The only relevant question in politics is "compared to what?" The regime in Egypt today is corrupt, authoritarian, and culpably negligent in protecting religious minorities such as the Copts--as this site has documented over and over again. Just this past Christmas season, slack security permitted a massacre of Christians in Alexandria, and Copts were filling the streets to protest the regime. Now, when the country seems poised on the brink of a revolution, they are nowhere to be found. I've pored over every news report I can find, and have seen no sign that local Christians are involved in this uprising against Mubarak. This tells me all I need to know about the calls for "democracy" and "reform" in Egypt. They know that Mubarak's fall would mean to them what Hussein's fall meant to Iraqi Christians: the end.
The most active rebels seem to be those streaming out of Friday prayers. The rebellion is getting praised by the intolerant (e.g. orthodox Muslim) Sheik al Qaradawi, who objects to the "immodest" dress of women at Egyptian universities. The most popular opposition group in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928 to replace the fallen Caliphate as a Comintern, uniting Muslim supremacist efforts around the world. It sponsors or helped to found all the stealth jihad organizations in the West, such as CAIR and ISNA. None of this bodes well for the future of religious minorities or women in Egypt. It's clear that whatever regime might briefly come to power under a colorless diplomat like Mohamed ElBaradei would prove purely transitional, giving radicals the time to clear away whatever remnants of secular Egyptian nationalist sentiment remain in the army and security forces, in preparation for a full-on Islamic state. We have seen this before in the Islamic world--when the Shah fell in Iran, and when our troops dissolved the Ba'athist state in Iraq.
What is more, we have seen it happen in the West, when the creaky despotism of Tsar Nicholas II gave way to Kerensky's frail provisional government--to the cheers of liberals in the West, including that infamous ass, Woodrow Wilson. We now have a president who is at least as big a fool as Wilson, but perhaps much worse. While Wilson hated monarchy and fantasized about extending American secular democracy all around the world (if need be by force) he at least was not in sympathy of any kind with the Bolsheviks. Based on what I've read in Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer's The Post-American Presidency, I'm really not so sure where President Obama stands, in his heart of hearts. He attended Islamic schools in Indonesia, and the (optional) classes for Muslim students. He grew up steeped in an anti-Western, anti-capitalist milieu.
But Obama's past needn't matter. Jimmy Carter, when he abandoned the Shah of Iran in the name of "democracy," didn't need to be a Shi'ite. It was quite sufficient for him to share the delusion that democracy is necessarily coterminous with freedom--when in fact, for unpopular minorities (like Christians in the Middle East) the two can prove utterly incompatible. (That fact is why our own Constitution includes a bill of rights.) So count on members of both political parties, covering the ideological range from the hard left to the neoconservative "right," to support the collapse of Mubarak's regime. We might even condition U.S. aid on his making concessions to the opposition. (Notice that we never tie strings to U.S. aid to issues like blasphemy laws in Pakistan, or persecution of Copts.) That should prove enough to cripple Mubarak's attempts to stay in power--which could only succeed through the ruthless willingness to show the mob a "whiff of grapeshot."
I know it sounds terrible to say this, but if they are in league with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian mob deserves it. The Iranians who sought to install the Ayatollah Khomeini deserved it, too. A little blood shed to keep the Shah in power would have saved hundreds of thousands later. Think, for a moment, of how the rise of an Islamist regime would affect Egypt's "cold peace" with Israel. How many more rockets will stream into Hamas' hands--and how many Arab civilians are likely to die in the incursions Israel will be forced to launch in her self-defense? Nor should we rule out the possibility that Egypt will become once again (as it was for 30 years) the "front-line" state in conventional military confrontations with Israel. It may be hard to imagine--but remember that Iran and Turkey were once solid allies of Israel. Are we seeing the first steps now to another Six Day War? Such a war might very well end with the discharge of Israeli nuclear weapons, with consequences (and casualties) that are literally incalculable.
What Muslims want, around the world, is to impose political Islam. Democratic regimes will give them what they want--at the price of enormous injustice to minorities in their midst, to non-Muslim neighbors, and to the safety of Americans. For us to be prattling on about the virtues of self-government in this context is suicidal, like Russian aristocrats hosting Bolsheviks in their salons.
Sorry Roland. I can tell you definitively that I know that there are local Christians who are supporting the revolution. I have friends who are Egyptian Christians in Alexandria. Until the blackout they were posting revolutionary material on Facebook.
Personally, this concerns me a great deal. I think they see the injustice of Mubarek's regime and they know many secular Muslims who have talked with them about democracy for years. They cannot imagine that their friends and neighbors would ever turn against them. Most middle-class Christians don't experience great persecution. The kidnapped girls are often from poorer and less influential families. I think they lose the forest for the trees.
