Good Revolution, Bad Revolution

Good Revolution, Bad Revolution

Enough with the double standards!

There are many reasons why the United States protects its dictator friends in the Middle East and ventures out of its way to make sure they stay in power. The biggest fear of the West is an uprising against dictators and elites that are western placeholders in the Middle East. The people’s revolutions in Palestine, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, if successful, will forever alter the status quo that has limited Arab nations in reaching their true potential to attain success. Western intervention in these legitimate revolutions is never humanitarian as claimed by the UN and its most powerful members, but rather are tools to prevent true freedom and justice in the regions.

Enough with the double standards!

Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria have all recently witnessed the expected and long-in-processing rise of the people against oppressive and unjust governments. Governments which, by the way, were strong allies of the United States. So what is the world’s biggest supporter of 70 and 80 year old Arab dictators who have been in power for decades in order to secure U.S interests to do now? Debase and remove the true impact of the revolutions, of course. History tends to repeat itself fairly often with the United States and its pursuit to hijack democratic uprisings in the Middle East and other parts of the world. The country continues to display duality in responding to the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa:

If the US Appointed or Likes the Dictator…

Bahrain: Scores of civilians are being killed by Bahraini government forces and that of other Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain and begins attacking even hospitals and civilian areas, in complete violation of the Geneva Convention. The US response: Not a single word, condemnation or attempt to diffuse the situation. On the flipside, and to the surprise of absolutely no one, the White House states Saudi tanks and heavily armed soldiers entering and attacking the citizens of another nation is not an “invasion.”

Yemen: 32 years. That’s how long Ali Abdullah Saleh has been president of Yemen. After all, which democracy doesn’t elect the same president for more than 3 decades? Yemeni forces continue to massacre protestors by the hundreds and the government has suspended the effectiveness of the constitution, implementing instead rigid emergency laws in an effort to curb the protests which have been gradually building for several years. Saudi Arabia has also in the past – and will potentially in the future – enter Yemen to suppress any uprisings in fear that they may encourage its own people to fight for a real, legitimate government rather than being ruled by the current US-Israel placeholders spread across the Middle East. The US Response: A call for “maximal restraint” on the part of the Yemeni government. Ironic, considering the US sells billions of dollars worth of weapons to Yemen so that it can suppress such uprisings.

If the Revolution is Bad for Oil Corporations…

Libya: Why is the United States and its NATO allies intervening in Libya and not in the Congo where millions have been killed by the genocide? Ask BP. The United States has tolerated Libyan president Gadhaffi for several decades, despite bombing the country in 1986. When the recent revolt began to spread in the country, the government responded by attacking the protestors. Initially, the United States responded with calls for restraint and dialogue. This tune changed when the United Nations, which has been reduced to a waste of office space in New York, decided to vote on and implement a “no-fly zone” in Libya – very helpful for the Libyan people considering the government also has forces on the ground attacking civilians. Is it then a coincidence that Libya has the largest proven oil reserves on the African continent and billions of dollars in agreements with BP? The launch of airstrikes by the coalition of “concerned” western countries, including the United States and France, has only added to the civilian death toll.

The US involvement in Libya is quickly eroding the legitimacy of the people’s uprising against an unjust government and taking away from their ability to own their revolution. It is also important to realize that the United States and its allies will attempt to control the future leadership of the country, as it has done so for years, in order to preserve the strategic and financial significance of the country.

If the Revolution is Bad for Zionism…

Egypt: Few dictators are as loyal as former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was to the United States and Israel. He has even helped Israel commit additional war crimes against the people of Palestine and blocked off the entrance to Egypt from Gaza so that the Palestinians are left to slowly and painfully suffer. Forty years of service to the colonialist and corporate interests has earned Mubarak enough status with the US that they forgot to mention he has turned Egypt into a large prison, torturing anyone who merely looked like they might utter the words “freedom”, “democracy”, “jobs”, “money” or “equal distribution of wealth.”

For years, the people of Egypt have attempted to change the state of their government yet have been suppressed violently. When the most recent wave of protests hit, few expected it to lead to Mubarak’s removal. Considering the strategic location and billions of US dollars invested in Egypt in addition to the loss of Israel’s biggest doormat should Mubarak exit the picture, the United States intervened. By all measurements, Mubarak’s resignation was not due to the return of decency and morality to a sell-out who has destroyed his nation for Western interests, but a forced exit by the United States. The Egyptian Army did not back Mubarak for fear it would end up on the losing side of the revolution.

