I believe that the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
I believe all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of kinship, love and tolerance.
I don't believe in distinction of any kind, such as
- race, colour, ethnicity, nationality
- sex, gender identity
- sexual orientation
- language, culture
- religion, spirituality
- political opinion
- any opinion
- origin (social, national or any other kind)
- age
- weight, size
- looks, beauty or lack of it
- disability or illness, visible or invisible, of mind or body
- property, wealth
- birth
- other status or identity

Monday, August 1, 2011

Slut Walk

"Society teaches "don't get raped" rather than "don't rape"... Hmm...

I don't support slut walk.

Firstly, I oppose the name. I am not a slut, I have never been a slut and will never be a slut, and I don't dress like a slut. Like the majority of world's women.

"A slut is someone who enjoys sex, not someone who it's okay to rape"
- Samadhi Arktoi

No, Samadhi. A slut is someone who offers sexual services for money. It's synonymous to whore, not to "someone who enjoys sex".
Of course it's not okay to rape sluts either, but no-one said it was. The "offensive" police officer was talking about rape as CRIME. You know, the word that means something is wrong, illegal, offensive... very much no-no, not okay. He was doing his best to see less crimes done, and he wasn't "blaming the victim". He gave a suggestion on what women could do as part of diminishing the risks of becoming a victim of a crime, and I agree with him.

Secondly, I don't think it's that black-and-white.
Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, like spouse, relative, "friend" or neighbor.
Most rapes are about power and control, and have nothing to do with what you are wearing. People wearing burka has been raped and sexually harassed and abused.
But that's just "most rapes". There are rape situations that could have been avoided, if the victim had been wearing something else and behaving differently. It happens.

Now - why is it such a big deal if people are asked to do small things like choosing a little more moderate clothes or being watchful in high risk situations, to avoid becoming a victim of a crime, when it comes to rape?
After all, people are asked to do things to avoid other crimes too, like having a fake handbag or wallet with things you can afford to lose in case of robbery, or to get proper locks and lock their doors and windows when they are not home, and not to advertise when they are on vacation, to avoid burglery.
Everyone knows burglery is wrong, and you should be able to leave your door unlocked and be able to return to a home that's in the shape it was when you left it, but I don't know anyone who doesn't think leaving the door unlocked was unwise and sort of inviting the burgler. No insurance company pays you any repairs if you "aided" the criminal by not locking your doors.
Also, I don't know anyone who doesn't blame herself, if her handbag gets snatched from their unguarded shopping cart. 
So - why not try to do things you can do to minimize the risk of getting raped, simply because in MOST rape cases it doesn't matter what you are wearing?

10% of reported rapes happen in parties or bars.
In most cases both the victim and perp had been drinking and everyone knows you are not behaving wisely when you are drunk. Mel Gibson shares his true feelings about Jews, women and everything else, people drive drunk and kill other people, people do stupid "jackass" and "dudeson" things, and people flirt with each other, misunderstand signals, miss signals and the night ends up with people getting hurt - and sometimes raped. 
In college the vast majority of rapes are "date rapes". 
The police officer who started all this was talking to college students.

This brings me to my third reason. The police officer was not asked what he meant with what he said, and of everything he said only one sentence is made known to the audience. This sentence is stripped from all context and interpreted.  He was told to apologize, not given a chance to explain. People has already condemned him as a "typical example of a chauvinist idiot police officer and the attitudes all women have to fight". I hate this kind of fascist, fundamentalist, extremist propaganda, making of examples of people who are not at all as "evil" as painted by the fundies, because it hurts people and in the end also the cause.

Of course women have the right to wear what ever they want - or nothing, if that's what they want - but it's not always right, wise or considerate to others.

There has been a lot of talk about people wearing burka, and some of these women marching for women's right to wear nothing if they like, oppose vehemently to women's right to wear a burka.
My SIL thinks immigrants and refugees shouldn't be wearing their ethnic clothes, but be dressed like every other Dane. She found also my husband's Viking inspired clothes offensive. He loves his sarks and wouldn't wear shorts.
Some people find Lady Gaga offensive or ridiculous.
Frankly, if a woman has the right to be dressed as a slut without any negative consequences, she should have the right to wear anything without any negative consequences... like getting mocked or shoved around or denied access to a prom or restaurant.
KKK members have the right to wear sheets with a cone on their head if they so wish. Not smart though, don't you agree? Would you blame the offender much for beating this person up?
Do you think the KKK guy has some part of the responsibility?
I do.

Then look at these women. Normal women having a fun night out.

But when I look at this picture, this is what I see:

I don't take these women seriously. They are doing a dang good impression of a "brainless bimbo".

I think these girls are more likely to say "yes" to sex - with anyone - than girls not showing their knickers and boobs to everyone who cares to look.
I don't think they are after anything but sex, either for free or for money. Why would you wear something like this otherwise? If these women are not after sex, I think they are guilty of false advertising and teasing, and that's just wrong.
What's the point of dressing like a slut?
I mean, if I was out there looking for a guy, I wouldn't want him to see me as just a sexual being.
I don't understand why anyone would want the whole world to see their private parts. I want to save those to my lover.

I have full understanding that a guy who is probably in the bar or party with the wish of sex - as a lot of guys are, especially in college age - thinks the same.