The forest reveals the Saddam Hussein problem. Only a brutal dictator can keep Islam in check and preserve a secular society in an Islamic culture. As soon as the dictator leaves (Shah, the decay of Attaturk's successors, etc.) Islam rushes in to fill the vacuum. I am sorry for the injustice in Mubarek's regime but I fear the Muslim Brotherhood.
Secular democracy depends upon a Christian worldview, not necessarily strong Christian religion, but the worldview that it creates.
I too am frightened for Egypt.
This guy in unbelievable...Muslims and Christians are protesting side by side on the streets! Nonsense article.
I love reading Roland's emotional familiarity with events of a hundred years ago, reacting to it like it was yesterday.
So saying that, the choices are always painful, as with the Shah. The Shah was becoming more autocratic, out of touch, and vicious, with or without US support. Of course, President Carter brought the US to a new and unbelievable low of moral cowardice when he refused to allow the Shah, an ally of many years, to take refuge in the US.
The Egyptians, as the Iranians, are fed up with a corrupt and unresponsive government. The Islamists are waiting in the wings, but Mubarak seems to have agreed to throw the country open to genuine political competition. As scary as this sounds, a dictatorship's days are generally numbered one way or another. Our best shot might be to covertly support Mubarak's attempt to maintain stability while aiming towards genuine electoral reform. I don't believe the US should involve itself militarily. Our past actions have just been too inept to think that the US will be able to avoid making things worse.
I agree that the US should avoid dictating the methods a Middle Eastern ruler must use in order to stay in power. The actions of the US in the past in this region have been so inept and destructive of US interests that I'm tempted to say the US generally ought simply to not interfere overtly. It was the idiotic intriguing of the Eisenhower-era CIA that stuck us and Iran with the Shah in the first place, which led directly to Khomeni and the Iranian Revolution.
Perhaps when the dust settles, the best the US will be able to do will be to prepare itself to accept thousands of Christian refugees, who are more than knowledgeable on the horrors of Islam.
Cyril,
I agree with you completely and I thank you for a thoughtful and informative post.
I fully agree with the arguments as presented in the article and was thinking and writing along the same lines last night.
We are now in dark times indeed. The Muslims are revolting - but they always were.
Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan etc. The whole lot are rising up against what they percieve as a dictatorship. They have always lived under a dictatorship. Islam is thier dictator. Now can we expect to see riots all over Europe in support of the poor oppressed masses of Egypt?. The fact they have more rights amongst us is of no import to these brainwashed cretins or thier co-conspirators in the media and amongst the MSM who are scrabbling to support the so-called "revolution" with calls for democratic change amonst the masses of Islamofascists who want only revenge on the west for supposed slights.
They will certainly get change if they succeed, they will swap one dictatorship for and even worse one.
I watch with growing horror and a slight tang of amusement as the likes of Hilary Clinton, Hague and the rest of the rabble try to keep the Suez Canal open so as to keep the oil flowing. They honestly think the newly created middle classes will act as a stopvalve on this revolution. Most of them will flee to us and they are no different than the rest even though they profess western attitudes, clothes and manners. They are still Muslim and with a few exceptions will still despise us.
Do not be fooled.
Islam does not want Democracy, it wants total power. It has that over its adherents now its wants it over us.
Interesting times indeed.
We told the stupid idiots, perhaps now they will take notice.
You might also list Sun Yat-Sen, and the Jacobin aftermath in France. Revolution is earth-shattering ugly and should not be undertaken lightly. Too often it is "out of the frying pan, into the fire" as the extremists take over.
As for Mr. Obama, he's about my age, and I suspect his learning curve is similar to mine, if not his political contacts. In other words, he's too young to be completely enmeshed in dogma from the hippy '60s, and too old to be unquestioningly drawn in to the conspiracy-ridden crap that today's young people are sucking in with every breath on the Internet. So far his approach to Mubarak seems to be "Dude, if you want to stay in power, you're going to have to make some changes. Be more like us and allow for some dissent." If you watched Mubarak's public address, he didn't look too happy. But it's good advice.
Really I think Obama is pretty mainstream and all that baloney about some secret indoctrination from his days at the Indonesian madrassa -- when he was five years old! -- is utter nonsense, and also, instead of being useful in engaging his people in dialogue about the genuine threat of Islamism and of terrorism, it just sets everyone's teeth on edge and gets them all defensive because it's so absurd, and therefore they reject everything coming from right of center. Obama is not some Islamist boogeyman. He's a fallible human being who needs intelligent feedback from his citizens. Let's hear some.
Bottom line, the best outcome is that pro-democracy forces end up on top in Egypt and elsewhere. I have some optimism that it could actually happen -- look at our own Revolution -- but these protesters need to start thinking about the "day after" and how to run a country, not just how to throw out the old regime.
A democracy is only as good as the values that inform its participants. This fact seems lost on most people.
