A Rambling on Current Events in Bahrain and Beyond
Previous Posts
- رجعنا
- باسم العروبة
- Posting
- Jacko in Bahrain
- Enlighten Me
- Exams Over
- CoolStreaming Schedule
- !ما تغلبونه
- Bahrain Japan CoolStreaming
- Campeones!
Archives
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
Archives by Subject
Links
- soccernet
Politics
Newspapers
Sports
Bahraini Blog
Friday, November 26, 2004
هذرة بحرينية
السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
هذا اختبار اولي لفكرة تشغيل بلوغ باللغة العربية, او اللهجة البحرينية (المحرقية). ما رأيكم؟ فكرة جيدة أم اكتفي بالبلوغ الأنجليزي؟ و هل استعمل اللهجة المحرقية أو العربية الفصحى؟
أحتاج أيضا الى مصطلح عربي لال"بلوغ". أية اقتراحات؟ في الوقت الحاضر ساكتفي بمصطلح "هذرة", ليكون اسمي الجديد " هذرة بحرينية"
|
هذا اختبار اولي لفكرة تشغيل بلوغ باللغة العربية, او اللهجة البحرينية (المحرقية). ما رأيكم؟ فكرة جيدة أم اكتفي بالبلوغ الأنجليزي؟ و هل استعمل اللهجة المحرقية أو العربية الفصحى؟
أحتاج أيضا الى مصطلح عربي لال"بلوغ". أية اقتراحات؟ في الوقت الحاضر ساكتفي بمصطلح "هذرة", ليكون اسمي الجديد " هذرة بحرينية"
¶
6:47 PM
Thursday, November 25, 2004
An Admission
It's about time we all admit it. The main issue in Bahrain nowadays is the sectarianism issue, or shia/sunni Bahrani/houli/3ejmi/bedouin divide. In fact, it might not even be much to say now that Bahrain has become a sectarian society.
If anyone expects me to be politically correct and write in froothy liberal terms about how perfect the situation in Bahrain is and that there is no segregation between anyone, then read no further.
This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, people could argue that Bahrain has had sectarian issues since time immemorial. It has taken a very serious turn in the nineties, however, when the troubles that emerged were mainly on sectarian lines. From then on, the sectarian issue has stayed, although it has been kept under a tight lid and remained behind the shadows. People would speak about it between themselves, but it did not come out that much in the open.
The last few months, however, the issue has been flung wide open. We've had the parliament debacle over Fallujah. Now we've got the issue over the ejection of Al Wasat's journalist. Sectarianism has come out to the limelight.
What is striking about this is how most supporters of each side have fallen in terms of sectarian lines. Those who support Mohammed Khalid's stand are mostly sunni. Those who support Al Aali's stand are most shia. Those who support the ejection of the journalist are mostly sunni. Those who support the journalist are mostly shia.
On the same line, most of those who supported Al Khawaja were shia, while most of the sunnis remained silent on the issue. Then you have 3akeel Swar fanning the flames by criticizing Al Sistani, and Al Mousawi falling into his trap and hitting back. The sectarian issue is out in the open.
Why is this? The reason, as i see it, is one outlined before in the now idle Reflections from Canada blog, in a post titled "Email from an American Aid worker in Afghanistan." Muslims cannot imagine that the ghastly crimes committed are committed by muslims, so they lay the blame on Americans. Americans cannot imagine that their troops or government does much wrong, so they lay the blame on muslims. Basically, each side knows its own side very well, and cannot imagine it doing wrong acts. Hence, the other side is blamed.
The same is occuring in Bahrain. People see a conflict that arises mainly out of sectarian issues, and naturally people fall on sectarian lines. Your instict is that the "other" side is the one whose mistaken, so you fall into line with your own side.
One can see the development of this trend over the last four years. If one looks at the support of the political parties, one sees the same pattern. The support of Al Menbar and Al Asalah is overwhelmingly sunni (I'd be highly surprised if there is a single shia person who voted for them), and the same is seen in Al Wefaq. The parties that try not to play on a sectarian line, such as the National Democratic Action Society or (the other) Al Menbar, have only nominal support.
In an environment dominated by sectarian issues, or that of "them against us", this is only natural. Questions of right and wrong take second seat, and people align themselves with their group. Again to try and draw an analogy with the Arab/American situation. One is faced with two opposing alternatives, and naturally one falls in line with the one that represents his group (more on that in the next post). The people who try to advocate a middle solution lose out, such as the parties mentioned above. Basically, you are faced with two polar opposing alternatives, defined on sectarian grounds, and naturally, you are drawn, or maybe I should say forced, to fall in line with your own sect.
Anyone who now says that the sectarian issue does not play an important, if not the main role, in Bahraini society today is either outright lying, or sadly dillusional. You feel it everywhere. I am sure every Bahraini reader here knows at least one person who would go "those ba7arna..." or "those houla..." or "those 3ajam" .. etc...
People of a certain sect would think twice before entering living areas of the other sect, and vice versa. For example,I would definitely think twice before entering certain areas of Bahrain. Furthermore, I have a name that is not one of the favoured names of the other sect, and although I'm yet to do it, I have seriously thought in certain situations of saying my name is "muhammed" instead of saying my real name, just to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I've experienced it quite a few times that when I say my name, people would, at best, pause for a second and put on a fake smile, or at worst, just put on a scorning face and ignore me.
Even more, I'd have people who are from the same sect as me, but still look down on you since you are considered "not from their same origin." I'm sure everyone else has a similar story to tell about facing some sort of discrimination at one point.
These sort of differences, I imagine, have always existed in Bahrain. Lately, however, they have taken a dangerous turn, where political activity has become based on sectarian issues. One only has to read the comments and replies on the montadayats to see how bad the situation has become.
Of course, the situation has yet to reach melting point, or in more crude terms, the shit is yet to hit the fan. That would be for a situation similar to the civil war that engulfed lebanon to erupt. We are, thankfully, still a long way from that, and, I hope, we will never reach that point.
The situation has reached a level to make one worry, however. The sectarian issue has become the dominant force in Bahrain nowadays, where it seems everything is dictated by it. The sunnis say we are not going to sign the petition since it's a shia petition. The shia say that all the problems in bahrain or because of the sunnis. The sunnis say all the troubles that bahrain has faced is from the shia. Every person now is seen in the light of whether he's a sunni or a shi3i, and his actions are interpreted as stemming from that issue.
What has made this such a big issue? To be honest I'm no expert to comment on it. Obviously the government's actions has played quite a big role in this. Decades of favouring sunnis over shias in everything, from employment to giving lands, have taken their toll. Furthermore, the government played on the sectarian line when the parliament issue erupted once again in the nineties, scaring the sunni population that this was an Iranian sponsored shia conspiracy.
Nowadays, however, the issue has spun out of the governments control, and it has snowballed into someting that it no longer can handle. In fact, I would suspect that the (at least some factions in it) government would not like to see the tensions rise any further, as that could entail an eruption of trouble once again. Nowadays the problem is being flamed by people on both sides of the sectarian divide, with the government unable to do anything about it. I urge people to go to the many montadayat on the net, or even just to talk to random people, to see how bad the situation has become.
Is there any good thing that arises of this issue becoming so overt and coming into the open? Surprisingly, I think there is.
In the not too distant pass, the issue did dictate a lot of people's actions, but talking about it was always in hush tones and behind closed doors. Everyone knew it existed, but no one admitted it openly. Now it is out in the open, where people can discuss it.
Admittedly, this is mostly a bad thing, since now the sectarian issue overrides everything else. One small good thing, however, is that now we can discuss it, and admit that it is a big problem. The first step to finding a solution to the problem is to admit there is a problem, and discuss it openly.
The other good thing is that invariantly when a conflict erupts on a sectarian lie, people begin to tire of it, and begin to look for other solutions. The only kind of solution for this kind of conflict is either for one group to overpower and defeat the other, or for both groups to say this is going nowhere, let's put the past behind us, and let's find an alternative peaceful solution. Inevitably, a need for alternatives to the parties and movements that have defined themselves on sectarian lines is created, and duly parties that do have non-sectarian agendas will come to the fore again.
Obviously, the situation has to become tense enough for people to say this that this is not worth it, and that we need another way. There is usually a storm before the sunshine. I do hope however, that the situation does not have to boil over, and that the Bahraini people are smart enough to find an alternative solution before things get really serious. Either way, however, we will eventually realize that each side has a lot of accusations that can level on the other side, and the only way forward is to have the guts enough to accept responsibility on both sides and be willing to forgive each other for our misdeeds.
The time is ripe now for societies with non-sectarian agendas to rise once again.
|
If anyone expects me to be politically correct and write in froothy liberal terms about how perfect the situation in Bahrain is and that there is no segregation between anyone, then read no further.
This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, people could argue that Bahrain has had sectarian issues since time immemorial. It has taken a very serious turn in the nineties, however, when the troubles that emerged were mainly on sectarian lines. From then on, the sectarian issue has stayed, although it has been kept under a tight lid and remained behind the shadows. People would speak about it between themselves, but it did not come out that much in the open.
The last few months, however, the issue has been flung wide open. We've had the parliament debacle over Fallujah. Now we've got the issue over the ejection of Al Wasat's journalist. Sectarianism has come out to the limelight.
What is striking about this is how most supporters of each side have fallen in terms of sectarian lines. Those who support Mohammed Khalid's stand are mostly sunni. Those who support Al Aali's stand are most shia. Those who support the ejection of the journalist are mostly sunni. Those who support the journalist are mostly shia.
On the same line, most of those who supported Al Khawaja were shia, while most of the sunnis remained silent on the issue. Then you have 3akeel Swar fanning the flames by criticizing Al Sistani, and Al Mousawi falling into his trap and hitting back. The sectarian issue is out in the open.
Why is this? The reason, as i see it, is one outlined before in the now idle Reflections from Canada blog, in a post titled "Email from an American Aid worker in Afghanistan." Muslims cannot imagine that the ghastly crimes committed are committed by muslims, so they lay the blame on Americans. Americans cannot imagine that their troops or government does much wrong, so they lay the blame on muslims. Basically, each side knows its own side very well, and cannot imagine it doing wrong acts. Hence, the other side is blamed.
The same is occuring in Bahrain. People see a conflict that arises mainly out of sectarian issues, and naturally people fall on sectarian lines. Your instict is that the "other" side is the one whose mistaken, so you fall into line with your own side.
One can see the development of this trend over the last four years. If one looks at the support of the political parties, one sees the same pattern. The support of Al Menbar and Al Asalah is overwhelmingly sunni (I'd be highly surprised if there is a single shia person who voted for them), and the same is seen in Al Wefaq. The parties that try not to play on a sectarian line, such as the National Democratic Action Society or (the other) Al Menbar, have only nominal support.
In an environment dominated by sectarian issues, or that of "them against us", this is only natural. Questions of right and wrong take second seat, and people align themselves with their group. Again to try and draw an analogy with the Arab/American situation. One is faced with two opposing alternatives, and naturally one falls in line with the one that represents his group (more on that in the next post). The people who try to advocate a middle solution lose out, such as the parties mentioned above. Basically, you are faced with two polar opposing alternatives, defined on sectarian grounds, and naturally, you are drawn, or maybe I should say forced, to fall in line with your own sect.
Anyone who now says that the sectarian issue does not play an important, if not the main role, in Bahraini society today is either outright lying, or sadly dillusional. You feel it everywhere. I am sure every Bahraini reader here knows at least one person who would go "those ba7arna..." or "those houla..." or "those 3ajam" .. etc...
People of a certain sect would think twice before entering living areas of the other sect, and vice versa. For example,I would definitely think twice before entering certain areas of Bahrain. Furthermore, I have a name that is not one of the favoured names of the other sect, and although I'm yet to do it, I have seriously thought in certain situations of saying my name is "muhammed" instead of saying my real name, just to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I've experienced it quite a few times that when I say my name, people would, at best, pause for a second and put on a fake smile, or at worst, just put on a scorning face and ignore me.
Even more, I'd have people who are from the same sect as me, but still look down on you since you are considered "not from their same origin." I'm sure everyone else has a similar story to tell about facing some sort of discrimination at one point.
These sort of differences, I imagine, have always existed in Bahrain. Lately, however, they have taken a dangerous turn, where political activity has become based on sectarian issues. One only has to read the comments and replies on the montadayats to see how bad the situation has become.
Of course, the situation has yet to reach melting point, or in more crude terms, the shit is yet to hit the fan. That would be for a situation similar to the civil war that engulfed lebanon to erupt. We are, thankfully, still a long way from that, and, I hope, we will never reach that point.
The situation has reached a level to make one worry, however. The sectarian issue has become the dominant force in Bahrain nowadays, where it seems everything is dictated by it. The sunnis say we are not going to sign the petition since it's a shia petition. The shia say that all the problems in bahrain or because of the sunnis. The sunnis say all the troubles that bahrain has faced is from the shia. Every person now is seen in the light of whether he's a sunni or a shi3i, and his actions are interpreted as stemming from that issue.
What has made this such a big issue? To be honest I'm no expert to comment on it. Obviously the government's actions has played quite a big role in this. Decades of favouring sunnis over shias in everything, from employment to giving lands, have taken their toll. Furthermore, the government played on the sectarian line when the parliament issue erupted once again in the nineties, scaring the sunni population that this was an Iranian sponsored shia conspiracy.
Nowadays, however, the issue has spun out of the governments control, and it has snowballed into someting that it no longer can handle. In fact, I would suspect that the (at least some factions in it) government would not like to see the tensions rise any further, as that could entail an eruption of trouble once again. Nowadays the problem is being flamed by people on both sides of the sectarian divide, with the government unable to do anything about it. I urge people to go to the many montadayat on the net, or even just to talk to random people, to see how bad the situation has become.
Is there any good thing that arises of this issue becoming so overt and coming into the open? Surprisingly, I think there is.
In the not too distant pass, the issue did dictate a lot of people's actions, but talking about it was always in hush tones and behind closed doors. Everyone knew it existed, but no one admitted it openly. Now it is out in the open, where people can discuss it.
Admittedly, this is mostly a bad thing, since now the sectarian issue overrides everything else. One small good thing, however, is that now we can discuss it, and admit that it is a big problem. The first step to finding a solution to the problem is to admit there is a problem, and discuss it openly.
The other good thing is that invariantly when a conflict erupts on a sectarian lie, people begin to tire of it, and begin to look for other solutions. The only kind of solution for this kind of conflict is either for one group to overpower and defeat the other, or for both groups to say this is going nowhere, let's put the past behind us, and let's find an alternative peaceful solution. Inevitably, a need for alternatives to the parties and movements that have defined themselves on sectarian lines is created, and duly parties that do have non-sectarian agendas will come to the fore again.
Obviously, the situation has to become tense enough for people to say this that this is not worth it, and that we need another way. There is usually a storm before the sunshine. I do hope however, that the situation does not have to boil over, and that the Bahraini people are smart enough to find an alternative solution before things get really serious. Either way, however, we will eventually realize that each side has a lot of accusations that can level on the other side, and the only way forward is to have the guts enough to accept responsibility on both sides and be willing to forgive each other for our misdeeds.
The time is ripe now for societies with non-sectarian agendas to rise once again.
¶
8:15 PM
I'm graduating
Finally, after one and a half years, I'm having the graduation ceremony for my undergraduate degree on Saturday. Congratulations to me!
I don't know why, but I'm completely not excited by the prospect of it. I think these ceremonies are mostly for the parents and pictures.
Anyway, should be a fun day on Saturday! I'm graduating in an impressive theatre, where some dude is going to blabber in Latin and pat me with a sword or something on the shoulder, having some sort of posh lunch, and then spend the day with family. Sounds good!
|
I don't know why, but I'm completely not excited by the prospect of it. I think these ceremonies are mostly for the parents and pictures.
Anyway, should be a fun day on Saturday! I'm graduating in an impressive theatre, where some dude is going to blabber in Latin and pat me with a sword or something on the shoulder, having some sort of posh lunch, and then spend the day with family. Sounds good!
¶
7:53 PM
Who Should Take over from Arafat?
