First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

This very famous quote from Martin Niemöller spoke about the Holocaust, and how it would not have happened if people had stood up for each other, not just for people who were “like them.”

This logic seems to have continued till today. Instead of seeing our struggles as intersecting and complimentary, we tend to stick to our own narrow social constructions and categories. So feminists tend to focus only on feminism and women’s issue, rather than race, class, religion, and other marginalized groups or issues; activists focusing on queer/gay/lesbian/transgender issues tend to focus only on those, rather than also working towards ending sexism, racism, Islamophobia, capitalist oppression, etc.

My problem with this approach stems from two issues. One, every human is a complex construction of norms, values, identities, and experiences. Therefore I am not just a woman; I am a woman that is 23 years old that has a Dutch mother and an Egyptian father, that grew up in Zambia and Egypt and that self-identifies as queer, and that likes cupcakes. So for me, the fight is not just against patriarchy. It is against neocolonialism, capitalism, sexism, homophobia, and a range of other oppressions. This means that feminists who focus only on gender will never address the complexity of my being nor the complexity of my issues.

The second issue is that many marginalized groups suffer from the same intersecting systems of oppression. Capitalism, for example, affects women and racial minorities, albeit in different ways. So rather than women focusing on women and racial minorities on racial minorities, why not unite and fight the battle together?

Unfortunately, my experiences have showed me that very often, people internalize society’s stereotypes of Others, even if they themselves are an Other. I always expected gay men to not be racist, or black women to not be Islamophobic. When you’ve lived your life as an Other that was marginalized, wouldn’t you recognize and sympathize with people who have also been through that? But no, instead many of them tend to unquestioningly internalize the same stereotypes and misconceptions about “Others.”

I’m still not sure whether this state of affairs has always existed or whether it was put in place at some point by those  in power in order to separate us from one another. We know that “divide and rule” was used repeatedly by European colonizers, but has it been used more widely in societies in general? This would be an interesting topic to research. But whether this is the case or not, it seems to me that we need to find a way to overcome this. We need to find a way to make sure that what happened in the quote above does not keep happening; that we are not silent when it is someone else. Because then they will be silent when it is us.

The first is by Joseph Massad “Imperialism, Despotism, and Democracy in Syria.” Massad argues that the crisis in Syria is being presented as having one of two solutions: either imperialism (through western intervention) or fascism (through not intervening & allowing Bashar al-Assad to continue killing). He points out that this same “choice” was presented to us during the Iraq war, when we had to choose between the US invading Iraq or siding with Saddam. The choice was presented to us YET again in the Libya case last year, where we had to choose between western intervention and Gaddafi. 

At the time, many Arabs, Europeans, and Americans (myself included), who have been unwavering critics of Saddam Hussein’s despotic and terroristic rule and US imperialism’s genocidal wars against Third World enemies, opposed the first US invasion of the Gulf in 1991 and the ensuing 12-year siege, which cost more than a million Iraqi lives, as well as the subsequent US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its 8-year occupation of the country, which killed another million Iraqis.

Massad reminds us of why we (those against foreign intervention) choose to reject the possibility of western intervention, namely the costly impact of such imperial invasions. 

The Iraqi exile opposition insisted along with its US imperial sponsors and the chorus of pro-war American intellectuals that people should make one of two choices: for or against Saddam. While the US and its Iraqi partners had their way, the subsequent destruction of Iraq, the dismantling of its state structures, and the destruction of its societal cohesion is the clearest illustration of what such a choice entailed for the Iraqi people and their country.

Massad writes that by calling for us to choose for or against Assad, Syrian exiles are invoking the same choices that were presented by Iraqi and Libyan exiles, as though no third choice exists.

These are false choices not only ideologically but also, and more importantly, historically. The monumental loss of Iraqi lives and the destruction of their country as well as the ongoing destruction and killings in Libya belie the Syrian exile opposition’s call for imperial invasion of Syria as the way to peace, democracy and to stop the ongoing carnage in the country.

 

One wonders why the Bahraini and Yemeni oppositions have never called for an imperial invasion of their countries to liberate them from their equally despotic rulers. Nor have West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, languishing under the despotic boots of the Israeli occupation army for almost half a century, ever demanded an imperial invasion to liberate them from Israel. In fact, when the Palestinians deigned to request UN peace forces to protect them from the deadly power of the Israeli occupation army, the US balked in utter horror and disgust.

