I recently read about a pilot programme, for school children, currently underway in some New York Schools.
Time Magazine listed the programme as one of the best inventions of 2009
Arthur E Levin, of the Huffington Post writes that this programme "is a prototype for our nation's schools in the decades to come. It's a model much more powerful and potentially far-reaching than any other reform, including much-ballyhooed charter schools, to date"
It is called the 'School of One' programme, and it has the support of New York City's schools chancellor, Joel Klein.
Joel Rose, the founder of the School of One says that the intention is to “provide teachers with a powerful tool that enables them to meet the needs of each student and allows them more time to focus on the quality of instruction.”
The programme combines traditional teaching methods with cutting-edge technology and software. Virtual tutors, and other tools, are used to provide students with customised tuition that meets each student's individal needs and learning styles
It is a new approach, and it challenges the classical approach to classroom tuition, that has been in place for approximately 100 years.
The New York Times explains:
"Once the students arrive at school, they receive their individual playlists identifying the lessons they have to complete for the day, which could involve virtual tutoring online, computer worksheets or small-group lessons with a classroom teacher. Their schedules are also displayed on large television screens, akin to flight schedule displays in airports"
What I find fascinating, and exciting, about the School of One programme, is that each lesson is customised for each child. That means that each child's strengths, weaknesses and interests are accounted for.
The programme acknowledges that when it comes to schooling and education, each child is different
And that's a good thing
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
What can we learn from South African Film Locations?
"District 9 is the most exciting science fiction movie to come along in ages; definitely the most thrilling film of the summer; and quite possibly the best film I've seen all year."
Other critics were equally complimentary
Interestingly, the movie was shot on location in Chiawelo, in Soweto. In fact, the setting was mostly that of a shanty town, a typical township. Typical of the poverty and impoverished neighbourhoods that many South Africans are living in
Tsotsi tells the story of a South African street thug, who finds a baby on the back seat of a car he stole. The film was resleased in 2005. It was set in a slum, in Soweto. The film won an Oscar, and to date, has grossed $10 million.
Jerusalema is a film that deals with the criminal underworld of Hillbrow, Johannesburg. It was submitted to the Academy Awards to qualify for a nominee, but was not selected
What I find fascinating about these movies is that they are all set within parts of South Africa, that many South Africans would rather not acknowledge. The poverty of township life, the criminal activity that exists within shanty towns, the thuggery of Hillbrow's organised criminal underworld.
But these 'negative' aspects of South Africa are the essential backdrops for these successful and critically acclaimed movies
There is a saying that goes "One man's rubbish is another man's treasure". Well, South Africa has so much 'rubbish' that the international movie industry, at least, recognizes as treasure. And that industry is willing to exploit our treasures.
The lesson, I feel, that can be learnt is that South Africa has so many unique issues, that we need to not only acknowledge, but also embrace. Some of those issues are not particulalry pleasant, but they are ours. And they can be seen as treasures
And so too in our personal lives, we have many personal issues. Let us view them as treasures, learn from them, and exploit them for the unique role they play in our lives
----------------------------------------
Footnote:
Check out the recently launched: http://www.safilmlocations.co.za/
Thursday, November 12, 2009
My son wears high heels. Yay
My 3 year old son, Caleb, and I, recently had a typical encounter. When I say typical, I mean the encounter was typical of many parent-child encounters/debates
Encounters that usually take place prior to stepping out into the public arena
Encounters that I too had on many occasions with my parents
This particular encounter occurred on a non-descript Shabbat/Sabbath morning before shul/synagogue. We were at home. Getting dressed. Wearing our smart, presentable, 'Sunday best'.
Okay, I was dressed in my Sunday best. The struggle was getting him to understand that when going out in public, especially to the synagogue for Sabbath prayer services, one should dress appropriately. He should dress like me. Black pants. Long sleeved shirt.
