Militants, Women and Tahrir Sq.

[chimpymustgo]

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: February 5, 2011

CAIRO

-edit-

I asked an old friend here in Cairo, a woman with Western tastes that include an occasional glass of whiskey, whether the Muslim Brotherhood might be bad for peace. She thought for a moment and said: “Yes, possibly. But, from my point of view, in America the Republican Party is bad for peace as well.”

If democracy gains in the Middle East, there will be some demagogues, nationalists and jingoists, just as there are in America and Israel, and they may make diplomacy more complicated. But remember that it’s Mr. Mubarak’s repression, imprisonment and torture that nurtured angry extremists like Ayman al-Zawahri of Al Qaeda, the right-hand man of Osama bin Laden. It would be tragic if we let our anxieties impede our embrace of freedom and democracy in the world’s most populous Arab nation.

I’m so deeply moved by the grit that Egyptians have shown in struggling against the regime — and by the help that some provided me, at great personal risk, in protecting me from thugs dispatched by America’s ally. Let’s show some faith in the democratic ideals for which these Egyptians are risking their lives.

I think of Hamdi, a businessman who looked pained when I asked whether Egyptian democracy might lead to oppression or to upheavals with Israel or the price of oil. “The Middle East is not only for oil,” he reminded me. “We are human beings, exactly like you people.”

-edit-

****
Much more at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/opinion/06kristof.html

****
The people. United. Will never be defeated.

[DLnyc]

1. Another great piece from Kristoff.

It helps that he's actually there, I guess.

====
“We don’t hate the American people,” he added. “They are pioneers. We want to be like them. Is that a crime?”
====

It got me thinking though. Iran and 1979 keep getting mentioned. I am not exactly a historian, but my memory and learning seem to say that the US supported the Shah, a vicious tyrant, up to the end, and opposed the revolution, and that left a vacuum that Khomeini (sp?) rushed in to fill. In fact I seem to remember a little matter of CIA staff frantically shredding documents in Tehran before they were finally taken as hostages. Wasn't it the SUPPORT, by the US, of the Shah, that was the main reason Khomeini was able to present himself as the appropriate antidote? Wouldn't our Islamaphobes be better advised to NOT SUPPORT the vicious tyrant this time around and, just for a change, support the popular movement?

Of course that is supposing that our Islamaphobes are honestly afraid of a fundamentalist takeover, and not just afraid of losing friendly bastards to enforce their scams.

[chimpymustgo]

2. You would think we would learn the lesson. But I think there is an underlying racism in our FP

that says we can't take a chance on those crazy Arabs (or Persians or Africans or Central Americans) figuring this out for themselves. Actually, maybe it's not even racism - it's just the way we do business. We support brutal dictators, who keep their boots on the necks of the people, while the plutocracy rapes and pillages the land. Win/win, right?

[BeFree]

3. well

We, as Americans, certainly have benefited from the control of other nations.