Thursday, 20 October 2016

Calais diary, Oct 12

On the second day here, I went to the Warehouse of the British organisation l'Auberge des Migrants. They receive loads of donations, sort them, check them and hand them out to refugees if they are suitable, and if they are not, but still good, they sell them and use the money to help refugees. We signed a paper, and then we were insured while working with them. They had a little warm-up with us, and then a briefing of what we are doing and why. Everything was aimed to getting as high efficiency as possible in our work, so that as much as possible of our efforts and donations would actually go into a good use for the refugees. I especially enjoyed the advice on toilet paper:
"We've noticed that some volunteers use extra toilet paper to try and cover up what they've done in there. Ehm, we do know what you do in there, it's a toilet, and if you cover it up with paper it only means that they fill up faster so we have to go and empty them more often, and of course buy more toilet paper, and all this eats in to our time and resources."
It creates such a lovely relaxed feeling of community and normal, simple humanness when a beautiful girl with long, blond hair stands there talking like that!

But she also said more important things, like that we only hand out to refugees clothes that are flawless, that is they don't have any wholes, stains, missing buttons etc. This is because our gifts reflect how we think about them, and where they come from, torn clothes are not a fashion thing but a marker of poverty and despair. When later I was standing in the quality check station for clothes, I therefore sorted the best clothes for refugees, and those clothes that were a bit torn or broken but still cool and good-looking, for the charity shop, well aware that the volunteers would buy them and love them. Because for us, it's a choice. We CAN walk around in tuxedo and evening gown, if we really, really want to.

She also explained that we newcomers would not be sent into the Jungle*, the way things were now. In the normal case, some of us would be going there every day, and she said that she realized that it makes it more difficult to be working with the relatively hard physical labor that we are doing here, if we never get to see it for ourselves when the help reaches its destination, but the thing is that president Hollande has promised that the Jungle will be demolished, and since there is some kind of a law in France that nobody can be evicted from their homes in winter time, no matter how illegal this home might be, it will probably happen any day now, and the atmosphere in the Jungle is therefore very tensed and stressed. A number of thefts have suddenly occurred, cars have been looted and fights and arguments break out easily. Therefore nowadays only experienced members of l'Auberge go into the Jungle.

(We in Utopia are of course there daily anyway, picking trash.)

Then she still went through briefly what rules they had for those who did go into the Jungle, just to give us some understanding of how we work. Among other things, she said that the refugees' own organisations (the ones organised by the refugees) had requested that we female volunteers wear clothes that cover legs and upper body, including shoulders and chest. This was partly because they wanted us to be respected as guests in the camp, and not suffer any sexual harassment which might otherwise easily be the case, since bare shoulders, deep neck lines etc, symbolizes something else in several of the countries that many of the refugees come from. But also because if the atmosphere becomes sexual in daytime when we volunteers are there, the sexual assaults increase in nighttime, against mostly the women and children living in the camp, that is, the refugees themselves.

Another rule was that we must never take any refugee's picture in which they could be identified, because if one of those get out, it might jeopardize their asylum process later, and even if we don't have the intention of publishing the photo or hand it over to anybody, it makes people nervous and anxious and they have a rough enough situation already. There have also been a number of journalists here and they generally don't write nice things. The camp is not very popular around here...

I met a German volunteer, Carola, who said that we should focus more on the decisions that our leaders make, bring people's attention to them and thereby try to change them. So I told her how I had sent an e-mail to every single one of our green party MPs, after they had voted through the decision to almost completely close the door to refugees (with the support of the most right wing party Moderaterna and the racist party Sverigedemokraterna and nobody else) asking them how they could stay in a government that did that. How they could claim that it was better to stay and have an influence, after this. I wrote:
"WHAT then, are you going to do, in those two years remaining of the current period, that will have such an enormous impact that it balances up for what you just did?!"
She said:
"I guess nobody answered?"
But oh no, many answered. They answered things like accommodation, trains and green fuels... They just haven't realized that they made history with the decision of closing the borders. (At this point, several other international volunteers around us agreed and said that they had believed Sweden would be the final outpost, those who would never give up on humanism, the living example that an other way is possible that they always have been... and that when Sweden also failed, that's when they lost hope.) You can't make history with green fuels today. 20 years ago, yes, but not today. The same goes for accommodation and trains...

