Egypt goes dark - Page 6

I think you didn't get the latest wikileak-memo, the demonstrations in the arabic world were planned with the help of the US during the Bush-administration. It was part of Bush's vision to bring democracy to the arabic world. In Iraq it happened militarily, and for Tunisia and Egypt it was done by supporting the youth-movements.

Rice even held a speech right in front of the arabic dictators and told them right in the face that the US changed its policy and wouldn't continue to support stability at the expense of freedom and political participation and that they would now start to support democratic movements.

Wikileaks-records show meetings between these youth-movements and the US-administration talking about plans to stage the democratic push for 2011.

So the US not only knew what was coming, it was directly involved in planning and organising it.

Bush may have planned such demos in his time but time has moved on and his agenda is now in the dustbin of history. I think it is a mistake to link the two - the US are always planning SOMETHING - some interference and control in other people's national interests. It's what they do.

But sometimes also, the real thing happens - my benchmark is a simple one: if it works it's spontaneous it's real. If it fucks up it was a US sponsored op.

First, I confess to not having read the thread. That said, I've been following the situation in Egypt as closely as the BoobTube media will allow. I saw this article this morning:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories


The responses from the Left and Right thus far seem to be thus:

Right: Obama is losing Egypt. He doesn't know what the hell he is doing. The Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over and basically be Taliban-lite. Egypt might become militarized further and attack Israel, starting WWIII. We're screwed!

Left: The Muslim Brotherhood isn't so bad, they won't take over anyway, at least Mubarak will step down and people can get on Facebook again.


My take: If Egypt becomes radicalized (so to speak), Obama will go down as another Carter. He will be blamed for the whole thing. It will be end of him. That said, I'm not sure what he is supposed to do. We can't and shouldn't be dictating the future of the Egyptian people (though clearly we have done that with other nations in the past). Then again, we have a vital interest in what happens within Egypt. Obama likely realizes that the Brotherhood may just end up in power, and that he may have to deal with them. Therefore, he feels can't condemn them.

I don't think I agree with his reasoning on that last point, but I understand it. Despite their supposed renunciation of violence and Al Qaeda itself, the MB is still no secular democratic organization. I don't think their governance would be good for Egypt. One of the major problems in Egypt as I understand it is personal freedom. I doubt that an organization that supports adherence to Sharia law is going to allow much personal freedom. I therefore think Obama should have at least stated that "The United States will deal with the duly elected government of Egypt...but we don't condone the Muslim Brotherhood taking power as we do not share their ideals"---or something along those lines.

Anyway...what should the administration do here?

Stay out of it.

Don't you think that is a sad indictment of the US mentality that both the Left and Right can only see one option: the MB.

I can guarantee you they will not get power.

Btw: just hearing now he's gone!!!

Great!!!!!!! Wow!!!!

Well he handed the power over to the military. What are the odds that the military holds on to that power? I am hoping low and that they quickly work to transition it to some other leader that has the countries best interest at heart and not their own power. Having said that, how many times would such a person actually be put in power? Interesting times ahead...

@SDW - SDW, I also wanted your take on something I wrote earlier in the thread:


I think that in some sense this Revolution could also spread to the US - I don't mean in the same way but in the sense that Obama could also be a victim of it and possibly US policy of late too. But I do think particularly Obama is dead in the water now.

I think the reflection on US policy could be deep because what has happened here has happened without violence and without any US planning - outcomes have been peacefully from WITHN in a way that the US failed to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.


It's simple: trust the people, support the people, encourage the people.

The people got it to this point. There was no Islamist aspect to it whatsoever. Trust them - there's going to be an election.

The hope is based on this: before Mubarak Egypt was the centre of Arab culture, literary, artistic, economic - a massive centre of printing and production.

Since then it has been reduced to an embarrassing hovel. They want it back.


Yes...could happen - but as we saw in the Eastern European revolutions at the end of Communism it is possible that someone quite unknown will 'hear the call' and step up to destiny when the moment arrives.

I don't think that the US sees the MB as the only option....just one option. There is no "mentality" of which you speak.

