How the West De-Democratised the Middle East

[shakur420]

How the West de-democratised the Middle East







Rather than promote democracy in the Middle East, the West has a long history of doing the exact opposite.

Melbourne, Australia - With the momentous convulsion in the Middle East sparked by Mohamed Bouazizi's martyrdom in January 2011, it is time to ask what happened to the question which for long dominated Western discourse on the Middle East: Is Islam compatible with democracy? The predominant answer for many years was "no". Among others, Elie Kedourie, MS Lipset, and Huntington advocated such a position. Bernard Lewis, "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East", who offered "the intellectual ammunition for the Iraq War", was most vociferous in upholding this position. Their main argument was that, unlike Christianity, Islam was unique in not differentiating religion from the state and hence democracy was impossible in Muslim polities. Against this doxa, I make three arguments.

First, the position that Islam is incompatible with democracy was false from the beginning, because it served imperial ambitions of the West and violated Muslims' self-perception that, not only is Islam compatible with democracy, it was one of the engines of democratic empowerment.

Second, I argue that the West's discourse of democratisation of the Middle East is dubious because it hides how the West actually de-democratised the Middle East. My contention is that, from the 1940s onwards, democratic experiments were well in place and the West subverted them to advance its own interests. I offer three examples of de-democratisation: The reportedly CIA-engineered coup against the elected government of Syria in 1949, the coup orchestrated by the US and UK against the democratic Iran in 1953 and subversion of Bahrain's democracy in the 1970s. I also touch on the West's recent de-democratisation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Third, I explain that the Middle East was de-democratised because the West rarely saw it as a collection of people with dynamic, rich social-cultural textures. The Western power elites viewed the Middle East as no more than a region of multiple resources and strategic interests; hence their aim was to keep it "stable" and "manageable". To Ernest Bevin, foreign secretary (1945-51) of imperial Britain, without "its oil and other potential resources" there was "no hope of our being able to achieve the standard of life at which we [are] aiming in Great Britain".


The false debate

The Western view about Islam being incompatible with democracy is rooted in the Enlightenment which, contrary to the received wisdom, was prejudiced - and, to cite John Trumpbour, "shot through with Islamophobia". Thus Alexis de Tocqueville held that the Quran laid stress on faith, not splendid deeds, as a result of which Islam was inhospitable to democracy. In the post-World War II era, Kedouri, Huntington, Lewis and others presented different versions of this argument.

This Western view was, however, seldom shared by Muslims who believed that Islam and democracy were perfectly compatible. As early as 1912, the Indian philosopher Abul Kalam Azad (b1888) wrote: "Islam regards every form of government which is non-constitutional and non-parliamentary as the greatest human sin." Turkey's Mustafa Fazil Pasha (b1829) held that Islam determined one's destiny in afterlife but it "does not limit the rights of the people". Abdullah Abdurrahman of South Africa (b1870) observed that, without full equality, "there is no such thing as a democratic institution". Without multiplying examples, it is suffice to note that the notion of divine sovereignty advanced by India's Maududi and Egypt's Qutb were complex developments unfolding much later.

Contrary to Muslims' self-perception, the debate on Islam's alleged incompatibility with democracy continued in the post-war era. Encapsulated under "modernisation", this debate was integral to the West's domination of the Middle East, because empire maintains itself not just by brute force but also by presenting itself at the service of rhetoric such as democracy. In the US, this took an institutional form in 1983 when the Reagan administration floated the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Though currently the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), established in 1961 by John F Kennedy, claims that the US "has a long history of extending a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to...live in a free and democratic country" and that the US foreign assistance "has always had the...purpose of expanding democracy". At the time of USAID's formation, its aim was not democracy promotion but to counter communism through economic aid and development.

Even in 1997, long after NED's formation, Fareed Zakaria - now editor-at-large of Newsweek (although then managing editor at Foreign Policy Magazine) and a neo-realist apologist of US policy - undermined democracy by justifying the Middle East's authoritarian rulers as follows: "In many parts of that world, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and some of the Gulf states, were elections to be held tomorrow, the resulting regimes would almost certainly be more illiberal than the ones now in place." Neither Zakaria nor USAID, however, says how the US, and its allies such as Britain, were responsible, not for promoting, but demoting democracy. This is what I mean by de-democratisation of the Middle East by the West. Let me give some examples.


De-democratisation of Syria, Iran, Bahrain, Afghanistan and Iraq

Syria

Perhaps the earliest theatre of de-democratisation was Syria. True to the logic of colonialism, as imperial Britain and France dismembered and divided the Ottoman Empire to install the mandate system under the covenant of the League of Nations, Syria fell under the French rule from which it only gained independence in 1946. While still under French control, Syria held presidential elections, following which an elected government (based on universal male suffrage) led by Shukri al-Quwatly, came to power for a five-year term starting August 1943. The Syrian government, after its independence, was thus constitutional and based on democracy. In March 1949, the US organised a coup d'état against al-Quwatly's government to install military rule, presided over by Colonel Husni al-Zaim. Based on research from declassified documents now available, it is well-established that Stephen Meade, a CIA operative, played a key role in staging that coup. Meade had met al-Zaim at least six times. To Miles Copland, a US diplomat in Damascus, al-Zaim was "America's boy".

The US de-democratised Syria because al-Quwatly's democratic government was nationalist and unwilling to toe the US line. He had informed Washington that Syria wouldn't adopt any policy that went against its security and sovereignty, even if "it meant defying America". Of its several aims, the US wanted Syria to fulfill at least two, which Colonel al-Zaim joyfully did. He legitimised Israel by signing an armistice and ratified the TAPLINE (Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company) project, allowing ARAMCO (Arabian-American Oil Company) to pipe Saudi oil across Syria to the Mediterranean. The Syrian parliament had earlier rejected both these demands, reportedly due, among other reasons, to Western and US support for the partition of Palestine, and the creation and support of Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Between 1949, when the al-Quwatly's democratic government was dislodged, and 1955, five more coups were organised. The foundations for the de-democratisation of Syria could not have been stronger.

Iran

The next major theatre of de-democratisation was Iran, whose elected government was overthrown, in 1953, by a US-UK alliance. Mohammad Mosaddeq was Iran's elected prime minister. He enjoyed the approval of Iran's parliament for his nationalisation programme. The US and UK organised a CIA-led coup to oust Mosaddeq - because Iran refused make oil concessions to the West. During World War II, the UK had taken control of Iran to prevent oil from being passed to its ally, the Soviet Union. Through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the UK continued to control Iran's oil after the war. The French-educated Mosaddeq was highly critical of Iran's draining of resources to the West. Soon after getting elected as prime minister in March 1951, Mosaddeq and his National Front alliance had moved to nationalise Iranian oil and throw out foreign control of oil fields. One such was the Abadan refinery, then the largest in the world. The UK retaliated by imposing economic sanctions, backed by its heavy naval presence in the region. Mosaddeq, however, was undeterred; his popularity only increased among the Iranian people. Faced with Mosaddeq's resistance, the UK-US alliance staged a coup to over throw Mosaddeq's government.

The 1953 coup in Iran was significant also for Central and South America. Indeed, subsequently it became a model for regime change. Only a year later, in 1954, as the New York Times noted in 2000, the CIA staged a successful coup in Guatemala. We should also note the CIA plot on 9/11. Not the 9/11 we know think of - but the 9/11 of 1973. On that occasion, the CIA toppled the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile to replace it with the dictatorship of General Pinochet, who brutally ruled for 17 long years.

