Westerners say they are concerned with theocracy but they really are not. It is a lie and it is understandable that someone might believe that lie because they say it so often. But you'll understand the Western position on governments in the Middle East much better once you see past it.
To Westerners both "theocracy" and "like Iran" mean hostile to Israel, and because the US is committed to Israel, for Westerners that necessarily implies hostile to the US.
Saudi Arabia, for example, is a real theocracy. You'll very rarely, almost never, see an expression of concern about Saudi Arabia's internal policies in Western commentary.
Westerners are simply not concerned about whether Egyptians are ruled by Sharia law, much less whether or not there is a bill of rights in Egypt. We've seen the Mubarak dictatorship that Juan Cole a year ago described as "unproblematic for the US". Westerners are concerned that Egypt will pose a threat to Israel.
If it does, Westerners are prepared to call Egypt a repressive dictatorship no matter how fair its elections actually are or what freedoms are afforded to its citizens.
The United States and the West will oppose Egypt if and only if Egypt develops into a threat to Israel. Then they will lie and say this opposition is based on "theocracy" or "rights" or "repression".
Westerners cannot just say "we oppose any government of any type that does not accept Israel" because that statement would contradict deeply held core Western ideals. But that statement is true, so Westerners lie, first to themselves and then to non-Westerners.
Hezbollah, for example, barely has a veto in a Lebanese political process that is heavily weighted against Shiites. Westerners present Lebanon, Lebanon, as a repressive dictatorship. While ignoring, for example, Jordan.
It's a game. You can play if you want. But if you don't want to play, it is very safe to ignore any Western feigned concern for "sharia" or "theocracy" or "rights" in the greater Middle East.
72 comments:
This post was born as a comment at Juan Cole's blog. I was responding to someone named Ashraf who went through the trouble of explaining that Egypt is fundamentally different from Iran. It is, Ashraf is right, but Ashraf misread the US concern. The US is concerned that Egypt will be hostile to Israel. Everything else is just a lie. No matter how different Egypt is from Iran, no matter what rights it offers which citizens, the US will find a way to portray Egypt as the world's most evil country if it poses a strategic challenge to Israel.
Juan Cole will be part of that anti-Egypt chorus if that happens.
I don't know if my response will get past moderation, but after I wrote this, I saw that Cole responded to Ashraf saying he has sidestepped the questions of whether or not a Copt or a woman could be president in an Egypt where the Muslim Brothers set policy.
Absolutely bizarre.
Where was Cole for 30 years before Mubarak fell? Where is he today regarding Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others?
It is all lies. Cole could not care less about women or Copts running for president of Egypt. Cole wants Egypt to remain under the control of the pro-US military dictatorship so that its policies will remain aligned with Israel's.
??? This really doesnt make any sense considering juan cole is actually quite a vocal critic of many of israelis policies and has been critical of many of the actions of the egyptian military.
Given me being almost Arnold (we both admit it :)), I suppose I could answer
1) Cole is a "left Zionist". He is against SOME crimes of Zionism, but not Zionism (i.e. colonialism) itself. So, he defends Israel both against natives and Zionists being too stupid for their own good - for preserving colonial settler state on other people land.
2) Cole is a liberal imperialist. He is against SOME crimes of USA imperialism, esp. if done by Reps. But he is NOT against USA (NATO) imperialism as such. So, he defends USA imperialism both against natives and imperialists being to stupid for their own good - for preserving USA domination over natives.
In both cases I suppose Cole is just wasting time. Both "rightist" Zionists and non-liberal imperialists know better that they have no other way to support their enterprise and they do not really give a damn about worries by some touchy supporter. Cole thinks that imperialism and Zionism are mostly good, but still need to be put some lipstick on - he cares a lot about propaganda. It is his vocation, after all. But for hardcore imperialist and Zionist might means right and they could not care less.
If one read Cole's posts really paying attention, one could see it clear, but usually Cole is too clever to show his true colors too openly. Because of it some of his readers, including Arnold, were surprised when Cole turned to be openly Zionist and colonialist. I could add that I have seen Cole as 1) and 2) about 7 years ago. But I have another background and have some experience in seeing through 1) and 2).
Just my too cents :)
Interesting observation.
Juan Cole is a liberal Zionist. He criticizes what he considers "right wing" (his usual term) Israeli policies. He also rightly and commendably criticizes the historical foundations of Zionist nationalism.
