GH:

I think you overplay the US role in the Troubles, but I am not from your part of the country. We have already lost more people in the GWOT than were killed in the entire IRA campaign.

Are you maintaining that the predominantly Islamic states from the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia, the Phillipines, and Indonesia are benevolent and non-violent?

A successful democracy requires a vibrant middle-class, a feature lacking in most of the Islamic states. The failure to acknowledge that was one of the many major failings of the Klinton regime. You can conduct democratic elections in Haiti and have all of the fre trade you want with them, but they are going to revert as soon as the adult leadership (with guns) departs. This is true in most of the Islamic states. I think that the best we can hope for in the short to mid-term is responsible, benevolent dictatorships. There MAY be sufficient middle-class people in Iraq to make it work. I do not think that it will in Afghanistan without a lot of support for a long time.

I am not sure that I want the Arab Moslems learning anything else from the Chechens.

IMHO, the money would be better spent helping moderate clerics and eliminating those teaching hate by any means possible, preferrably by discrediting and disenfranchising them and their followers.

TR

That was an outstanding article. Thanks for posting it, TR.

As a guy I once worked for used to put it:"Take the cause away from the guerrilla."

As for the part about encouraging nations in the middle east to become like the islamic countries outside of the middle east, that simply will not happen.

No, but they are no more violent than their non-Islamic neighbors (in SE Asia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Burma are significantly more violent nations).

I guess that depends on how you rate a successful democracy. The nation where I currently live has been a democracy for quite a while (sometimes more successfully than others). It has only developed a vibrant middle-class very recently. Both Japan and Korea were relatively successful democracies before they had any substantial middle-class.

And when the terrorist leaders turn to another method of recruiting for their "cause" (which is power for themselves, no matter how they dress it up)?

It isn't that long ago that a number of Arab terrorist groups espoused Marxism. As someone has already pointed out, religion is easier to exploit and manipulate, but that doesn't mean that the culture can't be exploited by other means.

"more like"

And I'll bet that 100 years ago, no one would have thought that Japan would have adopted so many bits from American culture... but they have...

I doubt that anywhere on Earth is more violent than Chechnya.

Japan and Korea were not really democracies before US occupation. Even now, Japan is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government, not a strict democracy. BTW, Thailand is a constitutional monarchy as well.

Any program to take the initiative and have them react to us would be a good one. We need to be inside their OODA Loop for a change. I would say that it is a lot easier to recruit martyrs for Islam than for Karl Marx and his ideology. What would he promise for the afterlife, a truly classless society? Who wants that crap?

TR

Well, we DID firebomb them and then nuke them twice.

Britain is also a Constitutional Monarchy... and a democracy. Parliamentary systems are just as entitled to be called democracies as our Republic.

As far as I know, there is no "pure democracy" in place as the government of a nation-state. All of what we call democracies are representative democracies, whether parliamentary systems or republics.

Didn't do that to Thailand, Korea, Russia or Singapore... but I think the same comments would have been made 100 years ago about them (actually, in Thailand's case, I actually have a book written about 60 years ago that claims that the west will never influence Thai culture. Oops).

Of the nations in Freedom House's rankings which receive the highest rating as free countries, 15 out of 46 are constitutional monarchies - Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Tuvalu and the UK.

Of those receiving the second-highest rating, 7 out of 15 are constitutional monarchies - Belize, Grenada, Japan, Monaco, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Jamaica and Thailand receive lower ratings, but are still "free". Six constitutional monarchies are "partly free" - Malaysia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tonga. Two are "not free" - Bhutan and Cambodia.

If you define a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government as not being strictly a democracy, then your definition of democracy is too narrow. All of these constitutional monarchies are representative democracies, and only in a few - Liechtenstein, Thailand, Nepal, Tonga, Bhutan and arguably Luxembourg - does the monarch have any real authority.

Let me qualify one statement above: all are democracies in the sense of having elected governments, but in Bhutan, Cambodia, Nepal and Tonga the democratic institutions are still fairly weak. Tonga's elected parliament, for example, is dominated by nobles, and criticism of the king is generally not permitted.

Of course, by modern standards, the United States was not a democracy for at least the first century of its existence (voting was limited essentially to propertied white males, and the upper house of the legislature was appointed by state governors, not elected).

Not to get into a discourse on political science here, and by no means do I wish to offend anyone, but strictly speaking, America is not really a genuine democracy, either.

In fact, I do not believe that there is a nation on earth that is truly a democracy, as defined in any basic political science text book. Those countries that are "free," to an extent, have democratic traditions and institutions. But all nations are mixtures, and all are different.

As for Thailand....I must say, it has been educational living here.

