The Arab Uprisings Have Gone Too Far

[GIGObuster]

@xtisme

I know you were moderating, and perhaps it’s a hijack of the, um, debate, but…why? They seem pretty comparable to me on just about every count, including the numbers of bodies.

-XT

The corporations and industrialists that supported and put the fascists in power came out of the war still standing. IMHO it is a twisted lesson that I fear remains in the back of the minds of many current industrialists.

I still prefer the Britannica definition:

fascism, Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.

Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and ’30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

-Britannica

Communism nations are still pretty bad, as they ignored democracy.

[Frank]

@Commissar

I watched the Tunisian uprising with some small measure of excitement. I cheered when the Egyptians toppled their brutal pro-American dictatorship. I happily daydreamed about further revolutions in American lapdog nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq. I happily imagined a strong, united, prosperous Arab world; a land that rejected the West and its antiquated political and economic theories, a land that followed its own path into a bright future…

Unfortunately, somewhere along this path, the new Arab dawn veered completely off course. Instead of a glorious uprising against the parasitical monarchical oligarchs of Saudi Arabia, we got… bloody protests against Colonel Gaddafi?!? Am I the only one that finds this entirely revolting and unacceptable?

Contrary to widespread Western propaganda, few individuals have done more for the Arab world than our comrade Colonel Gaddafi. In an age when kissing the West’s filthy posterior became the norm rather than the exception in the Muslim world, the Colonel bravely stood up to the West and its corrupt mentality. In an age when Arab dictators raped and plundered their nations, the Colonel selflessly dedicated himself to lifting Libya out of its quagmire using the power of socialism. In an age when nations glowered at each other with loathing and distrust, the Colonel tirelessly pursued policies of pan-Arabism and pan-Africanism.

Clearly, this man is a hero – not just for Arabs, nor just for Muslims, and not even only for Africans. Colonel Gaddafi is a hero for all of mankind, and I for one find it deeply disturbing that a rabid pack of traitors is now trying to destroy his government. If he is forced out of power, it will be a terrible loss for the entire world. It is my sincere hope that he is able to weather this storm and to crush this despicable treachery once and for all.

Just out of idle curiousity, you are aware that Tunisians, Libyans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Iranians, et. al. are not Arabs, right?

[Peremensoe]

Except for Iran, majorities of these countries are ethnic Arabs, or related “Arabized” ethnicities. Except for Iran, they are all members of the Arab League.

[XT]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Communism nations are still pretty bad, as they ignored democracy.
[/QUOTE]

Well…communist nations are still in existence, so that would make them worse by default to fascist countries who, afaik, don’t. Depending on what’s under the kilt of one’s Scotsman, of course.

-XT

[Frank]

Related “Arabized” ethnicities. :rolleyes: That’s nonsense. Egyptians, Berbers, etc. are not Arabs. Some NATO members don’t touch the North Atlantic.

That said, I’ll add that none of these national protests/revolutions in Northern Africa and Arabia involve war crimes or genocide, and I firmly believe that there is no reason for any nation or supra-national organization to intervene in that nation’s internal affairs.

To the extent that Libya appears to be the bloodiest so far, it also appears to be a simple civil war, and Libya should be left to settle it amongst themselves.

[Guinastasia]

@Frank

Just out of idle curiousity, you are aware that Tunisians, Libyans, Egyptians, Iraqis, Iranians, et. al. are not Arabs, right?

Actually, Iraqis ARE Arab. Iranians, however, are not.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Guinastasia

Actually, Iraqis ARE Arab. Iranians, however, are not.

Not all Iraqi citizens which include Kurds and Assyrians.

[GIGObuster]

@xtisme

Well…communist nations are still in existence, so that would make them worse by default to fascist countries who, afaik, don’t. Depending on what’s under the kilt of one’s Scotsman, of course.

