A Beheading In France

[Hawki]

What democratic tradition did the HRE, British Empire, Spanish Empire or France cultivate during the same time?

That's going to vary by country. But the Ottoman Empire was an absolute monarchy until the late 19th century. The likes of Britain and France had democratic traditions going back centuries before that.

I'm not sure why the HRE and Spanish Empire are being brought in here, since I don't think either had any influence in the region.

When the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed (and was replaced by the incredibly secular and progressive Turkey of Kemal Atatürk) women still didn't have voting rights in several European countries.

We're talking about a handful - Portugal, Spain, etc.

Also, we're framing this as a competition. That wasn't the original intent. The core question is whether after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, if Western imperialism never occurred, would democracy spring up? Based on everything I've read, I'd say the answer is no. Not democracy as we'd use the term at least.

We could also talk about how Iran got a secular, democratic government that was subsequently overthrown by the USA to replace it with the old Shah.

We certainly can. We can also discuss how the shah was replaced by another dictatorship.

Like, I want to stress that I'm not apologizing for the forms of interferance you're describing above. I'm wary of going too far in the opposite direction. By sheer coincidence, the book I'm reading right now (detailing Africa's history) is covering the history of the Ottoman Empire in the area, and there's nothing to suggest it was particuarly benign. No empire is, really, but if you're trying to sell me on the idea that the Middle East would emerge as some bastion of democracy post-empire, I'm skeptical.

The problems of the middle east have not always been there, in fact the middle east was a beacon of civilization up until the 19th century. They are fairly young as far as history go and are all almost universally caused by Western Imperialism and the brutal methods used to keep the population splintered and unable to resist occupation.

So, if we're talking about the borders of the Middle East, then yes, that's definitely due to Western imperialism, and they're borders that have certainly caused problems (see the Kurds for an example). But tribal and religious rivalries would still exist. What we see in the Middle East is similar to what we've also seen in the Balkans for instance.

Color me shocked that two budding regional super powers with access to the same precious resource would come into conflict. The religious divide has something to do with it, sure, but the majority of that conflict stems from both nations attempts at influencing and controlling the Middle East.

...which is what I said?

 

[Agema]

Turks had no voting apparatus whatsoever. This is just a sidenote, though.

This is not true. The Ottoman Empire had moved to a constitutional monarchy around 1900 and was holding elections. It was pretty contemporaneous with Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and other states transitioning from absolute monarchy in this regard.

Also, we're framing this as a competition. That wasn't the original intent. The core question is whether after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, if Western imperialism never occurred, would democracy spring up? Based on everything I've read, I'd say the answer is no. Not democracy as we'd use the term at least.

Democracy doesn't really just "spring up", though. It's an idea that has to be developed, brought into fruition and nurtured. Given the Ottoman converstion to constitutional monarchy, if it had had another few decades to bed the concept down, what would have happened? We cannot know, but it's entirely reasonable to think that when the allies dismembered the Ottoman Empire, they disrupted a process of gradual democratisation.

Virtually no countries have transitioned to representative democracy without growing pains: most slipped back into autocracy at various points and that is an important context to view the Middle East. We shouldn't expect them to just kick out a monarch and have a shiny, perfect democracy, and that it might be the work of decades or generations to develop it. We then have to look at the activities of the West in the Middle East, from the artificial creation of many of the states that hitherto had little inherent sense of nationhood, and the constant subsequent meddling, both of which have potentially been a hindrance.

 

[Iron]

This is not true. The Ottoman Empire had moved to a constitutional monarchy around 1900 and was holding elections. It was pretty contemporaneous with Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and other states transitioning from absolute monarchy in this regard.



Democracy doesn't really just "spring up", though. It's an idea that has to be developed, brought into fruition and nurtured. Given the Ottoman converstion to constitutional monarchy, if it had had another few decades to bed the concept down, what would have happened? We cannot know, but it's entirely reasonable to think that when the allies dismembered the Ottoman Empire, they disrupted a process of gradual democratisation.