Bahrain

Another theatre of de-democratisation in the Middle East was Bahrain, formerly a British protectorate. In 1971, Bahrain became independent. In December 1973, the first elections (only men participated) were held to elect the thirty members of al-majlis al-watani, the National Assembly. That assembly challenged the unbridled authority of the al-Khalifa family which had ruled Bahrain since 1783. A major challenge to the clan came in the form of the assembly's demand for the eviction of the US Navy base from Bahrain. Let it be noted that the US military presence in Bahrain dates to 1949. After the withdrawal of British forces from there, the US presence increased. Legally, Bahrain's assembly was right in asking for the eviction of the US Navy. But the ruling al-Khalifas dissolved the assembly on August 26, 1975. There was then no democracy until 2002. Various vibrant institutions of civil society, such as trade unions, were all crushed.

Clearly, what mattered to the US were not the voices and aspirations of Bahraini people but America's own national interest, which was to keep its base. Admiral Crow justified this, saying that "on general principles...the [US] Navy did not want to leave a place where they were already established". One may say that there was no "external" intervention and the al-Khalifa family took a "sovereign internal" decision to dissolve the assembly. However, in the Middle East (as elsewhere) the drawing of lines between internal and external is a difficult business.

Afghanistan

The West's de-democratisation continued in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, an UN-sponsored conference took place (in November 2001) in Bonn to decide Afghanistan's future. The avowed objective was to install democracy and women's freedom in Afghanistan. Leaving aside the issue of the extent to which the Afghan delegates invited to Bonn were representative of the Afghan population, it is instructive to note that the leader Abdul Satar Sirat, elected by a majority of votes to lead the interim government, was asked to give way to Hamid Karzai. The decision to install "democracy" in Afghanistan was itself taken undemocratically. The aim clearly was not to install democracy but to install Karzai, "our man", who was eager to pursue Western ambitions. A decade since then, journalists such as James Fergusson, author of A million bullets and Taliban, now complain that Karzai is "absolutely not interested in the principles of democracy". Was this the goal, however? The former Australian prime minister, John Howard, later admitted that West did not want to get embroiled in Afghanistan's reconstruction or any messy "nation-building". Surgical operations in Afghanistan were the key goal.

Iraq

The story of de-democratisation was similar in Iraq. Following the Western invasion of Iraq as the government fell in April 2003, people in places as diverse as Mosul (a Kurdish town), Samara (with a Sunni Arab majority), Hilla and Najaf (both Shia towns), and Baghdad spontaneously organised meetings to elect representatives for reconstruction, safety and provision of essential infrastructure. It was a popular democratic initiative in the true sense of the term. However, the US thwarted all such democratic initiatives by nullifying the decisions and plans the elected representatives of various councils had made. In their place, the US appointed their own, reliable (unelected) people, including former Baathists.


The 'why' of de-democratisation

Why did the West de-democratise the Middle East? It did so, I submit, because seldom did its power elites see the region as a people with diverse, dynamic social-cultural texture instead of a repository of multiple resources and strategic interests. Hence their prime aim was to keep the Middle East "stable" and "manageable".

In 1984, Rob­ert W Stookey, a prominent member of the US for­eign service (with postings in the Middle East and a doctorate in political science), published The Arabian Peninsula: Zone of Ferment from Stanford University's Hoover Institution. The books published from the Hoover Institution were "concerned with the US involvement in world and regional poli­tics". Stookey began the book's introduction as follows: "Considering the economic and strategic significance for our national interests, the Arabian peninsula is not well known to the general public." And this is how, within the framework of US national interest, he made the Middle East "known" to his Western audience. Saudi Arabia, he noted, had the "possession of one-fourth of the non-communist world's oil reserves" and thus described it (and Kuwait) as "oil-rich". In contrast, he called the then-two Yemens "oil-less". It is evident how the Middle East made any sense to the West only in relation to whether it was "oil-rich" or "oil-less".

