To start with I'd like to point to this description of Italy on wikipedia which explains ths country's position as one of the richest and most developed in the world:
Modern Italy is a democratic republic. It has been ranked the world's twenty third most-developed country[11] and its Quality-of-Life Index has been ranked in the top ten in the world.[12] Italy enjoys a very high standard of living, and has a high nominal GDP per capita.[13][14] It is a founding member of what is now the European Union and part of the Eurozone. Italy is also a member of the G8, G20 and NATO. It has the world's seventh-largest nominal GDP, tenth highest GDP (PPP)[15] and the sixth highest government budget in the world.[16]
Having read that it is simply astonishing that this is also the country that for several years has suffered from a growing waste management problem in Naples and Campagnia without ever making the slightest inroads into cleaning itself up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11851657
What is most astonishing is the blatant shameless corruption of the country, a country that decided to use 720,000 euros of EU funding to hold a pop concert rather than clean up the city. Naples is unbelievably filthy and disgusting and a cause of embarrassement for the country as a whole. Piles of rubbish can be found all over the city and no-one has lifted a finger to solve the problem. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi apparently seems more interested in hosting bunga bunga parties with underage Moroccan hookers than cleaning up Naples.
The how and why the problem got this bad and the role of the local mafia in obstructing attempts to find a solution is relatively irrelevant. The country's government should have done something about this a long time ago. They should have been stronger in tackling the mafia influence and imposing their authority. But why haven't they? Because Italy as a whole is a country populated by selfish and dishonest people. A wild and unsubstantiated generalisation I know, but I live here and that's my feeling. People simply don't care about the environment or each other while government officials are too happy to take a bung to turn a blind eye. How can this happen in the 27th most developed country in the world? Because people only care about themselves and as long as the rubbish isn't piling up outside your own doorstep, then why should you do anything about it. If Italy is to solve the waste problems in Naples it won't come from any sort of government policy or action, it will have to come from a general change of attitude in the population as a whole.
sabato 27 novembre 2010
lunedì 27 settembre 2010
OIC comedians or what!
I've just come across this hilarious story from the Saudi Gazette about the OIC - that's the Organisation of the Islamic Conference - calling on the UN and international community to respect religions:
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010092784121
That's right people, Muslim countries calling on non-Muslims to respect people's religious rights:
“We emphasize the need to develop, at the UN, including the HRC, a legally binding institutional instrument to promote respect for all religions and cultural values and prevent intolerance, discrimination and the instigation of hatred against any group or followers of any religion.”
So let me get this straight. Countries such as Saudi Arabia where any religion other than Islam is banned, want the UN to impose religious tolerance and respect on its members. Countries like Iran that recognises only four religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zorastrianism) and which imposes shariah on its citizens regardless of their religion wants to the UN to prevent religious discrimination. The OIC whose members refuse to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it includes freedom of religion, want the rest of the world to guard against the instigation of religious hatred.
Does anyone else see the word hypocrisy screaming out at them?
Countries that stone people to death because they want to chose their own religion now want to preach to the rest of the free world about religious tolerance... Seriously, what would you think about Hitler preaching about Jewish rights?
There's an expression in English, take the log out of your own eye before you try removing the speck from others'. Never could that expression be more apt than for the OIC.
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010092784121
That's right people, Muslim countries calling on non-Muslims to respect people's religious rights:
“We emphasize the need to develop, at the UN, including the HRC, a legally binding institutional instrument to promote respect for all religions and cultural values and prevent intolerance, discrimination and the instigation of hatred against any group or followers of any religion.”
So let me get this straight. Countries such as Saudi Arabia where any religion other than Islam is banned, want the UN to impose religious tolerance and respect on its members. Countries like Iran that recognises only four religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zorastrianism) and which imposes shariah on its citizens regardless of their religion wants to the UN to prevent religious discrimination. The OIC whose members refuse to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because it includes freedom of religion, want the rest of the world to guard against the instigation of religious hatred.
Does anyone else see the word hypocrisy screaming out at them?
Countries that stone people to death because they want to chose their own religion now want to preach to the rest of the free world about religious tolerance... Seriously, what would you think about Hitler preaching about Jewish rights?
