One on One: When defeat means liberation

[Phx_Dem]

In an exclusive interview with the 'Post,' renowned Arabist Bernard Lewis likens what he calls the 'monstrous perversion of Islam' to the evils of Nazism and Bolshevism - and says that where it leads will depend on how the West responds to it.

Bernard Lewis is more than slightly amused when asked why many people are surprised to discover that he is a Jew.

"I didn't realize there was any secret about it," he chuckles - something he does often throughout our hour-long interview at his pied-a-terre in Tel Aviv, where he and significant other Buntzie Churchill spend three months of every year. During the other nine, he divides his time between Princeton, New Jersey (where the British-born professor taught from 1974 to 1986) and work-related jaunts to other parts of the globe, including places the 92-year-old historian of the Middle East and Islam would rather not name. Which is no wonder, really, considering the complexity of his relation to the subject on which he has written, lectured and advised on extensively throughout his career, first in his native London and subsequently in the US, where he settled. Indeed, Lewis's passion for medieval Arabic texts and respect for what he calls "one of the great religions" has not prevented him from being a caustic critic of radicalization among modern Muslims. On the contrary, if anything, his erudition has led him to assert unequivocally that the extremists have perverted their own traditions beyond recognition.

Still, says Lewis, "there are hopeful signs" indicating movement toward change. He cites, for example, his Jordanian friends' reaction to watching Israeli television and seeing Arab Knesset members openly attack the government with impunity. They are at once shocked and envious. Freedom tends to have that effect on those who do not enjoy it. Which is why, Lewis explains, "one of the things that even the most oppressive regimes cannot cope with today is modern communications - the Internet and so on. People know things now in a way and to an extent that were inconceivable in earlier times. They know, for example, how bad things are in their societies, because they see the contrast with the West. And there are more and more people interested in creating open societies."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1204546415778&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Looking4Light]

1. Wafa Sultan's take on Islam

This is one brave, smart, erudite woman. Let's hope she isn't murdered in the near future by barbarians.

Here's a recording of her interview with al-Jazeera interview, Feb. 21. In it, she relates to the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark, Israel's operations in Gaza, and the Holocaust.

Al-Jazeera has since caved in to barbaric threats and announced that she will no longer appear on the network.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbwqQ2Rm2Fw

Ironically, the two most vocal voices of reform in the Moslem world today are women: Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. It's ironic that the two 'reformers' you laud are the poster girls of American Islamophobes...

This is one brave, smart, erudite woman.

Yep, that's what the gang of bigoted crazies over at Little Green Footballs call her as well...

I'm kinda curious as to yr interest in Islamic reform and why you've only praised two people (one of who isn't even Muslim) whose opinions are bigoted and hatefilled, and who both have been busted lying about their backgrounds?

[Looking4Light]

4. The truth hurts n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Ah, so that's why they both lied about their backgrounds?

Oh-kay then...

[Looking4Light]

8. The truth hurts n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

9. And what's this *truth* you seem to be so fond of?

You do realise that Wafa Sultan isn't a Muslim, and she's not advocating for Islamic reform, but spreads anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim sentiment amongst her adoring audience of mainly RW Americans?

So, tell me what this *truth* is?

[Looking4Light]

10. Wafa Sultan was born an Alawi Moslem

and indeed advocates Islamic reform. Obviously you responded without checking her out.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. If I'd responded without checking her out, I would have posted 'the truth hurts!' n/t...

While she was born a Muslim, she isn't a Muslim now. She doesn't advocate Islamic reform. The links that Leftish Brit provided in this thread include articles that advocate Islamic reform, and there's a huge difference between calls for reform and the rubbish Sultan spouts. In fact, I'm suspecting that either you haven't really checked out Wafa Sultan, or you have and you don't see any particular problem with these sort of statements from her:

"I have decided to fight Islam; please pay attention to my statement; to fight Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself...Islam has never been misunderstood, Islam is the problem....(Muslims) have to realize that they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ

[oberliner]

11. She claims to be a "secular Muslim"

In an interview with Time magazine two years ago, she said:

"I don't believe in Islam, but I am a Muslim."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1187385,00.html

I wonder how many Muslims would identify themselves as "secular". I know that there is a fairly large percentage of Jewish people who consider themselves "secular Jews" but I wonder if there are similar percentages of "secular Muslims".

