ERDOGAN; THE TROJAN HORSE OF TERROR: By Ghassan Kadi

http://thesaker.is/erdogan-the-trojan-horse-of-terror/

Erdogan: the Trojan Horse of Terror

43347 ViewsDecember 08, 2015 92 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Love him or hate him, Erdogan has been a survivor; a hero for some, and a stick in the mud that would not go away for many more others. He has thus far managed to dodge many serious decisive moments, the last of which was the recent parliamentary elections that he won with flying colours despite the predictions of many analysts, including myself, that he was destined to lose abysmally.

Even though the November elections did not give Erdogan the 66% majority that would enable him to change the constitution, after being in power for more than a decade, his initial domestic financial successes, one would imagine, became plagued by his failed regional gambles in Syria, however, the November elections came to give Erdogan a new lifeline that he himself perhaps did not believe he was going to achieve.

With this win, Erdogan felt invincible. For an Islamist, and this is what Erdogan is, feeling invincible takes on a whole new meaning.

This is a simplistic translation of a Quranic verse: “If God is by your side, no one can defeat you” (Quran 3:160).

Erdogan believes he is invincible because he believes that he is on a mission and that God is by his side. If he had any reason to doubt this divine role he believes he has, the November election results put that doubt to rest.

Many people of different religions believe God is on their side and have done this throughout the ages, but in this age of ISIL, it is rather difficult for a non-Muslim to imagine the impact on an Islamist’s mind to believe that he is invincible because God is on his side. It is seen as a license to do as one pleases, a carte blanche, and a mandate to act at will.

After the downing of the Russian Su-24, many conspiracy theories were proposed, and this is not unusual. The big questions that many analysts and observers tried to, and are still trying to resolve, is what made Erdogan do it and who was behind his decision.

There are two main possibilities; Erdogan either acted on his own accord or in conjunction with a second party. The second party can only be the United States. It cannot be NATO because the European side of NATO is currently bogged down in trying to establish where Europe should place its focus and action in the wake of the Paris attacks. And even though the EU seems to have recently rewarded Turkey by granting it funds to curb the influx of refugees and for making more promises regarding the prospect of Turkey joining the EU, France is adamant about fighting ISIL and Hollande’s recent trip to Moscow and subsequent military involvement in the skies of Syria speak volumes.

Even the UK and Germany have joined the fight, not so much under a Russian umbrella, but the European determination to fight ISIL seems to be gaining momentum.

So did the USA whisper in Erdogan’s ear to make him shoot down a Russian jet?

If the answer is yes, then both parties, ie the USA and Turkey, would have something to gain from this action. Many theories have been put forward in an attempt to explain what America would gain, but in reality, they do not hold any ground at all given that such action can evoke a full-on confrontation between America and Russia.

Even the foolhardy George W Bush would not risk an all-out war with Russia. Why would Obama do it now and for what reason?

Obama had, and still has, his chance to intimidate Putin militarily if he wishes to do so in Ukraine. If anything, any such intimidation would be more effective given the location of Ukraine relative to Russia. So why would America choose Turkey to intimidate Russia if this can be better done in Ukraine? No logical answer can be found, because there isn’t one.

Perhaps some early clues emerged in the outcome of the extraordinary NATO meeting that Turkey asked for almost immediately after shooting down the Russian jet.

The NATO meeting defended Turkey’s right to protect its sovereignty. It is not unusual for an organization like NATO to defend one of its members. The subtle messages however have to be read in between the lines.

The meeting reached the conclusion that this matter was up to Turkey and Russia to resolve. Obama made it much clearer when he said that “Turkey and Russia must talk and de-escalate”.

What must be gleaned from this is that NATO, and of course America, are both distancing themselves from Turkey on this count. If Turkey wants to fight Russia, they are implying, Turkey will have to do this alone. The USA’s refusal to accept Russian evidence on the oil smuggling business between ISIL and Turkey is nothing more than cheap talk. This is not to forget that as the USA refutes such evidence, it is at the same time calling Turkey to close its borders with Syria.

What does this say about the big question as to who was behind the decision to shoot down the Su-24?

There is little doubt that the decision was Turkish and only Turkish.

The self-proclaimed invincible Erdogan has taken yet another huge gamble, believing that God is by his side and that he will defeat the “infidels”.

When Turkey became a NATO member, the world was different, the power structure was different, the ideologies were different, and it is truly a comedy of errors that in the time of global war against Islamic terrorism, Turkey continues to be a NATO member when it is one of the biggest supporters of Islamism. But the West is yet to wake up.

NATO cannot abandon Turkey all out, and there is no reason for it to do so either. That said, there must be some growing European unrest, especially in France, as to how to deal with a NATO member that is clearly supporting ISIL.

Whatever the intricate details within NATO may be and what goes on behind the scenes, Russia knows well that Erdogan stands alone in his offensive. NATO will not support him.

The onus is now on Russia to decide how to deal with the aftermath of the downing of the Su-24. Contrary to the rhetoric of many cynics who see that President Putin has been cornered, in reality, he has many options and he is in the rightful and privileged position to be the one who can make the choice.

One must admit that nearly two weeks after the downing of the Su-24, the mosaic of forces that have come into play is making the situation volatile and requires a lot of wisdom on the part of Russia for it to be contained and prevented from causing a serious escalation.

That said, there is no doubt that Russia holds the key and has the military presence that is most dominant. Russia can respond in many different ways according to her own choosing. In between the extreme options of taking it on the chin and nuking Ankara, and/or having a full-on confrontation with NATO forces in Syria and beyond, Russia has a myriad of choices; all of which can downsize Erdogan putting him in the corner in which he belongs.

It would be shortsighted to even think that the quick punitive measures that Russia took against Turkey are going to be sufficient. Discouraging Russian tourists of visiting Turkey and canceling military cooperation, and even suspending the TurkStream project and other similar measures, hardly constitute what one would put in the basket of a befitting punitive measure given what Turkey has done. It is not about tomato trade as Putin has clearly put it recently.