Such a conceptualisation of the Middle East was articulated by imperial Britain, whose viceroy to India, Lord Curzon, wrote in the 19th century: "Turkestan, Afghanistan, Transcaspia, Persia - to many these words breathe only a sense of utter remoteness, or a memory of strange vicissitudes and of moribund romance. To me, I confess they are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world." Indeed, the term "Middle East" itself is imperial. "Middle" between which two points or locations? And yes, East of what? Clearly, it is a geographical designation which puts the West at the centre of the world. In the late 19th century, Alfred Mahan, a US navy officer, invented the term "Middle East" and used it in his book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. Halford Mackinder, a liberal imperialist of Britain, later popularised it.

I have argued how the West's claim of spreading democracy in the Middle East is bogus. Against the West's claims, I have instead shown how it continually de-democratised one country after another. Like India, the world's largest democracy which is largely disinterested in - and indirectly hostile to - democratic movements in Bhutan and Burma, the West has been largely hostile to genuine democracy in the Middle East so as to nurture its interests - geopolitical and strategic - by keeping the Mubaraks and the Shahs "stable".



March 30, 2012
Irfan Ahmad
Al Jazeera

[Introcluse]

erm you do know that theocracies are anti-democracy and antithetical to democracy ?

the irony of this post is that that no region in the world is ingrained is patriarchal theocracy like the middle east and the scapegoat for an obstacle to democracy is the west ? Any person who thinks complete subservience to a supernatural celestial dictator is synonymous with democracy has serious issues with their cognitive dissonance.

In democracy anyone regardless of race or religion can stand for election for positions of power over others, but not according to the quran

"never will allah grant to the unbelievers a way to triumphs over the believers." (4:141) "power belongs to allah and to his messenger and to the believers;" (63:8)

in democracy decisions are decided by a majority vote, not based on allah or his messengers individual prerogative. Rule is by concencus, but not according to the quran...

"It is not fitting for a man or woman, when a matter has been decided by allah and his messenger to have any option about their decision."(33:36)

[Asshole]

(04-03-2012 03:00 AM)shakur420 Wrote:  intelligent and thought provoking article with factual backing on the history of a region

(04-10-2012 04:54 AM)Introcluse Wrote:  ISLAM IS BAD FUCK MUSLIMS THEY ARE ALL TERRORISTS!!!!!

[shakur420]

The context of that quote is marriage, and to not creep on your wife, not to fuck around with other women and shit once you're married, by the way. The "decisions" relate to destiny, as anyone will see if they take 5 minutes to check out the context of the verse.

What credentials do you have anyways, to speak on the topic?

[Younes]

(04-03-2012 03:00 AM)shakur420 Wrote:  Iraq

The story of de-democratisation was similar in Iraq. Following the Western invasion of Iraq as the government fell in April 2003, people in places as diverse as Mosul (a Kurdish town), Samara (with a Sunni Arab majority), Hilla and Najaf (both Shia towns), and Baghdad spontaneously organised meetings to elect representatives for reconstruction, safety and provision of essential infrastructure. It was a popular democratic initiative in the true sense of the term. However, the US thwarted all such democratic initiatives by nullifying the decisions and plans the elected representatives of various councils had made. In their place, the US appointed their own, reliable (unelected) people, including former Baathists.

Are there any sources to this, checked the link but didn't find any.

[shakur420]

I try to add all the hyperlinks in the articles, so if you don't see any in the posts there probably aren't any in the original. It's all propaganda anyways, just more hatred-inciting rabble rousing by Islamist extremists. There's Democracy in Iraq now, thanks to America, didn't you hear? It's true, Dick Cheney told me so.

Some stuff you can check out.
http://revcom.us/a/1254/iraq_samarra_us_assault.htm
http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files...rnment.pdf (p.7-8, 13-14)
http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/ocvprogram...%203-1.pdf
http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/...Report.doc (section II.A.f.)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174935
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1136
http://warisacrime.org/content/victory-p...upied-iraq (under "The emergence of popular resistance")
http://www.minority-opinion.com/2012/04/...n.html?m=1
http://mondediplo.com/2007/11/08iraq#nb1
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPD...ocus66.pdf (p.11-16)

[Introcluse]

(04-10-2012 12:41 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  The context of that quote is marriage, and to not creep on your wife, not to fuck around with other women and shit once you're married, by the way. The "decisions" relate to destiny, as anyone will see if they take 5 minutes to check out the context of the verse.