Virtually no countries have transitioned to representative democracy without growing pains: most slipped back into autocracy at various points and that is an important context to view the Middle East. We shouldn't expect them to just kick out a monarch and have a shiny, perfect democracy, and that it might be the work of decades or generations to develop it. We then have to look at the activities of the West in the Middle East, from the artificial creation of many of the states that hitherto had little inherent sense of nationhood, and the constant subsequent meddling, both of which have potentially been a hindrance.

Yes, technically, in the ten years out of 600 it existed. I found it to be negligible in the scale of discussing democratic traditions in the ME.

 

[Silvanus]

You might have to ask the people in Congo and Myanmar themselves.

I do know that "apologizing on behalf of the group" isn't a concept that's limited to Islam - I've seen similar strains of thought in US-based articles in regards to Evangelicals' support for Trump. But I actually agree that apologizing on behalf of the group isn't something that's technically required, but it's a paradigm that exists, and not just in religion.

It's a paradigm that has become expected by certain quarters, but irrational and never consistently applied. Everybody shares a demographic with some asswipes; the expectation of an apology somehow only comes to rest on certain groups subjected to prejudice.

There's been some condemnation. The heads of state though are busy kowtowing to China. It's why there's not been a peep from Turkey over the Ughyrs, but in response to Macron, have banned French imports.

Erdogan is a fucking monster. But heads of state of various overseas countries do not represent ordinary Muslims living in France. And given that a lot of heads of state in question do not operate democratic or even representative governments, it's an open question whether they adequately represent the people living in their own countries.

Okay, I get that, but:

-There's an argument to be made that Western values are an outgrowth of Christian values. I don't know if I fully agree, but Christianity and Islam aren't equivalent in this regard.

Firstly, I fully disagree with that idea. Western values have developed despite religious influences.

Secondly, when I said Western values are "irreconcilable" with Christianity, I wasn't being genuine; it was an absurd statement to show that the standard people are applying is unsustainable. Apply the same standard elsewhere, and you come up with conclusions we all recognise as absurd.

-The scale of Christian and Islamic terrorism isn't equivalent. Again, if we look at all terrorist attacks in the world, the figure is something like over 90% being Islamic. So while I agree that there shouldn't be a need to apologize on behalf of others, Christianity and Islam aren't equivalent in the world right now in regards to the levels of violence that come from them.

As I said before, this isn't a numbers game. A small minority doesn't characterise an entire demographic in any case. Collective responsibility exists only within specific, structured organisations which one has chosen to join and which one can choose to leave; it does not exist on demographic lines.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Iron]

Parts of it certainly were. Baghdad retaining its status as a center of learning up until the mid-19th century, Damaskus was similarly considered a very well-developed city. Palestine, however, was not, and neither was what's modern day Jordania. To suggest that the middle east was nothing but backwater is to miss out on how important some places, particularly in modern day Iraq, were. Some of it certainly was, but not all of it.



This is partially true, as much as it is true for pretty much any vast Empire. The Roman provinces did not fare well when centralized rule vanished and pretty much all freed colonies have faced the same problem. It is the problem of large centralized Empires and not something unique to the Ottomans. It should also be noted that the UK arab revolt, as you yourself pointed out, was not the first revolt but it was the first one with considerable external backing in terms of resources and also the first to coincide with a major war that utterly demolished the Ottoman military. That a bunch of 'freed' provinces would then be easy pickings for much, much larger colonial empires is not a testament to anything.

Baghdad and Damaskus were outliers, not the general rule for the ME under the Turks. In addition, the twin cities were important centers, especially for the Hajj. Those three are nothing compared to the sheer amount of territory and people that surrounded it in the ME. They were stuck in the feudal era, and still were when they were governed by new nations the colonial powers set up. The ME was still mostly in the feudal era.

Rome? successor kingdoms popped up like mushrooms after the rain to take their place. The Roman state was built around large urban centers, but during the 5th century the region was so depopulated that those cities were abandoned and there was a noticeable shift in governance. To each their own, it's difficult to make this comparison between Rome and the Turks.

It was not the first revolt, but the first united revolt driven by some semblance of nationalism. Previous revolts were based around small ethnic or religious groups, or around a certain leader, not the western concept of nationalism.