There's an expression in English, take the log out of your own eye before you try removing the speck from others'. Never could that expression be more apt than for the OIC.
lunedì 13 settembre 2010
Muslim hypocrasy to the fore, again
I've followed with interest this Ground Zero mosque debate and recently found a remarkably similar case from Indonesia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11279317
My personal opinion on the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is to agree with Brrack Obama. Religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed in the States and there is no administrative reason why a private developper who has bought the land shouldn't build whatever building he choses to, provided it's not a terrorist training centre of course. I also believe that the developper should be a little more sensitive to the feelings of locals or try to promote it not as a mosque or Muslim place of worship but rather an interfaith place of worship without the focus on Islam. Either way, I don't approve of the building, I just can't be actively against it.
What is interesting too, though, is the response of the PC brigade or Muslim apologists to the protests against this mosque. While I don't partake in the protests I can understand their feelings. I can also understand why people defend the right for this man to build what he choses on private land he's bought, although I find accusations of Islamophobia a rather predictable and senseless knee-jerk reaction. So it is with this in mind that I noticed this story from the Bekasi suburb of Jakarta, a majority Muslim country with a small peaceful Christian minority.
And what struck me most of all is the open Islamic supremacy, hostility to Christians and blatant unfair treatment by the authorities of a religious minority compared with the response in New York. In New York people are objecting to the sensitive positioning of the mosque, although many are probably simply against it altogether. But how do they react, through official channels. Protests to the Government, appeals against the planning permission etc. Compare this to what is happening in Bekasi. Muslims simply don't want Christians to build a church, they simply don't want Christians to be able to openly show they are practising their religion. Although Indonesia's constitution guarantees religious freedom, this is tantamount to the Muslim Caliphate's treatment of non-Muslims. You can keep your religion and practise it, just don't let us catch you or there will be trouble! And by the way, you must pay a prejudice-tax because you don't share our theological stance.
Christians own the land in Bekasi on which they want to build a church but read the view of a Muslim called Khairul Fuad: "The non-Muslims should understand the feeling of the Muslims here. We are the majority here," he says. "The land belong to us, and the majority of the people who live around it are Muslims."
The land belongs to us because we're the majority. Have you heard this kind of rhetoric used in New York? No, of course not, it would be considered outrageous. Now let's move on to Pastor Jones, a bit of a numpty if you ask me who created an almighty furore with his cheap publicity stunt, which he predictably later abandonned. Was he ever going to burn the Koran, I doubt it. But as offensive as that may be to Muslims, which I don't think it should be, he's not burning the word of God (technically an impossibility) he's merely burning some paper it was printed on. Has he harmed anyone or even threatened to harm anyone? No.
Now compare that to Murhali Barda, the local leader of the hardline Islamic Defenders' Front: "There is no problem with praying. But when they are there with a mission to build a place of worship, it is unacceptable. If we start calling for Holy War, it doesn't matter if we live or die. If there is violence that results from this, then the Christians only have themselves to blame."
One threatens to burn a couple of books and is internationally condemned and even the likes of Obama get involved. And he's the head of an insignificant 50-strong church. The other is the head of an extremist organisation with possibly far more followers and what is the reaction? Nothing. Does Yudhoyono speak out against such blatant violent anti-Christian rhetoric? The man who said the burning of a couple of books could spark a war between Islam and the West, what is his take on this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Hypocrasy? Anyone?
Of course it's hypocritcal, there's no other way to describe it. But what's also hypocritical is the West's eagerness to defend the rights of non-Christians or non-secularists, in particular Muslims, in our lands and yet we do nothing to help the Christians, secularists and other religious minorities who live under siege in Muslim lands. There is definitely an unfair treatment of Islam in political and diplomatic circles because it is treated with kid gloves, with deference and with a position of favour. And that's simply not fair. Look what happened when everyone bowed to Hitler's whims? Can the world not see the similarities? Do we all want our children or our children's children to live in a world where Islam is the majority religion in all lands and they must convert or live in fear? We must do something and first thing's first, stop pandering to Muslims' and Islam's unreasonable demands.