-XT

I would have to say that Singapore and other modern autocracies come close or keep fascism alive, it is different from Nazism as it does not include AFAIK a racist component.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Marley23

Remove the prejudice, hatred and murder from Nazism and you no longer have Nazism; Communism can at least exist without those kinds of flaws. I’m not going to argue about how it’s played out historically.
Count as what? As I said, those people are generally allowed to post here as long as they remain civil. And since you’ve named yourself after a Chinese autocrat who was not averse to indiscriminate slaughter, I’m not sure if this is an argument you want to make.

Count as comparable to Nazis. And defending a dictator in ancient times who did brutal things but so did everyone else during that time to someone who did it in modern times when most of the world knew better is different.

[Marley23]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

And defending a dictator in ancient times who did brutal things but so did everyone else during that time to someone who did it in modern times when most of the world knew better is different.

I disagree; the reasons tyrants kill people have changed very little over the last couple of millennia. And with that I think we can conclude this hijack and return to the main topic of the thread.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Anyone who thinks Egyptians and Arabic-speaking Tunisians an Libyans aren’t Arabs needs to learn more about the region.

[XT]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
I would have to say that Singapore and other modern autocracies come close or keep fascism alive, it is different from Nazism as it does not include AFAIK a racist component.
[/QUOTE]

Singapore:

Government and politics
Main articles: Government of Singapore and Politics of Singapore

Singapore is a parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government representing different constituencies. The Constitution of Singapore establishes representative democracy as the nation’s political system.[32] The People’s Action Party (PAP) dominates the political process and has won control of Parliament in every election since self-government in 1959.[33] Freedom House ranks Singapore as “partly free” in its “Freedom in the World report”[34] and The Economist ranks Singapore as a “hybrid regime”, the third rank out of four, in its “Democracy Index”.[35] Singapore has consistently been rated as one of the least corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International.[36][37]

The bulk of the executive powers rests with the cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister. The office of President of Singapore, historically a ceremonial one, was granted some veto powers in 1991 for a few key decisions such as the use of the national reserves and the appointment of judicial positions. Although the position is to be elected by popular vote, only the 1993 election has been contested to date. The legislative branch of government is the Parliament.[38]

Parliamentary elections in Singapore are plurality-based for group representation constituencies since the Parliamentary Elections Act was modified in 1991.[39] Members of Parliament (MPs) consist of elected, non-constituency and nominated Members. The majority of MPs are elected to Parliament at a General Election on a first-past-the-post basis and represent either Single Member or Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs).[40]

Although Singapore’s laws are inherited from English and British Indian laws, and include many elements of English common law, in some respects they have departed from that tradition since independence. For example, trial by jury has been abolished. Singapore has laws and penalties that include judicial corporal punishment in the form of caning for offences such as rape, violence, rioting, drug use, vandalism of property, and some immigration offences.[41][42] Singapore also imposes a mandatory death penalty for first-degree murder, drug-trafficking, and firearms offences.[43] Amnesty International said that “a series of clauses in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Offences Act contain presumptions of guilt, conflicting with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and eroding the right to a fair trial”, and has estimated that Singapore has “possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population”.[44] The government states that Singapore has the sovereign right to determine its own judicial system and impose what it sees as an appropriate punishment.[45] The government disputed many points in the Amnesty report in detail. They said that in the five years to 2004, 101 Singaporeans and 37 foreigners had been executed, all but 28 for drugs-related offences.[45] Amnesty listed 408 executions between 1991 and 2003 from government and other sources, out of a population of about four million.[44]

A survey by Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) of expatriate business executives in September 2008 found that those surveyed considered that Hong Kong and Singapore had the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst: Hong Kong’s judicial system scored 1.45 on the scale (zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst); Singapore with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93), the Philippines (6.10), Malaysia (6.47), India (6.50), Thailand (7.00), China (7.25), Vietnam (8.10) and Indonesia (8.26).[46]

They don’t seem to be very fascist to me, in either spirit or letter, but then you might be using a different definition of that term. It’s certainly not remotely like Nazism, though.

-XT

[Frank]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

And defending a dictator in ancient times who did brutal things but so did everyone else during that time to someone who did it in modern times when most of the world knew better is different.