What qualities the new leader, I think, should have:
1. represents the new generation of Palestinians, and is not from the Old guard of Arafat's era, who most of them have lost the support of Palestinian people.
2. Strong enough to stand by the basic principles that Palestinians want, and not give into Israeli and American pressure.
3. Have the support of the majority of the people.
4. Be willing, if necessary, to negotiate.
In my mind, there is only one candidate: Marwan Al Barghouti. He fulfills all of the above criteria, and he has the added bonus of speaking Hebrew (learnt while in Israeli jail). There is one snag, however. He is serving five consecutive life terms in jail at the moment (although there are rumours already circulating that some sort of deal might be struck where he is freed to become leader). Good news is he is considering running. If he does run, there is a strong probability he would win. I think he should. It would send a clear signal to the Israelis that you have jailed (after a political trial) the popularly elected leader of the Palestinians. If you are serious about peace, set him free.
|
1. represents the new generation of Palestinians, and is not from the Old guard of Arafat's era, who most of them have lost the support of Palestinian people.
2. Strong enough to stand by the basic principles that Palestinians want, and not give into Israeli and American pressure.
3. Have the support of the majority of the people.
4. Be willing, if necessary, to negotiate.
In my mind, there is only one candidate: Marwan Al Barghouti. He fulfills all of the above criteria, and he has the added bonus of speaking Hebrew (learnt while in Israeli jail). There is one snag, however. He is serving five consecutive life terms in jail at the moment (although there are rumours already circulating that some sort of deal might be struck where he is freed to become leader). Good news is he is considering running. If he does run, there is a strong probability he would win. I think he should. It would send a clear signal to the Israelis that you have jailed (after a political trial) the popularly elected leader of the Palestinians. If you are serious about peace, set him free.
¶
7:26 PM
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
We need one of these
How cool is this.
It's basically a new park in Cairo. However, park is a complete understatement. It's a park, a historical monument rebuilding programme, a tourist attraction, and an urban regeneration programme.
We need more of these programmes in the Arabic world, especially in Bahrain. It's a bit sad however, that it takes a generous foreign benefactor to put this project together, while local government are completely inept to do so.
We keep hearing how bahrain is an oasis, an island of a million palm trees with tranquil beaches. Where are they? Did I miss something here? Is there a part of Bahrain I've completely missed and I've never seen? The only palm tree that's in our dusty fereej in Muharraq is in our back garden, and it's already taking up valuable residential space.
In fact, the only (extremely modest) park in the area is the legendary Al Casino garden, just off the old garage station and tikka bushanab place (bahrainis will know what I'm talking about). I extend all my thanks to everyone who fought for the garden to stay (it's located in a prime position, and people have wanted to buy it to build stuff), as I've spent quite a few days of my childhood in that place. Yes, it doesn't have many gardens, and yes the games are pretty old and falling apart, and the only animals they had were a monkey, peacock, and a goat (I'm not sure if they're even alive anymore), but it was a great place where kids would go to play and meet other kids of the neighbourhood.
The only other public places in Muharraq with any greenery in them is a miniscule park in Galali (where I used to go to ride the donkey), and the Greater Muharraq Garden. Now Garden is an overstatement. It has about three ragged ass trees, a couple of sad excuses for patches of grass, and a filthy swamp that I think one day was supposed to be a fountain of some sorts. I have friends that their houses' gardens are better than this. The only thing going for it is that it is quite big (for an island the size of Muharraq).
So where are these springwaters I hear off? Where are the acres of palm trees and lush greenery? Where are these beaches that an island is supposed to have? I've heard about them quite a bit, I might have even seen them in a few pictures, but I've never been to them. I have seen, however, a lot of dull, unimaginative concrete houses all around the place. In fact, bahrain looks to me like " island of a million indistinguishable boring buildings" instead of the "island of a million palm trees."
Apparently these beaches and palm groves do exist all around the coasts of Bahrain. In Al Sehla, Al Zallaq, Budaiaya, but they're all privately owned. There is not a single palm tree park or publich beach of a good standard that people can go to (and please no one try to tell me the cornaish in Zallaq counts.) They are all in private hands. Is it that much to ask to buy a couple of these zra3as "farms" that overlook the beach, and turn them into a nice public place? Since there are people complaining that their farms never turn in a profit (and instead want to turn them into houses), why doesn't the govenrment buy a few of them, maintain them, and open them for the public as gardens?
Apparently we're getting a few new beaches on Amwaj island and Durrat Al Bahrain. Those, however, will be private beaches that will be bought by rich foreigners who want to summer on their own beach without pesky poor locals bothering them (you can mark my word, some sort of checkpoint will be put in there once it's opened). Don't people who can't afford to buy a B.D. 60,000 holiday house deserve to have some sort of a decent beach they can go to in their own country, especially when it's an ISLAND?
|
|
It's basically a new park in Cairo. However, park is a complete understatement. It's a park, a historical monument rebuilding programme, a tourist attraction, and an urban regeneration programme.
We need more of these programmes in the Arabic world, especially in Bahrain. It's a bit sad however, that it takes a generous foreign benefactor to put this project together, while local government are completely inept to do so.
We keep hearing how bahrain is an oasis, an island of a million palm trees with tranquil beaches. Where are they? Did I miss something here? Is there a part of Bahrain I've completely missed and I've never seen? The only palm tree that's in our dusty fereej in Muharraq is in our back garden, and it's already taking up valuable residential space.
In fact, the only (extremely modest) park in the area is the legendary Al Casino garden, just off the old garage station and tikka bushanab place (bahrainis will know what I'm talking about). I extend all my thanks to everyone who fought for the garden to stay (it's located in a prime position, and people have wanted to buy it to build stuff), as I've spent quite a few days of my childhood in that place. Yes, it doesn't have many gardens, and yes the games are pretty old and falling apart, and the only animals they had were a monkey, peacock, and a goat (I'm not sure if they're even alive anymore), but it was a great place where kids would go to play and meet other kids of the neighbourhood.
The only other public places in Muharraq with any greenery in them is a miniscule park in Galali (where I used to go to ride the donkey), and the Greater Muharraq Garden. Now Garden is an overstatement. It has about three ragged ass trees, a couple of sad excuses for patches of grass, and a filthy swamp that I think one day was supposed to be a fountain of some sorts. I have friends that their houses' gardens are better than this. The only thing going for it is that it is quite big (for an island the size of Muharraq).
So where are these springwaters I hear off? Where are the acres of palm trees and lush greenery? Where are these beaches that an island is supposed to have? I've heard about them quite a bit, I might have even seen them in a few pictures, but I've never been to them. I have seen, however, a lot of dull, unimaginative concrete houses all around the place. In fact, bahrain looks to me like " island of a million indistinguishable boring buildings" instead of the "island of a million palm trees."
Apparently these beaches and palm groves do exist all around the coasts of Bahrain. In Al Sehla, Al Zallaq, Budaiaya, but they're all privately owned. There is not a single palm tree park or publich beach of a good standard that people can go to (and please no one try to tell me the cornaish in Zallaq counts.) They are all in private hands. Is it that much to ask to buy a couple of these zra3as "farms" that overlook the beach, and turn them into a nice public place? Since there are people complaining that their farms never turn in a profit (and instead want to turn them into houses), why doesn't the govenrment buy a few of them, maintain them, and open them for the public as gardens?
Apparently we're getting a few new beaches on Amwaj island and Durrat Al Bahrain. Those, however, will be private beaches that will be bought by rich foreigners who want to summer on their own beach without pesky poor locals bothering them (you can mark my word, some sort of checkpoint will be put in there once it's opened). Don't people who can't afford to buy a B.D. 60,000 holiday house deserve to have some sort of a decent beach they can go to in their own country, especially when it's an ISLAND?
¶
4:35 PM
Germany Here We Come
In all the fuss about Al Khawaja and the sectarian issues in the parliament (which all they've been good for is putting a good spectacle so that we don't get to bored; nothing of any usefulness has come out of them), one extremely important but unfotunately unnoticed event has occured: Bahrain now has more than a 50% chance of qualifying to the next football world cup!
We have been able to succesfully negotiate ourselves through the preliminary phases, emerging on top as well as unbeaten in our group. Yes, the opposition was Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and the main threat was Syria, but we're through none the less. Now comes the hard and more exciting part.
Eight teams have qualified to the final round: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and Iran. The format is as follows: The teams will be divided into two groups (the draw will occur early next month), where they play two-leg matches against each of the other teams on a home and away basis. Four of these teams automatically qualify to the next world cup (the top two teams from each group). Added to this, the third placed teams will play against each other in a play off, and the winner plays against the winner of the North and Central America playoffs winner. If that team should succeed, they advance to the world cup 2006 in Germany.
I don't know about you guys, but that's basically 4.5 teams out of eight that will qualify to Asia to the world cup. That gives us more than a 50% chance!!!! And what with our opposition being weaklings like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and North Korea (I'm sure they're saying the same thing about us)? We've never had a better chance!
A lot of our probability of succeeding depends on the luck of the draw, and we usually don't have much luck with that. The eight teams have been classified into 4 different levels (two teams in each level), and only one team from each level goes into each group. The levels are (in descending order): Japan and South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Bahrain and Kazakhstan, Kuwait and North Korea.
Although there is not much difference, I'd personally prefer to play against South Korea than Japan, since South Korea have been on bad form recently (they barely qualified). It would be nice to avenge our defeat to the Japanese in the Asian cup, but it's better to be pragmatic. How about Saudi Arabia and Iran? If someone wants to be pragmatic as well, then Saudi Arabia is the preferred opponent, since they've also had a torrid season, and it would be possible to go to the matches in Saudi! However, one would like to see both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain qualify, out of Gulf unity. As to Kuwait and North Korea, well, they're both shit at football, so it doesn't bother me, although, once again, it would be nice to see Kuwait qualify as well.
How great would it be if Bahrain qualified to the world cup? Sod the formula 1, who gives a toss about that compared to the greatest sporting event on earth (formula 1 has become boring nowadays anyway, the people who get the most kick out of it are computer geeks who like to discuss the latest electronic mechanisms ferrari have installed. The driving has taken second seat.) Maybe I should get my Schengen visa sorted from now.
Ma taghleboonah! .... Ma taghleboonah!
|
We have been able to succesfully negotiate ourselves through the preliminary phases, emerging on top as well as unbeaten in our group. Yes, the opposition was Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and the main threat was Syria, but we're through none the less. Now comes the hard and more exciting part.
Eight teams have qualified to the final round: Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and Iran. The format is as follows: The teams will be divided into two groups (the draw will occur early next month), where they play two-leg matches against each of the other teams on a home and away basis. Four of these teams automatically qualify to the next world cup (the top two teams from each group). Added to this, the third placed teams will play against each other in a play off, and the winner plays against the winner of the North and Central America playoffs winner. If that team should succeed, they advance to the world cup 2006 in Germany.
I don't know about you guys, but that's basically 4.5 teams out of eight that will qualify to Asia to the world cup. That gives us more than a 50% chance!!!! And what with our opposition being weaklings like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and North Korea (I'm sure they're saying the same thing about us)? We've never had a better chance!
A lot of our probability of succeeding depends on the luck of the draw, and we usually don't have much luck with that. The eight teams have been classified into 4 different levels (two teams in each level), and only one team from each level goes into each group. The levels are (in descending order): Japan and South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Bahrain and Kazakhstan, Kuwait and North Korea.
Although there is not much difference, I'd personally prefer to play against South Korea than Japan, since South Korea have been on bad form recently (they barely qualified). It would be nice to avenge our defeat to the Japanese in the Asian cup, but it's better to be pragmatic. How about Saudi Arabia and Iran? If someone wants to be pragmatic as well, then Saudi Arabia is the preferred opponent, since they've also had a torrid season, and it would be possible to go to the matches in Saudi! However, one would like to see both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain qualify, out of Gulf unity. As to Kuwait and North Korea, well, they're both shit at football, so it doesn't bother me, although, once again, it would be nice to see Kuwait qualify as well.
How great would it be if Bahrain qualified to the world cup? Sod the formula 1, who gives a toss about that compared to the greatest sporting event on earth (formula 1 has become boring nowadays anyway, the people who get the most kick out of it are computer geeks who like to discuss the latest electronic mechanisms ferrari have installed. The driving has taken second seat.) Maybe I should get my Schengen visa sorted from now.
Ma taghleboonah! .... Ma taghleboonah!
¶
3:53 PM
Monday, November 22, 2004
alter ego: thuwar al7amraa2
For some reason today, my thoughtline was like this:
Why do I, or anyone else, really give a toss about politics? It's become kind of an obsession, this keeping up to date with everything that goes on in the world. I think I've spent more time in the last five years reading and finding out about politics, political theory, political history etc than I've ever spent on university and coursework over the same period. The only other thing that comes close to that is football.
I don't think that's healthy. Is it only me though? Aren't there out there at least a few people who've spent a healthy share of life up with political events in the world?
What's the point of it all? Is it really worth spending so much time on political events? Is it really going to affect our lives so much that we'd dedicate so much time to it?
Are we ever going to try and actually have an input in real political life? Probably not. It's one thing to talk and analyze political events, its completely another thing to actually try to work for something that you might believe in.
That entails getting involved in some stuff that might get you in trouble; It might mean you don't get a certain job, or you might face "obstacles" in getting any sort of transaction, such as buying land or getting a house built.
Basically, it's a big stepforward, and a step, I think that most of us would not dare take.So then I thought, so what's the point of reading and finding more about politics? We're not going to have any input into it whatsoever, and althought it's nice to keep up to date with most important things, what's the point of bothering with the rest of the other events that occur?
It's as if we've become like the (in)famous "thuwar al7amraa2" (the red (cafe) revolutionaries), who used to gather in the legendary "al7amrraa" coffeeshop in Beirut. They would sit there, drinking coffee, eating mezze, smoking on a pipe and discuss their theories of how to rescue the arab world. They would discuss in all sincerity the theories of communism ,Marx, Engel, Leninist, Trotskyist, bolshivism, Stalinism, Maoism. They'd discuss the nationalist ideology of jamal abdulnasser, mohammed husseing heikal, and the islamist ideology of Sayed Qutb and al ekhwan al muslimeen. They'd spend hours wrangling about the best way to progress the Arabic nation forward, and whether baathism or pan-arabism was what the masses needed.
Yet they never did anything.
You still find quite a few of them staying in London every once in a while. You're most likely to spot them around the bays water or edgeware road area, where they'd be sitting, ten different arabic newspapers thrown around the the table, a coffee in front him, and he justs sits there for hours, puffing away on his cigar, reading every single column in the newspaper.
If there's one thing I know, it's that I hope I don't end like that. But aren't we really by reading and commenting on politics being just like how these guys used to be, in the coffeeshop? At least they got to discuss pretty fancy stuff such as Lenanism and Trotskyism. We end up discussing Bushism, Blairism, Bin Ladinism, and Al Qaedism (they don't even sound as good do they?)
That's the story, I think, of the "Arab Street". Most people would've been interested in politics at some point in their lives. They might read and find about political events in the area. A few of these might even try to participate in a very small scale, such as attending a demonstration. In the end, the vast majority decide for one reason or another decide it's not worth it to pursue this on any further scale, as it entails the distruption of your whole life. Hence, we end up trying to to maximize what we can given the circumstances we are in.
We might read about politics, we might even comment on it in a blog, but at they end of the day none of us are particularly bothered (or have the guts) to do even the smallest thing about it. So why bother keep up with it? Aren't we really just like thuwar Al 7amraa2? Isn't it just much smarter to get on with your life, get into business or banking and try to live the best you can under the conditions you are in? No one really wants to end up like thuwar al 7amraa2.
|
Why do I, or anyone else, really give a toss about politics? It's become kind of an obsession, this keeping up to date with everything that goes on in the world. I think I've spent more time in the last five years reading and finding out about politics, political theory, political history etc than I've ever spent on university and coursework over the same period. The only other thing that comes close to that is football.
I don't think that's healthy. Is it only me though? Aren't there out there at least a few people who've spent a healthy share of life up with political events in the world?