Appropriately
When people use the word 'appropriately', it sometimes means 'not naked' but it (actually) usually means 'like everyone else'
In this situation it refers to the latter
My son insisted on wearing short pants that resembled swimming trunks. Long Spiderman socks, pulled up to his knees. A T-shirt that did not even match itself. And, his high heels
He loves his high heels
They are a pair of smart, boy's black shoes with a typical heel at the back. He calls them his 'boy's high heels'
And the encounter went something like this
Daddy: You can't wear that. It looks ridiculous
Caleb: I love these clothes. I love these shoes
Daddy: But you can't leave the house looking like that
Caleb: It looks cool. I like it
That went on for a while. I eventually gave up, realising that giving my kids a healthy breakfast was more important than having a fight over what Caleb was wearing
We went to the synagogue. Caleb wore HIS version of 'Sunday best'. And I sat in the synagogue, watching him, feeling slightly embarrassed.
I replayed the 'encounter', over and over, in my mind. And then I got into an internal debate
I reckoned:
My biggest concern before leaving the house, and while sitting in the synagogue, was:
WHAT WILL PEOPLE THINK ABOUT ME?
I was not thinking: 'What will people think about him'
My concern was that people would think that I did not know how to dress my kids 'appropriately'. My concern was that people will judge me. My concern was that people will accuse me of being an inadequate parent. My fear was that my EGO would come under attack
And I recalled the same fears my parents had - every time I left the house with my favourite ripped jeans, or worn-out shoes.
It took me a while, but I started to realise that I should not confuse my ego with childrens' desire to express themselves
My kids dress 'appropriately'. I do not need to fight/argue with my kids when all they want to do is express themselves, albeit through an offensive dress sense.
THESE types of parent-child 'encounters' are not worth the fight
These types of arguements only serve limits my childrens' self-expression. I do not want to limit their creativity to my ego-based fears of other parents' criticism
My ego can handle a pair of boy's high heels
Encounters that usually take place prior to stepping out into the public arena
Encounters that I too had on many occasions with my parents
This particular encounter occurred on a non-descript Shabbat/Sabbath morning before shul/synagogue. We were at home. Getting dressed. Wearing our smart, presentable, 'Sunday best'.
Okay, I was dressed in my Sunday best. The struggle was getting him to understand that when going out in public, especially to the synagogue for Sabbath prayer services, one should dress appropriately. He should dress like me. Black pants. Long sleeved shirt.
Appropriately
When people use the word 'appropriately', it sometimes means 'not naked' but it (actually) usually means 'like everyone else'
In this situation it refers to the latter
My son insisted on wearing short pants that resembled swimming trunks. Long Spiderman socks, pulled up to his knees. A T-shirt that did not even match itself. And, his high heels
He loves his high heels
They are a pair of smart, boy's black shoes with a typical heel at the back. He calls them his 'boy's high heels'
And the encounter went something like this
Daddy: You can't wear that. It looks ridiculous
Caleb: I love these clothes. I love these shoes
Daddy: But you can't leave the house looking like that
Caleb: It looks cool. I like it
That went on for a while. I eventually gave up, realising that giving my kids a healthy breakfast was more important than having a fight over what Caleb was wearing
We went to the synagogue. Caleb wore HIS version of 'Sunday best'. And I sat in the synagogue, watching him, feeling slightly embarrassed.
I replayed the 'encounter', over and over, in my mind. And then I got into an internal debate
I reckoned:
- He is fully clothed. 'Appropriate' for prayer services.
- But he looks ridiculous.
- But he looks extremely cute too
- But what bout the 'encounter' we had before leaving home?
- I really did not want him to go out looking like that
- But this is what he wanted to wear
- These were clothes that he liked
- This was how he wanted to express himself
My biggest concern before leaving the house, and while sitting in the synagogue, was:
WHAT WILL PEOPLE THINK ABOUT ME?
I was not thinking: 'What will people think about him'
My concern was that people would think that I did not know how to dress my kids 'appropriately'. My concern was that people will judge me. My concern was that people will accuse me of being an inadequate parent. My fear was that my EGO would come under attack
And I recalled the same fears my parents had - every time I left the house with my favourite ripped jeans, or worn-out shoes.
It took me a while, but I started to realise that I should not confuse my ego with childrens' desire to express themselves
My kids dress 'appropriately'. I do not need to fight/argue with my kids when all they want to do is express themselves, albeit through an offensive dress sense.