Your namesake was recognized as particularly brutal and cruel even during his own time and in living memory of that time. His brutality and cruelty is not something that sprang from the brow of Athena in the last century of Western thought.

And leaving that aside, what other dictator in ancient times deliberately burned the books of his country’s history and culture? There’s a perfectly good reason why the known history of China and of Chinese culture prior to your namesake is iffy.

[Frank]

@Marley23

And with that I think we can conclude this hijack and return to the main topic of the thread.

OK. I’ll do that too.

[GIGObuster]

@xtisme

Singapore:

They don’t seem to be very fascist to me, in either spirit or letter, but then you might be using a different definition of that term. It’s certainly not remotely like Nazism, though.

-XT

The People’s Action Party (PAP) dominates the political process and has won control of Parliament in every election since self-government in 1959

That in itself would be a joke if used in the Latin America of the past, when nations like Mexico had a single party ruling thing for so long it was an open secret that it was a dictatorship with a patina of democracy, what I grant is that the patina in Singapore is favored by the majority of Singaporeans, but then again, some fascists in Europe also had that.

It can not be healty IMHO to have just one party and ruler for that long, before 2006 the opposition had only two seats in the parliament.

[Kozmik]

@Frank

That said, I’ll add that none of these national protests/revolutions in Northern Africa and Arabia involve war crimes or genocide, and I firmly believe that there is no reason for any nation or supra-national organization to intervene in that nation’s internal affairs.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights says Colonel Qaddafi’s use of lethal force may constitute crimes against humanity.

- The New York Times

@GIGObuster

I still prefer the Britannica definition

I prefer it also. Thank you for being the first to bring a source upon which we can all disagree. :rolleyes:

@Frank

OK. I’ll do that too.

Let the debate begin. You have Encyclopaedia Britannica and *The New York Times *as the sources and any other sources you wish to introduce in your rebuttal.

Your move.

[Cheshire_Human]

@Magiver

Commissar, I don’t know if you’re serious or wooshing everybody but Gaddafi is hiring supporters. This is your chance to make money on your convictions.

Problem is, he’s on record in one of those other two previously linked threads as not knowing how to get out of the US.

Unlike the rest of us Americans, who would, you know, buy a plane, bus, train, or boat ticket, grab our passports, and head out. The only officials who would think to stop you are the customs agents of the country you’re going too. No one here cares if you leave.

[FinnAgain]

The nature of the argument is clear. Just like the whole schtick that:

‘Qadaffi’s thugs have definitely not machinegunned women and children who were protesting and… Wait, what? There are witness reports? Oh, and forensic evidence? Oh, and video of the forensic evidence? Well, erm… I’d only like to mention the eyewitness testimony and ignore the rest. Also, ya know, er… we really can’t say whether not protestors have been machinegunned. What’s that? What do you mean that I, myself, made a definitive statement that they had not? No, I do not see how that is relevant.’

[Frank]

@Kozmik

Let the debate begin. You have Encyclopaedia Britannica and *The New York Times *as the sources and any other sources you wish to introduce in your rebuttal.

Huh? I was belatedly agreeing with a mod note that I should not continue discussion of an Emperor of China. What did you think I was agreeing with?

[XT]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
The nature of the argument is clear. Just like the whole schtick that:

‘Qadaffi’s thugs have definitely not machinegunned women and children who were protesting and… Wait, what? There are witness reports? Oh, and forensic evidence? Oh, and video of the forensic evidence? Well, erm… I’d only like to mention the eyewitness testimony and ignore the rest. Also, ya know, er… we really can’t say whether not protestors have been machinegunned. What’s that? What do you mean that I, myself, made a definitive statement that they had not? No, I do not see how that is relevant.’
[/QUOTE]

Personally, I’d go with the Twinky Defense. Knowing the OP, however, I’d say that he will probably fall back on how this is all being made up by the Western Media to simply make Kaddafi and the glorious Libyan Socialist Revolution look bad, and how it’s not really happening (except by obviously western sponsored counter-revolutionaries, malcontents and terrorists who are the only ones actually using machine guns on civilian men, women and children).

-XT