What's the point of it all? Is it really worth spending so much time on political events? Is it really going to affect our lives so much that we'd dedicate so much time to it?
Are we ever going to try and actually have an input in real political life? Probably not. It's one thing to talk and analyze political events, its completely another thing to actually try to work for something that you might believe in.
That entails getting involved in some stuff that might get you in trouble; It might mean you don't get a certain job, or you might face "obstacles" in getting any sort of transaction, such as buying land or getting a house built.
Basically, it's a big stepforward, and a step, I think that most of us would not dare take.So then I thought, so what's the point of reading and finding more about politics? We're not going to have any input into it whatsoever, and althought it's nice to keep up to date with most important things, what's the point of bothering with the rest of the other events that occur?
It's as if we've become like the (in)famous "thuwar al7amraa2" (the red (cafe) revolutionaries), who used to gather in the legendary "al7amrraa" coffeeshop in Beirut. They would sit there, drinking coffee, eating mezze, smoking on a pipe and discuss their theories of how to rescue the arab world. They would discuss in all sincerity the theories of communism ,Marx, Engel, Leninist, Trotskyist, bolshivism, Stalinism, Maoism. They'd discuss the nationalist ideology of jamal abdulnasser, mohammed husseing heikal, and the islamist ideology of Sayed Qutb and al ekhwan al muslimeen. They'd spend hours wrangling about the best way to progress the Arabic nation forward, and whether baathism or pan-arabism was what the masses needed.
Yet they never did anything.
You still find quite a few of them staying in London every once in a while. You're most likely to spot them around the bays water or edgeware road area, where they'd be sitting, ten different arabic newspapers thrown around the the table, a coffee in front him, and he justs sits there for hours, puffing away on his cigar, reading every single column in the newspaper.
If there's one thing I know, it's that I hope I don't end like that. But aren't we really by reading and commenting on politics being just like how these guys used to be, in the coffeeshop? At least they got to discuss pretty fancy stuff such as Lenanism and Trotskyism. We end up discussing Bushism, Blairism, Bin Ladinism, and Al Qaedism (they don't even sound as good do they?)
That's the story, I think, of the "Arab Street". Most people would've been interested in politics at some point in their lives. They might read and find about political events in the area. A few of these might even try to participate in a very small scale, such as attending a demonstration. In the end, the vast majority decide for one reason or another decide it's not worth it to pursue this on any further scale, as it entails the distruption of your whole life. Hence, we end up trying to to maximize what we can given the circumstances we are in.
We might read about politics, we might even comment on it in a blog, but at they end of the day none of us are particularly bothered (or have the guts) to do even the smallest thing about it. So why bother keep up with it? Aren't we really just like thuwar Al 7amraa2? Isn't it just much smarter to get on with your life, get into business or banking and try to live the best you can under the conditions you are in? No one really wants to end up like thuwar al 7amraa2.
¶
5:46 PM
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Toota Toota entahat el7adoota?
Now Al Khawaja apparently got a royal pardon decree from the king.
First of all, congratulations to him on his release. Secondly, does anyone else feel as silly as me about how this masra7iya (play) unfolded?
Time and time again, it happens. People get jailed, and then pardoned by the generousity of a royal decree. No wonder I'm getting disillusioned by Bahraini politics.
Once again, the government shows it can win a PR campaign, and the opposition is taken right back to square one.
What the government had to gain:
1. The prime minister is shown to be a victim here, as Al Khawaja joined in a prayer for him to die.
2. The King shows how generous he is by pardoning someone convicted of wanting death on his own uncle.
3.International viewpoint is once again skeptical of the opposition's claims. Do you know how many people here told me they were suspicious when they saw pictures like this in the news? For them, it looks like under-employed youth who have nothing to do with their time except cause a massive blockade of roads for enjoyment.
4. The government gets the chance to pass a bill against demonstrations, seizing on the oppurtunity that people have "overused" their demonstration rights.
What the opposition has to gain:
1.Al Khawaja suddenly has made himself a martyr and a superstar. I have a big suspicion that that was his cause right from the beginning, as it seems his aim from the start was to cause a massive conflict with the government. This may be because of noble causes (e.g. helping out the poor in Bahrain), or it could be just a quick bang way to publicity. I don't know much about him, so I'm not going to pass judgement here.
2.More international publicity, although some of it has been negative.
3. The traditionally established opposition, e.g. Al Wefaq, have actually had more to lose than gain here, I think. Their cause has been hijacked by Al Khawaja, and now basically he's the new superstar in Bahrain, whose demands have to be carefully met in opposition movements.
So is this the final chapter in this, it seems, very well-cooked play? Is it as wee say in Arabic, Toota Toota entahat el7adoota? I sincerely doubt it. Like I've said before, Bahraini politics has become somewhat predictable recently. Some sort of clash between the opposition and the government, lots of wrangling, publicity and protests, and in the end it usually ends with a royal pardon. A lot of commotion starts, people get excited, but when the dust finally settles, nothing in essence has changed. I think this is a direct result of what I've described before as Glasnost and Perestroika, where you give people the (relative) freedom to say what they want, without making much actual reform and restructuring in the way the country is governed itself. Hence, people now start complaining about all the problems they see before them, which they couldn't do before. This ebb and flow will, I think, continue, until we reach the last straw in this escapade that basically breaks the camel's back, and then something dramatic, a massive change occurs. It seems we are destined to this scenario of small nitpicking, until it builds up and a massive explosion occurs (maybe a new meethaq? a new constitution?). No gradual development for us. The last straw could be the Al Khawaja affiar, it could be another event. We'll have to wait and see.
The one thing, however, that might come out of this episode that government didn't want, is that the ball is rolling again on the issue of whether the prime minister should still stay in his post. That has become the main chant of people once again, while for the last three years it was about the constitution.
I personally think the constitution is more of an important issue than the prime minister. The latter deals only with one person, while the first deal with fixing the basic governing rules of a whole country. Anyway, one has to wait and see about how this will develop.
|
First of all, congratulations to him on his release. Secondly, does anyone else feel as silly as me about how this masra7iya (play) unfolded?
Time and time again, it happens. People get jailed, and then pardoned by the generousity of a royal decree. No wonder I'm getting disillusioned by Bahraini politics.
Once again, the government shows it can win a PR campaign, and the opposition is taken right back to square one.
What the government had to gain:
1. The prime minister is shown to be a victim here, as Al Khawaja joined in a prayer for him to die.
2. The King shows how generous he is by pardoning someone convicted of wanting death on his own uncle.
3.International viewpoint is once again skeptical of the opposition's claims. Do you know how many people here told me they were suspicious when they saw pictures like this in the news? For them, it looks like under-employed youth who have nothing to do with their time except cause a massive blockade of roads for enjoyment.
4. The government gets the chance to pass a bill against demonstrations, seizing on the oppurtunity that people have "overused" their demonstration rights.
What the opposition has to gain:
1.Al Khawaja suddenly has made himself a martyr and a superstar. I have a big suspicion that that was his cause right from the beginning, as it seems his aim from the start was to cause a massive conflict with the government. This may be because of noble causes (e.g. helping out the poor in Bahrain), or it could be just a quick bang way to publicity. I don't know much about him, so I'm not going to pass judgement here.
2.More international publicity, although some of it has been negative.
3. The traditionally established opposition, e.g. Al Wefaq, have actually had more to lose than gain here, I think. Their cause has been hijacked by Al Khawaja, and now basically he's the new superstar in Bahrain, whose demands have to be carefully met in opposition movements.
So is this the final chapter in this, it seems, very well-cooked play? Is it as wee say in Arabic, Toota Toota entahat el7adoota? I sincerely doubt it. Like I've said before, Bahraini politics has become somewhat predictable recently. Some sort of clash between the opposition and the government, lots of wrangling, publicity and protests, and in the end it usually ends with a royal pardon. A lot of commotion starts, people get excited, but when the dust finally settles, nothing in essence has changed. I think this is a direct result of what I've described before as Glasnost and Perestroika, where you give people the (relative) freedom to say what they want, without making much actual reform and restructuring in the way the country is governed itself. Hence, people now start complaining about all the problems they see before them, which they couldn't do before. This ebb and flow will, I think, continue, until we reach the last straw in this escapade that basically breaks the camel's back, and then something dramatic, a massive change occurs. It seems we are destined to this scenario of small nitpicking, until it builds up and a massive explosion occurs (maybe a new meethaq? a new constitution?). No gradual development for us. The last straw could be the Al Khawaja affiar, it could be another event. We'll have to wait and see.
The one thing, however, that might come out of this episode that government didn't want, is that the ball is rolling again on the issue of whether the prime minister should still stay in his post. That has become the main chant of people once again, while for the last three years it was about the constitution.
I personally think the constitution is more of an important issue than the prime minister. The latter deals only with one person, while the first deal with fixing the basic governing rules of a whole country. Anyway, one has to wait and see about how this will develop.
¶
6:03 PM
News Digest: Bahrain, Iraq, UK
It's cold, dingy, and wet outside. It's also a Sunday, which is oddly a holiday in this part of the world (haven't they heard of Friday?). Hence, I've decided to stay in, watch TV, read newspapers, and browse the net. It seems today has been a very active day in many places, most importantly Bahrain.
Bahrain: They're Not Going to Like this.
BBC: Jail for Bahraini activist
السجن عاما واحدا على الناشط البحريني الخواجة Al Jazeera
So it appears a verdict of one year prison has been landed on Al Khawaja. This isn't good. The event is also splashed all over the main news sources, including BBC. The government is not going to like that.
It's worrying to think what will happen next...
Iraq: The fighting will stay for a while.
I don't know how anyone can still think the insurgency in Iraq is conducted exclusively by foreigners. I mean, if you read anything more than just the major flashing headlines and anything about how life functions in Iraq you can tell it's actually become even embedded.
One way to tell now that the fighting, resistance, abducting (and any of the other activities going on Iraq) in will be around for at least some months to come is how the insurgency has actually seeped into the economy and general business life in Iraq. Security issues have become such a money generating source that I can't see them disappearing anytime soon.
Why? simply because there are vested interests in the unstable situation in the moment, on both sides. There is a considerable amount of people whose income source comes from the problems. There are some Iraqis who make money by colluding with the insurgency. They'd give them information, help with abducting foreigners or Iraqis (apparently it is big bussiness).
On the other side, you have thousands of personnel in Iraq working in private security companies who sole job is to protect from the insurgency. These companies' livelihood depend on the situation. Basically both sides need each other to go on.
Obviously, these vested interests are peanuts compared to the other interests reconstruction comapnies and others have. I'm not saying that above (those interested in the conflict) are the majority, or even that they are extremely substantial, but they definitely are widespread enought to have an influence.
This creates a group that its interests, economically, are for the conflict to continue. They probably aren't going to succeed in the end, since they have no chance in front American firepower and force, but they will forelong the fighting.
I don't see the fighting ending with Falluja.
UK: Worrying New Laws
It is pretty depressing how every country in the World is switching to be more authoritarian, police-run state. If Even the UK is switching to become more police-run, then one has to be worrid. Mr. Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has decided it is a good idea to expand "anti-terrorism laws".
Now for me, an Arab studying in the UK, these new laws do raise a few jitters. I'm in my twenties, a student here, an Arab, and a Muslim: Their first line of suspicion.
These new laws include trial without juries and special "anti-terror courts." What is more worrying however is that you can now arrested for what they "call prepatory acts of terrorism," and not for actually committing an act of terrorism. In Blunkett's own words, " We'd be able to use civil law, like anti-social behaviour orders, to say, 'If you step outside what we've precluded you from doing, if you for instance, use this particular banking network... then we can move you from the civil into the criminal law'. Basically you could be arrested for an act you didn't commit, because there is suspicion that you might commit it!
Added to this, phonetaps could be used in court now.
What are these "particular banking networks"? Is there a list that's going to be published. Are there going to be hundreds of them? Doesn't that mean that statistically there will be one of these that unfairly on the list? What if a legitemate bank I use is by mistake included because of typing error? What if National Bank of Bahrain or Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait is included?
What if I get phone-tapped, they hear national Bank of Bahrain on the phone, they come arrest me on suspicion of maybe doing something, detain me without trial in Belmarsh prison, and then take me to a court with no jury?
Obviously, that's taking things to there logical extreme, and hopefully it won't happen, but it does make you worry about what extra new laws are going to be put!
|
Bahrain: They're Not Going to Like this.
BBC: Jail for Bahraini activist
السجن عاما واحدا على الناشط البحريني الخواجة Al Jazeera
So it appears a verdict of one year prison has been landed on Al Khawaja. This isn't good. The event is also splashed all over the main news sources, including BBC. The government is not going to like that.
It's worrying to think what will happen next...
Iraq: The fighting will stay for a while.
I don't know how anyone can still think the insurgency in Iraq is conducted exclusively by foreigners. I mean, if you read anything more than just the major flashing headlines and anything about how life functions in Iraq you can tell it's actually become even embedded.
One way to tell now that the fighting, resistance, abducting (and any of the other activities going on Iraq) in will be around for at least some months to come is how the insurgency has actually seeped into the economy and general business life in Iraq. Security issues have become such a money generating source that I can't see them disappearing anytime soon.
Why? simply because there are vested interests in the unstable situation in the moment, on both sides. There is a considerable amount of people whose income source comes from the problems. There are some Iraqis who make money by colluding with the insurgency. They'd give them information, help with abducting foreigners or Iraqis (apparently it is big bussiness).
On the other side, you have thousands of personnel in Iraq working in private security companies who sole job is to protect from the insurgency. These companies' livelihood depend on the situation. Basically both sides need each other to go on.
Obviously, these vested interests are peanuts compared to the other interests reconstruction comapnies and others have. I'm not saying that above (those interested in the conflict) are the majority, or even that they are extremely substantial, but they definitely are widespread enought to have an influence.
This creates a group that its interests, economically, are for the conflict to continue. They probably aren't going to succeed in the end, since they have no chance in front American firepower and force, but they will forelong the fighting.
I don't see the fighting ending with Falluja.
UK: Worrying New Laws
It is pretty depressing how every country in the World is switching to be more authoritarian, police-run state. If Even the UK is switching to become more police-run, then one has to be worrid. Mr. Blunkett, the Home Secretary, has decided it is a good idea to expand "anti-terrorism laws".
Now for me, an Arab studying in the UK, these new laws do raise a few jitters. I'm in my twenties, a student here, an Arab, and a Muslim: Their first line of suspicion.
These new laws include trial without juries and special "anti-terror courts." What is more worrying however is that you can now arrested for what they "call prepatory acts of terrorism," and not for actually committing an act of terrorism. In Blunkett's own words, " We'd be able to use civil law, like anti-social behaviour orders, to say, 'If you step outside what we've precluded you from doing, if you for instance, use this particular banking network... then we can move you from the civil into the criminal law'. Basically you could be arrested for an act you didn't commit, because there is suspicion that you might commit it!
Added to this, phonetaps could be used in court now.
What are these "particular banking networks"? Is there a list that's going to be published. Are there going to be hundreds of them? Doesn't that mean that statistically there will be one of these that unfairly on the list? What if a legitemate bank I use is by mistake included because of typing error? What if National Bank of Bahrain or Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait is included?
What if I get phone-tapped, they hear national Bank of Bahrain on the phone, they come arrest me on suspicion of maybe doing something, detain me without trial in Belmarsh prison, and then take me to a court with no jury?
Obviously, that's taking things to there logical extreme, and hopefully it won't happen, but it does make you worry about what extra new laws are going to be put!
¶
1:56 PM
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Archives by Subject Added
Finally, I've been able to add an archives by subject link. I was going crazy having to find each post by date!
Anyone who looks at how I've done these links would realize how much of a Moron I am at computers. However, this is the only way (that my feeble brain can comprehend) that I've found that works on blogger. If anyone has a better way, please let me know!
P.S. If you're posting a comment in a old post, could I please bother you to copy and paste the post's title at the beginning of the comment? Unfortunately, haloscan does not show the title of the post, but instead some long post ID number! Thanks.
|
Anyone who looks at how I've done these links would realize how much of a Moron I am at computers. However, this is the only way (that my feeble brain can comprehend) that I've found that works on blogger. If anyone has a better way, please let me know!
