Search This Blog

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Undiplomtatic Activity in Egypt

I fear that the Egyptian mob actions show that all governments are representative of their peoples, whether they intend to be or not; and that people's theologies matter.

John Adams famously said that the US Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, and would work for none other. The religiosity he understood was that bounded by the Anglican Church on the Right and his own Unitarians (still biblically oriented in his day, rather than the free-form faith we know today) on the Left, with the Reformed (Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Dutch and German Reformed) right in the middle; and a few sprinklings of Roman Catholics and Jews. Indeed, he spoke after two centuries of agitation for rule of law and checks on the balances of kings, which, in his Anglophone context, meant the politics of the more thoroughly Reformed persuasion. This stemmed from a deep humility about what human nature was after the Fall of Adam, and a corollary that, rather than have Leviathan grab all power and right to prevent the war of all against all (viz. Hobbes), no set of human hands should ever have too much political power.

In the Muslim lands, it seems that there is a choice only between strongmen and uncontrolled mobs. The strongmen, when they take power, must pander to the supremacism, hatred, and violence of the Muslim street lest they open the way for new strongmen to come and topple them. This is why Sadat was assassinated and why Mubarak prudently allowed the government-controlled media to spew venom.

Islam lacks a doctrine of original sin and holds its followers to be "the best of men". Hence, it can never conceive of Muslims truly wronging the Kufr, and when things go wrong, it causes people to ask "Who did this to us?" rather than "Where did we go wrong?" Add to this, its ethics represent a standard far below that of either Judaism or Christianity; as if fearing the charge of hypocrisy, it sanctified the lust, greed for plunder, and violence of at least the males among its members. Hence, it will sooner or later injure itself and blame another.

It is clear from this incident that the peace between Israel and Egypt, while sincere at the official level when Sadat made it, was sincerely greeted by the populace of only the Israeli side.

I also suspect that after the mob driving out the Israeli embassy, the Obama administration's use of good offices to secure the rescue and evacuation of the last Israeli diplomats will further enrage the Egyptian Muslim street. it may very well decide that it has the power to seize the US Embassy in Cairo, and precipitate a new major crisis between the USA and the Muslim world.

The apologetic tone Obama took towards the Muslim world at Cairo may thus prove repetitive of the Carter administration's stance towards the Pahlavi regime in Iran, and with the same unhappy results.


  1. China's current foreign policy is contingent on whether the administration in question will cooperate with business dealings, and not ideological purpose.

    the PRC will do business with a bloodthirsty dictator, or a democratically elected leader at the same time. What he does does not matter to the PRC.

    There is a big different with Russia, which has close ideological connetions with its client states.

    In Sudan, the PRC basically told the Sudanese government nothing during the civil war, they just said "both sides should stop the fighting", and nothing else. They sell weapons to whoever pays more money, if they are a democrat or dictator, it doesn't matter.

    in the current protests in Syria, the PRC basically said the exact same thing. Russia, which has a naval base in Tartus, Syria, says things much differently- its essentially "Syria is our client state, and westerners should *** off"

    Moussa Koussa complained in an interview that the only thing China does is send workers abroad, build schools and roads, and do business (including weapons selling). He notes that China refuses to get involved in disputes or political fights between countries.

  2. During the Gaza war and the following goldstone report, Koussa noticed that the PRC was fudging its position and never came out clearly for either side, since it wants to do business with all countries in the region.

    the PRC never has personal relations with dictators. When Slobodan was removed in Serbia, it didn't care, neither when Bhutto was hanged by Zia Ul-hug in pakistan.

    Russia has the personal relations, it housed Milosevic's wife, and Putin knows that its the man in power, like Assad in Syria, who will maintain their relationship, and a regime change will screw it up.

    Russia will straight out say that Israel is committing crimes etc., and take a solid position in defense its clients, like Sudan.

    India does the same thing as Russia, it always protected Syria from getting referred to the UN human rights council, while China does nothing for either side.