Egypt’s new “interim” leadership is headed by military generals who backed and supported the regime of Mubarak. If you’re thinking not much has actually changed, you’re right. The new Egyptian government has just approved a law that criminalizes strikes and protest marches in the country. Activists who led the revolution have also been arrested by the army commanders in Egypt.

Suffocating the Revolution

The United States and its allies continue a long standing tradition of destroying any legitimate revolution in the Middle East. What is the point of Western intervention in the Arab and Muslim world other than to quell any awakening that may be Arab nationalistic in nature, or, even more frightening to the west: an Islamic Awakening? Either of these movements would free the nations of the Middle East and North Africa from imperialistic influence.

There are many reasons why the United States protects its dictator friends in the Middle East and ventures out of its way to make sure they stay in power. The biggest fear of the West is an uprising against dictators and elites that are western placeholders in the Middle East. The people’s revolutions in Palestine, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, if successful, will forever alter the status quo that has limited Arab nations in reaching their true potential to attain success. Western intervention in these legitimate revolutions is never humanitarian as claimed by the UN and its most powerful members, but rather are tools to prevent true freedom and justice in the regions.

The following two tabs change content below.

Islamic Insights

Latest posts by Islamic Insights (see all)

9 Comments

  1. PinkMuslimah
    March 29, 16:08
    assalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah<br />University of Michigan professor Juan Cole disagrees with the assumption that the Wast is interfering with Qaddafi's attempt to commit mass slaughter against Libyan people solely for Libya's oil:<br /><br />"The US declined to do oil business with Libya in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, when it could have, because it had placed the country under boycott. It didn’t want access to that oil market, which was repeatedly proffered to Washington by Qaddafi then. After Qaddafi came back in from the cold in the late 1990s (for the European Union) and after 2003 (for the US), sanctions were lifted and Western oil companies flocked into the country. US companies were well represented, along with BP and the Italian firm ENI. BP signed an expensive exploration contract with Qaddafi and cannot possibly have wanted its validity put into doubt by a revolution. There is no advantage to the oil sector of removing Qaddafi. Indeed, a new government may be more difficult to deal with and may not honor Qaddafi’s commitments. There is no prospect of Western companies being allowed to own Libyan petroleum fields, which were nationalized long ago. Finally, it is not always in the interests of Big Oil to have more petroleum on the market, since that reduces the price and, potentially, company profits. A war on Libya to get more and better contracts so as to lower the world price of petroleum makes no sense in a world where the bids were already being freely let, and where high prices were producing record profits."<br /><br />I support the no-fly zone, but with an attitude of cautious expectancy. I want the media to cover the events there so that we can see what our countries are doing there, and so that our countries cease and desist as soon as we are no longer needed.
    • Ahmad
      April 03, 06:18
      Sister,<br /><br />I've been reading Juan Cole's blog for years....some of it seems reasonable and useful. My problem with him though, is that he has no Quranic compass to reference. Might I suggest that you listen to this khutbah that deals directly with the issue of NATO's "no fly zone" over Libya? It has very clear references to the Quranic arguments against NATO's involvement in the Libya.<br /><br />http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/65736
  2. rivendell9999
    March 29, 16:39
    I disagree with the opinion on Lybia. The airstrikes ARE doing something and the rebel forces ARE pushing back and even stepped into offensive due to the NATO air cover. As for revolution I think it should also spread to 3 countries (at least) more: China, North Korea and Iran...
  3. Psychopath
    April 04, 01:28
    Muslim_Hijabi: Avoid such ad hominem arguments, they tend to dent your own credibility...unless you can refute a point he makes in the paragraph provided by 'PinkMuslimah'? I think he puts an interesting case on the table, especially once it's noted that this an intervention by the international community, not just the US and is not comparable, by any measure, to Iraq.
    • sm
      April 04, 01:38
      Here you go: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC30Ak01.html
  4. dn
    June 17, 01:56
    You left out the one regime which has done the most atrocious crimes amongst all, I give you a hint, it's ruled by a Shia minority in a Sunni dominant country. <br /><br />If the shelling of civilians and the death of more than 1000 humans in Syria is not even worth mentioning, that says something about the humanity of the writer of this article, and this website.
    • Re
      June 17, 06:55
      Um...did you read the date on the article? It was clearly written a long time before the protests started up in Syria.. Please refrain from making nonsensical accusations, and don't turn this into a sectarian issue.

Only registered users can comment.