping salt on a wound and the muslim world goes crazy. we should have gotten used with this by now, nothing offends them more then a bit of a mockery. Not the hideous crimes produced in the name of islam, not the injustice it spreads, but a cartoon, a movie or a declaration. Is there a word to express this out of scale hypocrisy? If not, we can call it islamic.

Some say, it is a calculated attempt to inflame, by an Israeli agency, some say it is the product of a deluded mind, while I say it doesn't even matter who and why made the movie. It's a bad movie, no one would ever see it outside this particular inflamed situation, or give it any particular attention. It's so bad that it feels like kids trying their hand at theater for the first time, at the first rehearsal, in kindergarten. But nobody has the right to call for murder over this, NOBODY! And one person thought to be involved is investigated, for issues unrelated to the content of the clip (investigating him for bad taste?!... or, maybe a little intimidation?). And this is done not by Syrian authorities, but by American. We claim to be living in a free world, we claim to have free speech, we claim to be the very tip of civilization, and this should not happen, it is an right that defines (or should define) our society. Moreover, freedom of speech gives fundamentalist the freedom to call for murder (a criminal act itself), the very right they want to suppress.We cannot evolve with a fist deep in our mouths.

It gets even more ridiculous.
Not long ago, one title in the news drew my attention about a possible "help" to Egypt worth around 700 millions euros could come from European Union. Even with the situations developing in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy, Europe has money to spare. Aren't we in a deep crisis? Let's even assume that we can call it a strategic move and Egypt needs the help. But don't we know enough already about the Muslim Brotherhood? Is Europe ready to trust such entity?
How about the United States, Egypt and Libya? Egypt is a lost cause, and America knows it... in Libya, just recently, support was given to groups that now will probably become a new enemy. One ambassador is already down, victim of the first open engagement. Chris Stevens is only the first open, high ranking victim, but he is not the first, nor the last.. Will that chain of victims of fundamentalism ever end?

Will we ever have reasonable people on that side of the religious wall? Will they be able to stir extremism within the boundaries of reason, universal morality and real desire for peace and understanding? Will we be able to make really bad movies and not get killed? I am laughing while tears fall down my cheeks...

In the Name of Charity

2012-09-12T00:20:00.000+03:00

We all heard about refugee camps, we all know they exist, we all know how people live there, or how people die there. We all have been approached by charitable organisations at some point in our life, trying to impress us with what they want to do for our human fellow. In fact, on brief visit to a European city (name is not important), I was approached too, but I declined. Not because I am bad person or that I don't care, it is just because i don't trust those organisations nor their means. The cause of this mistrust? The Holiest of them all in the past century: mother Teresa! Asking for big bucks to build a house of dying, not just dying, but dying an absurd way that brings salvation.

I do not believe in just feeding and treating. Call me narrow minded, but I believe it is just a waste of resources, it is just a "problem not solved" continuously growing burden on everyone's shoulders. It is just an extension of the suffering of those in need. One case of smiling, fed and vaccinated child is just not enough; a week later he may become a victim of the system, war or religious quarrels he was trying to escape. It looks god on the camera when he receives a loaf of bread, and the kid smiles thinking he has enough for three days, its fantastic when he gets medical treatment, but almost nothing is made to fix things that brought him in that situation, and here is where I think a different attitude is necessary. That leaves out natural disasters, in those cases the best humanity can do is to offer temporary relief and support.

Now, you will call me a war-monger (some might say a "republican"), but democracy can be enforced (even to the middle east), it just takes patience and commitment, and a proper "World Police Organization". You might say we have one: UN. OK, but I don't see them in Syria, they were not very effective in former Yugoslavia, not very effective in Palestine, not very effective in Darfur... and all three of them huge humanitarian disasters. I even dare to ask a question: how would Syria look like today if it was governed by the before mentioned "World Police Organization"? Disarmed rebels, disarmed army... the only way forward would have been for them to find common ground and move forward, once the armed struggle is eliminated. And all this while cities would still be habitable, and the victims numbers much lower. But we are afraid we will not get the vote next round of elections; we know that many times decisive action is the best answer, but we chose to stay put and pay the charity bill.

