CIA's "Moslem Billy Graham", Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt 1951-1953)

[Maqsood Kayani]

http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/content/1951-1953-egypt-nasser-moslem-billy-graham

Gamal Abdel Nasser, CIA's "Moslem Billy Graham" (Egypt 1951-1953)

America wanted British influence over Egypt to end. But an openly pro-American client government would be met with antipathy and anti-imperialist feelings that were dominant at the time. The CIA-supported coup d’etat that ousted the British puppet King Farouk and brought the Free Officers to power is particularly important because from 1952 to 1970 Gamal Abdel Nasser dominated Arab politics.

Miles Copeland, a former CIA operative specialising in the Middle East, wrote in his autobiography (The Game Player), that in 1951 and 1952 the CIA worked on a project known in the secret annals of the CIA as “The Search for a Moslem Billy Graham.”

According to Copeland, who activated the project in 1953, the CIA needed a charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American hostility that was building up in the area. The CIA task was to create ‘something’ more menacing than Israel, to be a substitute for the U.S. and the Jewish state.

Copeland describes the first secret meeting he had with three army officers, including Major Abdel Moneim Ra’ouf (a member of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s inner circle). In March 1952, four months before the coup d’etat that ousted King Farouk, Kim Roosevelt (head of CIA Near East Operations) and Nasser began a series of meetings that led to the coup. After much discussion it was agreed support from the Islamic groups was not required, and that the army would take control and gain the support of the urban populace.

It was also agreed that future relations between the U.S. and Egypt would publicly eschew phrases such as “re-establishing democratic processes,” but privately there would be an understanding that the pre-conditions for democratic government did exist. The CIA and Nasser agreed on Israel. For Nasser, talk of war with Israel was irrelevant. Nasser’s priority was British occupation of the Suez Canal. Nasser’s enemy was Britain.

The U.S. could assist Nasser by not opposing the coup. Right up to the day of the coup (July 23, 1952), CIA station operatives stayed in very close contact with members of Nasser’s “Free Officers.” Copeland says the coup took place without a hitch, with General Mohammed Naguib nominally at its head. For the next six months, the only U.S. contacts with Nasser and the Revolutionary Command Council were maintained by the embassy, not the CIA.

After the coup, the CIA assisted in the reorganization of the Mukhabarat (Egypt’s intelligence service). Key courses were set up to acquaint members of Egypt’s Revolutionary Command Council with what they could reasonably expect from the U.S. Nasser agreed to all of this. In addition, the head of the Mukharabat sent an English-speaking officer, Captain Hassan Touhami, to Washington where he was shown the whole range of services that the CIA, FBI and police agencies could offer Egypt’s government.

The CIA’s relationship with the Egyptian government was kept secret. To assist this, Copeland’s employers, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and the CIA, joined forces to give advice on organizing Egypt’s Interior Ministry. This entailed making improvements in the immigration and customs services, and tackling the system of identity cards and vehicle registrations. All this was a cover for the CIA’s real agenda.

The CIA helped Nasser with his anti-American propaganda by sending a U.S. agent, Paul Linebarger, to Egypt, to coach the Egyptian-American team that turned out the anti- American propaganda that poured out of Radio Cairo. Linebarger advised both the Minister of Information and Nasser on how the Egyptian press and Radio Cairo could issue stories and editorials which were seemingly pro-Soviet but did the Soviets and Communism more harm than good.

As a specialist in CIA "psychological operations" (psy ops), Linebarger helped create anti-US propaganda in Cairo. He advised Egyptian leader Gamal Nasser, and his minister of Information, on how the Egyptian media could issue stories and editorials that, although appearing to be pro-Soviet, actually did more harm than good for the USSR and communism. After this death, it became known that Linebarger was also a science fiction writer who published stories under the pseudonym, Cordwainer Smith.