P.S. If you're posting a comment in a old post, could I please bother you to copy and paste the post's title at the beginning of the comment? Unfortunately, haloscan does not show the title of the post, but instead some long post ID number! Thanks.
¶
8:47 PM
Friday, November 19, 2004
One Despotic Regime replaced by Another
Troops Storm Major Baghdad Mosque
So let's see: They've engulfed a country in an ongoing civil war, installed an unelected bunch of lackies who can only express "concern" at injured unarmed Iraqis being shot, raized a city down to the ground, already threatened to storm Shia's holies site, and now storm the most important Sunni mosque in Iraq.
What's the charge? Just like the reason for banning Al Jazeera, this new, fair minded, popularly elected government that is comprised from all spectrum of Iraqi society cited "inciting violence." Not for commiting acts of violence; No, just "inciting violence." i.e. Basically expressing a view opposed to that of the occupying force. Yes, there is freedom of speech nowadays in Iraq. You are free to say how bad Saddam was, and to say how good the current government is.
|
So let's see: They've engulfed a country in an ongoing civil war, installed an unelected bunch of lackies who can only express "concern" at injured unarmed Iraqis being shot, raized a city down to the ground, already threatened to storm Shia's holies site, and now storm the most important Sunni mosque in Iraq.
What's the charge? Just like the reason for banning Al Jazeera, this new, fair minded, popularly elected government that is comprised from all spectrum of Iraqi society cited "inciting violence." Not for commiting acts of violence; No, just "inciting violence." i.e. Basically expressing a view opposed to that of the occupying force. Yes, there is freedom of speech nowadays in Iraq. You are free to say how bad Saddam was, and to say how good the current government is.
¶
6:15 PM
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
It's Official
I received this in an email:
New survey concludes: Girls love Dogs.
This just in:
A new survey conducted by the authorities in country X has reached the startling conclusion that girls love Dogs.
An official said, "We interviewed more than 1000 girls and the result was overwhelming. 100% of the responses given was that Girls love Dogs. Not a single entry confirmed otherwise.
The reason given was always, "we don't know how to explain it but it seems we have a natural instict to love Dogs. We like to pet them, stroke them, cuddle them, and kiss them. We also love the way they stand up in attention when called."
The type of Dog preference differed depending on the respondent. Some like white Dogs, some black Dogs, and some brown Dogs. There was a general preferance, however, for big Dogs as opposed to small Dogs, as they apparently made respondents "feel more safe." Extremely big Dogs, however, were considered to be too scary.
The authorities were taken by utter surprise. An official commented, " I mean, we did think that there were a few who loved Dogs, but every single one? We are absolutely dumbfounded by this result. I mean, we knew that guys love Pussycats, but this was completely unexpected.
The spokesman commented, "this research is further proof of the wisdom of social policies implemented in our country. It is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that girls have a natural weakness when it comes to Dogs. Hence, we should continue to segregregate girsl and Dogs in our society. The only contact that should be allowed is when a married man allows his wife to play with his Dog."
Asked whether the research shed any light on guys who love Dogs, the spokesman replied, "Don't be rediculous. That is inconceivable."
No animals were hurt in the experiment.
It's pretty rude and crass, I know, but also entertaining! If anyone is extremely offended by this, please let me know and I'll remove it.
|
New survey concludes: Girls love Dogs.
This just in:
A new survey conducted by the authorities in country X has reached the startling conclusion that girls love Dogs.
An official said, "We interviewed more than 1000 girls and the result was overwhelming. 100% of the responses given was that Girls love Dogs. Not a single entry confirmed otherwise.
The reason given was always, "we don't know how to explain it but it seems we have a natural instict to love Dogs. We like to pet them, stroke them, cuddle them, and kiss them. We also love the way they stand up in attention when called."
The type of Dog preference differed depending on the respondent. Some like white Dogs, some black Dogs, and some brown Dogs. There was a general preferance, however, for big Dogs as opposed to small Dogs, as they apparently made respondents "feel more safe." Extremely big Dogs, however, were considered to be too scary.
The authorities were taken by utter surprise. An official commented, " I mean, we did think that there were a few who loved Dogs, but every single one? We are absolutely dumbfounded by this result. I mean, we knew that guys love Pussycats, but this was completely unexpected.
The spokesman commented, "this research is further proof of the wisdom of social policies implemented in our country. It is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that girls have a natural weakness when it comes to Dogs. Hence, we should continue to segregregate girsl and Dogs in our society. The only contact that should be allowed is when a married man allows his wife to play with his Dog."
Asked whether the research shed any light on guys who love Dogs, the spokesman replied, "Don't be rediculous. That is inconceivable."
No animals were hurt in the experiment.
It's pretty rude and crass, I know, but also entertaining! If anyone is extremely offended by this, please let me know and I'll remove it.
¶
5:27 AM
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Iran blogs
Apparently, some bloggers, critical of the government, have been arrested in Iran.
Is this a sign of things to come in Bahrain? I really hope not. That doesn't bode well for me and other bloggers!
On a different note, in relation to Iran, I really have problems nowadays understanding the Iranian mentality. As I've explained before, most, if not all, of the Iranian people want the Islamic republic to be overthrown, and for good reasons too. What I really don't understand, however, is that there is a substantial part of the population who want the Shah to come back. You'd think they'd learn from history.
The net is filled with sites and blogs calling for the return of the Shah's son.They want a cruel, tyrannical regime supported by no one to be replaced by a cruel, tyrannical regime supported by the U.S. Why in hell do they think people overthrew the Shah in the first place?
Admittedly, most of the people who write these sites come from the families that had the most to lose from the Shah's departure. They're either from the former elite of the country, or from those who left the country after the Islamic revolution. Hence, their viewpoints should be taken with a grain of salt, as they definitely have their own vested interests, and do not reflect the majority of the population.
As I've posted before, I had the pleasure of spending a month in Iran in the summer, and most of the people I met were from these former elite families, who'd definitely welcome a return of the Shah. What amazes is how distorted and ridiculous their viewpoints and history OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY is.
Before I go on, let me give a quick bare-bones summary of Iran's government history over the last fifty years.
Up until the early fiftees, iran was ruled by the Pahlavi dynasty, which was very pro-British (most of their oil revenues went to the British).
In the early fiftees, Iran had its first, and only, proper democratic experience. The elected prime minister was Mohammed Mossadeq, who was very nationalistic and nationalized the oil industry, much to British and American anger.
Mohammed Mosaddeq was overthrown in a coup arranged by the CIA and British intelligence officers. The Shah was reinstalled as the sole ruler, and the Pro-American/British alliance was restored.
In the late seventies, a popular revolution occured, supported by ALL SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION (except obviously those that benefited from the Shah), and the Shah was overthrown, but unfortunately the revolution in the end was hijacked by the Islamists, led by Khomeini.
Now all of these historical events are undisputed, especially those up until the 1970s.
Talking to these guys in Iran, however, you get a completely different version of history. (Note: Iran, just like the Arabic world, is rife with conspiracy theories and warped logic to analyze events. In fact, I'd say they even have the honour of surprassing us in this area.)
They first tell me that Mossadeq actually was the one who was very pro-British and pro-American.
Instead, it was the SHAH who was extremely ambitious, and had plans that completely went against those of the U.S. and the UK.
(This one actually made me laugh). Iran under the Shah used to be an extremely powerful and devloped country. In fact, it was the FIFTH OR SIXTH strongest and most advanced country in the world. (me to myself: oh really? UK, US, Soviet Union, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada. That's more than five or six to me). In fact, no one was poor in Shah's time. Every person even had a car.
That is why it is actually THE UK that arranged the succession of Khomeini to power. In fact, the Islamic regime is not only tolerated by European governments (which MAYBE you could argue), but is actually supported by them, and depends for its existence on them.
The sad thing is that this not only said by ignorant youth, but I've actually talked to sixty-somethings, who were extremely respected in society, and hold the above viewpoint. They in turn unfortunately pass their viewpoint down to the young generation. The end product is that there is a vast swath of the population who views the life under the Shah as being idealistic, perfect, where everyone was happy and no one was poor.
My reply to this (obviously in a very subtle and gentle way, since the Iranians don't like being criticized, especially by Arabs. They have a particular habit of seeing us as backwards and the dirt of the earth) is always:
"So why was the Shah overthrown?"
You can tell the argument starts cracking up a bit here. They always throw in some hotch-potch replies. "Oh, that's because they were tricked by Khomeini in that they would have a better life under him. It wasn't because the Shah did anything wrong." They tend to forget that there were communists, liberals, and socialists who all supported the revolution in the beginning.
After all this rant, here is my final quick-capsule review: The guy who support, and want, the Shah to come back are just as bad as the Islamists. They might be pro-Western, and hence will have sanctions lifted, and they might let people strut around in bikinis on Iran's beaches, but at the end of the day they are just as undemocratic and oppressive as the Islamists.
If you want proof of this, just switch on any of the Iranian anti-government channels and watch the twits on it. All they do is shout at the top of their voices about how bad the current regime is, and how good the Shah was. What they never do, however, is accept criticism of their view. More importantly, they never offer a coherent explanation of their alternative, and how they instead will change society. That's because they don't have a coherent alternative.
All of these channels are broadcasted from America, particularly Los Angeles, where there estimated to be about 2 million Iranians and descendants. The sad thing is that even if the Islamic regime was overthrown, most of them will not come back to Iran, and even if they did, they will swiftly leave. They have become so American that I doubt they would be able to fit back into their society.
It seems Iran is destined to always go through turmoil, going from one revolution to another, from one extreme to another. I used to think that by now, since the Iranians have experienced both the Shah and the Islamists, they finally will be sensible and settle on democracy. Nope. Their fiery and rebelous nature seems destined to give them heavy-handed and tyrranical regimes on the one hand, and a fiery opposition that doesn't like the regime on the other.
Let's hope I'm wrong.
|
Is this a sign of things to come in Bahrain? I really hope not. That doesn't bode well for me and other bloggers!
On a different note, in relation to Iran, I really have problems nowadays understanding the Iranian mentality. As I've explained before, most, if not all, of the Iranian people want the Islamic republic to be overthrown, and for good reasons too. What I really don't understand, however, is that there is a substantial part of the population who want the Shah to come back. You'd think they'd learn from history.
The net is filled with sites and blogs calling for the return of the Shah's son.They want a cruel, tyrannical regime supported by no one to be replaced by a cruel, tyrannical regime supported by the U.S. Why in hell do they think people overthrew the Shah in the first place?
Admittedly, most of the people who write these sites come from the families that had the most to lose from the Shah's departure. They're either from the former elite of the country, or from those who left the country after the Islamic revolution. Hence, their viewpoints should be taken with a grain of salt, as they definitely have their own vested interests, and do not reflect the majority of the population.
As I've posted before, I had the pleasure of spending a month in Iran in the summer, and most of the people I met were from these former elite families, who'd definitely welcome a return of the Shah. What amazes is how distorted and ridiculous their viewpoints and history OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY is.
Before I go on, let me give a quick bare-bones summary of Iran's government history over the last fifty years.
Up until the early fiftees, iran was ruled by the Pahlavi dynasty, which was very pro-British (most of their oil revenues went to the British).
In the early fiftees, Iran had its first, and only, proper democratic experience. The elected prime minister was Mohammed Mossadeq, who was very nationalistic and nationalized the oil industry, much to British and American anger.
Mohammed Mosaddeq was overthrown in a coup arranged by the CIA and British intelligence officers. The Shah was reinstalled as the sole ruler, and the Pro-American/British alliance was restored.
In the late seventies, a popular revolution occured, supported by ALL SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION (except obviously those that benefited from the Shah), and the Shah was overthrown, but unfortunately the revolution in the end was hijacked by the Islamists, led by Khomeini.
Now all of these historical events are undisputed, especially those up until the 1970s.
Talking to these guys in Iran, however, you get a completely different version of history. (Note: Iran, just like the Arabic world, is rife with conspiracy theories and warped logic to analyze events. In fact, I'd say they even have the honour of surprassing us in this area.)
They first tell me that Mossadeq actually was the one who was very pro-British and pro-American.
Instead, it was the SHAH who was extremely ambitious, and had plans that completely went against those of the U.S. and the UK.
(This one actually made me laugh). Iran under the Shah used to be an extremely powerful and devloped country. In fact, it was the FIFTH OR SIXTH strongest and most advanced country in the world. (me to myself: oh really? UK, US, Soviet Union, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada. That's more than five or six to me). In fact, no one was poor in Shah's time. Every person even had a car.
That is why it is actually THE UK that arranged the succession of Khomeini to power. In fact, the Islamic regime is not only tolerated by European governments (which MAYBE you could argue), but is actually supported by them, and depends for its existence on them.
The sad thing is that this not only said by ignorant youth, but I've actually talked to sixty-somethings, who were extremely respected in society, and hold the above viewpoint. They in turn unfortunately pass their viewpoint down to the young generation. The end product is that there is a vast swath of the population who views the life under the Shah as being idealistic, perfect, where everyone was happy and no one was poor.
My reply to this (obviously in a very subtle and gentle way, since the Iranians don't like being criticized, especially by Arabs. They have a particular habit of seeing us as backwards and the dirt of the earth) is always:
"So why was the Shah overthrown?"
You can tell the argument starts cracking up a bit here. They always throw in some hotch-potch replies. "Oh, that's because they were tricked by Khomeini in that they would have a better life under him. It wasn't because the Shah did anything wrong." They tend to forget that there were communists, liberals, and socialists who all supported the revolution in the beginning.
After all this rant, here is my final quick-capsule review: The guy who support, and want, the Shah to come back are just as bad as the Islamists. They might be pro-Western, and hence will have sanctions lifted, and they might let people strut around in bikinis on Iran's beaches, but at the end of the day they are just as undemocratic and oppressive as the Islamists.
If you want proof of this, just switch on any of the Iranian anti-government channels and watch the twits on it. All they do is shout at the top of their voices about how bad the current regime is, and how good the Shah was. What they never do, however, is accept criticism of their view. More importantly, they never offer a coherent explanation of their alternative, and how they instead will change society. That's because they don't have a coherent alternative.
All of these channels are broadcasted from America, particularly Los Angeles, where there estimated to be about 2 million Iranians and descendants. The sad thing is that even if the Islamic regime was overthrown, most of them will not come back to Iran, and even if they did, they will swiftly leave. They have become so American that I doubt they would be able to fit back into their society.
It seems Iran is destined to always go through turmoil, going from one revolution to another, from one extreme to another. I used to think that by now, since the Iranians have experienced both the Shah and the Islamists, they finally will be sensible and settle on democracy. Nope. Their fiery and rebelous nature seems destined to give them heavy-handed and tyrranical regimes on the one hand, and a fiery opposition that doesn't like the regime on the other.
Let's hope I'm wrong.
¶
8:33 AM
Growing Old
Shit... I'm Growing old.
I don't know why, but for some reason it just hit me that I'm growing old.
I remember the time I went to visit my old school in Bahrain last year. By any objective standards, and I think everyone will agree, the school I went to is the best in Bahrain. Bahrain school, St Christopher's, Bayan; they're all a bit crappy compared to it, and I think even people who went to those schools will concur :) I don't even need to mention Al Hekma, Naseem, or Sacred Heart.
Anyway, I digress. I remember going to the school, and for starters, I couldn't recognize anyone there (I've only graduated four years ago!). I know some people because they were the cousin of one of my friends, or their brother, but I did not personally know a single person.
Not only that, but I couldn't relate to the graduating class in anyway whatsoever. I mean, were we really that materialistic and tacky? All they talked about was Britney Spears, when were they going to get their license, and girls (obviously the girls takled about guys), plus a bit about the exams and homework they had. They also now have a private parking space (imagine that!) for the graduating class!
They all also had a pretty thick American accent when talking English. Some even thought I was some posh English dude from my accent (even though English people do not think I have an English accent). Did I ever really talk with that weird American-Bahrain private school accent? The Horror.. The Horror...