    India wants to restart the old Cold War alliance, with India, Russia, and Afghanistan under Karzai, plus a new member, Iran, against the China and Pakistan/afghan taliban alliance.

    During the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union, India, Arabs, and Afghanistan (kingdom and communist gov), vs China, Pakistan, and Pahlavi Iran.

  3. Pahlavi backed Pakisatn during the Indo pak war, since India was a soviet friend, one of Pahlavi's ministers also hinted to the Soviet ambassador that China should take over all of siberia.

    The Shah also wrote a book, "Réponse à l'Histoire" in which he saluted Nicolae Ceasescu as a hero, for his opposition to the Soviets-

    "To the Romanian president, I would like to salute his intransigent patriotism and ferocious will for independence. A veritable amity links me to him. "

    the book was in french, you can order it on amazon, and I suggest you read it.

    basically the PRC, even under Mao, did not care that Pahlavi was a feudal monarch as long as he hated the Soviet Union.

    another book, about the Shah by one of his confidants, is called "The Shah and I: the confidential diary of Iran's royal court, 1969-1977"

    The Shah made several anti Western, anti Soviet anti Semitic, and anti Arab outbursts in that book, its actually not suprising, since he openly stated to the media that jews controlled america, and that arabs should be put in their place.

    He was very resentful, since his father, Reza pahlavi, who was allied to Nazi germany, was ousted by the west and the Soviets during WW2, and he never forgave either.

  4. In "Réponse à l'Histoire", written by the Shah of Iran himself, he wrote that Nicolae Ceausescu was a hero for his opposition to the soviets

    "To the Romanian president, I would like to salute his intransigent patriotism and ferocious will for independence. A veritable amity links me to him. "

    Ceausescu had opposed the Soviet invasion of afghanistan, and ordered soviet linked people expelled from romania, naturally for his anti sovietism, Pahlavi and the PRC viewed him as a hero.

    the Shah also made many anti semitic, anti western, anti american, and anti arab comments.

    "The Shah and I: the confidential diary of Iran's royal court, 1969-1977" by Asadollah Alam is full of these types of rants.

    "You Westerners simply don't understand the philosophy behind my power.... Now, if to you, a father is inevitably a dictator, that is your problem, not mine. "

    "The British advise me. If they have the fucking audacity to advise me ever again, I shall fuck them so rigid that they'll think twice before crossing my path in the future."'ll+think+twice+before+crossing+my+path+in+future.&hl=en&ei=jI9pTuWSOonh0QH4hLCeBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=shall%20fuck%20them%20so%20rigid%20that%20they'll%20think%20twice%20before%20crossing%20my%20path%20in%20future.&f=false

  5. "I have learned by experience that a tragic end awaits anyone who dares cross swords with me; Nasser is no more, John and Robert Kennedy died at the hands of assassins, their brother Edward has been disgraced, Krushchev was toppled, the list is endless. "

    "Nixon has the audacity to tell me to do nothing in the interest of my country until he dictactes where that interest lies....... I say to hell with such special relations. "

    "the Jewish press in the USA is solely responsible for our poor publicity. "

    "Soviet propaganda is remarkably effective and the Americans are even more remarkably stupid. "

    The shah claimed the Jews controlled the media, and slammed western countries several times when interviewed

    The Shah's relations with China and Pakistan were far better than his relations with India, Soviet, and USA.(I mean that he did not make snide comments about the chinese leadership, since Mao basically never told him what to do)

  6. As India was allied to the Soviet Union, the Shah naturally sought links with China, which provided a nuclear shield for his regime, since the Shah did not like the USA much either.

    India, and the Soviets were allied to each other, and to the Arab nationalists, like Colonel Nasser.

    China, Pakistan, and the Shah's Iran, provided the counterweight to this alliance.

    The Shah also provided airbases for pakistan during the war against india in the 1960s.

