Osomir
VIP Member
- Jun 4, 2013
- 2,830
- 164
No worries, I was born and raised in one of those shit holes and I can read and speak most of the languages in that area. So when I am saying mid east is a paradise for depression, I base it on something, "a real life experience", unlike just putting words on the air.
In middle east, if you want popular support, you have to be against west. This has been the same way starting from the Ottoman, 1800s, when west was superior in technology and muslim military power was fading. Than when British and German started with their struggle for oil, Brits got the Arabs back, Germans got the Turks back, and they both had the same policy, throw shit to the other side. Bot sides claimed the other one was allied with infidels. And that has not changed a bit from that point on. They have a reason each time they fuck up now. Army suporters claim Morsi got the western support, the infidels, so should be punished. And Morsi supporters claim army got the western support, and should be punished
Look at Turkey for instance, the most "democratic" and close to the west state, in the last protests, both sides, again, claimed the other side being backed by the western powers.
This is the reality of the mid east. It is a tradition of politics. You can not even exist, without blaming it on the west. This is how it worked as long as I have known myself, and able to track back in the history. My whole childhood was listening stories how west did that, did this, just like how you guys listened to the same stories against the communists. You were lucky communism no more. It is not easy to get out of this loop, for a society that has been in it for the last 200 years, tough like a mother...
So; to summarize, mid east is doomed till they figure out blaming it on others will not help you solve your problems, like Chinese did long time ago.
I don't know where exactly you are from or what your family background is like, but given my own experience in counter-terrorism, and Middle Eastern and African political affairs I still find it to be grossly overly simplistic.
You also addressed neither the Arab Spring, nor the existence of many of Al Qaeda's affiliates who are all largely regionally focused despite their ideological commitment to targeting the US.
Perhaps if I knew what country you were from originally I could utilize an example in your own country's / region's history.
We can take Syria as an example, since it is a hot topic. What does Arab Spring mean for Syria? Who is fighting whom for what reason?
As far as my knowledge on the region is concerned, there are 2 camps all over the area. One is the military, effected by the nationalist ideas of the west during its encounter in a desperate act of modernization; and the islamists camp, like muslim brotherhood and varieties, who see western freedom ideas as a tool rather than a target.
Once upon a time there was more variety in the political scene, like socialists and liberals, but the cold war made it impossible for them to gain any ground against those main stream camps. So the traditional politics of the middle east depends on these 2 camps struggling each other. A political party has no chance in any election, democratic or not, if they can not penetrate in either of these. So as a politician, you either a secularist against islamists, or an islamist against secularists. I can show this same pattern in any nation, with or without the so called Arab Spring, that did not have a revolutionary power vacuum like Iran, which the same pattern applied before the revolution.
Well once again I think this is an oversimplification, and a dangerous one at that. There are much more than two camps in Syria. A lot more. In the general arenas, you have Alawites and other minorities, you have pan-Arabists, moderate Islamists, Salafists, other jihadi groups, liberal and secular rebel organizations, Lebanese forces in the form of Hezbollah (who are both Islamists and on the side of the Syrian government) and Iranian support of the government in power as well.
You have scores of different major actors here. Lumping them simply into two camps is an oversimplification that will ensure that anyone utilizing it won't have any real idea about what is going on within the Syrian conflict. The conflict itself began as a much more secular conflict against the government. The demographics of the rebels changes constantly, but while most are Muslims and have their own differing levels of religious zeal, most are also not members of Islamist groups. The opposition depends heavily on local revolutionaries (local and in community oriented within Syria). There are some moderate Islamist groups like Suquor Al Sham and the Umma Brigade, then there are more extreme groups like Ahrar Al-Sham and then of course your full on Salafist groups who also court foreign fighters such as Al Nusra.
These groups aren't all unified (one of the reasons why the government has been able to launch an effective counter attack against them), just the other day Salafis killed a leader within the Free Syrian Army.
Lumping them together obscures the reality of what is going on.
Apologies for the delay in my response I get pretty busy with work.