This is not to mention the antics students are up to nowadays. Apparently it's not that uncommon to find students doing drugs (weed) nowadays, even on school campus! We never did that! I remember that if we smoked a cigarrette in school, or skipped class, we would be considered rebels. Were we really such goody-goody kids, and are the new generation really that bad?
I also took a quick browse through the school's latest yearbook, and particularly the graduating class's dedication section. (Nearly) Everyone was writing in English. Have we become that Americanized? Not only that, but it was filled with these silly abbreviations:
luv 2 c u soon
tc and kit!
etc... etc... etc...
Our class couldn't have been that bad, could it?
So I looked through our year's yearbook. I haven't done that in a long time. I couldn't believe it. We, and particularly me, were just as bad (my picture was just awful).
I started reading through what I had written down, and it was honestly like reading someone else's stuff. I mean, I knew all the people I had written the stuff to, and the events I was talking about were still vaguely familiar, but I just couldn't understand the mentality of the writer! Why the hell would he use that style of language? That couldn't possible be me!!
I then started digressing and thinking about philosophical theories of personal identity, and particularly Derek Parfet's theories of connectedness and connectivity (based on Locke's theories). Does a person A now have the same personal identity as person A five years ago, even if he does not share any of the thoughts and memories that person A shared 5 years ago?
Just in time however, I hit my head against a wall, and told myself, "get back to reality you ediot. No one gives a toss about such ideas."
|
I don't know why, but for some reason it just hit me that I'm growing old.
I remember the time I went to visit my old school in Bahrain last year. By any objective standards, and I think everyone will agree, the school I went to is the best in Bahrain. Bahrain school, St Christopher's, Bayan; they're all a bit crappy compared to it, and I think even people who went to those schools will concur :) I don't even need to mention Al Hekma, Naseem, or Sacred Heart.
Anyway, I digress. I remember going to the school, and for starters, I couldn't recognize anyone there (I've only graduated four years ago!). I know some people because they were the cousin of one of my friends, or their brother, but I did not personally know a single person.
Not only that, but I couldn't relate to the graduating class in anyway whatsoever. I mean, were we really that materialistic and tacky? All they talked about was Britney Spears, when were they going to get their license, and girls (obviously the girls takled about guys), plus a bit about the exams and homework they had. They also now have a private parking space (imagine that!) for the graduating class!
They all also had a pretty thick American accent when talking English. Some even thought I was some posh English dude from my accent (even though English people do not think I have an English accent). Did I ever really talk with that weird American-Bahrain private school accent? The Horror.. The Horror...
This is not to mention the antics students are up to nowadays. Apparently it's not that uncommon to find students doing drugs (weed) nowadays, even on school campus! We never did that! I remember that if we smoked a cigarrette in school, or skipped class, we would be considered rebels. Were we really such goody-goody kids, and are the new generation really that bad?
I also took a quick browse through the school's latest yearbook, and particularly the graduating class's dedication section. (Nearly) Everyone was writing in English. Have we become that Americanized? Not only that, but it was filled with these silly abbreviations:
luv 2 c u soon
tc and kit!
etc... etc... etc...
Our class couldn't have been that bad, could it?
So I looked through our year's yearbook. I haven't done that in a long time. I couldn't believe it. We, and particularly me, were just as bad (my picture was just awful).
I started reading through what I had written down, and it was honestly like reading someone else's stuff. I mean, I knew all the people I had written the stuff to, and the events I was talking about were still vaguely familiar, but I just couldn't understand the mentality of the writer! Why the hell would he use that style of language? That couldn't possible be me!!
I then started digressing and thinking about philosophical theories of personal identity, and particularly Derek Parfet's theories of connectedness and connectivity (based on Locke's theories). Does a person A now have the same personal identity as person A five years ago, even if he does not share any of the thoughts and memories that person A shared 5 years ago?
Just in time however, I hit my head against a wall, and told myself, "get back to reality you ediot. No one gives a toss about such ideas."
¶
6:25 AM
Monday, November 15, 2004
.
|
Personal Escapades Archive
Alter Ego: Choice
Lonely Nights
Growing Old
Someon Dear To Me
Anyone Want To Buy a Share in My Blog?
The Return
Holed UP
Bermondsey: Center of the World
|
Lonely Nights
Growing Old
Someon Dear To Me
Anyone Want To Buy a Share in My Blog?
The Return
Holed UP
Bermondsey: Center of the World
¶
3:04 AM
Power of Nightmares: a play starring Osama
My friends have been telling me about it for ages, Bahrania has commented about it, and I finally got around to watching it: The BBC's extremely controversial programme called the Power of Nightmares. It's main thesis is that the threat of Al Qaeda has been way over exaggerated, and that it is a powerful idea to make people believe in some evil nightmare that's about to take over the world.
You can see it here.
It's in three parts. It's definitely worth watching all three, but if you don't have much time, just watch the third part. That's the part that deals with most recent events, as the first two parts deals with the events of Sayyid Qutb and the Afghan-Soviet war.
Obviously, a band of people bent on striking America at home does exist, but this programme argues that, up until september 11th at least, "Al Qaeda" was a rag-tag association of a couple of hundred at most. It definitely was not this massive well-structured organization with thousands of operatives all over the world. They were a bunch of Arab Mujahedeen left over from the Soviet-Afghan war, each with his own agenda, and the only link was that they'd go to Osama bin Laden to get his money for their causes, since he was a rich Saudi. They ranged from those who wanted to fight in Chechenya to those who wanted to fight in Bosnia. Most crucially, each was doing his own thing. They were a rag-tag alliance whose sole connection was fighting in the Afghan war. They were not all under Bin Laden's command, and they did not definitely all want to attack America on its own soil.
Now obviously all of this is very controversial. I do, however, agree with the main premise: that the extent of Al Qaeda's power has been way blown out of proportion. They are not a structured and massive global organization, and they do not have thousands of troops all under their command all over the world. I mean, if that were so, why aren't we seeing bombings all over the place?
This is one thing I've always wondered about. If Al Qaeda was such a powerful organization, we should be seing much more bombings in every city of the world. After all, to be completely honest, and completely politically incorrect, it is not the hardest thing in the world to find a soft civilian target and cause deaths there. Hell, if I wanted to do it, I can go down tomorrow to my local starbucks and go Jehad on the place, killing a few people. I can make some sort of molotov cocktail and throw it somewhere. It's not nuclear science exactly.
The one image, however, that really threw myself off laughing, was the part where Rumsfeld was outlining Al Qaeda's, "evil sophisticated underground layers":
see above picture
Rumsfeld went on about how they have sleeping headquarters there, thermal detectors, computer labs. Evan a tank would fit through these tunnels. Hundreds of evil Qaeda people were all there, dilligently working off. Basically, it was an evil skeletor hideout.
Come on, that's got to be good comedic value. Obviously, the guy who concucted this stuff up must have had a pretty vivid imagination (my hunch is that he's a comic writer, maybe X-men). He also must've thought his audience is pretty bloody dumb. Unfortunately, such reputable newspapers as USA Today and The Guardian showed this stuff.
Obviously, when they did bomb the mountains, not much of these sophisticated underground labs were found. Let's imagine for a second, however, that they did have massive underground bunkers with thousands of workers. I'm wondering how would life be down there? Would it have the usual work environment? Would it have gags and gaffes a la "The Office?". Would they have the usual Saturday (or if you're in the west, Monday) blues? Do you think they had unions, who would strike over better working conditions, higher pays, time off for prayer, or even shorter working hours? Are there middle and top tier managers? Is there a lot of bureacracy and paperwork? Do you think Osama was more of Fayol-school type scientific manager or more of a dynamic, Richard Branson type? How about their recruitment for managers? Do you think they have psychometric tests and interviews? Lots of Harvard MBAs around?
How about cigarette breaks? If they're hundreds of feets underground, it'll be damn hard for a guy to climb all the way up for a cigarrette.
Obviously, you can see how propestorous the idea gets, but it makes for a damn good play or comedy series. Hence, I've decided to start of a show called "Al Qaeda: the TV show." Here are a couple of the sketches:
(I'm sorry but they're in ArabEnglish (i.e. arabic spelt in English letters). I unfortunately don't have Arabic on my PC) It's hard to follow I know, but try anyway!)
Scene 1: in the (Arabic style) canteen hall, people, sitting on the floor, have gathered to eat.
cast:
abo-sameer: the cook.
Osama: the big man.
Ayman: the brains.
Mo and Ahmed: see sketch 3.
Mo: taban, ha na7nu na2kul mandi marrah ukhra.
Ahmed: lakad la3at kabedi, kullu youm mandi! wa kul youm la7m ghanam 3araby!
Mo: wa unthur ella kameyat elzebeeb, hunak zebeeeb akthar min al ruz fel mandi!
Salman: uskutu, antoo ta3lamoon anna alshaikh osama yu7ebu al zebeeb wal mandy.
On the other side, Osama is sitting on the floor, waiting for Ayman Al Zawahiri to show up.
Osama: mashallah ya abo sameer, al mandi raw3a alyoum. laken ya 7abatha an tukather min alzebeeb fel marah al kadema.
Abu-Sameer (grumbling, trying to find some rice between the raisins): grunt.. 7ather.
Ayman shows up. Imagine a loud egyptian similar to those in the movies.
Ayman: Assalamu 3alaikum wa ra7...
la2aa ya 3ami! de mush ma32oola! mandi kaman! aih dah! kul youm mandi! yekhreb baitak!
Osama: ettaki ellah ya ayman wa ujlus, ennahu la mandi 3ajeeb.
Ayman: 3ageeb aih kharabee6 aih! Kul youm mandi! 3endanah meerza min iran beye3mal tahcheen zay el bomb... marwan min syria beye3mel mana2eesh.. khalid al kuwaity beye3mel makboos .. 7eta anah ya 3ami ba3melek fool ou 6a3miya.. bas mandi sub7 ou ghada ou 3asha? khalas ya 3am.. ana sert 3am baroo7 el7amam khams marat fil youm min dah elmandi!
Osama: enna el mandi akl al abaa2 wal ajdaad!
Ayman: la 7awla wala kuwata bellah.. ou aih dah.. dah kullu zebeeb! ou kharoof mara tanya kaman? 6ab laih moo ferakh?
Osama: enna al zebeeb mukawi lel3etham wa al la7mu mughathi lil ajsam.
ayman: ya kharabi! yekhreb bait el zebeeb zay makhrebte baity..
(calms down, talks in a low voice): osama.. ya 7abeebi.. ya rou7 albi.. bos... e7na ma3endanash ella 6ayartain nesta3melhum. wenta kul youm beyrou7ou le iran 3ashan begeebo zebeeb ou ba3dain la yemen 3ashan beygoubou la7am 3arabi. mush ma32oola yabni. da7na bene7tag el 6ayarat 3ashan nefagar shewayat 3emaraat hena wehnak? 6ab ezzay 7anfagar Big Ben etha el6ayarat kul youm ray7aa le san3aa2 3ashan betgeeb shewayat kheraf?
scene 3: osama gets ready to film his next video message. Ayman, the director, is pacing around waiting for him. Osama shows up, this time wearing a thoub and a besht instead of his usual military gear.
ayman: aih dah? fain elzey el3askery.
osama: lakad karrart an athhar bemanthar jadeed. Al agent, bu nezar, kala enna este6la3at al ra2y (viewer polls) tufathel an athhar bemanthar mu7abbab, 7ata nuzeedu sha3beyatena wa jamaheerena. Unthur, hatha althoub min shmagh englizi, wal ne3al carretti, hal a3jabatk?
ayman: yekhreb baitak enta ou abu nezar, 6ab eglis yalla khansawer.
osama: ana offakur fee an albus nathara cartier, model el sab3eenat, wa cigar fee fami, methl castro. sayu36eeny manthar jadeed. matha tathun?
ayman: aih ya 3am?!?? enta betesta3ba6 wallah aih?
osama: matha 3an meswak fel fam?
ayman: !!!!!
osama: ethan 3ood throos (toothpick)??
ayman: !!!!
osama: mesba7 ??..
ayman: egles ya 3ami da7na et2akharnah! talata, etneen, wa7ed... action!
osama: kayfa mekyaji?
ayman: eglis ya 3am khalas!
osama (clears his throats and starts reading): besmellah alra7man al ra7eem... ayuha alsha3bu al eslami al 3atheem.. ummuna fee kha6ar...
tabban.. cut.
ayman: aih dah? shou dee cut? anna elly ba2ool cut mush enta! ou laih 2ult cut??
osama: lakad kultu ummuna, wa laisa ommatuna.
ayman: ou 3ashan dee bet2ool cut! yakhi sa7e7 roo7uk ou khalas! enta 3aref elmashakel ahmed miskeen ra7 feeha 3ashan begeeb sheree6 camera wa7ed??? da huwa kan lazem yekhrug weyroo7 yerkuth ela kaboul... wel amreecan 3am beyrukthu warah... kulli dah 7ag sharee6 wa7ed! wenta 3abbalak laih e7na ma 6arashna sheree6 lel jazeera min zaman?
osama: 7asanan... le nabda2 mara ukhra. laken ya akh ayman, lematha anta la takra2 elrasalah?
ayman: ana balbes natharat 6ebeya. shakly mabekhawefsh... enta 2ouly fee a7ad beykhaf min wa7ed 3umroh sab3een beyalbes natharat 6ebbeyya??
scene 3: the IT department
characters:
Ahmed: a computer science graduate from UOB, he likes spending time on MSN messenger, playing Ages of Empire, and visiting the montadayat.
Mohammed: a computer science graduate from Carnegie Mellon, he is more into computer programming. He is a Linux lover, and a staunchly anti-Microsoft person.
Ahmed: Al Salamu 3alaykum ya aba Qassim. Kayfa 7aluka.
Mohammed: Wa 3alaykum alsalam wa ra7mattulah. Lastu bekhair ya Ahmed. Lakad ghazaa virus al 7asoob (computer).
Ahmed: Al la3na. Kaifa 7asala hatha? laysa 3endaka Norton Anti Virus?
Mo: Kalla, laken 3endee Mcafee.
Ahmed: Alam akul lak an tasta3mel Norton? Mcafee ta3ban!
Mo: Lakad 7aawalt ya Ahmed, laken dukan al 7asoob lam yakun 3endahu sewa Mcafee 98. 7awalt aydan an unazzel Norton min Kazaa, lakeny lam ajed shay2.
Ahmed: wa matha 3an Morpheus?
Mo: Salman mudeer al IT wa9'a3 block 3ala morpheus. Yakool enahu mukhel bel adab.
Ahmed: Taban... hatha huwa alza3eem kadem.
Osama: Al salamu 3ala man ettaba3a alhuda.
Mo and Ahmed: wa 3alaikum al salam.
Osama: hal al7asoob 3a6el?
Mo: na3am.
Osama: hal esta3malt Norton?
Any agents interested in buying this (crappy) show, please send me an email!
|
You can see it here.
It's in three parts. It's definitely worth watching all three, but if you don't have much time, just watch the third part. That's the part that deals with most recent events, as the first two parts deals with the events of Sayyid Qutb and the Afghan-Soviet war.
Obviously, a band of people bent on striking America at home does exist, but this programme argues that, up until september 11th at least, "Al Qaeda" was a rag-tag association of a couple of hundred at most. It definitely was not this massive well-structured organization with thousands of operatives all over the world. They were a bunch of Arab Mujahedeen left over from the Soviet-Afghan war, each with his own agenda, and the only link was that they'd go to Osama bin Laden to get his money for their causes, since he was a rich Saudi. They ranged from those who wanted to fight in Chechenya to those who wanted to fight in Bosnia. Most crucially, each was doing his own thing. They were a rag-tag alliance whose sole connection was fighting in the Afghan war. They were not all under Bin Laden's command, and they did not definitely all want to attack America on its own soil.
Now obviously all of this is very controversial. I do, however, agree with the main premise: that the extent of Al Qaeda's power has been way blown out of proportion. They are not a structured and massive global organization, and they do not have thousands of troops all under their command all over the world. I mean, if that were so, why aren't we seeing bombings all over the place?
