I decided to explain “it’ in a story telling format. I hope that is acceptable to you.

I am using different names rather than those of my clients, friends, or colleagues. As to the time frame of these stories it ranges from the 1970s all the way to the present time.

With my colleague’s permission, I will touch on women’s rights in the Arab world too.

I would like to start with Karima’s story a young university student who walked into my office with her elderly father. Karima was a student at the Engineering School at the University of Baghdad.

Karima wanted me to help her sue a group of young men in her neighborhood who harassed ( verbally ) each time she walks in the neighborhood. Sexual harassment is a common practice in Iraqi streets.

Most men harass women by making verbal comments that have a sexual meaning. Men think it is a way to express their manhood. Sometimes, the harassment escalates to an attempt to “touch” women in crowded places.

While, Karima could tolerate being harassed in the streets, she couldn’t tolerate being harassed in her neighborhood.

Karima was an intelligent lady with a strong personality. However, she was vulnerable. She was living with her elderly father, no brothers, cousins, or male relatives who can “protect her” or ‘‘stand up for her.”

Intelligent ladies with strong personalities are always intimidating. Middle Eastern men feel they have to “break” these women out of gender rivalry.

Karima told me that all these men were trying to take advantage out her: some told her they love her, other have tried to ask her out. Iraqi society doesn't tolerate dating or love. Karima let them all down. Unfortunately, all these men gained up on her.

While, the Arab world presents itself as conservative society where men and women are separated, the same society tolerates harassing women in the streets. Harassing treated as a “women issue” not as a crime.

Oftentimes, the women are blamed for it. Expressions such as “ what was she wearing, it is her fault, she must have given him the green right,…..etc” are the usual reactions towards these crimes. Recently, women started wearing more conservative clothes, head scarf, Abayia just to avoid being harassed. Nevertheless, harassment is becoming a serious issue in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and other countries. In Egypt it is becoming an “epidemic.”

The government, the police, and the authorities look at these crimes as women's issues that don’t even deserve their attention. No man was ever punished for it. I don’t believe a man will be punished.

Karima couldn't take the harassment in her neighborhood. She was fed-up and she wanted to take an action towards it.

Karima started the conversation by saying: “ do they really consider themselves men, is this manhood?”

I explored her options with her. Basically, it was her words against them. The fact that she a woman would make the police take the issue recklessly, if not worse, blaming her for it and try to blackmail her.

Even if the police would take the issue seriously, the most they can do is to have these men sign a document that they won’t they do it again. The men can easily disrespect that document ( no questions asked).

My main concern for Karima was the men would go “harder” on her after she had exhausted her limited options.

Karima asked : “What can I do, I can’t take anymore”

“ Let me see what can I do for you” I said.

I asked Karima for their names and addresses. I “invited” their “fathers” to my office, I wanted them to feel that it is serious. It is true that these young men were adults (20-25 years.) However, they still answer to their “fathers.” It is a tribal society. If you want a man to do something talk to his father.

Age has nothing to do with it.

The fathers came. I laid down the issue in a diplomatic manner i.e. I didn’t excuse the men of doing what they were doing. I told the men that Karima needs their protection like she was their daughter. Her ill and aged father can’t protect her. However, there were men who harassed her, she thought of filling a complaint. However, I wanted to seek their protection first.

The fathers promised to do something about it. I felt they got the message. After two days, Karima came to my office, she told me that they had stopped. It felt like winning one million dollars.

I truly believe that violence against women grew in the Arab world because policymakers fail to make streets safe for women.

Harassment escalated to kidnapping and killing in Iraq and other places.

I believe any progress or reform can’t succeed in the Arab world, if the streets are not safe for women. Harassment should be addressed as a serious crime and protection should be granted to women.

I recently heard from Karima. She migrated to Canada and married a decent man who loved her for what she was. I couldn’t be happier for her. She told that when she walked in the streets of Vancouver ( without being harassed or fear of being harassed) she felt the true meaning of freedom.