    The Shah was not a very pro western guy. this dates back to his father's reign, his Father, Shah pahlavi, who brought Iran close to Nazi Germany, like Chiang Kai-shek did in the 1930's. Except Pahlavi continued his relationship with Germany during WW2, and he was deposed by Britian and Soviet Union.

    His son never really forgave the west, and only "allied" with the west, since he hated the Soviet Union more (he did not really mind China, since Mao wasn't supporting the tudeh party, the Soviets were)

    The Soviets also supported breakaway Turkic azeri republics in north iran, just like they backed uyghurs during the sino soviet split. Both the Shah and Mao had to deal with the Soviets offering aid to Turkic peoples in their frontier region (azeris and uyghurs)

    the PRC and Pahlavi Iran had achieveed a rappaproachment with each other due to shared interests against the Soviet Union and India.

  7. before the 1990s, India was a socialist country modeled on Soviet central planning. India took out multiple loans from the Soviets for the economy.

    India was also congragulated by the Soviets for its attack on Portuguese goa and annexation.

    Pakistan's standard of living was actually higher than India's before the 1990s, when was a moderate socialist country when run by Ali Bhutto.
    I feel that you misunderstand something else regarding Afghanistan and muslims being homogenous.

    Afghanistan, during the monarchy, and even now, with Hamid Karzai, has traditionally close ties with India, and regards Pakistan as a big enemy. Indian PM Singh visited Karzai several times in the past few years, and expanded trade ties, and India has always supported the afghans against pakistan, India supported the Afghan communist regime, then the northern alliance, then now Hamid Karzai.

    You misunderstand afghan politics as "muslim vs muslims" fighting each other for religious reaons. the reality is way more complicated.

    Pakistan was never able to gain a foothold in afghanistan since India and the Soviets were rubbing their nose all over it. Pakistan was a moderate socialist country, compared to India which was extreme, it was going to get sandwhiched between the afghan commies, and India, which was soviet ally, so thats why it backed the first mujahideen, along with China, and the USA.

    for obvious reasons, China and Pakistan flooded the mujahideen with weapons, while Indian and Soviets backed najibullah.

  8. what the afghan taliban didn't realize is that their version of shariah law, also cut off indian influence out of afghanistan. They just thought they followed Islam.

    The pakistanis probably knew what the effect was, which was why they backed the taliban, despite the fact that Pakistan itself did not implement the same laws as the Taliban.

    It is a classic example of one group being used for its masters hidden agenda.

    the indian backed warlords in the northern alliance and with Karzai are no better than the Taliban. Dostum is a thug, and as Malalai Joya, the Afghan activists points out, the warlords are just as mysoginist and brutal as the taliban, they commit as many rapes and murders as them. They also grow opium poppies, just like taliban do.

    and the taliban you hear in the media, in pakistan's northwest frontier area, are not the same as Afghan taliban.

    the Afghan taliban are the Quetta shura and Haqqani network. They are backed by the Pakistani ISI. They only operate in Afghanistan, only attack western, Indian, and afghan government targets. I read western newspapers avidly. They specifically name all the networks and differentiate between them.

    the pakistan taliban are the tehrik i taliban, and they almost exclusively attack Pakistan government targets, bombing pakistani mosques, schools, and pakistani military personel.

  9. It was the tehrik i taliban which attacked the pakistani military base, killed pakistani soldiers, destroyed a pakistani airforce plane and took chinese scientists in the facillity hostage.

    The Afghan taliban, the Quetta shura run by Mullah Mohammed Omar, has criticized the pakistan taliban, for its constant attacking of the Pakisani government and mimlitary.

    even though I dislike the MEMRI organization since its singular goal is to make middle eastern countries look retarded, it has some good reports on what the Mullah said.

    the Pakistani tehrik I taliban nominally claims alleigance to afghan taliban, but it is very strange that it only attacks mosques and the pakistani military. Its almost as if its goal is to slaughter fellow pakistanis.

    its the tehrik i taliban, which the uighur insurgents are allied to. They train in the north west of pakistan, which is out of pakistan government control. and those Uighurs in the recent attacks, were wielding knives.

