Clearly, the ultimate embarrassment of the West (meaning America and all the so-called democratic countries that are the train) in the face of popular revolutions, secular, suddenly emerged in Tunisia, Albania, Egypt. Because it puts us in front of our basic contradiction: on one hand we are the great standard-bearers of the democratic ideal so that we do not hesitate to impose it, even to the sound of "blue bombs and depleted uranium, to people who do not want knowledge (Afghanistan), if the other emerging powers, democratically elected, that there are friends, or who suspect that they are not, we prefer dictatorships, including those particularly vile and corrupt (one of our specialties is to support the most corrupt regimes world, because they are easier to maneuver).
The test took place in Algeria in 1991 when it held the first free and democratic elections in that country after three decades of a bloody military dictatorship. He won the FIS, the Islamic Salvation Front, with 75% of the vote. Then we helped the Algerian general cutthroats to cancel the election on the grounds that the FIS would have established a totalitarian regime.
That is a dictatorship in the name of hypothetical reaffirming what was already there. The leaders of the FIS were arrested and tens of thousands of activists sent to jail. When you want to crush a force that has the consent of three fourths of the population that the result can not be civil war, which instead has plunged Algeria for more than ten years with hundreds of thousands of victims who weigh in on our good side adamantine of western consciousness.
However, the lesson of Algeria had this education: democratic elections are valid only when we win. A seemingly different but essentially the same speech to be done to the Revolution Khomeini. For decades the West has supported the Shah of Iran, a dictator glossy (those services on Soraya, "the princess sad," Farah Diba and we had to put up with in our youth) as ruthless, whose police, SAVAK, was the most infamous in the Middle East, which is saying something.
The Shah was a thin strip, 2% of westernisation rich bourgeoisie that could be seen in those years, all dressed up in London and New York, while the rest of the country was hungry. As long as the cap is missing and that Khomeini came, we reason as always and only with our categories, was initially confused by the left for a Bolshevik ("Bakti = Kerensky, Khomeini = Lenin," wrote the Unit) and later, when it became clear that proposed a way for the development of the Islamic world that was neither communist nor capitalist, became for all "the devil".
So much so that opposing a true dictator, and particularly criminal, Saddam Hussein, and the theocracy is not democracy, but neither is it absolute power in the hands of one man. The same thing is happening these days in Egypt. Hosni Mubarak would be missed for a long time like a cork, under pressure from the boiling creeping of an entire population that was tired of his excessive power, his nepotism, corruption of his and his clan, and illiberal methods of crime (not not at all when the Americans have captured illegally, violating every rule of international law, Imam Abu Omar in Milan, immediately sent him in prison in Cairo because it could reasonably be tortured), if the U.S.
had not argued for decades with billions of dollars a year and by making him one of the largest armies in the world, according antiraniana and pro-Israel (but Sadat was a good man, and not that scapegallows Mubarak, to have the courage to raise the phone and tell the enemy always plant them).
Here too, the lesson is that, despite our high-sounding proclamations, dictatorial regimes, the trampled professional "human rights", there are good provided they remain in our orders and serve our interests. So we supported Musharraf, the bloodthirsty dictator of Pakistan, because we opened the doors of Afghanistan, as well as support for the same reason, as corrupt and dictatorial, under false democratic forms, Sali Berisha, Ali Zardari, or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, where sharia is applied in a more systematic way than is the case in Iran and was the case under the Taliban regime demonized, and tyrants and tyrants around the globe, as long as "friends" and sensitive to the U.S.
dollar. Now the temptation, indeed the project is to pilot the revolutions of Tunisia, Albania and Egypt to our use and consumption. To play on the meat and skin of those who had the courage - that is missing in Italy - to rebel against injustice, it will return as usual and those countries remain to act as servants to the interests of the West.
I believe that this imperial policy of "world police" who are these self-appointed, you pay more, even in terms of realpolitik. I think it finally came time to leave other people the basic right of self-determination for itself, according to its own history, their traditions, their culture, their vocation and also their own interests.
And maybe then we would discover that the apparent hostility that surrounds the West, the Middle East, Latin America, in what remains of Black Africa, Central Asia, Afghanistan, is not due to religious or ideological reasons, but to overbearing military and economic policies that make them the subject for decades if not centuries.