World Today: How We Stopped Loving Our Freedom

2012-06-23T10:17:00.001+03:00

Arguably, we, as a society, have reached a peak. A highpoint that a century before wasn't even in our dreams. And humanity had its visionary men looking anxiously to the future, pushing it hard, dragging everybody else along with them...

Electricity, road and air travel, the way we made business, or killed each other, art, technology and science, everything had such an accelerated pace, that compared with the previous 6000 years looks like an explosion that keeps growing.

But, there is a black spot, a huge one - stamped on our faith like a tattoo that won't come off. We still didn't learn how to live with each other. An uneducated opinion that "my way" is better than "your way", and "your way" must die, that has its roots in religious or nationalist extremism. Involution? Maybe... The mechanics of hate feed heavily on those two components, and even heavier on our acceptance of it, as part of the freedom culture. By acceptance of freedom of expression, way is given to hate. The hate bubble grows and one day it will burst, straight in our face, and there will be no more liberty. No more liberty to smile when I'm happy, no more freedom to love when my heart's on fire, no more liberty to read, to think... the only way, the only explanation, the only voice will be the sanctioned one. I am afraid of those times.

On the Way to Damascus | Seriously, I'm joking!...

2012-06-16T12:18:00.000+03:00

On the Way to Damascus | Seriously, I'm joking!...

"Revolution! Revolution! Revolution!... What a wonderful way to gain freedom!

Hiding in the mountains, harassing the government troops, destroying checkpoints, just like Che Guevara himself would have done it! Confronting tanks without weapons, avoiding capture so many times, what a romantic way to live a revolution! Apart from the thousands of dead, it is the best thing that has happened in Middle East, apart from Israel! And religious extremists... and suicide bombers... and Saddam Hussein... and Iranian revolution... and oil.

We all know what is brewing in Syria, but somehow, one dickhead thinks he can fool anyone. Defending Syrians from a band of saboteurs?!... All revolutionaries are saboteurs until the revolution succeeds, and than, they become heroes. No revolution was legal, until it succeeded.

The voice of the world shouts: Stop the violence! Well, it's a bit late now, isn't it? People died already, and voicing your condemnation is not going to change anything. You can try shaking hands again with Al Assad, giving him praise and support (well, not directly - what is the rest of the world going to say about it?). Just like the world did with Libya, and Egypt. Gaddafi was thought to have converted to western way of thinking when he fell of his horse...pardon, his throne! Mubarak was the great defender from the dangers of extremism (the religious one, of course; policing his great country was never seen by the west) to the last day of his rule.

Yes, the opposition won in both cases, but what part of the opposition? That is the million dollar question! And at what cost for the rest of the world? I know the answer, you know the answer, and I am dead sure Obama knows the answer too. Must be embarrassing to see former allies, regimes you shook hands with, kiss their asses at times, falling like flies, leaving behind them corpses and terror. Terror to see that behind them emerges the very similar kind of idiots, but of different colour (political.... or religious, or... better said, political. Shit, I can't tell the difference anymore between them two!). All that, while holding those many, really wanting freedom, hostages through threat and kidnapping and murder. All that while claiming the heroes to be from their ranks. And they will tell you in your face that you have to obey the rule of God, or your beautiful head will be carefully separated from your body, being filmed in the process. If you're naughty, you might get the massage therapy with stones. Not any stone, only holy stones. Live, on national television! You'll be a star in an educational clip. The education they will want to teach us all."

'via Blog this'

Reading - a dying hobby

2012-06-13T10:35:00.000+03:00

Most of our posts in this blog have been directed towards some problem that we have encountered in day to day life, or something that has annoyed us greatly. But today I'm feeling good. I thought I'd give a go to something that I seem to enjoy a lot, lately. Reading.