If you badmouth the king, or the institutions of the monarchy, you are literally liable to have the holy shit kicked out of you. You will go to jail. With bruises. The monarchy is off limits for critical discourse.

Like TR....and I hate to say it, I think that some form of benevolent dictatorship may end up emerging in Iraq, and countries like it. Such political structures inevitably generate internal opposition, and over time, internal stresses can lead either to political change, or to conflict. Healthy polities evolve versions of democracy and free enterprise, and I do believe that it is possible for these features to emerge over time in distressed states. Look at China. It is still ruled by a communist party. But change is occuring there, even there, in what is arguably the oldest and most traditional country on earth. The change is driven by free, or somewhat free, enterprise. And by the free flow of ideas (China tries to put the internet genie back into the bottle, but it is too late), and by the interaction of cultures.

But I think that it is idealistic of us, as Americans, to hope that we can successfully transplant democratic institutions and traditions to countries with no history of them. I know that many Iraqis that I met were nostalgic for certain features of the Saddam days. They missed having reliable electricty, cheap and plentiful benzine, clean water...and they all pointed out that there was no anarchy in the streets. If you drove like an idiot, went the wrong way on a one way street, you were liable to be shot. Everything flowed in patrimonial fashion from the state.

Now, as anyone knows who has been to Iraq since the fall of Saddam, driving there is worse than driving virtually anywhere else on the planet. In fact, much of the country is de facto chaos.

It is a toss up, in my mind, whether Iraq as a contiguous state will survive. My money is on a loose federation, with an increasingly autonomous Kurdish north, a Shia south increasingly aligned with Iran....and a middle area of Sunnis, living worse than the Palestinians in the Jordanian refugee camps or areas around Israel proper.

It is up to Iraqis, of course. If this transpires, then Iraqis will have no one to blame but themselves. America, and Americans, have given them the best chance that they could ever expect to start over, from scratch. If they choose to waste it, then there is not much that America or Americans can do about it.

For myself, I look forward to a day when I can return to Kurdistan. Wonderful people. Wonderful country. The rest of that country....I will refrain from expressing my opinions.

The alternative....if a cohesive, coherent Iraqi state is to survive...I believe that it will be because a form of benign dictatorship emerges. Dictatorship is what the Iraqi people know, and frankly, the average guy on the street just wants to make a living, and not be persecuted. They want to worship God in their own fashion, they want to be safe from mafias, safe from the secret police, and they want a viable standard of living.

It would be enough, in my mind, if some form of state were to emerge that enabled Sunni and Shia to live without conflict. I do not see this happening. I think that this schism within Islam has yet to be resolved, and it will play out over the coming decades. As infidel invaders, we merely distracted them from their primary focus, which was persecuting heretics.

The one thing that we accomplished, which more than any other fact mitigates in favor of Iraq (and this is one of the things of which we should be most proud), is the emergence of free enterprise. If we can help the state hold itself together, and simply hold off the insurgency long enough to help a viable middle class emerge...then something good might survive.

Again, I am not optimistic.

Magician,

Did you know that Iraq was a functioning democracy at one time?

Democracy!
 

Kinda' ended when the oposition party was taken out and shot.

The post WW I history of the middle east, the young turks, the rise of the Bath political party, how the Bath party machine was/is used, the rise of the "Strong Man" in each country all makes for some interesting background reading.

All of the above plays directly into how the military is run in those countries. Not for the same reasons, but similar, is how the African countries run their military forces. While there may be great small unit leaders, the higher command is picked for political reliability.

Dimly, brother.

It might be helpful if someone wants to post a definition of "democracy" that we can all agree to use, if we pursue this thread further.

Iraq was never a democracy.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Iraq of March 21, 1925 (as amended July 29, 1925) provided for a constitutional monarchy (Article 21: "On accession to the throne, the King shall swear an oath before a joint meeting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, which shall be presided over by the president of the Senate, that he will observe the terms of the constitution, preserve the independence of the country and strive faithfully to further the interests of both country and people."), but it was not a democratic system where the monarch was only a figurehead.

Executive power was vested in the King. Article 26(1): "The King is the supreme head of the State. He confirms laws, orders their promulgation and supervises their execution. By his order regulations are drawn up for the purpose of giving effect to the terms of laws, in so far as such laws contain provisions therefor." When Parliament was not sitting, he also had the power to make laws by issuing Royal Ordinances.

The Senate was appointed by the King. He was commander in chief of the armed forces and could declare war with the assent of the Council of Ministers (but did not need Parliament's consent). Judges were appointed by the King.

