Comments by Nandi07

@Jouris, Snowman, wTF5gkLjHV, Fabio C:

Of course when the 'West' (or feel free to insert any other essentialized region or ideology) interacts with an 'other' they are imposing an ideology - isn't this somewhat inevitable? We're use to thinking a certain way, and it comes across (i.e. is suggested, and at least unconsciously but not necessarily consciously imposed) in the way we act. wTF5gkLjHV raises a good point in breaking down 'jihad.' An internal form, and at times an external form, is entirely appropriate; it is at the very least a struggle to salvage one's identity. I think Fabio C errs in saying that jihad is inherently bad; by advancing such an essentialized conception, isn't Fabio perpetuating the all-too-popular misconception of jihad that only occurred after true understanding was abandoned (i.e. it was taken "beyond semantics")?

"Is violent jihad a spent force?" Well, I think it will always have an appeal, especially as long as people are living in political and economic squalor. More importantly, I think its significance needs to be constantly re-evaluated. What kinds of people does this ideology appeal to `now` and how will these people affect various political processes under such an influence? I do not think that this ideology has authoritative political potential; it is not a real threat when it comes to who will fill the political vacuums opening up across the MENA region. Even when relatively moderate forms get to be king of the hill (i.e. '79 Iran), they prove their complete absence of 'staying capacity' (i.e. 'non' Iran).
-B

My main criticism of Rosetta Stone is that it teaches the most technical, most formal style of Arabic (foos-ha) and disregards the glaring differences in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary that manifest themselves in the various Arabic dialects.