Politically speaking, yes..I think you're right. Obama has not been statesmenlike at all. There have been no formal statements or press conferences that I'm aware of. It's just..."ho hum, this and that, maybe yes, but understand, and I think that, we'll see." He looks awful in this regard. He's afraid to take any side whatsoever.


I think that is unlikely.


You're comparing Egypt to Iraq and Afghanistan? The last time I checked, Egypt did not harbor terrorists and fire on our aircraft every day while failing to account for weapons of mass destruction.


There is no Islamist aspect to it whatsoever? How do you know that?



Agreed there. My hope is this is a good thing.

I agree - but I was merely commenting on your 'Left' and 'Right' viewpoints which both solely referenced the MB.


Yes...embarassing.


Just to be clear - as I said, I don't mean an actual Revolution. But a revolution in thought and approach - one which will leave Obama and his policies sidelined by events and history.


Last time I checked Afghanistan harbours terrorists that fire on your aircraft because you funded them, armed them and gave them the heartland.

I know it's probably difficult for you to realize but there was a time when Afghanistan was very Western. So yes...in terms of the decades - 30 years of Mubarak - I am comparing the two.


Edit: I was being an arrogant asshole - I apologize. I'll rephrase it: Most people are not Islamists. Nor do they want Islamists. People are just people in the main SDW - to be radicalized takes a number of factors. The Egyptians are more sophisticated than that....they've had civilization longer than anywhere on earth probably.


I really think it can happen. It's still there but underground....

Came across a bit rude before - I mean there may have been an MB element to the protests...ie the MB must have been there protesting along with everyone else....and of course they will want power.

But my point is that they are not Islamists. They are not on the US list of proscribed organizations either.

They are Muslims and their reactions are necessarily Muslim ones - of a certain type - but these reactions are to the torture and other abuses carried out by the Mubarak regime. I think it's ok they are come from a Muslim perspective....democracy does not mean secularism.

I don't necessarily agree with them but they are not Islamists - they are just working for democracy in an Islamic perspective.

Hearing now some sort of protests are happening in Algeria.

God, I hope this spreads to Saudi I really, really do.... this could be the start of an Islamic Revolution - not one like Iran but one where Islam shakes off this terror image and stands with the West in the correct relationship (ie not like Mubarak and the Sauds and not like being Iraqified or the extreme position of Iran) - if that is to happen then someone LIKE the MB will be necessary.

Oh man....live Obama speech - NOW he weighs in....we could do without the platitudes and cliches...

Why God why?

I think that is already underway with the tea party movement. Obama "losing" Egypt is going to be the nail in the coffin.


That doesn't even make sense.


Oh, do tell. Tell me when Afghanistan was "very Western." When?


I don't know. Sophistication doesn't mean a country can't be taken over by radicals. I mean, look at us.

Eehhh. That's not cut and dried. It really depends on how you define "Islamist."


Perhaps not, but freedom does.


That is an interesting thought. My real concern is personal freedoms. Sharia law concerns me in this regard. If people vote for it, well fine I suppose. But you're really talking about something monolithic. If you happen to be Christian, you're not going to want to abide by another religion's laws.

Umm..Tea Party...right...actually they're the one thing that could save him...people who are clinically insane and make him look like a Statesman. Right.


Probably not...it was a direct response to your statement.


Link and Vid


You should check out that vid.....is very enlightening.


Well...maybe they are not radical enough


I would define it as a group - 99% certain to be either Wahabi, Salafist or Deobandi that:

a) Believe in a return to how they perceive the Prophet's community in Medina to have been

b) Believe in radical fatwas that make it permissible to kill civilians and other Muslims

c) Want to install Shari'a law as they understand it in the light of #1.

The MB do not fit any of these criteria.

Imo, for what it's worth, if a group does NOT subscribe to those points and particularly if it si not Saudi/Wahabi funded (as I say that cuts out 90% plus) but is still radical I don't have any problem per se.