I don't believe these women have a very good self esteem. I don't believe they have a very good sense of humor, that they use their intelligence (at all), and I believe they are very susceptible, a flock of sheep, doing what everyone else is doing. These girls would "go wild" just because someone told them it's a "good idea", and probably will, because I don't believe any of these will be sober when the night is over, and I bet everyone has done something they would regret if they knew they did it, something they wouldn't have done sober, or in another situation.

I believe they all have been sexually assaulted at one point of their lives, and I would guess they were wearing something similar when it happened.
I also think their "offender" was more or less a stranger or a class mate, and the "offense" happened in a party, and was most likely dismissed as "false report".

Do I think it serves them right?
Of course not. But I think it's pretty predictable.

Now, I don't think these women are begging to be raped, or should get raped or even groped, pinched or insulted, but I do think they are making it easier for guys to take the step over the line. It takes a lot not to touch when someone pushes their tits or ass in your face, and if you are drunk and out to "get some", you might just go for it. Doesn't make it less rape, but I most certainly see "mitigating circumstances".

And this is what the police officer was talking about.

So, even though I support women's right to not get raped, 
and even though I think rape is a crime with too easy punishments 
and I agree the society and law enforcement doesn't take it seriously enough, 
I don't think "slut walk" is a good way of expressing this opinion. 
It's giving people right to call women sluts and changing the focus from important issues to petty matters.

I for one think rape should be seen as any other crime and the punishment should be adjusted to the damage done, but that demands the emotional damage is considered and the consequences of that is that bullying would be classified as crime as well... which I think is a good thing, but fundies don't, because it would remove a lot of their weapon arsenal.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Jew bashing?

Warning: volatile subject: JEWS

Don Feder is more a Right-Wing USonian than a Jew, and his opinions are of that caliber. Most of the most vocal representants of the "Conservatives" are pretty good with words. They use a lot of them to say mostly nothing, spiced with passive aggressive insults and arrogant expressions of disdain.
Nevertheless, he's Jewish, so what ever he says, the whole Jewish people is collectively responsible for.

I just have to comment one part of the text: "Armenian genocide resolutions have passed one house of both the French and Italian legislatures. (While thus occupied, Paris doesn't have to deal with the complicity of Vichy France in the genocide that defined the term.) "
Er... who ever said that must be unaware that "Vichy France" was subordinate to the Germans. What ever.

"Armenians maintain that early in World War I, the Ottoman Turks slaughtered 1.5 million of their countrymen in an act of calculated barbarism foreshadowing the Holocaust. Turks, who put Armenian casualties much lower, say the objective was relocation, not extermination. "
Well, it is a fact that thousands of Armenians - men, women, children, elderly - were killed by Ottoman Turks 1915, and this "relocation", which in itself is classified as genocide now-a-days, is fully comparable to the Navajo Long Walk.

I am really not interested what some USonian fascist says, how ever else he defines himself. What I found to be "volatile" is the "thought provoking article by Harout", which starts with "Zion, I’m going to respond to your question publicly. Because it is an important question and we should share it with others", and continues with the usual Schopenhaueric techniques and avoid answering the question all together.

Also, his choice of the "can you prove" questions is very interesting. He is actually admitting that his "facts" are just theories, that are to be believed, just like the existence of God. There is no intellectually acceptable evidence to prove his claims, only some opinions, ideas and theories he thinks sounds good, so "they must be true".

"You know what, if we could prove these facts to each other, we would most probably be deader than a doornail."
Probably not, but it's always so handy to claim you are not revealing your sources in fear of persecution. You know, REAL human rights heroes prove the facts in spite of a REAL threat to their safety. That's what separates men from mice.
Besides, don't call your speculation, theories and ideas facts. There are no "real", "true" or "fake" facts. A fact is a fact. A theory is not a fact. An opinion is not a fact. A belief is not a fact. Not true nor fake.

"We are discussing events and realities that are universally known, yet cannot be adequately proven"
No. You are discussing speculations, ideas, theories and antisemitic crap BEHIND the events and realities that are verifyiable facts.
BTW, NOTHING is "universally known", not even that Earth is a globe that goes around the Sun.

"The inner dynamics of state policies of major nations are things you and I cannot comprehend and would never be given a chance to experience first hand."
What? The inner dynamics of state policies are man made, thus very comprehensible for every intelligent human being. If you cannot comprehend such things, why do you even bother trying to discuss them with people who do?

"What we ‘clearly’ know is that Jews have been actively working with Turks in Washington against Armenians. Right?"
Wrong. I don't know anything about such things, and you refuse to publish any information about it, claiming it's a "taboo" to do so, it's dangerous, it's going to get you killed, it's an "universal truth" and other such bull.

"We do know that Jewish establishments, organizations, and prominent figures in Turkey openly insult Armenians. Right?"
Wrong. We do know that Armenians openly insult Jews all over the world in sites like "Armenian Cafe". Why? Because you won't answer a simple question and provide verifyiable facts on which you base your arguments.

"Have you ever asked yourself why the Greeks, Assyrians and the Kurds of Turkey do not resort to similar tactics to gain favors from Ankara? "
Have you ever asked yourself what other differences there are between the Jewish, Greek, Assyrian, Armenian and Kurdish turks, or did you just jump on the first idea you got, that is, the antisemitic, antizionist idea?

We do know that Zionists do not want to see the Armenian genocide recognized because it is the Jews that have the monopoly of being a ‘victimized nation’. Right?
Wrong. If you listen to the non-Jewish fascists, you will hear that it's the Jews and their idiotic "human rights" ideas created to enslave the rest of the world, who are pushing the recognizion of Armenian genocide. You see, there is only one "genocide" the Zionists have an interest to deny, the Palestinian "genocide". And I say "genocide", because what's happening in Israel-Palestine doesn't fulfill the requirements of a genocide.