So, then, what is the third choice?

Anyone acquainted with the history of American imperialism in the Arab world and with the record of local despotism knows that these choices are designed to block a third and central choice. 

We need never choose between imperialism and fascism; we must unequivocally opt for the third choice, which has proven its efficacy historically and is much less costly no matter the sacrifices it requires: fighting against domestic despotism and US imperialism simultaneously (and the two have been in most cases one and the same force), and supporting home-grown struggles for democratic transformation and social justice that are not financed and controlled by the oil tyrannies of the Gulf and their US imperial master.

This article really made me think about the issue. Massad makes an excellent point that there is always a third choice: rejecting both local fascism (Assad) and western imperialism (NATO, EU, and US intervention). But this third choice will doubtless cost more lives in the short-term, whereas foreign intervention will cost more lives in the long-term (or not-so-long-term as we see in Libya and Iraq). 

________________________________________________

The second article I found fascinating was by Seumas Milne, entitled Intervention in Syria will escalate, not stop, the killing. 

Milne questions the assumption (and it is, after all, an assumption) that externally imposed regime change would work, have legitimacy, or stop the killings in Syria. He also points out that Russia and China have used Syria to challenge the west’s attempt to corral the Arab uprisings for its own interests. Moreover, Intervention is in fact already taking place. The Saudis and Qataris are reported to be funding and arming the opposition and the Free Syrian Army has a safe haven in Turkey.

But none of that will stop the killing. It will escalate it. That is the clear lesson of last year’s Nato intervention in Libya. When it began, the death toll was 1,000 to 2,000. By the time Muammar Gaddafi was captured and lynched seven months later, it was estimated at more than 10 times that figure. The legacy of foreign intervention in Libya has also been massethnic cleansing, torture and detention without trial, continuing armed conflict, and a western-orchestrated administration so unaccountable it resisted revealing its members’ names.

Milne addresses the hypocrisy of the West being “upset” and “disgusted” at Russi’s veto:

For the US, Britain and their allies to indulge in moral posturing over Syria or pose as friends of its people is preposterous. It’s not just their responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan or, say, their support for the Bahrain dictatorship – even as it violently suppresses its own uprising while sponsoring the UN resolution for democratic transition in Syria. For 45 years, they have underwritten Israel’s occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, yet now promise to guarantee Syria’s “territorial integrity”.

Milne’s final point, and one that is not highlighted often enough, is the link between Syria and Iran. Syria is Iran’s major (and basically only) ally in the Middle East. The overthrow of the Syrian regime would be a serious blow to Iran’s influence in the Middle East. And as the conflict in Syria has escalated, so has the western-Israeli confrontation with Iran. 

Milne concludes that foreign intervention would be a disaster: The alternative of western and Gulf-dictator intervention could only lead to far greater bloodshed – and deny Syrians control of their own country.

At this point, I think I agree. 

The issue of Syria has been all over the news lately, and it is heartbreaking to see how many people are dying there everyday. The revolution has been happening for over 8 months, and rather than progress we see Assad’s forces become more & more ruthless each day.

For months now, various groups have been calling for foreign intervention in Syria. Last year we were faced with the same tough question in Libya: should the west and NATO intervene in order to prevent a massacre in Benghazi? Well, the west & NATO did intervene, did somehow prevent a massacre, but now we see Libya degenerating into numerous conflicts. We also (of course) see NATO’s plans for opening bases there. I’m sure the EU and US have similar plans, as well as plans involving oil. Most importantly, I am sure within the next few years we will see Libya’s markets being opened and liberalized, so that neoliberal capitalism can FINALLY conquer the last remaining quasi-socialist country in the Middle East and Africa.

So will the fate of Libya then be what has happened to all other former colonies who were forced to adopt neoliberal capitalism by the IMF and World Bank? In other words, a growth rate that benefits only the rich, increasing consumerism, increasing capitalism, more poor, more extreme poverty, and just general degeneration of society and the economy/political system? Yay.

With all of this in mind – is foreign intervention in Syria a good idea? I have been thinking about this for weeks now, and I just can’t decide. On the one hand so many people are dying that any stop to that sounds like a must. On the other hand, this means long-term colonization of Syria.

