Often I find myself debating with Syrians who are pro the regime on Facebook, twitter, and Google Plus. Below is my response to comments by a fellow Syrian who supports the regime  on a public G+ post. Feel free to click through to the post to see all the comments. Below are his(her?) comments and my response. They said:

 It is very shallow to paint the situation as angels versus demons in Syria. Both factions have criminals among their ranks. But as a supporter of the regime I can’t overlook the fact that a significant portion of the opposition is based on a sectarian ideology and bonds upon the hatred of the other rather than through any civil dogma.

it is a stand against chaos and lawlessness. It is supporting the idea of the state not the imprisonment of your friends. Though the experiences of your friends might have been tragic, which I am awfully sorry for, but still the tragedies that the community as a whole will face in case Syria slips into chaos is much more greater than any personal suffering.

My response: I’m interested in seeing where you got your stats when you said “significant portion of the opposition is based on a sectarian ideology and bonds upon the hatred of the other rather than through any civil dogma.” Please don’t try to pass your opinions as fact. The regime is trying desperately to paint the protesters in a bad light. Heck, if we want to talk about percentages, I can easily prove to you that a larger portion of regime loyalists have committed far more atrocities, crimes, and human rights abuses that any abuses committed by the protesters are a mere fraction of that.

Also, care to explain why the regime is targeting peaceful activists if the claim is that the regime is fighting armed gangs? Why did +Anas Maarawi spend two months in jail? Why did Ghayath Matar, the renowned peaceful activist, get arrested by security forces, tortured and brutally murdered? Why was Ali Ferzat assaulted? Why did the parents of the Internationally renowned musician Jandali get viciously beaten up because he composed a song calling for freedom? Why is Syrian media publishing statements by groups promoting violence against Syrian protesters AND their parents? Why am I (and my parents) along with countless others, such as Hakam AlBaba being threatened by the dirt-bag Ammar Ismail from Damascus News Network who’s heavily supported by the regime and is constantly appearing on Syrian TV channels? Why were peaceful artists and intellectuals arrested for days and threatened and almost assaulted when the court finally freed them? Why are pro-Assad thugs assaulting people in Europe and even Washington DC?

I can keep going for days. In brief, the current regime is the antithesis of the “idea of state” that you claim to support. The Assad regime is a ruthless clan clinging tooth and nail to power at any cost.

What kind of state keeps hundreds of thousands of its people stateless and without any rights for decades? Why all the repression of the Kurds?

Syria has been in masked chaos since the sixties. “Stability” enforced by human rights abuses and fear is not something to be proud of or defend. The Assad regime is a sectarian regime if I’ve ever seen one. They claim to be secular but they do everything in their powers to scare the minorities from what would happen if the regime falls.

If your idea of state is North Korea, then congratulations, the Assad regime is bringing us ever so closer to it.

au·dac·i·ty/ôˈdasitē/Noun

1. The willingness to take bold risks: “her audacity came in handy during our most recent emergency”.
2. Rude or disrespectful behavior; impudence: “she had the audacity to pick up the receiver and ask me to hang up”.

I watched Al Assad’s second speech today, to the newly formed cabinet. The main change: he did not laugh. It’s hard to laugh when people are tearing your pictures apart and destroying statues of your late father and setting them on fire.

He opened by talking of conspiracy theories and infiltrators. Not too promising. There was definitely a change of tone from the previous speech and not interruptions with poetry or parroting chants like what happened at the parliament. However, removing status law is still going to take another couple of weeks. I expect it to be announced on a Thursday.

Algeria(?) lifted their emergency laws promptly after some protests. But in Syria we still need sometime. Time we can’t afford. We have a constitution, be it faulty as it is, so why does it need weeks just to be reinstated?

Giving hundreds of thousands of Kurds citizenship, and even the thought of  establishing a Parliamentary committee to study removing the emergency law were red lines. It was unthinkable that anyone would dare discuss them openly in the public sphere.

It took a few weeks of protests by– if you were to believe the Syrian official line– “infiltrators;” “conspirators;” “agents of Bandar, Hariri, Israel, and the US,” and trained foreign nationals to push the regime to announce that they’re going to give Syrians some of their basic rights back.

