 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / September 2004Freedom
Can Osama bin Laden be thought of as the Arabian version of George Washington? He certainly has the support of a huge percentage of the population of both Arabic and Islamic countries. When one considers the stated purposes of Al Queda, it does seem as if Osama's war is one of independence. Perhaps the Arabian War of Independence. The American War of Independence was fought with much less support from the population of the then colonies. Someone please correct me on this if I'm wrong (someone informed please but not the Webbies as this is a serious posting), but I've read the Washington only had the support of a third of the populace. Using that as a guide, Osama has much higher support in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. The entire political map and structure of the Middle East is still reflects the aftermath of WWII when the British, with the nod from the League of Nations took over most of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. Lines were literally drawn in the sand, countries created with artificial royal families and all of it done to guarantee Western control of the oilfields. The traditional method of Divide and Conquer was used to perfection to ensure that there would be no effective power base. Ninety years or so later some of those royal families still exist with the wholehearted support of the Western powers, Arabs and Muslims are still denied basic freedoms, there is little democracy, the oil is still controlled by the West and most people in the Middle East live in abject poverty. The money from the oil is not being used to further the lives of the people, rather it is being horded by the same royal families (or western installed dictators, such as Hosni Mubarak and formerly Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran) and spent buying huge amounts of American, French and British weapons to defend them from their own people. Is it any wonder that these people hate the West so much? Iran is a perfect example of what the results of this policy have created. Desperate people turn to anyone who offers them freedom. Instead of fostering freedom movements that would install democracy in the Middle East, the West has gone out of its way to undermine such activity. So along walks Osama and offers the Arabs freedom from the Western colonialists. This is his power. It is not religious fanaticism, although religion forms part of his philosophy in much the way that George Bush claims to talk to his deity. Al Queda's fight is a War of Independence from the Western colonial powers, particularly the United States. Or at least that is the way that they see it. The Bush administration's statements that Arabs hate Americans because Americans are free and wealthy is absolute poppycock. That concept is completely idiotic since very few Arabs have ever been to the United States. However, as a kind of corollary, it is true that many Arabs hate the foreign policy of the American and British governments since it is that policy which prevents the Arabs from being free. Anyone who has spent time in Ireland has seen the very prominent "Brits go home" signs that adorn Irish port facilities or knows about the thousands of live that have been shed trying to drive the British from their four hundred year occupation of Northern Ireland. All students of American history remember the phrase "No taxation without representation" or "One if by land or two by sea" and all the other rallying cries of the most successful revolution in history. When Kenyans fought for their freedom from the British imperialists, Jomo Kenyatta's mow mow (?) fighters were savage fighters who used as much barbarism as their British overlords and beat the Brits at their own game. Kenyatta became a model politician after independence. The story of liberation, freedom fighters, wars of independence to free a people from the yoke of colonialism etc. fills history books all over the world. The French revolution beheaded anyone with noble blood and much blood did flow. The Hatien revolution drove the Spanish, French and British slave traders and plantation owners out forever, but it took a lot of blood to do it. One doesn't have to look beyond the American civil war to find the amount of blood that the desire for independence can cost. That little Middle Eastern country of Israel that daily fights freedom loving "terrorists", was itself born out of the blood of terrorist fighting British rule. Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was himself a branded a hated terrorist prior to Israeli independence. And he was a terrorist, except that when terrorist win, history records them as freedom fighters. So what specifically is wrong with Arab when they are fighting for freedom from oppression and colonialism? Why do Western nations continue to prevent Arabic freedom? Why do the same Western nations that were born out of revolution and wars of independence stop others from having the same level of freedom and democracy? If the American War of Independence had failed, George Washington and friends would have been hanged, drawn and quartered and burned at the stake for their savage terrorism and history would have branded them as fanatics and murderers. But people like America's Washington, Israel's Begin, South Africa's Mandela (jailed for decades for terrorism), Haiti's Tousaint L'Ouverture (the leader of the Hatien revolution who was murdered by the French for terrorism), Russia's Lenin, China's Mao Tse Dong, the leaders of the French Revolution, the Demerara Rebellion in Jamaica, Kemal Attaturk who founded Turkey, Garibaldi in Italy, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Che