Despite differences, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and the CIA fundamentally agreed that Nasser must be kept in power. Nasser’s response to the withdrawal of the loan to finance the Aswan Dam was to nationalise the Suez Canal Company. This brought the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt, resulting in the U.S. government under Eisenhower to support Nasser and forcing the coalition forces to cease hostilities. Perhaps this incident was one of the more explicit examples of the true relationship between the U.S. and Egypt.

Through agents such as Nasser, the U.S. was successfully challenging and undermining Britain’s position in the region. At the same time, the U.S. was duping the Muslims and Arabs into thinking that its puppet – Arab nationalism – was their saviour.

Source: Excerpt, "CIA: tool of American colonialism, past and present", KCom Journal, June 30, 2001. 

www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=1764&TagID=1

www.myiwc.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1516.html

http://www.myiwc.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1516.html

CIA - Tool of American Colonialism, past and present

Athar Jamil

04-07-2001

George Tenet, the CIA Director, recently returned from the Middle East after reviving peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The visit marked the return to the high profile negotiating role the CIA had previously played in the Middle East conflict under the Clinton administration.

The CIA has played an intermediary role in the region since 1997; with Mr Tenet personally mediating between top officials to ensure the peace process did not collapse. The agency's role was formalised by the 1998 Wye River agreement, which called for a high-level committee including representatives from Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the US to meet regularly to discuss security issues. Tasks previously undertaken believed to have included passing messages between the two sides, arbitrating in disputes, and handing on Israeli intelligence to the Palestinian authorities about the activities of Islamic

militants.

The CIA was also involved in training Palestinians to help them develop a more professional security operation. And its Director, George Tenet, who made many visits to the Middle East, attended last October's emergency summit in Sharm el-Sheikh. The Palestinians are known to value the relationship highly as a channel of communication with Washington and a counterweight to Israeli influence. They are reported to have pressed for the CIA's role to be revived after it had been put on hold by the new Bush administration.

It seems ironic that Arab leaders today call for the involvement of the CIA in their affairs. In years gone by, the CIA was the scourge of Middle-East governments that dared to hold anti-American policies. To understand the role it has played and continues to play, one must understand the change in reality that took place in the Middle East after the Second World War, as well as the nature of U.S. foreign policy.

The foreign policy applied by countries such as Britain and America is derived from their ideology, Capitalism, named after the most prominent aspect of the secular ideology- that of freedom of ownership. In reality this translates to freedom of possession, consumption and exploitation. Thus Colonialism, the political, cultural, and economic control over the weak nations in order to exploit them is the method employed by American Foreign policy. Various styles can be used to implement this method, depending upon current international realities. 

In the modern era of ‘freedom and democracy’, the western powers have abandoned resorting to military occupation and have replaced it by other means. Current styles include the backing of agent rulers, suspicious aid deals and inciting civil wars/ regional tension. This article aims to expose the CIA as a tool of the leading capitalist nation- America- and a means of maintaining her hegemony on the affairs of the Muslim world. This tool has been used effectively for the last 50 years to remove governments and control loyal agents, who ran the affairs of the Ummah according to American interests, and continues to be used for this purpose.

Post war Middle East situation.

Britain's efforts in World War 2 had exhausted her. The cost of maintaining its presence in the Middle East was one that it could no longer afford. Furthermore, Russia was making major efforts to re-establish its standing as a major power in the area. The Soviet threat in Iran, Turkey and Greece in particular forced Britain into inviting America into the area. The United States overwhelming economic and military power provided Britain with the resources it needed to keep Russia out of the area.

However once in, America was not willing to play the role of passive partner. In 1944 the State Department described the Arabian Peninsula as constituting "A stupendous source of strategic power and the greatest material prize in the world's history.” The United States was aware that the control of the region's oil supplies was a lever to control the world. As George Kennan, the influential planner put it in 1949, if the U.S controlled the oil it would have "veto power" over the potential actions in the future of rivals like Germany and Japan.