Assad talked audaciously for an hour about reform. I’ll leave it to you dear reader to choose which meaning of the word applies here. Meanwhile thousands of people are rotting in jails for committing though crimes against the “beloved leader”  and motherland. Convicted felons, thieves, frauds, and the average thug are released in hours with a .frequent presidential pardon. Bigmouths aren’t so lucky.

Adding insult to injury, Assad talked about ensuring citizens’ dignity, on day after his security forces tied down every man in Al Baida village in Baniyas for daring to protest. Heavily armed thugs gleefully walked all over the men tied down like cattle, frequently kicking them in the head and face and beating them with sticks.

Of course, the speech did not leave out political reform. Assad talked about improving life standards, supporting the drought impoverished  Eastern provinces, improving transparency in the public sector and economic processes as a whole. There was no mention of the economic titans–or Economic Bulldozers as they prefer– of Assad’s close circle, Makhlouf and Shalash, who have been treating the Syrian Economy as their personal trust fund for decades. A promising start indeed.

After the speech, some of my fellow Syrians were optimistic, hopeful, excited even with all the seemingly serious promises and apparent change in tone. I wonder how those promises are in anyway more serious than similar promises from Assad in 2000, or his promises two weeks ago that had a fair share of blood chilling jokes and chuckles as blood of Syrians were coloring the streets red.

For the time being, I’m going to hold on to my skepticism and cynicism. Studies show that cynics are more bitter than the average person, but also have a firmer grasp of reality. To my fellow Syrians that took the redpill and set themselves free I say: I’m forever humbled by your bravery and persistence. I’m honored to be your compatriot and had the pleasure of knowing some of you whether in person or online.

As you can see from the map, Arabic speaking countries are a ‘hot area’ where many voices are threatened. I looked closely at the data to see what I can get out of it. My approach was to select a sample of the worst offenders and do a little comparison. I chose the following regimes for this mini-research project I did: Assad of Syria, Mubarak of Egypt, Ben Ali of Tunisia, Mohammed VI of Morocco, Saud of Saudi Arabia, Al Nahyan of UAE, and Sabah of Kuwait. Now wouldn’t it be interesting to see comparison between a regime’s years in power opposed to how many voices were threatened in those years? I thought so too and here’s what I found:

Voices Threatened vs. Years in Power*

As you can see, only Assad, Mubarak, and Saud achieved a higher number of threatened voices than years on the chair. With that they have won their countries a spot on the Reporters Without Borders list of internet enemies for the year 2010 along with Ben Ali for the overall number of voices threatened. Morocco was a close contender, but it didn’t make the top ten list. Here’s a pie chart to better represent the share of voices threatened by regime/country:

Voices Threatened Distribution

The podium goes to Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria; Their Mukhabarat are walking tall today.

On this day, I would like to pay tribute to all Syrian bloggers behind bars, and to all threatened voices around the world. I also want to point out one of the many guides on circumventing internet censorship that’s available for download in English and Arabic.

A world without internet censorship for me means being able to click on a link only worrying that it could have viruses, not that someone is virtually reading over your shoulder and keeping track of every page you happen to open. It also means being able to write a blog post, write a comment, or post a video online without worrying that you’d get up to three years in prison for it; and most of all it means that internet access in my country is held back, over 80% use dial-up, for years to keep online activity, and indeed activists, as controllable as possible.

You can see the Global Voices coverage of the day here, and here. Also, be sure to visit the campaign’s website on Reporters Without Borders:

*The “years in power count” is approximate and could be tiny bit off in some cases.

.

كتب أنس أونلاين تدوينة بعنوان “انفصام الشخصية العلمانية العربية !” تساءل فيها عما إذا كان العلمانيون العرب يعانون من انفصام الشخصية بما أنهم يدعمون المقاومة الإسلامية المتمثلة بحزب الله وحماس على الرغم من أنهم يرفضون التصويت لها في انتخابات سياسية وقد يرفض بعضهم فكرة وجود أحزاب دينية سياسية من الأساس.