Also, claiming that the Jews try to upkeep some sort of monopoly of being a victimized nation is antisemitic. They ARE a victimized nation, and I have never heard a Jew claim they are the ONLY victimized nation, on the contrary.

"I personally know of an Armenian-American Journalist that could not get an article about the Armenian Genocide published in the ‘Jew’ York Times, unless, she included references to the Jewish Holocaust and Armenian assassinations of Turks."
Of course, because you personally know this person, she must exist... and the story must have happened as you say it did. You wouldn't lie, would you? Naturally, her version of the story is the only truth story, she wouldn't lie or twist the truth to fit her agenda - she doesn't even have an agenda, and suggesting she does is offensive - and there is no other reason to for this except that the Jews must remain the only victimized nation - except that by publishing a story about the Armenian genocide, they have to admit there IS an Armenian genocide, and that Armenians are also a victimized people...
Oh, and "the ‘Jew’ York Times" is also antisemitic.

"We do know that the Zionist state of Israel has very cordial relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan and not Armenia. Right? "
Wrong. Armenia is one of the biggest trade partners of Israel, and have cordial relations. In fact, the majority of Israel's citizens is demanding Israel recognizes the Armenian genocide, which very few countries have done so far.
Even though Armenians desecrated the Holocaust memorial in Yerevan, and engage in other forms of antisemitic propaganda.
Even though Armenia has friendly relations with Iran, another country who doesn't recognize the Armenian genocide either....

"We do know that Israel was supplying the Azerbaijani army with logistical support during the Karabagh war"
We do know that Israel was on the Azerbaijani side during the Karabagh war.
We also know that the war "left 30,000 dead and 800,000 refugees, almost all of them Azeris".
We also know that Azerbaijan has always been Israel-friendly, organizing among other things Israeli cultural festivals, which Armenia wouldn't do.

Georgia and Iran, who actually share a border with Armenia, to recognize the Armenian genocide?

We do know that Israel has embassies open in Ankara and Baku and not in Armenia. Right?
Right. We also know that Armenia doesn't have an embassy in Israel, even though there's plenty of Armenians living in Israel. (More than Israelis - or Jews - living in Armenia.)
We also know that Israel has an Armenian ambassador, in Georgia, and the Armenian ambassador of Israel is in France.

"We do know that the Zionist state of Israel is very unhappy with Armenia’s cordial relations with Iran. Right?"
I doubt they are "very unhappy" about that.
What we do know is that the Nationalist state of Armenia has cordial relations with the Muslim dictatorship of Iran, that refuses to recognize the state of Israel, AND we know Iran refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide...

"We do know that Israel has active military and economic ties with Turkey. Right?"
Probably. Armenia has active military and economic ties with Iran.

"And finally, we definitely know what Turkey thinks of Armenia. Don’t We?"
Even that can be discussed. We know that Turkey has recognized Armenia, and that is more than can be said about Iran and Israel. Nevertheless you consider your friendship with Israel's enemy to be nothing to think about, while you seem to think Israel's "friendship" with Turkey, your enemy, to be condemning evidence of Jewish and Zionist influence in the Armenian genocide. What a hypocrite you are :-D

"What else does the State of Israel have to do, short of bombing Yerevan, to show you that it has policies that are hostile to Armenia?"
Frankly, Armenia has shown more hostility to Israel by befriending its enemies, than Israel has shown toward Armenia or Armenians. The day Israel does bomb Yerevan - without Armenians attacking Israel first - I'll believe you. Not before.

"Whether Zionists conspire against Armenia for their malicious self-serving interests or because of the interest of their best friends in Ankara, or a mixture of both, that end-results are the same. Armenia cannot fit the geo-political formulas, security interests and grandiose agendas of Zionists and Turks."
So - when the Jewish people expresses it's right to self-determination through Zionism it's malicious, but when the Armenian people do the same, it's not? And how is one more self-serving than the other? And WHY would ANY people be serving anyone else but themselves?
Turks are not Israel's "best friends". They keep polite relations mostly because both depend on USA.
Both Turkey and Israel have recognized Armenia, so it's pretty obvious to everyone but an egocentric nationalist that Armenia fits the "geo-political formulas, security interests and grandiose agendas of Zionists and Turks".
Also, it is pretty clear that the "grandiose agendas of Zionists and Turks" are not so grandiose as you seem to believe. Both seem to be quite happy with the nation state they now control. Turks are not trying to take over Armenia, Israel isn't trying to get the land from "Eufrat to Nile", just what was promised to them by Brits in WWI.

"Also relevant for this context is the role Islamic Republic of Iran plays, albeit, indirectly. Iran today is the only stable and viable neighbor Armenia has. Iran’s foreign policies have been very favorable to Armenia and hostile to Turkey and Azerbaijan. Iran is also a nation that Zionists fear most.."
LOL Sure. Are you aware of the more than cordial relations of Iran and Turkey?

"Turkey is close to Israel and against Iran and Armenia."
Against Iran? You are following wrong papers, if that's what you believe.