[msmcghee]

12. Seems like at least some Muslims . .

. . are finding that it's possible to define their own identities - as we generally do in the west. That would be a refreshing change.

[subsuelo]

13. The underlying assumptions in your post have been noted

[Looking4Light]

14. Ooooooooooooo

What does that mean?

[subsuelo]

16. Read the post

[msmcghee]

17. WTF are you talking about?

Defining your own identity means you think for yourself and don't follow some ideology blindly. The more people who do that - the less war. You think that's bad?

[subsuelo]

18. What would you think if someone posted this:

"Seems like at least some Jews. .

. . are finding that it's possible to __insert_some_characteristic_that_I_feel_superior_about__ - as we generally do in the west. That would be a refreshing change."

[msmcghee]

20. I'd consider their point. Cultures are different.

Cultures determine to a great extent how people of different nations, religions, and ethnicities interact with each other. Attempts to discuss war and international relations without attempting to understand the differences in cultures is not only foolish - it's not possible. That would be true for states like the US and Britain and not just for radically different cultures.

For example, this would be a reasonable statement IMO:

Seems like at least some (Israeli) Jews . . . are finding that it's possible to legislate greater separation of Jewish religious traditions from civil society - as we generally do in the (older) west. That would be a refreshing change.

I would not necessarily agree with it but the discussion would be useful and interesting. I could be convinced by a good argument and evidence.

So, do you have some problem with those "assumptions"?

[LeftishBrit]

26. Would depend on the context.

If the writer was implying that all Jews have the same views, I would find it stupid and offensive.

If they were speaking specifically about very orthodox Jews, with very socially conservative views, and were applauding a move (e.g.) to greater gender equality, I'd agree with them.

Same with Christians or Muslims.

ETA: I don't think that comparisons with 'the West' help much, however, because, although most (not all) liberal societies could be described as 'Western', many Western societies are far from liberal.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Anyone else see the irony here?

McGhee's inability to see beyond her own cultural norms so closely resembles the fundamentalists she so despises.

I wasn't aware that "thinking for yourself" equals a lessening of war. With the rise of right wing media in the US, we now have a nation of people who claim to think for themselves.

Thinking for oneself does not equal wisdom.

The blanket statement "Defining your own identity means you think for yourself and don't follow some ideology blindly. The more people who do that - the less war" is beyond absurd.

[msmcghee]

25. Anybody see the lack of critical thinking here?

You'll notice that nowhere did I say that thinking for one's self equals wisdom. Here's what I actually think about that - if you had cared to ask.

In societies where more people think for themselves, especially compared to more traditional (tribal) societies, there is no guarantee that better decisions will result. It doesn't mean we are smarter or right or more likely to come to wise decisions - that still depends on the quality of our leaders, just as it does for traditional societies.

It means that whatever we do it usually includes about half of us thinking the other half are bat-shit crazy and fighting them every inch of the way. Look at any of the nomination threads on this BB. Western states are not cohesive and generally act out of political compromise. One thing it does do is ensure that a fairly large consensus exists for war when it happens. A lot of people - usually fighting like cats and dogs - have to come to some similar conclusions on it.

Look at us or France or Israel or Britain. It's all about shifting coalitions, scratching backs, back room deals etc. But the good part is that violence is almost never used in these internal power struggles. But all that makes it harder to go to war.

It's also true that whatever wars there have been have been about ideology for the most part. WWII was to stop the spread of fascism, Viet Nam, communism, etc.

(I always feel silly trying to reply to you and a few others here in a reasonable way as I know I will just get flamed. Go for it.)

[Phx_Dem]

30. RWers don't "think for themselves"

They have one of the most rigid ideologies of any US political persuasion, whether we are speaking of neo-cons or libertarians.

[msmcghee]

38. Good point! I was going to also mention . .

. . the difference between the LW and RW in the US. The RW has a saying "don't ever speak ill of a fellow Republican". You don't see them trashing and hating each other during elections. Listening to them, all Republicans that were ever presidents were noble, honest wonderful human beings. Even Bush II.

In this country the left hates Bill Clinton more than the right does - the only thing the left hates more than BC right now is HRC. IMO - that's because the RW holds more strongly to traditional values - like religion, loyalty to tribe, right or wrong, America, love it or leave it, etc. Conservatism is essentially traditionalism in most respects.