لن أتحدث عن المتشددين من الطرفين، سواء العلمانيين أم المتدينين، فكما لا يرغب العلماني بأن يفرض المتدين عاداته وطقوسه وتعاليمه عليه، لا يرغب المتدين بالمثل أن يفرض العلماني نمط حياة لا ديني عليه أو أن يمنعه من أداء بعض فروضه الدينية. نقاشي التالي يفترض وجود احترام متبادل بين طرفين يختلفان بوجهات النظر بشدة. صححوني إن كنت مخطئاً ولكنني أعتقد بأننا لا نريد العيش كما في السعودية حيث يتم فرض لباس معين على الأشخاص (يتعدى متطلبات الحشمة بشكل غير معقول) ويمنع فيه الاختلاط والتفاعل البريء بين الجنسين، وتمنع فيه النساء من قيادة السيارات والانخراط في العديد من مسالك العمل ويضرب فيه الناس في الشارع لقسرهم على الصلاة؛ وأيضاً لا نريد العيش في دولة كفرنسا تضطهد الأقلية الدينية المسلمة بحظر الحجاب أو النقاب مثلاً تحت غطاء حقوق المرأة وحقوق الإنسان.

في طرحه لوجهة نظره سأل أنس السؤال التالي:

كل هذا جيد ولكلّ جهة حقها بأن تؤمن بالأفكار التي تريد لكن … لماذا لا يثبت العلمانيون على مبادئهم وأفكارهم بنفس طريقة ثبات المتدينين والتمسك بمبادئهم؟

سأرد على السؤال بسؤال، عن أي المتدينين نتحدث؟ هل نتحدث عن متديني الخليج الذين لا همّ لبعضهم (كي لا أظلم الكل، ولكرهي للتعميم بشكل عام) غير الحديث عن ضرورة مواجهة المد الإيراني الشيعي (أو الفارسي حسب الحاجة والسياق)  في المنطقة؟ أم عن متديني حركات المقاومة الإسلامية الذين تدعمهم إيران نفسها لمقاومة الإحتلال الإسرائيلي الغاشم؟ هل نتحدث عن متديني هيئة الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر سيئة الصيت في السعودية؟ أم عن متديني الأسر الحاكمة في بعض الدول العربية الذين سُرّت أبواقهم الإعلامية بالهجمات الوحشية على المقاومة الإسلامية والمدنيين في لبنان وفلسطين وشمتت بهم بكل صفاقة؟

في النهاية هذا ليس موضوعي ولكني أردت أن أشير إلى افتراض خاطئ في الجملة التي اقتبستها، علينا التركيز على التفاصيل الدقيقة وحيثيات هذه المواضيع، كي لا نقع في مغالطات لمجرد تسرعنا بإطلاق تعميمات أقل ما يقال عنها أنها غير دقيقة.

عودة إلى موضوعنا الأساسي حيث قسم أنس العلمانيين إلى قسمين بحسب رأيه:

الاحتمال الأول: العلماني العربي هو في النهاية وليد لمجتمع ذو ثقافة إسلامية عمرها يقارب الخمسة عشر قرناً، العلماني العربي يحمل في النهاية وبشكل أو بآخر في وجدانه الجمعي جينات من حكموا يوماً نصف الكرة الأرضية بعد أن كانوا قبائل متشرذمة وكان فضل الاسلام أساسياً في قوتهم هذه، ربما يحاول أن ينكر هذا، أو ربما يحاول أن يقتنع بأن الزمن تغير وما صَلُحَ في الماضي للحكم تحت إسم (دولة إسلامية) لن يصلح الآن، وربما يسوّد الصفحات والمقالات حول هذه الفكرة لكنه يغير رأيه فوراً عند أي تجربة عملية يشاهدها على المحك، فهو لا يرى نوراً في نهاية النفق سوى تلك الحركات (الإسلامية).

