or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Egypt goes dark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Egypt goes dark - Page 6

post #201 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

While I'm at it, where is the CIA on the CR cut list? Absent. They didn't see this coming, so what the hell good is the CIA?

What is its budget anyway - oh I suppose it's classified

Kill it.

http://appropriations.house.gov/inde...Release_id=259

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.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #202 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #203 of 289
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

Quote:
Crisis Flummoxes White House
President Mubarak's Refusal to Step Down Signals a Loss of Western Influence; Sense of 'Disbelief' After Speech

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?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #204 of 289
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quiz: Out of the last 5 presidents, who has taken the FEWEST holidays? Hint: It's not George W. Bush!



Obama makes GWB look like an intellectual giant.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #205 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Anyway...what should the administration do here?

Stay out of it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #206 of 289
Mubarak resigns

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110211/...mi_ea/ml_egypt

Egypt crisis: President Hosni Mubarak resigns as leader
Quote:
Hosni Mubarak has decided to step down as president of Egypt.

Vice-President Omar Suleiman made the announcement in a brief statement on state TV.

It came as thousands massed in Cairo and other Egyptian cities for an 18th day of protest to demand Mr Mubarak's resignation.

Protesters responded by cheering, waving flags, embracing and sounding car horns. "The people have brought down the regime," they chanted.

Mr Suleiman said Mr Mubarak had handed power to the high command of the armed forces.

"In the name of God the merciful, the compassionate, citizens, during these very difficult circumstances Egypt is going through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to step down from the office of president of the republic and has charged the high council of the armed forces to administer the affairs of the country," he said.

"May God help everybody."
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #207 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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?

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!!!!
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #208 of 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #209 of 289
@SDW - SDW, I also wanted your take on something I wrote earlier in the thread:

Quote:
Btw, on another tack, do the American posters here have the sense that Obama is coming out of this looking like a dead duck? Or a lame one at least?

In Europe the perception is he is missing opportunity after opportunity to be a Statesman. People are actually surprised (not me) and the sense is that he is being unmasked and failed utterly to step up to the plate with any from of authority during this crisis.

I think whatever the outcome here for Egypt he is going to suffer some damage on the world stage...just wondered how the feeling was in the US.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Anyway...what should the administration do here?

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

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...

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #210 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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!!!!

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #211 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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

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.

Quote:


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 that is unlikely.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:


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.

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


Quote:

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.

Agreed there. My hope is this is a good thing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #212 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

Yes...embarassing.

Quote:
I think that is unlikely.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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

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.

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

I really think it can happen. It's still there but underground....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #213 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #214 of 289
Oh man....live Obama speech - NOW he weighs in....we could do without the platitudes and cliches...

Why God why?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #215 of 289
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Why God why?

Because he's trying to find a way to blame this latest crisis on GWB...?

Don't laugh. Certain PO "progressives" are sure to find a way.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #216 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.

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

Quote:

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

That doesn't even make sense.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:


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 don't know. Sophistication doesn't mean a country can't be taken over by radicals. I mean, look at us.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #217 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.

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

Quote:

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.

Perhaps not, but freedom does.

Quote:

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.

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.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #218 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

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.

Quote:
That doesn't even make sense.

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

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

Link and Vid

Quote:
The president of Cal State East Bay in Hayward happens to be from Afghanistan, and has a collection of incredible old news footage and pictures of his country from back in the 1950s and 1960s. They show a sharp contrast to the Afghanistan we see in the news today.

"So many people have forgotten how Afghanistan used to be," says Dr. Mohammad Qayuomi...

Qayuomi showed us archival photographs and videos from Afghanistan's minister of information that show life in Afghanistan in the 1950s and 1960s, where the scenes could be from anywhere in a modern country. There were plenty of jobs in construction, as well as the traditional jobs of farming and herding animals.

"Another thing that was really happening back as I was growing up was the beginning of the strong emancipation of women, where women were becoming part of the workforce," he says. "Many of the girls were having an opportunity to go to school and go to the universities."
Most did not wear burqas to cover themselves.

"The burqa, what people people miss is, the burqa actually came from Pakistan only about 100 years ago. It does not have roots in Afghanistan," he says.

Women were in government and there were family planning centers where women were taught about limiting their family size in order to be able to provide for their children.

Back then, the city of Kabul was lit up like the Fourth of July during its Independence Day fireworks shows. Afghanistan had an Air Force and a large Army.

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

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

Well...maybe they are not radical enough

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

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).

Quote:
Perhaps not, but freedom does.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
Sharia law in Egypt applies only in personal status issues - such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody of children. Otherwise the legal system is entirely a secular one, on the model of the French legal system.

Egypt incorporates Islamic law into its constitution by making Islam the official religion of the country and Islamic jurisprudence the principal source of legislation. Sharia courts and judges, qadis, are run and licensed by the Egyptian Ministry of Justice, not by mosques.

Islamists in Egypt are pressing for Sharia law to be applied in all areas of the legal system.

A non-religious Supreme Court operates above the Sharia personal status courts and the secular criminal courts. Religious minorities in Egypt are governed under separate personal status laws and courts. Coptic Christians in Egypt marry under Christian law, and foreigners marry under the laws of their countries of origin.

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #219 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius

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.

Perhaps not, but freedom does.

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #220 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.