This is one thing I've always wondered about. If Al Qaeda was such a powerful organization, we should be seing much more bombings in every city of the world. After all, to be completely honest, and completely politically incorrect, it is not the hardest thing in the world to find a soft civilian target and cause deaths there. Hell, if I wanted to do it, I can go down tomorrow to my local starbucks and go Jehad on the place, killing a few people. I can make some sort of molotov cocktail and throw it somewhere. It's not nuclear science exactly.
The one image, however, that really threw myself off laughing, was the part where Rumsfeld was outlining Al Qaeda's, "evil sophisticated underground layers":
see above picture
Rumsfeld went on about how they have sleeping headquarters there, thermal detectors, computer labs. Evan a tank would fit through these tunnels. Hundreds of evil Qaeda people were all there, dilligently working off. Basically, it was an evil skeletor hideout.
Come on, that's got to be good comedic value. Obviously, the guy who concucted this stuff up must have had a pretty vivid imagination (my hunch is that he's a comic writer, maybe X-men). He also must've thought his audience is pretty bloody dumb. Unfortunately, such reputable newspapers as USA Today and The Guardian showed this stuff.
Obviously, when they did bomb the mountains, not much of these sophisticated underground labs were found. Let's imagine for a second, however, that they did have massive underground bunkers with thousands of workers. I'm wondering how would life be down there? Would it have the usual work environment? Would it have gags and gaffes a la "The Office?". Would they have the usual Saturday (or if you're in the west, Monday) blues? Do you think they had unions, who would strike over better working conditions, higher pays, time off for prayer, or even shorter working hours? Are there middle and top tier managers? Is there a lot of bureacracy and paperwork? Do you think Osama was more of Fayol-school type scientific manager or more of a dynamic, Richard Branson type? How about their recruitment for managers? Do you think they have psychometric tests and interviews? Lots of Harvard MBAs around?
How about cigarette breaks? If they're hundreds of feets underground, it'll be damn hard for a guy to climb all the way up for a cigarrette.
Obviously, you can see how propestorous the idea gets, but it makes for a damn good play or comedy series. Hence, I've decided to start of a show called "Al Qaeda: the TV show." Here are a couple of the sketches:
(I'm sorry but they're in ArabEnglish (i.e. arabic spelt in English letters). I unfortunately don't have Arabic on my PC) It's hard to follow I know, but try anyway!)
Scene 1: in the (Arabic style) canteen hall, people, sitting on the floor, have gathered to eat.
cast:
abo-sameer: the cook.
Osama: the big man.
Ayman: the brains.
Mo and Ahmed: see sketch 3.
Mo: taban, ha na7nu na2kul mandi marrah ukhra.
Ahmed: lakad la3at kabedi, kullu youm mandi! wa kul youm la7m ghanam 3araby!
Mo: wa unthur ella kameyat elzebeeb, hunak zebeeeb akthar min al ruz fel mandi!
Salman: uskutu, antoo ta3lamoon anna alshaikh osama yu7ebu al zebeeb wal mandy.
On the other side, Osama is sitting on the floor, waiting for Ayman Al Zawahiri to show up.
Osama: mashallah ya abo sameer, al mandi raw3a alyoum. laken ya 7abatha an tukather min alzebeeb fel marah al kadema.
Abu-Sameer (grumbling, trying to find some rice between the raisins): grunt.. 7ather.
Ayman shows up. Imagine a loud egyptian similar to those in the movies.
Ayman: Assalamu 3alaikum wa ra7...
la2aa ya 3ami! de mush ma32oola! mandi kaman! aih dah! kul youm mandi! yekhreb baitak!
Osama: ettaki ellah ya ayman wa ujlus, ennahu la mandi 3ajeeb.
Ayman: 3ageeb aih kharabee6 aih! Kul youm mandi! 3endanah meerza min iran beye3mal tahcheen zay el bomb... marwan min syria beye3mel mana2eesh.. khalid al kuwaity beye3mel makboos .. 7eta anah ya 3ami ba3melek fool ou 6a3miya.. bas mandi sub7 ou ghada ou 3asha? khalas ya 3am.. ana sert 3am baroo7 el7amam khams marat fil youm min dah elmandi!
Osama: enna el mandi akl al abaa2 wal ajdaad!
Ayman: la 7awla wala kuwata bellah.. ou aih dah.. dah kullu zebeeb! ou kharoof mara tanya kaman? 6ab laih moo ferakh?
Osama: enna al zebeeb mukawi lel3etham wa al la7mu mughathi lil ajsam.
ayman: ya kharabi! yekhreb bait el zebeeb zay makhrebte baity..
(calms down, talks in a low voice): osama.. ya 7abeebi.. ya rou7 albi.. bos... e7na ma3endanash ella 6ayartain nesta3melhum. wenta kul youm beyrou7ou le iran 3ashan begeebo zebeeb ou ba3dain la yemen 3ashan beygoubou la7am 3arabi. mush ma32oola yabni. da7na bene7tag el 6ayarat 3ashan nefagar shewayat 3emaraat hena wehnak? 6ab ezzay 7anfagar Big Ben etha el6ayarat kul youm ray7aa le san3aa2 3ashan betgeeb shewayat kheraf?
scene 3: osama gets ready to film his next video message. Ayman, the director, is pacing around waiting for him. Osama shows up, this time wearing a thoub and a besht instead of his usual military gear.
ayman: aih dah? fain elzey el3askery.
osama: lakad karrart an athhar bemanthar jadeed. Al agent, bu nezar, kala enna este6la3at al ra2y (viewer polls) tufathel an athhar bemanthar mu7abbab, 7ata nuzeedu sha3beyatena wa jamaheerena. Unthur, hatha althoub min shmagh englizi, wal ne3al carretti, hal a3jabatk?
ayman: yekhreb baitak enta ou abu nezar, 6ab eglis yalla khansawer.
osama: ana offakur fee an albus nathara cartier, model el sab3eenat, wa cigar fee fami, methl castro. sayu36eeny manthar jadeed. matha tathun?
ayman: aih ya 3am?!?? enta betesta3ba6 wallah aih?
osama: matha 3an meswak fel fam?
ayman: !!!!!
osama: ethan 3ood throos (toothpick)??
ayman: !!!!
osama: mesba7 ??..
ayman: egles ya 3ami da7na et2akharnah! talata, etneen, wa7ed... action!
osama: kayfa mekyaji?
ayman: eglis ya 3am khalas!
osama (clears his throats and starts reading): besmellah alra7man al ra7eem... ayuha alsha3bu al eslami al 3atheem.. ummuna fee kha6ar...
tabban.. cut.
ayman: aih dah? shou dee cut? anna elly ba2ool cut mush enta! ou laih 2ult cut??
osama: lakad kultu ummuna, wa laisa ommatuna.
ayman: ou 3ashan dee bet2ool cut! yakhi sa7e7 roo7uk ou khalas! enta 3aref elmashakel ahmed miskeen ra7 feeha 3ashan begeeb sheree6 camera wa7ed??? da huwa kan lazem yekhrug weyroo7 yerkuth ela kaboul... wel amreecan 3am beyrukthu warah... kulli dah 7ag sharee6 wa7ed! wenta 3abbalak laih e7na ma 6arashna sheree6 lel jazeera min zaman?
osama: 7asanan... le nabda2 mara ukhra. laken ya akh ayman, lematha anta la takra2 elrasalah?
ayman: ana balbes natharat 6ebeya. shakly mabekhawefsh... enta 2ouly fee a7ad beykhaf min wa7ed 3umroh sab3een beyalbes natharat 6ebbeyya??
scene 3: the IT department
characters:
Ahmed: a computer science graduate from UOB, he likes spending time on MSN messenger, playing Ages of Empire, and visiting the montadayat.
Mohammed: a computer science graduate from Carnegie Mellon, he is more into computer programming. He is a Linux lover, and a staunchly anti-Microsoft person.
Ahmed: Al Salamu 3alaykum ya aba Qassim. Kayfa 7aluka.
Mohammed: Wa 3alaykum alsalam wa ra7mattulah. Lastu bekhair ya Ahmed. Lakad ghazaa virus al 7asoob (computer).
Ahmed: Al la3na. Kaifa 7asala hatha? laysa 3endaka Norton Anti Virus?
Mo: Kalla, laken 3endee Mcafee.
Ahmed: Alam akul lak an tasta3mel Norton? Mcafee ta3ban!
Mo: Lakad 7aawalt ya Ahmed, laken dukan al 7asoob lam yakun 3endahu sewa Mcafee 98. 7awalt aydan an unazzel Norton min Kazaa, lakeny lam ajed shay2.
Ahmed: wa matha 3an Morpheus?
Mo: Salman mudeer al IT wa9'a3 block 3ala morpheus. Yakool enahu mukhel bel adab.
Ahmed: Taban... hatha huwa alza3eem kadem.
Osama: Al salamu 3ala man ettaba3a alhuda.
Mo and Ahmed: wa 3alaikum al salam.
Osama: hal al7asoob 3a6el?
Mo: na3am.
Osama: hal esta3malt Norton?
Any agents interested in buying this (crappy) show, please send me an email!
¶
1:50 AM
Friday, November 12, 2004
3eidkum embarak
عيدكم مبارك و كل عام وأنتم بخير
P.S. There aren't any Arabs or muslims around me here, and I'm feeling a bit lonely at this time of year (remembering the good eid days in Bahrain). If it's not too much to ask, please drop me (and the other readers) a greeting if you're a reader of this site! Thanks, and have a great eid.
¶
8:54 PM
Thursday, November 11, 2004
3atham allah ajurkum
This hasn't been a great month for the Arabic world. Sheikh Zayed, former ruler of the UAE, and Yasser Arafat, former leader of the PLO, have both passed away.
No one questions the honour and generousity of Sheikh Zayed, and the love he had for his country.
Arafat, whatever his mistakes may be ( and he had a lot of them), genuinely believed in his cause and believed he was helping the Palestinian people. Although he might have hindered rather than helped them (that's for the people to decide), he was also genuinely loved by his people, and resembled their cause for a long time.
In the end, I'll leave it for someone from Palestine to give his comment:
We will carry on our fight for a just peace and freedom, some say he is a terrorist, some say he is great, to me now he is free, something we are all fighting to achieve.
Ahmad, Palestinian territories (taken from BBC website)
May their souls rest in peace.
|
No one questions the honour and generousity of Sheikh Zayed, and the love he had for his country.
Arafat, whatever his mistakes may be ( and he had a lot of them), genuinely believed in his cause and believed he was helping the Palestinian people. Although he might have hindered rather than helped them (that's for the people to decide), he was also genuinely loved by his people, and resembled their cause for a long time.
In the end, I'll leave it for someone from Palestine to give his comment:
We will carry on our fight for a just peace and freedom, some say he is a terrorist, some say he is great, to me now he is free, something we are all fighting to achieve.
Ahmad, Palestinian territories (taken from BBC website)
May their souls rest in peace.
¶
6:28 PM
A lighter note on the law against gathering
Chanad covers this issue very well. All I have to say is that the new demonstration-regulating bill is wrong wrong wrong, and must be stopped. Not only that, it won't work either. The prisons will just simply swell again, like in the 1990s, and will lead to more (and less peaceful ways of) protesting and rioting.
One thing I'm wondering about is how will the law work if, let's say, Bahrain qualifies to the World Cup. Bahraini people, like many other Middle Eastern countries (particularly Iran), have a habit of going out in "joyful" car demonstrations for the any reasons whatsoever, particularly after winning football matches. The reason could be anything: losing one's shoe, having a good if6ar, or just for the heck of it. The streets become clogged with cars honking and making shows (skidding around), as well as bystanders gathering around. Everyone takes part or looks on: young men and women, kids, shop-workers, even housewives come out to watch. This happened when the meethaq came out, when Bahrain beat Iran in football, or when the referendum on the meethaq happened.
Now this new bill states that any public gathering where someone can attend without being invited must be approved by the government and is subject to strict regulation. The above "joyful" demonstrations do qualify as this. Furthermore, it forbids the use of cars in demonstrations. The above is mainly a car show. The bill also restricts the "demonstrations" to certain areas. What if I, a M7arrigi, want to throw an egg at joyful Riffa fans right in their headquarters?
Does this mean that the Bahraini team manager and three other players must submit an application for the demonstration three days before a match? What if we're playing Saudi Arabia or Iran? It would be arrogant and pretty presumptious of the players to think they'll beat them three days before the game.
This takes me back to the early nineties when Muharraq once one the (then) Amir cup. As usual, a big car rally and gathering was held around the Casino garden. There were women, men, and kids (including myself) attending. Suddenly, the police showed up and started firing tear gas. Admittedly, the car stunts were pretty crazy, but how does firing tear gas help in that? Wouldn't it increase the risk of accidents? Doesn't it mainly affect the helpless bystanders, which included kids (and me!)? Why weren't tear gases fired at Riffa rallies when they win something (which is very rare and usually by cheating or bribing)?
On a lighter note, if I was policeman, and a sadistic bastard, I could have some serious fun with this law. Imagine West Riffa winning something pretty worthless like the federation cup, and their fans holding a rally. I would show up in Land Cruiser, speeding at 150 kph, siren blazing off, and non-chalantly get out of the car. I'd walk in that usual police condescending manner, while chewing on a gum, spit the gum in front of a couple of Riffa fans (hopefully rich kids), step on it, and say in a thick m7arrigi accent, "re7t we6y yakhook."
I'd book him under the new demonstration-regulating bill and send him packing to Jadda Island prison for a couple of years, plus a fine.
Anyway, this is a serious issue; I shouldn't be making fun of it.
|
One thing I'm wondering about is how will the law work if, let's say, Bahrain qualifies to the World Cup. Bahraini people, like many other Middle Eastern countries (particularly Iran), have a habit of going out in "joyful" car demonstrations for the any reasons whatsoever, particularly after winning football matches. The reason could be anything: losing one's shoe, having a good if6ar, or just for the heck of it. The streets become clogged with cars honking and making shows (skidding around), as well as bystanders gathering around. Everyone takes part or looks on: young men and women, kids, shop-workers, even housewives come out to watch. This happened when the meethaq came out, when Bahrain beat Iran in football, or when the referendum on the meethaq happened.
Now this new bill states that any public gathering where someone can attend without being invited must be approved by the government and is subject to strict regulation. The above "joyful" demonstrations do qualify as this. Furthermore, it forbids the use of cars in demonstrations. The above is mainly a car show. The bill also restricts the "demonstrations" to certain areas. What if I, a M7arrigi, want to throw an egg at joyful Riffa fans right in their headquarters?
Does this mean that the Bahraini team manager and three other players must submit an application for the demonstration three days before a match? What if we're playing Saudi Arabia or Iran? It would be arrogant and pretty presumptious of the players to think they'll beat them three days before the game.
This takes me back to the early nineties when Muharraq once one the (then) Amir cup. As usual, a big car rally and gathering was held around the Casino garden. There were women, men, and kids (including myself) attending. Suddenly, the police showed up and started firing tear gas. Admittedly, the car stunts were pretty crazy, but how does firing tear gas help in that? Wouldn't it increase the risk of accidents? Doesn't it mainly affect the helpless bystanders, which included kids (and me!)? Why weren't tear gases fired at Riffa rallies when they win something (which is very rare and usually by cheating or bribing)?
On a lighter note, if I was policeman, and a sadistic bastard, I could have some serious fun with this law. Imagine West Riffa winning something pretty worthless like the federation cup, and their fans holding a rally. I would show up in Land Cruiser, speeding at 150 kph, siren blazing off, and non-chalantly get out of the car. I'd walk in that usual police condescending manner, while chewing on a gum, spit the gum in front of a couple of Riffa fans (hopefully rich kids), step on it, and say in a thick m7arrigi accent, "re7t we6y yakhook."
I'd book him under the new demonstration-regulating bill and send him packing to Jadda Island prison for a couple of years, plus a fine.
Anyway, this is a serious issue; I shouldn't be making fun of it.
¶
3:34 AM
Someone dear to me
I received this Al Wasat supplement in the mail (pages 25-40). Immediately, a smile appeared on my face.