There were some limitations. Parliament could repeal Royal Ordinances once it met. It had the power to approve treaties. The King appointed government ministers and officials, but on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or responsible ministers.

The lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, was fairly representative democratic. It was elected based on universal male suffrage, with special provisions to ensure ethnic and religious minority representation. But since any law required assent of the King and of both houses, the King and the Senate he appointed had a veto over the Chamber of Deputies.

The Supreme Court was not a standing body, and was appointed when necessary for various functions (interpreting the Constitution, trying a minister, etc.) by Royal Decree. The Senate chose the membership from among its own members and senior judges.

Politically, the monarchy period was tumultuous. The British mandate ended in 1932. Iraq's first coup came in 1936. It's second came in 1941, a pro-German one which led to the British invasion. There was a lesser uprising in 1948, and major protests in 1952 which led to the imposition of martial law.

The 1958 coup overthrew the monarchy, and the Republic of Iraq was founded. Two factions arose out of the coup - one close to the Iraqi Communist Party and one close to the Ba'ath Party. The 1925 Royal Constitution was abolished, but no new constitution was promulgated, nor any parliamentary elections held. Instead, power was exercised through decrees.

The Ba'ath took power in 1963, but lost it a few months later, when the military overthrew the then-small party. In 1964, Iraq began moves to unite with Syria and Egypt into the United Arab Republic, but this fell apart by 1965. A civilian prime minister was appointed, who tried to establish the rule of law, but the central government was still weak and a Kurdish rebellion soon began. The military took power again in 1966. The government remained weak and another coup in 1968 left a power vacuum into which the Ba'ath stepped.

A provisional constitution was put forth in 1968 and became effective in 1970.

Under the 1970 interim constitution, Iraq was a "Sovereign People's Democratic Republic." The individual rights set forth in earlier constitutions were subject to "social" rights, first of which was that "the social solidarity is the first foundation for the Society. Its essence is that every citizen accomplishes his duty in full, and that the Society guarantees the citizen's rights and liberties in full." (Article 10). Such individual liberties as remained were made subject to certain qualifications, and an article was added limiting all rights: "It is prohibited to exercise any activity against the objectives of the People, stipulated in this Constitution."

Economically, it was a socialist system, with a nod to Arab fascism: "The State assumes the responsibility for planning, directing and steering the national economy for the purpose of: (a) establishing the socialist system on scientific and revolutionary foundations; (b) realizing the economic Arab unity." (Article 12).

Private property was subject to state control, and had to be used for the benefit of society (Article 16(a): "Ownership is a social function, to be exercised within the objectives of the Society and the plans of the State, according to stipulations of the law.").

The "supreme institution in the State" was the Revolutionary Command Council, all of whose members had to be Ba'athists. The Parliament was to be replaced by a National Council, which had no real power. The President of the Republic held the most power, far more than the King ever had. No National Council was elected until 1980. All candidates had to be approved by the Ba'ath.

So, to sum up:

1535-1918: Ottoman administration (with a few interruptions and some degree of local autonomy)
1918-1932: British administration, with some moves to creating a constitutional monarchy
1932-1958: Constitutional monarchy, but not a democratic one
1958-1968: Republic, weak and undemocratic, mainly a series of military dictatorships
1968-2003: "Sovereign People's Democratic Republic" under the Ba'ath.
2003-2004: US-led Coalition administration
2004-2005: Interim transitional government appointed by the Coalition
2005-date: Democratically-elected government working on creating democratic institutions.

brother, I bow in your general direction.

thank you.

s.
-

Doooh!!!

TR

In 1921, Iraq elected King Faysal. Basic concept of a representative democracy is elected leadership, correct? So election of the King (who is evidently the power and leadership based on your post) is a representative democracy. It may not be the sort that we are used to, but it is a democracy. In addition, a parliamentary system did exist during the time period that is considered to have been under British rule ( http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/1918.html )

Sadaam Hussein was elected, as was Stalin, does that make Sadaam's Iraq and the USSR democratic?

TR

Stalin was elected?

Since when?

I'lll have to look into Hussein, never heard such a claim.

People have claimed Hitler was elected. He wasn't, he was appointed.

Hussein
 

Not speaking to Hussein exactly, but I'll speak in a general way about the Ba'ath political party in most of the middle eastern countries.

The dictator runs the Ba'ath party in his country. At the Ba'ath convention meeting they pick somebody to head the ticket in the elections. No suprise there, they pick the dictator. With his the only name on the ballot it's no wonder most of them win with well over 80% of the vote, a landslide.

Like I said before, read the background history of the young turks, arab nationalism and the rise of the Ba'ath political party in most of the middle eastern countries that covers the time from WW I up to the 60s.