لو نظر أنس بدقة إلى وجهة النظر تلك بتمعن لوجد أن العلماني يدعم المقاومة مهما كانت، حتى لو اختلف معها بالأيديولوجيا (وهذا أمر لا يمكننا أن نقوله عن بعض “المتدينين” الذين لا يريدون أن يروا سلاحاً بيد المقاومة لمجرد أنها من مذهب ديني مختلف) فالمهم هو الدفاع عن الأرض وعدم السكوت بوجه الاحتلال. العلماني العربي يدعم المقاومة الإسلامية على الرغم من عدم اتفاقه مع البرنامج السياسي للجهة المقاومة. وأنا شخصياً لا أرى تناقضاً في ذلك فالشق العسكري واضح، والبرنامج السياسي الداخلي واضح ويمكن مناقشته ضمن البنى السياسية القائمة أساساً، القسمان قد لا ينفصلان عن بعضهما بأكثر من شعرة، ولكنا نكون مخطئين إن لم نرها أو إن تجاهلناها. ولا ننسى أن المقاومة الفلسطينية المسلحة كانت ومازالت تضم فصائل يسارية وإن ضعف تأثيرها بعد إنهيار الاتحاد السوفييتي داعمها الأول. الفكرة هنا أن المقاومة الإسلامية هي الأقوى والأكثر تأثيراً في الوقت الحالي، ولكنها ليست “النور الوحيد في نهاية النفق”، كل من حمل سلاحاً بوجه المستعمر هو نورٌ في نهاية النفق. ليس هناك تناقض ولا فصام، هناك أولويات ووعي للاعتبارات السياسية القائمة على أرض الواقع، ما يسميه أنس فصاماً أسميه أنا تحكيماً للمنطق.

أما بالنسبة للمسلمين الذين حكموا نصف الكرة الأرضية بعد أن كانوا قبائل متشرذمة قبل الإسلام عادوا ليكونوا قبائل متشرذمة في ظل الإسلام. لمجرد حدوث شيئين بتسلسل معين لا يعني أن هناك علاقة سببية بينهما. الحضارات والإمبراطوريات قامت وسقطت من الفراعنة إلى الرومان إلى المغول إلى العرب المسلمين في الأندلس إلى الإمبراطورية العثمانية والإمبراطورية البريطانية والفرنسية وحالياً أمريكا حاكمة العالم بدأت بإفساح الطريق للقائد العملاق الجديد متمثلاً بالصين. كل تلك الحضارات قامت وحكمت بجيشها وعلمها وإقتصادها القوي،  ولو كان التدين معيار القوة الوحيد لكانت السعودية والفاتيكان وحتى أفغانستان أقوى دول العالم.

القسم الثاني من العلمانيين بحسب رأي أنس هم الأقلية وهم كالتالي:

الاحتمال الثاني: العلماني العربي سيُشجع الشيطان نفسه لو كان محارباً لإسرائيل, عند هذه النقطة تنتهي الخلافات والحواجز ويصبح الأمر أكبر من أن يفكر فيه بهذه الطريقة! تخيل أن يقف حينها إلى جانب العدو الإسرائيلي لمجرد أنه ضد فكرة الأحزاب الإسلامية من أساسها! الأمر غير وارد على الإطلاق (على الرغم من وجود بعض العلمانيين العرب الذين وقفوا ضد حماس وحزب الله في خضم حروبهم مع إسرائيل وقد قرأنا العديد من مقالات هؤلاء الكتاب في العديد من المواقع وخاصة الموقع سيء السمعة ‘إيلاف’ لكن أعتقد بأن هؤلاء قلة وليسوا الحالة العامة للعلمانيين العرب).

أود أن أذكر أنس بأن السعودية كانت أول من لامت حزب الله على “مغامراته غير المحسوبة” إبان العدوان الإسرائيلي على لبنان، وأن شيخ الأزهر صافح الرئيس الإسرائيلي منذ فترة ليست بالطويلة. فإن كانت السعودية أرض الحرمين الشريفين والأزهر شمس الحضارة والمعرفة الإسلامية مواقفهما كما سبق، فالعتب على كل من باع المبادئ والكرامة وخان إخوته في الأرض والدم مقابل مكاسب سياسية أو أعوام إضافية في كرسي السلطة. فعلينا إذاً أن ندقق في التفاصيل كما سبق. هناك أناس يبيعون مبادئهم ويلبسون جلد الخراف على الرغم من أنهم ذئابٌ مستعدة لنهش لحم أبناء جلدتهم عند أي فرصة سانحة. بغض النظر إن كانوا يقدمون أنفسهم للعموم على أنهم علمانيون أم متدينون، كلهم مستعدون لتقديم كل شيء للعدو مقابل ضمانات فارغة بمكاسب سياسية، ويقومون بالتلاعب بالأشخاص الذين يؤيدون الأفكار التي يفترض أنهم يمثلونها لتحقيق مآربهم الشخصية، دون أي اعتبار لمصالح عامة الشعب. جميعهم يكشف عنهم عاجلاً أم آجلاً ويتضح كذبهم ونفاقهم أمام العامة التي يفترض أنهم يحمونها ويضعون مصالحها فوق كل اعتبار.