THESE types of parent-child 'encounters' are not worth the fight
These types of arguements only serve limits my childrens' self-expression. I do not want to limit their creativity to my ego-based fears of other parents' criticism
My ego can handle a pair of boy's high heels
Monday, November 2, 2009
Extremist Capitalism and Chipmunk Economics
Goldman Sachs recently reported profits of $3.1 billion for the third quarter of 2009. The bonus pool being set aside for this year will amount to, approximately, $16 billion.
When converted into ZAR, the figures are mind-boggling. And while mere mortal South Africans do not (usually)deal with such fantastical numbers within corporate South Africa, the issue of big bonuses (and greed) is not unique to the US or Europe.
Zwelinzima Vavi, general secretary of Cosatu, recently slammed the South African business community for white-collar crime, as well as ridiculously high salary levels and bonus payments.
While I very seldom agree with Cosatu, or ANY member of its leadership, I do see capitalist greed as not only problematic, but self-destructive too. The greed, and ‘survival of the fittest’ concept, is getting more extreme, especially as economic and political uncertainty grows. I support capitalism and the freedom to pursue one’s commercial interests. But I fear Extremist Capitalism and the pursuit of greed and accumulation.
US President Obama likes referring to the “top 1%” who own and control the US economy. Economies that are owned and controlled by a small minority are pretty typical of all societies, cultures and states. It is not unique to the greedy West and it exists in the corrupt developing world too. But while we live in the free world, and live within a free economy, we need to recognize the pitfalls of our system. And these pitfalls exist in the form of greed, exploitation and accumulation.
Cosatu, and the 99% of South Africans who are feel economically disempowered, will continue to fight Capitalism, as long as it continues to present itself in the form of Extremist Capitalism.
Extremist Capitalism is not only driven by greed, and the desire to survive. It is also driven by a need to accumulate. And that need to accumulate overrides our desire to live lifestyles that suit our families, our communities and ourselves.
George Soros committed $50mil to the recently launched Institute for New Economic Thinking. Anatole Kaletsky of The Times in London, writes that economics is a profession “whose creativity has been stifled by the intellectual monopoly of orthodox academic funding bodies”. The new institute aims to challenge this orthodoxy and its accepted economic theories and models.
I support such a move
And while traditional economic take scientific mathematical models, as well as human behavior into account, the Western world’s desire to accumulate, is driven by, what I call, Chipmunk Economics. Chipmunk Economics is all about accumulation.
At times, the accumulation is for the ‘just-in-case’ scenario. Just in case we need that thing in future; just in case we can’t find it next time; just in case the economy slows down; just in case there is political upheaval.
At times, the accumulation is for accumulation’s sake.
And both types of accumulation are completely rational. Both are accepted as normal. Both are justified
But are we human beings or are we chipmunks?
Do we earn money to support the lifestyles we want to live, or do we earn money to accumulate things?
• How many holiday homes can one family visit at one time?
• How many cars can one executive drive at one time?
• How many i-pods can one person listen to at one time?
• How many video-gaming systems can our children play with at one time?
Are we spending time growing our business ventures, or at car dealerships, buying yet another car? Are we spending time with our families, or are we on the phone with our property managers because the geyser burst (yet again) at our holiday home in Plett?
Is our rational, normal and justified desire to accumulate REALLY supporting the lifestyles we want to live?
I support a free, rational economy as a means to developing our country
I support the making of money in order to provide for our families and to ensure some sort of financial security
But I fear that Extremist Capitalism, based on greed, will lead to demise of our society.
And I fear that Chipmunk Economics, based on accumulation, will lead to the demise of our inner selves
When converted into ZAR, the figures are mind-boggling. And while mere mortal South Africans do not (usually)deal with such fantastical numbers within corporate South Africa, the issue of big bonuses (and greed) is not unique to the US or Europe.
Zwelinzima Vavi, general secretary of Cosatu, recently slammed the South African business community for white-collar crime, as well as ridiculously high salary levels and bonus payments.