In the post in question, Cole is certainly not critical of the actions of the Egyptian military, but instead presents them as somehow the guardians of Egyptian civil rights. As if their human rights record for the last 30 years has not been worse than that of every single Islamist group that has ever attained political power in the greater Middle East.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/why-the-egyptian-muslim-brotherhoods-victory-at-the-polls-may-not-be-decisve.html
I was surprised in 2006 when a different liberal Zionist, MJ Rosenberg, began openly advocating dictatorship for the more than 80 million people of Egypt expressly for the viability of Israel.
http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/j-street-vs-aipacs-visions-of-us.html
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/12/29/2006_the_year_proisrael_modera/
I was not surprised by the stance, but by the openness with which Rosenberg admitted his position.
Cole is not as open in that position as Rosenberg. But Cole consistently downplays any concerns with pro-US dictatorships in the region.
Your response was probably better than mine. If I had seen it when I started writing, I might not have answered myself. As you say, the criticism left wing Zionists have against right wing Zionists is not that they subjugate large populations, but that they adopt a tone that makes subjugating large populations less palatable or defensible by Western values as they do it.
Your response was probably better than mine. If I had seen it when I started writing, I might not have answered myself.
As you say, the criticism left wing Zionists have against right wing Zionists is not that they subjugate large populations, but that they adopt a tone that makes subjugating large populations less palatable or defensible by Western values as they do it.
Againone only has to look through juans archives to see that he has indeed been critical of many nations in the region that the US is allied with while being somewhat defensivein certain aspects to those nations such as iran which the US has poor relations with.
"Zionism (i.e. colonialism) itself. So, he defends Israel both against
natives and Zionists being too stupid for their own good - for
preserving colonial settler state on other people land."
Juan Cole is actually against the colonies established by settlers in the west bank, what he does do however is support international legal law which supports two states for both groups.
"He is against SOME crimes of USA imperialism,"
Juan Cole is against actions which he sees as being overall harmful to those involved while supporting actions which will overall be of benefit to those involved, this is very reasonable. Also please dont repeat the "he is only critical of repub interventions" line. It factually isnt true.
Maybe we've looked through different archives. I really can't remember seeing a post of his critical of Saudi Arabia, Jordan or of Egypt before 2011. Feel free to provide links to disprove that assertion.
I think a reasonable reader would conclude that he is more critical of Iran than he is of Saudi Arabia and more critical of Syria than he is of Jordan.
He does get some things right, but in truth he is an apologist for modern colonialism.
Also please dont repeat the "he is only critical of repub interventions" line. It factually isnt true.
It is a lot more true than I would have hoped before I began seeing his writing during a democratic administration.
Which democratic intervention do you think he is critical of?
I honestly do not know why Cole is against bombing Iran, while happy with bombing almost every one state not quite USA-lackey. But it is the least of of my concerns. Anyway, Cole is much for other means to topple elected Iranian regime, and it is enough. He NEVER called for USA support Bahrain demos like he called for "greens".
1) ALL Zionism is colonialism, including colonies established before 1967. On the other hand, colonies of 1967- are just as needed to support Zionist colonial project as colonies of 1947-. Cole could say something about the first, but never - the second. In short, he is a Zionist, i.e. colonial supporter. By the way, colonies of 1967- were built NOT by "settlers", but by Zionist rulers themselves.
2) Yes, sure, bombing Afghanistan is done ONLY "of benefit to those involved", i.e. bombers and their masters. I am sorry, but DM is sounding no less colonialist apologist than Cole himself. WHO gave USA the right to decide it could bomb whom it pleases?
Cole was vocal against some of the worst of reps crimes - tortures and such. When has he said ANYTHING about dems being complicit? About Obama did NOT closing the Guantanomo hell-hole, as promised?
Other crimes of reps Cole embraced - from aggression against Afghanistan to ruining of Falluja. Obama's bombing of Yemen and Pakistan just like Bush and more are very much OK to Cole. So, we could call him almost perfect bi-partisan war crimes proponent.
Perhaps he thinks that a US war with Iran would result in unacceptable consequences for the US (even if the US won, it would probably be a Pyrrhic victory due to the oil supplies being cut off, and the resulting ruination of the global economy).
The US and it allies bombed Taliban-ruled Afghanistan because al-Qaeda terrorists attacked the US, and it was clear that the Taliban was an al-Qaeda puppet regime (for example, Usama bin Laden himself was the Taliban's Defence Minister).
This would be my logic, but it could be problematic if applied consistently -- it would for example give Iran a right to attack the US because of US backing for the anti-Iranian terrorists of the MKO.
