'MODERATE ISLAMISM'? WASHINGTON AND BRUSSELS PLAYING WITH FIRE IN SYRIA AND IRAQ. Sputnik Interview Ghassan Kadi 12 Dec 2015

GHASSAN KADI "Moderate" Islamism? Washington and Brussels Playing with Fire in Syria, Iraq Sputnik interviews Ghassan Kadi 12 December 2015

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151212/1031656451/daesh-muslim-brotherhood-alqaeda-moderate-islamists-syria-iraq.html

Ekaterina Blinova

The EU and the US still refuse to see a direct connection between the ideology of Islam and its military Daesh and al-Qaeda wings; neither the US, nor the EU has taken serious steps to prevent new Paris/San Bernardino-style attacks, Ghassan Kadi, The Vineyard of The Saker's columnist and expert on Middle Eastern affairs, told Sputnik.

A de-classified US Defense Intelligence Agency's 2012 document stated clearly that the Syrian uprising of 2011 was orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the Salafists and al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is not the first time when the Muslim Brotherhood has taken part in a regime change attempt: after the Egyptian revolution of January 2011 the Muslim Brothers had even come to power in Egypt.

Why has the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Sunni Islamist organization, become the headliner of the Arab Revolt in North Africa and the Levant?

"It's hard to give this question enough justice because it encompasses a multitude of areas and topics. Mubarak had been in power for over three decades and there was a huge level of dissatisfaction with his presidency at most levels of society; and not with the MB's alone. The secular youth, known then as the '25th of January movement' played the most substantial role in the initial revolt, and at that time, the MB's were nowhere to be seen. I continue to believe that up till that point in time, the revolt in Egypt was a genuine popular uprising. All of a sudden the MB's came in at a later stage and capitalized on an existing unrest and hijacked it to their advantage. They were organized, and they had been preparing for such an opportunity for decades," Ghassan Kadi, Syrian political analyst and expert on Middle Eastern affairs told Sputnik.  

"The precedent that was created in Egypt became later on known as the 'Arab Spring' with the intention of using Islamists to destroy Syria," Kadi continued.

© AFP 2015/ ADEM ALTAN

Is Turkey Waging War on Russia in Crimea, the Caucasus, and Central Asia?

According to the expert, in the 1950s and 60s, Arab youth became very affected by Marxism and Maoism. Many Arab states were adopting socialist agendas and doctrines and going under the Soviet sphere of influence.

"The battle for the hearts and minds of Arab youth in general, and Muslim youth in specific, was first launched between the then secular pro-Soviet Egyptian President Nasser and the Islamist pro-American Saudi King Faisal," the Syrian expert emphasized.

Up until 1967 Nasser was extremely popular and Islamist ideology had no chance at all. However, Egypt's defeat in the 1967 June war with Israel was detrimental for Nasser's popularity.

Kadi pointed out that it was the time when Islamists came onto stage promising a "new direction" to restore the Levant's "former glory."

"The rise of the economic power of Saudi Arabia facilitated that process, and the West was very happy to see Arab/Muslim youth diverting away from Communism, until they realized that they can in fact be brethren in arms fighting together against the 'Infidel' Soviets in Afghanistan," the Syrian expert narrated.

© AP PHOTO/ MILITANT PHOTO

Islamic Fundamentalism: US Hawks Stirred Hornet's Nest in Middle East

Remarkably, the roots of the Muslim Brotherhood go back to the late 1920s, when the Brotherhood was founded by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna in Egypt. Incredible as it may seem, al-Banna and his followers had been enchanted by Western Nazi ideology. Furthermore, the Brotherhood closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the World War II. Why did Muslim Brothers embrace Western fascism in the 1930s?

"In the 1930s, and for fairness to al-Banna, no one in the Arab and Muslim worlds cared much about finding out about the true nature of Fascism. Hitler presented himself via Nazi propaganda to Arabs as a liberator and an enemy of the traditional British and French usurpers and colonialists. After all, propaganda was running high and the introduction of the radio at that time made it easy for different parties to put their messages across, and there was an Arabic radio station transmitting from Berlin to the Arab World. By then, Arabs had all the reasons not to believe anything the allies told them, after all, it was France and Britain who lied to the Arabs and did not grant them independence as they promised that they would be provided when they joined the fight against the Ottoman Turks," Kadi elaborated in the interview with Sputnik.