Exactly my point.

Communist parties hold elections during party congresses. The outcome is generally preordained, but the exercise serves to legitimize the leadership, at least for their own internal consumption. It also exposes rifts in party unity, which depending on the nature of party politics, can be exceedingly dangerous. We have all heard of party "purges," and we even tend to feel an aversion to the term "factionalism."

Note that in the example of communist parties, generally only party members vote, though popular elections among the broad masses of the citizenry do sometimes also take place. The results of these popular elections are typically foregone conclusions, though I am sure that my brother Airborne Lawyer can find and cite exceptions. In no case but one that I recall off the top of my head do they trump the decisions taken by the party. The party asserts that the party member representatives of the masses, from the mass organizations, represent the will of the people, as do the party members representing other "popular" constituencies, themselves.

We in the West have never accepted this as a form of democracy.

In our own system, there is a popular vote, and there is the Electoral College. As we all know, except under specific conditions, the popular vote is not a vote that directly elects our presidents. Presidents are indirectly elected through the Electoral College vote. Critics of this system note that it, too, is subject to party politics, and the results can also be foregone conclusions. Ask yourself this basic question: who elects, or designates, as the case may be, members of the Electoral College?

We do directly vote for representatives, and for senators, hence the term "representative democracy." In the US, we directly vote for members of the legislature, which as well all know, is only one part of our government, the other portions being the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch, in the form of the Supreme Court.

Through foreign eyes, the electoral spectacle that we mount every four years is exactly that: a show intended to legitimize the choice of the Electoral College. From the standpoint of a communist, the Electoral College system is not significantly different from their own. Neither communist parties nor modern political parties in the United States are "the people." They represent the people, and I think that it is clear that they only represent some of the people, and it can be argued that they are, in fact, only weakly representative altogether. In America, we do not vote politicians into membership in either political party. Under some historical forms of communism, (more strictly and accurately termed socialism), labor unions, mass organizations, and other political entities have indeed voted to designate representatives to represent them within the communist or socialist party.

(Strictly speaking, I agree with the assertion that genuine communism has been attempted but never implemented historically. All forms have been socialist experiments on a continuum to a communist ideal which doctrinally cannot emerge until it is a global phenomenon.)

In fact, it can be argued that some communist parties have been more representative of the people, strictly speaking, than the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. Yes, I wrote that. This form of democracy is broadly termed "indirect democracy," and specifically "representative democracy." I assert for purposes of this discussion that many socialist systems have historically embodied at least some elements of representative democracy, though I will agree that traditionally the term refers more precisely to votes for the legislative branch in the US, and for parliaments in other polities.

From my personal perspective, I consider the choice between Democrats and Republicans in this country to be a false choice. But I digress.

There are a multitude of definitions of Democracy, with a capital D, but I will cite the one from the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia: "Democracy is a form of government in which decisions are made with the direction of the majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process."

As you can see, this is not as precise as we might wish. The primary reason why we in the West discount the internal party elections and mass popular elections of communist polities is because we perceive that their voting processes are not "fair." The Encyclopedia continues, "It can apply to a multitude of government systems, as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other forms," implying other forms of government, which is precisely the point that I make with the example above.

For myself, I define Democracy very simply: one person, one vote, period. Direct democracy is generally the term used to signify this form. Historically, I am not aware that it has ever existed, though some assert that the Swiss system comes closest, as it includes two of three prerequisites, which the Wikipedia Encyclopedia terms Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. In the US, which strictly speaking is a federal republic, more than half of the states in the union permit citizen-initiated balloting, and most states permit either Initiatives and Referenda. One example of Recall is the process which resulted in the recall of the previous governor of California, and the subsequent election of The Governator.

It is obvious in my opinion that elections do not a democracy make. As exemplified by most communist systems, those who are electable are often determined by their membership in mass or labor organizations which by definition means that only those who adhere to an acceptable set of beliefs are eligible. This can be said of many other examples, as well.

There is much more to discuss, but I will stop for now.

Let the frenzy begin.

:)

Hitler received the largest minority vote in the Weimar Republic in 1933. So, it is true that he was not directly elected by a majority. He received the largest minority vote, however, and hence was the default winner.

Interestingly, the Weimar constitution permitted its own suspension under emergency conditions without a vote or an election.

We all know what a real democracy is and iraq has never been one, never. You sort of shot yourself in the foot with your first sentence there, "King Faysal..." in all of history I've never heard of an elected king, appointed maybe but never elected. I'm sure you will prove me wrong and find an elected king, but was he really "elected"? I doubt it.

You should leave the twisting of history for the uneducated.