While I very seldom agree with Cosatu, or ANY member of its leadership, I do see capitalist greed as not only problematic, but self-destructive too. The greed, and ‘survival of the fittest’ concept, is getting more extreme, especially as economic and political uncertainty grows. I support capitalism and the freedom to pursue one’s commercial interests. But I fear Extremist Capitalism and the pursuit of greed and accumulation.
US President Obama likes referring to the “top 1%” who own and control the US economy. Economies that are owned and controlled by a small minority are pretty typical of all societies, cultures and states. It is not unique to the greedy West and it exists in the corrupt developing world too. But while we live in the free world, and live within a free economy, we need to recognize the pitfalls of our system. And these pitfalls exist in the form of greed, exploitation and accumulation.
Cosatu, and the 99% of South Africans who are feel economically disempowered, will continue to fight Capitalism, as long as it continues to present itself in the form of Extremist Capitalism.
Extremist Capitalism is not only driven by greed, and the desire to survive. It is also driven by a need to accumulate. And that need to accumulate overrides our desire to live lifestyles that suit our families, our communities and ourselves.
George Soros committed $50mil to the recently launched Institute for New Economic Thinking. Anatole Kaletsky of The Times in London, writes that economics is a profession “whose creativity has been stifled by the intellectual monopoly of orthodox academic funding bodies”. The new institute aims to challenge this orthodoxy and its accepted economic theories and models. I support such a move
And while traditional economic take scientific mathematical models, as well as human behavior into account, the Western world’s desire to accumulate, is driven by, what I call, Chipmunk Economics. Chipmunk Economics is all about accumulation.
At times, the accumulation is for the ‘just-in-case’ scenario. Just in case we need that thing in future; just in case we can’t find it next time; just in case the economy slows down; just in case there is political upheaval.
At times, the accumulation is for accumulation’s sake.
And both types of accumulation are completely rational. Both are accepted as normal. Both are justified
But are we human beings or are we chipmunks?
Do we earn money to support the lifestyles we want to live, or do we earn money to accumulate things?
• How many holiday homes can one family visit at one time?
• How many cars can one executive drive at one time?
• How many i-pods can one person listen to at one time?
• How many video-gaming systems can our children play with at one time?
Are we spending time growing our business ventures, or at car dealerships, buying yet another car? Are we spending time with our families, or are we on the phone with our property managers because the geyser burst (yet again) at our holiday home in Plett?
Is our rational, normal and justified desire to accumulate REALLY supporting the lifestyles we want to live?
I support a free, rational economy as a means to developing our country
I support the making of money in order to provide for our families and to ensure some sort of financial security
But I fear that Extremist Capitalism, based on greed, will lead to demise of our society.
And I fear that Chipmunk Economics, based on accumulation, will lead to the demise of our inner selves
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
When I’m big, I want to be like Salvador Dali: A conformist
Do you ever wonder......
• Who's an individual?
• Who's a free thinker?
• Who is unique?
• Who is challenging the 'norms' of society?
Have you ever heard this one?
"I don't follow organised religion. I'm an individual. I'm not a follower"
In Monty Python’s “The Life of Bryan”, there is a classic scene where, Bryan engages the masses (his followers) from his bedroom window:
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not.
Another Man: Shhh!
I should be upfront with my readers: My name is Uri and I am a follower.
I follow many laws of society. I also follow many strictures of my religion and community. I observe the Jewish Sabbath, I keep the Jewish dietary laws. And yet, as a semi-observant Jew, I hear people say things like:
“I don’t follow that because I’m not a follower” or “I’m an individual” or “I don’t believe in organized religion”
With those kinds of figures, I am thinking to myself: “I am not that into organized society”
And you can find these people
In an institution of some form or other
I love free-thinkers. I appreciate people who are unique.
But not the “I’m a serial-killer” or the “I was anally probed by aliens” kind of uniqueness.
I love Salvador Dali
(Although I don’t think I could eat a whole one)
Humour aside, I really do appreciate Salvador Dali. And I have, since I was first introduced to his work by an art teacher of mine, at the age of 11. And yet, with all his crazy artwork, wonderful ideas, creativity, free-thinking….. he is still ‘boxed’ into a category and cultural movement called: Surrealism
And the amazingly creative Salvador Dali conformed to all the ‘rules’ that define Surrealism
I do not believe there is anything wrong with following a calling, a community, a culture, a religion. That does not make you any less special or unique. What makes you special and unique is how you bring out your unique talents and contributions within that space.
