Biggest moments of 2011 #3 Gaddafi falls, democracy rises

Mahhrat says:

06:54am | 21/12/11

I agree.  The MIddle East is yet to have it’s “Renaissance”

malohi says:

06:58am | 21/12/11

“Democracy has its downside when the majority believes in a toxic ideology.”
I must say I mulled over that sentence for about 15 minutes.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:35am | 21/12/11

Most of the Arab spring countries have had pretty good elections and chose moderate Islamic parties, no different to the conservatives in America.

Egypt and Libya will be interesting though, more so Egypt as hard line Islamic scholars have been around since the 1920s

‘The most significant development I can see is the emergence of more fundamentalist Muslim theocracies’

Those same Muslim Theocracies we OK for America to support for decades.

Richard M says:

10:29am | 21/12/11

@ SimonFromLakemba: you are wearing rose-coloured glasses.  The so-called “moderate Islamic parties” are two-faced.  They present one face to the more sophisticated voters in the cities, and to the outside world, and another much more fundamentalist, authoritarian and anti-democratic face to their core rural constituency.  To call, for example, the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt “moderate’ is a misuse of the term, particularly as they are likely to form an alliance with an Islamo-fascist group whose views are more akin to those of Al Qaeda.  The fact that the latter group got 25% of the vote should give us great concern.
I’m afraid Erick is right on this occasion.  The final results of the Arab Spring are much more likely to resemble Iran than Turkey.

AdamC says:

10:31am | 21/12/11

Erick, I am inclined to agree. The replacement of secular, authoritarian regimes with religious authoritarian regimes is a disappointing, if not entirely surprising, outcome of the ‘Arab Spring’. Incidentally, one of the few people willing to call this outcome at the start of the process was Benjamin Netanyahu. Which just goes to show, when you are in the Middle East, the most unopularly contrarian cynic is likely to be right!

SimonFromLakemba, despite your absurd claims, ‘moderate’ Islamist parties are nothing like American conservatives. I wonder how long people like you will take to start seeing what is really happening in the Arab world as opposed to what everyone would like to be happening.

gobsmack says:

12:01pm | 21/12/11

It started with the downfall of Saddam Hussein who did a good job in keeping the religious nutters in check.
With his demise, a large proportion of the Maronite Christians felt the need to flee the country.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:17pm | 21/12/11

@Richard M

Don’t see where in my post I called the Muslim Brotherhood ‘moderate’ depends what you compare it to, if you compare it to the salafi’s then they are.

@AdamC

I do see whats going on, Tunisia had elections and its going OK there. I just think we should play it as it goes, I’m not saying everything is going to be great, America had a shot at Iraq and Afghanistan, how did that go?

SpagBol says:

01:20pm | 21/12/11

There is nothing toxic about Islam, Erick. You are making sweeping generalisations about millions of people, and you wouldn’t stand for it if someone did the same about, oh, I don’t know, men. Just an example.

People with your attitude are the problem, not Muslims.

Erick says:

03:39pm | 21/12/11

@SpagBol - To be technical, I was referring to fundamentalist Islam in particular. But to be honest and accurate, Islam in general is toxic.

Islam advocates the violent conquest of non-Muslims, the rape of women captured in such conquests, the mutilation of thieves, the stoning to death of those who have unlawful sex, and more. All of these things are enshrined in the Koran, which according to Islam is the absolute and unalterable word of Allah.

If you think Islamic ideology isn’t toxic, you just haven’t studied it.

mick says:

03:51pm | 21/12/11

This is getting embarrassing Erik.  I am again agreeing with most of your observations. 

You know of course that it is not trendy to accuse any religion or minority group of anything bad.  As far as Islam is concerned I have to lean on the side of caution as the track record in Australia is beginning to send out ominous signs.  Whilst all these events keep unfolding the pollies who do not want to lose votes continue to grease the wagon of future civil conflict .  We’re all fine now but wait until these folk attain a critical mass.

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:42am | 21/12/11

If it was so sad, it would be funny, aye?

Taliban helped to power by America, supported by America and then when no longer useful their worst enemy.

America fighting against extremism, at the same time their best friend Saudi Arabia funding Madrassas throughout the middle east, mainly Pakistan saying how Christians, Jews and other non Sunni’s are infidels etc.

the_pseudonym says:

08:59am | 21/12/11

I’m beginning to think you actually live in Golden Book world TChong, with some of the stuff you post, it’s the complete opposite to how the real world the majority of people live in is.  Fairies and unicorns live in the world that begins with…......Once upon a time….................

SimonFromLakemba says:

09:52am | 21/12/11

@the_pseudonym

Dont see where TChong was wrong there?

Not that your post added anything.

Bertrand says:

10:40am | 21/12/11

I think you might be the one living in a world of make-believe the_pseudonym.

Are you denying that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, or that its alliance and economic ties with America helps it maintain its power?

I mean, the country is named after the family that owns it.

the_pseudonym says:

11:51am | 21/12/11

‘thanks to the good ol US of A.  Complianrt oil rich depots like the House of Fahd are OK by us, because they sell the US oil’.  It’s all the CIA I tells ya, look at ‘em, into everything, the world would be a better place if it wasn’t for them CIA spooks.

AdamC says:

11:58am | 21/12/11

I wonder what you would all have the US do about Saudi Arabia?

I assume regime change is not on the agenda? If so, what should the US be doing now that it isn’t doing? Cancel diplomatic relations or something?

SimonFromLakembas says:

12:26pm | 21/12/11

AdamC

Being a conservative America lover, I know its hard to admit defeat.

Here is a country that funds terrorism, teaches terrorism, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, they teach the strictest form of Islam, women have no rights and other religions are banned unless practiced inside your own home.

Too me that sounds a pretty good reason to force regime change? but that doesn’t matter when you are best bum chums with Bush Snr and Jnr.

But hey, lets bomb Iraq and Afghanistan.

AdamC says:

12:56pm | 21/12/11

Simon, well, at least you are up-front about your war-mongering. My view is that any war with Saudi Arabia would be a bad idea. It would horribly disrupt global energy supplies, for one thing. And, given US unwillingness to actually occupy and run conquered territories as colonies, there is no guarantee that the Monarchy wouldn’t be replaced by an Iran-style radical theocracy.

Incidentally, I also think there is a risk in attributing anything any Saudi does to some scheme by the central government.

But then, as a leftist America-hater, I am sure you will find any reason to dump on Uncle Sam.

SimonFromLakemba says:

01:48pm | 21/12/11

Adam

The current setup you couldn’t get any worse and if you don’t call the current set up radical I don’t know what is.

War mongering? what the hell you going on about?

‘Incidentally, I also think there is a risk in attributing anything any Saudi does to some scheme by the central government’

So funding Islamic hardline schools, you wouldn’t attribute to the Government? Fair enough..

AdamC says:

02:06pm | 21/12/11

Simon, you are advocating a war between the US and Saudi Arabia. That is war-mongering, is it not?

In any event, my point is that there is no guarantee that any successor to the Saudi Monarchy - which is an ultra-conservative autocracy rather than being ‘radical’ - may well be worse than the current arrangements. You only have to look next door to Iran to see what the possible outcome could be. The present Saudi-US relationship based on guarded co-operation is therefore the only real option. Unless you have an actual, realistic alternative?

Hamish says:

02:58pm | 21/12/11

AdamC and Simon, the crucial issue here is to what extent the US would be happy to essentially colonise Saudi Arabia and run it themselves. Contrary to popular opinion, the US is extremely non-imperialist. Indeed they are clearly the least Imperialistic power in human history. Were the US simply to do another Iraq, an invasion of Saudi Arabia would achieve nothing. The reason the US invaded Iraq (which no one talks about but will be clear 100 years from now) is that Iraq presented a unique opportunity for a liberal democracy in the Arab world. Iraq will hopefully be the catalyst for a slow evolution of the muslim civilisation.

Saudi Arabia is the least likely of the major muslim countries to embrace liberal democracy, so for a US invasion of Saudi Arabia to produce any benefit the US would have to be willing to stay and rule the Saudis as imperialists for at least a few decades. Unfortunately (for us and the Saudis), it’s unlikely the US will develop the stomach for conquest any time soon.

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:59pm | 21/12/11

AdamC

I’m not advocating anything, I’m saying based on previous wars that America has waged, its hypocritical to allow Saudi Arabia to do what they do.

If you are saying war mongering, the Bush’s between them have started 3, only Afghanistan justified in my opinion.

Well what could be better? we will never know because you aren’t allowed to protest there, even if the monarchy did get overthrown America would help install a puppet.

Saudi Arabia has a pretty Pro America and smart non over the top religious man in Prince Al Turki, if anyone I wouldn’t mind seeing him get to the top, but that will never happen.

SimonFromLakembas says:

03:40pm | 21/12/11

@Hamish

Correct generally. USA aren’t occupiers, they usually cut and run.

Britain are the imperialists, and I think looking back have done a pretty good job.

I honestly can’t see Saudi Arabia getting any better, its just to deep in Islamic tradition, or should I say, Wahhabism.

In regards to Iraq, its a tricky one, on one hand you can’t argue that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein but then on the other hand, life was more stable under Saddam and people didn’t in-fight. I have a good friend who lived there under Saddam, and he tells me even though he was a dictator - water worked, power worked, the religious groups got a long ( although his side oppressed the other ) and under America, essentials didn’t work, Muslims fought each other and it just became a basket case.

The current leader of Iraq can hopefully do an OK job with USA pulling the strings in the background, but proof will be in the next 5 years now that USA has pulled out.

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:02am | 21/12/11

JR seems you’ve got a point there.
Iraq was threatening to trade oil in a Euro based bourse and flood the market, Iran has opened but is yet to trade in a currency other than US dollars and Libya threatened a dinar bourse - could have a point there.
Hussein threatening to flood the market would have sent the price below the expensive North Sea and Texas oil costs?
Might also remember that the Japs did their Pearl Harbour trick due to crippling US led sanctions on oil and other resources.
Most of the Middle East looks at the middle class propaganda emanating from the West as an aspirational model for revolution - unfortunately that’s not what these countries, created by the West as colonies to be exploited for resources not developed into economies that can last, can offer economically or politically hence they fall from the pot into the fire.
Just incidentally why has no one ever mentioned Brunei a monarchy dictatorship right on our doorstep - also created by the west because of oil.
It’s never so simple to just pump the oil sell it to the West and share the wealth to every citizen to live happily ever after.
Beware of the behaviour that we laud it might come back to bite us in the bottom. Police brutality to protect the sensitivities of the wealthy elite is already rampant against the Occupy movement. The police state is never far away when the proletariate rebels and threatens the bourgeoisie even in Australia remember Eureka, the Shearers’ Strike, tyne Coal Strike and the Waterfront Dispute the government was hand in hand with the wealthy elite in each of those disputes.

SimonFromLakemba says:

10:06am | 21/12/11

And Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 knew it?

Not doubting on the whole Islam and Democracy dont go hand in hand, but if you look at in perspective - Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia are no worse then the old soviet block of Orthodox/Christian countries.

The middle East even if it wanted would struggle with Democracy while there is oil and gas there. America, USA, Saudi, Pakistan, Russia and Syria/Iran will never get their hands out of the pie and keep supporting heads of government that will give them what they want.

Dieter Moeckel says:

10:14am | 21/12/11

Mike, democracy is a chimera of peoples rights. It does not exist and don’t forget that even in Western democracies the church still intrudes although the touted separation of church and state. “We are a Christian democracy” say again? No one ever says “We are a secular democracy!”
The Iraqis were better off under Hussein’ secular dictatorship that during the US occupation. Killing over 100 000 and displacing 4 million iraqis was worth it to get rid of Hussein. Tell that to one of the 100 00 killed or to one of the 4 million displaced.
Just for the exercise raise a group of a hundred or so, arm them and march on Canberra ... or take place in a perfectly legal Occupation protest ... in both scenarios the capitalist Bourgeoisie will see you off with their state army - the police force - it is not called a ‘force’ for nothing. Fully armed 24/7 mounted on horseback or water cannon armed armoured vehicles.
Do as you are told and get on with life works in both dictatorships and democracies - both are run by wealthy elite overlords.

The Battle Rages On says:

07:35pm | 21/12/11

I’m getting sick of apologists for Islam. Talk all you want about moderate, peace loving muslims but at the end of the day we are their enemies.
Its fairly obvious that the Middle East wont know peace while western countries are interfering with political aspirations of oil rich countries. Indeed, most of the jihadist groups claim this is the main reason for the hostility and siege mentality.

But the question must be asked, even if the west (the US in particular) did remove itself from the region, would that end the hostilities between muslims and non muslims?

Lets not forget the Koran fundamentally advocates violence to non muslims. Its convert or die.

Its time people forget the warm fuzzy feeling they get from being politically correct and tolerant of a culture who wont show us the same courtesy, and start to undertake measures to deal with what is potentially the biggest threat the west will face.

simonfromlakemba says:

08:52pm | 21/12/11

Saudi arabia and maybe somalia would be the only countries off the top of my head that would force people to convert.

A lot of the middle eastern countries still have fubctioning jewish and christian populations and even iran having jews in parliament

The Battle Rages On says:

10:11pm | 21/12/11

@SimonFromLakemba

I’m aware that there are non muslims living in the region and have been for thousands of years but you misunderstand my point.

Islam dominates the middle east, and islam is not a peaceful religion - it seeks to dominate the rest of the world. According to islamic doctrine anyone who doesnt believe in allah is infidel and should be killed.

Unlike christians, muslims believe the koran to be the infallible word of god, not open to interpretation. This is the core of their beliefs, and it makes all muslims a potential threat to the western world.

Yes I am generalising but anyone who affiliates themselves with an ethos which celebrates and encourages the murder of people with different belief systems should be considered a threat.

marley says:

06:37pm | 21/12/11

“Ignorance is strength.”  Well, in that case John, you have to be in the super-heavyweight division.