Perhaps, women shouldn’t be born in the Middle East. It is not the place for them

The post Women Shouldn’t Be Born in The Middle East appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

In comparison, Mubarak’s regime ( Oct 1981- Feb 2011) in Egypt collapsed in twenty-two days ( Jan, 25th – Feb, 11th 2011.) Simply, because thousands[1] of Egyptians demonstrated peacefully against it. Mubarak tried to use force including the army, the police forces ( known for their brutality), and lastly, thugs and gangsters hired to attack the demonstrators.
All these forces didn’t prevent Mubarak’s regime from collapsing. The brutal force was crippled in the face unarmed demonstrators.
I think the missing piece in Syrian equation is communities: the average person and what he/she thinks. You might be thinking that all Syrian people are against the regime and the regime is oppressing them all. Had this been the case, then the regime would have fallen by now just like Mubarak’s. The army, the secret service, and the police they all belong to the community. They can’t stand against their brothers, sons, fathers and mothers.
The opposition can’t win “this game” unless it gains the support of the community. However, the opposition has lost the support of the community.

The opposition presented itself as a religious movement favoring the Sunni majority and discriminating against the rest of the ethnicities in Syria. For example, the prominent chant of the opposition is “ we will send the Christians to Lebanon, we will send the Alawites to hell, we will send the Sunnis to Republican palace.” As such, all minorities aren’t supporting the armed opposition.

No Christian would like to lose his home and life and go to Lebanon—that is if Lebanon would accept him or her. If certain minorities are going to “hell” then most likely the rest of the minority groups will have the same fate including Shiites,  Durz, Kurds, Arminians.While the opposition capitalize on “ politically remonancing” the Sunnis as they are the majority. The regime reached-out to the entire community.

The regime long advocated “Syrianinzim” basically, equality among all Syrians.  There is no discrimination among them, because of ethnicity, religion, gender, or race. Assad the father who ruled in 1971 utilized all the government funds to start an educational program all the way from the kindergarten to the university advocating equality. It is true that the Syrian regime advocated “Syrianinzim” out of necessity, since its leadership comes from a minority group. However, the regime kept its word. The regime didn’t discriminate among Syrians based on ethnicity or religion.

The regime oppressed them, but didn’t discriminate against them.

The other part of the equation is whether the opposition will bring freedom to the community.

The recent videos[2] showing the brutal execution of Syrian soldiers, destroyed any chance of winning the support of the Syrian community. The videos showed the opposition executing prisoners of war in cold blood. These soldiers have mothers, wives, fathers, and brothers. No-one will support such a movement.

Without the support of the community the opposition can’t overthrow the regime. The community will not support an opposition that killed their sons. What are the choices of the Syrian community and what will they do?
As an Arabic proverb sums all up “ the devil I know is better than the devil I don’t know.”

The post The Devil I know VS The Devil I don’t know. Why Asaad Regime Has Not Fallen Yet? appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

Often time, the university is interested in financial rights of women ( inheritance in particular) or family rights ( choosing her husband, divorce, and custody ). I was never asked to talk about women’s right to rule according to Islam.

I feel I have addressed secondary rights. However, I didn’t address primary rights such as the right to rule i.e. to govern a society.

As you know, Islam has  two  main sects Sunnis and Shiites[1]. Sunnis feel that Mohammed’s rightful heir is his friend “Abu Baker”, while Shiites believe that his cousin and son-in-law ( who married Mohammed's daughter Fatimah) “Ali” is his rightful heir.

I believe that Mohammed’s daughter “Fatimah” is his rightful heir. I also believe that denying her right as the governor, resulted in oppressing women in the name of Islam.

In reality Islam didn’t oppress women. However, tribal men oppressed women ( in the name of Islam) to maintain power.

Fatimah was Mohammed’s only child[2] . It is impossible that Mohammed would oppress women, while he had a female child.

Moreover, women supported Mohammed throughout his difficult mission. His first wife Kadija, and then Fatimah. Other prominent women such as his wife Aisha played a significant role in his life.

It doesn’t make sense that Mohammed called for oppressing women nor treating them as second class citizens.
Mohammed stressed Fatimah’s special position. He repeatedly stated that “Fatimah is part  of me and I am part of her.”
Both versions of Islam fight over who is Mohammed’s rightful heir. Each version insists that their candidate was the closest to Mohammed. Thus, he is the rightful heir.

Moreover, scholars from both sides ( Sunnis and Shiites) present hundreds of Mohammed’s sayings to prove that he preferred this heir over the other.