We must stop accusing people of being blind followers, because we are all followers.
We need to create ourselves, within the framework (and rules) we choose to live by
We are all individuals
And we are all followers
Accept the paradox in yourself…….and appreciate it in others
So, you want to reject "conformist" religion, or “conformist” society? Would you prefer to be a sports fan, or get a tattoo or have a body piercing?
In these ways, you too can show you're an individual......
Along with everybody else that's doing it
• Who's an individual?
• Who's a free thinker?
• Who is unique?
• Who is challenging the 'norms' of society?
Have you ever heard this one?
"I don't follow organised religion. I'm an individual. I'm not a follower"
In Monty Python’s “The Life of Bryan”, there is a classic scene where, Bryan engages the masses (his followers) from his bedroom window:
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not.
Another Man: Shhh!
I should be upfront with my readers: My name is Uri and I am a follower.
I follow many laws of society. I also follow many strictures of my religion and community. I observe the Jewish Sabbath, I keep the Jewish dietary laws. And yet, as a semi-observant Jew, I hear people say things like:
“I don’t follow that because I’m not a follower” or “I’m an individual” or “I don’t believe in organized religion”
And, I wonder to myself: I am expressing my spirituality, and practicing my religion, along with a very small minority of people. And I think that is pretty unique. Why do people see me as a blind follower, incapable of free thought or free choice? Many people view me as a follower. They view me as a person with an inactive/faulty ability to choose freely
Here are some interesting statistics:
• Number of Manchester United supporters (WORLDWIDE): 330 Million
• Number of people with tattoos (USA ALONE): 50 million
• Number of people with body (non-ear) piercings (USA COLLEGE STUDENTS ALONE): 8 million
• Number of people who keep the Jewish Sabbath (WORLDWIDE): 1,8 million
With those kinds of figures, I am thinking to myself: “I am not that into organized society”
There are people in this world who are truly unique. They do not follow any strictures or constraints, whether physical, mental, social, spiritual or emotional.
And you can find these people
In an institution of some form or other
I love free-thinkers. I appreciate people who are unique.
But not the “I’m a serial-killer” or the “I was anally probed by aliens” kind of uniqueness.
I love Salvador Dali
(Although I don’t think I could eat a whole one)
Humour aside, I really do appreciate Salvador Dali. And I have, since I was first introduced to his work by an art teacher of mine, at the age of 11. And yet, with all his crazy artwork, wonderful ideas, creativity, free-thinking….. he is still ‘boxed’ into a category and cultural movement called: Surrealism
And the amazingly creative Salvador Dali conformed to all the ‘rules’ that define Surrealism
I do not believe there is anything wrong with following a calling, a community, a culture, a religion. That does not make you any less special or unique. What makes you special and unique is how you bring out your unique talents and contributions within that space.
We must stop accusing people of being blind followers, because we are all followers.
We need to create ourselves, within the framework (and rules) we choose to live by
We are all individuals
And we are all followers
Accept the paradox in yourself…….and appreciate it in others
So, you want to reject "conformist" religion, or “conformist” society? Would you prefer to be a sports fan, or get a tattoo or have a body piercing?
In these ways, you too can show you're an individual......
Along with everybody else that's doing it
Friday, October 23, 2009
Fart Marketing and Cellular Operator Collusion
We all have cellphones, don’t we? And we all love our cellphones, don’t we?
I have one. I love mine.
I love Vodacom
I pay the costs. And I still love my phone. I am not one of those people calling for a reduction in costs.
Although that would be nice
I also appreciate the cellphone adverts and brochures that detail different packages and what they offer. That kind of marketing and advertising empowers me as a consumer. It provides me with details that I can use to compare packages, options and phones.