We are less much traditional than the right. As Will Rogers put it, "I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"

We are single issue voters and don't disagree with us on that issue or you will go down. The Repubs are tribal voters. They all get behind their candidate in order to beat us - which is their tribal desire. And they'll set aside policy and issue differences for that goal when necessary.

We did that too for a while after W was put into office by the SCOTUS. We were so pissed off we became radicalized enough to feel some camaraderie - some tribalism. But as soon as the campaigns were launched we fell to back-biting and really got into trashing each other - and so it goes on.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I have known a few...but these were very much leftist

while Wafa Sultan is of course a favorite of the extreme right.

In the Middle East almost everyone whether Christian, Muslim, Druze or any other group are deeply religious. As would be the case in most of the third world. But still most people including most very conservative Muslims would prefer a secular government as opposed to a theocratic one. As we see - less than 3% of Palestinians support an Islamic state. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/more_palestinians_favour_two_state_solution

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I work with a secular Muslim, but Sultan isn't one...

While my colleague believes in god or allah or whatever she's called, I doubt anyone would try to call me a "secular Christian" seeing as how I don't believe in religious stuff. So, what mythical deity does Wafa Sultan believe in? By her own admission it's not Islamic, nor Christian, nor Jewish: 'I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew.' (that's from the al-Jazeera interview).

What do you think of her views on Islam and Muslims? Can you see a lot of difference between her version of 'reform' and that of actual liberal reformists? I'm not sure how much you know about her, so here's some stuff for you to look at:

This article by Stephen Julius Stein spells out very clearly what the problems are with her...

Islam's Ann Coulter

RECENTLY I WAS one of about 100 L.A. Jews invited to attend a fundraiser for a Jewish organization that seeks to counteract anti-Israel disinformation and propaganda. The guest speaker was Wafa Sultan, the Syrian American woman who in February gave a now legendary interview on Al Jazeera television, during which she said that "the Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations" and "I don't believe you can reform Islam."

The audience warmly greeted Sultan, a psychiatrist who immigrated to Southern California in 1989. One of Time magazine's 100 "pioneers and heroes," she said she was neither a Christian, Muslim nor Jew but a secular human being. "I have 1.3 billion patients," she quipped early in her remarks, referring to the global Muslim population. Sultan went on to condemn inhumane acts committed in God's name, to denounce Islamic martyrdom and to decry terror as a tool to subjugate communities. Those statements all made perfect sense.

Then this provocative voice said something odd: "Only Arab Muslims can read the Koran properly because you have to speak Arabic to know what it means — you cannot translate it." Any translation is, by definition, interpretation, and Arabic is no more difficult to accurately translate than Hebrew. In fact, the Hebrew of the Bible poses many more formidable translation problems than Arabic. Are Christians and Jews who cannot read it ill-equipped to live by its meanings?

Another surprising remark soon followed: "All Muslim women — even American ones, though they won't admit it — are living in a state of domination." Do they include my friend Nagwa Eletreby, a Boeing engineer and expert on cockpit controls, who did not seek her husband's permission to help me dress the Torah scroll? Or how about my friend Azima Abdel-Aziz, a New York University graduate who traveled to Israel with 15 Jews and 14 other Muslims — and left her husband at home?

There is no subjugation in the homes of these and other American Muslim women I know. They are equal, fully contributing members of their families.

The more Sultan talked, the more evident it became that progress in the Muslim world was not her interest. Even more troubling, it was not what the Jewish audience wanted to hear about. Applause, even cheers, interrupted her calumnies.

Judea Pearl, an attendee and father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, was one of the few voices of restraint and nuance heard that afternoon. In response to Sultan's assertion that the Koran contains only verses of evil and domination, Pearl said he understood the book also included "verses of peace" that proponents of Islam uphold as the religion's true intent. The Koran's verses on war and brutality, Pearl contended, were "cultural baggage," as are similar verses in the Torah. Unfortunately, his words were drowned out by the cheers for Sultan's full-court press against Islam and Muslims.