However, any escalation resulting from a Russian “retaliation” would be unwise, and can lead Russia into a military bog that she does not need.

The deployment of the frigate Moskva with its S-400 arsenal is realistically more of a media stunt and cannot be effective if those highly effective surface-to-air missiles are to be deployed from the Mediterranean against targets in far eastern Syria. After all, even with their enormous 10-Mach plus speed, they become virtually ineffective if used against enemy planes engaged in a dogfight hundreds of kilometers away. Such surface to air missiles will need to be planted alongside the Turkish-Syrian borders. In the meantime, Russian air-to-air missiles will do the job.

Even though individual NATO countries have made presence for themselves in Syria, and even though America is sending troops to Kurdish-controlled Northern Syria, Russia continues to deal with them as partners in the war against ISIL; albeit without a central command that unites them. In reality however, with its surface-to-air, sea-to-air and air-to-air defenses, Russia controls who can and who cannot fly in the skies of Syria.

Moscow and Damascus should therefore “use” those forces for as long as they are bombing ISIS and avoid any confrontation with them at all cost. All the while, Moscow and Damascus should continue with their resolve to free up the Idlib-Aleppo region, which is conveniently close to the Mediterranean and the defense systems bases already on the ground, with a special attention and focus on moving north towards the Turkish borders. This move must be done whilst sticking to two major rules; 1) providing air defense to fighter bombers using interceptor jets which will be ready to shoot down anything that looks least suspicious, and 2) trying hard to avoid any deliberate confrontation not only with NATO, but also with Turkey.

The more Turkish loyal forces currently located in Syria get pushed away north towards Turkey, the more Erdogan is going to feel most intimidated and hurt. Later on, the more the get pushed east, it will hurt Turkey even more.

As Syrian troops supported by Russian air power liberate the Aleppo region, S-400 batteries will need to be deployed in those newly-liberated regions, on the ground, and the push to take land back from the terrorists should move east with more and more S-400 batteries deployed to eventually cover the 1000 Km border line between Syrian and Turkey. There is no better humiliation for Turkey than doing just this, without creating any reason for a major escalation.

Russia must also remain steadfast in her support to her key reliable partner in the war; the Syrian Army.

The world is changing, and Europe is definitely the best place to witness this change. Had Erdogan decided to shoot down a Russian jet prior to the Paris attacks, he might have got some sympathy from his EU partners in NATO, but a lot has changed ever since the Black Friday of Paris, and the European focus is now on fighting terrorism and curbing the influx of refugees with the full knowledge that they will be infiltrated by Islamist terrorists.

If Europe has not woken up to the fact that Turkey is and has been supporting ISIL despite all the evidence, it must surely and finally realized that Turkey is and has been the gate keeper of the so-called Syrian migrants who have been infiltrated by Islamist terrorists. The “bribe” money offered to Erdogan to stop refugees is a testimony of this realization. Unless they are all absolute morons, someone in Europe must at least be beginning to realize that Turkey is not a strategic NATO partner, but rather an Islamist Trojan Horse.

Again, there is little doubt that Erdogan has acted alone. In his action, he is putting much at stake, including a confrontation with Russia at a time that Europe, especially France, is trying to be Russia’s partner in the war against terror, and at a time in which NATO would go out of its way to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia.

Any speculation that Erdogan was pushed by his senior partners is most unlikely.

Back to how Erdogan regards himself as “the” protector of Islam and the “one” whose support comes directly from up above.

As an Islamist first and foremost and a Turkish nationalist second, Erdogan sees himself as the custodian of Islam and Muslims. He is not against ISIL in its ideology and doctrine. He is only sometimes against it when its decisions do not match his own or do not come from his command room.

He has thus far survived tumultuous events domestically, regionally, and internationally.
He managed to fool the Saudis and Qataris and used their funds to establish his own dreams. He now even wants to build a military base in Qatar. He smiles to the Israelis and plays the partner game with them. He has capitalized on the NATO status of Turkey, a status it achieved when Islamist terrorism did not exist and when Turkey was a very secular country. He smiles to the Iranians and even struck huge business deals with Russia. Many find him hard to understand, because they do not really look at his Islamist agenda.

Despite many policy failures, he is still standing. A survivor he may well be, but Erdogan will eventually fall on his sword.

In downing the Su-24, it is highly likely that he has finally bitten much more than he can chew. This is potentially the mistake of his life that will bring him tumbling down.

Give any megalomaniac enough rope, and he will hang himself. Erdogan is no exception.

THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS IS AT THE ELYSEE. Summary from Assafir Daily By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi

THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS IS AT THE ELYSEE

Summary and Analysis of Today’s Assafir  Article on the Paris Attacks.
Ghassan and Intibah Kadi

17 NovembEr 2015

Another brilliant article from Assafir’s Mohommed Ballout.  This time he is analysing the political fallout from the Paris attacks.    Assafir is the leading daily in Lebanon and at the forefront of supporting the Axis of Resistance.

Contrary to many current conspiracy theories that are running rampant, each trying to give an interpretation that coincides with their own political framework, fears, prejudices or paranoia, Ballout’s analysis of the causes and the aftermath of the Friday the 13^th attacks are measured, objective and well informed.

Summary: The repercussions start right at the top and at the Elysee to be specific. Once France is back in business its politicians from both sides of the divide, together with journalists, scholars and so on, will have to painfully re-evaluate everything that France has been doing.

Hollande is hoping to get the same unanimous support he received after the Charlie Hebdo massacre back in January.  However, the circumstances back then were very different. The Charlie Hebdo attack was a result of the magazine’s depictions of Prophet Muhammad, but the Black Friday attacks were the direct result of failed French politics in the Middle East.

The French President will be facing a major uphill battle trying to prove the public and opposition alike that it was not him who was personally responsible in putting the public at risk.

Former President Sarkozy, who initiated the current French policy in the Middle East, a policy that the incumbent Hollande followed to the letter, is now turning around and demanding that France review its foreign policies and side with Moscow as there should be only one coalition fighting ISIS in Syria.

