I hate the phrase "arab spring"
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:30 pm
I hate the term Arab Spring. It's so dismissive of the specific causes for separate events. Its like saying oh its just part of the season so everyone is going ape shit. And yet you hear it all the time. It goes really deep. It's like the term grassy knoll. You will hear that one all the time in JFK research it is said like it is second nature. But who says that? Knoll? Even "grassy" with the y is not very common, not in 1960s lingo nor today's. Why not the "fence on a the hill" or any other phrase? It has to be grassy knoll. I swear its like they are testing their propaganda. Oh look they are all saying "too big to fail" they're all saying "smoking gun," "Arab Spring" as if it it were a way to monitor how deep the propaganda penetrated. How do these odd catch phrases become catch phrases? The uniformity of it all bothers me.
To equate what has happened in Egypt to what is happening in Syria or what happened in Libya as if they were ALL organic revolutions is pure foolishness and willful ignorance, yet brilliant propaganda. In Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt you have different legitimate revolutions all of which the US does not support. The state killing civilians is a non-issue in those places. In Egypt however the revolution succeeded and old dictator was removed and over a long process a new government is now in place. How much better or worse this will be than the last rein has yet to be seen. But these popular uprisings with millions marching in the streets cannot be compared to the NATO backed invasions of Libya and Syria as if they were synonymous under the guise of "Arab Spring." Libya was directly related to the Egypt in that the post Mubarak Egypt the Suez was open to Iranian ships to go North it was also open for ships to go South meaning Libya could ship its oil to Asia. That is what happened to, Gaddafi, he contracted to sell oil to China and reneged on European contracts. He was taken out, sodomized by a knife and shot in the head. After NATO made its mess, the rebuilding of Libya and concern for the aftermath was left to the wind. That's because it was never about freedom or humanitarian justice. The phrase "humanitarian war" has got to be one of the worst oxymorons ever and one of the dumbest canards piped by the administration, second in stupidity only to "kinetic military action" as a replacement for acts of war. Can you have kinetic inaction? It's redundant.
Yemen is another one that gets lumped into "Arab Spring" and this is very different from everything mentioned above. In Yemen we have a civil war with the North West backed by Saudi factions as well as US drone attackes. But this did not just randomly fester out of an Arab Spring. The People's Democratic Republic on Yemen (south east Yemen) and the Yemen Arab Republic (north west) was only recently united in 1990 and had a civil war as soon as 1994, the North with outside assistance prevailed, but by 2007 the South Yemen secession movement was under full swing and enjoyed a clear majority of public support. The causes for the tension had nothing to do with the Arabness or with Islam. This is the new orientalization of western goggles. The cause of tension in South Yemen was similar to in the Sudan, it's about resources. The South has the majority of the oil the proceeds of which however are almost exclusively spent on the North. Classic regional scapegoating. But in the West as was the case of 20th century India, everything is seen through the goggles of religion and no other explanations for motives can be entertained. They are just 'crazy' of course and that's the end of it. It's dismissive and it is childish.
Yet the most extreme religious factions, those that maybe could be deemed 'crazy,' always enjoy US support from Afghanistan to Kosovo to Libya the US backs the most extremest fundamentalist imaginable. Then there is the US support for terrorist groups on MEK, Jundallah, and even the Taliban and the creation of "al Qaeda" and Salafi jihadist groups currently supported in Syria by NATO and their lackeys. For all the talk of democracy and humanitarians the US still backs dictatorships, in Yemen al-Hadi the president was elected in Feb on 2012 because he was the only name on the ballot! Saudi Arabia is still run by despot monarchs and in Israel the Likud ultra zionist fascist racial apartheid state has more support from America than anyone.
To equate what has happened in Egypt to what is happening in Syria or what happened in Libya as if they were ALL organic revolutions is pure foolishness and willful ignorance, yet brilliant propaganda. In Bahrain, Tunisia, Egypt you have different legitimate revolutions all of which the US does not support. The state killing civilians is a non-issue in those places. In Egypt however the revolution succeeded and old dictator was removed and over a long process a new government is now in place. How much better or worse this will be than the last rein has yet to be seen. But these popular uprisings with millions marching in the streets cannot be compared to the NATO backed invasions of Libya and Syria as if they were synonymous under the guise of "Arab Spring." Libya was directly related to the Egypt in that the post Mubarak Egypt the Suez was open to Iranian ships to go North it was also open for ships to go South meaning Libya could ship its oil to Asia. That is what happened to, Gaddafi, he contracted to sell oil to China and reneged on European contracts. He was taken out, sodomized by a knife and shot in the head. After NATO made its mess, the rebuilding of Libya and concern for the aftermath was left to the wind. That's because it was never about freedom or humanitarian justice. The phrase "humanitarian war" has got to be one of the worst oxymorons ever and one of the dumbest canards piped by the administration, second in stupidity only to "kinetic military action" as a replacement for acts of war. Can you have kinetic inaction? It's redundant.
Yemen is another one that gets lumped into "Arab Spring" and this is very different from everything mentioned above. In Yemen we have a civil war with the North West backed by Saudi factions as well as US drone attackes. But this did not just randomly fester out of an Arab Spring. The People's Democratic Republic on Yemen (south east Yemen) and the Yemen Arab Republic (north west) was only recently united in 1990 and had a civil war as soon as 1994, the North with outside assistance prevailed, but by 2007 the South Yemen secession movement was under full swing and enjoyed a clear majority of public support. The causes for the tension had nothing to do with the Arabness or with Islam. This is the new orientalization of western goggles. The cause of tension in South Yemen was similar to in the Sudan, it's about resources. The South has the majority of the oil the proceeds of which however are almost exclusively spent on the North. Classic regional scapegoating. But in the West as was the case of 20th century India, everything is seen through the goggles of religion and no other explanations for motives can be entertained. They are just 'crazy' of course and that's the end of it. It's dismissive and it is childish.
Yet the most extreme religious factions, those that maybe could be deemed 'crazy,' always enjoy US support from Afghanistan to Kosovo to Libya the US backs the most extremest fundamentalist imaginable. Then there is the US support for terrorist groups on MEK, Jundallah, and even the Taliban and the creation of "al Qaeda" and Salafi jihadist groups currently supported in Syria by NATO and their lackeys. For all the talk of democracy and humanitarians the US still backs dictatorships, in Yemen al-Hadi the president was elected in Feb on 2012 because he was the only name on the ballot! Saudi Arabia is still run by despot monarchs and in Israel the Likud ultra zionist fascist racial apartheid state has more support from America than anyone.