Unicorns and Fairy Dust
February 3, 2011Posted by on
While watching the MSM coverage of what has been happening in Egypt, it has become very clear that the vast majority of the people commenting believe in Unicorns and Fairy Dust.
Why do I say this? For the simple reason that these people go to such logical contortions, including distorting history, to down play the fact that there is only two organized groups in Egypt: Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The final outcome from all this is and almost always was a binary solution set. There was a chance last week, up till around last Wednesday, when the protests first started for the US government to get ahead of this while the MB was caught off guard by the protest and yes they were caught off guard. At that time the Obama administration had two choices:
- Keep their mouths basically shut and not criticize the Mubarak government, you known like they did when there was the protests in Iran back in 2009. That’s right Obama and his gang did not announce support for the protesters, but neither did he say anything against the Iranian government. Basically he washed his hands of the thing and let it all play out. The outcome was foregone at that point, the mullahs were always willing to kill mass quantities of its own people and the Iranian Army allowed it tho happen. Remember it was special “security forces” that did the deed in Iran while the Army stood by and watched. (Hmm does that last line sound familiar)
- Call Mubarak and tell him that he needs to have US run open elections, but not then in September as they were scheduled and let the Pro-democracy protesters know that the US was going to run the election not Mubarak who rigged the last couple of elections. At that time it would have given the Pro-democracy protesters what they wanted : Free Elections and allowed them to form secular opposition groups which really doesn’t exist right now. Right now there is only one large opposition groups is the MB and an immediate election that is not rigged, no matter who runs it will lead to the MB taking over.
Instead the Obama admin did neither, they dithered and let the MB get its act together, so that one week later when they finally got around to most of option two, it was too late. The MB had a week to start forming alliances and getting its members out in the streets. That is why over the weekend the demonstrations in Cairo got so big and why there had started to be more violence: The MB trying to provoke the Army into an incident.
Also Mr. ElBaradei that a lot of the MSM is trying to push forward as the guy to take over is nothing more than a MB mouthpiece at this point. He has given interviews in Der Spiegel trying to down play the history of the MB (father of Hamas and Al Qeada). I have even seen one report that six months ago he struck a deal with the MB to run for President in the scheduled September elections against Mubarak. In case you have been asleep this last week the MB back ELBarradei last Friday and he stated that any government that replaces Mubarak MUST include the MB.
However there is three MSM meme’s I want to address specifically:
- Egypt is too secular for a Islamist organization to take over there.
- The ties to the Egyptian Army the US has is such that we can put pressure on them to do what we want.
- The Muslim Brotherhood only has 20% representation, they can’t take over.
If you believe any of those three meme’s you have been snorting the Fairy Dust you also believe in and here is why:
First the too secular argument is so easy to debunk you have to wonder why they even tried. Back in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s the three most secular non Israeli governments were those of the countries of: Turkey, Lebanon and Iran. That’s right folks Egypt was not and has not historically been the most secular government in the Mid-East. So lets look at the top three.
Turkey: This country was deliberately founded to be secular with the goal being a separation of church and state. For the longest time they succeeded and they were the most steady ally the US has had in the Mid-East.
Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy. Since its foundation as a republic in 1923, Turkey has developed a strong tradition of secularism. Turkey’s constitution governs the legal framework of the country. It sets out the main principles of government and establishes Turkey as a unitary centralized state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Politics
However that has changed. In 2003 they refused to allow the 4th ID to attack Iraq from their country. Thus delaying Operation Iraqi Freedom and prolonging it. If there had been a second front from the north, Saddam’s loyalist wouldn’t have had an area to run and hide in as they did.
Plans for opening a second front in the north were severely hampered when Turkey refused the use of its territory for such purposes. In response to Turkey’s decision, the United States dropped several thousand paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade into northern Iraq, a number significantly less than the 15,000-strong 4th Infantry Division that the U.S. originally planned to use for opening the northern front. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_force
Now the question is why did this change? Because Islamist politicians started taking over:
In 2007, a series of events regarding state secularism and the role of the judiciary in the legislature has occurred. These included the controversial presidential election of Abdullah Gül, who in the past had been involved with Islamist parties; and the government’s proposal to lift the headscarf ban in universities, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court, leading to a fine and a near ban of the ruling party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Politics
The Islam-rooted AKP, which has won legislative elections twice since 2002 and appointed its member Abdullah Gul president in 2008, has made abolition of the ban a compelling theme in its political program. In a country where 98% of the population is Muslim, this seems a convincing argument with voters.
