 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
I am totally AGAINST theocracy and totally AGAINST the misuse of religion!
I believe Islam has been corrupted and should be cleansed of dogmatic twistst and teachings and freed out of the hands of fundamentalists who keep it hostage!
Fundamentalists are our greatest enemies, you only come 2nd place |
Awwwww, we don't get first prize? 
On a more serious note, I think you're absolutely correct about who your most dangerous enemies are. There will always be fundamentalists - with any religion. The key is preventing them from having any real power. In the US and even more so in the rest of "The West" our fundamentalists are generally loud and annoying, but rarely capable of making policy (there are certainly exceptions, and I wish they had even less influence than they do). As someone who doesn't believe in any of the major religions, fundamentalists everywhere frustrate me.
Personally, I think you exaggerate the degree to which "the West" is responsible for problems in Muslim countries. It's not that my government, or the governments of Britain or France haven't done anything wrong - they have - it's just that they aren't all-powerful boogiemen that you can blame everything on (well you can, but that doesn't mean you're right). Just as people in "the West" may have their worldviews shaped or influenced by Western propoganda, so has your worldview been shaped or influenced by propoganda. It sure is useful to your #1 enemies (the fundamentalists and the dictators) to focus people's despair and hatred on "the West" because then it doesn't get aimed at them. They "kill two birds with one stone" as the saying goes.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alireza1354
You dont know anything about Libya.
Libya promotes secularism and socialism and thereby opening the door to structural reform!
In Libya there are elections too!
You would rather want Libya than Saoudi Arabia! But noooo
Saudi Arabia is your favorite cause those retard fundamentalists very well
protect your intertests while torpedising every muslim effort for equality, secularism and democracy!
Qaddafi is a HEROE |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Qaddafi come to power as a result of a coup. Does anyone ever get to run against Qaddafi, I mean, without his express approval? Does opposition that has a serious chance of winning against him simply dissapear or get thrown into jail? Does he permit dissent? Are elections always suspiciously one sided? Is the rest of his government anything but a rubber stamp of his will? Does he censor the press? Is his term of power limited, or is he essentially going to be a "President for Life"? All of these traits are those of a dictatorship.
Out of curiosity, which middle east rulers do you consider to be tools of the west?
We didn't create the House of Saud. It is actually older than the US. They have clung to power for over 3 centuries and so far have had no serious internal opposition.
We didn't create the states of Kuwait, Quatar, Bahrain, Oman or Yemen. The Brits may have had some role in the survival of these regimes through the early 20th century, but each of these countries started with its own native dynasty. Furthermore it is rather hypocritical of you to lay the blame of Britain's actions on our doorsteps. In the post-war era the US had a lot to do with the gradual retraction of the British empire.
You have no room to blame us for the regimes in place in Egypt, Syria, or Iraq either. Each of these countries started out in the late 1940s and early 1950s as opposed to the United States. The leadership of each of these countries has a direct linkage through a line of succession to leaders of that era who unabashedly associated themselves with the Soviet Union. Do not be so cynical as to suggest that we had a hand in the infiltration of socialism into these countries as a means to prevent the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In the 1950s Islamic fundamentalism was pretty much dormant as a political force. In this era the two camps of the First and Second worlds were facing off across a line of nuclear confrontation. The challenge of preventing the expansion of the communist camp while avoiding nuclear holocaust was the preminent task of western diplomacy. Keeping Islamic fundamentalism down wasn't even considered. In fact, when Islamic fundamentalism began to make its presence known in the 1970s many western diplomats hailed it as a possible solution to the threat of Soviet expanion in the middle east.
Finally you blame us for not doing more to foster the growth of democracy in the middle east. The problem with that accusation is that there really hasn't appeared to be a visible movement to support. In the late 1970s new President Jimmy Carter used diplomacy to encourage the Shah of Iran to evacuate Iran in favor of a democratic regime. The US moved rapidly to give its support to the new Iranian government, and what happened? Out of the blue a theocratic dictator, the Ayatollah Kohmeini, moved in to squash Iranian democracy. Am I justified in labelling Kohmeini as a dictator? He rounded up the opposition party leaders and put them in jail, he put the press under censorship, he established revolutionary kangaroo courts, he restricted the civil rights of minority groups in Iran. Yep, I'm justified.