"Do you see that Zionists do not have to be directly hostile to Armenia in order to severely undermine Armenia’s sovereignty?"
If Armenia's sovereignty is that feeble, perhaps you shouldn't be independent. Get some spine, Jerm!
1917 Finland became independent after having been occupied by Russia for 100 years. 20 years later Soviet attacked Finland, trying to "get us back".  We begged for help from Sweden, England, USA, everywhere, and only Germans were ready to help, so we accepted their offer. After years of fighting, the Russians finally accepted a peace treaty, and we lost an arm - literally - if you look at the Finnish map before WWII, you see it looks like a lady in long skirts holding two arms upwards - one of the arms was Petsamo - and a leg. But we kept our sovereignty. We had to accept unfair deals, but we kept our sovereignty. We had to swallow a lot of pride, but we kept our sovereignty. We have been independent and sovereign since 1917, and OUR enemy was RUSSIA: If we can get and keep independency, so can anyone.
So don't you come here whining about Turks, and base antisemitic conspiracy theories on diplomatic relations of Israel.

"In closing, I have to say that yours question is vague in nature, very rhetorical and extremely subjective."
The question was “can you prove, unequivocally, that Zionists are, or ever have, conspired against Armenians”
It's not more vague, rhetorical or subjective than the claim that Zionist conspire against Armenians. I think it's just fair to ask. Besides, having discussed with antisemites who like to call themselves antizionists as if that would make them less antisemitic, I know that that's just an effort to avoid answering the question.
The only fair, correct and factual answer to this question is "no". Nor you, or anyone, can prove that Zionists conspire against Armenians, or have ever done so.

"Your question is also a technique used by apologists worldwide, whether Nazi, Turkish or Zionist (all three are ideologically off-springs of the same beast)."
The technique used by apologists worldwide... Not really. Your answer, on the other hand, is a fine example of an answer given by apologists worldwide.
You're right in that National Socialists of Germany, Ottoman Turks and Zionists all share the ideology. It's called NATIONALISM. The idea that the nation one belongs to is somehow different than any other nation, and has the right of self-determination through a nation state.
It is the exact same idea that made Armenians think they cannot be Turks nor Russians, but must be Armenians.
Don't you try to get on your high horses and pretend to be any better.
Also, don't try to tell me there are no supernationalist Armenians, who dream of Greater Armenia, where all the areas on the map that has ever been Armenian should be Armenian again, because THAT is a FACT. Armenians are not better or worse than any other nation in the world, and as every other nation has their share of Nazis dreaming of a Greater what-ever-nation-they-represent, so does the Armenians.
Does that make all the Armenians bad? Or all nationalist Armenians? No.
I am a Finnish nationalist. I am proud of my Finnish identity and my Finnish homeland with its Finnish language and Finnish flag. Why would I find that bad?
The same way Zionism as an ideology is in no way bad, as the core of Zionism is a Jewish homeland, preferably in the same place where it has always been, that is, in Israel. I don't deny there are Zionist nazis dreaming of the Greater Israel - that would be idiotic - but this fact doesn't make all Zionists nazis. If you believe that, you believe that the Jews are a nation different - and worse - from all the other nations... and that, my dear, is antisemitism.
In fact, I'm a Zionist in that I believe the Jews to be a nation - by ethnicity and culture - and they too have the right of self-determination, and I also believe the Jewish nation state cannot be anywhere else but in Judea, where they come from.

"Why are you so adamant in disproving Jewish (Zionist) antagonisms against Armenia and Armenians?"
I could ask you the same? What do you get by claiming the Jews hate Armenians?
Frankly, all it does is to make the Turks unwilling victims of the evil Jews, innocent to the Armenian genocide...After all, it wasn't THEM who did it, just as little as it was the Christian Lebanese who massacred Sabra and Shatila, it was THE JEWS.
And don't you see how antisemitic it is to blame Jews for all the evil in the world? Do you really think the world would be a better place if there never were any Jews in it? Really?

"Is not the writing on the wall clear enough for you?"
Of course it is. But "clear" doesn't mean "true". You seem to have serious difficulties in separating these concepts. You seem to think propaganda must be more true than neutral news reporting, because the latter leaves the conclusions and thinking to you, while the former is clear as a whistle.

"Why do you seek proof of a kind that can’t be provided, due to its very nature, unless, you have another agenda? Which, I would hate to think."
 "by its very nature"... Yes, lies, propaganda, prejudices and conspiracy theories are practically impossible to prove. 
And why do you think things that are hateful for you to think? You are fully convinced this Sassoon, Sion or what ever this person's name is, is just another Zionist troll.

"the collective mentality of traditional Jewish culture is very xenophobic and chauvinistic  "
Not really. You seem to make the same mistake as so many other non-Jews.

First, get into your head that what is commonly called "the Old Testament" is THE JEWISH NATIONAL EPOS. It isn't a collection of international, universal truths, or testimony of The One God of All Nations, it's JEWISH and shouldn't have any significance for any other people in this world.
Just like any other people's national epos, the Jewish national epos is filled with THEIR stories told from THEIR point of view, stating that THEY are special people.
Kalevala is filled with OUR stories told from OUR point of view, stating how special people WE are.
I don't know what the Armenian national epos is - or if you have any - but the French national epos is full of THEIR stories told from THEIR point of view stating how special and God chosen people THEY are.
Greek national epos is the same way, and so is Roman. Why do you expect the Jewish national epos to be any different?

