All the fellow MS users from Syria should be aware of this: Iranian people do not support the Iran's government assisting Syria's government and deeply feel sorry for that

Written by Bad English on 08.06.2013 at 15:21

Written by mz on 05.06.2013 at 01:21

All the fellow MS users from Syria should be aware of this: Iranian people do not support the Iran's government assisting Syria's government and deeply feel sorry for that

I know it and many ppl what I know in real life from Iran also dont care about palestine , because accordin to them palestinians-arabs, and arabs killed persians in Iran-Iraq 10 years long war and many old timers and also they children dislike arabs because of war

This is not the case here, at least for me. I do care about Syria. The people there seem to suffer from the same problem that we had (to a very less extent) 4 years ago in Iran and will probably face again in the future. The Iran's government might be the mist important supporter of current governmental massacre in Syria and I just wanted to clarify that most of people here want to see a free Syria (and Iran, of course)

Quote:

Written by Bad English on 09.06.2013 at 13:32

True, but can they be free whjyle they have religion? no metter what freedom they want they will not get it because islam is religion;) same whole mid eats whyle they will be believers

I'm not talking about freedom in its purest form. You might not like religious ideas but most of people here are still Muslim and they WANT to have more democratic government. I personally do not care about religion but can not deny that some of main advocates of democratic structures are deeply inspired by religious believes.

Quote:

Written by Bad English on 09.06.2013 at 14:29

Written by mz on 09.06.2013 at 14:25

Written by Bad English on 09.06.2013 at 13:32

True, but can they be free whjyle they have religion? no metter what freedom they want they will not get it because islam is religion;) same whole mid eats whyle they will be believers

I'm not talking about freedom in its purest form. You might not like religious ideas but most of people here are still Muslim and they WANT to have more democratic government. I personally do not care about religion but can not deny that some of main advocates of democratic structures are deeply inspired by religious believes.

I understod what you talk but Syria nowadays is 100% civil war, it could be stoped, well China and Russia agan fucked all up
conflict is to long and non of sides will stop. But same time looking what troops liike Hezbolah helping rebelels I am more into Assad side. Same like I am inm Mubbarak, after new Egyption pressident, Mahmud A visited Egytp, no good,

I'm very sure that Hezbollah are helping Assad.

Written by Bad English on 14.06.2013 at 21:18

Written by Mad Arab666 on 14.06.2013 at 21:00


I'm very sure that Hezbollah are helping Assad.

No because then there are relative peace between, terrorist needs chaos and more extreme islamistic to make a training camps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/30/hezbollah-syria-uprising-nasrallah
-edit-

There are more articles about this but this seems to have turned into sectarian violence. To be honest it seems there won't a happy ending to who ever wins.

I guess a visit to the public library at Fridays would be more beneficial to Egyptians. It buffels me every time.

Written by Bad English on 23.07.2013 at 02:42

Israeli And Palestinian Metal Bands Join Forces For European Tour - July 21, 2013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/21/israeli-palestinian-bands-unite-tour

Also Bilocate from Jordan will be in this tour. I hope can catch them in Hamburg later this year

Me and my family stacked up on atropine, gas masks and protective gear as the rest of the country, given Syria may respond to a US strike here.

Any thoughtful comments on the situation?

This kid says Fuck you right from the heavens

I believe that sole reason the US (and the west) are planning to intervene in Syria is only a part in preparation to the inevitable "Big war" on Iran. And doing so by crippling Iran's biggest (and only ally in the region), Syria ... and also providing safety to Israel coz Syria would've definitely retaliated against israel if Iran was attacked.

So, when the US supports Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria, you know that things are definitely not what they seem.

Written by Zombie on 29.08.2013 at 06:34

I believe that sole reason the US (and the west) are planning to intervene in Syria is only a part in preparation to the inevitable "Big war" on Iran. And doing so by crippling Iran's biggest (and only ally in the region), Syria ... and also providing safety to Israel coz Syria would've definitely retaliated against israel if Iran was attacked.

So, when the US supports Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria, you know that things are definitely not what they seem.