What people see as the problem with ISLAM is in reality a problem with WAHABISM. For examples see the Islam thread and recent discussions re flogging. It is always WAHABIS or SALAFIS that push this (I discount Iran here because although they also have a barbaric form of Shari'a law, they are not exporting it...where you see groups trying to install it they are ALWAYS Sunni).


Freedom does not mean secularism any more than freedom means Wahabism.

Freedom means having the option to choose and not being forced or forcing anyone else.


Well under Shari'a you would not have to.... in no true Muslim State - and not in Egypt now (though it is far from an Islamic State) did Christians, Jews or anyone else have to abide by Islamic religious law - that is to say they could build their own churches and synagogues (which you can still see today all over the ME) and enforce their own religious law.

If they killed someone say, they may come under State law but as for issues like marriage and other matters they were under their own. I believe this is the case even now in Egypt and certainly in Syria and Iran.

This Shari'a thing is a bit of a bogeyman if you don't mind me saying. The Western media have really whipped up the populace with this.

First I would say that very many Muslims - the majority imo - do not actually want Shari'a law.

Secondly, in the Qur'an it is not necessary as the stipulation is that if you find yourself as a Muslim under A DIFFERENT law you must obey it.

Thirdly - no-one on the planet actually has Shari'a law. What you see in Saudi and Iran is a barbaric invention of insane maniacs which oppresses the Muslims. That was never what Islam was intended to be.

I admit here that it is irrelevant slightly whether it is Qur'anic or not - if it comes your way that is not really the issue but don't think just because they are Muslims in Egypt they will accept it.

Btw: Egypt already HAS Shari'a law - just not the Wahabi kind.


Link

These 'Islamists' mentioned are not necessarily the MB - they may well be Wahabis. They get around.

Very many Muslims in Egypt outrightly reject Wahabism - most Egyptians follow Sufism which is the polar opposite.

Huh? Freedom does what? Means democracy or secularism? I'm not sure either of those is true.

Good luck with that, they used to have a lot more oil than they do.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gue...-you-listening

"The relentless math:

Population 1960: 27.8 million
Population 2008: 81.7 million
Current population growth rate: 2% per annum (a 35-year doubling rate)
Population in 2046 after another doubling: 164 million

Rainfall average over whole country: ~ 2 inches per year
Highest rainfall region: Alexandria, 7.9 inches per year
Arable land (almost entirely in the Nile Valley): 3%
Arable land per capita: 0.04 Ha (400 m2)
Arable land per capita in 2043: 0.02 Ha
Food imports: 40% of requirements
Grain imports: 60% of requirements

Net oil exports: Began falling in 1997, went negative in 2007
Oil production peaked in 1996
Cost of oil rising steeply
Cost of oil and food tightly linked"

Obama finally picks a side:


Oh the irony.



No doubt trying to figure out the best path to co-opt the new leaders of Egypt.



Again more irony.


And still more.


I wonder if she also means the U.S.



Yeah, we get it. You're taking pictures from satellites.

I hope they now get a government that focuses on trying to improve the lot of the common man. And not any of these fanatical parties either, historically things work best when church and state are separate.

I hope they now get a government that focuses on protecting the basic rights of life, liberty and property of all its citizens.

I understand that is your view of the Tea Party movement. Here, it's quite different. The "media" wants to portray it as you stated. But the reality is far different. It's a loose coalition of fiscally conservatives with libertarian leanings who eschew social wedge issues. Granted, you have factions where this is not the case.


That's what I thought. Pre-1970s or so.



Depends on your view. Obama, while not a Chavez or Castro-like radical, is definitely the most Left-wing president we've ever had. He has a fundamentally view of the country as compared to past presidents. What we're seeing now is that most Americans--even those who voted for him--don't like that view.


Again, we're playing semantics here to a degree. Though, I'd agree in the absence of those three points, one isn't "radical" per se.


I don't know about that. I think you're right in many cases. But I think people (Westerners, let's say) also see other problems not related to sect. I think they see Muslim countries where personal freedom is severely restricted. I think they see cultural aspects with which they have a problem (women's rights, restrictions on personal behavior and even dress, etc). If you're talking terrorism, then I'd basically agree.