Of course, if Arab and African countries had any balls (and weren’t basically still colonized by the west), they could have gotten their act together and done something. So far Tunisia is the only country who has suggested taking any action. The Arab League’s mission to Syria was completely useless and in fact did more damage than anything else. The Egyptian army, for example, could have intervened in both Libya and Syria, and therefore prevented the possibility of western intervention. Oh wait, I forgot that the Egyptian military is funded by the US. Never mind.

The issue of Russa is also interesting. Hamid Dabashi wrote this:

I agree with the Syrian opposition activists who have branded the Russian and Chinese veto as a “license to kill”–I also sympathize with the American UN envoy Susan Rice, who wrote on Twitter that she was “disgusted” with this veto and said Russia and China would have blood on their hands–and then I wonder how many votes against Israel has the US vetoed–can we please apply the same vocabulary to the almighty US–that the US has given Israel “license to kill” and the world too is “disgusted” with the systematic pattern of US vetoing anything that puts Israel on the spot for doing to Palestinians what Bashar Assad is doing to Syrians–just wondering–it is an amazing moment in history when the opportunism of one superpower exposes the hypocrisy of the other.

I completely agree – the US has no right to talk about what Russia is doing at the UN, since it has systematically done the SAME THING. Does it not matter when it’s Palestinians being killed?

It seems that foreign intervention in Syria will provide some temporary relief, as it did in Libya. But in the long-term, it will be disastrous, just as it was for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. It won’t even take that long to see the negative effects: NATO & western intervention in Libya resulted in 40,000 deaths. Moreover, the country is still in a mess (although we never hear about it in the mainstream media).

So what is the solution? I really don’t know. It is too big a question and there is simply no black-and-white answer. But those calling for western intervention should think carefully about what that really means and whether it is worth it. The west doesn’t come, save brown people, and leave. There will be a heavy price. At the end of the day, can we even talk if we are not Syrians who are being killed? What do Syrians want? CNN and Israeli media constantly show Syrians who want western intervention, while al-Jazeera shows the opposite. All I know is that during the Egyptian uprising, the majority did not want the west to get involved – but it was never as desperate as it is in Syria today.

It is such a tough call, and I hate the fact that Arabs are repeatedly being put in a situation where they have to choose between these two evils.

My next post will talk about two fascinating articles that were recently written about Syria, one arguing that intervening in Syria will only increase the killing, and another arguing that the choice is NOT between killing and intervention.

“Colonial discourse is greatly implicated in ideas of the centrality of Europe, and thus in assumptions that have become characteristic of modernity: assumptions about history, language, literature and ‘technology’. Colonial discourse is thus a system of statements that can be made about colonies and colonial peoples, about colonizing powers and about the relationship between these two. It is the system of knowledge and beliefs about the world within which acts of colonization take place. Although it is generated within the society and cultures of the colonizers, it becomes that discourse within which the colonized may also come to see themselves. At the very least, it creates a deep conflict in the consciousness of the colonized because of its clash with other knowledges (and kinds of knowledge) about the world. Rules of inclusion and exclusion operate on the assumption of the superiority of the colonizer’s culture, history, language, art, political structures, social conventions, and the assertion of the need for the colonized to be ‘raised up’ through colonial contact. In particular, colonial discourse hinges on notions of race that begin to emerge at the very advent of European imperialism. Through such distinctions it comes to represent the colonized, whatever the nature of their social structures and cultural histories, as ‘primitive’ and the colonizers as ‘civilized’.

Colonial discourse tends to exclude, of course, statements about the exploitation of the resources of the colonized, the political status accruing to colonizing powers, the importance to domestic politics of the development of an empire, all of which may be compelling reasons for maintaining colonial ties. Rather it conceals these benefits in statements about the inferiority of the colonized, the primitive nature of other races, the barbaric depravity of colonized societies, and therefore the duty of the imperial power to reproduce itself in the colonial society, and to advance the civilization of the colony through trade,administration,cultural and moral improvement.“

Via Lost in Space.

One indication of this is the fact that el-Ahly ultras have supported the revolution since the beginning and have always been at the forefront of battles in Tahrir, Mohamed Mahmoud, and other hotspots. Many commentators have suggested that what happened is basically revenge on the part of the police and army.

Another indication is the fact that the police and army did nothing, despite being present. It was only after the 75 deaths and 1000 injuries that the army intervened. Moreover, the attackers had weapons such as guns, knives, and other types of arms that football fans are not allowed to bring into the stadium.

