Reason for optimism in Tunisia

[Mortabis]

deleted

[Asher]

PWNED

[DaShi]

It's no surprise that HC agrees with Zevico.

[Zevico]

The purpose of this post is to comphrehensively address the arguments contra put in this thread.

1. The source for evidence of Gannouchi's views from 1990-1994 is, to repeat, here:

http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/reader/archives/a-u-s-visa-for-rachid-ghannouchi/

What follows is an analysis of Gannouchi's views as contained in the source.

Gannouchi�s statements in the source article reveal his support for a number of propositions.

First, his characterisation of the United States as a Crusader state means that he views its invasion of Kuwait as explicitly religious in character. The American-Western operation in support of Kuwait and against Iraq was an assault on the Islamic faith.
Second, his support for the Hussein's Iraq is grounded in Islamic terms: he compares Hussein to a previous Islamic conqueror who managed to unify the Arab or Islamic world. Saddam's evident tyranny is irrelevant to Gannouchi, much as Saddam's long-ago predecessor's was, because they both have had the unification of the Islamic/Arab world in mind. Note that this position is inimical to democratic principles. By Gannouchi's logic, Saddam's tyrannous rule over the entire Arab world including Tunisia is preferable and desirable because it means the fulfilment of an Islamic ideal: a unified Islamic community.
For Gannouchi, American support for Kuwait reveals American opposition to a unified Islamic sphere. Therefore, American interests should be opposed and war should be declared against America. This is a commonly held conspiracy theory shared by Islamists, who oppose local nationalist ambitions on the basis of a broader Islamic (and to some extent Arab) identity.
Gannouchi's later supposed reversal sees him claim that America is instead a victim to Jewish manipulation. This is not so much a reversal as it is an open expression of racist sentiment.

In sum, Gannouchi�s views from 1990-1994: (1) express a preference for tyranny as a means of achieving an Islamic ideal, namely, the unity of the Islamic-Arab world; (2) include support for an outright war against the United States and Jews (a set of persons with no ethnically fixed political allegiances); (3) characterises that war as religious (Islam against Judaism and Christianity) in character. Each of propositions (1)-(3) evince his support for an Islamist ideology.

2. The next source is Gannouchi's views, as he expressed them in a panel discussion on Al-Jazeera in 2001 some eight months after the beginning of the Palestinian Intifida (Uprising), is available here: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/483.htm

In this interview, Gannouchi openly expresses his support for suicide bombings on religious-political grounds. He praises the mothers of suicide bombers as "models" for emulation. He notes that Israel is "supported" by the US and thereby ties his opposition to Israel to the United States.

The interview is as noteworthy for what Gannouchi did not say as for what he did. Fellow panel member Abdallah Yaish expressed the view that

"I am willing to negotiate from a position of strength, when I have put the enemy on his knees. I am not prepared to sit with him when he has the upper hand. They [the Jews, according to Muslim tradition] love life more than any other thing in the world, while we, the Muslims, are interested only in martyrdom. Martyrdom, praise Allah, leads to Heaven."

Gannouchi did not disagree with this bloodthirsty call for war against Jews.

Gannouchi continued:

Sheik Ghanushi admitted that Arab regimes "are not the kind of regime that we want� these regimes, generally speaking, are undemocratic and do not satisfactorily represent the will of our peoples." However, "we are not currently interested in focusing on weaknesses in our Arab and Islamic body but on our points of strength, in order to mobilize them in support of the Intifada and the liberation of Palestine."

Note the usage of the phrase "our Arab and Islamic body", which usage implies that Gannouchi conceives of the "Arab and Islamic body" as a collective rather than a collection of nation-states. This is further evidence of his support for Islamist political ideals.

Note also that the reference to "undemocratic" and "will of our peoples." How exactly does Gannouchi see democracy? In 1990-1994 it was irrelevant to the brodaer goal of unity; now the "will of our peoples" suddenly comes to the forefront of Gannouchi's political narrative.