Safety for Israel? The entire country is waiting for mr. Obastard to determine whether or not he will drag Israel into war. Assad and his friends in Iran and Lebanon already stated they will attack Israel if he interferes with what's happening in Syria.
And so far it seems that the entire world is willing to feed the Syrians to both Assad and the rebels, anything but another war.
It's like Alien vs. Predator. No matter who wins - we all lost

And to all Syrians here - I hope you're all safe.

Written by Spiral Shadow on 30.08.2013 at 00:27


Safety for Israel? The entire country is waiting for mr. Obastard to determine whether or not he will drag Israel into war. Assad and his friends in Iran and Lebanon already stated they will attack Israel if he interferes with what's happening in Syria.
And so far it seems that the entire world is willing to feed the Syrians to both Assad and the rebels, anything but another war.
It's like Alien vs. Predator. No matter who wins - we all lost

And to all Syrians here - I hope you're all safe.

Man, it has been crazy reading about the situation in Syria. A war not only affects Syria, but countries surrounding them as well. I just hope that everyone in Syria and around stay safe. I can't even imagine what people there are going through.
No matter what the turn out, as you rightly said a lot of people lose. No one really "wins"

Sometimes you wonder how did we all get this way. We've regressed as a species

Written by Zombie on 29.08.2013 at 06:34

I believe that sole reason the US (and the west) are planning to intervene in Syria is only a part in preparation to the inevitable "Big war" on Iran. And doing so by crippling Iran's biggest (and only ally in the region), Syria ... and also providing safety to Israel coz Syria would've definitely retaliated against israel if Iran was attacked.

So, when the US supports Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria, you know that things are definitely not what they seem.

Interesting thoughts. Tho I don't think they are providing the AL-qeada, rather to the Free Syrian Army (or what's left of it), tho they would turn a blind eye given the Syrian government would be weakened. You should also take into account that is seems Iran has no problem retaliating against Israel without Syria given it's weapons arsenal.

Written by Spiral Shadow on 30.08.2013 at 00:27

Safety for Israel? The entire country is waiting for mr. Obastard to determine whether or not he will drag Israel into war. Assad and his friends in Iran and Lebanon already stated they will attack Israel if he interferes with what's happening in Syria.
And so far it seems that the entire world is willing to feed the Syrians to both Assad and the rebels, anything but another war.
It's like Alien vs. Predator. No matter who wins - we all lost

And to all Syrians here - I hope you're all safe.

Written by Candlemass on 30.08.2013 at 14:30

Interesting thoughts. Tho I don't think they are providing the AL-qeada, rather to the Free Syrian Army (or what's left of it), tho they would turn a blind eye given the Syrian government would be weakened. You should also take into account that is seems Iran has no problem retaliating against Israel without Syria given it's weapons arsenal.

It's not like israel isn't threatened anyways ... so that's not the case here ... but since there WILL be a war against Iran... Nuclear, Shi'a Iran... so preparation to that would involve taking out its only ally in the region; syria (and this is why gulf countries like sunni saudi arabia and emirates agree to attacking syria) ... also, given the geography that syria lies in the middle between iraq/iran and israel ... so, surely if a couple of years from now the US went to war with Iran, syria then would've picked a fight with israel at least to keep it busy from helping the americans in the war against iran.

Anyways, it's already happening and i dont think we can do much to stop it.

Now, in regards to the Al-Qaeda ... I think the 'veteran metalstormers' would know that i am pro-Arab spring, and i'm totally against Mubarak, Bashar, Gaddafi ... and i support the arab revolutions wholeheartedly...

BUT ...

The situation in syria is NOT as shallow and simple as black and white, rebels against bashar ... no way ... the free syrian army is made of mostly al-qaeda remnants or "mujahideen" from afganistan, pakistan, saudi arabia, egypt, yemen, and many of those countries. And the majority of them are members (or at least pedge allegiance) to the muslim brotherhood. (that is why in Egypt after the ousting of Mohamed Morsi, A LOT of those "rebels" returned to egypt to fight against its army.

Now, the proof that they are linked to Al-Qaeda is overwhelming, first of all, they carry the black al-qaeda flag.. okay ? haha ... secondly, Ayman Al-zawahiri (the current leader of the group) has issued countless threats against both: bashar's military and egypt's military .. and after each threat we have a MAJOR attack (for those of you who do not know, Egypt is currently at war with al-qaeda and hamas in sinai .. we've lost more than 200 soldiers in 20 battles and killed about 1000 of them)

anyways ... this could go for long. let's just hope syria after bashar doesn't get ruled by extremist religious fanatics.

Written by Guest on 31.08.2013 at 13:22

Canada: are you guys going to world war 3 ?
USA: Yeah, wanna come along ?
Canada: nah thanks, we'll stay here.. u know, cover your back
USA: sure ? it's gonna be a lot of fun .. we're gonna kill some Ay-Rabs, and then take all their oil
Canada: erm.. i dunno, we're really enjoying watching the re-run of "Happy days" and eating Kraft Dinner
USA: ...
Canada: ...
USA: ...
Canada: ...
USA: ... erm, okay

"In secularism we trust"

Written by InnerSelf on 29.08.2013 at 01:57

This kid says Fuck you right from the heavens

+1

I read an article recently about a 40 year old man who had an arranged marriage to an 8 year old girl. The night of the marriage, she died due to internal sexual related injuries. She was sold into this marriage by her family to help pay off debts of some sort. And this is apparently normal in some parts of the middle east. WTF?! I know not all people there are like that but that's disgusting. The laws there allow this.

The middle east is beyond fucked up (I mean the authorities/ governments etc). My idea of having a good time isn't strapping bombs to myself hoping to blow up some innocent people or using chemical warfare against citizens of my own country. From what I can gather, the average citizen over there is just as fed up as anyone else with the situation over there and would like to move on and have a nice life and not worry if they're gonna get blown up today or not.

This situation is awful and I wish it wasn't happening.

@InnerSelf - what are things like now? Did you flee? I saw that Sweden was taking in refugees.

I'm not really on the side of Israel or Palestine on this. The forces of radical Islam and Zionism are both blinded by their own agenda, and will probably end up wiping each other out. Glad someone made this topic because it is something that can be discussed from a lot of different talking points. Some I'd like to make...
1. The whole "Arab Spring" movement is not what the United States media and Western powers are perceiving it to be. This is not about downtrodden people who have been oppressed by their regimes rising up in favor of democracy and fair elections. It's about religious extremists wanting to overthrow regimes in the Middle East that they perceive as Western-backed puppets (which many are), in favor of regimes where Islam is a bigger influence in the politics of the nation.
2. As there always has been in the Middle East, a lot of these civil wars and revolutions are very sectarian in nature. For example, in Syria right now... the government is predominantly Sunni, as is the government for Iran... this is why Iran is currently funding Hezbollah (also Sunni) to fight the rebels on behalf of the government. The rebels, meanwhile, are predominantly Shiite, which is why Al Queda (Shiite) has now begun to infiltrate their ranks and exert an influence over them. For the United States to think that it can solve a conflict militarily that has been going on for nearly 1,500 years between these two branches of Islam is amazingly naive.
3. Don't trust the Iranians. Ahmadinejad, the former president, made a call several times that he had all intents to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So the whole "our nuclear program is for scientific research only" is bullshit. India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and thus you don't see America pointing fingers at them telling them how to conduct themselves within their own borders. The Iranians most likely think that them acquiring a nuclear arsenal would have a similar result. Recently, Iran elected a very secular president who is being hailed as a lot more willing to negotiate peaceful relations with the West. Unfortunately, that might not do much, because in the end the president isn't really in control of Iranian politics; the ayatollahs are.
4. Call me pessimistic, but peace in the Middle East is really (at least at this point) a false hope. That part of the world is essentially the birthplace of three of the world's major religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). They all preach different ideologies, and each preaches the illegitimacy of the other. So that's basically an automatic recipe for conflict. The only way I see there ever being a calm in the Middle East is if, like I said, the forces of Islam and Zionism wipe each other out in some kind of catastrophic war (Book Of Revelation type of shit lol). Then maybe some more peaceful ideologies can emerge from the ashes.

^^^ +1

very well said. Yeah, I think they'll be fighting each other no matter what. We have no business going into Syria, especially when we need to fix our country (sure, we're not using chemical warfare but you have to admit, the US is pretty messed up too). I really don't know who is the bad guy either. Is there a bad guy? Are both sides bad guys or good? I know using chemical weapons is fucking horrible but I'm also willing to bet if those on the other side could have used them they may have. When is it enough? Will they ever just say fuck it, fuck war and let it go so they can just live happy normal lives? I know I sure as hell don't want to get deployed there or Iran and neither do any of my comrades. It's pointless. Some other regime will take over and just do it all over again.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 11.09.2013 at 01:14

I'm not really on the side of Israel or Palestine on this. The forces of radical Islam and Zionism are both blinded by their own agenda, and will probably end up wiping each other out. Glad someone made this topic because it is something that can be discussed from a lot of different talking points. Some I'd like to make...

Americans are clueless; they are becoming the narcissistic European left with a twist for conspiracy theories and saturated fat.
However useful buzzwords are; It's not "radical Islam and Zionism", it's two nationalities having national aspirations over the same territories.
1. No. They started out as a multifaceted revolutions which included secularists and democrats, the Islamists simply tend to kill whoever they don't agree with unlike the secularists.
2. You're hoping for groups to "wipe each other out" but in the same breath conclude there is no military solution.
3. "a very secular president"? oh boy. Hassan Rouhani is not a secularist. He is a "moderate" and that's relative to a country where 16 year old gays & 14 year old girls are executed that only lately has found stoning a 'bad idea', and probably because of rep.
In the mean time the US is one of the least worst regardless of the latest abuses of privacy rights and others, while Russia is becoming more & more nationalistic while taking care of their interests around the world.

Written by Candlemass on 25.09.2013 at 00:45

Americans are clueless; they are becoming the narcissistic European left with a twist for conspiracy theories and saturated fat.

So you resort to a sweeping superlative and fallacious ad hominem logic because you find something I said to not be "the truth"?
1. I'm from America
2. I must be clueless and have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about

Good luck with your dissertations in the social philosophy club.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 25.09.2013 at 05:12

Written by Candlemass on 25.09.2013 at 00:45

Americans are clueless; they are becoming the narcissistic European left with a twist for conspiracy theories and saturated fat.

So you resort to a sweeping superlative and fallacious ad hominem logic because you find something I said to not be "the truth"?
1. I'm from America
2. I must be clueless and have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about

Good luck with your dissertations in the social philosophy club.

ad hominem is not a "logic" and someone who abuses the word like that didn't study logic/argumentation theory. You maybe find my joke unpalatable, I apologize for that, but...
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed [1].

Indeed, the club where they understand the words they use and furthermore the concept of logical fallacy.

Written by Candlemass on 25.09.2013 at 11:43

It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm

So I resorted to it because I'm some type of pussy that just can't take sarcasm? There's a difference between sarcasm and general rudeness. If you're going to try to argue points I make calmly and with well-thought out information fine, I have no problem with that, but implying that I don't have any idea what I'm talking about simply because I'm American just really makes you seem like an arrogant ass, and in many ways discredits anything you subsequently have to say
And that's not your "delicate personality" speaking, I'm sure most people would agree with me on that one, it's simply a matter of maintaining mutual respect in your conversations. I'm not just another brainless zombie glued to networks like CNN and MSNBC who believes everything he hears, ok, and it really rather puts me off that you would suggest that. I study history, Middle Eastern especially, I watch Al Jazeera, and I try my best to have a clear and well-founded idea of what's really going on in that part of the world, because it interests me. So forgive me if my conclusions aren't 100% to a T. I can never have the direct firsthand knowledge of the situation that people living in that part of the world do, because, well.... I'm not living there (go figure, huh?)

Written by Auntie Sahar on 25.09.2013 at 15:47

So I resorted to it because I'm some type of pussy that just can't take sarcasm? There's a difference between sarcasm and general rudeness. If you're going to try to argue points I make calmly and with well-thought out information fine, I have no problem with that, but implying that I don't have any idea what I'm talking about simply because I'm American just really makes you seem like an arrogant ass, and in many ways discredits anything you subsequently have to say
And that's not your "delicate personality" speaking, I'm sure most people would agree with me on that one, it's simply a matter of maintaining mutual respect in your conversations. I'm not just another brainless zombie glued to networks like CNN and MSNBC who believes everything he hears, ok, and it really rather puts me off that you would suggest that. I study history, Middle Eastern especially, I watch Al Jazeera, and I try my best to have a clear and well-founded idea of what's really going on in that part of the world, because it interests me. So forgive me if my conclusions aren't 100% to a T. I can never have the direct firsthand knowledge of the situation that people living in that part of the world do, because, well.... I'm not living there (go figure, huh?)

Ok, I understand the emotions. Please don't start the "I'm too cool for mainstream media".
I also try to get the most perspectives that I can, I 'follow' (more like check up when something interesting happens) RT, Al Jazeera, BBC, Israeli news, PressTV (which is a waste of time nearly as RT is) and a few more smaller channels and of course the main stream ones. I skip Fox News

I probably shouldn't post in this... But fuck it.

So, yeah, I lived in Israel. I haven't changed my country of origin on MS since I moved fairly recently, and couldn't be bothered to. For the record, I don't know any Palestinians personally, barring one I happened to meet at a mall by happenstance. Needless to say, that isn't exactly a solid basis for claiming to know the other side. I do read international news though, from all sources I can find. Including the Ayatollahs' personal propaganda ministry by the name of Press TV. So at the very least, I read the opinions of others.

So let's start with what action big nations should take. The answer to me is simple. Jack and shit. The cold war hasn't ended people. Iran is a proxy of Russia along with Syria (Or 50% of Syria nowadays anywho...) and various terror organizations. Egypt, Israel and Turkey are proxies of the United States. And I would argue that most conflicts in the middle east arise from idiotic phallic flexing between those two super powers. While communism is dead and buried in all but China pretty much (Where the great firewall isn't doing so well, speaking of), human nature revolves around conflict and dominance, unfortunately, and apparently we get off by surrounding ourselves with assholes with the exact same views and ethnic background as ourselves. In a... closer to perfect world, the conflicts in the middle east would be given a chance to resolve naturally. And yes, that would involve horrible acts of violence, likely more than once as well... but it wouldn't be dragged out over so many decades either. There's two reasons Japan was nuked after WWII. The first was to end the war in the old way, kick the opponent when they're down, to make sure that the conflict is truly resolved. The second was because Harry Trueman wanted to prove to Stalin that he had a bigger penis.

So the Israeli Palestinian issue... no use dancing around it. I'm unashamedly of the belief that there should be one Jewish state, and that's that. No, I don't mean to say Palestinians should be killed, no, I don't harbor any ill will towards them. Let me explain before you raise your pitchforks. The current conflict has been mired with immoral decisions by both sides, and yet there's a distinction to be made between Jews and Palestinians. Namely, that 22 other Arabic countries exist. Historically, until the imperial age, there weren't any nations based on modern European national principles in the middle east. The Arabic people were nomadic, rarely staying in one place, moving all about the area. Then the French and the British came along... and they arbitrarily divided the various territories between them, resulting in the middle east we know today. Ethnically speaking, the people inhabiting the middle east today, barring Israel, are all derived from the Arab peninsula. To put it simply, Palestinians should be welcome in any of those 22 states, and would have absolutely no problem assimilating, should they choose to do so. The name Palestine is just a name given to the British territory.

Jews have one country, and it's a small one at that. If there's anything that's been proven countless times in history, it's that if you don't got a country and you're different looking enough, you're screwed. I'm not going to invoke the Holocaust here, lest I immediately lose any credibility due to Godwin's law. So how about the Spanish Inquisition? Armenian Genocide ring a bell? A Jewish country simply needs to exist, and one of the problems with any form of two state solution is the Palestinians' insistence on the right of return, which would essentially mean shrinking it down to a point where it's almost nonexistent. The other option would be a binational country... how's that working out for Austro-Hungary? Binational countries are a failing model, and Israel's infrastructure wouldn't be able to support the influx of citizens. That, and the country would essentially lose it's Jewish identity, which is the only reason it exists to begin with.

And let's be fair here... there was a resolution to make two nations... in 1948, which the Jews gladly accepted. Again, nothing against Palestinians here... but UN resolution 181 wasn't rejected by the Jews. At this point the solution as I see it is for the Palestinians to seek assimilation into other Arab countries. Jordan is about 70% Palestinian at this point as it is, there's really no reason to hold onto national aspirations when you could live fruitful lives in other countries free of prejudice from others. The Jews, unfortunately, have never had that comfort (Yeah, how's that whole emancipation thing going 1920's Europe?).

I also find it rather hypocritical that the Europeans who are the source of the current problems in the middle east are the ones waxing politically correct on the subject. Listen assholes, YOU were the ones who fucked everything up, YOU get no say in anything. Now enjoy your failing economy, no one cares about your opinion. The next time a British newspaper pridefully tells Israel off for civilian casualties after specifically builds weapons that are as pin-point specific as they possibly could be to avoid civilian casualties, I'll make sure to point them in the direction of the 17th century. Not to mention what you and your friends did to the Native Americans. How about you stuff you pretentious morals that apply only to everyone but you right up your ass?

So ugh, Iran... difficult subject. I don't think anyone but the dumb fucks leading the country really want nuclear war with anyone. I'm willing to bet 90% of everyone in the country doesn't really think that the entire world needs to conform to Sharia law... speaking of, anyone who does, your opinion is wrong, fuck you very much. I'm not really gonna pass a verdict on Iran. It's a sticky subject, and really, change needs to come from within the country to resolve the situation. And yes, Khamenei wants a bomb, if the burning of US flags wasn't an obvious enough gesture. Maybe he needs a thunderclap whenever he enters the room?

The Iraq thing is kinda outdated. For now, it's a boiling pot of Sectarian strife that's spilled over into Syria. There's not really much more to say about it. Whether your Sunni, Shia or anything in between, I think it should be clear that when you start strapping bombs to your chest you're in the wrong.

Syria... Not much to say. Al Qaeda vs. Fascism, and both of the options seem like hell to me. One can only hope that someone with benevolent intentions will arrive at some point in that conflict, but for now as I see it, it's Sunni fascism vs. regular fascism, pick your poison.

Those are my, hopefully coherent rambling thoughts on the middle east. Whether or not you agree with my opinions, do remember that really, my outlook is based on history and the conclusions I came to are based on what I think is the best possible solution for everyone involved, including those who I'm supposedly inherently biased towards.

Written by deadone on 04.01.2014 at 01:54

Totally agree Bad English.

Problem is Islam is the only thing that keeps Arabs even remotely unified. These are generally artificial countries with true loyalty being to their god and their clan, not vague national boundaries created by Western powers.

The exact opposite is true. Most of the sectarian violence in the region is in nature religious (Sunni vs Shia, Wahhabists vs Salafists). Most Arab societies are clan based (in forms of families or tribe), here it's hamoolot, and that is most definitely not unifying. It's a cause of many social ills (even at the level of municipal tax collection and municipal corruption). Pan-Arabism was a unifying cause, although the Saudis hate the Egyptians (both majority Sunni) and national conflicts also play a role etc. Of course hating Israel is the most single unifying cause that sits them all around a single table . Authoritarian governments control people by stressing external threats (hence the need for "strong" government), at times inventing them when none exist.

Written by deadone on 06.01.2014 at 00:04

I think you misunderstood me.

I was stating that religion and clans are the primary things that Arabs assign their loyalty to, not nation states. And I am aware that Islam is fractured in similar ways to the very bloody Protestant/Catholic split and wars that followed on from it.

I think it's a shame secular pan-Arab nationalism failed on the economic and social front. It could've acted as a guiding force or at least as a counter balance to the extremist Wahhabist dogma being promoted by the Saudis.

Now even the Turkish government is becoming increasingly Islamist.

Similar, but not the same. I think the best "counter balance" would be a decent proper political systems for all sides involved. Pan-Arab nationalism maybe secular, but it is not enough to count as the above. Ba'athism for instance is authoritarian. The Saudis have the oil, rendering them untouchable even though they spent billions in spreading their reactionary fundamentalist version of Islam worldwide.
Yeah, it's a shame Turkey is becoming more and more politically Islamic instead of secular.

Metal!!

Authoritarian regimes are useful to maintain a certain order in societies that otherwise would be extremely fuck up coz of religious/ethnic/border tensions (like the examples that deadone cited).

Honestly, I don't see much a solution to end the constant instability if the societal configuration does not change. Maybe something similar to the Lebanon regime (political representation of each group present in the society through religious comunities) but even that brings a shitload of problems (either to implement and to maintain a certain statu quo). It's still more desirable than the alternate situation of their neighbours if you ask me.....