Notice I compared it to Egypt and the Balkans. You can look up details, but the ME was dwarfed in comparison to those (in manpower and taxes).

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Iron]

Honestly I think we are in roughly the same ballpark about the state of the ME under Ottoman rule. Whatever differences in perception we have are mostly down to nuances. I am not going to contend that the ME was on the level of Egypt or the Balkans, but we should remember that Iraq was wealthier then modern day eastern Turkey or the parts of Armenia controlled by the Ottomans. If nothing else, Umm Qasr and Basra were important trade nodes on the way to India and South East Asia which provided a significant incentive to keep the area developed. Unlike Palestine and Jordania which were backwaters you could avoid travelling through simply by taking a boat straight to Egypt from Istanbul or going through Syria on your way to Iraq.

By the time of the 18th century, most of the trade from the east flowed around the cape of good hope. Hell, most of the regions producing spice and a good third of India were under European rule, and they only traded with their mother country.

I think that you take offense to my depiction of the ME. I still think it was a poor and backwards part of the Turkish Empire. A good example would be to look at when the Zionists came to the region with their European money, and several waves of Arab workers moved from Syria and Egypt to capitalize on this. They had nothing better to do back home, just subsistence farming.

I don't think that it was unsuccessful only because it was poor. I think that they had no real ability to self-govern. Check out the Syrian attempts at a country before the French crushed it. It was only the urban elite that followed it, and it had a weak base of support. It had no legitimacy in the eyes of the falahs.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Iron]

I mean, sure. If you just disregard what I wrote and instead transpose your own interpretation of my intentions onto my post you can absolutely reach that conclusion.

Ok dude. I clearly didn't understand you, just say it again in different words.

 

[Satinavian]

When the Ottoman Empire finally collapsed (and was replaced by the incredibly secular and progressive Turkey of Kemal Atatürk) women still didn't have voting rights in several European countries. The Ottoman's didn't leave behind a secular legacy as much as a juridical and administrative legacy. A legacy that European powers were quick to smash to pieces when they divided the Middle East under themselves. It bears keeping in mind that the root of Palestinian disillusion with the West is that the British twice promised freedom for Palestine (which at the time was roughly modern day Israel, Palestine and Libanon) only to renege on that promise and make the area a British protectorate instead. Similar things happened in Syria, Iraq and every other area that the Ottoman Empire was forced to relinquish at the end of WW1. When they moved out, European colonial powers moved in and harshly repressed the population. We could also talk about how Iran got a secular, democratic government that was subsequently overthrown by the USA to replace it with the old Shah.

There is a lot of talk about "The Europeans" and "The West" but it is mostly the fault of the British and to some extend the French and (quite a bit later) the US. Most of Europe has no responsibility for that mess.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That isn't an indefensible claim, but the Ottoman Empire ruled the Middle east for centuries. What democratic tradition did it cultivate?

The Ottoman empire was, certainly towards the end, a European colonial empire. It was a particularly reactionary and poorly administered empire, but all colonial empires were reactionary and poorly administered when it came to the colonies.

Regardless, the Ottoman Empire actually made significant steps towards democratization towards the end of its rule.

From the mid-19th century onwards, each province of the Empire was given its own local assembly, with guaranteed representation for non-Muslim religious minorities and control over many local affairs. In the 1876, the Ottoman Empire briefly became a constitutional monarchy, but parliament was abolished two years later (following a disastrous defeat by the Russian Empire for which parliament was blamed). Parliament was reopened in 1908, with stronger constitutional protections, and from the next decade until its destruction the Ottoman Empire was a constitutional monarchy much like any European constitutional monarchy.

Did it foster a lasting democratic tradition? Nope, but no colonial empire really did.

Also, the situation in the Middle East right now isn't a question of "hegemony." I mean, it's played a role, certainly (see Iraq), but Iran and Saudi Arabia have been waging a cold war for ages. And part of it has to do with the religious divide (one's Sunni, one's Shia - I forget which is which).

It's a proxy war.

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a domestic arms industry. It barely has any domestic industry at all. Where do you think it gets all the tanks and modern aircraft from?

