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

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

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.

The Point of No Return?

"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".

Thought of the day 04.17.2013

"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".

Thought of the day 04.16.2013

"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.

Thought of the day 04.15.2013

"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.

Thought of the day 04.10.2013

"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

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?

"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

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

"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

“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

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.

Breaking the strike

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

"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

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

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

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)

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

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.