The Americans realised that the British brought them to the region to strengthen themselves, and would fight to the last American soldier, as they did during the past in other regions of the world when they fought to the last French soldier. Eventually the U.S. began taking over the British colonies, and one of these colonies was Iran. The words of Roger Davis, the Deputy Under Secretary of State for the Middle East and Southern Asia, reveal the American hatred towards the British who prevented the U.S. from exploiting the countries around the Persian Gulf. Davis said in 1971, during the celebration of Bahrain's independence:

"It was not Bahrain alone or the Gulf States who regain their economic freedom, but additionally the U.S. feels that it regained its economic, political, and military freedom in the Gulf after Britain prevented her from access to it for almost a century. The British Blockade in and around the Persian Gulf excluded the U.S. as much as it did the Soviet Union and China”.

The United States however had to develop its Middle East policy within the framework of alliance politics and thus it was important to the U.S that alliance solidarity be maintained. The United States embarked on a policy of easing the British out of its dominant role by using its vast economic and military power without an open confrontation with Britain. To achieve its aims the United States sought to maneuver its supports into power, using the CIA as its primary tool. The Central  Intelligence Agency was founded in 1947 with assistance from ex-Nazi Gestapo agents, and was led by Alan Dulles, then Secretary of State John Dulles’ brother.

What followed was a series of CIA engineered coups and counter-coups in Egypt, Syria, Iran and Iraq, amongst others. Democratically elected heads of state were removed simply because of their lack of compatibility with US foreign policy. This made a mockery of America’s claim to be champions of democracy around the globe. The activities of the CIA in the region at this time are well documented in Miles Copeland's books "The Game of Nations" and "The Game Player". Nasser And Egypt America wanted British influence over Egypt to come to an end. But an openly pro-American client government would be met with antipathy and anti-imperialist feelings that were dominant at the time.

The CIA supported coup d'etat that ousted the British puppet King Faruk and brought the Free Officers to power is particularly important because from 1952 to 1970 Gamal Abdel Nasser dominated Arab politics. Miles Copeland, former CIA operative specialising in the Middle East, writes in his autobiography entitled “The Game Player”, that in 1951 and 1952 the CIA worked on a project known in the secret annals of the CIA as “The Search for a Moslem Billy Graham.”

According to Copeland, who activated the project in 1953, the CIA needed a charismatic leader who would be able to divert the growing anti-American hostility that was building up in the area. The CIA task was to create 'something' more menacing than Israel, to be a substitute for the US and the Jewish state.

Copeland recollects that in the first secret meeting he had with three army officers one of whom was Major Abdel Moneim Ra’ouf (a member of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s inner circle). In March 1952, four months before the coup d’etat that ousted King Faruk, Kim Roosevelt (head of the CIA Near East Operations) and Nasser began a series of meetings that led to the coup. After much discussion it was agreed that no support from the Islamic groups was required, and that the army would take control and gain the support of the urban populace.

It was also agreed that future relations between the US and Egypt would publicly eschew phrases such as “re-establishing democratic processes”, but privately there would be an understanding that the pre-conditions for democratic government did not exist. Both the CIA and Nasser were in agreement on Israel. For Nasser talk of war with Israel was irrelevant. Much more of a priority was British occupation of the Suez Canal Zone. Nasser’s enemy was Britain.

The US could assist Nasser by not opposing the coup. Right up to the day of the coup (23rd July 1952), the CIA station operatives stayed in very close contact with the members of the Free Officers. According to Copeland the coup took place without a hitch, with General Mohammed Naguib nominally at its head. For the next six months the only contacts with Nasser and the Revolutionary Command Council were maintained by the embassy, not the CIA.

After the coup in 1953, the CIA assisted in the reorganization of the Mukhabarat (intelligence service). Key courses were set up designed to acquaint members of the Revolutionary Command Council with what they could reasonably expect from the USA. Nasser agreed to all of this. In addition, Zakaria Mohieddin, head of the Mukharabat, agreed to send an English-speaking Free Officer, Captain Hassan Touhami, to Washington. There Touuhami was shown the whole range of services the CIA, FBI and police

agencies could offer the government.