The AKP victory in 2007, when it won 47% of the vote<, led the ruling party to introduce legislation in 2008 to reverse restrictions on the headscarf. But the Constitutional Court invalidated the decision of the members of parliament. The issue went back to square one. Until last October.
Following a fresh triumph on September 12 when the party won 52% support in a referendum to amend the constitution, the government felt strong enough to tackle the headscarf issue once more. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MB02Ak04.html
Lebanon was a cosmopolitan country in the 1950’s and 60’s where at one time all religious groups lived side by side and it’s capital, Beirut was labeled “the Paris of the Mid-East” , however that started to change when Syria and the PLO put their nose into Lebnanon politics in and setting off a civil war in 1975:
The Lebanese Civil War (Arabic: الحرب الأهلية اللبنانية) was a multifaceted civil war in Lebanon. The war lasted from 1975 to 1990 and resulted in an estimated 130,000 to 250,000 civilian fatalities. Another one million people (a quarter of the population) were wounded, and today approximately 350,000 people remain displaced, the majority of them Christian Lebanesewho were forced out of the Chouf mountains. There was also a mass exodus of almost one million people from Lebanon, mostly of Christian descent. The Post-war occupation of the country by Syria was particularly politically disadvantageous to the Christian population as most of their leadership was driven into exile, or had been assassinated or jailed.
There is no consensus among scholars and researchers on what triggered the Lebanese Civil War. However the militarization of the Palestinian refugee population, with the arrival of thePLO guerrilla forces did spark an arms race amongst the different Lebanese political factions. In addition, the political ambitions of the Druze leader Kamal Jumblat, who used the Palestinian cause to disrupt consensus amongst different Lebanese factions also contributed to the general chaos. In his seminal work, Yezid Sayigh, the son of prominent PLO members, demonstrated that Arafat and his closest aides also sought to split the Lebanese army in order to mount a coup to change the political landscape of the country. The occupation of army barracks after the army split, by the PLO and allied Lebanese factions, trained and funded by Fatah also contributed to a further arms race by other Lebanese factions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War
After the civil war basically Syria ruled Lebanon until the Cedar Revolution that was triggered by the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister (one that was not pro Syria). This led to popular protest’s that caused the government toppled (Hmm doesn’t this sound familiar):
Daily protests against the Syrian occupation attracted 25,000 people. While in the 1990s most anti-Syrian demonstrations were predominantly Christian and were put down by force, the new demonstrations were distinctly non-sectarian and the government did not respond with force or intimidation.
On February 28 the government of pro-Syrian prime minister Omar Karami resigned, calling for a new election to take place. Karami said in his announcement: “I am keen the government will not be a hurdle in front of those who want the good for this country”. The tens of thousands gathered at Beirut’s Martyrs’ Square cheered the announcement, then chanted “Karami has fallen, your turn will come, Lahoud, and yours, Bashar”.
Opposition MPs were not satisfied with only Karami’s resignation, and kept pressing for full Syrian withdrawal. Former minister and MP Marwan Hamadeh, who survived a similar car bomb attack on October 1, 2004, said “I accuse this government of incitement, negligence and shortcomings at the least, and of covering up its planning at the most… if not executing”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Revolution#Government_resignation
Take note that the demonstrations were not sectarian ie not just one religion or denomination, just like the ones now in Egypt, but what happened in the end:
In early January 2011, the national unity government collapsed after all ten opposition ministers and one presidential appointee resigned due to tensions stemming from the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which was expected to indict Hezbollahmembers in the assassination of former prime minister Rafic Hariri. The collapse plunges Lebanon into its worst political crisis since the 2008 fighting, and indicates further political gains for the Hezbollah-led opposition March 8 Alliance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon#2011_government_collapse
Hezbollah started the usual tactics of killing off their opposition and in the end they took over the Lebanese government:
The issue with Lebanon is that its president has appointed Najib Mikati as the new prime minister, and Mikati is backed by Hezbollah, which the U.S. regards as a terrorist group. Hezbollah’s future actions could determine whether Lebanon faces those sanctions. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/03/kraft.palestine.lebanon/
I will not go in-depth on the Iranian Revolution, since that one should not be hard to find online, however I will point this out: the Mullahs and their ilk wasn’t the ones that brought down the shah, it was Pro-democracy demonstrators and Carter being wishy-washy towards the Shah that brought that about. Khomeni didn’t take over until 4 months after the Shah left when he and his supporters overthrew the interim government. He took those young people who wanted freedom and democracy, the ones that over threw the Shah and stood them against the wall and shot them.