Tell me GH did you miss this in the News?
"New Iran President Was Hostage Taker" He was also elected? Who would have thought an islamic terrorist could be elected as a head of state. What could the masses be thinking? Surely their peaceful religion would forbid them from electing anyone that might be construed as a religious extremist?

Maybe we were wrong in the naming of this thread, it should not read "Are we at war with islam" but "Is islam at war with us?"
I still believe so and each day proves what I (and Sir Winston Churchill) have to say about todays islamic followers.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Have you ever watched the videos of the insurgent attacks against the US military? Ever listened to the islamic extremists before they blow themselves up in a group of children, or when they shoot unarmed civilians and soldiers etc? Greenhat, to the video, EVERYONE, everyone I've ever heard NOT one has cried for FREEDOM. Tell me GreenHat what/who are they fighting for? It's NOT FREEDOM that much is sure. Funny how they all have the same fanatical cry.

I'll stand with Sir Winston Churchill on this one. I figure I'm in good company.

Please feel free to continue to defend the islamic religion, it is your right and I will continue to defend your freedom of speech with my last breath. I'm sure Salman Rushdie would happier if the islamic religion allowed the same freedom of speech.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 provided for elections for public officials. Unfortunately, the Communist Party provided the only list of candidates. Thus elections resulted in extremely high percentages of votes for the candidates. Write-ins were discouraged. STRONGLY discouraged.

Saddam was relected several times to seven year terms, most recently in 2002.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m.../16/iraq.vote/

"Saddam gets perfect poll result

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Posted: 12:23 PM EDT (1623 GMT)

Tributes to the re-elected leader were held aloft by supporters

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq has declared Saddam Hussein the winner with 100 percent of the votes in a referendum granting him another seven-year term, bringing bursts of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad's streets."


Magician is right, we have a republic, not a strict democracy.

The Founding Fathers did not want a democracy, and argued strongly against it in their writings.

James Madison: "Federalist #10: ...there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Alexander Hamilton: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

John Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide."

Patrick Henry:"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth...For my part, whatever anguish of the spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to prepare for it." As we near this nation's celebration of Independence there are three truths that need to be told. First. We are not supposed to be a democracy; we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Second. We find ourselves today a secular society but we were formed as a Christian nation. Third. Americans have been taught to believe the concept that "a wall of separation of church and State" exists between religion and government. The truth is our founding fathers did not want any one Christian church to be preferred [have power] over another. Religion was fundamental to every aspect of life. They did not want religion out of government — they wanted government out of religion!

Benjamin Rush: "A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils."

Fisher Ames: "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty...Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."

As an interesting tidbit:

Democracy, 1927, The U. S. Army Training Manual: “A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”


TR

Nothing makes me feel better about life than rereading the Founding Fathers.

Particularly Jefferson.

;)

Not exactly, Magician. Hitler was appointed by Paul Von Hindenberg, who was the winner of the election in 1932. There was no election in 1933, so Hitler couldn't have been the default winner. The power that Hitler gained he gained by getting the Reichstag to give him those powers. There was a referendum in 1934 (after Von Hindenberg's death) regarding those powers (90% of those who voted approved of Hitler maintaining those powers). Regardless, Hitler was never elected to any position.

And unlike the "elections" of Baathist Iraq or the USSR, the election of King Faysal seems to be actually the will of the Iraqi people (although Stalin probably would have been elected even in free elections).

Just so you can tell people that you have heard a Muslim call for FREEDOM.

http://www.usindo.org/Briefs/2005/SBY%20Speech.htm

Again GH, leave the twisting for the uninitiated.

I was in Indonesia a few years ago, lived and worked with the military to include the Indonesian Special Forces. I know what a “repressive” government is and how it operates.

Indonesia is a repressive government. I have witnessed soldiers beating civilians, forcing a busload of civilians off the road into a ditch because they were moving too slow, causally breaking windows and side mirrors of civilian vehicles to allow military vehicles to move unimpeded, using a farmers land for a drop zone, placing small children in harms way by parachute jumping over their heads as they worked in the farmers fields, I could go on and on but you get the drift. I've told you before don’t use Indonesia as a model of a noble moslem country, its not, I've been there.

Are you now going to question my years of active duty Special Forces training concerning insurgencies and terrorism, what they are, how they start, WHY they start, many due to repressive governments?

I can assure you I can identify a repressive government 10 out of 10 times.

De Oppresso Liber

Team Sergeant

No chance that Indonesia might have changed in the last few years?
Btw, as a New Yorker, I've witnessed Police Officers beating civilians, forcing civilians off the road, and seen side mirrors broken by garbage trucks so that they can move unimpeded. I'm also aware (although I did not witness it) of Police Officers killing innocent civilians.