The CIA’s relationship with the Egyptian government was kept secret and to assist this Copeland’s employers, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, and the CIA joined forces advising on the organization of the Interior Ministry. This entailed making improvements in the immigration and customs services, tackling the system of identity cards and vehicle registrations. All this was a cover for the CIA’s real agenda.

The CIA helped him with his anti-American propaganda by sending an agent, Paul Linebarger, to Egypt to coach the Egyptian-American team that turned out the anti-American propaganda that poured out of Radio Cairo. Linebarger advised both the Minister of Information and Nasser on how the Egyptian press and Radio Cairo could issue stories and editorials which were seemingly pro-Soviet but did the Soviets and Communism more harm than good.

Despite differences, Secretary of State Dulles and the CIA fundamentally agreed that Nasser must be kept in power. Nasser’s response to the withdrawal of the loan to finance the Aswan Dam was to nationalise the Suez Canal Company. This brought the Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt, resulting in the US government under Eisenhower to support Nasser and forcing the coalition forces to cease hostilities. Perhaps this incident was one of the more explicit examples of the true relationship between America and Egypt.

Through agents such as Nasser the United States was successfully challenging and undermining Britain's position in the region. At the same time the US was duping the Muslims and Arabs into thinking that its puppet and Arab nationalism was their saviour.

Syria

The first few years after the 2nd World War saw the U.S. challenge a war-weakened Britain for political influence, oil supremacy and markets in the Middle East. In respect of the newly independent Syria, a tremendous increase in Middle East oil production enhanced Syria’s importance as an oil transit state; America wanted a trans-Syrian pipeline to carry their Saudi

Arabian oil to the Mediterranean.

Britain, who still occupied militarily Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt and Palestine, was decisively in control of Syria and resisted America’s efforts. This pushed America into thinking that the only way to change the situation of the region was for the U.S. to apply the same policies she had carried out in South America, namely, bringing military leaders to power through military coups. The first fruit of the new U.S. policy was to be the Za’im coup of 1949, by the time Hafiz Assad took power in 1970 a further 15 coups had taken place - not all inspired by America, but it was America that started this chain of coups in the Middle East.

Tabitha Petran in her book ‘Syria’ published in 1972 writes “on 29 March 1949, Colonel Husni Za’im seized power, ousted and exiled President Quwatly, dissolved parliament, and established military rule. This first overturn in the Arab world after the Palestine war was engineered by the American embassy in Damascus” (p96). The CIA engineered coup to bring Husni Za’im to power became a standard case history for study in CIA training classes and is discussed by Miles Copeland in his books “The Game Player” and “The Game of Nations”. 

In brief, Copeland maintains that a ‘political action team’ systematically developed a friendship with Za’im, then Chief-of-Staff of the Syrian army, suggested to him the idea of a coup d’etat, advised him how to go about it, and guided him through the intricate preparations in laying the groundwork for it. Once in power Za’im agreed to allow construction of the Aramco oil pipeline and endorsed a U.S. project for a Middle East military pact. The Za’im coup, however, was short lived. In August 1949 Colonel Sami Hinnawi overthrew him in a British supported coup.

Iran

Britain before the war had complete control over the Iranian oil fields. This lucrative state of affairs continued until the Musadeq government of the early fifties nationalised the oil industry and kicked out the British. In response to losing a major resource asset, Prime Minister Winston Churchill began to think of the replacement of Musadeq with a friendlier government. This came after he was denied support by the Truman administration in 1951 for an invasion of South Western Iran, in order to capture the oilfields.

However, Britain was unable to do it alone, despite the establishment of an extensive MI6 network in Tehran. On Churchill’s request, the Americans also began to consider the removal of Muhammed Musadeq’s democratically elected government. America, being an independent Capitalist nation with it’s own interests, only came on board when it realised that Musadeq was a ‘weak’

leader who could destabilise Iran in the face of Communist agitation, leading to a complete Communist takeover. This was despite having backed the rise of Musadeq in the first place.