Just because the JEWISH God chose the JEWISH people, doesn't mean they have been chosen by The One God of every nation. We all have been chosen by our own God. Why would you have to be somehow approved by a God of a nation you don't belong to? Believe me, the Christians and Muslims got it wrong, when they started claiming there is only One God, and that is the God of the Jews. The Greeks and Arabs had plenty of Gods of their own, who had chosen them over all the other peoples of the world, but they chose to deny these Gods and start chasing the appoval of another nation's God, as if this God was somehow better than their own God.
The "collective mentality" (what an interesting way to say that...) of "traditional Jewish culture" is egocentric, focused on themselves, JUST LIKE WITH EVERY OTHER PEOPLE. EVERY people's culture is focused on themselves, separating them from every other people on this planet, in one way or another. Finnish culture is not Russian nor Swedish, even though it has traces of both. Armenian culture is not Turkish nor Azeri. Why do you expect the Jewish culture to be anything but Jewish?

Xenophobia is "an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange". The "collective mentality of traditional Jewish culture" is what produced a law - A LAW, Jerm -
“Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt." 
People representing other religions were allowed to live in Israel and worship their own Gods the way they wanted, as long as they didn't built temples or in other ways tried to convert Jews away from their God and ways. Men were forbidden to marry women from other peoples, because men tend to follow their wives in religious practices. Nevertheless, Moses was married to a non-Jew and King David's great-grandmother was a convert. King Solomon was told to have had hundreds of wives of whom most were foreigners. Even his successor's mother was a foreigner. How xenophobic is that?

Chauvinism is "biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause", "zealous and aggressive", "blind enthusiasm"...
So the Jews were biased about God? You can bet they were, and still are. Aren't you? Even if your God is no-god.
Or were they "biased" about their nationality? As in - they refused to be anything but Jews? Don't you?
I know I am very "biased" about my God and my nationality. I wouldn't change either for anything in this world or beyond. I'm very proud of being Finnish, and very proud of Finland, even though there are some aspects of being Finnish I'm not very happy about, and some things Finland does and has done, I'm not very proud of. That's not Chauvinism. I don't think EVERYONE should be Finnish, or that I'm a better person than everyone else, simply because I happened to be born in Finland. Most Jews don't think they are better than everyone else because they are Jewish. That YOU seem to believe they do, doesn't make it so.
Jews are like any other people on this planet, and if you cannot understand, acknowledge and accept that FACT, you are a biased idiot.

"Knowing the above dose not make me a Jew hater."
Er... "Knowing" something that isn't true? No, it doesn't make you a Jew hater, it makes you a gullible person who really should learn how to verify information. If you believe that to be a fact, what else will you believe?

"Zionism, however, is an ideological/political movement drenched with racism, hate and expansionism."
No, it's not. It has got that reputation among some people, given to it by antisemites. That doesn't make all the people who believe that antisemites, but they sure are repeating antisemitic propaganda.
Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Some nationalist are fundamentalist extremists, who are so filled with racism, hate and chauvinism, that they drench everything they touch with that filth as well, just like the German fundametalist National Socialists tainted the swastika so badly it still is a symbol of chauvinism and xenophobia.
Zionism is basically just support of the existence of the Jewish nation state of Israel, nothing else.

"I have no idea what percent of world Jewry is considered Zionists. That does not even matter to me."
... but you have no scruples in using the words interchangeably. "Jewish (Zionist)".

"What matters is that the Israeli state was founded by Zionists and is still being run by them."
And Armenian state was founded by Armenian nationalists and is still being run by them. Why does it matter? How does it matter? In no way, unless you, my dear, are an antisemite without even being aware of it.
Why would Jewish nationalism be in any way worse than Armenian nationalism or any other form of nationalism? It is only if you think the Jews are different from all the other nations of the world, and somehow worse, that you think the Jewish nationalism also is different and worse than others - and that, my dear, is antisemitism.

"You are right let’s stop this discussion about Jews and whether or not we can be ‘buddy buddy’ with them. The aforementioned will be my last word regarding the matter whether you have any replies or not."

Er... I assume you are not Jewish, so what the heck are you even pretending to be discussing them? And if you really didn't think Zionist and Jew are the same, why are you suggesting you STOP discussing Jews? Why did you start in the first place? Leave the Jews out of the discussion. Frankly, I don't see you blaming the Kurds of the Armenian genocide, even though many members of Young Turks were Kurdish - WHICH CAN BE PROVEN.

So end of discussion, which didn't even start. You never answered the question, which YOU claimed was IMPORTANT and should be shared with everyone. What ever.


I suppose he finds his "facts" from sites like these ones:


a) Dönmeh are Muslims, not Jews, like "Messianic Jews" are not Jews but Christians. They should be ethnically Jewish, though, as the Dönme used to marry within the families, and they have kept the Jewish habits, just like the Messianic Christians.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was Dönme.

b) Young Turks didn't consist of Jews only, even though there were Jewish members.

The Committee of Union and Progress was established 1889 by university students
- Ibrahim Starova (or Temo or Ethem) - an Albanian, not Jewish
- Abdullah Cevdet - a Kurd, not Jewish
- İshak Sükuti - a Kurd, not Jewish
- Hüseyinzade Ali - born in Russia, ethnicity unknown, but the name doesn't look Jewish to me.
not by "a political group from the Dönmeh".
THIS is a verifyiable fact.

Emanuel Carasso (Carrusso, Qrasow or how you choose to write his name" was never the "head of the organisation".