It has also become very clear to many analysts and politicians within France that the manner in which France has dealt with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has failed and has in fact exacerbated it. There are also serious concerns about France’s stand in weakening the Syrian Army which has been at the forefront of fighting ISIS.  The concerns are further enhanced by the fact that whilst some Islamic organisations continue to be under the control of states such as Qatar and Turkey, ISIS has totally broken loose.

The major area in this concern lies in the inability to understand what ISIS is really all about, how it is rallying and recruiting from all over the globe and how to reach an effective strategy  in order to defeat it.

http://assafir.com/Article/456904

THE FALLACY OF WESTERN STYLE DEMOCRACY. Updated Version 2 Nov 2015 By Ghassan Kadi

* This article was updated from the one written on 12 June 2011
http://thesaker.is/the-fallacy-of-western-style-democracy/

The Fallacy Of Western-Style Democracy

27198 ViewsNovember 02, 2015 89 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Until China surpasses the USA as the world’s strongest economic power, if it hasn’t already, and until the different nations of the world make up their minds as to who is the mightiest of them all; America or Russia, the West continues to be seen leading the world in many different aspects; least of which is in its arrogance.

Despite its failing family values, drug addiction problems, corruption, growing divide between the haves and have nots, huge economic crises just to name a few problems, the West has the audacity to present itself as a model for the rest of the world to aspire to.

Undoubtedly, the West has had great foundations. They go back to ancient Greece and Christianity. Had the West really and truly followed the ancient Greek wisdom and proper Christianity, it would not have succumbed to the level of moral bankruptcy that it has reached now.

Western civilization was overrun by human greed and by archaic royal regimes that regarded their citizens as serfs and property. The French revolution was a great step in the right direction, but not enough to put the path of the West on the straight and narrow.

As the Western mind was liberated by the works of European philosophers, scientists, artists and musicians, ancient monarchies had to move with the times thereby adopting democracy and giving their people a say.

Democracy in essence means the rule of people. In theory, it is a great concept; if and when applied properly and to the right people.

The objective here is not to have a philosophical discussion per se, but we have to go back to the philosophical background of the concept.

The ancient Greek philosophers promoted the idea of autocracy of the sages. A system in which the ruler is one who had never sought to be head of state, and if anything, one who would very reluctantly accept this enormously responsible position and rather pushed to accept. Symbolically, the Speaker of the House in some Western countries continues to be physically pushed by colleagues upon his/her inauguration all the way to his/her chair.

The concept is well explained in Plato’s Republic, but in fact was put into practice by Plato’s supreme teacher, Pythagoras. The school of Pythagoras was a small group of people headed by the great wise man Pythagoras himself. Over and above his wisdom and profound knowledge, he was a just and fair “ruler” who did not want any personal gain for himself. His ultimate objective was to lead his people to better life and to better philosophical/spiritual understanding of life and its purpose.

His school was the epitome of teaching wisdom with what comes with it including humility, self-control and respect. It was a difficult school to get into, and novices had to take a vow of silence that could last for a number of years after joining.

Greek politicians eyed the school with suspicion. They were simply unable to understand what Pythagoras was trying to do and why. They grew jealous of the state of esteem by which he was regarded amongst his people. They subsequently found in the school a threat to their dominion and power. They had to find a way to close it down and so they accused Pythagoras of totalitarian dictatorship. His school was eventually attacked and demolished culminating in one of the most tragic moments in human history and a resulting in a great opportunity missed that humanity did not have the chance to learn from much. More than two thousand years later, humanity by-and-large has not yet woken up to the enormity of that moment in history. If anything, it is an event that has been forgotten and ignored.

In reality, the concept of democracy developed as the anti-thesis of what is better known as the Plato’s Republic model. It was not the result of an evolution in civil law, but rather that of failure to understand, adopt and adhere to the lofty principles of Pythagoras.

Let us jump from ancient Greece to the post-French Revolution West. The West regarded democracy as the epitome of civil law. The word became synonymous with freedom, justice, equality, and many virtues that do not directly relate to the literal meaning of democracy at all.

With adopting democracy, the power of the individual became one exercised in polling and voting. Once again, in essence, if democracy is practised properly, then it can lead to some of those afore-mentioned virtues. There is however a big provisor. The majority will have to make the right judgement.

Some would argue that if the majority wants a demon to rule them, then they should get a demon. This is how democracy works. In reality, a demon cannot and will not rule with justice and his/her rule will create many innocent victims domestically, abroad, or in both.

Even if democracy is practised properly therefore, there is always a major concern about the majority of people choosing the right person for the top job. What if they don’t? What if a country overtaken by fear goes and elects a ruler who is dangerous? After all, Adolf Hitler was elected. Those who would dispute this and argue that Hitler rigged his rise to power can look forward in time and further west to the USA and remember that George W. Bush was not elected only once, but twice!

Who could imagine that a person with very low intelligence and dogmatic fanatic views of the world would get elected to become the strongest man on earth? But it did happen. Who could guarantee that Sarah Palin will not one day become President? The democratic process allows her. All she needs is enough zealots like herself to vote her in.

Furthermore, the good attributes of democracy have been hijacked by the conniving stealthy dictators who found a loophole in the system. That biggest loophole is the so-called two-party system.

When a Western voter goes to the polls, he/she can only choose between two people that the party machines have picked for him/her to choose from. How is this a representation of the will of the people? This is dictatorship under the guise of freedom of choice. The presence of minor parties in Western style democracies does not change the two-party nature of who ends up in power, needless to say that minor parties do not aspire to challenge the foundations and principles of power duopoly, instead they seek to have enough numbers for them to partake in the same game they allege to want to fight against.

Democracy has been elevated in the West to the level of divinity. One can criticise everything and everyone, a mother is legally allowed to abandon her children and walk away if that makes her feel happy, people utter ugly words of blasphemy, they can ridicule their political rivals and leaders and drag them into the gutters, they make fun of the Queen and Prince Charles’ ears, they make fun of religion and all that is holy, sacrilegious and of prominence, but no one would dare say a single word against democracy and democracy became untouchable.

