Planting Democracy in the World – A Mantra for Freedom

47:SR
To continue : That link works here.

clients.world-television.com/worldeconomicforum_annualmeeting2005

Please read my ilogs. News generally not palatable to western thuggs and/or swept under by these thuggs is posted there.

A muslim-positive i-log page that all muslims could benefit from. Murtids, Munaafiques, and Margaarine Muslims might benefit as well.

47:SR
Did Clinton really say that?? Please can someone verify and report back? I..

---

I am that ``someone`` to report back. who else?

You see the Ba Ba Blacksheep who neither know english nor urdu always choose to write fiction & poetry. The reason being that they can fool the totaa-mainaas by appearing educated by throwing in some fancy arabie, farsi, and urdu words and they assume that the madrassah ones ( the learned class ) would be impressed by their punk white-trash salmaan-rushdic english.

Those ``someones`` would never do you any favour. How much the faarin-returned types of kalloo-goraas are not ``knowledgeable`` about such matters?

Because they are busy ``free-thinking``. They do not like to know such things. They have not been thus programmedby their Aquas, their Masters, their Rubbs (The United Satans of America).

They were brought up in cantonement & colonies. The human zoos. They are completely unable to be rebels..to ``free-think``. They can only freethink whatever their masters have decreed. The mutts from the Cantonement Kennels hates the mulaa (good word: use it often) because the mullahs know that their brain does left-right at the drop of a dollar.

Laa`nut on Paak Faugee from Brigadier & up. These are the #1 scum and scoutge on muslims everywhere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Here is the audio!
Clinton`s Remarks about Iran, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

This page contains a recording and a transcript of a discussion between President Clinton and Charlie Rose held at The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland sometime between January 26 and 30, 2005.

Click here to hear an mp3 file of Clinton speaking about Iran at Davos (mp3 file, 6mb).

The original video from which this audio file was made can be found (in streaming RealPlayer or Windows Media formats) at the World Economic Forum Web site. [Hat tip: religion of bacon.]

Freethinker #39: ``It appears that you didn`t read my article crefully and set off tangentially to accuse me of something of which I am not guilty.``

You are correct. I actually did read the article, but misinterpreted the second point as an assumption. While the first assumption on the Bush trying to spread democracy is clearly noted in your article. Anyone who has read my previous interacts will tell you that I have some issues with people, unnecessarily attaching secularism (or religion) with areas with which it has no implicit relationship (like democracy and humanism etc.)........So

Are you suggesting that democracy is not possible without secularism?
Are you suggesting that democracy without secularism is useless?
Are you suggesting that secularism is more important than democracy or vice-versa?
If Iraq ends up with democracy with a religious govt. will it be better off than being under a secularism dictatorship?

and.....

Where do you draw your boundaries for a secular society? As long as it is not a theocracy, implementing Shariah, is it secular? Or all references to religion should be removed from the govt., in any capacity, for it to be secular. Most countries of the world, including Western countries, exist somewhere in between these two areas.......

The unique asymptotically stable equilibrium point in an ``unforced`` Islamic system is the strict rule of Shariat. That`s how the agents (Muslims) have been programmed. The dictators and military regimes act as outside control inputs/laws to have an equilibrium different from the strict rule of Shariat. But this new equilibrium point is an unstable one and the system will gravitate towards the asymptotically stable point as soon as the outside controls are removed.

The point I am trying to make is this: Islam is structurally opposed to the concept of ``Liberal Democracy`` where all the citizens have equal rights. So, you can have an ``Islamic Democracy`` but not a ``Liberal Democracy`` in a Muslim countries. Non-muslims will always be treated differently (in a negative way) from Muslims in Islamic societies. Quarn is very explicit about it.

Re: # 42 ``...And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have
won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties.In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote.There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

Did Clinton really say that?? Please can someone verify and report back? I don`t watch TV so I wouldn`t know. But this is too big a claim, it needs to be authenticated.

...SR

Not quite the Kana Dajjal, but the following is an open letter that is lately one of the hottest topics under discussion, in Canada. It has been written by Lloyd Axworthy, the former Foreign Minister of Canada. He is currently the President of University of Winnipeg. He says he has received surprisingly high approvals for his letter from many Americans, for this letter.

Canada, recently, rejected supporting the USA on its missile defence program. There was quite a lot of pressure on the Canadian govt., from the USA govt. to go along. And the Canadian govt., itself, wanted to go along also. However, voter pressure and opinion polls were so against it that the Canadian govt. had to refuse.