NO, USA waged aggressive war against Afghanistan because they wanted to control it. They did something different in the end of 1970 with the same goal (and several more, of course) When asked about Taliban suggesting give up of Osama after REAL evidence, Cole answer in non-sequitur.
Taliban was NOT a puppet of al-Qaida, if it was a puppet, that of Pakistan.
On the other hand, in the end of 1970th CIA+Saudis+Pakistan made Al-Qaida. So, USA should thank ONLY themselves for 9/11. Not mentioning very fishy details of 9/11 (role of USA security in non-stopping it).
About "if somebody bombs you then you have the right to bomb them back"- USA had NOT bombed Al-Qaida back, it bombed Afghanistan, including civilians. On the other hand, USA has been bombing a lot of place - do GC agree with Yemen, Pakistan or Libyan bombing of USA? After all, it is much more clear who did all USA bombing, all lies notwithstanding.
Anyway, so-called international law has something to say about states waging war only in self-defense. I do not believe in law being a real force against aggressive wars, but USA supposed to be nation that believes in such non-sense. Of course, for Cole even USA bombing Yemen is "self-defense".
Im afraid one cant form a colony in their own legal area and israel is a legal state under international law. The settlements however are being built on land which is not legally israels, therefore they are colonies.
As for afghanistan or any other intervention one must look at the available evidence to see if it has improved the situation over what it would have been or made it worse, if it made it worse the intervention is wrong, if it made it better then it loogically is right. When one looks at the evidence with iraq its clear that the conflict caused excess damage and is therefore wrong, with afghanistan the evidence shows that the situation is better now than it was before under the taliban, this makes the intervention overall just.
The US clearly got involved due to the 911 attacks, also cole is right the taliban were never likely to hand him over. He was indicted for the 98 embassy attacks yet here the taliban claimed that they would never hand him over to an infidel court when the US asked for him to be handed over. So thinking they would have handed him over is very naive lidia.
Al qaeda also wasnt made in the 1970's, it was formed in the late 80's when the soviet army was leaving.
Also to say that the US did not bomb al qaeda members is frankly deluded.
Lidia if you read his articles you would have seen that juan is supportive of the bahraini protestors and critical of the governments actions there. Also many people would be a lot happier if the iranian government was properly elected by the iranian people, sadly the system is designed in such a way that the main decision maker, the supreme leader, can remain in power as long as he likes.
Juan has very often been critical of israel, that should be very easy to find.
Also why wouldnt one be more critical of syria over jordan, one is clearly worse than the other even before the current conflict?
The modern colonialism that is going on at the moment in the middle east is in the west bank and juan is a clear vocal critic of these colonies. So saying that he is an apologist for such an action is mistaken.
Again it simply isnt true, he was supportive of the afghan intervention which was done under a republican admin.
Which democratic intervention do you think he is critical of?
He is critical of the vietnam intervention which was done under a democratic admin.
Has Cole demanded from USA to support Bahrain protests? Has he at least slammed USA for for supporting Bahrain rulers against protesters? If not, Cole is just doing some damage control (damage to his and USA image as of 'supporters of democracy") Given that Bahrain rulers are NOT elected at all, it is funny that Cole, Obama and other USA liberals care much less about Bahrain non-elections that about Iran elections.
I suppose, DM could not understand that there is "critical" and critical. Cole wants Zionist colony on Palestinian land to success - and his critics are to this end.
I also am interested to know, why for DM Syria is "clearly worse than" Jordan? Might it be because Jordan KING is openly USA/Zionist puppet, against the clear voiced opinion of his subject, while Assad is NOT?
But even given the Zionism of Cole, even from pure liberal POV, Jordan king is NOT better than Syria ruler. WHEN last time Cole said a word about Jordan being not liberal enough?
The modern colonialism that is going on at the moment in the middle east is in Palestine. Period. Rhodesia was the best comparison to Israel, and it was a colonial settler state. I would like to ask why DM thinks otherwise, but I really know his possible arguments by heart. It does not change the reality of Zionist colonialism. Anyway, even about Palestine occupied from 1967 Cole "criticism" is not real. He never even called for USA real pressing Israel for ending the occupation of those lands. He mostly emits hot air, using words like "likudniks", while Avoda is not less responsible for those occupation than Likud, maybe more.
I was afraid DM was a Zionist, and I was right :( Rhodesia was a state, and SA was an aparteid state, but still they were colonial states. More than that, by "international law" the French claimed Algeria as their "legal area'
NO ONE has the right to give one people's land to others. All else id colonialism.