With the fall of the shah, the glue that unified the various ideological (religious, liberal, secularist, Marxist, and Communist) and class (bazaari merchant, secular middle class, poor) factions of the revolution — opposition to the shah — was now gone. Different interpretations of the broad goals of the revolution (an end to tyranny, more Islamic and less American and Western influence, more social justice and less inequality) and different interests, vied for influence.
Some observers believe “what began as an authentic and anti-dictatorial popular revolution based on a broad coalition of all anti-Shah forces was soon transformed into an Islamic fundamentalist power-grab,” that significant support came from Khomeini’s non-theocratic allies who had thought he intended to be more a spiritual guide than a ruler — Khomeini being in his mid-70s, having never held public office, been out of Iran for more than a decade, and having told questioners things like “the religious dignitaries do not want to rule.”
Khomeini and his loyalists in the revolutionary organizations prevailed, making use of unwanted allies, (such as Mehdi Bazargan’s Provisional Revolutionary Government), and eliminating one-by-one with skillful timing both them and their adversaries from Iran’s political stage, and implemented Khomeini’s velayat-e faqih design for an Islamic Republic led by himself as Supreme Leader. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidation_of_the_Iranian_Revolution#Conflicts_amongst_revolutionaries
That right there should bring you up short about ElBaradei, his ties to the MB and what they will do if Mubarak leaves now. All of these secular muslim countries are now led by an Islamist leaning politician, out-and-out terrorist organization and Islamic Fundamentalist that want to destroy western civilization. So the “too secular” line is complete and utter BS.
Now onto the meme that the aid to the Egyptian Army gives us some type of control on the soldier in the street. If that had been the case the Iranian military would never have gone over to the revolutionaries in 1979. No matter how much in dollar value you here in military aid we give Egypt it does not compare to what we gave to Iran under the Shah. We gave the Shah all our advanced military technology during that time:
In the early 1970s, the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF) was searching for an advanced fighter, specifically one capable of intercepting Soviet MiG-25 “Foxbat” reconnaissance flights. After a visit of U.S. President Richard Nixon to Iran in 1972, during which Iran was offered the latest in American military technology, the IIAF narrowed its choice to the F-14 Tomcat or McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. Grumman Corporation arranged a competitive demonstration of the Eagle against the Tomcat before the Shah, and in January 1974, Iran ordered 30 F-14s and 424 AIM-54 Phoenix missiles, initiating Project Persian King, worth US$300 million. Only a few months later, this order was increased to a total of 80 Tomcats and 714 Phoenix missiles as well as spare parts and replacement engines for 10 years, complete armament package, and support infrastructure (including construction of the huge Khatami Air Base in the desert near Esfahan).
The first F-14 arrived in January 1976, modified only by the removal of classified avionics components, but fitted with the TF-30-414 engines. The following year 12 more were delivered. Meanwhile, training of the first groups of Iranian crews by the U.S. Navy, was underway in the USA; and one of these conducted a successful shoot-down with a Phoenix missile of a target drone flying at 50,000 ft (15 km). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat#Iran
That should give you a clue right there, the only foreign government that the US sold F-14’s to was Iran. Not Japan, not Israel, or Germany, or Britain or anyone else, just Iran. Now did this stop the soldier in the street from going over? Nope. Why? Because those same low-level soldiers are the brothers, husbands and sons of the people oppressed by the Shah: Just like in Egypt. For some reason the MSM grants the Egyptian officer with some mystical power, that will prevent his grunts from joining the protesters and go against what were their neighbors, girlfriends, parents and so forth before they joined the Army. What the officer class does is not the issue, it is what the grunts decide. Remember the grunts out number the officers by a large margin and they are the ones that hold the majority of the guns and operate the tanks, not the officers. That is what happened in Iran, the grunts went over and their officers followed trying to save their skins:
As Khomeini’s movement gained momentum, soldiers began to defect to his side. On February 9 about 10 P.M. a fight broke out between loyal Immortal Guards and the pro-Khomeini rebel Homafaran element of the Iranian Air Force, with Khomeini declaring jihad on loyal soldiers who did not surrender. Revolutionaries and rebel soldiers gained the upper hand and began to take over police stations and military installations, distributing arms to the public. The final collapse of the provisional non-Islamist government came at 2 p.m. February 11 when the Supreme Military Council declared itself “neutral in the current political disputes… in order to prevent further disorder and bloodshed.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution#Khomeini.27s_return_and_fall_of_the_monarchy
So much for the Army is imperious to Fundamentalist meme, it has no basis in history.