The same thing happened during the Iraq war. There was an immense amount of pressure from Bush on Canada to assist. However, in that case, the govt. and the population were both on the same side, and they both refused. Over 66% of Canadians were against supporting the USA. As was the Liberal govt. This is despite the fact that 85% of Canada`s trade is with the USA.........

The letter is a must read. This, in my opinion, is how democracy is supposed to work:

``Dear Condi,

I`m glad you`ve decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It`s a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can`t quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we`ve had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we`re going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn`t match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a ``liberation war`` in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children. Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government`s role should be when there isn`t a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such as missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it`s a system in which the governing party`s caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don`t want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada`s continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don`t embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond. Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the ``northern territories,`` Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn`t really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of `experts` from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the `Responsibility to Protect` while you`re in Ottawa. It`s a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means. There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world`s largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other`s views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.


In friendship,
Lloyd Axworthy``

As I said, not quite the Dajjal, but perhaps more effective..............

#43 by aslam644 on March 8, 2005 1:01pm PT


madame whiplash democracy also means rule by consent, what consent does India have in kashmir?


The consent of a billion Indians, hindu and muslim....

Re: # 31 {``............. an election where the candidates are vetted, culled ... by a council made up of fanatical [generals?] is a sham, even though it has the trappings of democracy ..........

............ after all [mushy] was elected with [98]% of the vote and in 1933 hitler`s nazis won almost half the seats ........ ``}

Let us stop lufangbaazi, be honest and apply the same standards to ALL the dictators, be they friend or foe. Otherwise it is munafiqat... Just because Shaukat Aziz is a bagman for the old boys in Mid-town and a Citi boy himself does not make this farce of a government ``democratic``...

Please don`t fool yourself that its about the warm and fuzzy feelings for democracy. Follow the money... it will then all add up much more logically.

...SR

#22 rsridhar

‘If i see u, i will whip u.’
madame whiplash democracy also means rule by consent, what consent does India have in kashmir?

O Kaaliyaa! ubb tera kyaa bnaygaa? O kalloo-goray teri poll ho rahee hai, khuul rahi hai.
Merlot piyaygaa? Carribean meiN zinaa kraigaa? Haraamkaaree kraigaa? aur Darwin pUrrhh kr insaan bnaigaa?

O abdul amreeka! too naa ghar kaa hai naa ghaat kaa.

O kaalyaa, ubb teraa kyaa hogaa?

O kaaliyaa munaafiquat ziadaa din naheeN chalaygee. Muftay kee thinking chhoRR dey, there is no such thing free lunch. Your abaajee say so too.

The uniformed kuttaas from the cantonement & colony kennels are yelping in ecstacy: `` Sirjee when will you put your democracy up our rears. We will evn pay. Hell we love to get screwed even on credit. A whiff of your english-goraa-arse odor, and we swoon. Ride us soon O master , the Mullahs don`t let us do this ``

---

In case someone missed this on my ilog:
Clinton praises Iran as thebest democracy
..: better than even U.S

Who Should Apologize to Whom?
Amir Taheri

Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?

Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill: It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70 percent majorities for “liberals and progressives.”

Well, if you thought of one of the Scandinavian countries or, perhaps, New Zealand or Canada, you are wrong.

Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a few weeks ago: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have
won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties.In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70percent of the vote.There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of
progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.

But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?
There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference
of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.

“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the
very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”

There is also Khatami’s brother, Muhammad-Reza, the man who, in 1979, led the “students” who seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. There
is Massumeh Ebtekar, a poor man’s pasionaria who was spokesperson for the hostage-holders in Tehran.There is also the late Ayatollah Sadeq
Khalkhali, known to Iranians as “Judge Blood”

Mr. romair:

Regarding your other point of criticism, I don`t want to pick any bones with you. President Bush started the Iraq war accusing Iraq of possessing the wmds, which proved out to be wrong. Then he changed his objective and changed it again, and probably again. Now spreading democracy has become his mission (after meeting with Mr. Sharansky). This seems to be a good excuse for attacking the so-called `rogue states`. I`ll leave it at that.

