Apparently, Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox leaders are under the distinct impression that our Secretary of State is friendly to Islamists, on account of her visit to the recently-inaugurated Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi. My word, whatever could have given them that idea?
Naturally, the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo perpetrated by her husband (and her subsequent and highly visible support of the government of Kosovo, led as it is by a heroin- and cocaine-smuggling Wahhabi pimp who attained his current status by ethnically cleansing Kosovo of anywhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Eastern Orthodox Serbs); the displacement of 600,000 Chaldean Christians (and the killing of at least 2,000 more) at the hands of Islamist anti-Saddam militias in an illegal war whose authorisation she supported in a floor speech; the ethnic cleansing of blacks in Libya by the heavily-Islamist anti-Gaddhafi rebels in the wake of a war backed by Ms Clinton; and the ongoing conflict in Syria where Ms Clinton has done everything in her power to lend political support to the Islamist-heavy and virulently anti-Christian and anti-Shiite Free Syrian Army (whose terrorists have recently killed off the Syrian Defence Minister, a Greek Orthodox Christian, in a suicide bombing) have nothing at all to do with such a perception. Right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Noam Chomsky once wrote that the United States would back Islamists or other unsavory characters so long as they did not seek real political and economic independence and development or threatened the interests of important multinational companies.
ReplyDeleteIt is not often mentioned that Islamist parties tend to be largely pro-free market and anti-socialist, which probably helps make them more palatable to the Beltway Barons and their allies on Wall Street. You can oppress women and religious minorities, but don’t dare to enact land reform or nationalize major industries!
Hi John!
ReplyDeleteThat is definitely true, about the relative flexibility of the Islamists on issues of economics. But then, all forms of fundamentalism are definitively selective in their rigidity, and your point is well taken that it is usually selective against women and minorities rather than against the rich and powerful. Sadly, this appears to be true even of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Actually, Ms Clinton isn't really the problem anymore - that she is a war-hawk in Dem's clothing was old news back in 2003. And she is retiring at the end of this term, so the amount of damage she can yet do is limited. But the tone of the Foreign Policy article just struck me as unpardonably credulous, even disingenuous: given Ms Clinton's record, how can they treat it as a surprise that Coptic Christians are so unenthusiastic about the prospect of dealing with her?
Good points regarding the Clinton article. I guess many journalists are simply unable to see beyond their own ideology, which always paints the West as fighting for "freedom" and "democracy" even when our interventions bring neither and sometimes help bring nasty people to power.
ReplyDeleteTherein lies the problem, I guess. It is difficult to get people to question the models they were brought up with. I got the distinct impression when I was studying there that GSPIA's culture was still operating under certain Cold-War assumptions about the way the world works (even though, to their vast credit, they were trying incredibly hard to break the old habits and bring in fresh talent and new ideas).
ReplyDelete