And anyway, who cares! Who cares if there is accommodation and trains! Who cares if the planet survives! What's the point of even being alive, of having societies with people and activities in them...... if this is what we do to people.

I met another volunteer who said:
"They're waisting a good 10 years of their lives, trying to find a home in countries that don't want them"
Mattias told me that he had met a person in the Jungle who was fluent in Swedish. You see, he had lived in Sweden for 9 years, before finally having received his final denial of his asylum application, after appeals, and been deported back to Afghanistan. Now he was in the Jungle to try and get into the UK instead, to live there illegally. No more asylum processes for him!

Another person that Mattias met had lived illegally in London for 6 years, working as a taxi driver, until one day he was caught and deported. Now he was back in the Jungle...

A 14 year old boy died on the highway the other day, run over by a truck, while trying to sneak onboard a truck to England. The driver took off. Maybe they never even noticed having hit anything. Maybe... no, I won't write that. The boy who died had a brother and two uncles in England, thus having the legal right to come and live there. He had started the legal process to do so, but after having heard how very long time that takes, he decided to still try and get there on his own. He was 14! He was marked by war and violence! He needed to be with his family, in a safe environment, to be able to heal and become a whole human being! Now he will be united with his family only in heaven...

How can we be this wasteful with human lives.

And how can we talk about green fuels, while this purely human made, politically constructed catastrophe is still going on?

*The Jungle = The informal settlement in Calais where thousands of refugees live in tents and home made shelters, many after having tried to go to the UK but failed

(To be continued)

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Calais diary 11 Oct, part 2

It was a small adventure just to get here. The train from Brussels was severely delayed, so I missed the last connecting train in Lille. Then the train company treated me to hotel with breakfast! It took them over one hour to set it up, and I was really tired and wanted to sleep, so that was a bit frustrating, but when I finally got my room, it was quite nice.

Because of this, I reached the Jungle the next day at 11:30, in the middle of the work day. The coordinator told me to go to the Jungle by bus, which I was just fine with, and she gave me an address. But nobody knew the address. On the other hand, everybody knew "The Jungle" ("Le Jungle")... although somehow it was as if the mood changed when I said it. And then it seems as if the driver intentionally let me off at the wrong stop! At least it was very far from the Jungle... Now one of the volunteers tried to send a car to pick me after all, but since I was no longer at the train station, they didn't find me. So I asked for directions and started walking instead. A guy I asked said it would be around 3 km maybe, and now that I check with the map, I can see that he came rather close with his estimation! (Almost 4 km) (I can also see that there are indeed bus stops much closer to the Jungle) But after having walked for a while, I asked a group of people again, to be on the safe side. One of the men, who was looking kind of rough-neck, hesitated a bit and then said in perfect working class English, to his mates in the car that he was standing by:
"What do you say, we take her there first and go get gas after?"
It turned out that they were English, who were there to make a documentary in the Jungle, and for the occasion had brought a tandem bike, as a means to make contact with people. They decided that they had time to take me, and one of them asked, kind of as a joke, if I preferred the car or the bike. But I definitely wanted to go on the bike! And so I through my bags, except my handbag and of course my money pouch underneath my clothes, into the trunk, and hopped up behind the Sudanese guy on the tandem bike. My first tandem ride! That I've always been so curious of, when I've seen one go by! On the rod, there was a camera attached, filming my feet. It was great fun!

We reached the Jungle, but the car had not arrived yet. Was I worried? Actually hardly at all! I had already found my kind, and recognized them. They wouldn't steal my bags from me. And sure enough, a few minutes later they showed up. They had just gotten a bit lost on the way.

And then, two Utopia volunteers came and escorted me into the Jungle, and so I had reached! :)

On the first day, I was picking trash in the Jungle. I handed over the two rolls of black garbage bags that I had bought in Brussels, and my young team leader Theo got really happy and cried out:
"Oh, super!" (in French)
One could have believed he had received a finer gift!

