How will foreign powers determine Syria's future.
They will enable the democratic uprising to be crushed, and ordinary people will continue to live in a dictatorship. This will happen in these stages 1. The Shia and Sunni dictatorships with the aid of their superpower supporters will decide on a new dictatorship for Syria with a better sectarian balance (ie more wealthy Sunni business clans). 2. Military support for the rebels by the Sunni dictatorships will stop. 3. The new government will continue to receive outside help to murder and torture the uprising into submission. 4. Key figures in Assad's murder machine will retire in comfort and safety.
If you doubt this then consider that 1. The Middle East is really one interconnected dictatorship, the rivalries provide excuses to discredit or oppress internal opposition, the last thing they want is to defeat their enemies (ie Israeli elite need the Iranian elite, Iranian elite needs the Israeli elite, Saudi elite needs the Iranian elite.... ). 2. The real conflict in the Middle East as elsewhere is between powerful minorities and powerless majorities. 3. Ordinary people in Western countries sympathize with calls for democracy, but do not really understand how lack of democracy and economic distribution abroad is eating away their own political systems from the inside at home (in the last four decades power has been transferred from ordinary people and their democratic governments, to international financial organizations and economically powerful authoritarian governments).
Should also mention that Western governments (and Syrian apologists for oppression) will sell this betrayal as an humanitarian act to end suffering by civilians. I will ask them: Before the uprising did ordinary Syrians suffer? What has the sacrifice by tens of thousands of people achieved in the last forty years of Assad rule? Will the Syrian people ever get another chance to take back their rights? (answers Yes, Nothing, No)
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Egomaniacal Robert Fisk Talks Down Syria Democratic Struggle
Found this comment about Robert Fisk by Jazmin Medina on Al-Jazeera ( http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/empire/2012/03/201232212838378880.html ). I expanded links so you can see the disappointing truth about Robert Fisk.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Well said !!!!!!
--------------------------------------------
Do not know if anyone will read this now. I was deeply disappointed and honestly disgusted by = Robert Fisk =. As a postscript to the comment above I should say why. He appeared to treat the immensely painful and often heroic struggle against the criminal armed gang lead by Bashar al-Assad that is running Syria , as if it was some kind of cafe discussion session, in which he was delighted to show, in his own egomaniacal estimation, how knowledgeable he was about the strange ways of the Middle East and it's people.
His status as a western reporter unafraid to report Israel-Palestine without the usual Zionist distortions, has given him cover, for his corrupt journalistic practices ( see www.hughpope.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/i-dont-read-hugh-pope-robert-fisk ). Most of his critics have been right wing fanatics with a moral blindness about apartheid in Israel. A catalog of Fisk's crimes against journalistic standards are in the March issue of well known the British investigative magazine "Private Eye" ( see www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame ).
Looking back at Fisk articles on Syria he was a believer back in 2000 that Bashar was a reformer. Then when the Damascus Spring ended after a year, he claimed that Bashar was still a reformer but he a powerless figure head who was being forced away from reform. The recent leaked emails and documents reveal this view to be false. Bashar and his clan have learnt well from [neighbor] Israel about the power of propaganda. Bashar's public face is just that.
Robert Fisk now expects us to believe him, when he says the Syrian Democratic Uprising is going to be crushed like the Islamist uprising in Hama in 1982 was (by Hafez Assad), and Syria is not going to end up as a war of mass murder "against the people" as waged by the Algerian government in the 1990s. Fisk has suggested in other articles that revolutions do not work, and the "Arab Spring" will be a very slow process of incremental change. If the people are patient enough not to ask for too much change too quickly, then decent rulers like Bashar will trickle out their rights over time.
This is utter unhistorical nonsense. Europe won it's democracy when autocratic regimes felt threatened by the people and needed their support to survive. The threat of the French Revolution being repeated lead to reform throughout Europe. The division of power between land owners and new industrialists, lead to restrictive parliamentary democracies extending the electoral franchise to recruit more supporters. The threat of the European revolutions of 1848 lead to further reforms. The struggle between European nations for military supremacy eventually (after WW1 and WW2) lead to governments implementing fully the rights of the people, in an effort to mobilize the masses behind government war efforts. Since the C18 and C19 there has been a revolution in armed conflict in which technology has overtaken numbers. This means dictatorships can subdue their populations will smaller armies. Consequently the threat of the "people" has diminished.
There is no way Middle Eastern dictatorships are going to evolve into democracies without the active support of outside democracies. People in Syria know that if they give up the struggle there is not going to be a better opportunity to oust the internal colonization of the Assads.
Robert Fisk needs a long holiday. Nickolas Van Dam like his inspiration Patrick Searle is an academic and lobbyist in too closely a dependent relationship with his subject. Apologist in other words.
His status as a western reporter unafraid to report Israel-Palestine without the usual Zionist distortions, has given him cover, for his corrupt journalistic practices ( see www.hughpope.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/i-dont-read-hugh-pope-robert-fisk ). Most of his critics have been right wing fanatics with a moral blindness about apartheid in Israel. A catalog of Fisk's crimes against journalistic standards are in the March issue of well known the British investigative magazine "Private Eye" ( see www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame ).
Looking back at Fisk articles on Syria he was a believer back in 2000 that Bashar was a reformer. Then when the Damascus Spring ended after a year, he claimed that Bashar was still a reformer but he a powerless figure head who was being forced away from reform. The recent leaked emails and documents reveal this view to be false. Bashar and his clan have learnt well from [neighbor] Israel about the power of propaganda. Bashar's public face is just that.
Robert Fisk now expects us to believe him, when he says the Syrian Democratic Uprising is going to be crushed like the Islamist uprising in Hama in 1982 was (by Hafez Assad), and Syria is not going to end up as a war of mass murder "against the people" as waged by the Algerian government in the 1990s. Fisk has suggested in other articles that revolutions do not work, and the "Arab Spring" will be a very slow process of incremental change. If the people are patient enough not to ask for too much change too quickly, then decent rulers like Bashar will trickle out their rights over time.
This is utter unhistorical nonsense. Europe won it's democracy when autocratic regimes felt threatened by the people and needed their support to survive. The threat of the French Revolution being repeated lead to reform throughout Europe. The division of power between land owners and new industrialists, lead to restrictive parliamentary democracies extending the electoral franchise to recruit more supporters. The threat of the European revolutions of 1848 lead to further reforms. The struggle between European nations for military supremacy eventually (after WW1 and WW2) lead to governments implementing fully the rights of the people, in an effort to mobilize the masses behind government war efforts. Since the C18 and C19 there has been a revolution in armed conflict in which technology has overtaken numbers. This means dictatorships can subdue their populations will smaller armies. Consequently the threat of the "people" has diminished.
There is no way Middle Eastern dictatorships are going to evolve into democracies without the active support of outside democracies. People in Syria know that if they give up the struggle there is not going to be a better opportunity to oust the internal colonization of the Assads.
Robert Fisk needs a long holiday. Nickolas Van Dam like his inspiration Patrick Searle is an academic and lobbyist in too closely a dependent relationship with his subject. Apologist in other words.
--------------------------------------------
Well said !!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)