And stop the hypocrasy, speak out against Islamic hypocrasy before it's too late!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11279317
My personal opinion on the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is to agree with Brrack Obama. Religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed in the States and there is no administrative reason why a private developper who has bought the land shouldn't build whatever building he choses to, provided it's not a terrorist training centre of course. I also believe that the developper should be a little more sensitive to the feelings of locals or try to promote it not as a mosque or Muslim place of worship but rather an interfaith place of worship without the focus on Islam. Either way, I don't approve of the building, I just can't be actively against it.
What is interesting too, though, is the response of the PC brigade or Muslim apologists to the protests against this mosque. While I don't partake in the protests I can understand their feelings. I can also understand why people defend the right for this man to build what he choses on private land he's bought, although I find accusations of Islamophobia a rather predictable and senseless knee-jerk reaction. So it is with this in mind that I noticed this story from the Bekasi suburb of Jakarta, a majority Muslim country with a small peaceful Christian minority.
And what struck me most of all is the open Islamic supremacy, hostility to Christians and blatant unfair treatment by the authorities of a religious minority compared with the response in New York. In New York people are objecting to the sensitive positioning of the mosque, although many are probably simply against it altogether. But how do they react, through official channels. Protests to the Government, appeals against the planning permission etc. Compare this to what is happening in Bekasi. Muslims simply don't want Christians to build a church, they simply don't want Christians to be able to openly show they are practising their religion. Although Indonesia's constitution guarantees religious freedom, this is tantamount to the Muslim Caliphate's treatment of non-Muslims. You can keep your religion and practise it, just don't let us catch you or there will be trouble! And by the way, you must pay a prejudice-tax because you don't share our theological stance.
Christians own the land in Bekasi on which they want to build a church but read the view of a Muslim called Khairul Fuad: "The non-Muslims should understand the feeling of the Muslims here. We are the majority here," he says. "The land belong to us, and the majority of the people who live around it are Muslims."
The land belongs to us because we're the majority. Have you heard this kind of rhetoric used in New York? No, of course not, it would be considered outrageous. Now let's move on to Pastor Jones, a bit of a numpty if you ask me who created an almighty furore with his cheap publicity stunt, which he predictably later abandonned. Was he ever going to burn the Koran, I doubt it. But as offensive as that may be to Muslims, which I don't think it should be, he's not burning the word of God (technically an impossibility) he's merely burning some paper it was printed on. Has he harmed anyone or even threatened to harm anyone? No.
Now compare that to Murhali Barda, the local leader of the hardline Islamic Defenders' Front: "There is no problem with praying. But when they are there with a mission to build a place of worship, it is unacceptable. If we start calling for Holy War, it doesn't matter if we live or die. If there is violence that results from this, then the Christians only have themselves to blame."
One threatens to burn a couple of books and is internationally condemned and even the likes of Obama get involved. And he's the head of an insignificant 50-strong church. The other is the head of an extremist organisation with possibly far more followers and what is the reaction? Nothing. Does Yudhoyono speak out against such blatant violent anti-Christian rhetoric? The man who said the burning of a couple of books could spark a war between Islam and the West, what is his take on this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Hypocrasy? Anyone?
Of course it's hypocritcal, there's no other way to describe it. But what's also hypocritical is the West's eagerness to defend the rights of non-Christians or non-secularists, in particular Muslims, in our lands and yet we do nothing to help the Christians, secularists and other religious minorities who live under siege in Muslim lands. There is definitely an unfair treatment of Islam in political and diplomatic circles because it is treated with kid gloves, with deference and with a position of favour. And that's simply not fair. Look what happened when everyone bowed to Hitler's whims? Can the world not see the similarities? Do we all want our children or our children's children to live in a world where Islam is the majority religion in all lands and they must convert or live in fear? We must do something and first thing's first, stop pandering to Muslims' and Islam's unreasonable demands.
And stop the hypocrasy, speak out against Islamic hypocrasy before it's too late!
venerdì 10 settembre 2010
Muslim leaders' irresponsible reactions
Well done Karzai and Yudhoyono, good work. You could have been the bigger men, you could have demonstrated prospective, serenity, control, wisdom. You could have demonstrated that your peaceful and tolerant religion is above such petty stunts. But no. What did you do? Incite the nutters. Don't worry that this pastor is insignificant, don't worry that a 50-strong church has no standing in the western world, don't worry that no Korans have actually been burnt and that the publicity pastor has suspended his threat. You just go and incite the nutters nonetheless.
Karzai calls it an insult to Islam (how exactly a religion can feel insulted one shall have to ask Karzai) and Yudhoyono claims it's a threat to world peace. Burning a couple of books can threaten world peace?? How exactly? So what's the response to the non-burning of the Koran, ahh yes, thousands of nutters take to the Afghan streets, burn the American flag and chant death to Christians. Can anyone else feel the hypocrasy?? If you don't want them to burn your holy book, why do you burn their flag and call for their deaths? Who's guilty now?
Jones is just a publicity seeking fool, but now he looks like he had a point all along because once again the Muslim world has reacted with violence and vile hatred. Now Jones doesn't look like such a fool or bad guy, once again it's the Muslim world which is the bad guy because it couldn't react with understanding, compassion, tolerance and reason. If he wanted to provoke you Muslims, he succeeded and you fell into his trap and who are the fools now?
Karzai calls it an insult to Islam (how exactly a religion can feel insulted one shall have to ask Karzai) and Yudhoyono claims it's a threat to world peace. Burning a couple of books can threaten world peace?? How exactly? So what's the response to the non-burning of the Koran, ahh yes, thousands of nutters take to the Afghan streets, burn the American flag and chant death to Christians. Can anyone else feel the hypocrasy?? If you don't want them to burn your holy book, why do you burn their flag and call for their deaths? Who's guilty now?
Jones is just a publicity seeking fool, but now he looks like he had a point all along because once again the Muslim world has reacted with violence and vile hatred. Now Jones doesn't look like such a fool or bad guy, once again it's the Muslim world which is the bad guy because it couldn't react with understanding, compassion, tolerance and reason. If he wanted to provoke you Muslims, he succeeded and you fell into his trap and who are the fools now?
giovedì 9 settembre 2010
Burn a Koran day
Would the idiot Muslim leaders around the world threatening that this publicity stunt will harm Islam-West relations please develop a sense of perspective. Does the West world threaten the Muslim world that the numerous church bombings and murders of nuns or monks will harm such relations? Muslim extremists around the world commit numerous atrocities against non-Muslims and yet the west never threatens the Muslim world as a whole. Here you have a pastor from an insignificant church with just 50 members taking part in a a quite frankly daft publicity stunt....who cares?
Ok Muslims don't agree with people burning their scared book, but surely they should be more concerned with Muslim extremists slaughtering innoncent people all over the globe. A book is a book, it's made of paper and ink, it's not because this chump burns a couple of Korans that you can't print any more, or even that your own personal copy will somehow be soiled. Get some perspective people.
On the matter of burning the Koran. It's a book, I'm against the burning of any books as a senseless act. I don't think we should give this particular senseless act any more attention than any other. But the difference with this one is that it will have consequences, however wrong those consequences are. Christian minority communities in Muslim lands will suffer, there will be murders, there will be attacks on churches, there will be fall-out. Does this half-wit Jones actually realise what he's doing? And what's the point. I agree with him that we must stand up to Islam and all its evils, but what tangible effect is burning a couple of Korans going to have. Nothing positive, that's the answer.
So Jones, sort it out. And the Muslim leaders spouting stupid comments about the gravity of this insignificant act. You're all idiots, get some common sense.
Ok Muslims don't agree with people burning their scared book, but surely they should be more concerned with Muslim extremists slaughtering innoncent people all over the globe. A book is a book, it's made of paper and ink, it's not because this chump burns a couple of Korans that you can't print any more, or even that your own personal copy will somehow be soiled. Get some perspective people.
On the matter of burning the Koran. It's a book, I'm against the burning of any books as a senseless act. I don't think we should give this particular senseless act any more attention than any other. But the difference with this one is that it will have consequences, however wrong those consequences are. Christian minority communities in Muslim lands will suffer, there will be murders, there will be attacks on churches, there will be fall-out. Does this half-wit Jones actually realise what he's doing? And what's the point. I agree with him that we must stand up to Islam and all its evils, but what tangible effect is burning a couple of Korans going to have. Nothing positive, that's the answer.
So Jones, sort it out. And the Muslim leaders spouting stupid comments about the gravity of this insignificant act. You're all idiots, get some common sense.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)