Guevera, Simon Bolivar, Pancho Villa and so many other liberators, Osama sees himself as a man defending his people from outsiders who oppress his people. A huge percentage of his people see him the same way. Is it not time for the West to stop being so hypocritical and admit that all of Arabia has been held down because of the oil that THEY OWN. If we love freedom so much, should we not be helping these people to be free instead of supporting their oppressors, instead of being their oppressors? It almost seems that Europeans and Americans have decided that they and they only can be free. Wars of independence all over the world have been interfered with all through history. It never works and it always ends in bloodshed of sickening proportions. If democracy and freedom is the lifeblood of our societies why don't we want to share it with the world? Why does the West want to keep Arabs oppressed under brutal dictatorships? Why did Britain and the United States try to interfere with the Russian people when they threw off the yoke of the Czars? Why did Europe and the US try to stop the Chinese from getting rid of the warlords and imperialist colonialists that oppressed them? All through Africa the West has attempted to stifle revolution and maintain brutal dictatorships? The same is true in South America? Is it not time for honesty and truth? Is it not time to share our wonderful freedom with the rest of the world? If not why not? Ken > Can Osama bin Laden be thought of as the Arabian version of George > Washington? He certainly has the support of a huge percentage of the > population of both Arabic and Islamic countries. When one considers the > stated purposes of Al Queda, it does seem as if Osama's war is one of > independence. Perhaps the Arabian War of Independence. Independence from whom ? It can be argued perfectly that the current crop of Arab leaders are autocrats. However, they are Arabs, not Europeans or Americans or Indians or Chinese. Second, Osama Bin Laden proposes to impose a strict theocracy on areas that he gains control over. Forgive me for pointing this out, but it is nearly impossible for theocracy and democracy to co-exist. So, at first sight, Osama Bin Laden cannot be considered to be an Arab version of George Washington. If anything, he might parallel Lenin. One autocrat seeking replace another autocrat of the same nationality. > The American War of Independence was fought with much less support from > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the populace. Using that as a guide, Osama has much higher support in > countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. No question about that. > The entire political map and structure of the Middle East is still > reflects the aftermath of WWII when the British, with the nod from the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The traditional method of Divide and Conquer was used to perfection to > ensure that there would be no effective power base. The idea of a pan-Arab state was tried by Nasser and failed. The only rough unifying factor is religion and dislike (if not hate) of anything non-Muslim. As the post 1947 history of Pakistan shows, that is not enough to form a nation. And, yes, Iraq is an artifical construct. The natural borders of that part of the world would be : 1. Shia south merged with Iran, or a separate country (like Shiite Arab Republic). 2. Sunni center merged with Jordan. 3. Kurdish north merged with Kurdish parts of Iran, Turkey and Syria and forming a separate country. > Ninety years or so later some of those royal families still exist with the > wholehearted support of the Western powers, Arabs and Muslims are still > denied basic freedoms, there is little democracy, the oil is still Denied their basic freedoms by their own people. > controlled by the West and most people in the Middle East live in abject You have got it backwards. If anything, the West is controlled by the oil. None of the OPEC countries pay much attention to the US when setting their prices, and the current recovery in the US economy has become sluggish in part due to the high oil prices. > poverty. The money from the oil is not being used to further the lives of > the people, rather it is being horded by the same royal families (or > western installed dictators, such as Hosni Mubarak and formerly Saddam > Hussein and the Shah of Iran) and spent buying huge amounts of American, > French and British weapons to defend them from their own people. First, that is a matter between Arab rulers and their own people. Second, Iran is not an Arab country but an example of a country where the US *did* screw up. Third, Saddam Hussein was not *installed* by the West. > Is it any wonder that these people hate the West so much? Iran is a First. Yes, it is a wonder. Saudi Arabians are oppressed by the House of Saud, not the Western democracies. The only difference is that terrorists in Saudi Arabia who plot against the House of Saud usually get beheaded. The democracies offer a softer target, and thanks to the media coverage, a louder target. Second. Even if you argue that Western countries support these regimes, there are any number of countries with autocratic governments that are friendly to the democratic world. Space here provided for you list people of the following nationalities who have committed acts of murder and butchery against civilians in democratic countries : 1. Filipinos during the time of Marcos. 2. Chinese ever since 1973. 3. Indians prior to 1947. 