I've been quietly listening to and observing reactions to this story among co-workers and acquaintances this week.
There is a considerable consensus across party lines, involving a belief that democracy will automatically be better. It is almost an article of faith that, given the choice, people will act in their enlightened self interest, which, again, is curiously expected to line up with Western ideas of what that means. They're supposed to charge ahead as automatically as lemmings, but, you know, enlightened ones.
Unfortunately, only the lemming-like behavior seems guaranteed.
After the fall of the last Caliphate our forefathers were tasked with the duty of administering the regions once held by it in the Middle East. When they set up the administration of these regions, and drew up the maps, from all accounts what they encountered was a morally repugnant form of religious tyranny governing the land. This form of tyranny was not entirely unfamiliar to them. Our forefathers set up by force a new order upon these administered societies, which have been enforced for generations. These times have come to an end, this mechanism will fall apart, the political lines you see on the map today will more than likely look totally different. The Muslims will reestablish their Islamic order and their Caliphate.
The advantage for us, is that these lands are in more or less the same shape that we found them in, disheveled and barely self sufficient. The best strategy at this point would be a fighting retreat, making the formation of the new Caliphate as bloody and as costly in lives and material as possible for the Islamic world. Eventually the new Caliphate will find its new borders, I would be making plans now for where those borders should lie. We should be looking seriously at changing the definition of Islam as a religion, to an ideological arm of a foreign enemy of our States. Stop all immigration from Islamic countries.
To dove tail into something someone else said about absorbing massive amounts of Christians into the West, I'm sure the Islamic world would set up some sort of exchange, whereby we have a sort of civilized population transfer.
Muslims that are caught preaching or distributing material that call for the replacement of western governments and institutions with Islamic institutions should have their citizenship revoked, and deported.
Roland you have no idear about what you are talking about. The army and some police unit are joining and support the protester in Egypt. The president in Egypt is finish.
I don't know why I am bothering to reply to you. Oh, forget ab out it.
Though the OFFICIAL church in Egypt has asked Copts not to participate in the demonstrations, there is widespread support for the uprising among Copts in their diaspora:
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/source-egypt-church-dissuade-copts-joining-protests
There is also a lot of information online that large numbers of Copts have been arrested in the demonstrations.
My guess would be the official Egyptian church does not want to be viewed as having taken anyone's side in the event the rebellion is not successful.
The nature of Islam seems to render its adherents incapable of self rule.
I know it sounds terrible to say this, but if they are in league with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian mob deserves it. (Roland Shirk)
I agree! My culture, right or wrong.(with thanks to Stephen Decatur)
@ Cyril and Abdi
Finding yourself in the same camp as DefenderofIslam automatically slices the legs from under your arguments. Anyway, time will certainly tell. In a few months from now, we'll see if Muslim garb for women is compulsory in Egypt, and whether the peace treaty with Israel has been torn to shreds and cast to the wind.
Tunesia, Ageria, Egypt, what is next Jordan?
Soon we will have a chain of revolutionary islamic states from Iran to Moroko.
But even if, what will hapen. Will they come to terms with Saudi arabia or will it be next on the revolutionary list?
Can they sway Turky to their cause?
And last but not least: can they find a common leadership, or will they soon babtice their revolutions in the blood of sect wars?
The USA should do all to further the 3d case.
"Secular democracy depends upon a Christian worldview, not necessarily strong Christian religion, but the worldview that it creates."
I'm an Atheist but I can agree with is. It's been my observation that Christianity(and Buddhism to an extent) is all about the individual. That personal relationship with God. It makes perfect sense that the modern, secular world would either evolve from or at least take root from this idea. It makes sense that ideas that stress the individual(freedom of speech, human rights, etc.) would find their place here. Separation of Church and State seems like a natural progression of Render Unto Caesar as well. It also has some pretty profound philosophies of morality that can apply to anyone, anytime, and anywhere.
Islam is all about the collective unit. The Ummah vs The Kuffir. Us vs Them. The Chosen Believers vs The Wicked Infidels. Their whole philosophy and theology is based around this exclusionary, confrontational idea. Individual thought is, at best, discouraged. And their approach to God is, much like their approach to anything non-Islamic, a one-way street. Allah is a cold, distant autocrat who demands total control over every aspect of your life. What you get out of this is getting to keep that life. Because Allah doesn't care about your personal problems. You're there for his sake, not the other way around. While there may be some moral lessons in it for believers, they tend to be cosmetic. Nothing profound and nothing you couldn't get out of other, more morality-centric religions. Loyalty and obedience trump any half-hearted attempts at morality in Islam. It's really no shock that Islam rejects everything the modern, secular world holds dear with a worldview like that.