During witch hunt the suspected witch was thrown in water, and if she drown, she was proclaimed innocent - just as DM wants to bomb another country and THEN see, if it brought some good. What a nice idea. Should I try to bomb MD home and then see, has it made it better?
Not mentioning that even if one is could argue with strait face that "with afghanistan the evidence shows that the situation is better now than it was before under the taliban" (WHICH evidence?) now USA is all but begging Taliban to return.
I wonder, what should be done to a person that he(?) would argue that:
1) USA bombed Afghanistan for its own good.
2) USA war against Afghanistan brought some good to Afghanistan.
I suppose Marx could call it "imperialist indoctrination"
1) USA clearly USED 9/11 (how 9/11 got to be is another question)
2) How could Cole or MD KNOW whether Taliban would or not do something without TRY it? Why do not call a bluff? Or was USA simply afraid that Taliban WOULD do it?
2) Al-Qaida was made when USA wanted to trap USSR in Afghanistan (end of 1970th) and brought Islamist terrorists from all over the world to Afghanistan with help from Saudis and Pakistan. Brzezinki admitted it in 1990th.
Given that USA bombed ALL Afghanistan, they sure bombed SOME Al-Qaida by default. By mostly USA bombed Afghan people. If police in USA bombed the whole neighborhood to kill some suspects, it would be seen as too much even in USA. But, of course, Afghans are not the same as Americans so DM is not against bombing them for Al-Qaida sins.
Ha-ha. Vietnam. Maybe Cole was also critical for Jim Crow under dems? After all, then back dems were bad guys :)
What about TODAY crimes by dems? Never mind full support for Bush adm interventions?
Hilarious!
Maloney:
I think if you spend more time here you'll find that my argument is more primarily anti-colonialist than anti-Israeli and that on that spectrum US Democrats and US Republicans are essentially similar.
I presume Juan Cole is a Democrat, but his foreign policy outlook is essentially similar to that of George Bush who is a Republican.
I say this because it seems to me that your counter-arguments do not counter the arguments I'm actually making.
You're more than welcome here. I just don't want communication mistakes, on my part, to seem like arguments. When you have a firmer grasp of what I'm actually saying, you'll be in a better position to refute it if you choose.
Again if you actually bothered to read juan coles posts you would have found that he has been critical of bahrain and believes that the us should be more forceful with the government to follow the wishes of the people, for example he was critical of a potential us arm deals with bahrain and also posted a letter on his site calling for the rulers of bahrain to follow the will of the people.
Im also aware that the main ruler like in iran is not elected, this isnt really a surprise.
Actually i believe that juan supports the two state solution which is whats required under international law.
Im sorry lidia but it should be clear why assad is a worse ruler, his government has killed more people and has worse level of political and press freedom. By saying that the king of jordan is not better (as poor as he is) you are showing yourself to be devorced from reality.
Oh, on the 08/10/11 juan cole wrote "King Abdallah needs to move his country more rapidly toward being a
parliamentary democracy with full legal rights and liberties for all
citizens"
Lidia, once more you seem to be detached from reality, i have already said that palestine is the victim of colonies and juan cole has been very vocal about the us not doing more to end them.
Lidia please point out where i stated that i wanted to have another country bombed, i havent so please stop making things up off the top of your head.
Again i repeat if one looks at the available evidence such as surveys (from d3 systems for example) and reports (http://www.measuredhs.com/publications/publication-fr248-other-final-reports.cfm) one does see a clear improvement. In the same way when one looks at the available evidence from iraq one sees that it was a mistake. Sadly they are those who are not guided by evidence but by personal small minded bias.
The truth of the matter is if things went your way the afghans would have suffered excess pain and misery, i dont need to wonder why you would support such a move, its common for peope to be more guided by what they dislike than by the welfare of other human beings, and so that they dont have to suffer any guilt at all they can delude themselves into thinking that they are acting in the best interests of the people whilst carrying out actions and views hostile to the group they are biased against.
Bush used 911 to gain support for a war with iraq i never claimed otherwise however the invasion of afghanistan was in response to 911.
Also as i pointed out before the us did try to get bin laden after evidence was presented against him for the embassy attacks but the taliban refused to hand him over.
Lidia, you are clearly confused by the entire matter and wrong so have some maturity and admit it. Al qaeda was made at the end of the eighties not in the 70's as you claimed. Also Brzezinski has never claimed that the us created al qaeda in the 70's, again stop making things up. What the us did was send arms and aid through pakistan to the mujahadeen groups, they couldnt send it to a group which at the time did not exist yet.