Shall we call the government of New York a repressive one?

And since you are so concerned with repressive governments, can you tell me what the US Government was under Abraham Lincoln? How about FDR?

Do you mean to compare the U.S. under either Lincoln or Roosevelt (or any other wartime American leader) to Indonesia under Suharto?

Don't you think that is a bit of a stretch?

TR

I've beaten civilians (dirt bags resisting or trying to do harm to me or other officers) I've forced civilians off the road (trying to apprehend felons). Heard of all kinds of side view mirrors being broken off in Hit and Run accidents! So they could continue unimpeded.

For the sake of argument, if what you witnessed was abuse I can assure you it would not be sanctioned or authorized by any governmental entity within the city or state of New York. And if a person such as yourself witnessed these events then there are mechanisms in place to deal with the offending officer or garbage truck driver. Did you do your part as a good citizen?


What kind of statement is that? :confused: Are you saying you are aware of a murder? Or are you saying you are aware of a traffic accident in which civilians were killed when struck by a police officer driving a patrol car? Or maybe a citizen was struck by a stray bullet fired by an officer?

It is my experience that good citizens who learn of murders are quick to volunteer their information to the authorities. Did you? And if you did then you need to tell us the rest of the story..........instead of implying murders and abuses are common place and unchecked in New York!



Since your supporting statements to this question are flawed I guess the answer would be NO!





[/QUOTE]

Don't even want to know what your justification might be for this question! Sheesh!

Cherry Picking
 

This thread has spun on and on and on and on and on. Both sides have begun to cherry pick actions and times from both sides of the issue. Both sides are also begining to get a bit personal in the replies.

Let's boil a few things down into bite size chunks.

1.) Most religions had a period in their past where the religion was pushed on the point of a sword or spear, either by the priest or ruler.

2.) Even today some sects within most religions take and extreme view and can kill, all in the name of their religion.

3.) As a whole, most religions today have pulled back from the extreme view and try to live in peace with other religions.

4.) Islam has not. It still is pushing the view that Islam is the only true religion and that all others must either convert, submit or die.


So it is clear that until Islam goes through the modern reformation (?) that most other religions have; then, Yes Islam is at War with the west, and south, and north and east.

Also, Islam is a religious nation, not a geographic nation. That means any follower of Islam has the potential to be in the Combat Forces, the Auxillery, the Underground or other pasive support role unless they prove otherwise.

You are stupid if you give the enemy the benifit of the doubt in war time.

Anytime the “people” live in fear of their own “military” that would mean they have a repressive government. The people of Indonesia are scared shitless of the Indonesian military, and we’re not talking isolated incidents.

I also said a “few” years not 60 or 200 years. I agree that a country can change, but over the course of decades and generations, not a “few” years. You and I both know one cannot research Indonesia, (today) without seeing the phrase “endemic corruption” somewhere in Indonesia’s description. The members reading this need not agree with my views but do a little of their own research, I've little doubt of what they will find.

Let’s not split hairs you also know we (United States) will hold our military and law enforcement accountable for their actions, please don’t compare us to other 5th world countries. Dick Durbin already did that and found it was not a good idea.

BTW how does the 4th most populated country in the world rank so low on the global economic scale? Were they also savaged by the western civilizations or might it be because of internal systemic corruption? (88 percent moslem, imagine that.)

It is amazing how some would compare our military with 5th world countries. Our Military culture is based on serving the constitution and the elected government. The military in 5th world country have more of a feudal culture, they serve the "war lord". IMHO one of greatest protectorate of our constitution along with the 3 branches of government is the Military.

Islam is a feudal culture, clerics have life and death rule over everyone. Over 50% of the Islamic society are chattel slaves (women). One can not question authority, to challenge the Qur'an is a apostasy punishable by death. No wonder Islamic countries are still living under the poorest of conditions. We as Kaffir have no value and no rights under Islam (see Sharia Law).

The Sura Al Maeda (5th) is a good read, and Al Nesa (women) it is written only for men and advocates beating one's wife (4,34). Also read the Hadiths on women. "women only have half a brain", "(Islamic) Hell is filled with women" and it takes 4 women to testify against one man.

According to the "Islamists" Islam is at war will all non-believers and apostates. War is not our choice, it is theirs.

Both are true. The colonialism: http://www.workers.org/indonesia/chap3.html The corruption should be widely known.

