You really misunderstand my point here. Who said I ever supporting other middle eastern dictatorship? Have you even been reading my post on this forum? If you ever did, you will know that I am the one who has always said one man rule/cult personality is a model that is always bound to fail at some point in time. This includes any country whether in the middle East or in North and subsaharan Africa or in East Asia(Kim Jung Un) etc. It almost always ends in civil war or instability and NO this has nothing to do with western Powers(since some of you always Blame all the world ills on the west. Lol).
I do not talk about you as a person; but use "you" as an impersonal pronoun, indicating the US-led West.
I do not believe cult personality model is bound to fail. Every US election cycle is a case of cult personality creation done in the most scientific way. Obama was a cult model. Bush, especially after the 9/11, was a cult model. The only advantage of the Western model over other less developed cult models is that the US cult model system is pragmatically cyclical because cults also tend to wear off and the system has to renew itself for long survivability.
That also explains the apparent rigidity of US model and the extreme volatility in underdeveloped models.
I do not put all the blame on the West; there are respectable polities although they may be considered culturally or geographically Western. I am also aware of the political innovations that we are indebted to the West, including the highest political organization, the nation state.
However, it is today the same Western powers (some of them) that disrespect and undermine the very idea of nation state.
Since when have our leaders ever bombed or ordered our military to shoot on our own people protesting against them or any oftheir laws/rule? Lol. Our leaders even leave power for meaningless things like our people not being in favour of a policy our government/leader wanted to implement much less about ordering a brutal Crackdown on our own people. David Cameron resigned recently as or leader for a silly reason , simply because he thought his vision for Britain in the E.U was rejected by our people lol can you imagine the backlash if he even ordered the police to use water cannons or simple rubber bullets on protesters or even thugs? Lol. So I don't see the comparison you are trying to make here. Lol
Well, polities are different. Your government might not be dropping bombs on its own people. But they do this on other people. I am not sure which one is more morally questionable.
Besides, if your people take up arms and start raiding on police stations and border towers, your government will kill them more effectively and efficiently than some underdeveloped countries simply because they have money and technology advantage.
US has the highest ratio of SWAT disposals to minor protests, using overwhelming militarized police on civil dissent. This is not to criticize them if the aim is to ensure social stability (given that the country is fractured along class and racial lines), but, every government has the right to ensure public security especially if the threat is coming from foreign influenced and infiltrated armed militia, which is the case in Syria.
Foreign interventions is a different ball game altogether, since countries will always expand and try to protect/further their interests wherever they can. Be it the U S, U.K, France or your Russian buddy. Lol I don't see how you can compare this with the corrupt power hungry dictators in the middle east and Africa who are more about protecting their own power than the greater good of their country. Fact is ANY WESTERN LEADER FACING SUCH AN UPRISING/INSTABILITY AGAINST THEIR RULE would have resigned longggg ago and cede power for a political transition.
First, no Western leader would cede power to foreign influenced/infiltrated foreign militia. This is the case in Syria.
Foreign interventions are less moral (if you are talking about morality here) than the doings of a country inside its sovereign borders.
I do not care what your US buddy has been doing in Ferguson City, but, I have issue with its doings in other places in which it has no sovereign right.
Finally, it is not you to decide and judge whether they are "corrupt power hungry dictators" or not. It is still an internal affair. Your national regime has no right to arm, train foreign militia to bring down the alleged "corrupt power hungry dictators." No one gives you the privilege of defining and judging others.
You say Syrian rebels are getting all the support they need/asked from western powers? That's another fallacy. Lol. Our military support for the rebels have been almost non existing. Especially delivery of sophisticated military equipments. Contrary to Russia's arming of Assad regime with all sorts of weapons systems they can afford. The little military equipments the rebels have received comes mainly from regional players like Turkey, KSA, gulf states etc. If we really wanted to support SYRIAN REBELS FOR REAL , then your ASSAD friend will not have any airforce left bro. And you know how much his forces rely on his airforce . This war will probably be over before Russia even had the chance to intervene.lol As I said before, seems our leaders favour a battle of attrition for some reason .
"Especially sophisticated military equipment," yes. Isn't that beautiful to know that your government provides "not so sophisticated military training, finance and equipment" to mostly foreign terrorists? Who said your Nusra buddies have F-16s? But they have enough that they receive from you and the likes to fight against the Syrian Army as foreign mercenaries in a sustained conflict (although, it is being alleged, some 150.000 foreign Western supported terrorists have been killed so far).
If you really supported the terrorists flesh and bone, Assad would have gone by now for good, you got it right. Haven't we seen it in Libya, your crown jewel of all?
Think like this, if Russia was really involved, do you think you had a chance to fight IRA?
You also got it right that your regimes wishes and works for a protracted war in Syria. Hence, their "soft help" to anti-Syrian foreign terrorists.
As dor your so called radical Sunnis Islamists claims against me, that's another funny statement, I expected it though since some of my views doesn't suit your so called anti western narrative. Lol To you and some people the evil west is to blame for everything, it's like to some people we are GOD, since to them we control everything and even people's brain and mind all over the world. Lmao. I'm sure the Syrian , egyptian, Bahrain Tunisian people rising up against their dictators is also a western inspired evil manipulation to change these countries to our liking . Ahahahahahah. You give us too much credit dude. To you as well. You see things from a white and black perspective , as long as one side seems to be so called anti western then they are holy and free of all crimes and are fighting for justice. Lol
You definitely sound like a radical Sunni cleric. Your discourse, choice of words, selective hatred all indicate such a mind construct. You might as well be a closet sectarian.
Have you attended mosque trainings in London? I would suggest you to read Ali Shariati to have an alternative view of the social world. I read him when I was doing thesis on the Middle East as part of Middle Eastern revolutionary movements.
Sunni radicalism might make great buddies to you like the theocratic Gulf, but, there is another branch in the Middle East, which is, although underrepresented, more progressive, revolutionary and secular.
Your governments are secular at home, yet, overseas, they are in bed with the least secular regimes.
I don't give a rat *** about both sides to be honest. They are killing each other for their own religious reason and for power. You as an outsider might see things differently depending on your view vis. A vis western powers. KSA and shia powerhouse Iran are all exporting their versio of Islam and fighting proxy wars for their strategic benefit. On top of that U S/U K/France and Russia on one side have their own players they support in the region looking at the bigger picture geo politically .it's all about interests. Same with your Russian friends involvement
That's partially true.
Happy marriage with your Sunni allies.
You (not you, personally) were already engaged in the late 1920s when you backed up terrorist ideologues like Hasan al-Banna and helped them found Muslim Brotherhood.
I guess flirting with J. Nusra will seal the marriage.
The results of that is easy for all to see today.lol
