The military forces in most of the Muslim lands think that their top priority is to protect the citizens from its politicians and not to protect the country from its enemy for which they were hired. The Military thinks itself to be an elite class that deserves all the perks, supported by major portion of the national economy, and whatever is left, should be used for the rest of the country. The military tries its best that politicians do not succeed and undermines the democratic process and its institutions by all means necessary. Unfortunately the politicians of Muslim countries are also corrupt, but their corruption is a fraction of what military corruption takes away from the national economy.  

Military dictators suited us, USA and the West, well for decades and we supported them with all means at the expense of oppression of masses. The current unravelling and violent extremism is part of that legacy. In the panic of current chaos, we are trying to go back to old days and old ways which created the current mess in the first place. We supported the return of military dictator General Sissi in Egypt and now we were hoping against hope that military coup will succeed in Turkey. Mr. Roger Cohen writes in NYT,    

“Jonathan Eyal, the international director at Britain’s Royal United Services Institute, told me. There can be little doubt the expressions of support for Erdogan from western capitals came through gritted teeth”

This is a self-defeating strategy. We should support democratic forces and process in all its forms in these countries and should not choose and impose winners of our liking in these countries, because it will not only infuriate the general masses in Muslim countries but also give opportunities to violent extremist elements to exploit the situation for their own evil designs. The democratic process should continue, no matter how messy, and we should not support military dictators in any form.  

In old days whatever cruelty happened in Muslim lands due to oppressive dictators, stayed in those lands, now its repercussions will spill over in the rest of the world, especially in the west-and may be in most violent extremist ways.  

An interesting worth reading article by Ben Judah in NYT. Disintegration of British empire started after WWII and will be completed by the separation of Scotland and Northern Ireland after BREXIT. Is this White population’s anxiety over losing their grip on unrivaled privilege that is driving this racial hatred in the West? If not confronted head on, is this the beginning of the unraveling of the Western Civilization? f.Sheikh   

LONDON — From Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II, England was an empire. No more.

Brexit has turned the twilight years of the reign of Elizabeth II into the final chapter in the history of Great Britain. What its partisans, celebrating with flag-waving in the street, tearfully called “Independence Day” will unravel the role that England has played since the 16th century as a great power, along with the City of London’s reign as a financial capital of the world.

After Elizabeth I ascended to the throne in 1558, her merchant-venturers began an imperial quest. By Elizabeth II’s birth, Britain’s empire spanned nearly a quarter of the globe.

Brexit’s fantasy of revived greatness — “taking back control” — will achieve the opposite. England’s wish to withdraw from its union with Europe appears now to have made inevitable Scotland’s eventual withdrawal from its union with England. It has also placed in doubt the status of Northern Ireland, where a majority also voted against leaving the European Union.

This misguided craving will turn Britain’s seat, created by Winston Churchill, on the United Nations Security Council into a rotten borough(as parliamentary constituencies that persisted despite low populations were known historically). The great powers will never allow this little England to exercise a veto right against their wishes.

Why did England choose this? The key is not sovereignty but a rejection of ethnic change.

“It’s not England anymore,” people told me as I traveled around the country covering the referendum. In Tonbridge and Grantham, in Romford and Witney, this is what I heard, hundreds of times: “We don’t recognize our country anymore.”

Middle England did not treat this as a referendum on European Union membership but as a plebiscite on one thing: “immigration.” For Middle Englanders, “immigrants” is also a synonym for nonwhite British. Identity, not austerity, motivated their vote to Leave.

At her coronation in 1953, Elizabeth II also became the reigning monarch of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The nonwhite population of Britain then was probably less than 20,000. Over 70 percent of British workers were manual laborers.

London was far from the cosmopolitan capital it has become. In 1931,less than 3 percent of Londoners were foreign-born; that was the historical norm for the city. For all London’s trade and commerce, historians believe it was essentially mono-ethnic as late as the 17th century.

Metropolitan elites often use the Irish and Jewish settlement in Britain from the mid-19th century to bolster a national story of Britain as an immigrant nation, but the history does not fit this narrative. We prefer to forget it, but Britain’s Irish communities suffered appalling levels of ethnic hate and communal segregation into the 1980s. Click here for full article.

Did Trump and GOP inadvertently helped to improve Islam and Muslims’ image. Interesting article and polls in Politico shared by Azeem Farooki.

posted by f.sheikh