However, Mohammed didn’t state that any one of the “male” heirs is part of him and he is part of them.
I truly believe that Fatimah was and still is Mohammed’s rightful heir. She was denied her right to rule, because a tribal society stood against her. The same society is standing against her “granddaughters” who live all over the Muslim world.

Ironically this tribal society is oppressing women in the name of their “grandfather's” religion.

Needless to say, that hundreds of wars were launched and will be launched over this question i.e. Who is Mohammed's rightful heir, who has the right to rule? Many of these wars would have been avoided, had Fatimah ( who represents women) ruled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Each sect has many schools of thoughts that coincide it.

The post She Is the Rightful Heir. The Talk I Never Gave appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

While, it is not the first time that such a movie was circulated, it is the first time when American diplomats have been killed and embassies have been attacked over it. So, why now?

I think the “ map” clarifies everything. Yes, the Middle East map i.e. geopolitics factors.

Islamists are ruling the Arab world; they control the masses. Islamists are sending a strong message to the U.S.

The Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt. Islamists from the Renaissance Party are ruling Tunisia. Libya is controlled by Islamists who seek the implementation of Shira Law.  Saudi Arabia  is under the Wahhabi ruling.  Qatar has funded and will continue to fund the Muslim Brotherhood[1].

You can argue that the Tunisian party is moderate, or Saudi Arabia is the best ally of the U.S.

All that is true, but I am talking about the momentum. Islamists gain a lot of momentum and influence. They can move the masses as they wish. They seize every opportunity to send a message to the U.S.

What is the content of the message? Support us (financially and politically) in exchange we will protect your interest.

The post Why Now: The Movie and the Violent Protests? appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

I am inviting you to another cup of my homemade Arabic coffee. It is a special type of coffee that I only offer to my readers. Please sit back, relax and enjoy the ride, while I ground my medium roasted coffee beans to extra fine.

While I am making the coffee, why don’t we talk about the lasted statement issued by the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) ? You are right. ISI is Al-Qaeda linked group that is active in Iraq.

Unlike their previous statement[1] , the current statement was issued on the same day they conducted their bloody attacks on innocent Shiite pilgrims[2].

Issuing the statement on the same day reflects ISI ability to better organize themselves and communicate effectively with their members despite the security measures taken by the Iraqi government.

It seems that ISI overcame whatever difficulty that was facing earlier. Additionally, ISI took an advantage of the recent political turmoil in Iraq[3].

The statement utilizes verbal nouns in the first paragraph rather than verbs. Using verbal nouns (rather than verbs) indicates the continuity of the action regardless of time. While, verbs are associated with tenses such past, present, future, verbal nouns  reflects an action that will continue for ever.

The current statement indicates that the ISI utilized the financial and legitimate means to launch the attack, while the previous statements indicates that the ISI utilized the available means. Comparing the two sentences suggests that the ISI received some funding and more recruits.

Let me make the coffee I promised you.  I am brining my Arabic coffee pot  Ibrik. The Ibrik is a unique coffee pot, which is made of copper. It is wide from the bottom, narrow at the top, and it has a long handle.

I add 1 1/2 teaspoon per Arabic cup of water ( similar to the espresso cups only smaller) I’ll add a half teaspoon of  crushed cardamom. Cardamom will add an earthy taste to the coffee and release a sweet aroma.  I am adding one teaspoon of sugar for two cups.

I will mix the water, coffee, sugar, and cardamom using a tiny whisk, while the pot is on medium heat.  When it comes to a boil, I’ll lower the heat and wait for the forth to develop, then I pour it equally into our two cups.

Let’s sit in the back yard, drink our coffee, and enjoy the refreshing breeze. When you are done with your coffee, I’ll “read’’ the coffee stains on your cup to tell your fortune. As you know, coffee reading is a folkloric tradition in the Arab world.

The post Chatting over Arabic Coffee appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

“How can I keep my family safe?”

My concerns regarding my family occupied my every thought. I have a son. At that time, he was eight years old. I feared that they would try to get to him, since they couldn’t get to me. I look back now and ask myself, “How much danger was I really in?” But I don’t second guess my fears. After all, I was going to work in the trunk of my car. The danger was real and immediate sacrifices were necessary.