What I hate is hot-air marketing. What I call ‘Fart Marketing’. Marketing that does not help me. Marketing that takes up thousands of billboards, hours of TV and radio time, billions of Rands in (at times, ridiculous) sponsorships and events
Fart Marketing does not empower me as a consumer. And yet, I know that most of my money that goes to my cellular provider, Vodacom, goes to Fart Marketing
There has been much press concerning high cellular costs, price-fixing and collusion. For example, On October the 19th, 2009, The Times ran a report on the price-fixing probe. On the same day, Bloomberg reported on the collusion probe.
I was driving to (and from) OR Tambo airport yesterday. Within several kilometers, I saw approximately 14 MTN billboards. Photographic evidence attached, thanks to my cellphone camera. I see cellular-operator billboards everywhere. I hear the jingle son the radio all the time. I see cute (and ridiculously stupid) meerkats dancing on my TV screen, too often. I see stadiums, facilities and events, sponsored and branded by cellular operators
These cellular operators are everywhere. Using their Fart Marketing to stink up every marketing channel available
I know some of my cellphone costs got to infrastructure development. I know that some of my cellphone costs go to the sponsoring of community development and social upliftment projects. I know that some of much of my cellphone costs go to huge salaries and corporate waste. And I know that most of my cellphone costs go to supporting Fart Marketing
Again, I must stress, I love my cellphone. I pay my bills. Vodacom does a great job.
I am not picketing and demonstrating for a reduction of cellphone bills
Although that would be nice
I am, however, disgusted with all the Fart Marketing that takes place. A whole lot of hot air, that tells me nothing more about a particular service, package or solution
Cellphone operators need to work together. I support collusion.
Viva collusion
I want cellphone companies to collude on the sponsoring of more Vodacom sponsored schools, MTN sponsored medical clinics, Cell C sponsored crime-fighting initiatives and Virgin Mobile sponsored feeding programs
Take my money. But please stop using my money to brand yet another stadium, put up yet another billboard or buy yet more SABC or DSTV airtime
Cellular operators, please start being responsible capitalists. Stop wasting our money on Fart Marketing. Start using consumer money for these socially responsible initiatives
Consumers, please start being responsible consumers. Stop falling for Fart Marketing, and start supporting organizations that use our money primarily for the social good, and not for more meerkat airtime
I have one. I love mine.
I love Vodacom
I pay the costs. And I still love my phone. I am not one of those people calling for a reduction in costs.
Although that would be nice
I also appreciate the cellphone adverts and brochures that detail different packages and what they offer. That kind of marketing and advertising empowers me as a consumer. It provides me with details that I can use to compare packages, options and phones.
What I hate is hot-air marketing. What I call ‘Fart Marketing’. Marketing that does not help me. Marketing that takes up thousands of billboards, hours of TV and radio time, billions of Rands in (at times, ridiculous) sponsorships and events
Fart Marketing does not empower me as a consumer. And yet, I know that most of my money that goes to my cellular provider, Vodacom, goes to Fart Marketing
There has been much press concerning high cellular costs, price-fixing and collusion. For example, On October the 19th, 2009, The Times ran a report on the price-fixing probe. On the same day, Bloomberg reported on the collusion probe.
These cellular operators are everywhere. Using their Fart Marketing to stink up every marketing channel available
I know some of my cellphone costs got to infrastructure development. I know that some of my cellphone costs go to the sponsoring of community development and social upliftment projects. I know that some of much of my cellphone costs go to huge salaries and corporate waste. And I know that most of my cellphone costs go to supporting Fart Marketing
Again, I must stress, I love my cellphone. I pay my bills. Vodacom does a great job.
I am not picketing and demonstrating for a reduction of cellphone bills
Although that would be nice
I am, however, disgusted with all the Fart Marketing that takes place. A whole lot of hot air, that tells me nothing more about a particular service, package or solution
Cellphone operators need to work together. I support collusion.
Viva collusion
I want cellphone companies to collude on the sponsoring of more Vodacom sponsored schools, MTN sponsored medical clinics, Cell C sponsored crime-fighting initiatives and Virgin Mobile sponsored feeding programs
Take my money. But please stop using my money to brand yet another stadium, put up yet another billboard or buy yet more SABC or DSTV airtime
Cellular operators, please start being responsible capitalists. Stop wasting our money on Fart Marketing. Start using consumer money for these socially responsible initiatives
Consumers, please start being responsible consumers. Stop falling for Fart Marketing, and start supporting organizations that use our money primarily for the social good, and not for more meerkat airtime
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Only an end to Occupation will bring an end to Suicide Bombers!
