Whose side is the US on?

"For too many years - 60 to be precise - American presidents were on both sides of the aisle. By the way, democrats and republicans, were prepared to have a policy of exceptionalism in the Middle East concerning democracy."

 

 

 

These, you might be surprised to learn, are not the words of some paranoia driven Arab conspiracy theorist, but those of Condoleezza Rice during her January 18 and 19 appearances before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

 

 

"We were prepared to say," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confessed in a rare moment of candidness, "well authoritarian regimes are there either because the Middle East, they don't really want freedom, or we want stability or any number of reasons that we have. We have not to push the democracy agenda in the Middle East."

 

 

 

So the offender has finally admitted responsibility for what he had long accused his victim of.

 

 

 

End of excuses

 

 

 

This should spell the end of culture-based explanations of the state of political stagnation in the Arab world, parroted by American politicians and their apologists in the academia and press.

 

 

 

If the whole world was enthusiastically endorsing democratic government, with the exception of the Islamic hemisphere, it was owing to the "Islamic mindset", which stubbornly clung to despotic rule.

 

Muslims, we were told, vehemently refused to enter the promised land of democracy because their political culture stood at odds with the lofty ideals of liberalism and the mechanisms of democratic governance.

 

 

 

Islamic culture, these self-proclaimed experts never tired of repeating, celebrated obedience and subordination to absolute despotic rulers, due to a theology that preaches pre-destination, condemns free will and crushes the individual altogether out of existence.

 

Islam, they did not hesitate to declare, was a religion of violence, bloodshed and terror; the veritable antithesis of civility and democracy.

 

 

 

Now that we have it from the pinnacle of the American administration itself that the US has been the chief impediment to change in the region, I think it would be both proper and logical for their hired band of missionaries to keep abreast of developments and commit to the bin their arsenal of shallow postulates and stale stereotypes of "Islamic exceptionalism", "Islamic despotism" and the "Arab mindset".

 

 

 

Never have the American president and scretary of state made truer statements in relation to the Middle East.

 

 

 

Western legacy

 

 

 

The Western powers have certainly been responsible for aiding and abetting political totalitarianism in the region.

 

Indeed, how could Musaddaq's nationalist government have collapsed without American/British intervention, and how could such thoroughly bankrupt and profoundly loathed regimes such as Iran's Shah, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Algeria's military junta, Tunisia's Ben Ali, or Egypt's Mubarak have survived for decades without outside support?

 

 

 

That the region is in dire need of far-reaching reform and a firm split from the despicable regimes of authoritarianism, tyranny and corruption is readily acknowledged by elites and the masses alike.

 

It would thus be fitting if the Americans and their allies stopped singing the virtues of democracy and its reconcilability with Islam, as these are, in fact, no longer disputed within the Arab political mainstream.

 

 

 

The truth is that when it comes to the subject of democracy, what preoccupies Arab public opinion is that it is not ushered to the region aboard tanks and gunboats.

 

 

 

It is not "widening" its efforts in the propagation of freedom and democracy in the "greater" Middle East that the people of the region demand of the US; it is ceasing its murderous policy of supporting tyranny and tyrants, then leaving the stage for them to do the rest.

 

 

 

Justification

 

 

 

What further concerns them is that the quest for democratic change not be used as a pretext for greater military, economic and political interference and a convenient instrument for extorting greater concessions and imposing an Israeli agenda on the region, as was recently made plain in the insane frenzy of foreign intervention in the Lebanon/Syria case.

 

 

 

Thanks to their ample historical experience with colonialism, the inhabitants of this strategically positioned stretch of the globe know that conquest seldom speaks its name.

 

The mania for dominance, they are fully aware, always disguises itself in the attractive drape of morality and humanism.

 

Power must always justify the wars it wages. Conquerors must legitimise the extension of their power. Through morality, violence stakes a claim to legitimacy and masquerades as altruism, as war conducted for the sake of a mythical peace.

 

 

 

Cicero had explained why it was right for Rome to conquer the barbarians. It was for their own good, he said.

 

Rome was the centre of civilisation and it was its duty to export its civilisation to a world shrouded in darkness. Rome had the capacity to civilise barbarian nations, to reform and redeem them.

 

 

 

And just like the desecrators of contemporary Babylon, Napoleon's troops reduced Cairo's glorious age old monuments to rubble in 1798 in the name of freedom and civility.

 

Napoleon even went as far as donning a turban and addressing Egyptians as Shaikh Bunapartah, insisting that he, a "devout Muslim", had arrived in their land, not as an occupier, but to liberate them from the Mamluks' terrible yoke, as the contemporary Egyptian historian al-Jabarti related in his book Ajaib al-Athar fi Trajim al-Akhbar.