Back to the main topic, I think both sides are not necessarily against each other. Islam was brought to SE Asia by Arab merchants, and assimilated with the local culture etc. The lack of violence in the process yield a "more peaceful" version of Islam relative to the ones in Middle East. However, the Koran (and the imam) can easily spark and justify violence.
A good read for Islam and terrorism in SE Asia: http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Libr.../JIHistBG.html

A search on "Kopassus" and "human rights"will confirm this argument.

slight hijack

FrostFire,
Before you start calling the Indonesian people "peaceful" you might want to research what they did about 40 years ago.....
It will give you some insight as to how they "think" as a people. I'll give you a hint, it was genocide on a masssive scale!
TS

End hijack

How about this gem?

Still acquiting killers of 33 protestors as recently as this month:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/12/indone11309.htm

Indonesia: Acquittals Show Continuing Military Impunity
1984 Massacre of Demonstrators Goes Unpunished

(New York, July 12, 2005)—The recent appeals court acquittal of twelve soldiers convicted last year of the 1984 massacre of demonstrators in Jakarta shows the almost complete failure of Indonesia’s human rights courts, Human Rights Watch said today. The latest decision means that no one has been convicted for the so-called “Tanjung Priok” massacre, in which security forces killed at least 33 civilians in 1984.

Whether it is a massacre from the Suharto era or killings in East Timor, these verdicts show that the Indonesian military continues to get away with murder. There is clearly no political will in Indonesia to address this kind of impunity.

Human Rights Watch said that the appeals court decision was not made public, but was reported by the BBC, last Thursday, July 7.

The Tanjung Priok trials had represented Indonesia’s most robust attempt to date to hold perpetrators accountable for Suharto-era abuses. But following the acquittals, Human Rights Watch said that victims and their families have no judicial redress for the 22-year-old killings in Jakarta.

The acquittals followed trials by the ad hoc human rights court on East Timor, which finished appeal hearings in 2004. All but one of the 18 defendants were acquitted for crimes against humanity. Only Eurico Guterres, an East Timorese militia commander, stands convicted at present, and he remains free pending final appeal to the Supreme Court.

“Whether it is a massacre from the Suharto era or killings in East Timor, these verdicts show that the Indonesian military continues to get away with murder,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “There is clearly no political will in Indonesia to address this kind of impunity.”

Fourteen active and retired military officers originally stood trial over the Tanjung Priok incident. Two other soldiers accused of taking part in the incident were acquitted last year, including the head of Indonesia’s special forces, Major-General Sriyanto Muntrasan, who was then North Jakarta military commander. Human rights activists in Indonesia have long criticized the attorney general’s office for not including in the original indictments two retired generals, Try Sutrisno, then-Jakarta military commander (and later vice-president), and Benny Moerdani, then-armed forces commander, whom many believe were implicated in the violence.

The Tanjung Priok killings took place on September 12, 1984, when government security forces fired at civilian protestors during anti-government demonstrations in the Tanjung Priok harbour area of north Jakarta. The protests followed the arrests of several individuals who were accused of giving anti-government sermons at Tanjung Priok Rawa Badak Mosque.

In 2000, Komnas HAM (Indonesia’s National Commission on Human Rights) completed its inquiry into extrajudicial executions and disappearances which took place in Tanjung Priok. The inquiry listed 23 suspects, including many who are now senior Indonesian military officers.

“Because President Yudhoyono was elected democratically, many now wrongly believe that Indonesia’s military has been reformed,” said Adams. “This is not the case. The military remains above the law, apparently too powerful for the courts to tame.”

Based on a law passed by the Indonesian parliament in 2000 establishing special human rights courts on April 23, 2001, Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid enacted a presidential decree establishing an ad hoc human rights court to try gross violations of human rights in East Timor in 1999 and in Tanjung Priok in 1984.

Four regional human rights courts were also established by the 2000 law, including one in Makassar, Sulawesi. The Makassar court is expected to issue a ruling soon in the cases of two police officers on trial for the 2000 Abepura case, in which Indonesian police shot dead one student, tortured to death two more, and arbitrarily detained, tortured and ill-treated approximately 100 others.

Indonesians (Peaceful, Modern Islamists) Impose Sharia Law

TR

Aceh in Wonderland

27 June 2005

(A version of this article appeared in the Jakarta Post 28 June 2005)

Is Aceh being turned into the world of Alice in Wonderland? There is a British novel called Alice in Wonderland. A young girl called Alice, falls into a hole and enters a world full of confusion and absurdity. Everything is turned upside down and Alice is trapped to deal with too many pictures of small things, unable to focus on the world beyond. Are the Acehnese to be driven to this kind of existence?

Last week in Aceh several poor Acehnese, accused and found guilty of gambling under sharia (Islamic) law, were publicly flogged with canes by a government appointed executor. It is the first application of sharia since its imposition several years ago.

