NEWSFLASH for the Idiot-in-Chief: Terrorists LOVE Democracy

[El Fuego]

I caught part of bush’s July 28 press conference with poodle boy Tony Blair. He was sputtering the same line over and over with that deer in the headlight look:

“The terrorists they hate us for our democracy! The terrorists they hate us for our democracy!”

Which was absolulately hilarious, because the truth is that terrorists have wholeheartedly EMBRACED democracy. Any observer of world events with half a brain can see that the terrorists are operating within democracies and using the institutions of democratic governments to take control and advance their agenda.

Terrorists ♥ Democracy

Lebanon had its first parliamentary elections in 2005. The terrorist organization Hezbollah won fourteen seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament, and an Amal-Hezbollah alliance won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon. In addition, Hezbollah has two ministers in the government.

In January 2006, Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election and is now the majority party of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

The U.S. has installed some kind of democracy in Iraq, and much to bush’s complete surprise they want to democratically create an Islamic state. Because (hello?) democracy means majority rule. And the majority of people in Iraq are Shiites who want an Islamic state, but were denied this under secular Saddam. (The religious right is using democracy to try to create a religious state here in the U.S., but I would never expect him to see the parallels.)

The real idiocy of this administration is that they apparently think “democracy” is the same as “westernism.” When they talk about the spread of democracy in the Middle East, they are envisioning an outbreak of western culture. Of Americanism (as in white Christian America). Which they believe will turn into a great love for America and its ways.

These naïve dumbasses think that once a country has a democratic election, the whole country is going to magically morph into . . . Iowa.

But with democracy, it’s more like the computer term GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). If you install a democracy in the land of Baby-Eaters, they’re not going to give up being baby-eaters. You’ll just get a democratically-elected government of Baby-Eaters. The democratically elected parliament in the land of Baby-Eaters isn’t going to outlaw baby-eating, they’ll just vote to make baby-eating the national pastime.

There are many “stable democracies” but someone needs to explain to Bonehead that democracies aren’t automatically stable. Democracies are a government “of the people,” and if the people themselves are unstable, the country will be unstable. Dictatorships can be more stable than a democracy. Say what you will about Castro’s Cuba, but Cuba is stable, and it's a dictatorship.

Memo to the Idiot-in-Chief: The crisis in the Middle East didn’t come about because they “hate our democracy.” It happened largely because of democracy. Hezbollah has a position of power within the Lebanese government because of democratic elections. Hamas is closer their goal of destroying Israel because of democratic elections. Iran will have a new ally in Iraq because of democratic elections.

The democracy thing is working out well for the evil-doers. The ter-rists are strategerizin' to use democracies to as a means to an end. Because the terrorists have successfully adapted to thrive in democracies.

Which is to say they've ... evolved! (Darwinism in action, so ironic since you don’t believe in it.) :evilgrin:

[MercutioATC]

1. Best 3-sentence explanation I've seen yet!

"If you install a democracy in the land of Baby-Eaters, they’re not going to give up being baby-eaters. You’ll just get a democratically-elected government of Baby-Eaters. The democratically elected parliament in the land of Baby-Eaters isn’t going to outlaw baby-eating, they’ll just vote to make baby-eating the national pastime."

Brava!

[El Fuego]

3. Thx! nt

[The_Warmth]

2. Nice piece

The little tidbit at the end made my day.

[Josh]

4. I suppose, but there's also the argument

that terrorists prefer operating outside the auspices of a government because it makes them harder to get, then when people *do* attempt to destroy them, they end up with a lot of collateral damage and collective punishment on their hands, which sours them in the eyes of the world and leaves them further away from their goal, while stiring up support for the terrorists.