It's a supplement about the national union organization, which was the first nationalistic (not sectarian, like nowadays) in Bahrain. It had its roots in unions and labours' demands, but quickly transformed into a national movement. Their demands from the British (back then Bahrain was a British protectorate)and the Al Khalifa family were equal rights and a share in government. Sadly, most of its leaders were either detained, arrested, tortured, or sent to exile in St Helena (where Napoleon was sent).
Everyone who cares about Bahrain should read about this phase of our history.
What put a smile on my face, however, was that a saw someone I recognize, and dear to my heart, in two of the pictures (pages 26 and 40). He's my grandfather, allah yru7mah; the same person who I detailed one of his escapades in a previous post (The Old Days in Bahrain). He wasn't a very major player in the organization, but he was still very active non-the less. To say the least, I'm very proud of that episode in his life, and proud to be his grandson.
|
It's a supplement about the national union organization, which was the first nationalistic (not sectarian, like nowadays) in Bahrain. It had its roots in unions and labours' demands, but quickly transformed into a national movement. Their demands from the British (back then Bahrain was a British protectorate)and the Al Khalifa family were equal rights and a share in government. Sadly, most of its leaders were either detained, arrested, tortured, or sent to exile in St Helena (where Napoleon was sent).
Everyone who cares about Bahrain should read about this phase of our history.
What put a smile on my face, however, was that a saw someone I recognize, and dear to my heart, in two of the pictures (pages 26 and 40). He's my grandfather, allah yru7mah; the same person who I detailed one of his escapades in a previous post (The Old Days in Bahrain). He wasn't a very major player in the organization, but he was still very active non-the less. To say the least, I'm very proud of that episode in his life, and proud to be his grandson.
¶
1:34 AM
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
prank
A friend of mine forwarded me this.
It's a message from Jama3at ansar al eslam, or the group of the supporters of Islam-Bahrain Branch. They basically swear they're allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and warn of imminent attacks and bombs in Bahrain. They tell all Kufars, Americans, and their supporter to beware, and fall all believers to avoid the following places:
-The residency of the American ambassador
-The American Embassy
-All decadent shopping malls
-University of Bahrain
-Oil pipes in Bahrain
Now at first I was worried. I'm coming back to bahrain mid christmas until after the new year, and that seems the perfect time for a target. Furthermore, all of the above places I do pass by in one way or another. I like going to the desert, especially in winter, and so does the rest of Bahrain. Two of my good friends live in the same area as the American ambassador, and my aunt's house is less than half a mile from the American Embassy, in Abu Ghazal.
Also, what exactly qualifies as a "decadent" shopping mall? I'm sure my definition of decadent, although pretty conservative, does not exactly conform to their definition of decadent. Is decadent anywhere where women and men mix? That would include everywhere! So do Geant, al Makhazen Al Kubra, and Jawad qualify? So what are people to do? Starve??
Clubs and Discos? Well.. It's New Years, so.. no comment.
And why is it University of Bahrain? There are much more "decadent" universities in Bahrain. How about the Canadian University? And why would you exactly target a place of learning? Is it because of the resistance to separating males and females? There are also substantial fraction of the university that are hardcore fundamentalist. Hmmmmm......
Also, I can see how bombing the American embassy or the residency of the ambassador would hurt the Americans, but how would the rest primarily hurt the americans? We pump out insignificant amounts of oil onto the market, and clubs, discos, and shopping malls are attended by bored teens, many of them Bahraini.
Hmmm......
Taking a closer look at the site, however, I became much more skeptical. My gut feeling, and I could be wrong (I hope not) is that this is a prank by some guy who has too much time on his hand. The website is just riddled with many spelling and grammatical mistakes. For example, in the header, they call him "shei7" osama bin laden" instead of "sheikh". Moumeneen is also spelled wrong: moumeneyeeen. Then again, these guys are not known to be the brightest guys at school, however, especially if the guy who wrote it is the same guy they're going to dispose off in the suicide attack (you wouldn't waste a good brain, no matter what your beliefs, would you?).
There was another part I wasn't very sure of. They call Osama bin Laden "Hujjat Al Eslam". Now correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm definitely not sure of this, but I thought that was an expression used mainly by shias, not sunnis. I don't know how much Bin Laden would've liked being called that.
|
It's a message from Jama3at ansar al eslam, or the group of the supporters of Islam-Bahrain Branch. They basically swear they're allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and warn of imminent attacks and bombs in Bahrain. They tell all Kufars, Americans, and their supporter to beware, and fall all believers to avoid the following places:
-The residency of the American ambassador
-The American Embassy
-All decadent shopping malls
-University of Bahrain
-Oil pipes in Bahrain
Now at first I was worried. I'm coming back to bahrain mid christmas until after the new year, and that seems the perfect time for a target. Furthermore, all of the above places I do pass by in one way or another. I like going to the desert, especially in winter, and so does the rest of Bahrain. Two of my good friends live in the same area as the American ambassador, and my aunt's house is less than half a mile from the American Embassy, in Abu Ghazal.
Also, what exactly qualifies as a "decadent" shopping mall? I'm sure my definition of decadent, although pretty conservative, does not exactly conform to their definition of decadent. Is decadent anywhere where women and men mix? That would include everywhere! So do Geant, al Makhazen Al Kubra, and Jawad qualify? So what are people to do? Starve??
Clubs and Discos? Well.. It's New Years, so.. no comment.
And why is it University of Bahrain? There are much more "decadent" universities in Bahrain. How about the Canadian University? And why would you exactly target a place of learning? Is it because of the resistance to separating males and females? There are also substantial fraction of the university that are hardcore fundamentalist. Hmmmmm......
Also, I can see how bombing the American embassy or the residency of the ambassador would hurt the Americans, but how would the rest primarily hurt the americans? We pump out insignificant amounts of oil onto the market, and clubs, discos, and shopping malls are attended by bored teens, many of them Bahraini.
Hmmm......
Taking a closer look at the site, however, I became much more skeptical. My gut feeling, and I could be wrong (I hope not) is that this is a prank by some guy who has too much time on his hand. The website is just riddled with many spelling and grammatical mistakes. For example, in the header, they call him "shei7" osama bin laden" instead of "sheikh". Moumeneen is also spelled wrong: moumeneyeeen. Then again, these guys are not known to be the brightest guys at school, however, especially if the guy who wrote it is the same guy they're going to dispose off in the suicide attack (you wouldn't waste a good brain, no matter what your beliefs, would you?).
There was another part I wasn't very sure of. They call Osama bin Laden "Hujjat Al Eslam". Now correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm definitely not sure of this, but I thought that was an expression used mainly by shias, not sunnis. I don't know how much Bin Laden would've liked being called that.
¶
7:05 PM
Anyone want to buy a share in my blog?
My blog's stock portfolio.
If you're really a procrastenator (like I am), and want a good excuse from work, visit the above site. Apparently I'm not doing so well (might do with the fact that I don't post for months on end, and I tend to piss people off).
This is the kind of stuff coming from America that I love. Why can't we have more of this and less warfare coupled with imperialistic tendencies?
P.S. I've added a new url address: bahrainiblog.tk . There is also a new recent comments section (it looks a bit crap, I know, but it's better than nothing!)
|
If you're really a procrastenator (like I am), and want a good excuse from work, visit the above site. Apparently I'm not doing so well (might do with the fact that I don't post for months on end, and I tend to piss people off).
This is the kind of stuff coming from America that I love. Why can't we have more of this and less warfare coupled with imperialistic tendencies?
P.S. I've added a new url address: bahrainiblog.tk . There is also a new recent comments section (it looks a bit crap, I know, but it's better than nothing!)
¶
2:54 AM
Monday, November 08, 2004
alter ego: a message
Warning: The comments below might be extremely controversial and highly offensive to some people. They do not in anyway represent my held opinion, but they only reflect thoughts that have passed at my mind at one point. You have been warned. (please read explanatory note at previous post).
Lately, I've come to really disdain, in fact hate, many of the Arabic blogs online.
We are completely against the Iraqi insurgency in Iraq, and we think them absolutely barbaric. The American troops, on the other hand, although we might criticize them, we still say the jury is out, and we can't even begin to compare them to our own brutal armies.
We don't really like Arafat, and it's about time he left. George Bush and Sharon, on the other hand, although we might criticize them, but we still say the jury is out, and we can't put them in the same position as our own corrupt and barbaric leaders. In fact, we can't wait to have an ever lasting peace based on the road map (i.e. their terms), where we all live happily ever after with our cuddly, peaceful new neighbour. It's just our leaders who bigoted and hard-headed!
Life here is so fucked up. Arrests in our home countries are happening all the time, and poverty is rocketing. America, on the other hand, where 35 million people don't even receive healthcare, and raving evangelical christians who think an Israeli state somehow will lead to the coming of chirist run the country,is pretty rosy, and oh do we wish our country was America.
BULLSHIT.
Basically, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, most arabic bloggers cater to an American and Western audience. Saying extremely controversial and politically incorrect things about arabs is fine, but there are certain limits that when criticizing Americans should not be endorsed by the blogger. All of our leaders are absolute shitholes, while their leaders might be controversial, we might not even agree with them, but describing them as evil shitholes? No way.
This was epitomized to me on a comment exchange I viewed not too far ago on some blog. Two guys, one who was very pro-Islamic and anti-American, and the other who was very pro-american and anti-Arabic, started off in a heated debate. The arabic guy decided to bring in sweeping stereotypes about Jews, and the American decided to bring in sweeping disgusting stereotypes about Islam and muslims. The owner of the blog decided to intervene after the Arabic guy posted another comment, and said he will not tolerate anti-semitism here (and I doubt here he had the tact or the brains to mean by semitism both Arabs and jewish people).
In other words. Let's tolerate stereotypes about muslims, but let us not dare say stereotypes about jews. After all, there are certain established poltical correctnes standards in all the western medias, which include not making very general and controversial claims about jews, and we dare not break them. Muslims? Well, we're in the news very often, and there isn't a single thing that hasn't been said about Islam, so hey, why break the tradition. Most of our readers are Western anyway.
BULLSHIT.
Then another commenter decided to reach the startling, (and obviously well researched conclusion), that judging by reading middle-eastern blogs online, he can reach the conclusion, which he posted as an absolute truth, that most arabs welcome american presence in the middle East, and are very happy about the liberation of Iraq. Well let me then reach my own sweeping conclusion from my very thorough research, and post them as absolute truths (and they're definitely more true than this commenter's conclusions):
1.Most arabs might want the American troops to establish security and for Iraq to have freedom, but they definitely want to see the maximum amount of casualties on the way inflicted on American troops. After all, that is the tried and tested way of making them leave a country eventually (Vietnam, anyone?). Basically, we hope them the best because they are the lesser of two evils, but to use Mr. Bush lingo, still evil non the less. They are like a swarm of locusts, better yet vermin, who have spread around our countries eating everything green in their way. They are in Bahrain, qatar, saudi arabia, iraq, afghanistan, jordan, egypt, and in Israel. We do not think, like these blogs might lead you to believe, in the extremely idealistic and wellsounding but bullshit thoughts that the american troops are here to spread prosperity and freedom. Instead, we believe they are here to profit from our oil, make a strategic presence in the middle East, help Israel, and generally follow their own self-interest. The sooner we can get rid of them, and send them back to the bum-fuck red-neck town they came from, the better.
2. Most Arabs might say now that a peaceful solution is the best for Palestine, but that is simply because we are powerless to bring any other solution ourselves. If we had the choice of a peaceful solution or the state ofIsrael collapsing tomorrow, I can absolutely guarantee you most would want the latter. and although most arabs would think the main reason for our failures are of our own doing, we do not, as these blogs might lead one to believe, only blame ourselves and our leaders, but we also put a lot of the blame on the west. After all, we were not the ones who decided to award them a land based on the slogan, "a land without people, for the people without a land." Neither were we the ones with big hangovers of permitting the massive and barbaric slaughter of millions of jews in concentration camps. Furthermore, contrary to what these blogs might lead one to believe, we revile Sharon, and have no wish whatsoever to conduct peace talks with him. In fact, we wish that a very horrible death is inflicted upon him, such as his flesh being slowly eaten by rats, while he shrieks loudly from the pain.
3.We might have many problems and difficulties in our region, but contrary to what these blogs would lead one to believe, most arabs do not want westerners to intervene and help us. In fact, the west is the last resort of help we want for our problems.
4. Contrary to what many blogs might lead one to believe, these are not views held by a small fundamentalist, and even terrorist minority, but they are very widespread, indeed if not the mainly held opinion.
5. Contrary to what most arabic blogs would lead one to believe, they do not reflect the viewpoint of the average person in the middle east, nor are they written by the average person in the middle east. Most of these blogs, including mine, are written by people who are very much entangled with western thoughts, or have studied in the west, or have a very solid western influence in their life. Therefore, take what they blog, including myself, with A VERY BIG pile of salt.
My whole point here is not to discuss the merits of these beliefs, nor to say if they are right or wrong. My point is to make sure people out there do understand that these are mainstream viewpoints, and not viewpoint of scruffy, smelly jordanians holed up in a house in falluja foaming in the mouth at then next oppurtunity to behead someone.
So don't blame the messenger.
|
Lately, I've come to really disdain, in fact hate, many of the Arabic blogs online.
We are completely against the Iraqi insurgency in Iraq, and we think them absolutely barbaric. The American troops, on the other hand, although we might criticize them, we still say the jury is out, and we can't even begin to compare them to our own brutal armies.
We don't really like Arafat, and it's about time he left. George Bush and Sharon, on the other hand, although we might criticize them, but we still say the jury is out, and we can't put them in the same position as our own corrupt and barbaric leaders. In fact, we can't wait to have an ever lasting peace based on the road map (i.e. their terms), where we all live happily ever after with our cuddly, peaceful new neighbour. It's just our leaders who bigoted and hard-headed!
Life here is so fucked up. Arrests in our home countries are happening all the time, and poverty is rocketing. America, on the other hand, where 35 million people don't even receive healthcare, and raving evangelical christians who think an Israeli state somehow will lead to the coming of chirist run the country,is pretty rosy, and oh do we wish our country was America.
BULLSHIT.
Basically, as I've mentioned in an earlier post, most arabic bloggers cater to an American and Western audience. Saying extremely controversial and politically incorrect things about arabs is fine, but there are certain limits that when criticizing Americans should not be endorsed by the blogger. All of our leaders are absolute shitholes, while their leaders might be controversial, we might not even agree with them, but describing them as evil shitholes? No way.
This was epitomized to me on a comment exchange I viewed not too far ago on some blog. Two guys, one who was very pro-Islamic and anti-American, and the other who was very pro-american and anti-Arabic, started off in a heated debate. The arabic guy decided to bring in sweeping stereotypes about Jews, and the American decided to bring in sweeping disgusting stereotypes about Islam and muslims. The owner of the blog decided to intervene after the Arabic guy posted another comment, and said he will not tolerate anti-semitism here (and I doubt here he had the tact or the brains to mean by semitism both Arabs and jewish people).
In other words. Let's tolerate stereotypes about muslims, but let us not dare say stereotypes about jews. After all, there are certain established poltical correctnes standards in all the western medias, which include not making very general and controversial claims about jews, and we dare not break them. Muslims? Well, we're in the news very often, and there isn't a single thing that hasn't been said about Islam, so hey, why break the tradition. Most of our readers are Western anyway.
BULLSHIT.
Then another commenter decided to reach the startling, (and obviously well researched conclusion), that judging by reading middle-eastern blogs online, he can reach the conclusion, which he posted as an absolute truth, that most arabs welcome american presence in the middle East, and are very happy about the liberation of Iraq. Well let me then reach my own sweeping conclusion from my very thorough research, and post them as absolute truths (and they're definitely more true than this commenter's conclusions):
1.Most arabs might want the American troops to establish security and for Iraq to have freedom, but they definitely want to see the maximum amount of casualties on the way inflicted on American troops. After all, that is the tried and tested way of making them leave a country eventually (Vietnam, anyone?). Basically, we hope them the best because they are the lesser of two evils, but to use Mr. Bush lingo, still evil non the less. They are like a swarm of locusts, better yet vermin, who have spread around our countries eating everything green in their way. They are in Bahrain, qatar, saudi arabia, iraq, afghanistan, jordan, egypt, and in Israel. We do not think, like these blogs might lead you to believe, in the extremely idealistic and wellsounding but bullshit thoughts that the american troops are here to spread prosperity and freedom. Instead, we believe they are here to profit from our oil, make a strategic presence in the middle East, help Israel, and generally follow their own self-interest. The sooner we can get rid of them, and send them back to the bum-fuck red-neck town they came from, the better.