If you would have the west support democracy in the middle east give me some credible names to support.
Last edited by Dr Strangelove on 11-12-2002 at 20:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alireza1354
1 MAJOR difference between me and them, american. I hate it to be confronted every time with your selective perception of things.
I am totally AGAINST theocracy and totally AGAINST the misuse of religion!
I believe Islam has been corrupted and should be cleansed of dogmatic twistst and teachings and freed out of the hands of fundamentalists who keep it hostage!
Fundamentalists are our greatest enemies, you only come 2nd place |
So what do you suggest we do to further the development of modern secular democracy in the middle east? Please don't suggest getting rid of Israel. While that might be pertinent to the security of the Palestinians, the existance of Israel really is not a sufficient excuse for the state of politics elsewhere in the middle east.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Alireza1354
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So what do you suggest we do to further the development of modern secular democracy in the middle east? Please don't suggest getting rid of Israel. While that might be pertinent to the security of the Palestinians, the existance of Israel really is not a sufficient excuse for the state of politics elsewhere in the middle east. |
That is true!
I totally agree!
Israel is a result of various factors. One of them is our weakness, but after all, I dont think Israel is such a bad thing! Quite the opposite!
Israel will be assimilated in the sea of muslims of the islamic world, its a question of time. Then we will be able to profit from their technological and financial stance, and we can give them manpower and a very large scope of geopolitical and social powerprojection. If things clear up, we may even give them security, like we used to do the last 1000 years while the west was killing or isolating the jews wherever they found them.
Dont forget, the problem between Israel (Isaac) and the Arabs (Ishmael) is a familyproblem.
NO strangers will be able to solve it, and NO strangers will.
We will solve it ourselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alireza1354
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Qaddafi come to power as a result of a coup. Does anyone ever get to run against Qaddafi, I mean, without his express approval? Does opposition that has a serious chance of winning against him simply dissapear or get thrown into jail? Does he permit dissent? Are elections always suspiciously one sided? Is the rest of his government anything but a rubber stamp of his will? Does he censor the press? Is his term of power limited, or is he essentially going to be a "President for Life"? All of these traits are those of a dictatorship.
Out of curiosity, which middle east rulers do you consider to be tools of the west?
We didn't create the House of Saud. It is actually older than the US. They have clung to power for over 3 centuries and so far have had no serious internal opposition.
We didn't create the states of Kuwait, Quatar, Bahrain, Oman or Yemen. The Brits may have had some role in the survival of these regimes through the early 20th century, but each of these countries started with its own native dynasty. Furthermore it is rather hypocritical of you to lay the blame of Britain's actions on our doorsteps. In the post-war era the US had a lot to do with the gradual retraction of the British empire.
You have no room to blame us for the regimes in place in Egypt, Syria, or Iraq either. Each of these countries started out in the late 1940s and early 1950s as opposed to the United States. The leadership of each of these countries has a direct linkage through a line of succession to leaders of that era who unabashedly associated themselves with the Soviet Union. Do not be so cynical as to suggest that we had a hand in the infiltration of socialism into these countries as a means to prevent the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. In the 1950s Islamic fundamentalism was pretty much dormant as a political force. In this era the two camps of the First and Second worlds were facing off across a line of nuclear confrontation. The challenge of preventing the expansion of the communist camp while avoiding nuclear holocaust was the preminent task of western diplomacy. Keeping Islamic fundamentalism down wasn't even considered. In fact, when Islamic fundamentalism began to make its presence known in the 1970s many western diplomats hailed it as a possible solution to the threat of Soviet expanion in the middle east.
Finally you blame us for not doing more to foster the growth of democracy in the middle east. The problem with that accusation is that there really hasn't appeared to be a visible movement to support. In the late 1970s new President Jimmy Carter used diplomacy to encourage the Shah of Iran to evacuate Iran in favor of a democratic regime. The US moved rapidly to give its support to the new Iranian government, and what happened? Out of the blue a theocratic dictator, the Ayatollah Kohmeini, moved in to squash Iranian democracy. Am I justified in labelling Kohmeini as a dictator? He rounded up the opposition party leaders and put them in jail, he put the press under censorship, he established revolutionary kangaroo courts, he restricted the civil rights of minority groups in Iran. Yep, I'm justified.