Others have suggested that this is SCAF’s way of creating chaos in order to justify their staying in power and possibly reinstating the emergency law that was lifted one week ago. These deaths come after days of instability where banks in Cairo were robbed in broad daylight and crime has increased. This tactic of creating chaos in order to assert the need for increased authoritarianism is one that has been used and re-used by the Egyptian regime.

Whether the football massacre was revenge on the part of the police & army or a plan to create a sense of chaos in the country, it is clearly yet another move in the chess game that is being played between the revolutionaries and the counter-revolution.But SCAF may have gone too far this time. Most of the people that died last night were very young. Their pictures are all over the internet today. There are protests all over Cairo, and tomorrow is Friday. People are angry, and this is not going to go away. Whether the military planned this or failed to stop it – they are guilty. This may be the event that will reignite the revolution and finally pushes it to get rid of the regime completely.

I really believe that this revolution was too peaceful. We did not get rid of the regime, we got rid of its face. The military sacrificed Mubarak in order to stay in power, and so nothing has really changed. If the revolution had been violent, and made a point, the military wouldn’t be doing the things it is doing now. The more peaceful we try to be, the more deaths we will have from our side. We need to end this regime, once and for all.

RIP to all those that died last night.

Read an eye-witness account here, and a report here.

My best friend asked me an interesting question yesterday as she was watching the news: where is the revolution against patriarchy? Amidst all the political uprisings, the economic uprisings, and the social upheavals that come with these, we have yet to witness the global revolution against what is possibly the most deeply entrenched system of oppression – patriarchy.

When modern feminist movements began in the late 1800s and gained momentum in the mid-1900s, the gains they made were revolutionary for that time period, yet in hindsight seem little more than reforms. Women got the right to vote and the right to enter the labour market – but at the same time, patriarchy found new ways of oppressing them. As women were trying to be taken more seriously professionally and politically, the mass media was creating a new image of them as sexualized objects and mass consumers. One could also ask what exactly women gained from entering the labour market. Yes, they could now be responsible for themselves economically; but at the same time, they were being drawn into a global capitalist system that would go on to oppress them in different ways. Moreover, even though women began to work, domestic roles did not change much. This meant that women were still responsible for the home; and thus had to work a “double-shift” – work and then come home and work again (and of course domestic work is unpaid, until now).

Another major problem was the nature of the first feminist movements. While feminist movements began in the Middle East quite early (late 1800s in Egypt, for example), they were soon derailed because of the reality of colonization, which often forced women to choose nation above everything else. As this did not happen in the west, feminist movement were allowed to progress. However, this led to a reality whereby the first wave of feminism was a largely white, middle-class, western feminism. Although they spoke of “universal patriarchy” needing “universal solutions,” the reality was that they ignored everyone’s context except their own, and then went on to universalize that. Many first-wave feminists also had colonial undertones. This continues today when we see how certain western feminists speak about women in the Muslim world – as victims, as oppressed by Arab men who are essentially violent, as backwards, as children. Rather than realize that patriarchy is universal and manifests itself in different contexts differently, many feminists continue to assume that there is one patriarchy and therefore one solution.

Another problem with first-wave feminism is that it relied heavily on the idea that liberating women means getting them to work. I strongly disagree with this idea, mostly because I believe entering the capitalist economic system will only bring about different types of oppression, and will in no way liberate women in any meaningful or long-lasting manner. Rather, it appears that what has been missing in feminist movements all along is a strong focus on the social. Moreover, our modern times has seen patriarchy turn into something else: women are now oppressed differently. For example, the extreme insecurity felt by many women about how they look, their weight, etc has led to billion-dollar industries focused on weight-loss, plastic surgery, and psychology. This industry is now supposed to fix what was essentially created by patriarchy itself (hand-in-hand with capitalism and consumerism, of course).

While it is true that patriarchy operates so successfully because it operates at the economic, political, personal, and social levels, it is also seems to me that feminists have often ignored the social and personal and focused on the political and economic. However, social ideas, values, and norms are what need to change if women are ever to be “liberated.” The way women are constructed today in different societies is the problem. They are always sexualized, whether through wearing too much, too little, or nothing at all – the point is it is always about what they wear. They are still the “Other” – man is still the benchmark. They are still seen as victims – whether explicitly (man as head of the family) or implicitly (women as weaker than men and thus in need of protection). They are still stereotyped endlessly – “you’re being a girl” – “you’re so emotional” – “she wants a man who abuses her.” So it seems we are still at a point where women are being judged as women, and not as individual personalities who are created through their unique experiences and thought processes.