I disagree. Laws created under a specific religious doctrine inherently prevent freedom, especially for those who do not practice said religion. Freedom does not mean merely freedom to choose...that would be democracy.


In theory, perhaps. But this is simply not the case in practice, and I think you know it. Tell me about how Christians and Jews are treated in Egypt, and then get back to me.


Agreed.


Then it shouldn't be implemented. If it is implemented, it's therefore oppressive.


You speak here in a theoretical sense. Sharia might not be practiced as it's "supposed to be," but that's academic. If it's not being practiced as it should be ANYWHERE, then how does the theory even apply? It is what it is. It's sort of like communism in that regard (and that regard alone). It might be one thing in theory, but in reality it's something totally different.


Understood. The issue I see with Sharia is that it is a legal construct (not just legal, obviously) that is based on a singular religion. As an American, I believe strongly that laws should be primarily secular, even if some of their roots might be loosely based on religious principles (many in the US say we were founded on "Judeo-Christian principles," for example...but I think these is more of cultural foundation than a religious one).

Look at it this way: What if, say, Great Britain, decided to incorporate a sort of Christian version of Sharia law. Let's say that certain laws were based on a code of conduct expressed in the bible. All citizens would then be required by law to:

• Go the Church on Sunday
• Observe Easter, Christmas et al.
• Read from their Bibles 5 times per week
• Not engage in homosexual relations
• Avoid all alcohol, drugs and tobacco
• Not take the Lord's name in vein

Violation would require jail time. These laws would apply to all citizens, including Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc. Now, I'm not saying Sharia correlates to all of the above. But the concept is the same. You're applying one religion's precepts to all people. Not only that, you're enforcing them as law. How is Sharia any different?

Freedom means secularism. Without primarily secular laws, religious freedom (for example) cannot exist.

I'm not sure that's true. But okay. I suppose you'd have to define what you mean by "secular laws" as opposed to "religious laws" in order for me to fully understand what you mean.

EDIT: I just scanned through your post above which gives me an example of what you mean.


These certainly might be considered "religious laws" but I'm not entirely sure this is the whole story. These are laws about specific religious practices. That said, I agree that none of this sort of thing ought to be implemented by force (which is what government does) onto others. The basic laws of a moral code might also be considered "religious laws" too (don't steal, murder and rape, etc.) The commonality of these kind of laws might trick us into believing that they are secular, but I'm not sure that's quite correct either.

Well...I wouldn't know how it is over there...the news reports we get here in Europe are kind of worrying.


Wait.... you said this:

Oh, do tell. Tell me when Afghanistan was "very Western." When?

You didn't say this:

Oh, do tell. Tell me when Afghanistan AFTER THE 70S was "very Western." When?

So one wonders, is it 'as you thought'? It should be because it could not have been any other time at all - the Russians and then the US arming the Mujahedeen, then the US generally running amok and now the Wahabis.


No way. Not even as much as Carter and he was a centrist. You may not like - I don't like it but let's not assume that means he is equal to everything else you don't like.

I also don't like broccoli but I am pretty sure Obama is not a green vegetable of that specific strain.


No SDW - YOU are playing Semantics. When you say 'radical' you mean something specific - when some, me for instance, uses it in it normal generic usage you widen the frame.

I am a radical. You said Obama was one. Neither of us are Islamists. Radical is 'a good thing' imo - you may differ, but again, don't lump it in with other things you find horrendous just because of it.


But that's my point...there ARE no 'Muslim countries' so you cannot say that the freedom being curtailed is Islamic.

Take this Egypt example: Mubarak oppressed and tortured and suppressed freedom. He did this to MUSLIMS. But was his a Muslim country? No.

The only ones you can point to are Iran and Saudi - and as I say, these are abominations.

Just because a populace is majority Muslim does not mean that Muslims suppress freedom if they are subject to a dictatorship.

Oth, why not look at countries that DO NOT suppress behaviour and women's rights? Syria, Turkey, Jordan etc... again, repressive to greater or lesser degrees but again secular and again these issues are not as pronounced as you claim.