The real difference between the democracy that the West promotes and dictatorship that it fights is that the latter is under the rule of one person or party and the former is under the rule of one of two parties. This is hardly representative of the will of the majority of people.

Countries like the UK have a very developed and fair judicial system. It would be interesting if someone would sue the major parties for hijacking democracy. There is no reason why donations cannot be collected by some enthusiast to list such a hearing in court and set a precedent. Would High Courts rule against the two party system? We do not know, and this prospect has not been tested; at least not yet.

The non-Western world has its own rules of governess. They don’t always work, but they are not archaic and barbaric as the West would like to portray them to be.

Politics in many non-Western developing nations is primarily in the hands of tribal and/or community leaders. Those leaders act like a council of elders. In many situations and settings they are well-received by the country’s national leader (president). The president has to liaise with them to make sure that they are happy with his leadership and that their own subjects are not going to revolt against him.

There is a form of democracy in action; not one that is based on Western criteria, but it exists.

No one is claiming that such systems always work effectively. Dictators will always find ways to rise to power. They always manage to find ways to suppress the masses and capitalize on public fortunes. The point to be made here is that in this system, the two-party system has no place and no need at all.

And why is it that non-Western countries should need to import the Western-style two-party system and what will the benefit be?

After all, how often do elected Western leaders keep their election promises? When they break them, how often do they get held accountable?

If the West brands non-Western leaders as dictators, it does so whilst totally turning a blind eye to lies and deception that its own leaders make in their rise to power.

To elaborate with examples, among the spate of weapons used against Syrian president Bashar Al Assad in the West is that he is allegedly a dictator. This description has the propensity to brand him as an evil un-democratic man, and a guarantee to stir up hatred towards him. This is an easy word to use to incite hatred; just like how in the past the use of words such as heretic, Indian savage, Jew, Communist stirred up similar emotions.

Assad is not Pythagoras, but Obama is not Plato either. In reality, Assad’s popularity brings his station as a president much closer to real democracy than that of Obama.

Western style democracy reeks with the stench of the invasion of Iraq and the Haliburton contracts and has the ugly face of Rumsfeld.

If democracy truly meant human rights, and it doesn’t, and if it’s alleged protector and defender the USA really cared about those values, it would first and foremost feed and house its own homeless who are the victims of the greed of those in power. Before it sends its fighter jets and drones to kill civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it should be sending food packages and blankets to the residents of Central Park in NYC; those thousands who camp there in subfreezing winter temperatures.

Democracy therefore was not initially the end result of political and ethical reforms of the ancient Greek sages. It was in fact the second best option that the politicians of the time adopted when they realised that the philosophical teachings were going to strip them from power. Democracy was the result of the failure to understand and adopt the wisdom of the great sages.

At best, democracy means giving citizens a say in their governess by enabling them to partake in the decision making of who should their rulers be. But this definition does not intrinsically include justice, morality, freedom of expression, freedom of worship, human rights and all the other attributes that the West insists to associate with democracy.

Western-Style Democracy however is an aberration of democracy; one that does not allow any given individual to compete for the top job on equal par with any other individual. It is a system that has been hijacked and manipulated by the two-party system and the big business that sponsors political parties in pursuit of their own vested interests.

Neither Western-Style Democracy nor democracy is the bee’s knees of human development and pursuit of perfection. They are simply political systems like any other; with their own merits and demerits, strengths and weaknesses, and in adopting them, the West does not have much to be proud of and little argument that supports coercing other nations to adopt them.

Until China takes over the USA as the world’s strongest economic and military power, the West continues to lead the world in many different aspects; least of which is its arrogance.

Despite its failing family values, drug problems, corruption, growing divide between the haves and have nots, the West has the audacity to tell the rest of the world that it should model itself on the West.

The West had great foundations. They go back to ancient Greece and Christianity. Had the West really and truly followed the ancient Greek wisdom and proper Christianity, it would not have succumbed to the level of moral bankruptcy that it has reached now.

But the Western civilization was overtaken by human greed and by ancient royal regimes that regarded its citizens as serfs and property. The glorious French revolution was a great moment in time, when the power of the people stood up against tyranny.

The objective here is not a historic narrative. Rather, it is about today’s Western style democracy.

Democracy in essence means the rule of people. In theory, it is a great concept; if and when applied properly.

The objective here is not to have a philosophical discussion either, but we have to go back to the philosophical background of the concept.

The ancient Greek philosophers promoted the idea of dictatorship of the wise. A dictatorship in which the ruler is one who is not seeking to be the head of the state, and if anything, one who would very reluctantly accept this enormously responsible position.

The concept is well explained in Plato’s Republic, but in fact was put into practice by Plato’s supreme teacher, Pythagoras. The school of Pythagoras was a small group of people headed by the great wise man Pythagoras. He was a just and fair ruler who did not want any personal gain for himself. His ultimate objective was to lead his people to better life and to better philosophical/spiritual understanding of life.

His “political” rivals accused him of totalitarian dictatorship. They were simply unable to understand what he was trying to do, and also jealous of the state of esteem by which he was regarded amongst his people. His school was attacked and demolished. That was one of the saddest moments in human history. Humanity has not yet woken up to the enormity of that moment.

The concept of democracy developed as the anti-thesis of the better known Plato’s Republic model.

Let us jump from ancient Greece to the post-French revolution West. The West regarded democracy as the epitome of civil law. The word became synonymous with freedom, justice, equality, and many virtues that do not necessarily relate to democracy at all.

Once again, in essence, if democracy is practised properly, then it can mean some of those virtues. There is however a big provisor. The majority will have to make the right judgement.

Some would argue that if the majority wants a demon to rule them, then they should get a demon. This is how democracy works. In reality, a demon cannot and will not rule with justice and his/her rule will create many innocent victims.

So even if democracy is practised properly, there is always a major concern about the majority of people choosing the right person for the top job. What if they don’t? What if a country is overtaken by fear goes and elects a ruler who is dangerous? After all, Adolf Hitler was elected. Those who would dispute that Hitler rigged his rise to power can look further West to the USA and remember that George W. Bush was not elected only once, but twice!