4. Argentines prior to 80's. 5. South African blacks prior to 1980 or so. 6. ... Its time to face it. This predisposition to kill large number of non-combatant civilians of a third country to make political statements is almost a uniquely Arab fundamentalist / Islamic fundamentalist trait. So before brainlessly laying the blame at the door of the democracies, you could profit from some logical analysis of your statements. > perfect > example of what the results of this policy have created. Desperate people Perhaps the only example. > turn to anyone who offers them freedom. Instead of fostering freedom > movements that would install democracy in the Middle East, the West has > gone > out of its way to undermine such activity. So along walks Osama and > offers > the Arabs freedom from the Western colonialists. This is his power. It Screeching the brakes, here. Colonialism ? Do you know what colonialism is/was ? > is not religious fanaticism, although religion forms part of his > philosophy in > much the way that George Bush claims to talk to his deity. Al Queda's > fight is a War of Independence from the Western colonial powers, > particularly the > United States. Or at least that is the way that they see it. Murderers and butchers often find nice sounding reasons for their cruelty. Yes, Bush is a religious fanatic, but I did not hear him launching an armed struggle for Jesus prior to 9-11. I don't care for what kind of language he uses, but I say, after 9-11, nuke the #$#***$s. If he wants to say that he invaded Afghanistan to please the great Greek god Zeus, he can go right ahead. > The Bush administration's statements that Arabs hate Americans because > Americans are free and wealthy is absolute poppycock. That concept is Yes, it is poppycock. The real reason is that these Islamic fundamentalist butchers would do this no matter what. But Bush is not going to say something so politically incorrect. > completely idiotic since very few Arabs have ever been to the United > States. However, as a kind of corollary, it is true that many Arabs hate US media reaches all parts of the world. > the foreign policy of the American and British governments since it is > that policy which prevents the Arabs from being free. Free from whom ? Their own people. How many marines guard the life of the Saudi royal family ? > Anyone who has spent time in Ireland has seen the very prominent "Brits go > home" signs that adorn Irish port facilities or knows about the thousands > of live that have been shed trying to drive the British from their four > hundred > year occupation of Northern Ireland. All students of American history And most Brits who were killed were either the Protestants who live in Northen Ireland or British troops. How many thousand British civilians in the heart of London or Manchester were murdered by IRA ? > remember the phrase "No taxation without representation" or "One if by > land or two by sea" and all the other rallying cries of the most > successful Yes, and you might also want to add the number of British civilians killed in London by American terrorists. > revolution in history. When Kenyans fought for their freedom from the > British imperialists, Jomo Kenyatta's mow mow (?) fighters were savage > fighters who used as much barbarism as their British overlords and beat > the Was that barbarism directed at British civilians in the UK ? > Brits at their own game. Kenyatta became a model politician after > independence. His nationality was Kenyan. The British governor general (or whatever) was British. Last time I checked the nationality of the Saudi royal house was Saudi and they were ethnically, linguistically Arabs and religiously, fundamentalist Muslims. And the ethnicity and religion of Osama Bin Laden is ? <rest of the twaddle snipped> > Can Osama bin Laden be thought of as the Arabian version of George > Washington? He certainly has the support of a huge percentage of the > population of both Arabic and Islamic countries. When one considers the > stated purposes of Al Queda, it does seem as if Osama's war is one of > independence. Perhaps the Arabian War of Independence. Independence from whom ? It can be argued perfectly that the current crop of Arab leaders are autocrats. However, they are Arabs, not Europeans or Americans or Indians or Chinese. Second, Osama Bin Laden proposes to impose a strict theocracy on areas that he gains control over. Forgive me for pointing this out, but it is nearly impossible for theocracy and democracy to co-exist. So, at first sight, Osama Bin Laden cannot be considered to be an Arab version of George Washington. If anything, he might parallel Lenin. One autocrat seeking replace another autocrat of the same nationality. > The American War of Independence was fought with much less support from > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the populace. Using that as a guide, Osama has much higher support in > countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. No question about that. > The entire political map and structure of the Middle East is still > reflects the aftermath of WWII when the British, with the nod from the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The traditional method of Divide and Conquer was used to perfection to > ensure that there would be no effective power base. The idea of a pan-Arab state was tried by Nasser and failed. The only rough unifying factor is religion and dislike (if not hate) of anything non-Muslim. As the post 1947 history of Pakistan shows, that is not enough to form a nation. And, yes, Iraq is an artifical construct. The natural borders of that part of the world would be : 1. Shia south merged with Iran, or a separate country (like Shiite Arab Republic). 2. Sunni center merged with Jordan. 