© PHOTO: YOUTUBE/MEHIN

Al-Banna (third from left) with Aziz Ali al-Misri (fourth from right) and Egyptian, Palestinian and Algerian political and religious figures at a reception in Cairo, 1947.

Hitler's Nazi Germany had not been the only dubious ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. The transnational organization has certain ties with the infamous al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Experts note that the teaching of Sayyid Qutb, the Brotherhood's leading member and the so-called father of modern Islamist fundamentalism had had an influence on Osama Bin Laden. After Sayyid Qutb was executed in Egypt in 1966, his brother and follower Muhammad, fled to Saudi Arabia and taught as a professor of Islamic Studies at Jeddah's King Abdel-Aziz University. Reportedly, Osama bin Laden was one of his "star" students. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the architects of 9/11 terrorist attacks was also believed to be one of the Brotherhood's "pupils."

Do al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood's ideologies have much in common?

"The ideologies of the MB's and Al-Qaeda are identical. In this same basket, you can include the Wahhabis, the Salafis, and all other Islamist groups. And even though the Egyptian MB's did not have a history of violence like their say Syrian counterparts, members walk in and out of these organizations all the time, and in effect, there is no difference between them at all. After all, Ayman Zawahiri himself, the current leader of al-Qaeda, is a former Egyptian MB member," Kadi emphasized.

© FLICKR/ ALEX KESHAVJEE

In Syria the West Embraces Sectarianism

"All of those organizations are based on a distorted form of Islam that believes in coercion and enforcing the rule of Sharia over the entire globe. They may hate one another at times, they may fight over loots and political alliances to different sponsors, but ideologically-speaking, they are identical, although disagreeing at times on very insignificant theological and practice issues," the Syrian expert explained.

Why are European and American policymakers still in denial and refuse to recognize the threat posed by Islamists' ideology? The Muslim Brotherhood has not yet been designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU. Many Muslim Brothers are working in European reputable foundations and lecturing in Europe's numerous Mosques.

It was US Senator Ted Cruz who has eventually introduced a bill aimed at designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in November 2015. The legislation is currently being considered by American lawmakers.

Interestingly enough, back in 2007 America's influential Council of Foreign Relations' media outlet argued that the Muslim Brotherhood was"the world's oldest, largest, and most influential Islamist organization" had rejected global jihad and embraced "democracy."

"In the anxious and often fruitless search for Muslim moderates, policymakers should recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood presents a notable opportunity," Robert S. Leiken and Steven Brooke wrote in their article entitled "The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood" for Foreign Affairs.

© AP PHOTO/ MAZHAR ALI KHAN

Ayman al-Zawahri, left, holds a press conference with Osama bin Laden in Khost, Afghanistan in 1998.

"The EU and the US are either refusing to see the ideological link between the religious wing (i.e. the MB's) and military wing (i.e. the terrorists), or they are trying to distance themselves from the terrorist organizations in the hope to use the MB's in the future," Kadi told Sputnik.

"However, the EU and the US do not see further than their noses and they have proven this time after time. For them to even imagine that they can have another go at harnessing Islamic fundamentalism is a proof of their short-sightedness and lack of ability to learn from previous mistakes," he added.

While playing with Islamism Europe and the United States make a big mistake. They do not take into consideration the possible outcomes of their socio-engineering experiments.

"Is America foolish enough to forget 9/11, and not clever enough to understand the underlying foundations needed to launch an attack like the San Bernardino attack?" the Syrian expert asked.

"I cannot see that the West has planned its interactions and the outcome of its support of different Islamic organizations and the states that support them in an intelligent manner at all. It has always been known that the state of Saudi Arabia has been right behind the rise of Islamist fundamentalism with the blessing of the United States. Turkey is finally emerging to be another such supporter and irrespective of how much Erdogan rejects the Russian accusations regarding his illegal oil trade with Daesh [IS/ISIL], the satellite photos are here for all to see and people are not stupid," Kadi told Sputnik.

"Apart from a few outcries from ultra-right wing European politicians, the Europeans have not yet taken any serious steps of preventing repeats of the Paris attacks, and if they continue to opt to play with fire, they will have to be prepared for the fruit of their action," the expert warned.    

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151212/1031656451/daesh-muslim-brotherhood-alqaeda-moderate-islamists-syria-iraq.html#ixzz3uAUiA0mc

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.