أتفق مع أنس في أن التطرف من الاتجاهين مرفوض، كما أن منع أي طرف أو جهة من ممارسة حرياتها وحقوقها المدنية متضمنة حق التنظيم السياسي أمر غير مقبول بتاتاً. أنا أؤمن بأن حريتي تنتهي عندما تبدأ حرية الأخرين وأرفض العيش في مجتمع لا يحترم حرية الآخرين، كل الآخرين. المرء له الحرية في حياته طالما أنه لا يؤذي الآخرين ولا يتعدى عليهم بممارساته. والأحزاب الإسلامية أو الدينية ليست شراً مستطيراً كما يروج بعض العلمانيين، بل هي جزء ضروري من العملية السياسية في أي مكان لكي تمثل مصالح المواطنين الذين يؤمنون بها ويقومون بدعمها. ونتفق جميعاً أن الأنظمة الشمولية القمعية غير مقبولة بتاتاً سواء كانت علمانية أم دينية.

ولعل سوريا مثالٌ مقبولٌ لاختلاط الدين بالدولة حيث هناك قانون أحوال شخصية للأديان المختلفة يحترم ممارساتها في الزواج والطلاق والميراث، وهناك قانون جنائي (وإن كان متقادماً) ولكنه بأغلبه لايستمد أحكامه من الدين الإسلامي أو غيره ولا يفرضها على الجميع ولا يقطع الرؤوس والأيدي (لأسباب دينية على أي حال). هناك وزارة للأوقاف والدين يعلّم في المدارس، ولكن بالمقابل لا يتطلب أن يكون وزير معين من دين أو مذهب معينين كما الحال في لبنان مثلاً. أنا لا أدعي بأي حال من الأحوال أن سوريا بلد مثالي بهذا الخصوص وأهل مكة أدرى بشعابها. ولكنني أعتقد بأن سوريا نموذج عقلاني (وليس علماني) ويمكن البناء والتطوير عليه.

وليس هناك خاتمة أفضل لتدوينتي هذهمن اقتباس من رسالة من والد الصديق ياسين الذين يدون في أمواج اسبانية في فرات الشام حيث كتب التالي:

” لا تسمح لأي انتماء ديني أو قومي أو سياسي أن يفصلك عن الآخرين, كل الآخرين, فالإنسانية و الانتماء إليها هي أوسع و أكثر رحابة من كل دين و وطن “

___________

في النهاية أود أن أوجه التحية لياسين الذي بدأ حواراً ممتازاً حول التدوين السوري والتفاعل بين المدونين على اختلاف مسالكهم، ولعلوش الذي كتب تدوينة رمزية رائعة بعنوان قصص حب كافرة، ترك فيها للقارئ الفرصة بالخروج باستنتاجاته الخاصة. واحترامي لعموم المدونين السوريين الذين أقرأ بمتعة شديدة ما استطعت من نتاجهم وما جادت به قرائحهم إن كان باللغة العربية أو الإنكليزية.

وتحيتي بالطبع لأنس الذي لايدع اختلافنا في الآراء يقف في طريق تعاوننا في موقع أردرويد: أندرويد للمستخدمين العرب.

I was especially interested in the particular use of words in the article. I quote:

It has been a quarter-century since Israel and Syria fought directly, but Syria backs anti-Israel forces like the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic organization Hamas. Israel’s sworn enemy Iran backs Hamas and Hezbollah.

In this article, Hamas and Hezbollah were not referred to as.. *gasp* “terrorist organizations.” Now I was not able to determine if this was an AP policy not to refer to them as such outside of a direct quote, or whether there’s more to the matter. I’m going to layout a few happenings, and let the readers come out with their own conspiracy theories.

