Sunday, August 21, 2005



New Fisk

What does democracy really mean in the Middle East? Whatever the West decides

7 comments:

'Sometimes I wonder if there will be a moment when reality and myth, truth and lies, will actually collide. When will the detonation come? When the insurgents wipe out an entire US base? When they pour over the walls of the Green Zone and turn it into the same trashed blocks as the rest of Baghdad? Or will we then be told - as we have been in the past - that this just shows the "desperation" of the insurgents...?'

Which would be strongly reminiscent of Colonel Kurtz reading from a real TIME magazine report on how well the Vietnam War was going (in Apocalypse Now Redux). Alternatively, a serious and coordinated offensive against the US might burst the bubble of empty platitudes about democracy and freedom and mission accomplished, etc.

Posted by dc_red : 8/21/2005 02:16:00 PM

One wonders what solution poeple are proposing....
is it a major attack on the USA as suggested above? If so you have become the monster you hate.

-----

As to israel - funny that one would complain so much about their own victory. By this I dont mean the incident itself but the fact that almost no one i know wants the setters to remain even in israel they want to remoe the settlers. It is if anything a total victory for his position against than of the other side and yet he spends all day complaining?

This is similar to how the liberal media covers other events (ie look for hte human angle) - it doesnt show some evil jewish conspiracy to control the BBC or whatever.

It raises the question for anyone he attacks - can this fellow ever be happy?

Posted by Genius : 8/21/2005 02:47:00 PM

There's a difference between speculating and proposing. Bush & Blair got their countries (and to an extent Iraq) into this mess ... what solution are they proposing today, and does it connect to reality? It's easy to bluster on about freedom and democracy when you're not living there, and that's the point Fisk's makes eloquently.

Posted by dc_red : 8/21/2005 04:14:00 PM

And Mr Fisk opposed getting rid of Melosevic and the Taliban. Shows what side he's on and it ain't democacy and freedom.

Posted by Anonymous : 8/21/2005 06:25:00 PM

"Yes, I know the Taliban were a cruel bunch of bastards. They committed most of their massacres outside Mazar-i-Sharif in the late 1990s. They executed women in the Kabul football stadium. And yes, lets remember that 11 September was a crime against humanity." Robert Fisk November 28, 2001.
"It [NATO} has failed to protect the Kosovo Albanians from Serbian war crimes. It has failed to cow Slobodan Milosevic. It has failed to force the withdrawal of Serb troops from Kosovo". Robert Fisk : The Independent, May 13, 1999
So, where is the support for Milosevic and the Taliban?

Posted by Belach : 8/21/2005 10:28:00 PM

Fisk opposed military intervention against Milosevic and the Taliban -try reading http://www.zmag.org/blame.htm from the left-wing extremist site Zmag:

On Kosovo -

"In 1999, Nato claimed it was waging war to put Kosovo Albanian refugees back in their homes – even though most of the refugees were still in their homes when the war began. Our bombing of Serbia led directly to their dispossession. We bear a heavy burden of responsibility for their suffering.."

On Afghanistan -

"This particular war is, as Mr Bush said, going to be "unlike any other" – but not in quite the way he thinks. It's not going to lead to justice. Or freedom."

We should note how very wrong Fisk, the so-called expert on the Middle East, was on Afghanistan - where a fledgling democracy is in place, no thanks to Fisk.

And note too how very wrong this so-called expert was on Kosovo - "It [NATO] has failed to cow Slobodan Milosevic."

Isn't that the same Milosevic now languishing in prison being tried for war crimes thanks to the US and Britain? And no thanks to Fisk.

Fisk also assured us that bin Laden could not have been invlolved with 9/11.

Posted by Sock Thief : 8/22/2005 09:20:00 AM

I have read the ZMag article.
The point here is that Fisk has disagreed with the way that the two wars were carried out and the reasons that were given.
I cannot find a Fisk article where he says that Milosevics' regime should not be overthrown, he does question the methods that the NATO forces used and questions the legitimacy of their actions. The quote about not cowing Milosevic was made before he was captured when he was definitely uncowed.
Similarly I cannot find a Fisk article where he defends the Taliban rather he questions the legitimacy and methods of the invading forces. Getting to see the pattern?
I have trouble with the concept of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan when Mr. Kharzai is said to be in control of "many suburbs of Kabul".
The main pattern that you should have noticed in Fisks writing is concern for the poor sods caught up in the powerplays. Ordinary folks trying to have ordinary lives.
This means that Fisk usually has to disagree with whoever is beating the bejeebers out of who else at the time.
As for Osama Bin Laden
Q: Do you think Osama bin Laden is responsible for the attacks?

Fisk: When you have a crime against humanity that is so awesome in scale and death, it is more than permissible to look around and say, who recently has been declaring war on the United States? Of course, the compass points straight to bin Laden.

Posted by Belach : 8/22/2005 09:30:00 PM