The first sacrifice I made was to have my son live away from me. We were separated, and it was for his own safety. It was so difficult for the both of us. Where could my son stay and with whom? That question was my main concern. I reached out to a friend of mine whose family accepted to host my son in their home.

My son needed to move in and live with my friend, but for safety’s sake, my friend and his family needed to come up with a story that they could share with their neighbors about the “new boy” who was coming to live with them. So, my son became their nephew whose mother fought with the father and left the house. Since the father could not take care of the boy, he had asked them if the boy could stay with them, and they accepted.

The first time my son went to live with them, he cried. My son did not stay in their house for the entire day; my friend kept him for a couple of hours and then returned him home to me. My friend was cautious: he took the longer route leading to my place. He even changed his appearance before seeking me out. I was still terrified.

I realized that my son needed to see me, however much I was afraid that they might get to him. My friend and I decided that we should not make a routine out of anything; there should be no regular times nor regular places where we would meet.

Security is about safety. But it is about the safety of the community, not about using force to secure communities. I later recalled that idea when I developed my Environmental Policies, Insurgency, and Post-Conflict Countries course, and I am currently writing a book about that concept.

My son and I have a unique bond. I’m not sure how much he understood, but beyond the tears in his eyes, he maintained the look of “I trust you.” Still, he had an innocent perspective on the extent of my power as a “government official.” He asked: “Aren’t you the Minister? Can’t you do something about it?”

I could only reply: “No! I can’t. I don’t have the power.”

His response was honest and firm: “What do you have then?”

“My mind, my thoughts and my ideas” I said. It may not have been much of a consolation to him, but the hellish experience did shape my ideas on the basic nature of security.

In fact, when I was designing my syllabus on Environmental Challenges in Post-Conflict Countries, I frequently recalled that conversation with my son. Weak states have no power: Is there a way to build their capacity and what should be done first? And how can these countries be secured?

Back to the story: My friends lived in a middle-class neighborhood in Baghdad; the school was less than a half mile from home. There were many boys and men within the house, so my son could blend in and get some protection if needed. I used to meet my son once or twice a week. It was always different locations, different times, and, of course, I had to look different each time. I wore my hair differently, donned different clothes, and drove different cars.

Despite these drastic measures, my son also had his share of bomb attacks. I will never forget the most difficult 30 minutes of my entire life. 30 minutes equals the amount of time it took to drive from where I lived to where he lived. I drove to his place after receiving a call telling me an explosion took place nearby. I called and I knew he was okay, however I wanted to see him and hold him. When I arrived, the house was in a bad shape; the main door looked like it has been pulled out, the windows were broken, and the furniture was upside down. Some walls were completely destroyed.

I held my son. I was crying even as he said, “I am fine, I am fine.” He was and still is a brave young man. Even now, I don’t know whether the house was targeted because my son was there, or if the explosion took place for another reason. However, I have every reason to believe that they were trying to get to him.

The very next morning my son, my father, and my friends were on an airplane to Syria, where they stayed until we all moved to the US. They spent over a year in Syria. I used to fly back and forth just to see him and to spend some time with him. Of course, I called him every day. Sometimes, when people ask me “why don’t you go back and serve your country,” I feel it is difficult for them to imagine what is out there. They have no concept.

It is not that I am afraid to go back—even though I have every reason to be—but I need to live my life with my son. I just want a simple and normal life: enjoying a nice ride in the car, eating outside, or watching a movie.

I will never forget when my son and I went to the movies for the first time here in the US. It was so much fun: we got the tickets, bought popcorn and soda, and enjoyed the show. We had fun! It was real fun without worries, which is something we hadn't had a chance to experience back there.

I remember when I was participating in the Trust Factor Workshop in Richmond in May of 2009. My son was with me. One of the participants asked if I would like to go back and serve in the government again. My son heard him and told him quite abruptly: “No! It is too dangerous.” My son’s answer was firm and resolute because he felt someone was trying to put me in danger again, and he was trying—as always—to protect me. My son knows what’s out there.

Taking care of my family, making sure they were safe, and being there for them was my main challenge back there. I could not work or keep the campaigns going without first securing my family. However, there were many challenges ahead. I was tasked with establishing the Ministry of Environment, since Iraq did not have one. To be able to do that I needed to get to work safely, and that’s another story.