There were a few trash pits and trash hides, and there were a few cups and stuff lying around along the paths, but there were also a number of drums with trash bags in, or just a bag tied to a tent line or so, that were full of trash and that we took and exchanged for new bags. We were invited for tea at a make-shift tea house between the tents. We were strictly instructed never to be alone in the Jungle, and never to touch some blue cubes or little sachets with something blue in them, since that was rat poison and very dangerous. Often you would find blue cubes or sachets in the bottom of a trash pile... Where humans see trash, they throw more trash! A flock behavior, for the benefit of the flock. Unless there are bins, and people who pick trash.

*The Jungle = the informal settlement in Calais where thousands of refugees live, most after having failed to go to the UK

Calais diary 11 Oct

Still feeling light and happy at heart. I'm surrounded by a warm, soft and loving bunch of friends and soul mates... It is wonderful.

I met a German yesterday, a bit older than most people here, 28 years, with dreads, who said that in a way she thinks that we who are here are passive. We try and clean up the rubble of what our governments destroy, but we should try and stop them from destroying it in the first place! But I said that I believed many here have done what I have: Tried to influence our governments and populations, but beaten ourselves bloody against the wall, given up and said to ourselves:
"Ok, enough of this. Now I'll just be cleaning up the rubble instead..."

On the other hand, we'll never give up. Because we can't, not until we give up our breath. And coming here, to this massive trail of rubble, that we all know exists but that we otherwise never see, except from a distance, and start cleaning up in the outskirts of it, is a way of gaining energy to keep fighting again afterwards. Because all who are here feel the same way! We may have different thoughts and opinions about stuff, but we feel the same way.

This is the real life. At home it's just pretending. You can go on living and fighting in the pretended life for a while, so long as you remember that there is a reality out there, outside of this bubble! And that that's what you're fighting for.

(To be continued)

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Calais diary Oct 6

Traveling is easy, so easy... Everything sorts itself out! It's fun too. You become alive... If I had to do it on horse back, I would still travel around the world.

But I don't, of course, I fly with Ryanair. There are no stables with the apartment I rent, just a parking lot. There are no rest stops for horses along the way, with fodder and water troughs, only gas stations. And no sailing ships to cross the oceans with... Hardly even ferries anymore... There are only airplanes. So I go by airplane. And ruin the planet. But look selfishly forwards to once again living the ancient human dream of being carried by the air, way above the clouds...

Perhaps it's deranged to be feeling this light and happy, when traveling to the deep despair in an illegal refugee camp... but I do. I do.

(To be continued)

Tuesday, 23 February 2016

Girls outside

This is a text I wrote on in 2008.

Girls outside

In the Muslim correspondence to Sunday school, in some country - I've forgotten which one - only boys sit in the class rooms. The girls sit outside, on the ground, and listen through the window. Education is not meant for girls, only for boys. But even girls need to grow up to become good, Muslim women, and even girls are of course taught to love God, and therefore they come to every class hour, take a seat outside the window, and listen when the boys are being educated.

Some of the things said in there are only applicable to boys. Then the girls can close their ears for a moment. But they have to be alert and open them again, when something is said that is applicable to them too, because there will be no signal to tell when they are included again. Since it isn't actually meant for them. When the male teacher says: “This you'll do good to remember”, they'll have to come to their own conclusion of whether what is said after that is something that applies to them, and that they will therefore do good to remember, or not.

And of course they can never ask any questions. And I wonder if the male teacher ever says anything that applies only to girls? If so, how does he frame it? He probably doesn't turn towards the window and says: “You girls will do good to remember...”. Probably he says: “Girls do good to remember...”, to the boys. As if it were very important for boys to know what girls need to remember! Outside the window, the girls sit and make a note to remember that thing, though nobody told them to. It was never said directly to them, but they know that they are expected to hear it, and to abide.

How unbearably derogatory! What a killer mental abuse to never be directly addressed in this way, but to still be expected to sit there and listen attentively! To sometimes have to realize that 'oh ok, this part actually wasn't meant for me FOR REAL, whereas they otherwise only express themselves as if it weren't meant for me, although it is'! What an awful, contemptuous way this country treats its female citizens in!...