Saudi Arabia has an absolutely enormous public sector, mostly overseen by the extended royal family and employing the majority of the indigenous Saudi population (which is, admittedly, fairly small). How does it pay their salaries given, again, that there is no domestic industry and the population barely pays taxes?

The main source of revenue for the Saudi Government is the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, until very recently the largest corporation in the world by market capitalization. It was previously called the Saudi Arabian American Oil Company, because it used to be owned by American oil companies. The Saudi royal family gradually bought Saudi Aramco from those American companies in a kind of soft nationalization, but is still reliant on American expertise and technical assistance, mostly in the form of expatriate workers, as well as on numerous joint ventures with American companies. In return, Saudi Aramco provides a stable source of cheap oil to the West, and in particular to its American allies.

The US has enormous interest in Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent all of Arabia) because any significant change in the political situation there would threaten the oil companies on which US oil imports rely. That is why Saudi Arabia is a key US ally in the region. That is why it is equipped with so much American military hardware.

The situation in Iran is more complex. Iran's oil industry was once owned primarily by BP. Iran nationalized its oil industry after the revolution and effectively cut ties with western oil companies (see my point about Islamism having a proven history of standing up to foreign interests). Under US lead sanction regime against Iran, Iran is not allowed to export oil. However, Iran covertly exports huge amounts of oil to China, and has joint ventures with the CNPC. Because the Iranian regime is hostile to Western interests, it is increasingly becoming a key strategic partner for China (and to a lesser extent Russia). Iran is an observer nation in the SCO (the Chinese lead strategic alliance) has applied to join the SCO in the past, and will likely be accepted as a full member in the near future given Chinese support. There has also been some discussion of Iran joining the CSTO, which would be unprecedented for a state not part of the former Soviet Union and shows how close the ties between Iran and Russia are.

I notice you've also completely glossed over Syria, because Syria doesn't make any sense within your understanding of the situation. Syria is a secular Arab nationalist (Neo-Ba'athist) dictatorship based on ideological principles of pan-Arab unity and societally dominated by Alawites. They are entirely, entirely ideologically and religiously opposed to Iran, yet the two are important strategic allies. Why? Is it their timeless religious affiliation shining through. No, twelvers (the dominant religious group in Iran) historically do not consider Alawites to be Shias at all and the Syrian regime is aggressively secular and wholly uninterested in the Sunni-Shia conflict. It's because they're both opposed to Western interests and are both strategic allies of Russia.

China and Russia tend to frame their international role as anti-colonialist. They're not influencing these nations like the mean horrible West does, they're just helping weaker nations to resist Western hegemony. It's exactly the same thing though. Soft power is soft power.

Wait, are we talking about liberalism or neo-liberalism? Because one's about ideology, one's about economics, and I don't think the former can really be said to have "backers."

At this point, politically, they are the same thing.

And of course political liberalism has international backers. Why do you think George Bush spent so much time rambling about bringing freedom to Iraq. It just turns out that freedom means the freedom to support US interests and to vote for a government that will support US interests.

Most of Europe has no responsibility for that mess.

Does your car run on magic?

 

[Iron]

The Ottoman empire was, certainly towards the end, a European colonial empire. It was a particularly reactionary and poorly administered empire, but all colonial empires were reactionary and poorly administered when it came to the colonies.

Regardless, the Ottoman Empire actually made significant steps towards democratization towards the end of its rule.

From the mid-19th century onwards, each province of the Empire was given its own local assembly, with guaranteed representation for non-Muslim religious minorities and control over many local affairs. In the 1876, the Ottoman Empire briefly became a constitutional monarchy, but parliament was abolished two years later (following a disastrous defeat by the Russian Empire for which parliament was blamed). Parliament was reopened in 1908, with stronger constitutional protections, and from the next decade until its destruction the Ottoman Empire was a constitutional monarchy much like any European constitutional monarchy.



It's a proxy war.

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a domestic arms industry. It barely has any domestic industry at all. Where do you think it gets all the tanks and modern aircraft from?

Saudi Arabia has an absolutely enormous public sector, mostly overseen by the extended royal family and employing the majority of the indigenous Saudi population (which is, admittedly, fairly small). How does it pay their salaries given, again, that there is no domestic industry and the population barely pays taxes?