Now onto that 20% number and why that doesn’t hold water.
First that number comes about after the 2005 parliamentary elections when the overall numbers showed that 20% of the members were actually MB members that ran as independents. What is not stated is that they MB didn’t put up candidates in all precincts. What you find is that the MB won 50% of every parliamentary seat it contested. Now does that sound good? The MB has shown historically that it wins 50% of all races it takes part in. Now here is more bad news, the MB doesn’t need >50% of the Parliamentary seats to run the government. Unlike the US the style that is used in most countries the Parliament is run by a coalition with the party that garners the largest portion of the vote inside that coalition appoints the leader and runs the government. So lets say the MB only gets 30% of the vote after the election. More than likely they will be able to form a coalition that does two things: One their coalition goes over the 50% level needed to form government and two allow them to be the largest group in the coalition and allow them to rule.
What most people don’t realize is that one of the worst political parties and it’s leader in the history of the world only won slightly more than 30% of the popular vote before they took over and plunged the world into war: the Nazi’s
That’s right folks, what your school history likes to gloss over is that Hitler was not proclaimed “The Leader” immediately. It happened over time and after he used the Reichstag fire to impose martial law and take over.
The 6 November 1932 elections yielded 33.1% for the Nazis, two million voters less than in the previous election. Franz von Papen stepped down and was succeeded by General Kurt von Schleicher as Reichskanzler on 3 December.
On 29 January, Hitler and von Papen thwarted a last-minute threat of an officially sanctioned Reichswehr takeover, and on 30 January 1933 Hindenburg accepted the new Papen-Nationalist-Hitler coalition with the Nazis holding only three of 11 Cabinet seats. Later that day, the first cabinet meeting was attended by only two political parties, representing a minority in the Reichstag: The Nazis and theDNVP led by Alfred Hugenberg (196 + 52 seats). Eyeing the Catholic Centre Party‘s 70 (+ 20 BVP) seats, Hitler refused their leader’s demands for constitutional “concessions” (amounting to protection) and planned for dissolution of the Reichstag.
Hindenburg, despite his misgivings about the Nazis’ goals and about Hitler as a person, reluctantly agreed to Papen’s theory that, with Nazi popular support on the wane, Hitler could now be controlled as chancellor. This date, dubbed Machtergreifung (seizure of power) by Nazi propaganda, is commonly seen as the beginning of Nazi Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Cabinet_Schleicher
Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor on the morning of 30 January 1933 in what some observers later described as a brief and indifferent ceremony. By early February, <b>a mere week after Hitler’s assumption of the chancellorship, the government had begun to clamp down on the opposition</b>.
The Reichstag Fire on 27 February was blamed by Hitler’s government on the Communists. Hitler used the ensuing state of emergency to obtain the assent of President von Hindenburg to issue theReichstag Fire Decree the following day. The decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution and “indefinitely suspended” a number of constitutional protections of civil liberties, allowing the Nazi government to take swift action against political meetings, arresting and killing the Communists</b>. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic#Hitler.27s_chancellorship_.281933.29
So as seen one of the greatest threats to liberty was able to do what it did with just 33% of Germany’s popular vote. So the whole the MB only has x support doesn’t mean much when you have plurality style governments, Minority parties can impose their will through violence, intimidation and other undemocratic means.
So the next time you hear or read one of those points just keep this in mind: Either that person has their head in the sand or the are whistling past the graveyard because history tells us this revolution and the way it was handled by the US government is going to end badly.