The late thinker Hadi al-Alawi had a negative view of the essence of the West, that is, he argued that there was something inherently “evil” and belligerent at the core of Western civilization, culture, and historical development. Alawi further described the West as “the sole enemy of humanity, whose bludgeon in its sustained assault on humanity is the United States of America.”Somewhat long but useful article.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Amer Mohsen — On anti-Americanism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
They make claims about America putting all the Eyptian leaders in power, keeping them in power and then appointing even the new leadership after the revolution a couple years ago. Really? The US has resources that it offers to allies but to claim that the US is a puppet master over the middle east and that it exercises hegemony is silly.
The US is far less powerful than these people imagine. I think it is an attractive proposition though, it excuses themselves and their leaders from being responsible for their state. All the bad stuff that happens, that is America. All the good stuff that happens, that is their own hard work. Righty O.
Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, we've had little direct influence. Look at Iran, we put our financial and political support behind the Shah and it backfired. Anyone we offer support to, militarily, money or otherwise is probably more of a liability politically than a help. What sort of power or presence do they imagine we have in their countries? A few CIA agents controlling everything... uh huh.
If the US didn't approve of the regime in Egypt, they would seek to destabilize it. The Egyptian military enjoys US support in the form of renewed weapons shipments.
Btw, the Shah of Iran was in power from 1941 to 1979. That's 38 years before US support for his regime backfired.
Mohammad Mosaddegh
He was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.[4][5]
Its only the nations where the leaders say "death to America" or "death to the US" (Iran/Libya) or participate directly in conspiracy to attack US entities (Afghanistan/Iraq)... where we get directly involved unilaterally...
The leaders in Egypt/Jordan/Syria/SA/Kuwait/UAE etc, arent going all around saying "death to America" and harboring organized groups who can conspire to commit international murder against US oriented targets with impunity like the Afghanistan people/Libya people/Iraq people and now this ISIS thing is doing... hence some doom is about to rain down on these ISIS people...
If a nations leader comes out and says "death to the US" or whatever, it we had competent leadership here in the US today, the next morning that nation would have no functioning electrical transmission system (as a start)... keep knocking it down until the leader recants or is replaced... words/actions matter.
The Saudis own institutions like Citibank that have pushed for financial deregulation, received large bailouts, and have helped get leaders elected to every level of government in the country.
If I said Saudis were acting as a "hegemon" in the united states and were supporting the corrupt two-party regime, it fits my politics, and there is a grain of truth in it, and I'd like for it to be true, because then my perceived problems with the US government are much, much easier to solve. Unfortunately, it is a lie. The Saudis were there, and they didn't help, but they were not responsible for our failures. The same applies all over the middle east. The US has been there, we've often taken the 'wrong' sides, but we're only two bit players in the arc of history for the middle east. (Except Iraq and Afghanistan)
Right Ryan these are the same people going all around saying "we're out of money!" and yet we are supposed to believe that they are some hegemonic puppet masters.... LOL!
The whole policy is formed under ignorance and libertarianism and simply ends up as reactionary from my POV... rsp
Post a Comment