The main source of revenue for the Saudi Government is the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, until very recently the largest corporation in the world by market capitalization. It was previously called the Saudi Arabian American Oil Company, because it used to be owned by American oil companies. The Saudi royal family gradually bought Saudi Aramco from those American companies in a kind of soft nationalization, but is still reliant on American expertise and technical assistance, mostly in the form of expatriate workers, as well as on numerous joint ventures with American companies. In return, Saudi Aramco provides a stable source of cheap oil to the West, and in particular to its American allies.

The US has enormous interest in Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent all of Arabia) because any significant change in the political situation there would threaten the oil companies on which US oil imports rely. That is why Saudi Arabia is a key US ally in the region. That is why it is equipped with so much American military hardware.

The situation in Iran is more complex. Iran's oil industry was once owned primarily by BP. Iran nationalized its oil industry after the revolution and effectively cut ties with western oil companies (see my point about Islamism having a proven history of standing up to foreign interests). Under US lead sanction regime against Iran, Iran is not allowed to export oil. However, Iran covertly exports huge amounts of oil to China, and has joint ventures with the CNPC. Because the Iranian regime is hostile to Western interests, it is increasingly becoming a key strategic partner for China (and to a lesser extent Russia). Iran is an observer nation in the SCO (the Chinese lead strategic alliance) has applied to join the SCO in the past, and will likely be accepted as a full member in the near future given Chinese support. There has also been some discussion of Iran joining the CSTO, which would be unprecedented for a state not part of the former Soviet Union and shows how close the ties between Iran and Russia are.

I notice you've also completely glossed over Syria, because Syria doesn't make any sense within your understanding of the situation. Syria is a secular Arab nationalist (Neo-Ba'athist) dictatorship based on ideological principles of pan-Arab unity and societally dominated by Alawites. They are entirely, entirely ideologically and religiously opposed to Iran, yet the two are important strategic allies. Why? Is it their timeless religious affiliation shining through. No, twelvers (the dominant religious group in Iran) historically do not consider Alawites to be Shias at all and the Syrian regime is aggressively secular and wholly uninterested in the Sunni-Shia conflict. It's because they're both opposed to Western interests and are both strategic allies of Russia.

China and Russia tend to frame their international role as anti-colonialist. They're not influencing these nations like the mean horrible West does, they're just helping weaker nations to resist Western hegemony. It's exactly the same thing though. Soft power is soft power.



At this point, politically, they are the same thing.

Assad Senior received a fatwah from a senior religious leader in the Shia(twelver) faith in Beirut when he took power after his coup in '70. The legitimacy of the Alawite sect is dependent on this recognition. It is also why secularism is so pressed in Syria - to avoid the fact that a minority (whose admission into the Umma is questionable) is in control of a majority Muslim nation. Furthermore is explains the tight relationship between Syria, Lebanon and Iran due to their religious and strategic interests. Both Syria and Lebanon are controlled by a minority sect of fringe Islam.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It is also why secularism is so pressed in Syria - to avoid the fact that a minority (whose admission into the Umma is questionable) is in control of a majority Muslim nation.

So why was secularism pressed in Iraq (until the 90s, at least).

For that matter, why does modern Syria have almost exactly the same flag as pre-1991 Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a secret Shia confirmed?

Assad senior was a Ba'athist. Sure, he became a Ba'athist because it was one of the few parties which would accept non-Sunnis, but his personal conduct and the organisation of Syria under his rule conforms closely with Ba'athist ideology. There are other Ba'athists who are Sunni, or come from other Arab religious minorities. One of them was Saddam Hussein, whose state was also organised along Ba'athist lines. The only reason the two countries did not unite into a single country in accordance with principles of pan-Arabism was Saddam's fear (probably very justified) of Syrian dominance within the new government.

Ba'athist ideology is secular Arab nationalist ideology. It is not a cover for the expression of some covert spirit of Shia Islam. It is also diametrically opposed to the state ideology of Iran, which is not secular, not Arab and very much the wrong sort of nationalist.