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"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #221 of 289
Obama finally picks a side:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama

"The wheel of history turned at a blinding pace" the past few weeks and disproved the notion that "justice is gained by violence," Obama concluded. "In Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence -- not terrorism, not mindless killing ... that bent the arc of history toward justice once more."

Oh the irony.


Quote:
The president spent part of the afternoon huddling with his national security team in the White House Situation Room, said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

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

Quote:
Vice President (of the State of Obvious) Joe Biden, speaking earlier to an audience in Kentucky, said the developments in Egypt marked a day of "historic" and "dramatic" change.

Quote:
Violence and intimidation against protesters in the days ahead remains unacceptable, he warned. The universal rights of people "must be respected" and their "aspirations met."

Again more irony.

Quote:
But "what happens next will have repercussions far beyond Egypt's borders," he said. "We know from recent experience in Gaza that this requires not just elections, but hard work to build a government that is transparent, accountable, and broadly representative."

And still more.

Quote:
Florida GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, released a statement urging "the unequivocal rejection of any involvement by the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremists" in the transition of power.

Egyptians should reject those who "seek to exploit and hijack these events to gain power, oppress the Egyptian people...

I wonder if she also means the U.S.


Quote:
As the Obama administration reacted, Washington was using a variety of intelligence assets to see what was happening in Cairo and other Egyptian cities, CNN has learned.

The U.S. military and intelligence community are using "national technical means" in the sky over Egypt to gather information about the demonstrations and the deployment of Egyptian security forces.

The phrase "national technical means" is used by the U.S. government to generally refer to the use of reconnaissance satellites to gather imagery or signals intelligence.

A senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the operation confirmed the intelligence-gathering but declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the matter.

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #222 of 289
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.
post #223 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I hope they now get a government that focuses on trying to improve the lot of the common man.

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #224 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.



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.

Quote:




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



Link and Vid



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

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

Quote:


Well...maybe they are not radical enough


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.

Quote:


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.

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.

Quote:

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).

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:


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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Agreed.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #225 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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

Freedom means secularism. Without primarily secular laws, religious freedom (for example) cannot exist.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #226 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

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?

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #227 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



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.

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

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

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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?'.

Quote:
Agreed.

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

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

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

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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).

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.

Quote:
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?

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #228 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

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

Quote:
In 587 C.E., King Reccared, the Visigoth king in Spain, converted to Roman Catholicism and made it the state religion......Almost immediately a canon was passed forbidding the marriage between Christians and Jews; and in 612 C.E., the Council of Gundemar of Toledo ordered that all Jews submit to baptism within the year.

In 638 C.E., the Arian Visigoths declared that “only Catholics could live in Spain.”

The situation improved in 711 when Spain fell under the rule of the Muslim Moors. Both Muslims and Jews built a civilization, based in Cordoba, known as Al-Andalus, which was more advanced than any civilization in Europe at that time. Jews were able to coexist peacefully with their neighbors; however, they were still treated as dhimmis, "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) who are protected under Islamic law. Jews did not have complete autonomy and had to pay a special tax, the jizha , but were able to freely practice their religion.

The era of Muslim rule in Spain (8th-11th century) was considered the "Golden Age" for Spanish Jewry. Jewish intellectual and spiritual life flourished and many Jews served in Spanish courts. Jewish economic expansion was unparalleled. In Toledo, Jews were involved in translating Arabic texts to the romance languages, as well as translating Greek and Hebrew texts into Arabic. Jews also contributed to botany, geography, medicine, mathematics, poetry and philosophy.

Jews lived separately in aljamas (Jewish quarters). They were given administrative control over their communities and managed their own communal affairs. Jews had their own court system, known as the Bet Din. Rabbis served as judges and rendered both religious and civil legal opinions.

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #229 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #230 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh good. Remove all instances of god from the pledge & money. Stop trying to teach creationism in schools.

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 state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #231 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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.

The laws you mention might have religious roots, but are not explicitly religious in nature. It's more of a historical and cultural foundation.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #232 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

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.

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

Quote:



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.

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

Quote:



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.

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.

Quote:



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

There are no Muslim countries?

Quote:


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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:



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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?'.

You sound like Ahmadinejad.

Quote:



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....

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.

Quote:


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

Quote:



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.

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

Quote:


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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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 can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #233 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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

I know.

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

Ok...

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
There are no Muslim countries?

Nope. Name one.

Quote:
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?

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

Quote:
Probably not clearly stated on my part:

Probably = definitely.

Quote:
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.

Are we? Or are YOU???

Quote:
OK.



Quote:
I don't know.

Exactly. Thank you.

Quote:
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.

Or maybe there are...

Quote:
You sound like Ahmadinejad.

Really? Are you mistranslating me?

Quote:
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.

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....

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

Imagine my shock.

Quote:
Secular laws are not guaranteed to be good laws.

Right....

Quote:
I don't favor separate courts for separate religions.

Really?

Quote:
Again...theory. Somehow I doubt that a nation embracing full blown Sharia would have it only apply to Muslims.

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

Quote:
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 have time for it.... your doubt is wrong....unless you can produce a couple of contradictory Suras....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #234 of 289
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.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #235 of 289
Thread Starter 
The adults are having a conversation. Be gone.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #236 of 289
It needs to be said again. And again. And again.

Claiming Obama is radical left wing is just plain moronic.
post #237 of 289
post #238 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #239 of 289
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.
post #240 of 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

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.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Egypt goes dark