In March 1953, secretary of state John Dulles spoke to his brother Alan (head of the CIA) and informed him that it was no longer in America’s interest for the Musadeq government to remain in power in Iran. He then requested that the CIA initiate a plan to remove him from office. By mid April, Alan Dulles had concluded that the objective could be fulfilled by way of covert operations in a military coup. British MI6 agents already in place and the CIA’s own operatives would be used. Dulles approved $1 million for the operation. In May, British and American agents met in Cyprus to discuss what was named Operation T P Ajax. Cyprus was to become the base of the operation. On June 14th, 1953, the final plan was submitted to Churchill and Eisenhower for approval.

The Shah was central to the success of the operation, as he would be influenced into issuing two royal edicts, one to dismiss Musadeq, and the other to name a new government. Armed forces loyal to the Shah would back his edicts and remove Musadeq. The edicts provided the legal justification necessary for the coup to succeed. On July 25th, 1953, Kim Roosevelt went to Iran and met up with British agents on the ground. Special radio linkups were created with command and control headquarters in Cyprus, and meetings with the Shah were arranged. Eventually, Roosevelt managed to win his backing after much pressure. However, the Shah still refused the sign the edicts, fearing his throne should the coup attempt fail.

General Fazula Zahidi was chosen as the successor to Musadeq, as he was seen as a strong leader. The CIA hired Iranian officers who subsequently purchased MPs and bribed newspaper editors. By this time agent provocateurs were agitating the masses into coming onto the streets in fear of a ‘communist threat’. Newspaper editors were bribed into writing articles

attacking the Musadeq government for being to weak on the communists, anybody and everybody was paid who could bring trouble makers onto the streets to riot and create civil strife, which was then blamed on the communists.

In this unexpected atmosphere of revolt, Musadeq realised that a conspiracy as unfolding against him but could do little to stem the violence. So on August 3rd, Musadeq held a referendum to dissolve parliament. On August 13th, and under pressure, the Shah finally agreed to sign the much-required edicts. August 15th was set as D-Day for operation T P Ajax. The Operation started badly, as loyal army officers informed Musadeq of the imminent coup. Immediately, known army conspirators were rounded up and imprisoned. 

The Shah fled to Switzerland, and General Zahidi went into hiding, as a warrant was issued for his arrest. CIA and MI6 agents were in disarray as the entire plan fell apart. A few days later, Musadeq felt sure that the coup attempt had failed, and moved crucial army units loyal to him away from Tehran and back to barracks. General Zahidi, however, was still in hiding and remained uncaptured. 

The CIA was in no mood for giving up, and so after secret consultation with Zahidi, a makeshift plan was hatched which involved photocopying and mass producing the royal edicts, in order to incite public opinion against Musadeq for disobeying the Shah’s instructions and acting illegally. When finally news broke out that Musadeq had in fact gone against the Shah, the masses took to the streets in support of the Shah. Army units still loyal to Zahidi took advantage of Musadeq’s standing down of his loyal units, and swiftly took the capital. Musadeq was out of power and a new, ‘friendlier’ leadership was now in control.

Conclusion

The old statements of the British foreign secretary in 1848, Lord Palmerston, must be viewed as the cornerstones of Capitalist foreign policy. When he said that Britain does not have neither permanent friends nor enemies, only its interest are permanent, he was defining the basis of the foreign policy as being Britain’s ‘interest’ and ‘benefit’ only. And when, during a discussion on oversees policy, he stated ‘trade without rule if possible, but trade with rule if necessary’, he was blatantly stating that Britain as a Capitalist nation almost has the right to take power in foreign lands just for the sake of trade and self-benefit.

When talking about the Kuwait oil resources in 1958, British Prime Minister Selwyn Lloyd had the following to say- "... at all costs these oil-fields must be kept in western hands. The immediate problem is whether it is good tactics to occupy Kuwait against the wishes of the ruling family". This is how the West defines its role in the Middle East, or any other conflict/region around the world- on the basis of benefit. And for the sake of securing their interests, the Western powers would go to any lengths necessary- even if it meant forsaking democracy.