    I seriously doubt that Uighurs are being backed by pakistan government. the Mumbai attacks on India consisted of terrorists with machine guns. the uighurs always used knives. It would be massively stupid for anyone to claim that those knife wielding uighurs are somehow working for pakistan.

  10. I believe that were Pahlavi still in power, and still allied to Pakistan and China, then pakistan would not have used the taliban at all, since it would have Iran as an ally in the region against India and Russia.

    but since Khomeini took power, he improved Iranian ties to India, Khomeini believe Kashmir was part of India, and added the titles of "kashmiri" and "indian" to his pen name:

    "Sayed Ruhullah Musawi Al-Khomeini Al-Kashmiri Al-Hindi"

    (hindi meant Indian in farsi and arabic)

    The Shah's SAVAK used to use this against khomeini, claiming that Khomeini was an Indian wanting to spread trouble in Iran.

    many muslims view India positively, as I mentioned, among them shia who are followers of Khomeini, and lots of afghans. They despise pakistan.

    As India is a secular country, and has had several Muslim presidents, with millions of muslim citizens, its not religion thats the cause of the dispute. Its geopolitics from the cold war- India allied to Soviet Uion- pakistan against the Soviet Union

    But since Pakistan and China are alone, pakistan puts its full backing behind the Afghan taliban.

  11. As I mentioned, the afghan government and Karzai are strong Indian allies, promoting cultural and trade ties, inviting indian influence, telling Indian PM Singh that afghanistan was his second home.

    many afghans feel culturally connected to India, such as watching indian bollywood hindi movies etc.

    This is the very reason why pakistani ISI probably ordered afghan taliban to bomb indian embassy

  12. Pakistan demanded that Karzai drop his alliance with America, and side with Pakistan and China instead!k/2011/4/27/pakistan-urges-karzai-to-drop-us-ally-with-islamabad-beijing

    Another reason why pakistan doesn't support uighurs, is that Uyghur dissidents were allied to the Soviet Union during the cold war, and soviets were indian allies.

    The soviets supported uyghurs against China in the 60's, many Soviet muslim scholars wrote books attacking china like "How the national question was solved in Soviet Central Asia (a reply to falsifiers)" by Rais Abdulkhakovich Tuzmukhamedov

    pakistan naturally supported China instead, same reason that Shah of Iran supported Nicolae in Romania, they were anti soviet

  13. Nice to see you again, Mr. Zebra. Do you have your own blog somewhere? I'd like to read and comment there myself.

  14. Mr.Zebra:

    Thanks for the reminder that matters of state remain important in how Muslim states shape policy. However, the burden of my post and my thinking in these days is on the importance of theology for the way countries and peoples behave.

  15. I'll create a blog, and write about football/soccer hooliganism in Egypt.

    If you read the news a few years ago, Egyptian soccer fans were madly cursing Algeria, a fellow Arab country,during pre game soccer hooliganism

    Egyptian protestors gathered in front of the algerian embassy and burned an algerian flag, hundreds of egyptians and algerians were wounded in violent, bloody clashes, Egyptians tried to get near the embassy and vandalize algerian property

    Egypt recalled its ambassador to Algeria during the game. Over something as stupid as losing a soccer match, plus the riots and mass violence.

    back in 1989, an Algerian once gouged out the eye of an egyptian doctor after the algerian team lost the match

    Theology had absolutely nothing to do with Egyptian protestors trashing the Israeli embassy, if Egyptians wanted to murder fellow Arabs and attack their embassy over a soccer match, then they will do it over a dispute with Israel, and the border clash that precipiated it was much more serious than soccer.

    The Jordanian Government, under King Abdullah, ordered his men to jam al jazeeras transmissions over a dispute regarding the rights to broadcast the world cup.