Mohammad

romair mian,

... ``liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy`` ........... the democracy that you and other islamists are so fond of pushing is illiberal variety and cannot, and should not, be allowed to take root

..................i know that you know everything , but there is a BIG difference between liberal democracy and illiberal democracy ...........instead of trying to explain it you here is the link to Zakaria`s article which, by the way was written in 1997, before bush arrived on the scene ....

democracy

Mr. Romair:

It appears that you didn`t read my article crefully and set off tangentially to accuse me of something of which I am not guilty. You wrote, ``There is actually no direct relatinship between democracy and secularism. This is another incorrect assumption made by the author.`` I made no such assumption.

I had tried to explain this point in the third pargraph starting with ``Gradually, it dawned on me....`` Had you read it carefully you would not have accused me of making a wrong assumtion. The paragraph ended with, ``In order to have a civil society and a just and fair government, there should be democracy and secularism coexisting for the benefit of the people.`` Here they are clearly described as two distinct entities. One does not presuppose the other.

Then under the subheading ``Constitutional Liberty, Democracy, and Liberal Democracy, I borrowed from Fareed zakaria to define democracy as ``a political system based on `open, free, and fair elections.` I suppose you didn`t read even this. I also wrote that a combination of democracy and constitutional liberty gives `liberal freedom`.

Mohammad Gill

Mr. Gill,

The purpose of my posting is to alert innocent people of the dangers of democracy, especially those who think it is benign and friendly.

The real issue Muslims are facing today is failure to check unbridled power of pro-western dictators. I think that the way to place checks on dictators is not by implementing democracy (which means rule of the masses) but by installing educational institutions that thoroughly train and reform individuals before placing them in office, and installing judicial institutions that remove them from office for wrongdoing. This will ensure that only virtuous men, that is, men who really fear God, will stay in office, and will consequently provide a clean and efficient government because the fear of Hell-Fire will be very real for them and will stop them from cruelty, oppression and greed.

As far as law is concerned, that should be derived from religion by specialists, and given modern pluralistic society where freedom of religion must be guaranteed (as per Prophet Muhammad`s teachings), there will have to be multiple legal systems installed within one country, corresponding to the multiple religions being followed. Having one common law where majority of the masses decide way of life (which is what democracy enforces) is surely a route to degeneration of society because a mass of people, because it is a mass, cannot ever agree on anything but the lowest common denominators, thus robbing society of any stable values and principles. A mass democracy is probably the worst kind of government (and I don`t agree with Winston Churchill that others are worse).

The great Muslim thinker Al-Farabi (in the tradition of Aristotle) already recognized this when he wrote his views on democracy a thousand years ago (he died in 950 AD). Note how what he describes has exact parallels with what we see in USA today (and in all those countries who follow the example of American democracy). Please read carefully some excerpts from his writings which I have reproduced below. Al-Farabi`s detailed views, which are essentially also the views of Aristotle (the western world`s favorite philosopher) can be found in the book mentioned.

``On the Democratic Regime`` from siyasat al-madaniyyah (``The Political Regime``) by Abu Nasr Al-Farabi (reproduced from the book Medieval Political Philosophy by R. Lerner & M.
Mahdi, Cornell University Press, 1963).

Al-Farabi writes:

``The democratic city is one where each citizen is given free reign to do whatever he likes. Its citizens are equal and their laws install each man as the equal of another. This goes against the reality that humans are made by nature to possess unequal powers and different
dispositions.

All the endeavours of the ignorant cities are present in the democratic cities in the most perfect manner. On the surface it looks like an embroidered garment full of colored figures and dykes. Everybody loves it and loves to reside in it, because this city satisfies every human wish. The nations emigrate to it and reside there, and it grows beyond measure. People of every race multiply in it. All kinds of wishes and ways of life are to be found in it.

Consequently it is quite possible that virtuous men will grow up in democratic cities. It is also possible to glean from it certain virtuous men who form part of the city. Therefore, the city possesses both good and evil to a greater degree than the rest of the ignorant cities.

Every ignorant rulership aims at having its fill of bare necessities; wealth; delight in the pleasures; honor, reputation; praise; domination and freedom. Therefore such rulerships are actually bought for a price, especially the positions of authority in a democratic city; for here no one has a better claim than anyone else to a position of authority. As for the truly virtuous man, namely the one who can direct their actions toward happiness, they do not make him a ruler. If by chance he comes to rule them, he will soon find himself deposed or killed or in an unstable position. And so are all the other ignorant cities; each one of them only wants the ruler who facilitates the attainment of its wishes and desires, and paves the way for their acquisition and preservation. Therefore, they refuse the rule of virtuous men and resent it.``

im quite surprised at the silly comments made by many chowkies in this interaction. Hardly anyone ready to keep thier personal hatred for Pakistan/muslims - India aside and comment in a more sensible manner. I wonder if most of you are teenagers. Well, so much for an enlightening educated interaction forum. I guess ill limit myself to the articles, which are few and far between nowadays.