It is striking to note how this is similar to what other minorities go through. This is why it is important to talk about intersectionality when we talk about gender: I am not just a woman. I am a Muslim, Arab, educated, woman, and all of these aspects of my identity constantly intersect to make me Sara. This means I will experience oppression differently than my best friend, who is Ethiopian and Protestant, or my mother who is Dutch and of a different generation.

So why have we still not seen a universal revolution against patriarchy? Do we think feminism worked and that women are equal? Have we put it on the back burner (again) because of the current economic and political upheavals? At this point in my life I find myself leaning towards two answers. One is that patriarchy is the oldest and most deeply entrenched system of oppression. It has been legitimized by religion, science, politics, economics, and basically every other system that has been put in place in human history. While it is true that there have been societies with gender egalitarianism, these have been the exception not the norm. So as the oldest and deepest system, it makes sense that it will be almost impossible to remove. Moreover, to remove it we would also need to remove (or at least majorly reform) all the other systems that have been used to legitimize it, such as religion and capitalism.

Second, I want to bring up this quote:

“Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors.” Evelyn Cunningham

Is this the problem? Is the problem that we are so closely tied to men, who patriarchy uses to oppress women? They are our fathers, brothers, lovers, boyfriends, husbands, and sons. And most of them suffer from patriarchy, just in different ways than we do. There is no doubt that to be a man is usually better than to be a woman, in most situations. But this does not mean that men are not also victims of a system that only sees a certain type of man as “masculine” – i.e. heterosexual, white, strong, harsh, powerful, makes lots of money.

I’m still at a point where I don’t know the answers, if there are any. But my friend’s question really made me think. How do women continue to be such a big underclass? How have societies gotten stuck and not advanced enough socially to realize that gender, class, race, religion are constructed categories that do not say anything about an individual human being?

One thing the recent uprisings have highlighted is the behaviour and brutality in the police force and military. Psychologically, it is very interesting to see the way police and the army can literally kill, torture, and beat anyone in their way, whether a fellow countryman, woman, or child. Is it just about them being trained to obey orders, ANY orders? Is it about the banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt suggested, namely that we all have it in us to act this way? This is probably what I’m leaning more towards these days – this idea that we are all, individually, capable of doing amazing good but also unspeakable evil.

Arendt was talking about the men who committed the Nazi crimes in Germany and the rest of Europe, and pointed out that at home, they were all caring, loving fathers. This has always baffled me. How does a police officer in Egypt, for example, torture prisoners during the day and then go home to his family and children? Is it really possible for the human personality to exist in such an extreme binary form? These things can obviously not be explained from a purely social perspective but rather a psycho-social one. In fact, I really think that what is missing int he analysis of the recent uprisings is the psychological component: how those in power act, think, feel; how the police and army act and think; how power is reproduced and justified; how the silent majority continue to be silent; all of these issues are largely psychological.

How will a post-revolutionary society ever fix the old problems if we don’t understand how they were caused? If the new Egypt has an army and police force (which I’m assuming it will), shouldn’t we at least understand how the old versions got so messed up? Of course the ultimate goal (as an anarchist) is to have a non-militarized world, but until that happens, it is inevitable that any nation state will continue to invest heavily in its military. But we can at least try to not repeat the same mistakes.

I also wonder whether we’ve basically been lied to about human beings in general. I have always been told that humans are essentially “good” but that some get corrupted. But is that really the case? Isn’t it more likely that we are neutral beings, and that most of us are good and bad together, while some go to either extreme? Then is it a choice? What about people who are living in systems or situations where they are forced to do what society sees as “wrong”? When a poor man steals to feed his children; or when a Palestinian throws a rock at an Israeli soldiers – are these even “wrong”?

Just some thoughts…

Here is a post I wrote a few weeks ago:

_____________________________________________________

I just read an interesting article about Frantz Fanon’s relevance to today’s revolutions happening across the Middle East and North Africa. Fanon was heavily involved in the Algerian struggle for independence, in which more than 1 million Algerians lost their lives because of the French.

