French riots

I find the French riots very disturbing, not because I live in a city with a similar ethnic composition as Paris, but because of the way the developments have been presented through the media. They’ve twisted the reality in such a way that a lot of people don’t even know why the youth in French towns are burning cars or throwing stones at the police. Of course, I’m not talking about the critical media. But hey, who looks for anything else than CNN and other crappy channels, except for a small group?

I don’t support violence against innocent citizens. But I do like the idea behind this uprising. It’s the outrage of the underclass, the oppressed, and the dominated. It’s the classic Marx’s theory put in practice. Of course, a segment of the unrest may have been caused by people who have nothing better to do, but let’s not delegitimize the protests entirely.

The way the riots have been presented in the media is, however, is a completely different story. First of all, the media have transformed the problem from an issue related to social-economical class to a multi-cultural drama. In doing this, they have placed the riots at the heart of the current public discourse in Europe about the multi-cultural society. Indeed, in the beginning, the riots were caused by “youth in underdeveloped neighborhoods”, then they suddenly changed it to “immigrant youth”, and a few days later the media were talking about “Muslim youth”. It was only then that the media could “really” blame the protesters. Within a few days time, people were already talking about the multi-cultural catastrophe in Paris, wondering why the hell these Muslims can’t integrate in their oh so great society and fearing an expansion of the riots to other European cities. The public opinion didn’t need much evidence. The fear of Muslims is intuitive, always there and easily activated. There was no mention of the fact that African French people were also taking part in the riots, no mention of the fact that those people who were screaming on streets, have been treated as second rank citizens all their lives, no mention of the fact that they have been left to perish in nasty neighborhoods with no prospect on a job or a decent life. What goes around comes around, folks!

Cyberia

vampire666: hey there
blue_phantom: hi
vampire666: how r u doing?
la_confidential2004: is there a nice lady who wants to pm?
blue_phantom: alright. yourself?
psycho_ag left the room
vampire666: doin great. asl pls
blue_phantom: what?
lonely_gurl enters the room
vampire666: asl, age sex location
blue_phantom: 25 male fl. You?
vampire666: m too
vampire666: hey, lonely. How r u doing?

Author unknown

Never hold your farts in... they travel up your spine, into your brain...and that's where shitty ideas come from!!

Against the wind

I recognized my pain, but I did not indulge in it. For years, I marched against the wind. The harder it blew, the faster I walked. I saluted the cold rain when others took refuge. I saluted my breathlessness, brokenness, and sorrow. Those were the moments I felt most alive, most dedicated, and most determined. And now… There is simply no pain to inspire. Only the anguish of purposelessness and indulgence. This is my story; welcome to my narrative of suffering.

Ahmadinejad and Israel

The president of the Islamic Republic (of Iran) (a few years ago I wouldn’t have to mention Iran, but now thanks to the recent invasions, we have the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the Republic of Iraq may be on its way to become Islamic as well) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken some unfriendly words about Israel at a conference in Tehran entitled “The World without Zionism”. Apparently, he has stated that the Jewish state should be “wiped off the map”. I can’t imagine that the Iranian readers of this blog would be surprised by Ahmadinejad’s opinion. That’s what we’ve been hearing from the Islamic regime for the last 20 something years anyway. I have yet to see the first Iranian politician at the government or legislative level to openly recognize the state of Israel. It’s the regime’s official policy. It transcends presidents and political parties. And that’s something the world is very well aware of. For years, Iran has been supporting anti-Israel movements with material and people. That’s a fact; everyone knows it. But surprisingly, Ahmadinejad’s speech has provoked many “hot” reactions across the western world as if the western politics has been sleeping for the last 27 years. For instance, white House spokesman, Scott McClellan, has said that Ahmadinejad’s speech "… underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear operations." Some European countries, and of course Israel itself, have come up with similar statements.

Take one more look at the quote above. See how the same old story of Iran’s problem with the state of Israel is now directly linked to its nuclear operation. I think that the ever-present Iranian policy towards Israel is being used to further pressure Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. Above all, the U.S. wouldn’t mind if the situation escalates through all this commotion about a single speech. Maybe then is a referral to the Security Counsel more feasible.

Saddam Trial

I have an issue with the Saddam trial. But, first, let me tell you this: I hate Saddam Hossein for his oppression of the Iraqi people, execution of the opposition and killing a huge number of Iranians and Iraqi-Kurds during the war. But there is something seriously wrong here.

First of all, Saddam is still the president of Iraq, and should, at least according to its law, enjoy immunity. Why is he still the president? Because there hasn’t been an election to lawfully transfer his power to a new head of state. The reason for the regime change was not a referendum, but a foreign invasion that was not even supported by a UN resolution. As Kofi said, the invasion was “illegal”. I conclude from this sentence that the whole regime change was illegal. Hence, the tribunal is illegal as well. What does that mean for the trial itself?

Second, I have a problem with the media coverage. The whole trial is being broadcasted with an approximate delay of 20 to 30 minutes. Why? Officially, they don’t want to allow Saddam to use the trial as a mean to spread his propaganda. That’s the story we see in the majority of the Western newspapers. But I think there is another reason for the censorship. Maybe some people don’t want Saddam to go into some details they don’t wanna hear about, like the fact that the chemical weapons, which he used to kill his own people, were actually made and sold to him by the U.S. and the UK. Or maybe they don’t want him to tell the world that Donald Rumsfeld had a girly handshake….

Find the difference

Black people "loot", whites "find".