The post First Things First: My Family appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

Many Americans ask this question, “If Saddam was so bad, and we liberated you from his brutal regime, why are you killing our soldiers?”

The answer to this difficult question is rooted in issues surrounding basic services. These services include fresh water, electricity, sanitation services, and trash pickup.

The Iraqi people looked at the U.S. army as the agents of change. They thought they would get reliable electricity supplied without any interruption, running water, sanitation services, and daily trash pickup immediately following the fall of the regime. However, when these services were not provided [1] to the Iraqi people, they consequently saw the U.S. army as a negative force in Iraq.

Services have always been a factor in whether people are willing to support a change in regime. Prior to 1991, the Iraqi government provided the above-mentioned services with some consistency. However, after the first Gulf War (1990-1991), Iraq witnessed constant interruptions in the quality and consistency of these services. Electricity, which, before, was never subject to brown outs, was henceforth rationed and the population had to deal with large gaps of time without electricity. The temperature would reach over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and the population had become dependent on cooling devices like air conditioning and fans. However, there was no electricity to run this equipment.  There was only one area of the city that never lost power: the buildings directly used by Saddam’s regime and his close family members. Grievances (which had heretofore not been mentioned in public due to the brutally oppressive nature of his regime) began to infiltrate the public dialogue. One could hear passive criticisms of the regime, for example, “They enjoy the air conditioning while we suffer in the heat!”

Flash forward 10 years, after the U.S. had installed itself in the Green Zone—Saddam’s old palace—electricity is still provided there, while the locals continue to lack electricity. From their perspective, it was a bit of the same old story: a new regime, but same lack of services. The expectations, however, for U.S. capacity were much higher among the population, who saw the Americans as technologically accomplished. While the U.S. chose this site because of its location and barricades, it was not safe at all, as evidenced by the magnitude of rockets that hit the Green Zone daily.  Moreover, the man on the street who might have accepted Saddam’s excuse that he lacked the spare parts to fix the power plants, would never accept that the Americans could not quickly and efficiently update and restore services.  The logical course of this predicament, when we look at the continued lack of services, was towards conflict, not peace.

The expectations of Iraqis were simply not met. These expectations had much more to do with services and necessities than democratic ideals and elections, as Americans believed. As soon as it became apparent that the United States could not restore services, the Iraqi people lost their enthusiasm for the liberators and began to view them as occupiers.

The liberators are agents of change. They considered democracy a panacea for all problems. Thus, in 2003 the Coalition Forces believed that setting up a democratic government would result in a series of positive changes in the quality of life for the Iraqi people. However, electing popular people based on their religious belief or ethnic background does not constitute a government staff with the capacity for providing services.  Clearly, in a post-conflict situation, democracy does not equate to providing daily services [2]. The liberators failed to provide these services, and this resulted in the deterioration of the quality of daily life. Consequently, Iraqi people established a negative view of these agents of change.

Under Saddam’s regime, electricity was provided for four hours [3] and then interrupted for two hours. However, after the fall of the regime, electricity was provided for two hours and interrupted for four, then interrupted for six hours, then for eight hours, then for twelve, and sometimes days. In a climate where summer lasts for nine months with a temperature of more than 100 Fahrenheit, electricity is not a luxurious commodity. The question raised by many Iraqis was, how could Saddam’s regime, which lacked the technology possessed by the United States, restore services in two months after the first Gulf War, while the United States with all its technology could not? The answer for many Iraqi people was and still is that the Coalition Forces are the occupiers and they do not care.  Many Iraqi people started to believe that the Coalition Forces are making their life worse in the name of establishing democracy. Thus, they swiftly lost their faith in the idea that the Coalition Forces were liberators and began to perceive them as occupiers. It follows that since they are the occupiers, then they need to be opposed and fought.

Different insurgency groups including the former Ba’ath members utilized the argument of lacking services to recruit civilians. By reflecting on their capability of restoring services, the Ba’athists portrayed themselves as nationalists who worked in the country, rather than the vehicle of an oppressive regime. Many civilians believed them and still do.  Thus, as services continued to deteriorate, opposition to the liberators and the change they brought grew stronger, and it took a violent form.