They may prevent YOUR freedom because you are not a Muslim. They may prevent MY freedom because I am not a supporter of Shari'a (though I would argue that even so they do not restrict my freedom and in some cases - divorce, finance etc could actually enhance it) but that does not mean there are not people who would feel free under such a regime and actively choose it.

I wouldn't but I know there are people who do. I know many women who claim to feel freer wearing niqab for example and who am I to argue if this is what they say?


Actually I don't know it. I know that in Wahabi States - you know who - Churches and Christianity are banned and I know that where Wahabi doctrine is exported they want to do this too.

Some Wahabis have tried to spread to Egypt, I do not deny this and it is these who have attacked the Copts.

Don't take my word for it though: ask yourself this - as Wahabism does believe this and as it is known to have been invented in the 18th century - what was Islam's attitude to Christians and Jews for the 1200 years before?

They lived side by side throughout the Islamic Empire and the Churches and Synagogues throughout the region are the evidence. The only reason they don't still is most have taken up the option to return to Israel.

Btw, did you know Iranian Jews have the right to visit Israel whenever they like? They always seem to return though. One wonders why...surely they do not have to? Why do they just not get to Jerusalem and claim asylum saying 'Iran is a very, very bad place and Mr A is trying to wipe us off the map?'.


Damn...was just working myself up for a rant.....


Bad logic. Tax laws are oppressive. Smoking laws are oppressive. But in essence I agree it should not be implemented....


It depends what you think Shari'a is. Not knowing that (though I could hazard a guess) I can't really dissect it...I would say though that there are many very rational and useful things in Sharia'. As I've said before, the West has adopted many of these already without accreditation and even the Archbishop of Canterbury (he's a Christian btw) has called for it in some cases:

Link


I agree - though I don't accept many secular laws myself and find the people who make them often idiotic. But Sharia' IS essentially Judaic law. There are aspects I agree with and aspects I don't.

In the UK there are already separate Jewish Courts and I think the understanding is that they can enforce (some) laws on the proviso they do not over-rule British law.


It's not the same though....the Jewish Courts in the UK have no jurisdiction over non-Jews and the same applies in Muslim areas with the exception of Saudi and, to a much lesser extent, Iran. So Shari'a would not apply to a non-Muslim. It doesn't even in Dubai for example - though there are laws that are not Shari'a that one could break and get into trouble - but these are cultural: sex in public for example.

For example, in Syria a Muslim would not sell alcohol. There is no punishment but they just would not do it. The Christians do though so it is available.

In Saudi you cannot get alcohol but then you can't have a Church either - both these are questionable and borderline un-Islamic. Iranian Jews are allowed alcohol but no Muslims are. If you are caught drinking there you may run into trouble but that is because it is State/National law...the same could happen in a dry State in the US. It is not Shari'a.

Actually alcohol is not banned in the Qur'an - it merely says there is some good in it and some bad so it is better to avoid it. It was legal under Abbasid rule. The Qur'an also states that Jews and Christians are believers and allows them freedom of worship - in fact it is forbidden to try to convert them.

Not true. 1000 years of Islamic rule. From the Jewish Virtual Library:


This applied to Christians and other sects too which is why you still have massive communities tracing back thousands of years in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran for example.

Oh good. Remove all instances of god from the pledge & money. Stop trying to teach creationism in schools. No more swearing in on bibles for anyone--people can swear on the US Constitution.

Somehow I don't think you actually want a secular government. Somehow I think you just don't like the idea of a government with an ISLAMIC bent.

How about we compromise: Privatize money and schools. You send your (non-God adorned) money to (non-Creationism-teaching) schools of your choice. And everyone else can do the same.

What do you say?

The laws you mention might have religious roots, but are not explicitly religious in nature. It's more of a historical and cultural foundation.

Yes, it's as I thought. Not sure where this is going.


He is the most left-wing President we've had. Period.


I didn't mean Obama was "radical" as in Islamist. Perhaps that is the root of the misunderstanding here. I meant Left-wing. Radical can be good, and radical can be bad. For example, I think we need radical spending and taxation reform. Both good.