I also see you back tracking, at first you said they had not bombed al qaeda now you are saying they are, thanks for conceding to my point.
If the us police took part in an action which cost lives but saved a greater number of lives overall i would consider it a just yet sad action.
Hardly, you implied that he had some party bias and would support dem interventions but not repub ones, this is for the reasons given are factually untrue and presented by people who didnt think it through.
If you are on about modern dem interventions we are left with the libya intervention which was supported not because a certain party was in power but because it wasnt a crime ( legal under internationallaw) and because it hindered gaddafis forces from attacking his people.
Actually my comment completely counters your argument, the idea that juan cole wants egypt to remain under military control so that it will follow israels policies is flawed on the ground that juan cole is against israels policies in regards to the palestinians.
Even more hiliarious.
Actually my comment completely counters your argument
If you believe that, I'm not particularly interested in disabusing you of that belief.
I was just being polite. I'm really not in an arguing mood.
"I'm not particularly interested in disabusing you of that belief."
A better way of phrasing it is that you are unable to do so for logic in this matter is not on your side.
? Accurate statments are hilarious to you...odd.
The thread is right here. Anyone can read it. If you think you've made a point, I'm happy for you.
Feel free to make more points.
And i you feel i didnt i feel somewhat sympathetic for you :/
OK, I suppose the more arguing with DM is a waste of time.
MD is just of the same mind as Cole, so MD could not see anything wrong in Cole's position. On the other hand, MD is for war in Afghanistan, but, somehow, not including bombing of it, if I got it right. On the other hand, MD is not against bombing a neighborhood to kill some suspects, providing it would save more lives than it would end. I really have NO arguments against such idea, since I also do not have arguments against using babies for vivisection providing it would bring god knows what world of good.
So, DM could count one more victory - against me, if he wishes so :)
Well now I suggest you read the featured posts to the right. If you'd like, feel free to comment on them.
Your world view is close to Juan Cole's.
If you stay, over time you'll come to understand that your world view justifies denying rights to hundreds of millions of people and how that came to be.
It will take an amount of courage and honesty on your part that I can only hope you have.
Actually if you were more open minded you would see that it is quite productive for i am showing you the mistakes in your views (al qaeda being made in the 70's for example and that the us did bomb al qaeda members, also that juan did urge jordan to be more open or that the available evidence shows that afgahistan is better now than it was)
"On the other hand, MD is for war in Afghanistan, but, somehow, not including bombing of it"
I never said i was against the bombing in afghanistan, i said i was currently against the bombing of another country (such as iran) at the moment for i feel it is not appropriate for now and would only cause excess damage.
"MD is not against bombing a neighborhood to kill some suspects, providing it would save more lives than it would end."
As would most rational people.
"I also do not have arguments against using babies for vivisection providing it would bring god knows what world of good."
You dont have any arguments against such a thing????
Most rational people would.
"Your world view is close to Juan Cole's."
On some issues, however if i disagree with juan cole i would unlike you disagree with is actual positions, not positions which i pretended that he held.
"your world view justifies denying rights to hundreds of millions of people"
My view does nothing of the sort, ill look at the evidence to the best of my ability and see what action is of overall benefit to the people involved, this is the reason why i would support the afghan intervention but not the iraqi one. Sadly we have people on two sides of a coin who let their bias take hold, they will always be anti or pro something regardless of whether of not it helps the people involved, they are basically just insincere and willing to put their bias against the welfare of human being, your friend lidia would be an example of this as would the likes of bill kristol.
Me: your world view justifies denying rights to hundreds of millions of
people
You: My view does nothing of the sort
Me responding:
You can read more or you can choose not to. For you to choose to challenge your world view would take an amount of courage and honesty on your part that I'd hope you have, but certainly could not expect.
It's up to you. If you choose to delve deeper, I'd again suggest reading and commenting on the posts in the "featured posts" section.
You say you think you've established a point here. Maybe you could do the same in the some or all of the featured posts.
Arnold, I suppose it was still worth it answering to DM. I have learned something new, for ex that USA aggression against Afghanistan brought a lot of good to this place, and also about bombing of the neighborhood :(
It could be funny were it not so sad. But, being a Marxist, I am not surprised - after all, words could not change the mind of a grown up if he does not want (does not need, does not feel comfortable) to change it.
But I still hope our exchange with DM could be of use for others.
One minor flaw in the Rhodesia analogy -- the white Rhodesians exploited cheap black labour, while the Zionists always sought to avoid depending on Palestinian labour.