There are two incorrect assumptions that the author has made:

1. Bush is trying to spread democracy in the Middle East. This seems to be believed mostly by Americans (and apparently many Pakistani-Americans, as well). While there is nothing factual to back it up. Most of the Middle East dictatorships have been supported fully by USA and Bush. Even in Iraq the aim and efforts were to keep Allawi in power, by delaying elections. There was no intention to hold elections in January and every trick in the book was used to try to bring in caucuses etc., but not a direct election, until Sistani forced Bush`s hand. I can point the author to Bremer` documents and articles which explain this in detail, if he does not have the information.........

So people need to get out of this dreamworld and look at some facts. The above assumption about, ``spreading democracy`` are as ridiculous as the assumptions about Dajjal.........

2. There is actually no direct relationship between democracy and secularism. This is another incorrect assumption made by the author. They are two independent phenomenon. One deals with the method of election of govt. The second deals with the separation of the govt. (elected or unelected) from religion. This is why there have been quite a few secular dictators. This would be an oxymoron, if secularism and democracy were directly related.

Infact, nearly all the dictators supported by the USA in the Middle East are generally leaning to the secular and/or Western side. While their populations are quite religous. Mubarak, Shah of Iran, King of Jordan, King of Morroco, Shiekhs of UAE and Qatar, Govt of Algeria, Generals of Turkey, even Musharraf (etc.). Sadddam also, who was supported by USA at one time.

And nearly all the opposition democratic movements in these countries are either religious or have a religious element to them. The reason is that the dictatorial govts. have wiped out all other opposition. The religious oppostion has been very difficult to wipe out. Luckily in case of Paksitan, the religious opposition has traditionally been allowed to participate in politics, and not persecuted, due to which it has never turned into a vialbe revolutionary force.....

This the dilemma the US is facing. The forces of demcracy in these countries have a religious and anti-US leaning, while the forces of dictatorship have a secular and pro-US leaning. Nearly every country in the Middle East where some sort of democratic movement has taken place is resulting in religious govts. The Shah was overthrown by a far more democratic religious govt. In Iraq, the democratic forces are headed by religious forces. In Egypt, it is the same. In Algeria, religious forces actually won, but were not allowed to take office, due to the support of USA and France. In Turkey, religious party Rafah was elected and then banned with US support. It has now finally been elected with enough popularity where it cannot get banned. Its first major act was to not allow USA to use Turkey for an invasion of Iraq (something unheard of under secular generals). While dictator Qatar did allow the USA acces. As did the dictatorship of Kuwait. As did the dictatorship of Pakistan, for that matter.

In Palestine, Hamas is going to win quite a bit, in open elections. Its candidate, who was in jail, and later withdrew actually defeats Abbas in opinion polls. In Saudi Arabia, if the royal family goes, the govt. will be equally Wahabbi, but very anti-USA. So on and so forth........

There are very few, and even those are insignificant countries like Lebanon etc., where the opposition is not religious (and anti-American).

The above assumptions have to be taken into account, before analysing the situation correctly...........It is an interesting anamoly. The USA is the biggest supporter of dictatorships in the Middle East, yet it is alleging that it is supporting democracy in the area. The opposition democratic forces are nearly all religious, while the pro-USA forces are more secular. And the USA, itself, is becoming more and more religious in its policies........

One needs to look at fact and not spin. There seems to be a lot of spin on two areas by the Bush govt.: budget deficits and foreign policy. That doesn`t mean everyone should by it.........

If the USA wants to introduce democracy in the Middle East, all it has to do is to completely break off ties with its allied dictatorships. Something many of us have been suggesting for a long long time. There is no need to start bombing the dictators who turn against it. And continuing aiding the ones who are allied with it.........

Mubaraks, Abduallahs, Hassans, Hussains, Sabahs, Nahyans, Pashas, etc. will fall like a deck of cards the day the USA stops supporting them. Why, ``nudge`` them along. Why not just break all trade ties and sanction them.......If the USA can bomb the crap out of Iraq, why does it not just break ties with others............

Maulvis controlling the Middle East oil, is an interesting scenario...........