What credentials do you have anyways, to speak on the topic?

where in the quran does it that quote is in the context of marriage? please provide me with a quranic reference

I can speak on anything I like, just at you can

[1871]

Not if its a theocracy you cant.

Quote:Some countries with majority Muslim populations have tried to introduce the concept of Islamic human rights. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), adopted by the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in 1990, provides an overview on the Islamic perspective on human rights, and affirms Islamic law (Shari'ah) as its sole source. CDHRI declares its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of the OIC] in the Field of human rights". This declaration is usually seen as an Islamic response to the post-World War II United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948. However, even these more limited rights are mostly ignored or patchily implemented. In particular, the Cairo Declaration does little to assure the rights of religious minorities in Islamic dominated countries. Changing religion to leave Islam is defined as apostasy and may be punished severely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_right..._countries

Salafists besiege Tunisian university: Dean, professors taken hostage



Salafists disrupt classes at Tunisia Manouba University, demanding stop to mixed-sex classes and for female students to wear full face veils.

Middle East Online



Salafists’ weapons: Threats, verbal abuses


TUNIS - A group of Salafists disrupted classes on Monday at a university west of the capital Tunis, demanding a stop to mixed-sex classes and for female students to wear full face veils, officials said.
The mob of Salafists also took hostage the dean of the University of Letters, Arts, and Humanities of Manouba along with several other professors.
One of the professors who witnessed the protest said the group threatened him and verbally abused other professors. The professor called on the protection of the army, but no security forces had yet been confirmed arrived.
"A group of Salafists, dressed like the Afghans, have been camped in front of my office since early afternoon," Habib Kazdaghli, the dean of faculty at the University of Manuba, said.
The group of several dozen students interrupted an English class in the morning, Kazdaghli said.
"They want girls to wear the niqab, a mosque in the middle of the campus, a stop to mixed classes and a prohibition of women teaching male students and vice versa," he said, adding that it marked the first such incident on campus.
Tunisia's Salafists have become more assertive in recent months, following the revolution that ousted a staunchly secular regime along with president Zine el Abidine Ben Ali in January following mass protests.
The ministry of higher education "firmly" condemned the incident, saying that "all recourse to violence is inadmissible and intolerable."
In regards to policies concerning the niqab, a ministry spokesperson said that "according to current regulations, each student must be able to be identified before accessing the university, for pedagogic and security reasons."
Visible again on the streets of Tunis and other major cities, their new assertiveness has led to a number of more or less violent clashes.
In the eastern city of Sousse earlier this month, some 200 Islamists stormed the university campus after a female student wearing the niqab, or burka, full face veil was not allowed to sign up.

On October 9 in Tunis, a mob of Salafists tried to attack the offices of private Nessma TV station that aired "Persepolis", a French-Iranian animation film.

*******

You should know that when its about the lack of democracy in the middle east, human rights abuses and masscres its just 'western propaganda' but when its about the US massacres and human rights abuses, well thats legitimate.

The idea that Afghanistan or Iraq was a 'democracy' that was 'de-democratised'....hmmm....talk about a re-writing of history.

But then dont look at the record of how these regimes stamped out democracy with both the help of the US and without its help. Dont look at how following the kick out of imperial powers there was still no democracy, there were still human rights abuses and massacres.

http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/diana/afghanwomen.htm

http://www.universaljurisdiction.org/wor...ar-taliban

http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/iran

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Ne...=iran&Cr1=

http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials...-IRAN.html

http://middleeast.about.com/od/syria/f/hama-rules.htm

http://www.meforum.org/1680/can-there-be...-democracy

http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/reform.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast...23958.html

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/bah...ed-amnesty

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/201...27461.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20110122-alge...nstrations



If you really believe that these countries have pursued democracy when the US tyrant supporting imperialist are absent or when the foreign imperialists have been booted out youre dreaming - theres no shortage of home grown fascists to take over.