Who could imagine that a person with very low intelligence and dogmatic fanatic views of the world would get elected to become the strongest man on earth? But it did happen. Who could guarantee that Sarah Palin will not one day become President? The democratic process allows it. All she needs is enough morons to vote her in.

Furthermore, the good attributes of democracy have been hijacked by the conniving dictators who found a loophole in the system. That biggest loophole is the so-called two-party system.

When a Western voter goes to the polls, he/she is choosing between two people that the party machines have picked for him/her to choose. How is this a representation of the will of the people? This is dictatorship under the guise of freedom.

The sad reality is that in the West one can criticise everything and every one, but democracy cannot be touched. People utter ugly words of blasphemy, they ridicule their political rivals and drag them into the gutters, they make fun of the Queen and Prince Charles’ ears, they make fun of religion and all that is holy and of prominence, but no one would dare say a single word against democracy.

The real difference between the democracy that the West promotes and dictatorship that it fights is that the former is under the rule of one and the latter is under the rule of one of two.

Countries like the UK have a very developed and fair judicial system. It would be great if some rich person who is interested in human justice would sue the major parties for hijacking democracy. There is no reason why donations cannot be collected by some enthusiast to list such a hearing in court and set a precedent. Would it not be great if say the UK bans the two-party system and its monopoly of power?

The East has its own rules of governess. They don’t always work, but they are not archaic and barbaric as the West would like to portray them to be.

Politics in the Middle East is primarily in the hands of tribal leaders and/or community leaders. Those leaders act like a council for the supreme leader (ie president). The president has to liaise with them to make sure that they are happy with his leadership and that their own subjects are not going to revolt against him.

There is a form of democracy in action; not one that is based on Western criteria, but it exists.

No one is claiming that the Middle East system always works effectively. Dictators will always find ways to rise to power. They always manage to find ways to suppress the masses and capitalize on public fortunes. The point to be made here is that in this system, the two-party system has no place at all. And why would the Middle East need to import the two-party system any way?

How often does an elected Western leader keep his/her election promises? When they break them, they become cheats, do they not? If the West brands a Middle Eastern leader as dictator, why does it not brand its own leaders as cheats? What is worse, being a dictator or being a cheat?

Among the spate of weapons used against Bashar Al Assad in the West is that he is allegedly a dictator. This description has the propensity to brand him as an evil un-democratic man, and a guarantee to stir up hatred towards him. This is an easy word to use to incite hatred, just like the use of the word heretic, Jew and communist did in the past of the West.

Assad is not Pythagoras and he may not be the perfect benevolent dictator. But the vicious Western attack on the politics of the Arab world is disgusting and as it attempts to humiliate political systems of other nations.

Not every one in the Middle East wants a Western style democracy. China is developing in leaps and bounds without it. When Bush, the love child of this kind of democracy, was trying to shove it down our throats, he sounded like a prostitute giving sermons about celibacy. The West should realize that it should keep its democracy to itself. Let the people choose what they want.

The gallant Egyptian youths who won against all odds and kicked Mubarak in the guts are seeking democracy in the sense that they are seeking freedom and partnership in the governess of their beloved Egypt. They want to make contributions to nation-building. They want to be counted. They are not at all seeking the two-party western style version. Listen well to this Hillary and do not look to gleeful and victorious. It makes you look rather silly.

Western democracy reeks with the stench of the invasion of Iraq and the Haliburton contracts and has the ugly face of Rumsfeld.

If the USA really cared about justice, it would first and foremost feed and house its own homeless who are the victims of the greed of those in power. Before it sends its fighter jets killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it can send food packages to the residents of Central Park in NYC; those thousands who camp there in subfreezing winter temperatures.

When your house is built of glass, you do not throw rocks at people. But the West has learnt this lesson. It throws bombs; not rocks.

THE FALLACY OF ERDOGAN STYLE DEMOCRACY By Ghassan Kadi

http://thesaker.is/the-fallacy-of-erdogan-style-democracy/

The Fallacy Of Erdogan-Style Democracy (updated version)

29300 ViewsNovember 04, 2015 52 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

Erdogan’s AKP party has scored a monumental victory; not so much in terms of the lead in parliament though. As a matter of fact, it is a fairly narrow victory, but one that was least expected. What is monumental about it is the course that Turkey has set itself upon.

A victory for Erdogan perhaps, but for Turkey itself, the outcome of this election will probably take years and even decades until it becomes clear what the results truly meant for Turkey’s future and wellbeing.

Nearly one hundred years ago, Ataturk set the foundations of the Turkish Republic, and Turkey was no longer a waning great Empire better known then as “The Sick Man of Asia”. A fresh new republic emerged, though with much smaller territory and much lesser wealth and resources. It was a fresh start for the Turkish people and an anticipation for a new direction without having to look back much at the past and the loss of either the war or the Empire.

This election for Turkey has been like no other, because most analysis predicted an AKP loss.

Some of Erdogan’s opponents are making accusations that the result was rigged. Perhaps one could argue that something was rigged; either the polling booths or the minds of the majority in Turkey.

This election for Turkey has been like no other, because Turkey has now embarked on a new path; the Erdogan Republic.

This now truly marks the end of the Ataturk era. Out with the old and in with the new. Erdogan continues to brandish the portrait of Ataturk in his office, but in reality he has dismantled everything that Ataturk has built and stood up for.

Democracy Ataturk-style had its own flavour, perhaps a unique flavour not known anywhere else in the world, and definitely one that is very different from Western-Style Democracy.

Ataturk was a soldier before he became a politician. He had full faith and trust in the military, and he therefore decided that the military should have the upper hand over politicians and be the national watchdog.

Ataturk was far from being a world hero. He was a ruthless nationalist who would stop at nothing in his pursuit of Turkmen superiority. Other ethnicities had to accept being assimilated into the Turkman identity or face genocide. This is needless to say that he was a drunk who died at the age of fifty seven from alcohol-induced liver cirrhosis.

