2012 March 27 Tuesday
Iraqi Shiites Favor Syrian Dictatorship
Catching up on back reading and came across this funny article from a month ago in the New York Times: Shiites in Iraq (where they rule due to constituting a majority in Iraqi elections) are for a dictatorship in Syrian when that dictatorship keeps Sunnis out of power.
And here in Iraq, where Shiites are a majority, the events across the border have put the nation on edge while hardening a sectarian schism. As Abu Ali discovered, Iraq’s Shiites are now lined up on the side of a Baathist dictatorship in Syria, less than a decade after the American invasion of Iraq toppled the rule of Saddam Hussein and his own Baath Party, which for decades had repressed and brutalized the Shiites.
Similarly, Syria's Christians back Assad because they know a Sunni majority elected government in Syria will treat them far worse. We can see that in Democracy only works well when the divisions in a society aren't deep. Look at what's happening to the Christians in the Middle East. The purge of Christians from Iraq continues. The Coptic Christians of Egypt live in fear now that Hosni Mubarak's dictatorship is ended.
Christians in Sudan have been stripped of their citizenship.
In common with other Arab countries, Arab chauvinism in Sudan is combined with a domineering, supremacist version of Islam. The religious aspect was dramatically underlined at the beginning of March, when Sudan announced that it had stripped around 700,000 of its citizens of their nationality, the vast majority Christian. They have just over two weeks from today to leave Sudan. Those who depart for the south will walk straight into an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe. Those who remain in the north face the prospect of imprisonment or forced deportation.
The Western nations now care very little about Christians in the Middle East. Majority rule in the Middle East has little to restrain it. Democracy just unleashes a very illiberal majority. It is not clear why we in Western countries should feel we have a stake in spreading democracy in the Middle East.
The Western nations now care very little about Christians in the Middle East.
What do you mean? The elite care about them so much that they'll no doubt use this persecution as a reason for welcoming a flood of Arab immigrants into their own countries. Certainly they care more about black and Arab Christians than they do their own people. But it's a matter of perspective, I suppose.
"Certainly they care more about black and Arab Christians than they do their own people."
I watched most of the GOP debates and I heard no concern about Christians outside the US. What I heard were people who want to give a blank check to Israel and to go to war with Iran.
If you want to learn about Syria you should listen to a guy who runs a Syria content blog on a recent bloggingheads. Any American who thinks the US should get involved there is nuts. Some people can't accept the fact that the US can not solve every problem in the world and that there are a lot of places that are not a vital interest to the US.
It seems that the only reason the West has an interest in getting rid of Assad is because he is an ally of Iran. Otherwise if Assad falls, this time the Islamic world will be one more step closer to a global Al Qaeda style government, ranging from Morocco to Indonesia. At that time we will wish Iran were the dominant force in the Middle East. We will be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
This is the reason we must hurry and start a major plan to achieve energy independence. This means new forms of nuclear energy to be used to generate liquid fuels, as well as more efforts to improve batteries for electric vehicles. We only have a decade until the oil becomes a disaster. At $300 per barrel the price of oil will cause a depression the world has never seen.
Too much reckoning and too little reconciling, while we need more reconciling and less reckoning.
is there evidence of anybody in the West actually wanting for Assad to fall? The Saudis are open about wanting that but Saudis are not "the West".
"It is not clear why we in Western countries should feel we have a stake in spreading democracy in the Middle East."
You got that right and even more so when you consider this:
"Iraqi Shiites Favor Syrian Dictatorship" Yeah, fortunately Iraq and Syria are so, so far away from us...
Hey, perhaps we should continue worrying about Iraqui Shiites and Syria!
Let us make it perfectly simple, in fact let us make it idiot-proof: if you arm terrorists and send them to create havoc among a civilian population, the authorities have the right to react, to restore order, to punish the perpetrators and to apply the law of the land. What part of that is difficult to understand?
Let us back this up with an idiot-proof analogy. Farmer A has a farm with a complex mix of fields and crops and micro-climates but generally speaking, all parts of his farm and the tremendous mix of workers from several tribes and religions live happily together, respect each others' differences and are productive. There is however one problem. Farmer A's land lies in a strategically important area, involving gas and oil pipelines and is considered as a stepping stone to the Great Farm to the East, coveted by the FUKUS farmers to the West.
The FUKUS farmers therefore stir up trouble in farmer A's land, sending in terrorists from the North and West, creating ethnic, tribal and religious strife where there had been none for years, since the last time they tried. Farmer A reacted to this scourge, which was raping girls, pillaging and torching villages, slicing the breasts off women, murdering, stealing and destroying public and private property, armed with machine guns, anti-tank missiles, anti-personnel mines and rocket-propelled grenades. He lost over 3,000 members murdered by the FUKUS terrorists...yet the FUKUS-Axis and its umbrella organism, called the United Farmers' Organization (UFO), led by Man-ki Boon, blamed Farmer A for the crisis and continued to accuse him of abuses and of perpetuating the conflict while all the time under their noses FUKUS-Axis friends and UFO members continued to arm the terrorists and instigate violence against the brave farmer.
What part of that is difficult to understand?
In fact, let us face Messrs. Ban-Ki Moon and the leaders of the FUKUS-Axis - Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama, and their nasty sidekicks in their respective Foreign Affairs Departments and UN Reps - sit them down and fire some questions at them.
For Ban Ki-Moon: For a start, why is Turkey harbouring and arming terrorists and sending them into Syria, with the full connivance and/or knowledge of the UNO and the FUKUS-Axis? What is the Syrian National Council? I will tell you. It is a Turkish-based group called Suriye Ulusal Geçiş Konseyi. What part of that is difficult to understand?
For David Cameron: Now let us go back to the "Massacre of Homs". Remember when the West accused the Syrian Government of atrocities there back in February? And remember when in this column I published pictures of the victims supposedly strafed by Syrian artillery, with their hands tied behind their backs? The only consequence of this article was a massive hacking attack, of which I am sure you are aware but if not, now you are... but apart from that I did not receive a single answer. Artillery regiments do not enter a town, tie up its residents and then go back to their pieces to shell them. What part of that is difficult to understand?
For Barack Obama: Since the victims of the Massacre of Homs were members of the Allouite community, it was quite obviously yet another FUKUS-Axis false flag event, as was the case in Libya. What part of that is difficult to understand?
For Susan Rice, nice and simple now: The Syrian authorities can only stop their activity if the terrorists stop theirs. What part of that is difficult to understand?
For Nicolas Sarkozy: Making continuous statements against the Syrian government and not once referring to the violence perpetrated by the terrorist scourge it supports, it would appear the FUKUS-Axis is a self-interested bunch of terrorist supporters. What part of that is difficult to understand?
For the (unelected) Emir of Qatar, Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani.: As the friends of Syria meet in Istanbul, terrorist elements infiltrate Syria from that country and from Lebanon. This is not merely a Syrian "uprising", therefore. What part of that is difficult to understand?
One final question: Why is it what when today the Syrian representative at the UNO, Bashar Ja'afari, took the stand to speak, the UNO television network went blank? Strange, because this same system had just broadcast the speeches of Ban Ki-Moon, and the Qatari President of the UN General Assembly, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser. Why not the Syrians?
The answer: Because the UNO is no longer what it purports to be, is it? And if this is the UN's contribution to freedom of speech, what part of that is difficult to understand?
By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Hey, maybe this is the new trend for America now.
Remember when we all knew what we were fighting for?
"Iraqi Shiites Favor Syrian Dictatorship" Yeah, fortunately Iraq and Syria are so, so far away from us Watch the video on youtube to get it what i mean to say