If you would have the west support democracy in the middle east give me some credible names to support. |
I am sorry but your view is distorted beyond repair.
If you deny that the gulfstates have been created by western powers (British) , then my words with you are finished.
Bye!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alireza1354
Israel will be assimilated in the sea of muslims of the islamic world, its a question of time. Then we will be able to profit from their technological and financial stance, and we can give them manpower and a very large scope of geopolitical and social powerprojection. If things clear up, we may even give them security, like we used to do the last 1000 years while the west was killing or isolating the jews wherever they found them.
Dont forget, the problem between Israel (Isaac) and the Arabs (Ishmael) is a familyproblem.
NO strangers will be able to solve it, and NO strangers will.
We will solve it ourselves. |
Ali Reza, I assume, then, there is no hope for permanent peace in the ME, that Israel should understand this, and that they should act accordingly.
Last edited by Ned on 13-12-2002 at 00:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darius871
|
 |
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002
time: 23:24
|
|
A democracy takes a long time to build, especially in a formerly totalitarian nation with no heritage of liberty, so it's a bit too early to say we've left Afghanistan out on its ass (we very well may have, but it's just too early to say). First you have either direct military occupation or a pro-U.S. oligarchy that allows capitalism and a free market, the country's infrastructure and standard of living improve, and over the years democracy spawns on its own. It's not possible for us to put a democratic government in place the very month that we liberate a country, it takes years of social evolution. The former Axis powers of WWII as well as South Korea are good examples of this.
Last edited by Darius871 on 13-12-2002 at 01:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
Finally we get someone on this board to present the Muslim point of view, and you bash the guy 
As for Saddam,as I have shown in the other thread he was activley encouraged and supported by the US and the west until Kuwait.
You here ignoring the fact that the west was putting dicators and rulers in the Muslim countries after the end of the colonial rule is amazing ignorance after all the discussions here. 
Here is the thread on Saddam and him being the child of the US foreign policy.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=64819
nicely documentnted from here if anyone bothers to read :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ws/aburish.html
a few quotes for those that can't be bothered
quote:
The great game played in the Middle East in 1959 was Arab nationalism under Nasser. Nasser wanted to unite the Arab countries into one great one, capable of being completely independent. Most of the western powers were opposed to that. The Ba'ath Party, to which Saddam belonged, believed in Arab unity as well. The man who ran Iraq, the man Saddam tried to assassinate, General Abdel Karim Kassem, did not believe in that. And this is why Saddam and his crew tried to kill him. And that is also why once Saddam escaped after the assassination attempt, he found refuge in Cairo, under Nasser's patronage. That was the situation. The Arabs trying to unite the West; the United States, and Britain in particular, were opposed to this unity.
While he was in Cairo, there's some belief that he may have had contact with Americans, with the CIA. What can you tell us about that?
There is very good reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was in contact with the American embassy in Cairo when he was in exile. This is not strange, because alliances of convenience were taking place every day. And the United States was afraid that Iraq, under Kassem, might be going communist. So was the Ba'ath Party. So they had a common enemy, a common target--the possibility of a communist take-over of Iraq.
So there is a record of Saddam visiting the American embassy frequently, and there is a record of the Egyptian security people telling him not to do that. However, one must remember that at that time, Saddam was a minor official of the Ba'ath Party. He was not terribly important. And he was really following in the footsteps of other people who are much more important.
And what would be the idea behind all this?
The visits to the American embassy by Saddam Hussein and other members of the Ba'ath Party had one purpose, and one purpose only. To co-operate with the Americans towards the overthrow of General Kassem in Iraq. Kassem was slightly pro-communist and the Americans wanted to get rid of that danger. Allen Dulles described Iraq as the most dangerous part of the earth in front of a congressional committee. The Ba'ath thought Kassem was their enemy, so there was a mutuality there. And whether a conspiracy transpired or not, the evidence is actually in favor of it having taken place. But the conspiracy was for the duration of getting rid of Kassem. It was not an alliance of permanent nature.
There was a coup in Iraq in 1963. What do we know about the U.S. involvement in that coup?
The U.S. involvement in the coup against Kassem in Iraq in 1963 was substantial. There is evidence that CIA agents were in touch with army officers who were involved in the coup. There is evidence that an electronic command center was set up in Kuwait to guide the forces who were fighting Kassem. There is evidence that they supplied the conspirators with lists of people who had to be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success. The relationship between the Americans and the Ba'ath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed. And that continued for some time after the coup. And there was an exchange of information between the two sides. For example it was one of the first times that the United States was able to get certain models of Mig fighters and certain tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was the bribe. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Kassem.
Do we know to what extent Saddam Hussein was involved in the killings when he came back from Cairo?
I have documented over seven hundred people who were eliminated, mostly on an individual basis, after the 1963 coup. And they were eliminated based on lists supplied by the CIA to the Ba'ath Party. So the CIA and the Ba'ath were in the business of eliminating communists and leftists who were dangerous to the Ba'ath's take-over.
The coup took place in April, Saddam Hussein did not return to Iraq until May. But he went to work immediately. He became an interrogator in the Fellaheen and Muthaqafeen detention camps. They are camps where they kept communists and fellow travellers, after they took power. And in interrogating people in those camps, he used torture, and undoubtedly like everybody else involved in this activity, eliminated people. In 1963 he was still one of the party's toughs, one of the party's thugs if you wish.
|
that was the beginning
quote:
After the revolution--Saddam was still vice-president--and in July of 1979, he makes a visit to Amman. And, at the same time, he meets with CIA agents there. What is he doing? And what are the consequences of this trip?
Before starting the war with Iran, Saddam Hussin went on a tour of several Arab countries. His first stop was Amman in Jordan. And there he had two things he did not have in other places: an indirect line to the Americans through King Hussein, who has always been a friend of America, and, the possibility of meeting three senior CIA agents who were there, not to spy on Jordan, but to use Jordan as a listening post for the rest of the Middle East.
There is absolutely no doubt that Saddam discussed his plans to invade Iran with King Hussein. There is considerable evidence that he discussed his plans to invade Iran with the CIA agents that King Hussein prevailed on him to meet with. After that he flew to Saudi Arabia and there is a record of him telling King Fahd that he is going to invade Iran, and then after that, I think he had a stop-over in Kuwait and he did the same thing. What the trips did was to guarantee him American support in invading Iran. Financial support from the oil producing countries after their invasion and a channel to buy arms.
One of the great unknowns or perhaps unthought of elements in the war between Iran and Iraq was the people who fronted for them in purchasing arms. Saddam had acceptable countries who fronted for him. Jordan bought arms for Saddam. Jordan is acceptable in the West. Egypt bought arms for Saddam. Egypt was acceptable. Saudi Arabia bought arms for Saddam. Saudi Arabia was acceptable. Iran did not have that advantage. Iran had Syria and Libya to front for it, and neither country was acceptable. So the flow of arms to Iraq was at the much higher scale. And they were more sophisticated stuff. They got more sophisticated pieces of armament than the Iranians. And this is why they prevailed in the end.
So you can look at this picture as having begun with this tour that Saddam took immediately before he invaded Iran. He was protecting his back with conservative regimes. With pro-West regimes. He was not protecting his back with the USSR. As a matter of fact the USSR cut off the flow of arms to Iraq once it invaded Iran. And Saddam had to rely exclusively on Western armament for three years until the USSR changed its mind and start selling him again. They saw that they were losing out in Iraq because the West was willing to give him everything he wanted.
|
ant that was the Iran -Iraq war and the fact that Saddam had to rely for first three years on western weapons only as USSR did not want that war, and did not sell the weapons to him. It was only after USSR realised that Iraq will get all the weapons he ever needs from the west that they decided to start selling.
Well that was Iraq, bit, for more go and read the article there is more if you doubt it still.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
From the Guardian article:
quote:
President Bush said, "They hate us for our freedoms", but that is not true: freedom is a rare commodity that Arabs would dearly like a lot more of. They hate us, rather, for the condition of humiliating subjection in which they find themselves, and for which, rightly or wrongly, they hold us responsible. They hate us for Sir Mark Sykes, for Georges Picot, for Gertrude Bell, for Arthur James Balfour (whose 1917 "declaration" was the basis of the movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine); for America's steadfast support of what they perceive as corrupt and cruel regimes (like that of the Saud family in its glittering hi-tech fortress of modern Riyadh) and for its bland indifference to the injustice suffered by the Palestinians.
All this may be unreasonable of them, but that is why they hate us, and that is why, in the poorest parts of Arabia, the favourite name to give a boy at present is Osama; the latest folk hero of an impossible, idealised "Islamic nation" that will transcend the petty frontiers of the hopelessly divided and despotic Middle East. This is not meant to sound soft on Bin Laden: he is a monster, but a monster born of desperate dreams that are widely shared across an immense and unhappy tract of land. |
:nods: Sure, makes sense. A couple of thoughts:
1) there isn't a damn thing we can do about what the Brits and French did right after WWI (drawing lines in the sand, so to speak).
2) we sure can change our stance vis-a-vis the governments of SA, Kuwait, and some other countries, but Egypt, for instance, presents a problem: in order to get them to make peace with Israel, we promised them aid. Same with Jordan, I believe.
So it seems even knowing why we are hated doesn't help all that much, ya know?
Granted, getting the Israelis and Palestinians to stop slaughtering each other might help, but that would take a miracle.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
I fully agree with that, but that only proves the point about western estabilished dicators in his eyes ruining the arab world, and playing for western interests, until they disobey, and than the west puts another dicator just the one that listens to them.
I agree with the guy, as what he said has been done many times in the past and not only in ME but all over the world, think Chile/Panama/Zair (Kongo) etc..etc...
And as DR Strangelove said and some others : they are your own, of course they are Arabs too but they came to power due to western influence, and you cannot say that the mess in that part of the world is not due to too much meddling from the west in order to protect its own interests. That is what they are trying to get rid off, and with full right. A united Arab world sound too much like EU to me  ... They will have their problems but we should let them figure it out on their own, but that can't happen due to the western dependancy on Oil in the area, US and the west has to try to stay in control of what happens there, and here you have the conflict.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
they are your own, of course they are Arabs too but they came to power due to western influence, and you cannot say that the mess in that part of the world is not due to too much meddling from the west in order to protect its own interests. That is what they are trying to get rid off, and with full right. |
Err... by flying jetliners into buildings? I think not. If the goal was getting rid of the House of Saud and the other dictatorships, inciting full-scale revolt would be the way to go.
As pointed out before, when Iran went through its popular revolution to get rid of the Shah, the US essentially bowed to what it saw as the inevitable, and prepared to deal with the new government. At which point Khomeni showed up, US hostages were taken, and things went South in a hurry.
What I'm trying to say is the US deals with governments to suit its interests, yes, we deal with whomever there is to deal with. If it's a dictator, that's who we deal with (major exception: anybody leaning toward communism in the cold war. The exception today is "support for terror").
Anyway, I agree we shouldn't prop up dictators. On the other hand, when we do try to give dictators the cold shoulder, we get criticized for that (NK). If we tried to "promote democracy" (how, exactly?) we would get criticized for meddling.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
Well if knowing why won't help I don't know what will 
Look just back to the last war against Iraq. As Alireza said, Iraq did have a huge bill and Saddam decided to make a payment to himself by invading Kuwait, and he had mistakenly thought that US actaully approved for this invasion at the beginning. Well that was a mistake, however he was left in power mainly because Saudis - US main allies, that basically US keeps safe in their own country, did not want a democratic Iraq (perhaps US did not want it either, but hey for Saudis it is clear, as that would create a strong pressure from a big neighbour for democratic Saudi Arabia). And as they couldn't find a decent replacement so Saddam stayed. They even supplied some biological agents to Saddam after he gassed the Kurds in 1992. However shortly sanctions were imposed to keep him under control and with 10 years of sanctions 1 million people + are dead as a result.
Apologists here say: what else to do?
Well for starters get Saddam out of the area, at the time, stop supporting the Saudi Royal family, don't mess around, do the job and go home. But of course that would create instablilty in the area and a possible economic collapse at home so this is not an option, plus they are more dependant on us this way around + ignorance that we can beat everyone if we really have to. Well... now we have had 9-11 already, and I am wandering what is next, especially with the actions US is taking at the moment. At least they have not attacked Iraq alone, yet.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2002 17:11
You're entitled to your views, of course, even if I don't agree with everything you say. (I usually hang out up in the Alpha Centauri region, which might explain my strange behavior. Plus it's a little too late. 
)
|