For some decades later, once corruption became rife and once politicians were seen to put their own political agenda before national interests, the council of the three army chiefs stepped in, removed the government from office and declared military rule until there was such enough time to call for elections.

Politicians who were deposed by the army, were (and in accordance with the constitution) not allowed to run for office ever again.

The military deterrent was meant to keep politicians honest or face the consequences. The constitution was amended several times and the last significant change was back in 1982, but the army kept its stature.

Erdogan changed this, and the Turkish military does not have that moral upper hand any longer. The final say is back into the hands of the politicians.

But this is not all.

Erdogan has one more task to perform. He wants to change the constitution again giving more power to the president; ie himself, and turn Turkey into a state in which the president has unprecedented power. The link below is an excellent reference to the constitutional changes that preceded Erdogan as well as what he has implemented and endeavours to do.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/BPC_President_-Erdogan_Turkey.pdf

My article however is not about the Erdogan changes per se. It is about the manner in which they have been done, both at the level of Erdogan as well as the Turkish people themselves.

Erdogan has used fear and a slogan that translates as “AKP or Chaos” in order to polarise voters and get them to revise their June 2015 vote and vote AKP. But this is not new. All Western-Style politicians use all sorts of tactics and dirty tricks in elections.

What is pertinent in the Erdogan-Style Democracy are a number of serious issues.

To begin with, Erdogan has used the democratic process in order to take power away from the army and political rivals and give more power and autocracy to himself.

Would Erdogan go as far as calling for a referendum that abolishes democracy altogether? Even though this is an unlikely prospect, the Erdogan-Style Democracy has definitely demonstrated new and unprecedented flaws in democratic systems, ones that have not been seen in Western-Style Democracies; or at least not yet.

In essence, if the public is polled and approves the abolishment of democracy and the instalment of autocracy, then the public’s wish will be granted. Democracy, in its pure form, Western-Style or Erdogan-Style therefore carries a licence for suicide with total impunity and lack of provisions to prevent any ensuing dictatorship.

What is more interesting in the outcome of the very recent November 2015 Turkish parliamentary elections is that Turkish voters did not really favour an Erdogan-Style autocracy against democracy, they have favoured a Theocratic-Style Democracy against secularism.

This is a potentially serious and dangerous development.

The political and military turmoil that has overtaken the Levant in the last couple of decades and since the first US-led war against Saddam in 1991, and to be specific the last five years or so, has seen a dogmatic polarisation of Levantine nations.

With the state of Israel in existence, a state that bases itself on a Zionist-Talmudic interpretation that gives some of the descendants of Abraham a form of superiority, some Levantine states and ideologies countered the Zionist argument by adopting a similar, but opposite, argument that is based on Fundamentalist-Islamic rights instead of Zionist-Jewish rights.

Secularism and all-inclusiveness in the Levant have been under severe attacks, the most fearsome of which is the one manifested in the “War On Syria”. As other nations were eventually drawn in, they had to decide whether they would support the dangerous rise of fundamentalism, especially Islamic fundamentalism, sit back and watch it, or partake in standing up against it.

Erdogan has played an instrumental role in the “War On Syria” and Turks are quite aware of this. His gamble has failed abysmally in Syria, and within Turkey itself, his stand has rekindled ethnic and sectarian divides, and Turks are quite aware of this as well.

On the matter of choosing to side with ISIS or those fighting it, including Kurds, Erdogan chose to support ISIS, and this too is not a secret as all Turks are aware of this.

It was mentioned above that some anti-Erdogan Turkish activists are claiming that the elections were rigged. This is a link to one of those claims:

http://aanirfan.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/election-rigged-in-turkey-november-2015.html?m=1

It would be rather difficult for anyone to make impartial assessments about such claims. Certainly however, if the elections were indeed rigged, then there is a serious problem in the way Erdogan’s party practices politics. However, if the elections were not rigged, and if the Turkish people have indeed decided to side with Islamic fundamentalism, then this constitutes a much more serious problem.

I have always maintained that Islamism is a distorted form of Islam that can only be addressed by Muslims themselves if and when they decide to read the Quran correctly. The war against Islamism is not one that can be won militarily alone. That said, “war on terror” has been an American slogan all the while America was feeding the Jihadi Islamists in one hand and giving them a small smack on the bottom with the other hand. As the world is waking up to the fact that Islamic fundamentalism needs to be curbed, the world powers have been making very serious statements about on which side of this argument they stand.

If Turkish people have decided to side with Islamism and all that comes with it, they will need to be ready for the consequences, domestically, regionally and internationally, courtesy of Erdogan-Style Democracy.

THE PREDICTABLE ERDOGAN By Ghassan Kadi

http://thesaker.is/the-predictable-erdogan/

The Predictable Erdogan

40986 ViewsOctober 26, 2015 93 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

I should thank dear friend Andrew Korybko for giving me the inspiration to write this article. After he interviewed me a few days ago on his program Redline on Sputnik Radio, it became clear to me that Erdogan is perceived by many observers as a fairly mercurial character; which he is. However, if we dissect his ideology and history, we may get surprised and discover that he is more predictable than most other leaders.

I must admit, I haven’t been to Turkey since late 1983. Between early 1982 and late 1983 I must have made at least ten trips to Turkey as my work took me there. One of the tricks I learned was to have most of my meals in the restaurant at my hotel and to charge them to my account to pay at the end. For petty cash expenses, I also learned not to convert more than USD 100 into Turkish currency at a time; the reason being the rapid depreciation of the Turkish Lira. So every time I cashed in USD 100, I got more Turkish money and paying the hotel bill at the end guaranteed that I paid it at the lowest price.

A lot has changed since then, and definitely on the economic front. Turkey now boasts being the sixteenth largest economy in the world. The truth must be said about Erdogan’s achievements on the economic front. In a very short period of time, he turned the Turkish economy from that of an almost failed state into that of a viable industrial and competitive economy. With a healthier economy Erdogan developed better health care and social services, gaining much accolade and support.

What has changed also was how Turkey was transformed from a nation with liberal Western attributes, looks and attire to one that has a government that is Islamic in spirit, looks and aspirations.