Cognitive dissonance? Cognitive dislocation more like. Clean smile for the camera, slip of the dental floss, frontal lobotomy.

[shakur420]

^Does any of that counter the facts presented in the article? I mean, if we're going to claim that even without "western" domination designs, "home grown fascists" would take power anyways, I guess we could apply the same principle to rapists and their victims. Girls are sure to get fucked at some point, right? By their boyfriends, husbands or dildos. What's the big deal if a rapist comes by and does it first, right? People who decry rape are just presenting "inverted rapist-first" propaganda, right? What a fucking joke. Did you even read the article or are you addicted to playing devil's advocate? If you can show that any of the examples, not only in this article but say even across Asia and Latin America, of the US overtly blocking democratic movements, initiatives and measures, are false, I'll be happy to take you seriously.

[1871]

Yeah and make sure that when you condemn rape that you condemn ANY and ALL rapists.
Thats instead of condemning one and ignoring the crimes of the other.

Please make sure that when you condemn US tyrants you similarly take a long look also at the oppressions Ive pointed out in the links by tyrants in thos countries.

What - wait a minute. You didnt read the links....????. Just as you didnt read where I said;

Quote:But then dont look at the record of how these regimes stamped out democracy with both the help of the US and without its help.

and you want me to go about pointing that the CIA and the US didnt involve itself in subverting democratic initiatives ????!!

hahhahahah all I can say is nice try.

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...n-Mossadeq
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...d-the-Shah
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...ah-of-Iran
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...fghanistan
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...-WORLDWIDE
http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...SF-FED-CIA


Now how about a few threads addressing the subversion of human rights by Islamic fundamentalist extremists, by middle east despots ?

But wait - no - thats just propagandising by the west and the evil western media.

http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk/Threa...ce?page=13

Right. And you expect anyone to take YOU seriously?

[shakur420]

No, if you wanna take it back to the Taliban thread, the point was that the media and most mainstream discussion you find use the crimes of official enemies - you know, the bad guys like the communists (happens to be terrorist Muslims right now, but it's an old broken record, in a decade it'll be the Chinese) - for propaganda purposes. When the Guardian refuses to publish the rejectionist positions of the US and Israel at the UN regarding the 2 state solution while constantly talking about Palestinian "militants" and the "peace process", that's propaganda.

When people posts threads here about the crimes of Assad, for example, that's not propaganda because that doesn't further their careers and is not an intentional attempt to present official rhetoric. At the same time, when we're having a discussion about the criminality and brutality of the world's dominant Superpower - and it's open intentions to carry out that destruction for profit - and you turn around and post a thread about the Taliban's crimes, pretending to "balance" the discussion, that's propaganda. You're just trying to play devil's advocate, or so it seems.

Like here where your links are meant to support the position you presented, a position that's irrelevant as it doesn't address the article, or any of the points or facts presented in it. Have you read anything else from this guy? Do you know if he ignores the crimes of "Islamic extremists"? Have you seen any of the articles posted in the op-ed section of Al Jazeera that talk about the repression in Bahrain, in other Arab states trying to crush the "Spring"? Have you checked any of this or are you trying to look smart here? Cause your point would maybe be relevant if we were talking about the crimes of Muslims, or say an actually relevant topic like separation of Church and state or something. What the article is talking about is the moves at Democracy that have been blocked, prevented and destroyed for profit, not only by the US and others, but by those same tyrants and extremists that you say people (or maybe just me or the writer) are ignoring. Your comment on theocracy completely dismisses people's will, their interpretation of their spiritual and political beliefs and is about as anti-democratic as you can get. But I'm sure you didn't get that far in the article, you're just trynna look smart. I get it.