Revolting against a dictator and forcing him into submission is by no means anything negative. Everyone knows that today's Turks are very proud of Young Turks and give them the credit of the existence of Turkey. Nevertheless, one cannot give this credit to the Jews, because Young Turks were not only Jews.

There are no facts supporting the idea that "the Jewish Young Turks" - or the Jews or Young Turks have anything to do with Young Bosnia and the murder of archduke Ferdinand. Nevertheless, I refer to the earlier point and the fact that Bosnia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In my mind the people's right to self-determination is a right to be respected, and where it is not, bad things happen, which the history has shown time after time.
This is also a verifyiable FACT, not just a theory.

This conspiracy is based on a book written 1929 by a pro-Sultan Turk, and former member of the Committee of Union and Progress, Mevlan Zadeh Rifat, "Inner Folds of the Ottoman Revolution".
There is no other information to support the claim presented in the book, but there is plenty of information; documents, letters, journal entries, newspapers, etc. that confirm the genocide of Armenians.

Lenin was not Jewish. His grandfather was born Jewish, but converted before he was born, married a non-Jewish woman, and their daughter married a non-Jew.

The origin of the great fire of Smyrna was never satisfactorily explained. Any suggestion is just speculations, not facts.
Also, the estimates of casualties (which are just that) differ from 10.000 to 100.000. To claim that "100,000 Christians tortured, starved, raped, and dead " is sensationalist propaganda, and not to be believed as facts.
Also, one must note that the Armenians and Greeks were forced by the fire to a narrow waterfront, and it took two weeks for the Greeks to arrive to rescue their countrymen and fellow Christians... you know, 300 km from Athens... Also, only a Japanese ship helped the people crammed on the waterfront. The harbor was full of ships, and every other one claimed "neutrality"...


"A 1994 conference paper/lecture by Joseph Brewda of Schiller Institute entitled Palmerson launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East claims the founder of the Young Turks to be a certain Jew by the name of Emmanuel Carasso."

Who is Joseph Brewda?
What I can see of him is different articles, that smell antisemitic. I would have to read them to find out, but The Schiller Institute has been accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories as well.
I would need to find out more about Joseph Brewda and read his speech to be able to decide.
Nevertheless, this information makes anything Joseph Brewda says questionable. (That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, but it must be double-checked and verified before it can be repeated as facts.)

Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky was a Russian Zionist. He became that after having survived yet another Pogrom. He started the Jewish Self-Defense Organization and helped form the Jewish Legion of the British Army, thus helping the Jews to earn their homeland. He was very good with words, and it was natural he would write become a journalist and an editor of a newspaper. In fact, he wrote for many papers. And...?

Zionism is about a Jewish homeland in Israel. There is nothing in Zionism that could be used to motivate talking the Turks to attack anyone, but the governing authority, which refused to allow the Jews to return to Israel.

"In the 1880's, the French branch of the Rothschild family acquired interests in Russia's Baku oil fields in an effort to supply their refinery on the Adriatic with cheap Russian oil. In exchange for these interests they built a railroad linking Baku to the newly acquired Black Sea port of Batum. This opened up the Baku oil, a major world supply, to the world. With the success of the new railroad, the Rothschilds had more oil than they could actually sell. Overcoming their fear of competing with the giant Standard oil [of USA], they sought out the huge [Far East] markets east of Suez. "

Oh, the wicked Jews, built a railroad and created competition to an oil giant! How dare they!
(Especially funny, considering that the same people claiming this also claim the Jews own all the other oil companies...)

Now, tell me, how were the Armenians a problem for this at the time very sensible use of money?
"the principal disruption was due to the violence of the ethnic conflict between the region's Muslims and the minority population of Armenians who are Christians" 
Oh, the CONFLICT BETWEEN these two groups... the same conflict you claim the Jews created supported by Rotchild?

Let's look at the Baku oil line (Baku, BTW, is by the Caspian sea, which is not even mentioned when talking about the Armenian genocide.

The red line is the baku oil line going through Turkey. The big red spots are the centers of deportation, the big black spot is where they collected people to start marching them into Syrian deserts. As you can see, they were collecting Armenians from West Turkey as well, and they were being deported into Syria... why not just clean the pipeline?
"How would I know how some Zionist nazis think?"
All the people think the same way. If you cannot find any reason to why one would need to transport ALL the Armenians fully out of Turkey, that would benefit the Jews, Zionists, Rotchilds or any other people associated in any way with the Jews, then there are no reasons. I'm sorry, but the conflict between the Turks and the Armenians that distrupt the building of the oil line, is not reason enough. Were the Armenians sabotaging the oil line? The turks were not, because it brought money to Turkey. The Jews were not, because it brought money to them, according to you. So in what way would the conflict disturb the oil line?
No. This theory doesn't hold.

As if any conspiracy theorist would ever think...

Sunday, May 22, 2011

What is left to negotiate about?

"I don't think we can talk about a peace process with a man who says the 1967 lines are an illusion, that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, undivided, and he does not want a single (Palestinian) refugee to go back,"  Erekat said.  "What is left to negotiate about?"
- Palestinians to proceed with UN recognition

What about getting down the wall?

What about removing settlers from West Bank?
Now, I know some people seem to think the settlers aren't illegal, but that's just more reason to negotiate with Israel to get rid of them.

What about removing checkpoints from West Bank?