 

 

 

Iraq

 

 

 

By presenting Iraq as a shining model of democracy to be aspired to elsewhere, the Bush administration appears to cast the gravest doubts on its democratic intentions in the "greater" and "smaller" Middle East.

 

But rather than envy, it is profound pity and outrage that one feels when pondering the frightful reality of post-occupation Iraq, a bottomless abyss of chaos, devastation, terror, sectarianism, torture chambers, death and fear, rather than the awaited paradise of freedom and orderly civility.

 

 

 

Those who celebrated Lebanon's "cedar revolution" as the first glimmer of a dawn of Arab democracy ushered in by the US must be feeling rather ruffled these days.

 

No sight of the cheerleaders of Arab democracy in the White House now, as their Egyptian ally unleashes the ferocious might of his security apparatus against a dynamic civil society desperate for a break with corruption and authoritarianism.

 

 

 

While emergency laws continue to be implemented, dissent is censored and thousands languish in jails, the Egyptian prime minister is warmly received in the White House and in her address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Rice congratulates his country, along with the Gulf hosts of American military bases, for their policy of "gradual reform".

 

Meanwhile, Washington's client in Uzbekistan carries on boiling his critics alive undisturbed.

 

 

 

The American administration boasts that its rationale for democratisation in the Middle East was provided by none other than Anatoly Sharansky, the former Israeli minister for illegal settlements, who stands at the right of the already far right Ariel Sharon.

 

 

 

The American president, though not exactly known for being a voracious reader, is widely reported to have recommended Sharansky's book to just about everyone he met.

 

He quoted it almost verbatim in the inaugural speech of his second term. The book, he declared, was "part of [his] DNA".

 

 

 

"If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy," he told a Washington Post journalist, "read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy. It's a great book."

 

 

 

 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/45CDB208-0432-426A-A7D5-B415DAB01173.htm

For the rest of the article

.

.

Whats interesting about this article, is its not cutting down the U.S. it just questions the intentions. With Bush selling fighter jets to Israel, and other such buddy buddy things, I can see where a Muslim would be confused by the concept of Democracy.

 

I think maybe the "IMAGE" of Democracy, is NOT what we want it to be in the arab world.

.

.

Whats interesting about this article, is its not cutting down the U.S. it just questions the intentions. With Bush selling fighter jets to Israel, and other such buddy buddy things, I can see where a Muslim would be confused by the concept of Democracy.

 

I think maybe the "IMAGE" of Democracy, is NOT what we want it to be in the arab world.

.

.

 

I agree with that 100%.... I don't think that the middle east has any idea what the US is really about... you have to understand first that they get thier oppinions from the NEWS (loaded with the worst of the US), Cultural TV (again, the worst) and from religious figureheads, and you probably won't get an honest opinion there either...

 

I am starting to think that the best way to combat Islam is to separate from it ENTIRELY and to let it morph into something we can deal with in 1 or 200 years, or just let it rot on the vine of capitalism not haveing any oil sales, or such.... Unless of course we want to chlorphorm all the liberals for 10 years and just fucing roll over that part of the world and make it the 51st state... but that is not likely to happen....

 

Either way, it might just be easier to cut them off completely... pull out, and cut em off.... no sold oil, no food, no money handouts... let them fight for thier own existance... It's what they have been asking for and they really don't know what effect it will have on them.... it would destroy them... but if that's what they want......fine with me.....

Good idea build nuclear power plants to make hydrogen fuel and drop the waste used cores on their oil wells and ban golden arches and Hollywood so they can pray in peace without western influence. Under those conditions Israel could fend for itself.

On the side of the rich & powerful industrial corprate consordium and step on anyone that is in your way including the very people that put in the position of power . On the side of Bushvieks , Halburton Inc. Hell we are not even on our ownside >> we kick ourselves in the teeth everyday . NICE TOOTH VIRGEL !!

Democracy in the Middle East equates to stability not only in the region but the world.

I think it

See, my reasoning is, that they are WELL AWARE that the Democracy that is America, is MAINLY CAPITOLIST DOMAIN. We can't deny it to ourselves, we know this. Lets just step back for a minute and review Iraq's contribution shall we ??

 

 

Of COURSE, I am sure Iraqi's want freedom... they also do not want to stray away from the ethic foundations of there religion which require them to think only the will of God and not the will of themselves.

 

The people of Iraq, thus far, have NOT had any other thing to contribute to the world except OIL.

 

This oil, in order for it to give the Iraqi's the government checks to create jobs/internal capitol/prosperity, requires a buyer.

 

I am under the impression that maybe such BUYER INFO be made public. Not only for the United States, but for the world.

 

And most important, the Iraqi people.

 

The religious aspect of it all is a trump card EXTREMISTS are playing to undermine the government, because they are WELL AWARE.. That while occupying Iraqi lands, and having a government that was pushed onto them by the U.S. The U.S. would be the greedy (to them) capitalists who want the biggest share of this oil.