My disappointment in and disagreement with Sultan turned into dismay. She never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative. Why, for example, didn't this Southern California resident mention the groundbreaking efforts of the Islamic Center of Southern California, the leading exemplar of progressive Muslim American life in the United States? Why didn't she bring up the New Horizon School-Pasadena that the center started, the first Muslim American school honored by the U.S. Department of Education as a National Blue Ribbon School?

You might wonder why a rabbi is so uneasy about Sultan's assault on Muslims and Islam. Here's why: Contrary to practically every mosque in the U.S., the Islamic Center has a regulation in its charter barring funding from foreign countries. As a result, it is an American institution dedicated to propagating an American Muslim identity. Maher and Hassan Hathout are the philosophical and spiritual pillars of the mosque. They also have been partners of Wilshire Boulevard Temple rabbis and others throughout L.A. for decades.

The Hathouts' mosque has twice endorsed pilgrimages to Israel and the Palestinian territories, its members traveling with fellow L.A.-area Jews and Christians. It invites Jews to pray with them, to make music with them, to celebrate Ramadan with them. This is the mosque whose day school teaches students about Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah alongside lessons in Arabic and the Koran. Recently, the Islamic Center joined the food pantry collective of Hope-Net, helping feed the hungry and homeless.

Make no mistake: I am not an Islamic apologist. But Sultan's over-the-top, indefensible remarks at the fundraiser, along with her failure to mention the important, continuing efforts of the Islamic Center, insulted all Muslims and Jews in L.A. and throughout the nation who are trying to bridge the cultural gap between the two groups. And that's one reason why I eventually walked out of the event.

Here's another: As I experienced the fervor sparked by Sultan's anti-Muslim tirade and stoked by a roomful of apparently unsuspecting Jews, I thought: What if down the street there was a roomful of Muslims listening to a self-loathing Jew, cheering her on as she spoke of the evils inherent in the Torah, in which it is commanded that a child must be stoned to death if he insults his parents, in which Israelites are ordered by God to conquer cities and, in so doing, to kill all women and children — and this imagined Jew completely ignored all of what Judaism teaches afterward?

In a world far too often dominated by politicians imbued with religious fundamentalism of all flavors — Jewish, Christian, Muslim — we need the thoughtfulness, self-awareness and subtlety that comes from progressive religious _expression. We have that in Judaism, in Christianity — and in Islam, right in our backyard. If only Sultan, applauded in many quarters yet miscast as a voice of reason and reform in Islam, were paying attention.

http://www.ncpa.info/news/view_newsdetails.asp?id=258

and here's two more to look at:

http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/4009/135/

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/21/131003.php

[Violet_Crumble]

44. Kick so 'Looking4Light' doesn't miss reading this info n/t

[oberliner]

46. Can a person be an athiest Muslim?

I know that there are a fair number of people who consider themselves to be both atheist and Jewish. Is this phenomenon unique to Jewish people? Do you have to believe in a diety in order to be a Muslim?

As to the person in question, it does seem that "Islam's Ann Coulter" describes her fairly well.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. I have one Iranian friend and one Tunisian friend

who would describe themselves as both both atheist and Muslim in that their family background is Muslim but their personal beliefs are Atheist.

But in the same way that many religious Jews would not consider a person genuinely Jewish if they did not at the very least profess the religion -- I suspect most religious Muslims would feel the same way.

In the Middle East there is an element of ethnicity about identifying with a religion. Even for Christians or Shiites or Sunnis - calling oneself a particular religion or sect of a religion tends to identify oneself with a family tree that has done the same of many, many generations.

Still religious people even in the west will frequently not consider a person REALLY a Christian or REALLY a Jew unless they at least profess it - the same would go for most of the Middle East as far as the devout are concerned.

Whether in the Islamic Middle East or the Christian Philippines - I have found that in most of the non-western world - if one calls oneself an atheist -- most people are more puzzled than hostile.

[LeftishBrit]

3. There are a number of liberal Muslim websites that may be of interest here

www.unc.edu/~kurzman/LiberalIslamLinks.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Thanks for that link. I've bookmarked it n/t

[LeftishBrit]

6. For those interested in reform movements within Islam, the following may be of interest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/27/turkey.islam?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Apparently, it's a significant issue in Turkey at the moment.

[Phx_Dem]

19. Thoughts about the OP

His comments about the role of women in Islamic countries was interesting, the reduced role of women in Muslim society has certainly hampered development in those countries.