Syria’s main beef with the U.S./Israel can be summed up to the following points and accusations: Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, Interfering in Lebanon and Iraq, and strong ties with Iran. So what’s changed?

Hamas is being locked in Gaza with walls courtesy of the Israeli and Egyptian governments; They will be are being starved into irrelevancy. Hezbollah is no longer an upset in Lebanese politics since they failed to establish a majority in the last election and eventually all the creases were straightened out. Also, the 2006 war was a PR disaster for Israel and gave Hezbollah a stronghold in Lebanon, even though they weren’t able to translate it into votes a couple of years after that. To Israel, Hezbollah is a wasp hive best left alone. Also, the U.S. has been very successful in slyly translating the tensions in regards to Iraq into tensions between the Iraqi and Syrian governments as Washington works a slow withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

On the other hand,  Syria and the U.S. seem to be achieving progress, be it painfully slow: A promise of a gradual lift of sanctions that is yet to materialize. Robert Ford, former deputy ambassador to Iraq, is a candidate for the vacant-for-five-years job of U.S. ambassador to Damascus. He is currently awaiting Syrian approval. Iran is now occupied with internal turmoil, and sanctions keep piling up. I would not be surprised if Syria starts to noticeably drift away from its current closest ally. Politics in essence is more interest than ideology.

Does all of the above mean that Syria is working its way out of the gutter? Are Hezbollah and Hamas going to be removed from US terrorist organization lists at some point in the near future?

I do not think that the correlation of these events implies causation. Maybe I’m reading too much into the choice of words in that AP report. Still, It’s certainly interesting to see how things are shaping up. Could we be witnessing the “birth pangs of a new Middle East?”

P.S. The following Time article also uses the term “militant groups” to refer to Hezbollah and Hamas: Why the U.S. is Back on the Road to Damascus.

P.P.S. It’s important to mention Twitter in anything you write to show that you are relevant and hip — sarcasm.

No Way Through

Update: The video embedding was disabled so you’re going to have to click through to view that video on youtube.

[Hat tip to Jazarah]

The background of this story is this post by Abu Fares, a response ridiculing the infamous call for a campaign against masturbation. The commentators on that post eventually came up with their own ideas for  random blogging campaigns. In essence to further mock that blogger, and the perceived religious bloggers he’s associated with.

I have to say that upon reading about the anti-masturbation campaign I cracked up. Also, I posted about it on Global Voices, sans-sarcasm. Some people were amused by the idea and tweeted the link of the article and a friend of mine wrote to me saying that the campaigner is likely to have a crowd supporting his campaign that you could fit in a phone booth. So, many people find – me included – that idea outrageous, But does that warrant the ridicule of the blogger? Does that make it ok to put aside all the great words and thoughts I’ve seen many Syrian bloggers write on each of their blogs to combine forces to fight this supposed “common enemy” called religiousness?

For those of you unfamiliar with the Syrian blogosphere some more background is in order. It is a common and accepted notion that religious Syrian bloggers (even those who don’t specifically blog about Islam related matters) blog in Arabic, and those who are liberal, non-religious often write in English. So there has been friction between the two sides more than once.

Now, I only have one thing to say to all my dear compatriot bloggers: FOR FUCKIN’ FUCK’S SAKE! CUT IT OUT!

Don’t you all see how ridiculous you all sound? You think you’re all so god damn different. Well, here’s a little table to help illustrate things a bit clearer:

Are you really that different?

Apart from a couple of sane voices out there, those guys are ready to rip each other to pieces for the good of all Syrians. What a farce! What’s crazy is that with each stand off, the same people that put Arbaji and many others behind bars are rubbing their hands and creepily saying “excellent!” Now I’m not asking anyone to go on a crusade against the security forces and the so-called justice system to get those guys out, or even worse: demand the freedom of speech for all Syrians regardless of their faith, ethnicity, or political affiliation. Also, I’m not trying to lecture  anyone in how to be a patriot or a better person (although I seem to be failing at that).

What irks me is that everyone is so focused on their own nuances that they refuse to see a bigger picture. Cancel that, you don’t even have to see a bigger picture. Just spare the rest of us who don’t care all your incessant bickering. The I-get-my-panties-in-knot-every-time-the-opposite-side-says-something syndrome is getting really old and neither of you are getting any support for whatever it is that you’re advocating with your self-righteous attitude, or venomous attempts at humor.