This past week has been a busy week for suicide bombers. They have struck in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.
Shew
I’m no medical or forensic expert, but I assume that it has not been the same group of suicide bombers
I suppose, that is the downside of being a suicide bomber.
Ask Achmed The Dead Terrorist and Former Suicide Bomber
The Occupation must end!
Whenever a suicide bombing, or other attack, on Israeli civilians, soldiers or facilities takes place, the sympathy of the world lies with the perpetrators. And the justification for these attacks: The Occupation
And I one hundred percent agree
The Occupation must end!
It’s the same story, the world over. Whether it’s the USA’s 9/11/2001 or the UK’s 7 July 2005, or India’s 26 November 2008, or Afghanistan’s 17 January 2009, or Iraq’s 13 February 2009, or Pakistan’s 15 October 2009, or Iran’s 11/19/2009 or 29 Dec 2008, or Egypt’s 23 July 2005
The Occupation must end!
Why are extremists blowing themselves up in Iraqi Mosques and in market places? Why are they killing fellow Muslims? What kind of desperation leads a woman to be a suicide bomber, killing Muslims on pilgrimage?
Is it due to poverty and desperation? (like the Western, wealthy UK)
Is it due to a foreign powers ruling their lands? (Like the independent Iran and Egypt and Pakistan)
If poverty and hardship leads to suicide bombing, then why aren’t the poor and desperate residents of Alexandra Township in Johannesburg, blowing themselves up in opulent Sandton City (5 minutes away) to further their cause
If being ‘dispossessed’ of land leads to suicide bombing. Then why aren’t the Freedom Front and the AWB and every proud Afrikaner blowing themselves up outside the parliament buildings in Cape Town
The Occupation must end!
Extremists must stop Occupying their time with hatred, racism, bigotry. They must stop Occupying their resources in the pursuit of death, destruction and evil
Do you want to know THE ONE thing that causes suicide bombing?
Suicide bombers
Shew
I’m no medical or forensic expert, but I assume that it has not been the same group of suicide bombers
I suppose, that is the downside of being a suicide bomber.
Ask Achmed The Dead Terrorist and Former Suicide Bomber
The Occupation must end!
Whenever a suicide bombing, or other attack, on Israeli civilians, soldiers or facilities takes place, the sympathy of the world lies with the perpetrators. And the justification for these attacks: The Occupation
And I one hundred percent agree
The Occupation must end!
It’s the same story, the world over. Whether it’s the USA’s 9/11/2001 or the UK’s 7 July 2005, or India’s 26 November 2008, or Afghanistan’s 17 January 2009, or Iraq’s 13 February 2009, or Pakistan’s 15 October 2009, or Iran’s 11/19/2009 or 29 Dec 2008, or Egypt’s 23 July 2005
The Occupation must end!
Why are extremists blowing themselves up in Iraqi Mosques and in market places? Why are they killing fellow Muslims? What kind of desperation leads a woman to be a suicide bomber, killing Muslims on pilgrimage?
Is it due to poverty and desperation? (like the Western, wealthy UK)
Is it due to a foreign powers ruling their lands? (Like the independent Iran and Egypt and Pakistan)
If poverty and hardship leads to suicide bombing, then why aren’t the poor and desperate residents of Alexandra Township in Johannesburg, blowing themselves up in opulent Sandton City (5 minutes away) to further their cause
If being ‘dispossessed’ of land leads to suicide bombing. Then why aren’t the Freedom Front and the AWB and every proud Afrikaner blowing themselves up outside the parliament buildings in Cape Town
The Occupation must end!
Extremists must stop Occupying their time with hatred, racism, bigotry. They must stop Occupying their resources in the pursuit of death, destruction and evil
Do you want to know THE ONE thing that causes suicide bombing?
Suicide bombers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)