...But are we really that much better? Is it all that different when we talk about businessmen, congressmen, Englishmen and cave men?... Some claim that these words include also women, but do they really? Does really the WORD include women, or is it just the thing it denotes that very well may include women? And it's up to the women themselves to figure out whether what is being said at the moment can be applied to them or not, without the rest of us (us men, whom the words are actually for) having to bother our busy heads with that? 'Sometimes the word applies only to men; the rest of the time we only express ourselves as if it did.'?

I once said to a man, who had just claimed that such words were totally gender neutral:
“Would anybody ever say: 'When a businessman becomes pregnant... what social welfare system applies to zim?' for example?”
Do you know what he replied?... He said:
“...It is very unusual that one would want to say such a phrase.”
Oh. Well I guess the problem is solved then. We never talk about when businessmen, middlemen, firemen or madmen become pregnant, take maternity leave, menstruate or have PMS at work or in treatment, or when they reach their menopause, and therefore it is totally fine that we also in future will never talk about these things, because it sounds so absurdly ridiculous with a bunch of fireman with PMS!... Most likely something inside us will stop us, before we even THINK such a phrase!...

A bit later this man however said that it was much better to say “member of congress” instead of “congressman”, in this particular discussion. For a brief second I felt a bit encouraged, thinking that this might be an opening. Until I learned that he didn't at all think that one EXPRESSION, in itself, was any better than the other. It was only in the discussion with ME that he preferred one over the other, so that I wouldn't have to be annoyed by this fictive problem, and instead could focus on the matter of discussion... Something which could have been achieved just as well by me coming to my senses, and just not getting annoyed by this to begin with... Just like the girls outside the Quran school classroom probably don't sit and get annoyed by the way things are. Nobody built the system to be bad, and it's better to give one's attention to the education, than to pettinesses, such as in what form it is given.

For publishing the text here, I've been looking for a source of the girls outside the school window and didn't find any. I'm pretty sure we learned about them in school though... And in any case, here's a Wikipedia page that at least confirms that it's quite common (or at least has been) that girls are not formally enrolled in school, but attend anyway, informally:

Sunday, 24 January 2016

6 errors in NIST's 9/11 FAQ pages

Everything I've heard points towards the 3 WTC skyscrapers being taken down by explosives, in a controlled demolition. But in the end it wasn't the compelling arguments of the skeptics, but the incredibly bad arguments from the official story advocates, that finally pushed me over! It was how NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, who did the official scientific investigation) pretended that they can't find anything at all indicating explosives! Not even worth testing for it, which is the normal procedure! And how they brush off all the evidence actually indicating this, using some extremely weird scientific twists, that would make even a high school student, with any talent for the subject, raise an eye-brow!

Here are some examples, that make me, a master of science in bioengineering, certainly raise my eye-brows:

(The below examples are all from the NIST 9/11 FAQ page:
World Trade Center Investigation Frequently Asked Questions

and its sub-pages:
Questions and Answers about the Overall NIST WTC Investigation (9/19/2011)
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation (9/19/2011)
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (updated 6/27/12))

[Some 200 technical experts - including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia - reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steels from  from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.]

BEGAN to collapse... Meaning they never even attempted to figure out how they could continue to collapse symmetrically and totally, all the way to the ground! Without tipping or breaking apart. This total, symmetrical collapse is something that requires immense skill and experience to achieve with a skyscraper, when on purpose. See this youtube play list of some failed attempts (and some successful ones) for illustration:

Building collapses (Play list by me)

NIST is pretending that this part is so normal, it doesn't even deserve their attention! Despite this never having happened to a steel-framed building before or after.

[Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.


As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials]

Yes, ok, but nobody is suggesting thermite did it! We're talking about nano-thermite, which is a much finer distribution of thermite. When I studied combustion theory at Chalmers, I learned that fire and explosion is the same thing, explosion is only faster. Reaction speed can be achieved by making the fuel more finely distributed. Thus thermite is a combustion fuel, but nano-thermite is an explosive. Yet NIST does not even mention nano-thermite! A FAQ asked by 2000 scientists!

[Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.]

Nonsense. A peer reviewed report of the findings of nano-thermite has been made by Danish chemist Niels Harrit et al:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

He talks about red-grey chips of nanometer size, containing the said elements and burning vividly when ignited. Such chips, in large amount, do not just form spontaneously in a fire or a collapse! A nanometer is typically around 10 atoms wide. How could iron (not steel, btw) atomize itself spontaneously to that degree? And mix itself evenly with equally atomized aluminum and sulfur? I've taken a course in nanotechnology, and I know it's a highly advanced technology. Not something that just happens!

[many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building.]

Hundreds of massive structural components? Many thousands of pounds of explosives? Why not just 10 or 50 pounds?

Doesn't it seem a bit weird that one second tonnes of explosives are required to tear down a building, but the next second they conclude that zero explosives works just as fine...? If the moderate case of 50 pounds is ruled out as too little, wouldn't the extreme case of zero pounds be automatically ruled out too, logically?

And just so you know, there was renovation work going on in the elevator shafts, in the months leading up to 9/11.

NIST admits they did not follow protocol, because:

[NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations", is a recommended methodology for optimizing investigations. NFPA 921 acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. This was especially true for NIST’s WTC investigation]

They do not say that they broke the protocol BY not testing for explosives, but that is what they are accused of, and they do not deny it. And when you know that, their explanation that there was a scope for a broader investigation feels a bit insufficient, doesn't it? How can fewer tests be a broader investigation? ADD more tests and we will not protest, but why exclude tests that are otherwise required?

[21. Why does NIST state that a yellow stream of molten metal seen in some photographs pouring down the side of WTC2 was aluminum from the crashed plane /.../?

/.../ Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.]

With the risk of repeating myself... pure nonsense! I guess it helps to see the pictures of this bright shining, orange, dripping liquid:

If this were the case, if you could just melt aluminum in a big crucible, throw in some computers and office partitions, not even stirring it, and suddenly it would go from looking like mercury to glowing like the setting sun, then why is there no record of this ever having happened before or after? Why don't we perform such lab experiments in school? Why haven't even NIST themselves carried out this lab experiment, just to show that it was possible?!... To back up their claim!

Btw, you can see from the pictures that the color is uniform. Not just oriented to slug in the surface. (Or pieces of furniture.) Organic matter and metal spontaneously tend not to blend very well.

What this pouring liquid looks like is probably exactly what it is: A stream of molten steel, from the nano-thermitic reaction that has already started inside the building.

So, in order of appearance:
1) Wrong scope for the whole investigation.
2) Pretending that thermite/thermate is the controversy, when it is about nano-thermite.
3) Claiming that they couldn't have tested for thermite/thermate because something similar could have formed spontaneously in the rubble. Well nano-thermite certainly couldn't.
4) Admitting that it takes huge amounts of explosives to demolish a building, and then concluding that zero explosives must therefore have been used.
5) They broke protocol by not testing for explosives. They claim that their reason for not following protocol was that they needed BROADER procedures, but this does not address the controversy, as excluding steps make it a narrower procedure than the protocol dictates.
6) Claiming that molten aluminum can shine like molten steel, so long as some part of the liquid touches on a piece of furniture.

This was just a few of the weird science twists on the NIST 9/11 FAQ pages. And I didn't even mention the freefall of WTC7! (But you can hear and see their unbelievably weird explanation of that here, on youtube...)

But finally a bit of humor, to lighten up the mood! You gotta watch this, if you have 3 min to spare:
Aamer Rahman - OSAMA BIN LADEN

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

The terrorism in France, and me

In the morning after the event, I found two messages on Hangouts, saying:

"If you're reading this, don't look at international news.
You won't go to sleep
Terrorists in Paris. Craziness."

My honest first reaction was:

'Tsss, as if that would have kept me up! Ok, so I have a lot of world angst, and I've been crying many times over the HIV epidemic in Africa and the many orphans it leaves behind and things like that, but this! I mean, I can't stay awake every time there is a terrorist attack some place in the world! They happen so often these days; then I would NEVER sleep! And I'm not French, even though I understand that to a US person, the difference may seem subtle... ;)'
(I'm Swedish)

I even posted something totally non terror in France related on facebook that day, which I realized later would have seemed terribly out of place to other people reading it... They would have been like: 'What?? What does that have to do with anything!...'. Well, nothing! I just thought it was a good quote from a song that had been on my mind for a while, and I had not yet realized what kind of a mood everybody was in!...

