There is one very interesting point about human behavior. That is, most people are children when it comes to politics. Michelle Aoun is a Lebanese general who spent the first half of his life opposing the Syrian regime's occupation of Lebanon, and the second half in exile because of that opposition. His followers in Lebanon were oppressed, prosecuted, and jailed. Their demonstrations were quelled by force. Most of them were young people who grew up under the ideals of independence and opposition to Syria. Later, however, this general suddenly flip-flopped and joined the very forces that he claimed to had been opposing: Syrian regime and Hizbullah (i.e. Iran). The interesting phenomenon is that his entire masses followed him into this drastic change of ideals, and they are now ardently defending this new position. This was, simply, because they couldn't abandon the political faction, which they grew up under, and support the opposing rival factions. Even if those rival factions represent now their own ideals that they gave so much for. It is a mere case of childish fanaticism taking over principle. Now this can take even stranger dimensions and extend transculturaly. Liberals in the Middle East had been suffering for decades with the growing fundamentalism in their region. Societies were collapsing by the growth of sectarianism and the fading of secular national ideas. The responsibility for that was, in big part, held on the United States because of its support for totalitarian, backwarded, corrupt regimes, like the two Ba"thist regimes in Syria and Iraq. The irony is that the actual change in that corrupt, opportunistic policy of the US came under what may be called a "fundamentalist" administration, not a "liberal" one. What is even more ironic is that liberal reformists in the Middle East became to worry that American "liberals" may actually try to reverse back this new reformist policy of the United States. This is why most of them hoped for a reelection for Mr. Bush, and is why they rejoiced when he was reelected. On the other hand, when "liberals" won congressional elections in America, there was a widespread rejoice amongst the fundamentalist icons in the Middle East: al-jazeera, al-qaida, Palestinian jihadists, Hizbullah, Syrian and Iranian regimes all publicly welcomed that result. For liberals in the Middle East, it happens now that American "liberals" are becoming closer to their rivals, while they find their principles more secured with the "fundamentalists". This is why they tend to their side, and why they are dubbed here "neo-conservatives!" When I watch some so called "liberals" on this forum take the side of al-jazeera and terrorist organizations and regimes, it is a real shock; and it assures what we had feared. This classical case of puerile fanaticism demonstrates again the truth about human nature. Because my "rival" did something then I must oppose it. The hell with principles… I just have to oppose. I have to turn everything upside down. What is funny though, that those who defend al-jazeera are being cursed everyday on that channel; and they want to leave al-qaida in Iraq alone even though it declares that it will not leave them until they are conquered with the blessing of God. Here, it crosses from fanaticism into stupidity. So the point is that there is now an obvious intersection of interests between the American conservatives and the Middle Eastern liberal reformists; and one between the American so called "liberals" and the Middle Eastern jihadists. It is weird and unnatural, but this is the human nature.
I think you're a very confused person. Your ideas of fundamentalism and liberalism follow political correctness not realistic social consequences of economic and political policy, which is why you cannot see the logic behind what Michael Aoun and the like are doing.
I think your mistake is to assume that there should be some transcultural/transnational alignment of people of like political persuasions. American politicians (both liberal and conservative) are acting for what they see as the good of the American people. I think this is true even of the Bush administration which claimed to want to spread democracy in the mideast to cover its real motives, which may actually be to spread discord so that the US can take a stronger role in the regions politics. And then there are the Christian conservatives who really see an opportunity to bring about the apocalypse. I would also point out that your argument that conservatives (and liberals) agree on this point isn't true except perhaps in looking at the majority of people with those persuasions. Take a politician like Ron Paul (a classic conservative in many ways) who is for the US completely isolating itself from mideast events.
This is what my people, and every true liberal calls: dictatorship theory. Sorry... Well I believe that what is good for the American people at this stage is good for this region too. I don't believe that Bush's policy was after spreading discord for its own sake, but when you act to reform a swamp you will face a discord; this is sure thing. Anyway, there should always be limits for everything. You can't be a liberal and side with jihadists while conservatives are acting against them; and talk about America's interset. This is just wrong; and disgraceful. Jihadists and al-jazeera don't believe even in democracy!
That's not true. Fundamentalism as a political ideology was actually fading before 9/11. It's only rising now in reaction to the invasion of Iraq. ...and by contrast you're a mature realist? How condescending. Liberals have always been in favor of Democratic reform, just not at the point of a gun. As you can see that isn't working out like the PNAC expected. You have yet to show why Al-Jazeera is a terrorist organization. There are no liberals that side with terrorists, that is merely right-wing slander. You are indeed very confused. You speak as though the occupation of Iraq is a fight for Democracy and against Al-Quida, while the reality is that Iraq is an Islamic Republic, and seems destined for local tribal governance under religious law. Al-Quida is not the only thing holding back the fantasy of the discredited Neo-Con philosophy, it's a minor player in Iraq's civil war.