Actually, it was Britain and France who pushed for the Libyan intervention, and for those countries, it was a war of revenge (for Lockerbie, Yvonne Fletcher and IRA Semtex in Britain's case, and for UTA Flight 772 in France's case).
Lidia if you have evidence that afgahnistan is overall worse now than it was under the taliban and that over 50% of the population thinks so then please provide evidence
otherwise you come across as someone running away from a debate while shouting incoherent come-backs over their shoulder.
Afghanistan is indeed better ( an oxfam survey found that afghans experienced lower levels of violence since the taliban were removed) but sadly the welfare of the afghan people means nothing to you, you would support an scenario that would cause them excess pain and pretend to yourself that you doing the opposite. Sort of like a rapist who deludes themselves into thinking their victims want it, its quite disturbing :/
Ive often had my views changed in the face of evidence but not by arguments such as yours which involve numourous errors, weak analogies and refusing to take context into account.
So what? Rhodesia was still a settler colonialist state. Of course, there were difference. There are difference between Bush and Obama. But I doubt very much that it matters much for victims of their bombs or drones.
By the way, even the slogan of "Hebrew labor" was just a means to ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Now in Israel there is a lot of foreign labor, of course, it is not good for "pure" Jewish racism of Zionists, but it is good enough for capitalism, so it is a reason for friendly bikering between "pure" racists and "pragmatic" racists.
ALL imperialist states bombed Libya for imperialist goals - i.e. control of resources (they did not like China getting bigger part of them). All else is words. Lockerbie was never really proved to be Libyan fault, and if such things matter, USA would sure bomb Israel for Liberty.
Of course, just this time Obama was not the first criminal, but he sure was the biggest one - without USA bombs, Libya would be harder to ruin.
As Lidia says, the problem with Rhodesia wasn't its labor policies. If Israel and Rhodesia switched labor policies, each would face the same opposition for the same reasons. So I don't consider that an important difference, or ignoring that difference to constitute a flaw with an analogy.
See, if I am against USA colonial war against Afghanistan, for MD it means "the welfare of the afghan people means nothing to" me. Who could argue against such logic? Of course, MD wants Afghans murdered by USA (they are still murdered) ONLY for Afghans own welfare (maybe also a bit for a retaliation for NON-Afghans doing 9/11 with some unclear enough part of USA secret service).
My only wonder - if Taliban was so horrible for "the welfare of the afghan people" that removing them from rule was worth countless (because USA do not count them) Afghans murdered by USA, why USA now is busy asking Taliban back?
On the other hand, maybe USA does it ONLY for "the welfare of the afghan people".
By the way, MD has not put any proof for his claims about Oxfam. I have found this
http://www.thepovertycentral.com/view/69335/Poverty_corruption_key_in_Afghan_war__Oxfam
with such facts
"Researchers interviewed 704 randomly selected Afghan men and women to find out how three decades of violence that began with a 1978 communist coup and subsequent Soviet invasion have affected ordinary people.Afghanistan is now gripped by the highest levels of violence since 2001, when US-led forces overthrew the Taliban regime, the report said"Mind you, the violence is compared NOT to level BEFORE USA started the war, but AFTER. by mentioning
a day before Karzai is sworn in for a second term the news are of 2009. Of course, by 3 more years of murdering Afghans, level of violence now could be better :(
By the way, the report mentioned another great improvements of "the welfare of the afghan people" - poverty, corruption, drugs and so on.
"if I am against USA colonial war against Afghanistan, for MD it means "the welfare of the afghan people means nothing to" me."
It clearly doesnt.
"Of course, MD wants Afghans murdered by USA"
Untrue.
"with some unclear enough part of USA secret service"
A conspiracy theorist, it figures.
"By the way, MD has not put any proof for his claims about Oxfam. I have found this "
Lidia, you are perhaps one of the more foolish people i have ever encountered on the internet, the link you provided actually backs up my side of the argument ( you know, the part where i said that afghans state that post taliban rule is less violent than when the taliban were in charge) Lets take a look at the report shall we.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_11_09_oxfam_afghan.pdf
A greater percentage of afghans reported the taliban rule to be more harmful than the current period.
Again i reperat if you had your way the afghan people would be going through a greater level of pain and suffering but sadly this is of no concern to phoneys such as yourself.
In response to your reply with george.
The libya war was not over resources for the nations involved already had access to them, the response was due to gaddafis mass attacks against his civilian population and the wil and ability to challenge this. This response hindered gaddafis attacks and helped a people overthrow an oppressive government. Obama is not a criminal for taken this action for the intervention had un backing.