In his epic work “The Wretched of the Earth” Fanon warned of the corruption of regimes that would follow independence in Africa and the Middle East, under the mantles of “nationalism,” “Pan-Africanism” and “Pan-Arabism.” Most examples I can think of in Africa and the ME did fall into this trap – the first leader following independence had tremendous authority, because he was the first independent leader (of course they were never independent, we now know).

Fanon also spoke about the role western powers would play in propping up corrupt regimes and cultivating clientelistic relationships with local proxies. By so doing they would prevent the growth of genuine democracy. As the author of the article notes:

He was right again. It is no coincidence that, with the exception of Gaddafi (who is also the only dictator against whom the west has intervened thus far), the regimes that have been the target of protests in recent months have invariably been close allies of western powers, principally America.

Finally, Fanon wrote about the role the people can play in overcoming their oppression. Rather than seeing people as lacking agency or any power, he wrote that they have the capacity to fight.

The more the people understand, the more vigilant they become, the more they realize in fact that everything depends on them and that their salvation lies in their solidarity.

This was something he saw in Algeria:

The Algerian people, that starved…mass of men and women…have resisted the tanks and the planes, the napalm and the psychological warfare, but above al, the corruption and the brainwashing, the traitors and the ‘national’ armies.

‘If Jesus were to come this year, Bethlehem would be closed’

A strip of settlements built on what was northern Bethlehem threatens to cut the city off from its historic twin, Jerusalem

Many in U.S. Are Arrested by Age 23, Study Finds

By age 23, almost a third of Americans have been arrested for a crime, according to a new study that researchers say is a measure of growing exposure to the criminal justice system in everyday life.

The picture that shames Italy

It’s another balmy weekend on the beach in Naples. By the rocks, a couple soak up the southern Italian sun. A few metres away, their feet poking from under beach towels that cover their faces and bodies, lie two drowned Roma children.

In Holland, Santa Doesn’t Have Elves. He Has Slaves

As a newcomer to the Netherlands, I do many things wrong. I forget to bring gifts to dinner parties, I thank people too profusely, and often speak too personally with people I’ve just met. But no slip-up has provoked a more troubled response than when I’ve brought up my concerns about Santa Claus.

Jesus was a Palestinian and Why it Matters

Because of modern alarmist reactions to the word “Palestine,” many non-Arabs and non-Muslims take offense when it is argued that Jesus was a Palestinian (peace be upon him). Jesus’ ethnicity, skin color, and culture often accompany this conversation, but it is interesting how few people are willing to acknowledge the fact he was non-European.  A simple stroll down the Christmas aisle of your local shopping store will show you the dominant depiction of Jesus: a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, White man.

The Army and the Economy in Egypt

Should the production of pasta, mineral water, butane gas cylinders, and gas station services qualify as classified military secrets? And does discussing these enterprises in public pass as a crime of high treason? The leaders of the Egyptian Armed Forces believe the answer is “yes.”

Underneath

Lately I have been hard to reach, even when I am surrounded by friends and loved ones. I don’t want to talk or think, my brain is a merry-go-round of ideas and knowledge that I wish were not there. 2 weeks ago I was noticing how everyone around me is falling apart: physically, psychologically, and emotionally. And the worst part is the helplessness you feel, knowing that you can’t offer them any real comfort or solution. We are in the shit. The Dark Days.

A Message to Women From a Man: You Are Not “Crazy”

You’re so sensitive. You’re so emotional. You’re defensive. You’re overreacting. Calm down. Relax. Stop freaking out! You’re crazy! I was just joking, don’t you have a sense of humor? You’re so dramatic. Just get over it already!

Sound familiar?

If you’re a woman, it probably does.

Tunisia: Neo Liberalism the Issue, not Islam

On the verge of officially forming a coalition government to run the country and rewrite the nation’s pre-revolution constitution, Tunisia’s dominant, Islamist political party Ennahda has come under fire for its economic neo-liberalism, both from opponents and from coalition partners.

The real definition of Terrorism

Is that not exactly the mindset that more or less anyone in the world would have: if a foreign army invades your country and proceeds to brutally occupy it for the next eight years, then it’s your solemn duty to fight them? Indeed, isn’t that exactly the mentality that caused some young Americans to enlist after the 9/11 attack and be hailed as heroes: they attacked us on our soil, and so now I want to fight them?

So the major news today is that the US forces have withdrawn from Iraq. Before we get too excited about this, let’s remember how many bases, private contractors, and business ventures the US has left behind, meaning in fact that the US is still “in” Iraq.