Is there a religious component to the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Sure, they both have religious governments. However, they both have religious governments which are backed by and allied to foreign governments in ways which seem incredibly paradoxical. The US invaded secular nationalist Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and continues to oppose secular nationalist Syria, but is best buds with the Salafi theocratic monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Iran, the Islamist theocratic state that absolutely rejects Western ideology is backed and supported by the ostensibly communist and extremely Islamophobic government in China, and the reactionary nationalist (and only slightly less Islamophobic) government in Russia.

Iran issues public statements condemning Islamophobia in Europe, but issues public statements in support of Chinese detention and re-education of Uyghur Muslims.

There is a lot more going on here than just the timeless spirit of religious fanaticism.

 

[Iron]

So why was secularism pressed in Iraq (until the 90s, at least).

For that matter, why does modern Syria have almost exactly the same flag as pre-1991 Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a secret Shia confirmed?

Same sectarian issues, different minority. The tribe that Saddam came from was the elite in his Iraq, and controlled Iraq through the apparatus of the old Baathist state. It was a way to try and unite the different groups in Iraq and distract them from the fact that people from a different religion and tribe are controlling them. It "stopped" in the 90s because Iraq was a failed state that couldn't feed its own people after the US kicked its teeth in.

The flags in the Arab sphere are almost identical because they are based off the British attempt to unite the Arabs. It was the first stab at nationalism and national symbols for the Arab people. The flag scheme is shared by countries like Sudan and Palestine as well.

You have a lot to say, and I am interested in hearing it. I ask that if you assume my intentions then you should be open to my correcting them.

You're correct there are contradictions and events which don't seem to be logical. This can be explained by oversimplifying definitions for nations that makes them compelled to support a certain group. For example you would assume that Iran would support its "brothers" in Azerbaijan, yet it is quite the opposite, and for fascinating reasons.

 

[Dreiko]

Apparently now government buildings are showing off the haramy toons with Macron applying his full shaitan powers for the causes of human rights, I wonder if this was a reaction to the beheading of peace or just about damn time.

Either way, the french perverts did something right, woo.

 

[CM156]

Apparently now government buildings are showing off the haramy toons with Macron applying his full shaitan powers for the causes of human rights, I wonder if this was a reaction to the beheading of peace or just about damn time.

Either way, the french perverts did something right, woo.

A rare sentence, but a welcome one.

France urges Arab nations to prevent boycotts over Macron's cartoons defence

President Macron's comments about "Islamist separatism" have angered some in the Muslim world.

www.bbc.com

Boycott's spreading.

Time to stock up on champagne

 

[Hawki]

Firstly, I fully disagree with that idea. Western values have developed despite religious influences.

I disagree as well. But as I said earlier, there's still no equivalent in this regard. Christianity may have helped culvitate or suppress those values, Islam didn't do anything one way or the other.

Did it foster a lasting democratic tradition? Nope, but no colonial empire really did.

Commonwealth countries might have something of a claim to that.

It's a proxy war.

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a domestic arms industry. It barely has any domestic industry at all. Where do you think it gets all the tanks and modern aircraft from?

Saudi Arabia has an absolutely enormous public sector, mostly overseen by the extended royal family and employing the majority of the indigenous Saudi population (which is, admittedly, fairly small). How does it pay their salaries given, again, that there is no domestic industry and the population barely pays taxes?

The main source of revenue for the Saudi Government is the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, until very recently the largest corporation in the world by market capitalization. It was previously called the Saudi Arabian American Oil Company, because it used to be owned by American oil companies. The Saudi royal family gradually bought Saudi Aramco from those American companies in a kind of soft nationalization, but is still reliant on American expertise and technical assistance, mostly in the form of expatriate workers, as well as on numerous joint ventures with American companies. In return, Saudi Aramco provides a stable source of cheap oil to the West, and in particular to its American allies.

The US has enormous interest in Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent all of Arabia) because any significant change in the political situation there would threaten the oil companies on which US oil imports rely. That is why Saudi Arabia is a key US ally in the region. That is why it is equipped with so much American military hardware.