Beyond internal insurgency groups such as the Ba’ath regime, foreign insurgency groups such as Al-Qaeda in Iraq also recruited among populations that lacked services.  Al-Qaeda portrayed lacking services as a direct assault towards the true Muslim community by a U.S.-backed government. For example, 60% of the population of Anbar Province, the biggest Sunni province, still lacks access to safe drinking water.  Additionally, Sunni communities viewed failing to provide services by a Shiite dominated government as a direct assault.

While it is difficult to imagine a Shiite insurgency against a Shiite dominated government, Iraq witnessed as early as June 2003 a Shiite insurgency led by Moqtada Al Sadr. Sadr City the stronghold of Moqtada Al Sadr lacks all services including access to safe drinking water, electricity, and sanitation services. Sadr portrayed the U.S. backed Shiite central government as discriminatory government against Shiite peasants in Sadr City, which was equivalent to Saddam’s position towards Sadr City. (Saddam’s regime purposefully deprived Sadr City from services). As such, citizens were told this government should be opposed, as should those who backed it.  The lack of service has become a hefty recruiting tactic and brought the different insurgency fractions together to fight the U.S. Coalition Forces, who came to be viewed as the occupiers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] All the Americans and Iraqis I met or worked with were trying to help and wanted to provide services. However, there were some serious policy implications regarding how to provide these services. For example, here in the U.S., people receive their water bills in the mail in a timely manner. In Iraq there is not a reliable mailing system. Thus, an employee from the water services would come read the meter and then would leave the bill. These employees were afraid to do their job, because of security issues. Thus, the service agency lacked resources. All the network including water, electricity, and sewage were outdated. I collected these policy concerns and developed a course about how best to address them titled: “Environmental Challenges in Post-Conflict Countries”.

[2] In March of 2010, I  attended a seminar at the United States Institute of Peace, and I asked participants to close their eyes and imagine themselves in a conflicting zone where a cease fire had just been announced. What option of these three would they would need the most? A- Water, B- Democracy, C- Government. All participants (50 or more) chose water. Then, I asked to imagine themselves sitting in a donor conference after the announcement of a cease fire. Which option would they go for? Some said democracy, and some said government.

[3] I was living in Baghdad back then. However, I knew that the rest of the provinces received less electricity than Baghdad. For example, in Basra, electricity was provided for two hours and interrupted for four hours. Lack of electricity resulted in increasing the demand for housing in Baghdad. Many Iraqis tried to sell their houses and relocate to Baghdad. However, the regime did not allow it. For more updated information on the implications of providing electricity to Basra, please review Story #9.

The post Liberators vs. Occupiers appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

Since, I am paying for the coffee, then I get to play Holmes. You can be Watson. Are you interested? It is fun (even though, I have not seen the movie yet!). But, let’s start anyway.

Did you notice the statement was released five days after the attack? Yes, five days, rather than immediately afterwards. How do you understand the time gap? To me, it indicates a debate over the wording and the details of the statement. What method  do you think was used to initiate that debate? Was it email, phone, in person? I would say, given the time gap, it seems communication was done in person.

Do you think the time gap also reflects the difficulties in communication? I think it does. There were many bombing incidents (the attempt on my life included) where the terrorist organization released a statement immediately afterward, which reflected the strong capacity to communicate.

How did you feel about the introduction? The introduction offers a couple of reasons for carrying out the attack. Among them is revenging the executing of Sunni prisoners. However, according to Amnesty International, Iraq had executed one prisoner in 2010 [1], Ali Hassan Al Majeed (Chemical Ali), who was executed in January 2010 [2]. It is not likely that the terrorist organization would carry out an attack to revenge an execution that was implemented 12 months ago. Well, maybe they don’t  rely on Amnesty International’s report.

I feel the introduction is vague and lacking information. The perpetrators lacked the exact information. Lacking the exact information reflects the difficulty in obtaining it. Don’t you think?

The statement portrayed the attack as being carried out against selective targets, namely security headquarters, army patrols, and groups of army personnel. The reality is all victims were civilians, including some children, since one bombing took place near a children's school [3]. Why do you think that is?

The terrorists are not concerned or ashamed of killing innocent people. According to them, if the dead person was a good person he will go to heaven. However, if he was a bad person, he will go to hell. Either way, it is that person’s behavior that determines his fate.  Twisted thinking, I know. However, that is what they think.