[subsuelo]

21. Noam Chomsky's take

From this interview

In 1958, the U.S. government faced three major crises in the world. North Africa, Middle East and Indonesia, all with oil producing states, all Islamic states.

President Eisenhower, in an internal discussion, observed to his staff, and I'm quoting now, "There's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people." The national security council discussed that question and said, "yes, and the reason is, there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil.

NC: Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it's correct. It ought to be correct. We ought to be supporting brutal and corrupt governments which prevent democracy and development because we want to control Middle East oil, and it's true that leads to a campaign of hatred against us."

Now, until Bernard Lewis tells us that, and that's only one piece of a long story, we know that he's just a vulgar propagandist and not a scholar.

So yes, as long as we are supporting harsh, brutal governments, blocking democracy and development because of our interests in controlling the oil resources of the region, there will be a campaign of hatred against the United States.

I have to say, if anyone is more correct than the other on this -- it's definitely Chomsky.

[Phx_Dem]

23. Chomsky is an idiot. nt

[subsuelo]

24. So you disagree that supporting brutal governments that block democracy

has anything to do with a campaign of hatred against the United States.

?

[Phx_Dem]

27. Chomsky does

Quote:

NC: Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it's correct. It ought to be correct. We ought to be supporting brutal and corrupt governments which prevent democracy and development because we want to control Middle East oil, and it's true that leads to a campaign of hatred against us."

\
Chomsky tends to speak in generalities, but trying to operationalize what he is saying--Do SOME Saudis hate the US because of our support of the regime? Maybe, but then the question becomes--would SA move towards democracy if the US withdrew it's support? The answer is a resounding no.

[subsuelo]

28. First of all, you deal with a hypothetical

Chomsky's point is to look at what is and take it from there. The U.S. prevents democracy and development, and that has led to hatred towards the U.S. As to what might happen - would moves towards democracy be made, who is to say? The answer is not a resounding no. Noone can possibly pretend to know. We can, however, look at what is going on, and say - this isn't working, we need to change it.

Second of all, you ask the question "Do SOME Saudis hate the US because of our support of the regime?" and then you answer that with "Maybe".

Are you joking? "Maybe"? You really think there is a question as to whether or not some Saudis might hate the U.S. due to support for the regime? On, that we do have a resounding answer - Yes. There's no "maybe" whatsoever on that point.

Thirdly, you are right, Chomsky does speak in generalities. Alot of people do when they shouldn't, myself included. However, I don't see where that problem applies to this instance. What he wrote is:

as long as we are supporting harsh, brutal governments, blocking democracy and development because of our interests in controlling the oil resources of the region, there will be a campaign of hatred against the United States

Note he doesn't say there is a campaign "amongst all oppressed people, or amongst (all) Saudis, or amongst (all) Iranians". It is just plainly stated that a campaign does exist. Where is the generality?

[Phx_Dem]

29. If we look at a ME country with no US involvement

Like Iran, we see some signs of reform but not nearly enough to effect change in a positive direction.

It's hard for me to see any difference in countries like SA and Egypt, with or without US involvement, there would be little to no move towards democracy, until the citizens of those countries demand change.

[subsuelo]

31. You are mistaken on Iran and US involvement

A 1953 CIA backed overthrow of their democratically elected government, I think qualifies as "involvement".

[Phx_Dem]

33. That was 55 years ago.

Not very relevent to any Iranian under 75.

[subsuelo]

34. Oh no - it is relevant

The type of changes we are talking about don't just happen overnight. In fact 55 years I would say is very relevant - imagine what 55 years of democracy in Iran might look like today?

When people like Chomsky say that the US undermines democracy, this is exactly the kind of thing they're talking about. It's these types of crucial facts that are missing from Bernard Lewis' argument. How can we possibly tell Iranians, or Saudi Arabians -- or people who suffer under any regime we support -- what they need in terms of better government, freedom for themselves, etc - when we are the ones that have blocked it from happening?

[Looking4Light]

35. I think you give too much credit

to US influence. Look at the changes that this world has gone through in the last 55 years. Or even the last 20 years! (I'm thinking of the breakup of the Soviet Union.) I can't believe the US can keep the lid on things in so many places. If the people in those places really wanted democracy, they'd have it. Iran is a good case in point. They toppled the shah, against US wishes.