Once more lidia shows that she has little or no concern for the welfare of those involved.
I suppose calling people names is of use for DM because he does not have other arguments.
The quotation from Oxfam
"Other factors that individuals identified as major drivers of the conflict were: the Taliban (36%); interference by other countries (25%); Al Qaeda (18%); the presence of international forces (18%); lack of support from the international community (17%); warlords (15%); and criminal groups (14%)."
Nowhere there is a claim that USA role was benign. Given that Taliban itself, just like Al-Qaida and warlords were at different times and even now founded, supported of backed by USA I would say the sum total is not in support of DM warmongering humanism. One could even add that USSR role was mostly result of USA "snare" as Brzezinski called it.
The other quotation from Oxfam
On average, only 3% named the current conflict as the most harmful period – the same proportion as those who refrained from answering the question. This was particularly surprising with regard to more insecure areas, such as Kandahar and Helmand. However, these findings may be partially attributable to the fact that researchers had limited access to areas experiencing active conflict and the relatively short period of the current conflict as compared to previous periods of conflict."
I.e. the Afghans who suffer the most from occupation and its puppets were likely not asked because it was not safe for Oxfam to go to ask them - and those Afghans live in such places, not just visit them, like Oxfam.
Anyway, I ask the 3d time - if USA war against Taliban was for the welfare of Afghans, WHY USA just NOW trying to cobble together anything like agreed return of Taliban to power?
I.e. the Afghans who suffer the most from occupation and its
puppets
were likely not asked because it was not safe for Oxfam to go to ask
them - and those Afghans live in such places, not just visit them, like
Oxfam.
But of course, however these regions make up a minority of afghanistan and therefore their relitivily smaller populations are unlikely to sway the poll results significantly, also many people in these regions are just as likely side with the views of their fellow afghans in the rest of the country. Also it would be mainly due to taliban action that they couldnt conduct interviews for they had no serious issue moving about in areas under afghan government and coalition controlled areas.
"the relatively
short period of the current conflict as compared to previous periods of conflict."
This doesnt really hold out in the case of the taliban who were in charge for a shorter period of time than the post taliban governments.
"WHY USA just NOW trying to cobble together anything like agreed return of Taliban to power?"
The us is doing no such thing, the us interstested in trying to pry away the moderate factions of the afghan insurgency into coming into the government fold peacefully. There is no us plan to allow for the overthrow of the afghan government and replacing it with the islamic emirate under mullah omar.
Response to your comment below:
"I suppose calling people names is of use for DM because he does not have other arguments."
You can tell yourself that to make yourself feel better lidia but it is you making one mistake after another anf failing to provide reliable evidence to back up your claims.
"Nowhere there is a claim that USA role was benign."
Again the fact that most afghans reported post taliban rule being less violent shows that the us role was beneficial, also this poll shows that most afghans see the invasion as right .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf
Also this one albeit it is awhile ago
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/155.php?nid=&id=&pnt=155&lb=bras
Again in all of this no have still failed to show that 51% see the war as wrong or there lives worse now than they were.
"Given that Taliban itself, just like Al-Qaida and warlords were at
different times and even now founded, supported of backed by USA I would
say the sum total is not in support of DM warmongering humanism."
I recommend that you read up on the topic for you dont really seem up to speed on it, although this was shown when you thought al qaeda was made in the 70's. The taliban and al qaeda were not founded by the us, al qaeda was never supported by the us while the us and the taliban had some minor relations in the begining along with others due to the hope that the taliban might improve the nation, this went out the window due to the pressure of female lobby groups and the talibans aid to al qaeda.
"One could even add that USSR role was mostly result of USA "snare" as Brzezinski called it."
(rolls eyes) The choice to invade afghanistan was completely up to the soviet union, no one else, people like Brzezinski like to think otherwise so that the carter admin could claim some credit for the downfall of the soviet union, the truth is that the invasion took the admin by surprise.
Where does it end though? Should America be given back to the Amerindians, or England be given back to the Welsh?
WOW, some of the most convoluted reasoning I have ever read is going on here. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east and thats one of the reasons we support them. That and the fact they have some 300 nuclear weapons they will use to destroy the middle east if they are on the point of being destroyed is another. Besides killing a lot of people it will mess up the world economy and prob cause a nuclear winter.
Look up Samson Option.
We are in Afganstan because of 911, we put in a new goverment and we are getting out, things might work out and it might not, but if they allow terrorist to have bases there and they attack the USA again we are going back and killing a lot more of them.