2. Most Arabs might say now that a peaceful solution is the best for Palestine, but that is simply because we are powerless to bring any other solution ourselves. If we had the choice of a peaceful solution or the state ofIsrael collapsing tomorrow, I can absolutely guarantee you most would want the latter. and although most arabs would think the main reason for our failures are of our own doing, we do not, as these blogs might lead one to believe, only blame ourselves and our leaders, but we also put a lot of the blame on the west. After all, we were not the ones who decided to award them a land based on the slogan, "a land without people, for the people without a land." Neither were we the ones with big hangovers of permitting the massive and barbaric slaughter of millions of jews in concentration camps. Furthermore, contrary to what these blogs might lead one to believe, we revile Sharon, and have no wish whatsoever to conduct peace talks with him. In fact, we wish that a very horrible death is inflicted upon him, such as his flesh being slowly eaten by rats, while he shrieks loudly from the pain.
3.We might have many problems and difficulties in our region, but contrary to what these blogs would lead one to believe, most arabs do not want westerners to intervene and help us. In fact, the west is the last resort of help we want for our problems.
4. Contrary to what many blogs might lead one to believe, these are not views held by a small fundamentalist, and even terrorist minority, but they are very widespread, indeed if not the mainly held opinion.
5. Contrary to what most arabic blogs would lead one to believe, they do not reflect the viewpoint of the average person in the middle east, nor are they written by the average person in the middle east. Most of these blogs, including mine, are written by people who are very much entangled with western thoughts, or have studied in the west, or have a very solid western influence in their life. Therefore, take what they blog, including myself, with A VERY BIG pile of salt.
My whole point here is not to discuss the merits of these beliefs, nor to say if they are right or wrong. My point is to make sure people out there do understand that these are mainstream viewpoints, and not viewpoint of scruffy, smelly jordanians holed up in a house in falluja foaming in the mouth at then next oppurtunity to behead someone.
So don't blame the messenger.
¶
11:06 PM
Friday, November 05, 2004
The gulf: 29th state of India?
Fact: In all of the gulf countries, a substantial part of the population, if not the majority, are expatriates, particularly from the Indian subcontinent.
Fact: In all of the gulf countries, the MAJORITY of workers are expatriates, particularly from the Indian subcontinent.
Fact: In all of the gulf countries, if the foreign workers were to suddenly and immediately leave (or strike), the countries would come to a complete standstill, particularly if those workers are from the Indian subcontinent.
conjecture: what if all of the foreign workers, perhaps maybe on direction from their governments, were to hold a massive strike, demanding better wages, better living conditions, and most of all citizenship?
This scenario is closer to happening, and more probable than what you'd think. Apparently there are already clauses in the WTO agreement about fundamental rights for workers, and their rights to citizenship. What if tomorrow there was a strain in Indian-Gulf relationships, and their government urged the workers in the gulf to rise? On a different scenario, what if all the balushis, yemenis and jordanians were to be relieved of their jobs (because of Bahranizations), and then you have, by some estimates, up to 50,000 people that are the only people armed in the country who have not integrated that well into their surrounding society, and who are extremely pissed off?
There are rumours around circling that the U.S., in the very foreseeable future, is going to push hard for much better rights for foreign workers, especially in the gulf, and probably for their citizenship (thought some sort of UN or WTO agreement). Still a second rumour is that the real goal of the McKinsey study (and the crown prince) is to awaken people in the gulf to the serious reality of this scenario, which far surprasses the importance and problem of unemployment in bahrain (which is a very real problem). Apparently this is why the Saudi labour minister attended the opening of the workshop, since his economy also depends mainly on foreign workers. Abdulrahman Al-Nuaimi has a great, and very important article on this. I urge everyone to read it.
Consider the alternatives if there was some sort of massive strike by foreign labourers, or massive international and U.S. pressure for their citizenship:
1. Either we refuse to comply, which results (or continues) in a strike by foreign labourers. This lead to the absolute collapse of our economy.
2.We do comply, and all the foreing workers and their families are given nationalities. This fundamentally changes the makeup, policies, and dynamics of the gulf, especially since in some places, such as Dubai, about 90% of the population is foreign. It would completely seize to be an Arabic place, and would probably be the twenty-ninth state of india.
Either way, the alternatives are scary.
Solutions? It's easy to identify problems and their consequences, finding a solution is much harder.
|
Fact: In all of the gulf countries, the MAJORITY of workers are expatriates, particularly from the Indian subcontinent.
Fact: In all of the gulf countries, if the foreign workers were to suddenly and immediately leave (or strike), the countries would come to a complete standstill, particularly if those workers are from the Indian subcontinent.
conjecture: what if all of the foreign workers, perhaps maybe on direction from their governments, were to hold a massive strike, demanding better wages, better living conditions, and most of all citizenship?
This scenario is closer to happening, and more probable than what you'd think. Apparently there are already clauses in the WTO agreement about fundamental rights for workers, and their rights to citizenship. What if tomorrow there was a strain in Indian-Gulf relationships, and their government urged the workers in the gulf to rise? On a different scenario, what if all the balushis, yemenis and jordanians were to be relieved of their jobs (because of Bahranizations), and then you have, by some estimates, up to 50,000 people that are the only people armed in the country who have not integrated that well into their surrounding society, and who are extremely pissed off?
There are rumours around circling that the U.S., in the very foreseeable future, is going to push hard for much better rights for foreign workers, especially in the gulf, and probably for their citizenship (thought some sort of UN or WTO agreement). Still a second rumour is that the real goal of the McKinsey study (and the crown prince) is to awaken people in the gulf to the serious reality of this scenario, which far surprasses the importance and problem of unemployment in bahrain (which is a very real problem). Apparently this is why the Saudi labour minister attended the opening of the workshop, since his economy also depends mainly on foreign workers. Abdulrahman Al-Nuaimi has a great, and very important article on this. I urge everyone to read it.
Consider the alternatives if there was some sort of massive strike by foreign labourers, or massive international and U.S. pressure for their citizenship:
1. Either we refuse to comply, which results (or continues) in a strike by foreign labourers. This lead to the absolute collapse of our economy.
2.We do comply, and all the foreing workers and their families are given nationalities. This fundamentally changes the makeup, policies, and dynamics of the gulf, especially since in some places, such as Dubai, about 90% of the population is foreign. It would completely seize to be an Arabic place, and would probably be the twenty-ninth state of india.
Either way, the alternatives are scary.
Solutions? It's easy to identify problems and their consequences, finding a solution is much harder.
¶
2:20 AM
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
alter ego (the devil's advocate): blogging
These last few months have been interesting, to say the least. I've lost interest in day-to-day politics, and for some reason I'm much more into drawn-out, involved, theoretical arguments. I know, it's sad, but the good thing about this is that you have time to analyze ideas and arguments from a different and opposing point of view. Now most of these arguments I don't agree with, but still it's interesting to look at the other side. Hence, I decided to start a series of posts called alter ego, where I basically entertain different thoughts, even though I might not accept them in the end.
Warning: The comments below might be extremely controversial and highly offensive to some people. They do not in anyway represent my held opinion, but they only reflect thoughts that have passed at my mind at one point. You have been warned.
I've received recently an email from a (non-Arabic) reader commenting that she liked the blog, but that she thought it was too involved in Bahraini matters, and that maybe I should expand it to include other, more internationally accessible matters. Hell, she added, it might even get me more readers.
Although the email was worded in such a friendly manner, I couldn't help but feeling pissed off. I set up this blog primarily for Bahraini and Arabic viewers (or those who live in Middle eastern countries), and now I'm supposed to change my style just to suit a couple of westerners?
I started browsing through my comments, however, and I noticed that a big chunk (if not most) of my comments came from westerners. I despaired.
My main motivation for writing this blog is to write about matters that are primarily of concern to bahrain, and to viewers who are somehow involved in the country. I'm more than happy to receive input from people outside, as that can never be a bad thing, but I'm not going to lie about my main goal. I know it sounds hypocritical, since I'm writing in English, which obviously biases my audience towards affluent arabs or westerners, but I'm yet to find a way to blog in arabic!
The reason I got pissed off is that there seems to be so many Middle Eastern blogs on the net, and most of them seem to be directed to western, mainly american audiences. The blogs are mainly about, "oh, my country has a lot of fucked up things. You have it so good in other countries." or, "hey, its not so bad here, we have a lot of the stuff you have over there, we like the same music, TV shows, and movies you watch over there", or "oh, look, not all arabs are murderous terrorists, here's my nice cuddly pet that I have." They seem to be aimed at readers in America or Europe to make them go, "oh look, the world is not so different after all, these guys eat just as we do, work just as we do, and fornicate just as we do." Or, "oh, that's a nice traditional dress, it looks different yet local. Oh I love to look at their local traditions. It's these small differences that makes that unites the world and makes it such a nice place." Basically, the blogs either want to tell the outside world that our area and our rulers are so messeed up, or that we Arabs are not so bad and share a lot of similaritites with others. In both cases, the goal is the same: somehow empathize or construct a positive relationship with a western audience.
What absolute toss.
Now I have no problem with any of the above strategies, since they do basically represent realities in the arabic world. Smooching up to a foreign audience, however, is not my main aim. I don't want to look to the outside world, I want to look to our inside world. If in the course of this I get a western audience, then I'm overjoyed. This is definitely not my main target, however.
We have enough problems as it is in our own part of the world, and enough problems articulating our viewpoints to our own people, let alone making them to the outside world. Alas, there is a bigger problem with all of this.
My main objection is that that Edward Said made in his book orientalism: that of the people doing the studying, and those who are being studied. It's this idea of people looking at us, and going, " oh how interesting, let me study these people and find out more about them." The best example came from an email someone sent to me: Again, he was very nice, and I'm sure he's a very friendly guy. However, he sent me an email saying that he was writing a thesis on the blossoming of so many blogs in the Arabic world. He sent me a survey with questions, and kindly requested me to answer them. The questions were like, " what made you start blogging?" "Was it particular events in your country, or was it a particular event in your life" " What do you think your blog will achieve?"
I just felt like one of these pandas being studied and filmed in the wild for a documentary. "Oh, here is where the creature sleeps and eats." "Oh, how remarkable, he has thoughts like us!" "Oh, so that's why he had those thoughts." It's this idea of orientalists treating "orientals" just like objects to be analyzed all over again. Well thanks, but not for me.
Suddenly Arabs and studyin their culture is the "hip" thing to learn about again. Shitloads of people are coming up to me and going "Oh I want to start learning Arabic! I want to travel to the middle East!" Shitloads of books are written on the middle east. Enrollments in Arabic and Middle Eastern degrees have sky rocketed; shit, even posh hippies are into shisha and listening to Amr Diab now. We're the creature that has to be learned more about, analyzed, and put in perspective. "Why do they bomb us?" "Oh they've had conflict over many centuries with the west. Oh, they have a remarkable tradition and history. Let's learn it and analyze them."
How come we can't do that? How come you don't get Arabic books entitled, "The lifes and habits of a midwestern american anonymous tow through the eyes of a Djibotian" How come we don't get Arabic documentaries entitled, "Seven pillars of wisdom: how to tame a Scotsman."
My new goal in life, is that before I die, I write a book called, " The English : An analysis of their mentality, habits, and customs from a Bahraini perspective"
|
Warning: The comments below might be extremely controversial and highly offensive to some people. They do not in anyway represent my held opinion, but they only reflect thoughts that have passed at my mind at one point. You have been warned.
I've received recently an email from a (non-Arabic) reader commenting that she liked the blog, but that she thought it was too involved in Bahraini matters, and that maybe I should expand it to include other, more internationally accessible matters. Hell, she added, it might even get me more readers.
Although the email was worded in such a friendly manner, I couldn't help but feeling pissed off. I set up this blog primarily for Bahraini and Arabic viewers (or those who live in Middle eastern countries), and now I'm supposed to change my style just to suit a couple of westerners?
I started browsing through my comments, however, and I noticed that a big chunk (if not most) of my comments came from westerners. I despaired.
My main motivation for writing this blog is to write about matters that are primarily of concern to bahrain, and to viewers who are somehow involved in the country. I'm more than happy to receive input from people outside, as that can never be a bad thing, but I'm not going to lie about my main goal. I know it sounds hypocritical, since I'm writing in English, which obviously biases my audience towards affluent arabs or westerners, but I'm yet to find a way to blog in arabic!
The reason I got pissed off is that there seems to be so many Middle Eastern blogs on the net, and most of them seem to be directed to western, mainly american audiences. The blogs are mainly about, "oh, my country has a lot of fucked up things. You have it so good in other countries." or, "hey, its not so bad here, we have a lot of the stuff you have over there, we like the same music, TV shows, and movies you watch over there", or "oh, look, not all arabs are murderous terrorists, here's my nice cuddly pet that I have." They seem to be aimed at readers in America or Europe to make them go, "oh look, the world is not so different after all, these guys eat just as we do, work just as we do, and fornicate just as we do." Or, "oh, that's a nice traditional dress, it looks different yet local. Oh I love to look at their local traditions. It's these small differences that makes that unites the world and makes it such a nice place." Basically, the blogs either want to tell the outside world that our area and our rulers are so messeed up, or that we Arabs are not so bad and share a lot of similaritites with others. In both cases, the goal is the same: somehow empathize or construct a positive relationship with a western audience.
What absolute toss.
Now I have no problem with any of the above strategies, since they do basically represent realities in the arabic world. Smooching up to a foreign audience, however, is not my main aim. I don't want to look to the outside world, I want to look to our inside world. If in the course of this I get a western audience, then I'm overjoyed. This is definitely not my main target, however.
We have enough problems as it is in our own part of the world, and enough problems articulating our viewpoints to our own people, let alone making them to the outside world. Alas, there is a bigger problem with all of this.
My main objection is that that Edward Said made in his book orientalism: that of the people doing the studying, and those who are being studied. It's this idea of people looking at us, and going, " oh how interesting, let me study these people and find out more about them." The best example came from an email someone sent to me: Again, he was very nice, and I'm sure he's a very friendly guy. However, he sent me an email saying that he was writing a thesis on the blossoming of so many blogs in the Arabic world. He sent me a survey with questions, and kindly requested me to answer them. The questions were like, " what made you start blogging?" "Was it particular events in your country, or was it a particular event in your life" " What do you think your blog will achieve?"
I just felt like one of these pandas being studied and filmed in the wild for a documentary. "Oh, here is where the creature sleeps and eats." "Oh, how remarkable, he has thoughts like us!" "Oh, so that's why he had those thoughts." It's this idea of orientalists treating "orientals" just like objects to be analyzed all over again. Well thanks, but not for me.
Suddenly Arabs and studyin their culture is the "hip" thing to learn about again. Shitloads of people are coming up to me and going "Oh I want to start learning Arabic! I want to travel to the middle East!" Shitloads of books are written on the middle east. Enrollments in Arabic and Middle Eastern degrees have sky rocketed; shit, even posh hippies are into shisha and listening to Amr Diab now. We're the creature that has to be learned more about, analyzed, and put in perspective. "Why do they bomb us?" "Oh they've had conflict over many centuries with the west. Oh, they have a remarkable tradition and history. Let's learn it and analyze them."
How come we can't do that? How come you don't get Arabic books entitled, "The lifes and habits of a midwestern american anonymous tow through the eyes of a Djibotian" How come we don't get Arabic documentaries entitled, "Seven pillars of wisdom: how to tame a Scotsman."
My new goal in life, is that before I die, I write a book called, " The English : An analysis of their mentality, habits, and customs from a Bahraini perspective"
¶
10:39 PM
Powered for Blogger by Blogger templates