[subsuelo]

36. "If the people in those places really wanted democracy, they'd have it"

So easy to say...

What if someone wrote "If Americans really wanted someone other than GWB, they'd have it"

On top of that, consider, what if someone wrote that, after their own government forced GWB upon us! Would it be fair? No!

[Looking4Light]

37. I'm not saying these changes come quickly

I'm saying that over the course of decades, a united people can bring about change.

[subsuelo]

39. Right - now imagine a flourishing Iranian democracry

Beginning with 1953, over the course of several decades - would or would not the situation in Iran be much different? One can only guess at what might have been, but the fact remains that the U.S. blocked it from happening.

It does raise a question for me why Bernard Lewis fails to mention key facts like this when speaking on progress and development in the Middle East. He talks about knowledge of history, then surely he is aware of U.S. intervention in the region.

[Looking4Light]

41. All good points n/t

[Phx_Dem]

47. A game of what ifs

Bottom line is that there has been no US involvement in Iran for 55 years and in that time there has been almost no economic improvements and no move towards democracy. From '47 to '51 there were 6 different Iranian PMs alone, so the Persians were and are quite capable of changing political directions.

IMO you are overstating US influence in the ME, what little financial aid we provide goes to economic development or security (as in the gulf region), and has little to do with supporting dictatorships. Sure we maintain close ties to the House of Saud eg, but are we "blocking democracy and development" as Chomsky states? Not even close.

[subsuelo]

50. there is more to it besides financial aid

Regarding Iran, consider the following summary:

The CIA's plans hinged on the young Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, a timid and inexperienced figurehead. (He was a mere shadow of his father, who had led a pro Nazi regime during World War n. ) In 1953, with CIA backing, the Shah ordered Mossadegh out of office and appointed a Nazi collaborator as his successor. Demonstrators filled the streets in support of Mossadegh, and the Shah fled to Rome.

Undaunted, the CIA paid for pro-Shah street demonstrators, who seized a radio station and announced that the Shah was on his way back and that Mossadegh had been deposed. In reality, it took a nine-hour tank battle in the streets of Tehran, killing hundreds, to remove Mossadegh.

Compared to the bloodshed to follow, however, that was just a drop in the bucket. In 1976, Amnesty International concluded that the Shah's CIA-trained security force, SAVAK, had the worst human rights record on the planet, and that the number and variety of torture techniques the CIA had taught SAVAK were "beyond belief."

Inevitably, in 1979, the Iranian people overthrew the bloodstained Shah, with great bitterness and hatred toward the US for installing him and backing him all those years. The radical fundamentalist regime that rules Iran today could never have found popular support without the CIA's 1953 coup and the repression that followed.

A noteworthy list on the topic of US involvement in the Middle East can be found here - I will just paste here some of the many examples:

• arming Saudi Arabia


• training the secret police in Iran under the Shah


• providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages


• 1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.


• 1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah.


• 1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.


• 1978‑79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.


• 1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon, killing some 17 thousand civilians. U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.


• 1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.


• 1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.

And now, of course we have the U.S. war in Iraq. Yesterday we have this report: Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

You argue that I overstate US influence in the M.E. - I say the facts indicate otherwise. There is an extensive history here. The one point I would agree with you on - is that it has little to do with support for dictatorships. That is actually Chomsky's assessment as well (if I dare for even one moment speak for him) -- the primary objective of US involvement in the Middle East, is, of course, the interest in the natural resources in the region. So while it may not be ultimately about blocking democracy and development, it is most certainly a by-product.

[Vegasaurus]

51. I agree that the interest is in the natural resources

which is why people have to understand that US support for Israel is purely geopolitical. The corporate and political tzars don't really care about Israel, merely about where the country is located, which is quite strategic.

[azurnoir]

32. No US involvment in Iran??

no not now not once they kicked the puppet we put in office out, if I remember correctly the Shah was was put in office because the US felt that Mossadegh was too cozy with the USSR, without that we might not be looking at the same Iran as we are now.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Now that's an educated opinion if ever I've seen one!! ;) n/t

[Phx_Dem]

45. Thanks!

I do try to be succinct.

[bemildred]

48. "War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength"

Like Orwell said.