If the Arabs in the middle east were not so stupid they would be embraceing Israel and allowing Israel to lead them out of of the Middle Ages.
President Musharraf quote:
"The Muslim Ummah, or the Islamic world, he said was presently living in darkness.
"Today we are the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race," he told the delegates.
Musharraf wants to rid Pakistan of extremismPresident Musharraf then made a comparison of the economic growth in Islamic countries with some developed countries.
While the collective Gross National Product of the all Muslim countries stands at $1,200bn, that of Germany alone is $2,500bn and that of Japan $5,500bn"
Musharraf then said the reason was the lack of education and scientific development, but he did not have the guts to say it was because of a backward, premitive dumb ass religon that has not changed since the middleages.
Israel is a democracy as much as apartied SA was. USA supported aparteid too, of course.
I also suppose Saudis are democrats too. USA support them, and all kingdoms in the ME.
By the way, Musharraf was a dictator, but maybe for n7 he was a democrat too. USA supported Musharraf , of course.
Since when Welsh ask to be given "England back"? As far as know, the Welsh have full citizenship in UK.
Regarding America, it would be a good first step to compensate ALL victims of USA rasist settlerism - not only Natives. nezt step would be ending actual instituanized racism of USA, from jails to housing and so on. Of course, the end of racism by USA regarding Mexicans would not harm as well.
"but matters that aren't even worth the time to correct you on."
Am i to take it that you disagree with my post that stated that arabs can vote in israel but blacks could not vote in sa during apartheid.
Also once more you seem to be using this running away argument, "oh i could correct you but i simply dont have the time, take my word that i am right in the matter even though i cant explain logically why"
Democracy does not give the majority the right to eliminate a minority. Democracy does not mean one vote one time for ever. Democracy does not mean you commit suicide and dont protect your self because the majority dont like you.
Correcting this, showing why it does not advance any argument you may be making would be petty and nitpicking. One way or another, this is nowhere near any central thesis of the article you're responding to.
Instead, there is a whole post asking two follow-up questions to your claim that you would support democracy in Egypt that disagrees with you on Israel.
http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/questions-for-westerners-especially-in.html
I'm bringing that to you attention so you don't waste your time bickering over unimportant matters. Not matters that you're right on, but matters that aren't even worth the time to correct you on.
"Israel is a democracy as much as apartied SA was."
Israel certainly has its faults however its arab citizens do have the right to vote whereas blacks in south africa where not allowed.
The USA only supported Apartheid because it didn't want South Africa (with its gold, diamonds and strategic location) to fall into the Kremlin's hands* -- note how the apartheidists were thrown to the wolves as soon as the Soviet Union fell...
*Then again, the Marxist orientation of the ANC was completely understandable given that the "capitalism" of the apartheidists was pure hypocrisy. In practice apartheid was white Peronism paid for by black semi-slavery -- one could also draw parallels with the Gulf Arab states, with their Arab citizens as the whites and their exploited immigrant workforce as the blacks.
No, GC, USA supported Apartheid because they were (?) very much alike it. There was aparteid in USA till 1965, so were they afraid of commies taking Mississippi or Alabama? And if yes, why it ended (at least officially) long before the end of the USSR. (By the way, USA state started to stop their support for apateid in about 1986, not AFTER the end of the USSR. Aparteid was doomed several years before its official death).
In short, USA supported and still support ANY regime providing they could use it for their imperialist goals - be it aparteid, Taliban or openly fascist ones, not mentioning Saudi royals, Pinochet or what you want.
Or does USA still support Zionist aparteid out
of "USSR fear"? As a matter of fact Sakharov (the same "great humanitarian" one) defended the worst crimes of Zionism exactly by such arguments. But he died before the end of the USSR. Zionists, of course, were the most staunch supporters of apartied even when it was abandoned by USA.
And no, GC, you also got wrong the nature of capitalism (and aparteid capitalism)
Capitalism, to put it simply, is a system when one class (capitalists) have means of production (capital) and another one - workers - have not and have to sell their labor ability to capitalists to live. Capitalists could decide with whom to share part of surplus value taken from workers, it could be different, but it is still a capitalism. Aparteid SA was a settler colony, so "whites" got their part of surplus money taken from "non-whites" even if whites had no capital. It had NOTHING to do with "peronism" or Gulf states, because they are both examples of capitalism, but not of settler colony variety. Zionists are the best modern example of settler capitalism.
I often wonder, why GC often seeks the most twisted explanations of imperialist crimes when they are really very simple and laid open for anyone willing to look.
Post a Comment