There are no Muslim countries?


In reality, that's not true. Tell me, who has more personal freedom on the whole...predominantly Muslim countries, or Western democracies? Can you name a predominantly Muslim country where there is as much personal freedom as say, the US has?


Probably not clearly stated on my part: Secular government does not automatically result in freedom. But secularism in general is necessary for freedom to emerge.


Ridiculous. We're not talking about peoples' feelings here. We're talking about basic, measurable freedoms like freedom to practice or not practice a religion, women's rights, freedom to dress anyway one wants, display affection, freedom of speech and the press, etc.


OK.

Don't take my word for it though: ask yourself this - as Wahabism does believe this and as it is known to have been invented in the 18th century - what was Islam's attitude to Christians and Jews for the 1200 years before?[/quote]

I don't know.


I think that while some of that is true, you're really painting over the many conflicts that took place throughout history, most of which based exclusively on religion, and many of which were started by Christians (i.e. the crusades). Probably not relevant to our discussion.


You sound like Ahmadinejad.


Tax laws are not oppressive all the time. Smoking laws are not oppressive all the time. Sharia law would be oppressive to any non-Muslim. All the time.


I'm sure there are good things about it, indeed. I still don't support it.


Secular laws are not guaranteed to be good laws. I don't favor separate courts for separate religions.


Again...theory. Somehow I doubt that a nation embracing full blown Sharia would have it only apply to Muslims. And what if said Muslims were not practicing Muslims...would it still apply? It's a mess.


There are no "dry states" in the US. And if there were, that prohibition would not be exclusively based on religion.


That's a far larger and deeper topic than we have time for. I have no doubt that the Quran has as much contradiction in it as the Bible. Hmm?

I know.


Ok...


Right. He's left. And I'm a Swiss gnome. Got it.


Nope. Name one.


See above - there are no Muslim countries...so is a non sequtur.


Probably = definitely.


Are we? Or are YOU???





Exactly. Thank you.


Or maybe there are...


Really? Are you mistranslating me?


Thanks for that - I'll get on with the task of re-writing history...sorry its been wrong for so long...I'll fix it now....


Imagine my shock.


Right....


Really?


But then you don't know anything about Islam or Shari'a....


I have time for it.... your doubt is wrong....unless you can produce a couple of contradictory Suras....

I've never heard so many conservatives all clamoring for secular government in unison. Nevermind the irony of opposing abortion, gay marriage, evolution in schools, et fucking cetera.

It needs to be said again. And again. And again.

Claiming Obama is radical left wing is just plain moronic.

Well, wherever he fits on some mythical absolute political spectrum, I think we can safely say that he's plain moronic.

For the US political spectrum Obama is to the left. There's no doubt about that. Given a free hand he would no doubt implement many radical ideas. He doesn't know any better and is arrogance enough to think he's right.

Or perhaps those who think he is "Left" are arrogant enough to think they are right?

If one weighs the evidence certain conclusions can indeed be drawn. Just at random:

1) The segment of America that believes he is "Left" do not know what "Left" actually is in a world context. They know nothing of Marxism for example except it is 'very bad'. They do not know what Socialism is. Some are reputed to believe that Hitler was a Socialist but I think this might just be too insane to be true. Though one never knows....

2) There are many, many other things that this segment of America are obsessed with which they also know nothing about. I remember an example of a certain poster who does not speak Farsi arguing with people who are native speakers that they were wrong in their translations to English.

The poster in question also believes Obama is 'rabid Left'. I think these two facts are significant.

3) It is also evident in this thread that a rather un-nerving ignorance of Middle Eastern culture and religion is not enough to prevent expert opinions being pronounced in the manner of a Papal Bull.

Well..it's some sort of Bull anyway.

Conclusion: facts don't matter and are dispensable. I am Right therefore I am right.

Facts are merely what Liburrulls use to muddy the water. They are the work of Satan.

Like God or perhaps Captain Pickard, the Winger merely needs to say "Be" and it is so.