"this general suddenly flip-flopped and joined the very forces that he claimed to had been opposing: Syrian regime and Hizbullah (i.e. Iran)" Hani- Oh, Sugar- Sugar... Ya Habeeby: Things aren't so simple as that in politics, and especially in Lebanese politics. It takes considerable shrewdness to participate there, and not a little to even hope to follow what goes on there from the outside. Aoun didn't mend fences with erstwhile Syrian puppets within the domestic Lebanese political institution, not until the Syrians were definitively routed from Lebanon. Things had changed. Similarly, Aoun didn't call a truce with Hezbullah until Israel had made national and regional heroes of them. He obviously knows how to adapt to major Lebanese developments, otherwise he would not have remained a major player for such a long and volatile time. Aoun has never cut Syria any public slack. He ushered in the Siniora government, which pro-Syrian Lebanese and Hezbollah factions have been so orgnized in (mostly peacefully) opposing this year. You are badly confusing Aoun's political pragmatism, necessary for his survival, with a shift in ideology. "So the point is that there is now an obvious intersection of interests between the American conservatives and the Middle Eastern liberal reformists..." The first part of your construct is nothing new at all. Take a look back, and you'll find that the fringe American right-wing has been heatedly courting "alternative" Arab leaders like Aoun and Chalabi for a long time. But American support can suddenly turn toxic for Arab leaders who take noticeable doses. "and one between the American so called "liberals" and the Middle Eastern jihadists. " You'll have to be more specific, if that is meant as more than a smear. Can you provide examples? "You can't be a liberal and side with jihadists while conservatives are acting against them; and talk about America's interset." That is a horribly muddled phrase. What was it intended to mean? "Jihadists and al-jazeera don't believe even in democracy!" That's another interesting conflation. I can agree with you that certain prominent jihadists renounce democracy. I've heard nothing of the kind from al-Jazeera. Will you substantiate, or is this just another cheap smear?
Well, they say in Arabic "live, and you shall see (weird things)". Interesting theory but I've never heard it before.
hypewaders, Thanks for your input. But I didn't intend when I mentioned Aoun (as a working example) to engage myself in a useless argument about him. Anyway, I am going to answer you briefly: "You'll have to be more specific, if that is meant as more than a smear." "Aoun didn't mend fences with erstwhile Syrian puppets" Well, does that mean that, for example, calling Samir Geagea and Amin Gemayel Syrian puppets is not a smear? Because I heard Michelle Aoun himself calling them that, like a gazillion times. Look, I can say many things and begin a sterile argument. But I'll just say that anyone can understand everything that is happening anywhere. We are not in Middle Ages anymore, if everyone said about his country what you say about your country then there wouldn't be anything left to talk about. Why don't we say that maybe your problem is that you people just got so much lost in the details that you can't see the big picture anymore?! When I see Aoun providing a Christian cover for Hizbullah in the war of 2007, I can't, honestly, pay attention to any excuses that you say. I don't know what kind of pragmatism is this that will destroy the country and bring the Syrians back? and for what? what will he possibly do when he become a president (which can never happen now)? has he become the Messiah or something? Even if we look at your excuses, first of all: Aoun has never cut Syria any public slack. He ushered in the Siniora government, which pro-Syrian Lebanese and Hezbollah factions have been so orgnized in (mostly peacefully) opposing this year. I follow Lebanese politics enough to know that this, unfortunately, is not true. Also, do you want to say that Hizbullah, Ba"th party, and National Syrian Party have nothing to do with Syria anymore? I find this hard to believe. Do you want to tell me that Aoun's actions didn't come in accordance with the Syrian strategy to undermine the new situation in Lebanon? I don't care if he doesn't visit Bashaar Assad in shaam (altough I remember that he suggested this once), but aren't they both working for the same goal? to undermine the current government and replace it with another dominated by Hizbullah and other Syrian proxies? and the price will be b3abda for Aoun? isn't this the case? isn't this what is happening right now? If I were to accept Aoun's excuses for collaborating with the Syrians, after they left, then why wouldn't I accept the excuses of the others who collaborated while the Syrians where there?! They deserve that more than him? don't you think so? I don't think you watch al-jazeera. This organization is banned in most Arab countries, and they have real problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine etc.. I am not the first one who talks about it. There are tons of articles and media shows that explained what this channel does. I can't explain here.
In Algeria and Egypt there were civil wars between jihadists and the governments. Through that process, there was mass violence and thousands of Muslim civilians were killed; just like what is happening in Iraq now. This was what caused many Muslims to disagree with those specific groups. Is this what you call: fading of fundamentalism? well, Muslims in general still adore Hamas, Hizbullah, and "Muslim Brotherhood." The latter is the most dangerous because it works through politics and pragmatism until it gets to power, when it will abolish democracy and establish Islamic rule. I know you like the Algerian and Egyptian solutions (have corrupt dictators fight jihadists for you). But this didn't work, it just made things worse. This policy brought 9/11 to you.
I don't see how Jihadism failure in Egypt and Algeria brought us 9/11. What is your solution? Iraq is a great example of the (massive) failure of establishing Democracy through military power.
Here lies the problem. You can't accept anything about Iraq but deeming it a failure. Well, after 40 years from now, you will see why Iraq is not a failure as you think.
Right, I can't deem 3781 dead Americans and more than 100,000 dead Iraqis just to create a fragile Islamic Republic a success.
But I'm sure the Sunnis and Shias aren't that sensitive about it... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well there are no more problems now. Sunni clans of the west have eradicated al-qaida from there. Yesterday, clans and tribes from the center and north declared that they intend to achieve the same in their regions. I hope this is not bad news to you.