 

This makes Iraqi's feel OWNED !!!

 

Knowing there entire economy structure is in the hands of a country that has a very taboo culture and is known for corporate takeover and greed.

 

Here's what needs to happen.

 

We need a full blown all out public report of how Iraqi's will get there cash asset "OIL" to be put onto the market, let Iraqi's decide on how they want to distribute oil barrels to which ever country by voting on it.

 

After all, if its NOT ABOUT OIL AT ALL... then why not say publicly....HEY IRAQI'S IT'S YOUR OIL, ITS YOUR INCOME FOR YOUR SOCIETY, please let your people decide how that resource should be distributed.

 

Chaos ???

 

That's something I'd like to see for sure.

 

 

Pull back the troops ??

 

No, not right now.

 

Pull out of there economy structuring plan publicly....

 

Absolutely.

 

.

.

The US of A is on my side!

The US of A is on my side!

 

Wait for the gastapo "Knock" at your door then see if you still feel the US of A is on your side .

Wait for the gastapo "Knock" at your door then see if you still feel the US of A is on your side .

 

I have no concern of the gestapo, provided it's doing my bidding and not it's own

Wait for the gastapo "Knock" at your door then see if you still feel the US of A is on your side .

 

 

Paranoid much?

I'm actually forming my own Gestapo! I think this country needs to be frieghtened a bit into acting fucking civilized!

I can almost see the republicans goose stepping down main street.

I'm actually forming my own Gestapo! I think this country needs to be frieghtened a bit into acting fucking civilized!

 

I think we already have one, its not so much they want us civilized... they just want us to agree with them.

 

The NWO owns us. Lets face it. Have any of you guys been keeping a checklist like I have ??

 

I'm sure fullauto does... he doesn't need to ask me to take the right pill.. I already did years ago.

 

In the U.S. its the Christians .vs The MASONS. Point to the Masons, you just don't realize it yet.

.

.

I think we already have one, its not so much they want us civilized... they just want us to agree with them.

 

The NWO owns us. Lets face it. Have any of you guys been keeping a checklist like I have ??

 

I'm sure fullauto does... he doesn't need to ask me to take the right pill.. I already did years ago.

 

In the U.S. its the Christians .vs The MASONS. Point to the Masons, you just don't realize it yet.

.

.

 

Christians and Mason actually have alot in common... Christian just believe that they are something they are not... Beware the false profit!

 

--snip

From the very beginning of our quest to unravel the Christ conspiracy, we encounter suspicious territory, as we look back in time and discover that the real foundation of Christianity appears nothing like the image provided by the clergy and mainstream authorities. Indeed, far more rosy and cheerful than the reality is the picture painted by the vested interests as to the origins of the Christian religion: To wit, a miracle-making founder and pious, inspired apostles who faithfully and infallibly recorded his words and deeds shortly after his advent, and then went about promulgating the faith with great gusto and success in "saving souls." Contrary to this popular delusion, the reality is that, in addition to the enormous amount of bloodshed which accompanies its foundation, Christianity's history is rife with forgery and fraud. So rampant is this treachery and chicanery that any serious researcher must immediately begin to wonder about the story itself. In truth, the Christian tale has always been as difficult to swallow as the myths and fables of other cultures; yet countless people have been able to overlook the rational mind and to willingly believe it, even though they may equally as easily dismiss the nearly identical stories of these other cultures....

 

 

We have seen that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Christian founder, that the earliest Christian proponents were as a whole either utterly credulous or astoundingly deceitful, and that said "defenders of the faith" were compelled under incessant charges of fraud to admit tthat Christianity was a rehash of older religions. It has also been demonstrated that the world into which Christianity was born was filled with assorted gods and goddesses, as opposed to a monotheistic vacuum. In fact, in their fabulous exploits and wondrous powers many of these gods and goddesses are virtually the same as the Christ character, as attested to by the Christian apologists themselves. In further inspecting this issue we discover that "Jesus Christ" is in fact a compilation of these various gods, who were worshipped and whose dramas were regularly played out by ancient people long before the Christian era....

 

Horus of Egypt

"Egypt, the primeval seat of learning, was the high seat of Sun adoration. The Sphinx, with the face to the east, represents Harmmachus, young Horus, or the rising Sun. The orb is Osiris, the ruling god of day. In its descent it is the dying deity, going below to the land of Shades; but only to be resurrected as the victorious Horus, piercing the head of the dragon of darkness."

 

James Bonwick, Irish Druids & Old Irish Religions, 190.

 

The Egyptian sun god Horus, who predated the Christ character by thousands of years, shares the following in common with Jesus:

 

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). Seb is also known as "Geb": "As Horus the Elder he..was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut." Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.

He was of royal descent.

At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.

He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").

He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.

Horus walked on water.

His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."

He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God