3. Kurdish north merged with Kurdish parts of Iran, Turkey and Syria and forming a separate country. > Ninety years or so later some of those royal families still exist with the > wholehearted support of the Western powers, Arabs and Muslims are still > denied basic freedoms, there is little democracy, the oil is still Denied their basic freedoms by their own people. > controlled by the West and most people in the Middle East live in abject You have got it backwards. If anything, the West is controlled by the oil. None of the OPEC countries pay much attention to the US when setting their prices, and the current recovery in the US economy has become sluggish in part due to the high oil prices. > poverty. The money from the oil is not being used to further the lives of > the people, rather it is being horded by the same royal families (or > western installed dictators, such as Hosni Mubarak and formerly Saddam > Hussein and the Shah of Iran) and spent buying huge amounts of American, > French and British weapons to defend them from their own people. First, that is a matter between Arab rulers and their own people. Second, Iran is not an Arab country but an example of a country where the US *did* screw up. Third, Saddam Hussein was not *installed* by the West. > Is it any wonder that these people hate the West so much? Iran is a First. Yes, it is a wonder. Saudi Arabians are oppressed by the House of Saud, not the Western democracies. The only difference is that terrorists in Saudi Arabia who plot against the House of Saud usually get beheaded. The democracies offer a softer target, and thanks to the media coverage, a louder target. Second. Even if you argue that Western countries support these regimes, there are any number of countries with autocratic governments that are friendly to the democratic world. Space here provided for you list people of the following nationalities who have committed acts of murder and butchery against civilians in democratic countries : 1. Filipinos during the time of Marcos. 2. Chinese ever since 1973. 3. Indians prior to 1947. 4. Argentines prior to 80's. 5. South African blacks prior to 1980 or so. 6. Even Iranians after 1953. Its time to face it. This predisposition to kill large number of non-combatant civilians of a third country to make political statements is almost a uniquely Arab fundamentalist / Islamic fundamentalist trait. So before brainlessly laying the blame at the door of the democracies, you could profit from some logical analysis of your statements. > perfect > example of what the results of this policy have created. Desperate people Perhaps the only example. > turn to anyone who offers them freedom. Instead of fostering freedom > movements that would install democracy in the Middle East, the West has > gone > out of its way to undermine such activity. So along walks Osama and > offers > the Arabs freedom from the Western colonialists. This is his power. It Screeching the brakes, here. Colonialism ? Do you know what colonialism is/was ? > is not religious fanaticism, although religion forms part of his > philosophy in > much the way that George Bush claims to talk to his deity. Al Queda's > fight is a War of Independence from the Western colonial powers, > particularly the > United States. Or at least that is the way that they see it. Murderers and butchers often find nice sounding reasons for their cruelty. Yes, Bush is a religious fanatic, but I did not hear him launching an armed struggle for Jesus prior to 9-11. I don't care for what kind of language he uses, but I say, after 9-11, nuke the #$#***$s. If he wants to say that he invaded Afghanistan to please the great Greek god Zeus, he can go right ahead. > The Bush administration's statements that Arabs hate Americans because > Americans are free and wealthy is absolute poppycock. That concept is Yes, it is poppycock. The real reason is that these Islamic fundamentalist butchers would do this no matter what. But Bush is not going to say something so politically incorrect. > completely idiotic since very few Arabs have ever been to the United > States. However, as a kind of corollary, it is true that many Arabs hate US media reaches all parts of the world. > the foreign policy of the American and British governments since it is > that policy which prevents the Arabs from being free. Free from whom ? Their own people. How many marines guard the life of the Saudi royal family ? > Anyone who has spent time in Ireland has seen the very prominent "Brits go > home" signs that adorn Irish port facilities or knows about the thousands > of live that have been shed trying to drive the British from their four > hundred > year occupation of Northern Ireland. All students of American history And most Brits who were killed were either the Protestants who live in Northen Ireland or British troops. How many thousand British civilians in the heart of London or Manchester were murdered by IRA ? > remember the phrase "No taxation without representation" or "One if by > land or two by sea" and all the other rallying cries of the most > successful Yes, and you might also want to add the number of British civilians killed in London by American terrorists. > revolution in history. When Kenyans fought for their freedom from the > British imperialists, Jomo Kenyatta's mow mow (?) fighters were savage > fighters who used as much barbarism as their British overlords and beat > the Was that barbarism directed at British civilians in the UK ? > Brits at their own game. Kenyatta became a model politician after > independence. His nationality was Kenyan. The British governor general (or whatever) was British. Last time I checked the nationality of the Saudi royal house was Saudi and they were ethnically, linguistically Arabs and religiously, fundamentalist Muslims. And the ethnicity and religion of Osama Bin Laden is ? <rest of the twaddle snipped> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.