Why did I ignore your references? Why did I dismiss your point? Because it's useless here. What you're saying is that shit would've happened anyways cause there's no shortage of bad guys in those countries who would've fucked over their domestic population regardless of foreign support. As if the Contras would've been able to do what they did without the support of the world's dominant Superpower, to take a parallel example in Latin America. lol, so yeah, I get it, but I don't need to check your links cause I believe that the woman has a right to be upset that she was raped, has the right to get justice from her attacker and that we can't dismiss her attempts to defend herself and live in peace and security because "it would've happened anyways". It's a crock of shit, your argument.

(04-12-2012 12:43 PM)1871 Wrote:  The idea that Afghanistan or Iraq was a 'democracy' that was 'de-democratised'....hmmm....talk about a re-writing of history.

But then dont look at the record of how these regimes stamped out democracy with both the help of the US and without its help. Dont look at how following the kick out of imperial powers there was still no democracy, there were still human rights abuses and massacres...

...If you really believe that these countries have pursued democracy when the US tyrant supporting imperialist are absent or when the foreign imperialists have been booted out youre dreaming - theres no shortage of home grown fascists to take over.

So, here's another example from a former US legislator. An example of how your communist Islamic extremist enemies would have had to deal with "bad guys anyways", without the foreign intervention by dominant powers meant to enhance their perceived interests.

Quote:"...U.S. neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives' 1996 'Clean Break' memo advocated that Israel 'roll back' Lebanon and destabilize Syria in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the 'Lebanonization' of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation states into "a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."...

...It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/2006...ome_round/

Excuse me if I don't adopt your "fascists exist anyways" position. The fact of the matter today is that you'd be hard pressed to find a globally dominant, "Islamic extremist" empire that is currently the "the worst violator of human rights in our era", the words used by Paul Craig Roberts to describe Washington. Mr. Roberts is a former editor of the Wall Street Journal and Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury by the way, not some weird brown guy giving sermons to suicide bombers.

When "Islamic extremists" are responsible for the most suffering on the planet (like trying to block and demonize the adoption of access to water and sanitation as basic human rights), the most belligerent, murderous targeting of civilians (like sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children, for example), proclaim openly to dominate global markets, resources, energy infrastructure and military capabilities - with a realistic ability to carry out these goals - then I'll take this "inverted USA-first" bullshit seriously. When anyone comes close to the US, then we'll talk. Until then, you're just being a shill for the excuses and busted arguments of the rich and wealthy.

It's like crying about the nickel n dimer on the corner, the little kid who's hustling crack on the block when I bring up DEA corruption and US companies supplying the chemicals needed for cocaine production, selling and shipping these chemicals out to Colombia and shit, contributing overtly to the drug trade and being given complete impunity by the government who is supposedly engaged in a "war on drugs". When I bring that up, you solemnly remind me not to forget about my neighborhood drug dealer and the things he does, that he would be a "bad guy anyways" even if the government wasn't actively allowing crack to come into the city. Pure bullshit.

[1871]

Quote:No, if you wanna take it back to the Taliban thread, the point was that the media and most mainstream discussion you find use the crimes of official enemies - you know, the bad guys like the communists (happens to be terrorist Muslims right now, but it's an old broken record, in a decade it'll be the Chinese) - for propaganda purposes

Yeah sure. 'The Gulags didnt happen'. No. There were no mass executions in Stalinist Russia. It didnt happen. It was merely western propaganda. Yeah, and because they a\re the official enemies they dont commit crimes. The Chinese dont persecute dissidents in their own country and Tibet. It doesnt happen. Its purely 'western propaganda'.......


.......is there a difference if 10 prisoners were executed? Rather than 1000? If your brother or father were one of those 10, would you see a difference? I can't believe I'm hearing this from the same people who cry about the U.S.'s crimes, the media's downplaying and distortion of crimes. All of a sudden, when talk about crimes by those we support comes up, we don't wanna talk about it, we gotta stay silent in unity, we gotta support the small time gangster who's trynna take over the Don's business. Does nobody have any knowledge about how shit works on the streets?
.....
etc