Some will probably attack me saying that I’m no better than anyone else [if anyone even read this post], that I’m in no position to tell people what to do and not do. I’m not assuming that I am, nor will I ever be. But it’s a shame seeing top-notch bloggers make fools out of themselves. There’s a reason I don’t blog that often: I’m very critical of my own writing and always prefer reading what my fellow bloggers to jotting down whatever follies I have running through my head. One thing remains true though, when I read what y’all have written and the only thing I can think about is going ninja on my keyboard and furiously write a post – it only means one thing: you guys suck!

Hey guys I do appreciate your attempts at arguing against homosexuality with scientific arguments and proof, but all you’ve written was either based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what you’ve read, selective quoting and of course citing people with biases against homosexuality as doing genuine research.

Allow me to rephrase something I read somewhere I can’t quite remember: I’m as likely to have a real scientific argument with you as with an alchemist or someone who’s convinced that the earth is flat… what you speak of is not science and I refuse to acknowledge it as such. please spare me and save my time and yours.

Wish you all the best,

Anas

I see this only as generating from  plain xenophobia. As humans we’re genetically coded to be afraid of those who are different from us, and the herd mentality is hard wired into our brains that we don’t even want to acknowledge it. We, as humans, are instinctively to feel safety in numbers, numbers of those who are similar to ourselves and we label those who are different as dangerous, outsiders, abnormal, or even immoral as our consciousness advanced.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when that freedom is stretched to the extent of demoralizing groups of people based on grounds of religious or racial, or in this case sexual preference, differences that’s freedom gone too far.

Bloggers who participated in this campaign recycled the same old rhetoric eternally used by homophobes. Although I genuinely don’t believe in the efficiency of ‘dialogue’ with people entrenched behind a certain belief I will respond to the arguments that are most irritating to me personally:

• “Homosexuality is immoral”: homosexuality is in no way synonymous with promiscuity or lack of morals in any sense PERIOD.
• “Homosexuality is a sickness requiring treatment”: a sickness is defined as a disorder hampering the being’s ability to function properly. and that’s in no way the case with homosexuality; it doesn’t affect a person’s well being or their ability to be an active contributor to any given society.
• “Homosexuality is a sin“: hmm, all I can say is this, if everyone stopped trying to impose their religious belief, which of course they are entitled to have, the world would be a better place. All religions are creeds of love not hate, yet people always find a way to utilize religion to their own purposes.
• “Homosexuality is abnormal/against nature”: who defines what’s normal and what’s not? deviation from a majority doesn’t make those who are different as abnormal based on this difference. As for it being against nature? seriously? if the sole purpose of human sexual intercourse is reproduction would someone explain to me the abundance of birth control practices and products. Over more, I don’t think any one should fear that homosexuality could endanger our species survival, Earth already harbors 30% more humans than it can provide for.
• “Studies showed that Homosexuality is not normal”: such studies were conducted with no intent of original research, but for the sole purpose of finding a scientific looking ‘proof’ to support a false claim, such studies are best described as “junk science.”

Is it that hard to live and let live? And were there no more worthy issues to be addressed under the third Syrian blogging week? I ask rhetorically.

• Valentine’s Day is tomorrow, and people will say that you don’t need a special day to celebrate love and that everyday should be a Valentine’s Day. Just because there’s a special day to celebrate love that doesn’t mean that you should ignore it the rest of the year. Conclusion: stop whining, suck it up, wear red tomorrow and go buy roses and chocolates and other Valentine’s Day stuff to make the corporates happy you cheapskate!
• People are more inclined to sympathize with the tragedies and suffering closer to them (geographically) regardless of proportion (i.e. people suffering a far get less sympathy for more suffering.)
• Anytime you take action based on anger you’re likely to regret it and/or apologize for it later.
• Being different is good, and people would still judge you for it.
• I like this internet cafe because they published an ad in a magazine using Firefox icon instead of the broweser with deteriorating market share Internet Explorer.
• This post was written on a slight hangover; who says alcohol is bad for you?