It's easy, it's accessible, it's free and most of all, it's fun! You don't have to buy books, or spend time at the local library if you don't want to. Get online and you can find anything that you want. I was thinking, since I moved abroad I haven't actually held a book to read. But wait! I do read. At work mostly. In 10 hours of work I think I spend most of them reading something. I read the news, I read scientific articles that interest me, I read forums, jokes. But I also read books. Granted, the last one I read wasn't something published by a known writer, but for me it was still good. My last book was the 3rd volume from the hit game Diablo 3, "The Sin War - The Veiled Prpophet". I love their Diablo series and thus, I enjoy the lore books. Most of the books that Blizzard released I have set time aside to read. It's my thing. Fantasy attracts me.

For me, reading is a good way to pass the time and keep my mind occupied. I can imagine the characters, the actions however I want. See the scenery in my mind how I wish. In so many ways a book is better than a movie. A movie will already present you with the details, but it is how the directors saw it, not as you have imagined it. If you have ever read a book before seeing the movie made after the book, you will probably say to yourself :"This is not how I imagined that. Or this...or those." That's because books give us the freedom to use our imagination how we want. And they don't have commercial breaks.

That being said, why do I have the feeling not too many people read in our times? It seems there are no downsides to reading, yet people don't do it any more. Have video games, movies, social networking and all of today's technologies taken up all our time that we don't find any left for something as beneficial as growing our imagination, vocabularies and mind from books? From the looks of it, on forums, boards, comments and such, even typing words correctly or using grammar have become outdated. I really hope that will not be the future for our civilisation.

Corruption, Meritocracy and the People

2012-06-06T13:28:00.001+03:00

Corruption, seems to have developed a self-sustaining , indestructible system that perpetuates infinitely in the administration apparatus. I cannot help to believe sometimes that a autocratic political system is needed for 10 years during which a corruption-proof administration can be built, with working paths independent of person, with clear processes and procedures, with penalties and responsibilities for each action and each individual involved in it, with control systems that oversees it, making it independent of politics and outside influences. BUT, here lies a bigger problem: finding that incorruptible involved individual to do it. Humans are subject to corruption and compromise.

One can argue that some political systems leave less room for it, and it is true (in part). But one loophole is one too many.

Not advocating extremism here, examples from history cannot be clearer against it, starting with Roman Empire and ending with North Korea, and who forgets history risks repeating history and failures of the past. There must be a way around it. Having shared time with a Process Engineer, I learned that everything can be optimized, everything can be improved, including administration and political environment. But a designer of it is not enough, will is what we lack. When well structured and compartmented governing structures are in place, the influence of political parties are minimized to the point where it doesn't even matter their participation, which will render their existence useless. And if they do not exist any more, what will the structure look like, what will it be, meritocracy? Hmm... there is another aspect, maybe the most important: public opinion. Can it be harmonized with a meritocracy, or better said can one engineer a symbiosis between an administrative system based on merits and public opinion? Otherwise it will be just another dictatorship using a different name...

Civilisation types - Evolution of mankind

2012-06-02T09:56:00.000+03:00

Evolution.

It's a subject that has always caught my attention wherever I heard it. If we only compare our civilization with the same Homo Sapiens Sapiens that lived through the 11th century, the difference is overwhelming. Personal Computers, cars, television, flying, rockets, skyscrapers. The list is endless. All this came because we managed to use and handle most of the resources from our own little planet.

In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev theorized that a civilization's technical advancement directly correlates to the amount of energy its citizens can manipulate. Along these lines, he defined three classifications for advanced civilizations in the galaxy:

Type I civilizations are masters of planetary energy, meaning that they can harness the sum energy of an entire world.
Type II civilizations can summon the power of an entire star system.
Type III civilizations command energy on a galactic scale.

While we are not yet a Type I Civilization, we are very close to achieving it. The "only" thing that keeps us from achieving this advancement is getting rid of our dependency of fossil fuel.Nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, solar power, wind, water. They all have the potential for that, but we just haven't found an efficient way of harvesting it.

All that being said, technology isn't the only way to measure evolution. If we look to our ancestors we can see some differences in the anatomy of humans. But this is not my point here. What I am trying to imagine is how will we evolve. What will humans look like in ten thousand years, in 100.000 years? The more we know about our universe, the more we develop, will our brains become bigger? Will our bodies change? Is the next step in evolution the little grey aliens with huge heads?

Time will tell.