I think portraying the bombing as an attack against the army indicates that the concept of the holy war or Jihad is not that popular among followers and support. Thus, the ability of these terrorist organizations to sell themselves as fighting the holy war or Jihad is declining. Moreover, the statement called on supporters not to “believe media lies.”

It seems all the writings and discussions that took place in media forums condemning the terrorist attacks is paying off. If the terrorist organization cannot sell it cause, then it cannot recruit or raise funds.

The statement refers to only one attack out of the fourteen that were carried out. The statement offers details and more information on the attack targeting the Integrity Commission, where many civilian employees were killed. Why do you think that is?

I think mentioning one attack only (with one sentence promising more details to be released later regarding the rest of the thirteen attacks) means this attack is the one that sends a strong message about the capability of the terrorist organization. On the flipside, this attack was the most difficult to implement and it took more time and effort to implement it than the others. As such, it was the only one worth mentioning.  On the other hand, referring to one attack targeting a state agency, not a security apparatus, is a clear contradiction with the introduction [4].  Contradictions happen when someone is rushing and does not have a lot of time. Right?

While researching for the original statement in Arabic, I came across a website that suggested the involvement of a female suicide bomber (FSB) in these attacks. The website talked about a female martyred and vowing to avenge her death. I could not confirm nor deny the involvement of the FSB. I thought I would share the finding with you and see what would you think about it. I am enclosing that part of the discussion with the English translation as PDF file.

I hope you enjoyed these investigations over our electronic cups of coffee.  Please stay tuned, and let’s look for more connections together. You can drop by any time for another electronic cup of coffee; it is on the house.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Amnesty International, "Death Sentences and Executions in 2010." March, 2011, P.25 details are in P.30  http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-international-perspective#interexec.

[2] In the report Amnesty International (AI) states that the number of executed people could be higher, but it could not be confirmed. P.25. However, in Feb. of 2012, AI urged the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to interfere and prevent the the recent executions that took place after the issuing of the above statement, not before.

[3] BBC News, "Dozens Killed in Coordinated Baghdad Attacks." December 22, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16297707.

[4] See the discussion in the introduction section.

The post E-Coffee, Sherlock Holmes, and a Bombing Statement appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

Now you are in the classroom, taking one of  the summer courses that I offer. It is 90 degrees outside. You barely made it to the class on time. You wanted so much to get that the cold drink, but you said to yourself, “Aha, I will get it after class; I will enjoy it even more then.”

I enter that classroom, and  I close the door, telling you and  the rest of the students that “You all cannot leave today until I say so.” To make it more dramatic or real, I turn off the AC.  You cannot even leave the classroom to get drinks, food, or go to the restroom. Now, you deeply regret not buying that cold drink.

While class ponders their situation, I pose the question: “What do you do now?”

Invariably,  you try to “negotiate.” However, I maintain my position: “I am unwilling to negotiate. NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO LEAVE!”

Many students who took this exercise  said, “Then we will attack you!”  When I ask them to clarify exactly what they mean, they affirm that they will exercise any form of violence against me to get out of this situation.

So, at that point, I end the exercise by asking them, “Are you violent people?” Their reaction is a resounding “No!” They often sound offended, as if I had just hurt their feelings. “We are not violent people, but what you put us through made us act this way,” they say.

I have tried this exercise with undergraduates, graduates, international students, and practitioners. The results are always the same; in fact, those who undergo the exercise frequently use the same words and display the same reactions.

Now,  when you were playing that e-game did you think the same way too? Did you think (even for a second) about appealing to violence?

I think the students' reaction towards me can easily be predicted by anyone. Similarly,  the local populace of any nation will react violently towards any authority that is "perceived" as depriving them from these services. It does not matter whether this authority is elected or not, legitimate or not.

What’s in it for you? If you are working on projects in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lybia, and Yeman, or if you are just someone who follows the news coming from that part of the world, please ask yourself this question:

Does the majority of the population receive basic environmental services i.e. safe drinking water, electricity, sanitation services, and trash-pick?

If the answer is no, then you should expect trouble, such an upraise, insurgency, ethnic conflict, or coup d'état.

Aha, before I forget, I will leave with this video from Egypt to watch.

The post The Insurgency: An E-Game To See it Coming appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.

The post Story #11: The Blood Timber appeared first on Women & the Environment Organization.