The situation in Iran is more complex. Iran's oil industry was once owned primarily by BP. Iran nationalized its oil industry after the revolution and effectively cut ties with western oil companies (see my point about Islamism having a proven history of standing up to foreign interests). Under US lead sanction regime against Iran, Iran is not allowed to export oil. However, Iran covertly exports huge amounts of oil to China, and has joint ventures with the CNPC. Because the Iranian regime is hostile to Western interests, it is increasingly becoming a key strategic partner for China (and to a lesser extent Russia). Iran is an observer nation in the SCO (the Chinese lead strategic alliance) has applied to join the SCO in the past, and will likely be accepted as a full member in the near future given Chinese support. There has also been some discussion of Iran joining the CSTO, which would be unprecedented for a state not part of the former Soviet Union and shows how close the ties between Iran and Russia are.

I'm not sure what the point is here. Saudi Arabia sells its oil for weapons, Iran has links with Russia, both Iran and Saudi Arabia vie for control of the region. What's your point?

If you're trying to suggest that they're puppet states for a war between the US and China/Russia, then that's iffy. The Saudi/Iranian rivalry would exist irregardless of foreign affairs. Different branches of Islam, different styles of government, both with oil reserves, etc.

I notice you've also completely glossed over Syria, because Syria doesn't make any sense within your understanding of the situation. Syria is a secular Arab nationalist (Neo-Ba'athist) dictatorship based on ideological principles of pan-Arab unity and societally dominated by Alawites. They are entirely, entirely ideologically and religiously opposed to Iran, yet the two are important strategic allies. Why? Is it their timeless religious affiliation shining through. No, twelvers (the dominant religious group in Iran) historically do not consider Alawites to be Shias at all and the Syrian regime is aggressively secular and wholly uninterested in the Sunni-Shia conflict. It's because they're both opposed to Western interests and are both strategic allies of Russia.

Are you talking about lack of democracy or cold war conflict? Because if the former, I don't think it disproves my point, Syria isn't a democracy as we understand it. If it's the latter, Syria isn't a regional power in the same way that Iran and Saudi Arabia are.

At this point, politically, they are the same thing.

And of course political liberalism has international backers. Why do you think George Bush spent so much time rambling about bringing freedom to Iraq. It just turns out that freedom means the freedom to support US interests and to vote for a government that will support US interests.

No-one seriously believed that Bush was "spreading democracy" in the Middle East, not even in the US itself (well, maybe some people did).

I also disagree that they're politically the same thing. Even if they are, attacks on liberalism don't tend to include neo-liberalism, and vice versa. And anti-liberalism isn't a phenomeon exclusive to the Middle East (again, anti-liberalism, not anti-neo-liberalism).

 

[Terminal Blue]

Apparently now government buildings are showing off the haramy toons with Macron applying his full shaitan powers for the causes of human rights.

Whose human rights?

I think perhaps the most telling thing here, even more so than the obvious comparison to the "immoral" swimwear, is that this beheading has triggered a massive police crackdown, and looks set to usher in an enormous curtailing of civil liberties.

Hundreds of people have been arrested, only a handful of whom had any connection at all to the actual attacker.

Muslim organisations have been raided, including many previously awarded funds by the government for their work in promoting civil relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. One of the organisations declared an "enemy of the Republic" is the CCIF, an organisation whose terrible crime against French values is maintaining a register of hate crimes targeting Muslims. It will be forcibly disbanded, because human rights (the right to free assembly isn't a human right, shut up).

Also arrested, several people who committed the terrible crime of making online videos mocking or denouncing Samuel Paty (including making such videos before he died) because that is a crime now. You can insult the prophet Muhammad, but you can't insult a dead middle school teacher. That is an unacceptable attack on French values. Not like insulting the prophet Muhammad, which is an necessary attack on non-French values. That is how free speech works. Don't question it.

I think what is so tiresome about this is that we've seen it before. The war on terror has concretely and demonstrably made us less free, while giving enormous power to government and police. People talk about defending freedom or human rights, when what is actually happening on the ground is mass arrests, collective punishment, punitive retaliation and the strengthening of the state's power to regulate what you can and can't say or do in the interests of security and fighting largely imaginary "enemies within".

It's paper thin, and we should all be capable of seeing through it by now.