How is this to be understood? Is Gannouchi suddenly to be termed a liberal democrat? He certainly remains on the record as an avowed racist. Gannouchi's so-called about-face should be seen for what it is: a ritualistic, implausible lie. It is not as if Gannouchi has reversed his views on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait as part of a broader Arab struggle.
Rather Gannouchi simply identifies the will of the people with his own views--making him a supporter of the tyranny of the mob-majority at best and delusional at worst, or perhaps frankly both. Hence he also voices qualified support for the present Arab regimes simply because they have tilted against Israel and, therefore, more attuned to the 'will of the people.' This, in his view, signifies an important consensus and alignment of pan-Arabic and pan-Islamist views. Remember what I mentioned earlier about his support for pan-Islamist/pan-Arab tyranny? Here it is again, this time in 2001:

"The Arab regimes are not submissive. The Arab summits [in Cairo and Amman] and the Islamic summit [in Qatar] demonstrated their moral and material support for the Intifada." "� the Intifada has returned a degree of consensus to the Arab and Islamic regimes and joined between the rulers and the people and between the Islamic movements on the one hand, and the Pan-Arab nationalist movements, on the other hand."

In other words: sure, the Arab regimes are tyrannous, but we have Jews to kill here. Let's all focus on that. Domestic problems are far less important.

Further, later in the course of the interview--
(1) There are calls for the death of an Arab liberal who calls for Israeli-Palestinian peace (of sorts);
(2) The same liberal is accused of being a Jew for his comments;
(3) A caller calls on Gannouchi to "teach [the Arab liberal] a lesson" for his views;
(4) Suicide bombings are described as elevating their perpetrators to a heaven with 72 virgins;
--All without Gannouchi voicing a word of dissent. Given the context of the interview one can only take it that he agrees with those very sentiments.

3. The argument that his statements are irrelevant strains credulity; plainly each of the remarks and incidents above indicate Gannouchi's Islamist, racist, and anti-American views. These are reasons to think twice about this man.
4. The next argument is that Gannouchi now proclaims himself a democrat. What led him to change his mind? One minute he supports tyranny in the name of Arab and Islamic unity, the next democracy. Which is it? The more likely explanation is taqiyyah--a known Islamic doctrine, practised by Islamists, which posits that lying to further one's political goals is perfectly acceptable.
5. The next argument appears to be that Gannochi's prospective coalition partners are downplaying the supposed threat he poses. Well, what else do you expect a coalition partner to do? These are not liberals. This is a coalition with far left organisations. On foreign policy the Arab far-left's pan-Arabist line and the Islamist pan-Islamism is in agreement on war with Israel, the United States and its allies. On economic issues they each greatly support and desire a large degree of government control over the economy (and hence the levers of power). They have reason to make alliances with their enemies if the greater enemy, in their mind, lies elsewhere.
6. Finally, there is a Tunisian Rabbi, whom Gannouchi's "delegation" so kindly paid a visit to. How reassuring--there will be no trouble with the Jews, so long, of course, as the Jews keep their mouths shut. No doubt that was the point of this visit. I don't blame the Rabbi for refusing to directly denounce Gannouchi. He has a community to look after and he's terrified of getting him or other Jews killed. It's a position of responsibility and a hard choice to make.
7. But for us to pretend that Gannouchi, who is on the record stating that Jews control America is not racist, well, it's sheer fantasy.
8. Note that Gannouchi's proclaimed "model"--Erdogan--just had a man imprisoned for a year for the crime of criticising him. Democracy in action! http://www.todayszaman.com/news-2609...g-erdogan.html
9. Lastly, there is the argument that Gannouchi is not running anyway: well, given that his supporters ran for election and can only be presumed to agree with his views, what does that show? Nothing other than a willingness to downplay his ambitions for power in the short term. Gannouchi is merely the symptom of his party's Islamist illness.

[Sava]

My arguments are far more cogent than your juvenile summary. The fact that you refuse to even think about the issue critically is the culprit here. Zevico has the same issue.

Many Americans are completely incapable of understanding why the country is not well liked internationally. You have been brainwashed since you were a child about how great your nation is. It's amusing to outsiders, it's normal to you. The Pledge of Allegiance, for example, is ridiculously ****ing creepy to any reasonable person.

Americans have a mental image of their nation that is disconnected from reality. It's where the unfounded arrogance comes from, which is where the international ignorance comes from. Add on to the fact that America fancies itself the world's moral authority (despite practicing the death penalty, among other things) and is the world's police force and tries to impose its will on sovereign nations with great regularity -- and people ****ing hate you.