What about letting political prisoners out of the prisons?
We must remember here a couple of things here: not every Palestinian in Israeli prisoners are there as a political prisoner. You're not a political prisoner because you are in a prison for a crime you committed for political reasons. 
A political prisoner is a person who is in jail WITHOUT COMMITTING A CRIME.
Also, it doesn't matter if you think the crime shouldn't be a crime. If a country's legislation says it's a crime to incite violence against certain people - which is something most Western countries' legislation says, and I think it is as it should be - then it is a crime to tell people to take on weapons, stones if nothing else is at hands, and march against the police, army and government forces, and praise a suicide bomber for his courage in fight against the oppressors. Also, according to Geneva Convention fighting against the enemy without "flying colors", that is, with no recognizable uniform and insignia - makes you an unlawful combattant. All saboteurs, resistanse fighters and spies are counted in to this category, and the enemy has the right to shoot you on spot. So - all the Palestinians who are members of any militant resistance group are also unlawful combattants; not civilians and not innocent. You don't need to be a terrorist or suicide bomber, or even DO anything else but join the group.
This makes most of the Palestinians - even women and some children - into criminals and not political prisoners. Now, I know there are some people who are in jails because they are someone's brother, mother, sister or wife, because someone with the same name did something, because someone said you did something, and those people shouldn't be in jail. So what about negotiating about those people's release?

What about taking down the military siege of Gaza, so that ships can start bringing in things?
 And that Palestinian fishermen can take up their occupation again, and start feeding their families, and that Gazans can start selling their agricultural products straight to Europe and North Africa...

What about allowing planes to Westbank and Gaza? What about building a new airport to West Bank and Gaza, so that people don't need to go to Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv when they want to travel to and from Palestine?
What about stopping the air patrolling of the Palestine?

What about allowing Palestinian citizens to travel freely without consent from Israel?

What about allowing the Palestinians living NOW in Israel full citizenship with all the rights and privileges?
Like being able to marry who ever you want and see that your husband/wife can move together with you and live with you, so that you won't need to visit your spouse in militarily occupied territories and wait hours on the border for nothing?

What about allowing Palestinians to IMMIGRATE to Israel as normal human beings? 
I mean, as the Palestinians complain that their old villages have been demolished, no-one is living in their old homes and so on, it shouldn't be a problem to buy them back.
What is money? Nothing. If every pro-Palestinian donated just a dollar, or the richer donated two to cover for the poor ones, we could easily collect the money needed for the purchases. After all, that's how the Jews got the money to buy land in Palestine before -48. With a little help from friends.
And the "disgrace" of "needing to buy back something that belongs to me"? Some things have emotional value higher than all the monetary means in the world. What wouldn't you pay for the joy of being back where you belong? What wouldn't you pay for the right to look anyone in the eyes and say "This is mine. I bought it - TWICE". What is important here, that you get what you want, or that you are GIVEN what you want? If it is an apology you wait, you may have to wait for the rest of the eternity. If it is that Israelis leave the country or say they stole it, that you might have to wait even longer. I know you think I'm just another pro-Israeli idiot, but think about it a little. What is important here? Some empty words everyone knows mean nothing, or that you get back home? That your children grow up in the same place where their forefathers grew up, that they can stop calling themselves refugees?

I am an expatriate. I am Finnish, living in Sweden. Remember that Finland was occupied by Sweden from 1249 to 1809, and after that by Russia, until 1917 when Finland became independent.

What about building a railroad from Westbank to Gaza
What about guaranteeing a safe passage of people, wares, water and electricity between these two parts of Palestine?

What about allowing Palestinians to visit any holy places in Israel without harassment?

What about peace, recognition and end of occupation?
What about water?

What about jobs?
What about hospitals?
What about schools?

Obviously none of those issues is important, or even interesting for Palestinian authority. I don't get how they think. To me all of those questions are more important than the return of fabricated "refugees", control of a city or some old lines on paper. On the other hand, Finland was occupied FOR 700 YEARS. I suppose that puts the independence, sovereignty, freedom and peace in a very different perspective.

Yes, fabricated refugees - Palestinians are the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD where descendants are counted as refugees. EVERY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD must be "1st generation refugee", Palestinians are "2nd", "3rd" and now even "4th generation refugees". The true number of Palestinian refugees was about 800.000 1947 and 300.000 1967, and most of them have died by now. Nevertheless, UNRWA (also something specific for the Palestinian people... For some reason I don't think it is because the world sees Palestinians are more worthy people than all the other people in the world...  I have easier to believe it has something to do with their oppressors than themselves... easier to believe it is a show of antisemitism - that JEWS doing bad things are WORSE than ANYONE ELSE doing bad things, so the Jews' victims must have a special status as well...)

People keep asking what right does Israel have to exist. No other, but the right of self-determination. The only right Palestine has to exist.
People keep asking what right does the Jews have to Palestine. I respond by saying "you can't seriously deny the Jews' right to Judea, can you?"
I ask you what right the Palestinians have to Jerusalem? It has never been the capital of Palestine, but it was and is the capital of Judea... So what right do the Palestinians have to it, and why do they insist on having it?

The "lines on paper" are not fair and there is no reason what so ever to hang on them... the borders need to be drawn anew and better this time, taking under consideration the holy sites of both sides, water resources, agricultural resources and neighbors, and both people's wishes.
Remember that the Arabs didn't accept the lines on paper when Israel was given LESS than "pre-67 borders", they didn't make Palestine independent when THEY had the controll of the area - so why are they so adamant about it now? There is only one possible answer to that question. The Arabs don't want a Jewish state in Middle East. The Arabs want only Arab states in Middle East. They don't even accept the Palestinians were a people of their own, to Arabs "Palestinian" is an Arab living in British Palestine West of Jordan. Now, if Palestinians are Arabs, they DON*T have the "right to self-determination", as there already is several countries where the Arabs express their "right to self-determination"...