Using the constant practice of "two weights and two measures." This would also be a way to wipe out the radical terrorist, who also is a marginal phenomenon. After the London bombings a few years ago, the mayor of London, Livingstone, much loved by his countrymen, condemned them, but also said: "If the British people had suffered the interference that we are engaging in Anglo-Saxon more than a century on those Arabs and Muslims, I think that I would become a British terrorist.
" , February 1, 2011 
The test took place in Algeria in 1991 when it held the first free and democratic elections in that country after three decades of a bloody military dictatorship. He won the FIS, the Islamic Salvation Front, with 75% of the vote. Then we helped the Algerian general cutthroats to cancel the election on the grounds that the FIS would have established a totalitarian regime.
That is a dictatorship in the name of hypothetical reaffirming what was already there. The leaders of the FIS were arrested and tens of thousands of activists sent to jail. When you want to crush a force that has the consent of three fourths of the population that the result can not be civil war, which instead has plunged Algeria for more than ten years with hundreds of thousands of victims who weigh in on our good side adamantine of western consciousness.
However, the lesson of Algeria had this education: democratic elections are valid only when we win. A seemingly different but essentially the same speech to be done to the Revolution Khomeini. For decades the West has supported the Shah of Iran, a dictator glossy (those services on Soraya, "the princess sad," Farah Diba and we had to put up with in our youth) as ruthless, whose police, SAVAK, was the most infamous in the Middle East, which is saying something.
The Shah was a thin strip, 2% of westernisation rich bourgeoisie that could be seen in those years, all dressed up in London and New York, while the rest of the country was hungry. As long as the cap is missing and that Khomeini came, we reason as always and only with our categories, was initially confused by the left for a Bolshevik ("Bakti = Kerensky, Khomeini = Lenin," wrote the Unit) and later, when it became clear that proposed a way for the development of the Islamic world that was neither communist nor capitalist, became for all "the devil".
So much so that opposing a true dictator, and particularly criminal, Saddam Hussein, and the theocracy is not democracy, but neither is it absolute power in the hands of one man. The same thing is happening these days in Egypt. Hosni Mubarak would be missed for a long time like a cork, under pressure from the boiling creeping of an entire population that was tired of his excessive power, his nepotism, corruption of his and his clan, and illiberal methods of crime (not not at all when the Americans have captured illegally, violating every rule of international law, Imam Abu Omar in Milan, immediately sent him in prison in Cairo because it could reasonably be tortured), if the U.S.
had not argued for decades with billions of dollars a year and by making him one of the largest armies in the world, according antiraniana and pro-Israel (but Sadat was a good man, and not that scapegallows Mubarak, to have the courage to raise the phone and tell the enemy always plant them).
Here too, the lesson is that, despite our high-sounding proclamations, dictatorial regimes, the trampled professional "human rights", there are good provided they remain in our orders and serve our interests. So we supported Musharraf, the bloodthirsty dictator of Pakistan, because we opened the doors of Afghanistan, as well as support for the same reason, as corrupt and dictatorial, under false democratic forms, Sali Berisha, Ali Zardari, or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, where sharia is applied in a more systematic way than is the case in Iran and was the case under the Taliban regime demonized, and tyrants and tyrants around the globe, as long as "friends" and sensitive to the U.S.
dollar. Now the temptation, indeed the project is to pilot the revolutions of Tunisia, Albania and Egypt to our use and consumption. To play on the meat and skin of those who had the courage - that is missing in Italy - to rebel against injustice, it will return as usual and those countries remain to act as servants to the interests of the West.
I believe that this imperial policy of "world police" who are these self-appointed, you pay more, even in terms of realpolitik. I think it finally came time to leave other people the basic right of self-determination for itself, according to its own history, their traditions, their culture, their vocation and also their own interests.
And maybe then we would discover that the apparent hostility that surrounds the West, the Middle East, Latin America, in what remains of Black Africa, Central Asia, Afghanistan, is not due to religious or ideological reasons, but to overbearing military and economic policies that make them the subject for decades if not centuries.
Using the constant practice of "two weights and two measures." This would also be a way to wipe out the radical terrorist, who also is a marginal phenomenon. After the London bombings a few years ago, the mayor of London, Livingstone, much loved by his countrymen, condemned them, but also said: "If the British people had suffered the interference that we are engaging in Anglo-Saxon more than a century on those Arabs and Muslims, I think that I would become a British terrorist.
" , February 1, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment