What you are saying is correct. Slaves WERE worse off afterwards--at least initially. In fact, that was the argument of the capitalists. Capitalists claimed that they would take care of the slaves far better than the free slaves will be able to. Their analogy was to that of private property (eg. you would take care of you OWN car better than a public car)...
But there is something this argument ignores: FREEDOM!!! I don't know about you but I would rather be free and poor than rich and be a slave. There is NOTHING that is equal to freedom.
Some countries in the world are worse off now than under imperialism/colonialism (in the economic sense). However, they are better off overall. Being free is worth infinity!
Bill Gates DOES do some personal stuff in technology. A few years ago he was attempting to deploy hundreads of low-orbiting satellites. I wasn't tracking that so who knows what happened to that (I'm not even sure if it went off the ground given Motorola's Iridium failure).
Anyone someone restricts something, it is censorship. No if's or but's. Censorship (or more precisely freedom) is an ideal. It has nothing to do with law or the goverment. What you are most likely referring to is the capitalist notion of censorship which is rooted in law and holds that only government can carry out censorship. I say it extends beyond the government...
You think they're keen to sell cheap CD players in China for $2 and would rather do that than sell them in the US where they fetch $15-40?
The people who profit from that are not the manufacturers or cheap labourers. It's the corporations in the rich countries. For example, bananas may cost 10cents to harvest in a poor country but are sold for (say) $1 here. The poor countries hardly profit from that. It's the corporations located in USA that do.
Isn't it better to give a person a choice between the absolute shit life of complete poverty and the nearly absolute shit life of menial pay for hard work?
No because that's contrary to liberalism. If you are liberal you can't accept that because your justification can be used for anything. If anything, you can even justify slavery by your reasoning.
Of course, to a capitalist, slavery is perfectly ok. In fact, capitalists were the ones who were against the abolishment of slavery.
Like all capitalists, you obviously has no idea of the notion of exploitation. And how about cases where the government initiates mass propaganda and disinformation and brainwashes people to accept something? You will have no concept of right or wrong. To you, only one thing matters: money.
Well, he DID manage to weasle his way out of Watergate, didn't he?
NOTE: smart does not mean morally good...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:How will H usage affect this?
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
There is NOTHING stopping tyranny of the majority under any system (except something like anarchism or something). Minorities will ALWAYS be under the power of the majority. However, when society is functioning properly, the majorities will respect the minorities. Even Thomas Jefferson had no real idea how to stop it fully.
USA hasn't been a republic since it started practicing imperialism! Good luck trying to revive it!
The long fall of the Middle East came from within, and most of their peaceful periods in the past few centuries have been imposed from without.
I'm not talking about the fall of those ancient civilizations; I'm talking about the modern era and how European colonialism and imperialism has suppressed the Middle East. The difference between Asia and the Middle East is that Asia has shook off its imperialism. In particular, countries like China and India are free. In contrast, the Middle East has been controlled by US imperialists (and before that the British) over the last 100+ years. I say the Middle East is cursed because of oil. On the one hand, it is the most important (and hence the richest) resource in the world right now. It is the #1 product in terms of sales and "guaranteed" profits. So, the fact that the Middle East has a ton of oil means that foreigners (namely Americans and in some cases Russians) have been controlling it.
If you think I'm an idiot answer this: Do you think anyone would even care about the Middle East if it weren't for oil? Do you think US troops will be protecting monarchies (eg. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc) in the Middle East if it weren't for the oil?
It's too bad that you don't realize USA is practicing imperialism... one day you will!
The problem with you capitalists is this... you have no idea what life is all about. If someone works 12 hours a day for menial wages, that would be perfectly ok with you. Yes, people choose to work but does that mean anything? I mean, I can go to some poor country in Africa and hire some girl to be my sex SLAVE and you would be ok with it...
One day when you falter and have to leave your ivory tower, you just might learn something... until then, keep worshipping the Gods of Capitalism...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:How will H usage affect this?
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
I think the notion of giving more power to small states to allow them an equal footing just does not work. Until anarchism rolls around, I think pure democracy is the best. The problem is that, even if you give voting power to smaller states, in the end it is not that useful. The whole economy is driven by the larger states. So the larger states will always have to have more influence (since they are the ones providing the wealth in the first place). For instance, what happens in say New York, Texas, and California are all that matters.
What I said has nothing to do with your main point (which is history)... I'm just saying why it doesn't work in the end...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Global Trade = Global Freedom
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 1
Global trade is nothing more than the freedom of individuals to make mutually beneficial economic decisions without being harassed by nosy local governments. There is nothing wrong with this.
You capitalists might learn something if you left your caves once in a while. Yes, trade is a mutual thing (even socialists like me are not against it). However, what passes for trade now is neither FREE nor FAIR. The countries that are making the trade decisions are run by autocrats and other corrupt individuals who don't care about their citizens.
You say that trade will result in less harassment from governments. Well, maybe. But now you will get more harassment from corporations and bodies like the WTO.
Your speculation is correct. Women have a higher probability of catching HIV than men. The female biology and the way their body is constructed is the reason. What I said applies to other STDs too. In general, women can more easily get diseases than men. Perhaps that's why women are cleaner while men are messy:)
I think you need to check your geography... There are many parts of Africa that are fertile. In fact, Africa is probably more fertile than the Middle East, Central Asia, or probably even some parts of East Asia.
I would say West Africa (eg. Nigeria), Southern Africa (eg. South Africa), Central Africa (eg. Congo) are good regions to farm. The North and Northeastern (eg. Algeria), Horn of Africa (eg. Somalia), and perhaps a bit of Eastern Africa (eg. Kenya) are bad. Overall, Africa isn't that bad...
That's not true... the problem is not the distribution but the inequality in wealth. Many poor people cannot afford their food (something people don't realize). Many poor countries where people are starving are NET EXPORTERS of food!!!
I think solar really won't take off until you can store energy (in batteries or something). It will be very difficult to find 83,000 sq. km in a country like USA. I mean, only a small part of USA has enough light throughout the year. I think solar is ideal for some hot climate like deserts. If you can store energy, I imagine most of the solar cells will be deployed in places like North Africa, Australia, possibly some areas in Central Asia, and Middle East, rather than in USA, Canada, France, or whatever. (As a side note, this means US imperialism will never end and the people in Middle East will be cursed for another 250 years.)
Bush is really weird. He is SUPPOSED to be "smart". He apparently did well in school (can't remember but I think B+ average or something). Some of his close associates say he is intelligent. YET he seems SO DUMB. I don't know what's going on. You just need to look at his Bushisms to get an idea. He also seems to lack an understanding of the world, except within a simplistic religious framework.
I really don't know what's up with Bush. The guy is supposed to be smart but doesn't show it...
One theory I have heard from right wingers is that he is being manipulated (I imagine by neoconservatives but they never seem to pinpoint exactly who). Some right wingers have pointed out that Bush has changed since taking over the White House. They say that the speeches Bush reads have nothing to do with him. They argue that Bush would never deliver some of the speeches that he does now. Their theory I guess is that Bush is put in an uncomfortable position...
As it stands now, Bush is the dumbest US president in 30 or 40 years. Even horrible liers like LBJ and Nixon are "smarter"...
Wait until the time comes... I'm sure the monarchs will call out the military when their lives are threatened. It will be done in a subtle way (possibly by initiating propaganda first to soften the citizens)... Having said that, the monarchy is going to self-destruct under their own idiocy so this may not come. It wouldn't surprise me if the British totally dump the monarchy within 50 years. Already, Prince Charles is more of an entertainer than the biggest rock band;)
And if you believe that most of Iraq is not better off now than before, you are a fool.
We'll see who is a fool in 2 years... when there is a civil war between the US-backed authoratarian forces (mostly Sunni) versus the Islamic forces (mostly Shiite)... and let's also wait and see what happens to the Kurds...
Slashdot IS mainstream media for the most part (although it is tailored for the tech crowd). Notice how the majority of the stories are actually linked from mainstream sources. More than 90% of the discussions are linked to mainstream media sources.
As it is, the mainstream media simply re-hashed white house press releases
I agree... but you still have to read mainstream press because that is the most dominant and only source of information. I am not brainwashed by them but do gain knowledge from them. So, the reason I read the mainstream press is NOT because I believe they are the truth. Instead, I read because I have no other choice (I do read independent stuff (I'm a leftist so I read leftist stuff) but they are unreliable and not professional enough:( ).
It's like living in a totalitarian system where the government controls all press. You know what? *I* would still read the media controlled by totalitarians. I won't do it because I believe it to be the full truth, but because there are no other media and you can gain SOME truth from them.
(and probably there's a conspiracy theory on who controls AP:-)
The conspiracy theory regarding AP is that it is based in USA and hence is not as critical of USA as it should be. For example, how many AP stories do you get from Colombia (USA's other forgotten war)? Similarly, Reuters is based in Britain and is thought to be biased towards Britain. AFP (Agence France Presse) is based in France is biased towards France. There's your conspicracy theory:)
I don't know if you want to continue this debate...not sure if you have time... your choice...
I'd allow first trimester abortions...
What's first trimester?
Ahh, but the extreme left is calling for diversity, and it's OK in some schools to show a Muslim crescent (and in some cases a Jewish star), but not a cross.
I'm against promoting ANY religion. This applies to Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, Zen, Taoism, Sikhism, and so forth. So, if Christianity is being discriminated while others aren't, that's not right. I don't support that.
Anyway, to tell you the truth, I'm not really against banning religious symbols or clothing from students. I don't think what France is doing is the right way to do it.
I'm not really against people wearing crosses or stars, or whatever. I'm more against concepts and ideologies. I'm against taking oaths to Gods, or government relying on God, or pretending that wars are fought for their Gods, or governments distributing religious texts (not counting academic study of them), and so forth. If I had the choice, I would let everyone wear religious clothing, or symbols, or whatever. I don't want to PREVENT people from practicing religion after all. What I will do, however, is ensure that the government philosophies and ideals are not rooted in religion.
The UN destroyed most--if not all--of them. Some WMD simply passed their "due date" if you will (like the biological agents, which are supposed hard to keep for long periods of time without manufacturing new stuff, which Iraq didn't do).
In any case, let's just end this war debate... It's almost starting to go in circles...
I'll debate you when USA invades Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia.
I never really got into Dark Reign. It probably has the MOST features of any RTS but it was too much. One of the problems when you add complexity is that you lose gameplay and the weaknesses in the AI start to show.
Since RTS is my favourite genre, I played a lot of the ones (up until 2000 or so when I ended up unemployd after graduating from school:( ). One of my favourite ones (which kind of sucked but was fun) was KKND (Kommand, Kill 'N Destroy?) Ever heard of that? Not very popular but a fun game.
Another good one was Homeworld (which I didn't buy/play for some reason). That's not like a traditional RTS but it was innovative.
Actually, the terrorists will gain more with free media than the government will. Right now, most Middle Eastern governments outspend the terrorists when it comes to propaganda. Terrorists actually lose the propaganda wars but win others.
The so-called terrorists will benefit even more in the Middle East because people will be even more likely to revolt against the government. Remember, the so-called terrorists are religious movements that were started to overthrow the brutual regimes in the Middle East (yes, the US-backed regimes ARE brutal). For instance, why did the Taliban gain popularity and take over Afghanistan? It's because the previous regime was far more brutal than the Taliban. That's hard to believe for someone living in a freer country but the previous regimes (Kabul-based Norther Alliance affiliated official government, Soviet-backed Afghan government, etc) were worse than the Taliban. If you don't believe me, go and ask RAWA (an NGO that deals with abuses suffered by women). The Taliban, believe it or not, had mass support.
Having said that, once these forces come to power with the help of free media, they will lose in the long run. Most of these movements are conservative and they will lose to liberalism. As much as conservatives likely to deny it, liberalism triumphs over conservatism. Same thing will happen in the Middle East.
To see all this play out in the real world, notice how the US government via the IGC is SEVERLY restricting freedom of the press in Iraq. The latest was kicking out Al-Jazeera and a few others. In the past they have shut down newspapers critical of the regime. This happens because the Americans know that they want, not a free press, but a limited one that will toe their line--just like back home (do you ever wonder why CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, AP, and others never ask "hard" questions during press conferences?).
Governments are always against freedom of the press. The elite establishment will lose its control if the press were truly free. This applies to all governments. It doesn't matter if you are a relatively free one like USA, or a totalitarian one like China. It's all the same.
Free thinking people are the enemies of government! Always has been...always will be!!!
Slashdot Mirror
What you are saying is correct. Slaves WERE worse off afterwards--at least initially. In fact, that was the argument of the capitalists. Capitalists claimed that they would take care of the slaves far better than the free slaves will be able to. Their analogy was to that of private property (eg. you would take care of you OWN car better than a public car)...
But there is something this argument ignores: FREEDOM!!! I don't know about you but I would rather be free and poor than rich and be a slave. There is NOTHING that is equal to freedom.
Some countries in the world are worse off now than under imperialism/colonialism (in the economic sense). However, they are better off overall. Being free is worth infinity!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Bill Gates DOES do some personal stuff in technology. A few years ago he was attempting to deploy hundreads of low-orbiting satellites. I wasn't tracking that so who knows what happened to that (I'm not even sure if it went off the ground given Motorola's Iridium failure).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Anyone someone restricts something, it is censorship. No if's or but's. Censorship (or more precisely freedom) is an ideal. It has nothing to do with law or the goverment. What you are most likely referring to is the capitalist notion of censorship which is rooted in law and holds that only government can carry out censorship. I say it extends beyond the government...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You think they're keen to sell cheap CD players in China for $2 and would rather do that than sell them in the US where they fetch $15-40?
The people who profit from that are not the manufacturers or cheap labourers. It's the corporations in the rich countries. For example, bananas may cost 10cents to harvest in a poor country but are sold for (say) $1 here. The poor countries hardly profit from that. It's the corporations located in USA that do.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Isn't it better to give a person a choice between the absolute shit life of complete poverty and the nearly absolute shit life of menial pay for hard work?
No because that's contrary to liberalism. If you are liberal you can't accept that because your justification can be used for anything. If anything, you can even justify slavery by your reasoning.
Of course, to a capitalist, slavery is perfectly ok. In fact, capitalists were the ones who were against the abolishment of slavery.
Like all capitalists, you obviously has no idea of the notion of exploitation. And how about cases where the government initiates mass propaganda and disinformation and brainwashes people to accept something? You will have no concept of right or wrong. To you, only one thing matters: money.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm going to end this discussion. I think we have reached some sort of an end :) Hope to see you in the future...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Well, he DID manage to weasle his way out of Watergate, didn't he?
NOTE: smart does not mean morally good...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is NOTHING stopping tyranny of the majority under any system (except something like anarchism or something). Minorities will ALWAYS be under the power of the majority. However, when society is functioning properly, the majorities will respect the minorities. Even Thomas Jefferson had no real idea how to stop it fully.
USA hasn't been a republic since it started practicing imperialism! Good luck trying to revive it!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The long fall of the Middle East came from within, and most of their peaceful periods in the past few centuries have been imposed from without.
I'm not talking about the fall of those ancient civilizations; I'm talking about the modern era and how European colonialism and imperialism has suppressed the Middle East. The difference between Asia and the Middle East is that Asia has shook off its imperialism. In particular, countries like China and India are free. In contrast, the Middle East has been controlled by US imperialists (and before that the British) over the last 100+ years. I say the Middle East is cursed because of oil. On the one hand, it is the most important (and hence the richest) resource in the world right now. It is the #1 product in terms of sales and "guaranteed" profits. So, the fact that the Middle East has a ton of oil means that foreigners (namely Americans and in some cases Russians) have been controlling it.
If you think I'm an idiot answer this: Do you think anyone would even care about the Middle East if it weren't for oil? Do you think US troops will be protecting monarchies (eg. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc) in the Middle East if it weren't for the oil?
It's too bad that you don't realize USA is practicing imperialism... one day you will!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The problem with you capitalists is this... you have no idea what life is all about. If someone works 12 hours a day for menial wages, that would be perfectly ok with you. Yes, people choose to work but does that mean anything? I mean, I can go to some poor country in Africa and hire some girl to be my sex SLAVE and you would be ok with it...
One day when you falter and have to leave your ivory tower, you just might learn something... until then, keep worshipping the Gods of Capitalism...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think the notion of giving more power to small states to allow them an equal footing just does not work. Until anarchism rolls around, I think pure democracy is the best. The problem is that, even if you give voting power to smaller states, in the end it is not that useful. The whole economy is driven by the larger states. So the larger states will always have to have more influence (since they are the ones providing the wealth in the first place). For instance, what happens in say New York, Texas, and California are all that matters.
What I said has nothing to do with your main point (which is history)... I'm just saying why it doesn't work in the end...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Global trade is nothing more than the freedom of individuals to make mutually beneficial economic decisions without being harassed by nosy local governments. There is nothing wrong with this.
You capitalists might learn something if you left your caves once in a while. Yes, trade is a mutual thing (even socialists like me are not against it). However, what passes for trade now is neither FREE nor FAIR. The countries that are making the trade decisions are run by autocrats and other corrupt individuals who don't care about their citizens.
You say that trade will result in less harassment from governments. Well, maybe. But now you will get more harassment from corporations and bodies like the WTO.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your speculation is correct. Women have a higher probability of catching HIV than men. The female biology and the way their body is constructed is the reason. What I said applies to other STDs too. In general, women can more easily get diseases than men. Perhaps that's why women are cleaner while men are messy :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think you need to check your geography... There are many parts of Africa that are fertile. In fact, Africa is probably more fertile than the Middle East, Central Asia, or probably even some parts of East Asia.
I would say West Africa (eg. Nigeria), Southern Africa (eg. South Africa), Central Africa (eg. Congo) are good regions to farm. The North and Northeastern (eg. Algeria), Horn of Africa (eg. Somalia), and perhaps a bit of Eastern Africa (eg. Kenya) are bad. Overall, Africa isn't that bad...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's not true... the problem is not the distribution but the inequality in wealth. Many poor people cannot afford their food (something people don't realize). Many poor countries where people are starving are NET EXPORTERS of food!!!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think solar really won't take off until you can store energy (in batteries or something). It will be very difficult to find 83,000 sq. km in a country like USA. I mean, only a small part of USA has enough light throughout the year. I think solar is ideal for some hot climate like deserts. If you can store energy, I imagine most of the solar cells will be deployed in places like North Africa, Australia, possibly some areas in Central Asia, and Middle East, rather than in USA, Canada, France, or whatever. (As a side note, this means US imperialism will never end and the people in Middle East will be cursed for another 250 years.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Finally! A master plan for us to take over the world! ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Bush is really weird. He is SUPPOSED to be "smart". He apparently did well in school (can't remember but I think B+ average or something). Some of his close associates say he is intelligent. YET he seems SO DUMB. I don't know what's going on. You just need to look at his Bushisms to get an idea. He also seems to lack an understanding of the world, except within a simplistic religious framework.
I really don't know what's up with Bush. The guy is supposed to be smart but doesn't show it...
One theory I have heard from right wingers is that he is being manipulated (I imagine by neoconservatives but they never seem to pinpoint exactly who). Some right wingers have pointed out that Bush has changed since taking over the White House. They say that the speeches Bush reads have nothing to do with him. They argue that Bush would never deliver some of the speeches that he does now. Their theory I guess is that Bush is put in an uncomfortable position...
As it stands now, Bush is the dumbest US president in 30 or 40 years. Even horrible liers like LBJ and Nixon are "smarter"...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Wait until the time comes... I'm sure the monarchs will call out the military when their lives are threatened. It will be done in a subtle way (possibly by initiating propaganda first to soften the citizens)... Having said that, the monarchy is going to self-destruct under their own idiocy so this may not come. It wouldn't surprise me if the British totally dump the monarchy within 50 years. Already, Prince Charles is more of an entertainer than the biggest rock band ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
And if you believe that most of Iraq is not better off now than before, you are a fool.
We'll see who is a fool in 2 years... when there is a civil war between the US-backed authoratarian forces (mostly Sunni) versus the Islamic forces (mostly Shiite)... and let's also wait and see what happens to the Kurds...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Slashdot IS mainstream media for the most part (although it is tailored for the tech crowd). Notice how the majority of the stories are actually linked from mainstream sources. More than 90% of the discussions are linked to mainstream media sources.
:( ).
:-)
:)
As it is, the mainstream media simply re-hashed white house press releases
I agree... but you still have to read mainstream press because that is the most dominant and only source of information. I am not brainwashed by them but do gain knowledge from them. So, the reason I read the mainstream press is NOT because I believe they are the truth. Instead, I read because I have no other choice (I do read independent stuff (I'm a leftist so I read leftist stuff) but they are unreliable and not professional enough
It's like living in a totalitarian system where the government controls all press. You know what? *I* would still read the media controlled by totalitarians. I won't do it because I believe it to be the full truth, but because there are no other media and you can gain SOME truth from them.
(and probably there's a conspiracy theory on who controls AP
The conspiracy theory regarding AP is that it is based in USA and hence is not as critical of USA as it should be. For example, how many AP stories do you get from Colombia (USA's other forgotten war)? Similarly, Reuters is based in Britain and is thought to be biased towards Britain. AFP (Agence France Presse) is based in France is biased towards France. There's your conspicracy theory
Sivaram Velauthpaillai
I don't know if you want to continue this debate...not sure if you have time... your choice...
I'd allow first trimester abortions...
What's first trimester?
Ahh, but the extreme left is calling for diversity, and it's OK in some schools to show a Muslim crescent (and in some cases a Jewish star), but not a cross.
I'm against promoting ANY religion. This applies to Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, Zen, Taoism, Sikhism, and so forth. So, if Christianity is being discriminated while others aren't, that's not right. I don't support that.
Anyway, to tell you the truth, I'm not really against banning religious symbols or clothing from students. I don't think what France is doing is the right way to do it.
I'm not really against people wearing crosses or stars, or whatever. I'm more against concepts and ideologies. I'm against taking oaths to Gods, or government relying on God, or pretending that wars are fought for their Gods, or governments distributing religious texts (not counting academic study of them), and so forth. If I had the choice, I would let everyone wear religious clothing, or symbols, or whatever. I don't want to PREVENT people from practicing religion after all. What I will do, however, is ensure that the government philosophies and ideals are not rooted in religion.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The UN destroyed most--if not all--of them. Some WMD simply passed their "due date" if you will (like the biological agents, which are supposed hard to keep for long periods of time without manufacturing new stuff, which Iraq didn't do).
In any case, let's just end this war debate... It's almost starting to go in circles...
I'll debate you when USA invades Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I never really got into Dark Reign. It probably has the MOST features of any RTS but it was too much. One of the problems when you add complexity is that you lose gameplay and the weaknesses in the AI start to show.
:( ). One of my favourite ones (which kind of sucked but was fun) was KKND (Kommand, Kill 'N Destroy?) Ever heard of that? Not very popular but a fun game.
Since RTS is my favourite genre, I played a lot of the ones (up until 2000 or so when I ended up unemployd after graduating from school
Another good one was Homeworld (which I didn't buy/play for some reason). That's not like a traditional RTS but it was innovative.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually, the terrorists will gain more with free media than the government will. Right now, most Middle Eastern governments outspend the terrorists when it comes to propaganda. Terrorists actually lose the propaganda wars but win others.
The so-called terrorists will benefit even more in the Middle East because people will be even more likely to revolt against the government. Remember, the so-called terrorists are religious movements that were started to overthrow the brutual regimes in the Middle East (yes, the US-backed regimes ARE brutal). For instance, why did the Taliban gain popularity and take over Afghanistan? It's because the previous regime was far more brutal than the Taliban. That's hard to believe for someone living in a freer country but the previous regimes (Kabul-based Norther Alliance affiliated official government, Soviet-backed Afghan government, etc) were worse than the Taliban. If you don't believe me, go and ask RAWA (an NGO that deals with abuses suffered by women). The Taliban, believe it or not, had mass support.
Having said that, once these forces come to power with the help of free media, they will lose in the long run. Most of these movements are conservative and they will lose to liberalism. As much as conservatives likely to deny it, liberalism triumphs over conservatism. Same thing will happen in the Middle East.
To see all this play out in the real world, notice how the US government via the IGC is SEVERLY restricting freedom of the press in Iraq. The latest was kicking out Al-Jazeera and a few others. In the past they have shut down newspapers critical of the regime. This happens because the Americans know that they want, not a free press, but a limited one that will toe their line--just like back home (do you ever wonder why CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, AP, and others never ask "hard" questions during press conferences?).
Governments are always against freedom of the press. The elite establishment will lose its control if the press were truly free. This applies to all governments. It doesn't matter if you are a relatively free one like USA, or a totalitarian one like China. It's all the same.
Free thinking people are the enemies of government! Always has been...always will be!!!
Sivaram Velauthapillai