Now I don’t seem to be quite able to figure this one out. What exactly is the reason why the Formula One Grand Prix games were not boycotted by the “European” countries, despite the extensive humanitarian issues and concerns and the ongoing political unrest in the country. Chief Ecclestone simply “declared” the following statement: “Sport and politics should not mix [citation: CNN 13 April 2012]”. Well thank you very much, chief, for your spectacular perspective which has undoubtedly inspired the Bahraini government to strike on people in a more “formal” way.
Yet on the other side of the seas, the “European” countries have called to boycott Euro 2012 games in Ukraine for pretty much the same reason in a significantly smaller scale [citation: The Independent 3 May 2012]. I only happen to recall Igor Voloshin, the spokesman of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine giving the following statement: “Euro 2012 is about football not politics. It’s impossible to solve any political issues through boycotting sporting events.” [citation: The Guardian 30 April 2012].
Now I am not by any means approving of what is happening in Ukraine. But as a matter of personal interest, I’m just wondering why have two identical statements made by two different countries for very identical issues are treated so differently. I’m not also suggesting that it might in any way be relevant to the oil industries, nor am I referring to the fact that wealthy Arab countries may be playing any roles whatsoever in this game. But nevertheless, I have my suspensions. It is probably because these events are happening in Europe, the utmost “heart” of civilisation, or is it just because the European blood is redder than that of the Bahrainis’?
Do the Muslims have to be one who start the unrests (peaceful or violent ones) in the world? and the “westerners” to be amongst those who end it? Or is it just Mccarthyism being replaced by Islamiphobia?
The Jews used to be the subject to the same game though, didn’t day? A game that has remained identical to what it has always been in the modern and post-renaissance history. The chessboard has remained the same, so have the champions. Only the set has changed!
Feudalism never faded. It never died. It just transformed! Whores have renamed to prostitutes! It’s just the name of industry that’s changed and its tactics revolutionised, not the job, not the players.
Righter and more fascist than Hitler, and yet operating vastly within the continent! Wilders of the Netherlands, Griffin of Britain, Le Pen of France… The list goes on and on, and yet the German government supposes that they can influence the syndrome by prohibiting the publication of Mein Kampf for as long as they practically can (in accordance with Copyright obligations) and ultimately publish it in an “unattractive” way to prevent neo-nazism [citation: The i 23 April 2012]! Isn’t this just absurd?
When do these people want to wake up and realise that human beings are not bunches of papers on their desks, and should not therefore be treated as such. Why is it that the innermost values of humanity has been neglected, demoted and demeaned to an extent where people let themselves to sit on the other side of a desk and treat so egregiously as if they would never ever be subject to standing on the other side of that very same desk…
Shame on us! oh come on, me included… Let’s be realistic instead of optimistic!
Some hundred years ago, Desecrate claimed that human being has two different aspects. A theory that is known as Dualism! Making it very short, it claims that human mind is a separate entity that works in association with the brain. Something that exists, but cannot be touched or seen. Some kind of a “majestic” phenomenon that is not made of matter. This idea was welcomed by those who believe(d) in a supreme being. Hundreds of years later, however, it was claimed that mind is not in association with brain, but a production of it. This one is called Materialism.
Seeing what is happening in the world around me, I personally subscribe to the second one. The reason is clear…
We are only biorobots. Some of us can occasionally see beyond what is given to us. Only because we have a more advanced brain that can yield a better product, while some others can just see the procedures as written on the paper. They are made to follow the procedure.
I’m sorry, but that is the procedure… Doesn’t this sentence sound too familiar to be ordinary???
Flexibility is not for robots. Human being who have lost their ability to be flexible, are not worth being called human beings anymore!