America is not participating in negotiations in the Middle East without a reason, or for the sake of ‘Christian Charity’. Rather, America sees a benefit in involving itself in the current peace process. Indeed, it was America that hatched this entire process, kick-starting it in the Madrid Conference in 1993, as a means of permanently securing its presence and interests in the region and curtailing the growing ability of Israel to undermine those interests. America wishes to see a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the basis of U.N. resolutions 242 and 338, which enshrine the concept of ‘land for peace’. 

Under these resolutions, Israel must withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, and permanently demark its borders on this basis. An independent Palestinian state would become established, acting as a buffer to Israeli expansionism in the region. Linked to this, and more importantly for America, is control over the strategic Golan Heights along the Syrian border. Whoever controls the Golan controls the entire region. Hence the Syrian track in the peace process is also vital for America to bring to a suitable conclusion, which will involve Israel pulling out of the heights and U.N. forces comprising of American units move in as peacekeepers.

The CIA is providing technical assistance to both Israelis and Palestinians with regards to security, and this may seem innocent enough. But in reality the CIA’s involvement in the peace process is based upon US foreign policy objectives for this region. About technical assistance, the US government has the following to say “Technical Assistance is not something to be done, as a Government enterprise, for its own sake or for the sake of others. The US Government is not a charitable institution, nor is it an appropriate outlet for the charitable spirit of the American people. 

That spirit finds its proper instrumentality in the numerous private philanthropic and religious institutions, which have done so much good work abroad. Technical Assistance is only one of a number of instruments available to the US to carry out its foreign policy and to promote its national interest abroad…. These tools of foreign policy include economic aid, military assistance, security treaties, overseas information programmes, participation in the UN and other international organization, the exchange of persons programmes, tariff and trade policies, surplus agricultural commodities disposal policies and the traditional processes of diplomatic representation.”

Technical Assistance: Final Report of Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, 12 March 1957 The CIA continues in its role as America’s shadowy forces of ‘facilitation by any means necessary’, a Machiavellian tool specially built to enact the concept ‘the end justifies the means’. 

This same principle was what guided them in the: 

1. Philippines in 1948 (when the CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt), 
2. Guatemala in 1954 (when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power), 
3. Cuba in 1961 (when the CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government), 
4. Indonesia in 1965 (when the CIA orchestrated a military coup), 
5. Chile in 1973 (when the CIA orchestrated a coup, 
6. killing President Allende who had been popularly elected and helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet),
7. Angola in 1976 (when the CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola), 
8. El Salvador in 1981 (when the CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN), 
9. Nicaragua also in 1981 (when the CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas), 
10. and Haiti in 1994 (when the CIA restored Aristide to power). 

Although aiding and not removing governments in its current assignment, the CIA is nonetheless facilitating American interests. We should not welcome it or the Americans as friendly forces/peace keepers, despite their deceptive appearances.

Athar Jamil

Political Correspondent

Americas

30 June 2001

Source: Kcom Journal

www.khilafah.com

--

 "I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers" 

- Khalil Gibran 

"Music expresses that which cannot be said and on which it is impossible to be silent."

- Victor Hugo

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

- François-Marie Arouet "Voltaire"

"If a man like Muhamed (pbuh) were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness."
 - George Bernard Shaw

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind."
- George Orwell

"Do not worry that children never listen to you; worry that they are watching you"
 - Robert Fulghum

"The accomplice to the crime of corruption is often our own indifference"
 - Bess Myerson

"Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos."
 - Will Durant

"Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance."
 - Will Durant

"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes 'election by the incompetent-many' for 'appointment by the corrupt-few'."
 - George Bernard Shaw

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
 - George Bernard Shaw

"May you live every day of your life."
 - Jonathan Swift

"Pity the nation... that welcomes its new ruler with trumpeting, farewells him with hooting, only to welcome another with trumpeting again."
 - Khalil Jibran

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends".
 - Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music."
 - Angela Monet

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
 - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do."
 - Voltaire

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
 - Samuel P. Huntington (author The Clash Of Civilisations)