This is an absurdity; never in the history of Aceh has Islam been exploited in this way, simply to punish the poor. In the past Islam was the foundation and inspiration for the Acehnese to defend themselves against colonialism, social injustice and oppression.

Islamic values informed the fight against Portuguese oppression, which stopped their colonial expansion in Asia, and galvanised the Acehnese to defend themselves against Dutch invasion. The resilience of the Acehnese effectively bankrupted and thus defeated the Dutch. These values went on to imbue many Acehnese with the will to oppose injustice in the post colonial era. It was non conservative values of Islam, a desire for equality and justice that motivated the Acehnese to seek freedom from any and all attempts to conquer them.

But now we have some Ulamas empowered by the government using religious law to punish some people who commit petty crime, such as gambling, and enforcing disproportionate penalties. Gambling, if it is a crime at least only harms the gamblers, at worst their families. The conflict region of Aceh is full of groups and individuals harming the wider society, committing crimes that perpetuate conflict and exploitation. The crimes of the powerful; the killing of innocent civilians or involvement in large scale corruption seem to elicit a different response than the crimes of poor. When the rich and powerful seem immune from judicial action, even under sharia law, while the poor Acehnese are subject to all the extremes of this religious law it only serves to institutionalise inequality.

There was a question posed on the internet, circulated by some young Acehnese, asking jokingly how many times Abdullah Puted would be caned if this law were to be applied to him. How about if this law was applied to those who are killing Acehnese civilians? No, it will not apply to them said Sharia authority. In fact it will not even be applied to the prosecutor who is making the case in this first trial of Sharia, who had admitted he received money as a bribe, from the defendant.

Indeed it is only for the poor, the powerless amongst the Acehnese to bear the brunt of this newly emboldened Sharia authority. The other weak Acehnese targeted are women, the most vulnerable groups of society in Aceh right now. The police sharia, the government discussion about women, instead of being about education and equal rights for women, is about clothes, the headscarf, the way they wear things. There have occasionally been sweeps by sharia police to check whether Acehnese women are wearing their clothes according to sharia. There is a story that recently at a meeting of local government officials, woman was made to sit at the back of the room. All this comes at a time when the women of Aceh are calling for equality, access to education and a voice in the reconstruction.

This is an insult to Acehnese women who in the past have asserted their will to play a significant role in society. To cite a few obvious examples, three women have ruled the kingdom of Aceh, there have been several female admirals and high ranking members of armed forces. Most famously Cut Nyak Dhien but there was also Cut Meutia, Pocut Baren and others. There has been no such discussion about dress codes in the past, yet both Islam and women’s involvement in the wider society have managed to flourish.

By emphasising conservative aspects of religion and strict adherence to sharia law, some clerical leaders seek to blinker the Acehnese from wider problems in the region. They are exploiting the religious conviction of many Acehnese to manipulate them. In truth they are acting as an obstacle to change by distracting the locals from the main problem of injustice. This orchestrated distraction is perfect for a government which seeks to neutralize progressive voices in Aceh. This is a strategic alliance of the government with conservative religious to pacify the Acehnese.

If there is somebody most responsible for this, it is Abdurahman Wahid. It was Gus Dur the most liberal of Islamic thinkers who kick-started this new Sharia revolution. He decided to impose sharia law in order to show the political will of the government to solve the problem of Aceh. Rather than responding to Acehnese demands for a political solution to the conflict and social justice, this was a crude attempt to co-opt and empower a conservative religious elite to assist with the subjugation of the Acehnese desire for justice.

This use of religion as political tool to pacify the population or as political bribery is a dangerous move. It is like setting a time bomb. When it goes off it could unleash an era of harsh, intolerant and conservative Islam. It is the last thing everybody wants to happen in Aceh.

The writer is an Acehnese human rights advocate working for TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights Campaign in London and Kontras in Jakarta. He can be reached at agus_smur@hotmail.com


Indonesians Continue Legacy of Genocide

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...puahrights.pdf

This paper considers whether the Indonesian government’s conduct toward the people of West Papua constitutes genocide, as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The paper begins with a detailed account of the human rights situation in West Papua from the beginning of Indonesian rule in 1963 until today. It then analyzes the law of genocide as applied to the West Papuan case. Although the paper does not offer a definitive conclusion about whether genocide has occurred, it finds in the available evidence a strong indication that the Indonesian government has committed genocide against the West Papuans. Moreover, even if the acts described in the paper were not carried out with intent to destroy the West Papuans as a group, a necessary element of the crime of genocide, many of these acts clearly constitute crimes against humanity under international law.