Last but not least, the political power was taken away from the armed forces and put into the hands of the president. That was a major change that perhaps has dug the last nail in the coffin of Ataturk’s legacy.

Ataturk gave power to military leadership. Army chiefs, a council of three comprised of the three main divisions of the armed forces, had the power of a council of elders and the position of a government watchdog. Should politicians put their own interests before public good, the council of generals could step in and declare what was seen in the West as a military coup, when it was indeed the army chiefs exercising their constitutional powers to save the state from the foolhardiness of politicians.

Erdogan stripped this power away from the military and gave the president ultimate power and virtual impunity. Clearly, he was preparing for something huge for which he needed ultimate power.

None of the above observations about Erdogan is a pretext of predictability unless put into the context of him being an Islamist. To see his predictability, we must stop for a moment considering that it is the president of a country that we are analyzing here, and just look at what are the core attributes of an Islamist and what takes precedence in his decision-making.

As an Islamist, ideologically-speaking, there is no difference at all between Erdogan and any ISIL member. They are both driven by the same doctrine that is based on Quranic misinterpretations, and both driven by the same passion and seeking the same objectives of turning the whole world into an Islamic state run by Sharia law.

With all the different Islamist groups that exist today, the difference is not ideological. They will differ on certain strategies, quarrel over transient political loyalties, funds and arm supplies (as they are currently doing in Syria), they will squabble as to what extent they should take the call for Jihad and whom to follow, when to turn it on and off, but in essence, they do not have any difference in their doctrines and outlooks what so ever.

Erdogan might have had a fall-out with ISIL, one that made his blood forfeit, at least for a while, but infighting in between Islamists does not make news headlines. To elaborate this point, a member of say Muslim Brotherhood (MB) can easily shift sides and become a Salafist, to later on join ISIL, and be back to where he started from with the MB. For as long as he is an Islamist however, what he will not do is to join say the Communist Party and/or any other secular party.

After all, strategically, ideologically and historically, Erdogan has two regional enemies; the Kurds and Syria. We may indeed stretch this a bit and include a third enemy; the Shia. In saying this, if Erdogan indeed openly declares animosity towards the Shia, he would have to declare war on Iran. In this, he would be taking Turkey into an unprecedented, yet ideologically-predictable direction. He hasn’t gone this far and restricted his sectarian hatred to Shia Alawites in Syria alone, with the full knowledge that this would upset the millions of Turkish Alawites and cause sectarian tension in Turkey.

But there is the other aspect of Erdogan; the ethnic nationalist Turkman aspect. Turkey is an amalgam of cultures and races and a long history of ethnic rivalry and remnants of ancient empires. The Turkmans, Mongols by origin, were originally the founders of the Ottoman Empire who snatched the might and glory of Constantinople (later renamed Istanbul) from the Byzantines bringing to end the Orthodox dynasty of the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Ottoman takeover of Anatolia has forcefully changed its name, religion and language. Furthermore, ever since the foundation of the Ottoman Empire in the fifteenth century, the Turkmans had the upper hand leaving other races (Halks, as referred to in Turkish) in a disadvantageous and rather disgruntled position in which they feel that their power has been stripped away from them and that their citizenship is inferior to Turkmans.

During the early Ottoman days, Orthodox Christians had to choose between coercion to adopt Islam or remaining in their faith and facing discrimination. At later stages, Greeks and Armenians faced the same destiny. Then as the Ottoman Empire collapsed and France decided to give the Syrian regions of Celicia and Iskandarun as a consolation prize to Turkey, the Syrians, and of course Kurds were also left in the same disadvantageous position as other non-Turkman groups. By the way, Kurds are by-and-large the biggest ethnic group totaling approximately twenty five million in Turkey alone.

Furthermore, to say that Greeks have lived in Turkey would be an understatement. Historically-speaking, the Aegean Sea was the homeland of Hellenic culture that has spread on both sides of its shores. As a matter of fact, not too many people pay attention to the fact that the ancient “Greek” city of Troy is in today’s west coast of Turkey. Even today, Greek islands are visible from the western coast of Turkey, and in reality western Turkey is therefore historically Hellenic and as Greek as Athens.

It is not surprising and unusual at all therefore to hear in Turkey the reference to the term “Turkish Halkler” meaning “The Turkish Peoples” rather than “people”; a term that indicates divisions and underlies danger if and when those different “Halks” are in combat with one another; a direction towards which Turkey seems to be heading if the Kurdish-Turkman and the Sunni-Alawite divides intensify as they have been since Erdogan’s leading participation in the “War On Syria”.

It is ironic that Erdogan started his leadership by making very strong inroads towards reconciliation with the Kurds. However, when Erdogan wore the hat of the would-be Islamist Sultan, he decided to support the Islamists in their fight against secular Syria. His miscalculations led to the fact that the Syrian Kurds had to take up arms and defend themselves from those Islamists. Erdogan then had to also wear the hat of the Turkman zealot and turn against the Syrian Kurds, with the full knowledge that this would turn Turkish Kurds against him.

When the Kurds were pushed in between a rock and a hard place and had no option but to fight ISIL, Erdogan the MB man, put aside his political difference with ISIL and risked Turkish unity in siding against the Kurds. This is because Erdogan is first and foremost an Islamist, and secondly a Turkman zealot.

It is clear therefore that Erdogan puts his Islamist agenda before his Turkman agenda and before the unity and cohesiveness of Turkey.

Erdogan was prepared to risk everything good he has done, all of his achievements, and put the country on the verge of a civil war in order not to abandon his Islamist brothers and agenda. Now as Turkey quickly approaches the decisive November the 1st elections, Turkey is marred by ethnic divisions, civil unrest, sectarian divisions, risks of economic downfall that may ensue, and above all a series of terrorist attacks, the worst of which was the recent peace rally attack in Ankara.