During the day I started thinking that 'Oh no, this terrorism will probably mean more persecution of innocent Muslims... More bullying of Muslim children in schools...'. And that thought did bother me a bit, but I was still holding it from me, and sort of hoping that the terrorists in this case wouldn't be Muslim.

It wasn't until I watched the news that evening that I realized what an apparently big deal this was to everybody!... I went on facebook again, and these French flag colored profile pictures started turning up everywhere! And everybody was writing thoughts about terrorism! And after the news, there was a program where they usually discuss events of Sweden and the world in more detail, and of course, that was also about the Paris terror attacks this evening, although it had been scheduled to be about the ongoing refugee catastrophe...

I felt myself getting more and more disgusted. What, why do you all care all of a sudden?! I've been posting things about how refugees drown in the Mediterranean, how death is the only way out of Guantanamo bay prison, how half of all inhabitants in the Gaza strip are now children because none is left to grow old, and you haven't given a damn! I've been blogging about how you make suffering continue all over the world by sponsoring it with your money every time you shop, but you don't react! You still buy clothes made by child labor in appalling conditions, when you could just switch to fair trade, and contribute to a positive development instead! But you don't care enough!...

Now, all of a sudden, I'm the one who comes out as emotionally cold... It's very weird.

A bit later I was voice chatting with the same person who sent me the above messages, and I said:
"I don't know how stupid I must be, but I honestly never thought it would be this big!..."
"Yeah, me neither! I never thought they would have that capacity! In FRANCE!"

NO!!.... That's not what I meant!!.......... I meant the reaction!

Maybe it is because my dad died when I was 13 or something. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that I've spent around a year living and working in Kenya, where they have metal bars for every window. And they can't imagine not having that, because obviously, people would just go in! A glass window doesn't stop anybody! It wasn't until my own dad died that I really, fully realized that people could die, and that everybody would one day. Maybe the combination of this and the Kenyan windows has made me realize, what others haven't: That I am kept safe every day, only because people CHOOSE not to kill me. They can if they want, but every day they make this choice! They would get caught, hopefully... At least there is a substantial risk of that, but what if that doesn't mean anything to them? What if they are prepared to blow themselves up, so long as they get to blow me up too? Then there is nothing to protect me. There can't be. The only thing that can protect me from being killed that way is that nobody hates me, or my group, so much that they find it worth blowing themselves up just to get to me!...

So I'll refer something that I commented on one of the many facebook posts on terrorism that I read that day:

'I think we should at least TRY not committing any assaults first. If after that, we still have terror attacks committed to us, by mentally sane people, then we can start thinking of a different strategy.'

After all, France has for many years grown to be a more and more openly racist and xenophobic country. They have banned the use of burqa. They have made themselves infamous for evicting Romani settlements. Their police is allowed to ID anybody at any time for no reason, which by many sources is used to systematically harass people of African appearance, so that, for as long as those people choose to still live in France, they will know that they are not wanted. They don't belong. In 2005 they had enormous youth riots, started by the death of two young immigrant boys getting killed when running from the police into a power plant, but escalated by the police throwing a tear gas canister into a Muslim praying hall for no reason. Other than racism. They don't let in refugees from across the Mediterranean. Oh, and of course, let's not forget the bit that the terrorists themselves stated as their reason: They've been bombing their country! (Part of the statement: "as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets")

So again, let us really try to do things right first. Because quite frankly, we are not, at the moment. France wasn't, and even Sweden isn't. Even in Sweden, Africans, Muslims and other minorities have a rough time. Our own original population the Samish still complain about racism. This our enormous reaction to the terrorism in Paris, less than two days after an almost as big terror attack in Beirut, which is almost as close from here as Paris, passed without a raised eye-brow, is yet another evidence of our racism. And racism creates enemies. It takes a huge motivator to get a person to want to blow themselves up! But racism is also a huge burden to carry, for those subjected to it... And so long as we are only able to see the suffering of ourselves and our own, but disregard the suffering of those on the other side, there will be no end to wars and terrorism. But if we do things right from our end... who knows?

So before you say anything more about how bad terrorism is: Take a look at yourself, and your country! Whatever your country does, you are responsible for it, you know.

Solidarity that has limits is not solidarity. It's just some kind of expanded selfishness.

My present facebook profile pic