Now, I know how strong a power ultra-nationalism and antisemitism can be, so I can understand the Arab position and unwillingness to get a working solution to this problem, but what is incomprehensible to me, is that the whole world just accepts the Palestinian version of the story... I suppose it is because 1/3 of the world is Muslim, the Arabs are a real power in the world. (Not the Jews. Come on! 13.000.000 people of whom 99% is either religious scholars or scientists, women, children or elderly. The world's richest man, Carlos Slim Helú is of Lebanese origin, and not a Jew. And what about those oil sheiks? Not Jewish, not one of them, but damn they are rich... nevertheless people are talking about Jews and money. Not about the Arabs and money... And the newspapers? Who reads newspapers anymore? And who believes everthing what is said in news? Not anyone capable of independent thinking and at least some ability to use the different media available today. And even if you seriously believe the Protocolls of the Elders of Zion's "money and media" conspiracy, as every man and their dog is online and publishing more information (most of it naturally false and pure fiction), no-one has the time or capacity to controll the media today.
But - trying to convince conspiracy theorists of that their theories are based on loose sand... you drown in the loose sand before the conspiracy theorist changes his mind :-D

I know writing all this is totally futile, but I'm so fed up with the so called pro-Palestinians who don't THINK for one second what the people and ideas they support mean IN REALITY to PALESTINIANS.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Reptilians? Bull!

Kate and Wills got married today. There was a funny video uploaded on YouTube: The T-Mobile Royal Wedding

What was also wonderful, in "OMG how people believe in all kinds of crap" sort of way, was one of the comments.
"Royal Wedding? It's nothing that I could give a shit I gotta tell you. 
Shame on anyone who's agonizing over this crappy wedding that was orchestrated to obscure the real picture in terms of what these people are really involved in. These people have hijacked the wealth of the entire planet for their own use and you're watching their diabolical celebration? "

Obviously you give a lot more than a shit. You are screaming while commenting a joke. So... it's you agonizing over this wedding, isn't it. So - that's probably one thing I agree with you - shame on you.

Reptilian? The British royal family responsible for "some of the most grotesque atrocities of the 20th and 21st century"? Like... what?

"wedding orchestrated to obscure the real picture"... oh, yeah. Since the first British Royal Wedding with modern media coverage almost exactly 90 years ago (87 years and 3 days), there has been 7 weddings. If you give a year of excitement and interest to all of the weddings, that leaves 80 years when there has been no weddings to obscure anything. Don't you think it's a bit... I don't know... less sly, perhaps, to arrange such big things, pay a lot of money and expose oneself for countless photo opportunities by every man and their dog for something this small? I mean... I would rather let the BBC pay for the chance of broadcasting a royal dinner once a month, where only some chosen few photographers are invited and thoroughly controlled, and even the material supervised and retouched if necessary before airing, in stead of letting millions of people watch something live?

And what is it they are supposed to be obscuring with this? That they are the true Elders of Zion, not the Jews. They just made Jews into scapegoats, like Aryans always do. You see, they are the true Aryans, Lizard shapeshifters, the descendants of Alien Lizard people the ancient called angels...


It gets better... These rulers of the world kidnap children for their evil rites of abuse, rape, mutilation and blood orgies. The children are decapitated and their blood drank by these alien vampires, and they do this while in their true form, that is about 7-8 feet dragons with claws, tails, even wings and horns. These lizards cannot keep their human form when tired, sleeping, unconscious or emotional.

Anyway... there's a lot of videos around where people are "confirmed" as aliens.

Like Britney Spears. Look at her tongue in this picture:
 Weird, huh? Obviously she's a reptilian.

The fact that this picture is of horribly bad quality, and her reptilian tongue isn't showing at all in a good quality pictures, is totally irrelevant. I suppose the reptilians have tampered with the video, now when this little accident has been noticed. Or something. After all, Britney is so smart, pretty and ambitious she must be an alien.

Now, this is "the video that woke the world"... this is what happens at about 35 seconds: "membrane crosses one eye only and a clicking sound"
Membrane? That's not a membrane. That's a reflection of light. I would say someone took a picture with a flash and the click was the camera.
Why in one eye only?
This guy is obviously a reptilian; see how the membrane crosses one glass only. I bet there was the clicking sound too... Busted!

Then there is Jennifer, the cat eye girl. Or reptilian eye... she is naturally the result of alien gene manipulation, what else?
What else is that some people are born with cleft palate and in some cases with cleft pupil as well. People have been born with cleft lips, nose, eyes, ears and cheeks, and even though this is a very rare condition, it is "normal" human condition, due to "abnormal facial development during gestation".

Also, rhesus negative is reptilian blood...

and so on and so forth... *sigh*
This actually explains most of it; Reptilian Alien Shape-shifter Videos Explained
Read it and try to understand it, and don't dismiss it just because it pops your bubble, and your bubble was soooo pretty and lovely and... What? What is the purpose with this kind of conspiracy theories? Why do you want to believe George Bush visited regularly some woman and raped her and her 5 years old daughter? Why do you want to believe the British royal family have Satanic orgies in their cellar where they abuse children and drink their blood?