Erdogan therefore may one day put on the hat of a reformer, then move on to be seen as the NATO man of the Levant. He may even fool some in the pro-Palestine lobbyists when he beats his chest when Israel attacked Gaza or killed many on board of the Mavi Marmara. Now, he wants to be seen as a national hero trying so hard to finally reach a benchmark that all of his predecessors failed to reach, and that is to join the EU, but if this is going to win him any votes, the clock is ticking fast and the first of November is not far away. He may also pose as the Turkman hero who carries the legacy of Turkman superiority like all of his Ottoman predecessors, but at the end of the day, he is simply a text book material Islamist with all the dogmatism and predictability that comes with it.

THE BATTLES OF AND FOR IDLIB Ghassan Kadi

http://thesaker.is/the-battles-of-and-for-idlib/

The Battles Of And For Idlib:

23752 ViewsOctober 17, 2015 69 Comments

by Ghassan Kadi

If there was ever indeed a civil uprising in Syria, it would have had to be, by-and-large, in Idlib.

Idlib is an impoverished region of Syria. It is located in the north-west, inland from the coastal Syrian Army stronghold of Lattakia, and south of Aleppo; Syria’s second largest city and economic hub. Being predominantly Sunni and poor, the combination made it a lucrative recruitment spot for the various Takfiri groups.

The process of youth radicalization has had Idblih as its base for a long time, decades, and long before the so-called Syrian Revolution, Civil War and Arab Spring started. After the Hama events of 1982, the Syrian Government did not want to, or was indeed unable to, stop radicalization without crossing that fine line between radicalism and Islam. The government did not want to be seen like it was standing in the way of teaching religion for the sake of teaching religion, and the zealot Imams, as well as their sponsors, seized the opportunity to use the veil of religious teaching in order to spread radicalism.

This situation was not unique to Idlib. As a matter of fact it is indeed akin to the position of Western governments who cannot touch the mosques without undisputed evidence that they are conducting military training. Even then, they will have to tread very carefully in order not to offend all Muslims.

In Syria, all poor Sunni areas had religious schools, and if and where those schools did not exist, there were always the mosques and their “teachers”. In Idlib however, the religious demographics stipulated that in the absence of other religious groups and movements, dominance of radicalism was inevitable.

Certainly, the funds came in from the Gulf, and especially from Saudi Arabia.

The Baath teachings and school curriculum subjects such as Arab Nationalism, taught to children at primary schools, were not strong enough to stand in the way of the radicalism tsunami, neither did the Government try to be seen doing this; all in the fear of being seen as anti-religious, and anti-Sunni in particular.

The Assad family is Alawite, but the Assads do not have a bone of sectarianism in their hearts. This did not stop their enemies from portraying them as enemies of Sunnis. The Assads, father and son, had to exercise great caution; especially after the 1982 Hama events which were used by fundamentalists to present it as a black mark against the Assad family and a drive for Jihadi recruitment.

In reality, Hafez Assad did not take a hard line at all, neither during the conflict nor later. It was his brother Rifaat who committed most of the tough and brutal acts, including the massacre of the Tadmur prison in which five hundred inmates were shot dead in their cells purportedly personally by Rifaat himself.

After the Hama events, the Syrian Government did try to clamp down on fundamentalist militarism, but it did not want to be seen probing into the works and teachings of religious schools and mosques.

Now, four and a half years into the war, The Russian air attacks and Syrian Army movements are eyeing Idlib with a special interest.

Clearly, even though the Russian airstrikes are hitting ISIS targets all over Syria, the military strategy is to cleanse the Western regions in order not to leave pockets from which the Syrian Army can be stabled in the back. To this effect, the biggest fish to fry is Aleppo. The key to Aleppo however is Idlib because it is heartland of Syrian opposition; if there is indeed such a thing.

It is only in a handful of Syrian towns and villages where Islamist fighters would get popular support and protection from Syrian citizens, and Idlib is on the top of that list. Conquer Idlib, and you have conquered the beating heart of Syrian-based fundamentalism.

With the air support it is getting from the Russians, the Syrian Army is moving on many fronts in the region bound between Homs and Aleppo, and Idlib is right in the center of it.

Events on the ground are moving very fast, and the fall of strategic positions and towns at the hands of the Syrian Army and its allies is rather difficult to keep pace with. The fall of Idlib has become inevitable, and once Idlib and the neighbouring Jisr Al-Shougour are over and done with, the fall, or rather liberation, of Aleppo may turn into a walk in the park.

Strategically speaking, the military battle of Idlib is one that is already of predictable outcome, and it is a matter of time before the rebel terrorists lose, escape, or surrender.

What is more pertinent however is how to win the battle for the heart and mind of Idlib.

ISIS cannot be defeated by military means alone. Military action can crush its infrastructure, cripple its finance base, decimate its military, but it will not defeat its ideology.

Wrong are those who only see the US-borne side of ISIS and conclude that America is the root of the problem.

The root of the problem is an archaic misinterpretation of the Quran that has been around for centuries; an interpretation that is based on conquest and coercion.

Unless those misinterpretations are addressed and debunked by Muslim clerics and leaders, and unless such misinterpretations cease to have a popular following, they will eventually resurface when the conditions become favourable.

The world should combine efforts not to allow the resurrection of ISIS, and this concerted effort ought not to be done only in Syria, but sadly everywhere there is a center for Islamic teaching and mosques; including those based in the West.

However, the truth of the matter is that the ISIS syndrome is not restricted to the organization that bears that name. It is the cumulative failure of humanity that has turned religion against religion, sect against sect, race against race, nation against nation and brother against brother.

ISIS might have taken a very harsh and brutal form, but the seed of ISIS mentality is embedded everywhere, in every religion, sect and nation. When it is cloaked under the guise of civility and human rights and masked by clean shaved faces, suits and ties with beaming smiles, it is not any less dangerous and devastating.

So before world leaders, even those with best of intentions, point fingers and regard ISIS as the sole source of evil and decide to eradicate it, people, as individuals and groups of different orientation, ought to look within and honestly address what beliefs, thoughts and motives do they harbour.

The battle for the hearts and minds of Idlib is a microcosm of the battle for humanity to shine. The military conquest is the easy part.