It's not hard to understand to anyone open to original thought. For Americans, though -- they're more likely to reduce this argument to "lol america is fukked the world hates you" so they can then dismiss it without having to actually think about it. You guys can't man up and face the realities of our global world. Your thought is too insular, your people too ignorant, your attitude too arrogant.

dude you should talk
i've seen canadian tv
what with the canadian flag maple leaf logo on everything
when i got the nhl center ice pacakge a few years ago, i got to see all kinds of canadian tv
it was funny to see you guys are more crazy jingoistic than the crackerbred shirtless drivers

and what about the winnpeg jets new logo?
how many canadian teams now have that flag somewhere in their logo?
and the teams all suck because the good players go to US teams first chance they get

ooh nugent-whatever is the best player on a canadian team
whoopity do
they'll trade him to LA in a couple years for jimmy carson

[Sava]

the true north strong and free

wtf does that mean anyways?
oh look, we're so awesome
finland and russia and sweden are the fake north because we're canada... the TRUE NORTH

[Sava]

aboot
ya hoser!

[Sava]

hey
did you guys see the video of ghaddafi getting stabbed in the ass?

[Zevico]

The fact that you refuse to even think about the issue critically is the culprit here. Zevico has the same issue.

Let's try this on for size.
Gannouchi, in an interview at the beginning of this year, said(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ns-home.html):

"Some Western media portray me like (Ayatollah Ruhollah) Khomeini, but that's not me," he said in an
interview with Associated Press.
...
"Why do people want to compare me to (Osama) Bin Laden or Khomeini, when I am closer to Erdogan?" Mr Ghanouchi said.

In March 2011, Erdogan jailed a man for writing a book critical of the government. Court orders banned anyone from possessing a copy of the book on pain of imprisonment for treason. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.p...ism-2011-03-25

As already mentioned, Erdogan has jailed a retired former general for criticising him in public, to a villager. http://www.todayszaman.com/news-2609...g-erdogan.html

Note the supportive tone of the article. Today's Zaman is an Islamist Turkish newspaper.

Now anyone can see that condemning a leader for "selling the country out" is par-for-the course political speech. It's certainly not criminal. But it landed that retired former general a jail sentence of almost a year.

So, let's use our critical thinking skills.
(1) Ghannouchi endorses Erdogan.
(2) Erdogan jails critics of his government.
(3) Erdogan is therefore (a) a democrat; (b) not a democrat?
(4) Ergo Ghannouchi is (a) a democrat; (b) not a democrat?

[DinoDoc]

At the very least, Zevico's arguments are more cogent than "lol america is fukked the world hates you come to canada and live like a king".

Proper Response to that line of argument:

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's funny how the biggest proponents of democracy only like democracy when the people voting agree with them...

Agreed.

[C0ckney]

So, let's use our critical thinking skills.
(1) Ghannouchi endorses Erdogan.
(2) Erdogan jails critics of his government.
(3) Erdogan is therefore (a) a democrat; (b) not a democrat?
(4) Ergo Ghannouchi is (a) a democrat; (b) not a democrat?

this is an example of terrible reasoning. you cannot be this stupid, can you? i mean really, i'm not going to rehash our recent turkey debate, but let's think about this for 2 minutes.

ghannouchi says he models himself on erdogan, now let's ask ourselves why that might be. could it be:

a) because erdogan likes to lock up journalists; or
b) because erdogan has led an 'islamist' party to electoral success in a traditionally secular country, has presided over economic growth and big improvements in the lives of ordinary people, has kept the army at arm's length (many say they're a spent force) and is very popular with the electorate.



as for your post number 34, it is as we say in portuguese, 'um monte de merda'. as well as your usual crap about the 'far left' (who exactly? both the CPR and ettakatol appear to be secular, centre-left, social democrats) you seek to demonise ghannouchi, who, i should once again point out, will not be government, based on decades old material. incredibly, you spend about half your post quoting inflammatory things that other people said (including a random caller on a phone in, for ****s sake) as evidence against ghannouchi. that is so weak. what did we learn from your post, that arab politicians, and indeed arabs generally have a negative view of israel and its actions. i'm shocked, shocked to discover this. if you're waiting to find an arab politician who has a positive view of israel and its actions, i would suggest that you'll be waiting a long time.

moreover, what relevance does israel or the interfada have for tunisian politics today, i would say none. you might as well have quoted his views on tibet, or zimbabwe or burma, they're about as relevant.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

um monte de merda

I like this newly found bilingual nature of this forum

[C0ckney]