Mr. Spencer,
Mr. Shirk certainly recognizes the coming storm that is set to engulf not just Egypt but a large portion of the Middle East. He is completely shortsighted, however, on his desire that Mr. Mubarak use a 'whiff of grapeshot' to put down the uprising so that an imposed, frail, supposed secular state can be maintained in Egypt. To truly enable Muslims to see the 'light';...for them to finllay recognize the evil ideology that is their religion they will have to first recognize the darkness around them. Allowing Islam to take it's natural course, ie, let it plunge over the abyss under its own power, will finally enable perhaps a few enlightened Muslims to see the light and lead their people out of the darkness. We have seen such a person in the past, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who came very close to actually extinguishing Islam in Turkey but in the end did not quite complete the job. Challenging one's own religion is a monumental challenge. It essentially requires that you destroy your own identity and as such will require introspection that can probably only be arrived at through a walk through a very dark valley of death.
As long as the U.S. Government keeps propping up these tyrants such as Mubarak, King Abdullah in Jordan...etc. the Muslim world will never truly come face to face with themselves. It is time now for the U.S. to withdraw and isolate. By the U.S. withdrawing support, the Islamic world can reap what they sow. A cesspool of evil and hate will be confined within it's own walls...we will give it no sanction. Moderate Muslim countries(Turkey, Indonesia) will quickly see the dangers and perhaps a natural reaction against Islam could develop among Muslims themselves. Turkey's recent facination with reviving Islam might fizzle quickly as the Turks see first hand what happens to their more religious neighbors.
We, the West, can flail and moan against the Muslim world all we want...but we can't help them see the light....they will have to see the truth for themselves. We have helped them avoid true introspection through helping tyrants keep a lid on Islam for far too long It is time for this duplicitous policy to stop. It only delays the day of reckoning and hides the true nature of what is truly an evil ideology of hate. Let the evil manifest itself...for only then can it be recognized.
The Truth Shall Set Them Free.
Sincerely,
Freeman
Everyone here is following this story with intense interest, with deep suspicions that the Muslim Brotherhood will steal the revolution.
But FWIW, unless there is a concerted effort by the MSM to keep this off the news, I have yet to see any American or Israeli flags being burnt or trampled, neither Obama nor Netanyahu being hung and burned in effigy. I'd like to see this as significant. But I share the general cynicism of regular JWatchers in thinking that somewhere lurking beneath these demonstrations is a deep strain of anti-American or anti-Israli feeling ready to spring forth into full blown rage.
Or isn't "The Revolution" about any of this? Or maybe it's because everything happened too fast for the mullahs, and it will take at least until next Friday for them to obtain flags and prepare signs for distribution at the local majlis after prayers?
Perhaps our newest commenters can explain it for us. Why no burning American or Israeli flags? Or is it just a matter of time?
here, here!!! let them feed, provide medical care, all of the governance en todo. Nothing pre 1600 to be traded with Muslims from the west.
The only "light" that will suffice, is "The Light of a Thousand Suns".
May God bless those who have the courage to fight Islam.
Prescient.
It is “a matter of time”
Watch and see.
DOI sez...
"Roland you have no "idear" about what you are talking about."
Anyone that is familiar with the southern manner of speaking will have heard the word "Idear" at one point or another. As in, "I got me a idear! Let's build us a still!"
This makes me think that whatever Crapistan DOI is existing in, he is probably in the southern portion of it.
(Will he bite? We'll see...)
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
Robert Spencer: as always: clearsighted, unsentimental and spot on!
Iran is pulling the strings of all those marionettes who are chanting "Allah Akbar". The sentimentalists who still look at reality with rose-coloured glasses see the "poor disadvantaged people" revolt against the greedy bastards. Give my a secular tyran who is only greedy for my money any day rather than the fanatics who want my soul and take my life !
The secular tyrants (and I include Saddam in that) were our last little safety net against a complete (global) fundamentalist Islamisation.
These "revoltes", far from springing up "incidentally" and following a Domino pattern, have been planned and are directed, I fear with the implicit agreement of Obama (he reprimands Mubarak, yet said nothing when Adolph Ajmadinajad was murdering the protesting Iranians recently) by Iran.
The flames in Tunesia, Egypt, Yemen, and soon Jordan? etc. have a very dangerous stench about them!
Shah of Persia, Saddam, Sadat, Mubarak, Pres of Tunesia wotshisname...COME BACK, ALL IS FORGIVEN!
I am not sure who I like better the ones that fed us Copts to the hienas or the actual hienas themselves!!!!
Two minutes ago (05:45 Saturday) I spoke to a friend in Egypt; he was standing on Tahrir Square watching the still burning NDP headquarters. He had just gotten access to an international phone line for the first time in days, although the Internet was still down. I read him the first paragraph of this article and asked for his response. It was - "I don't agree with that at all. The Coptic Christians I work with are just as involved with the protests as everyone else."
typical, taking us for granted and then feeding us to the their genocidal machine, yes we were abused by this regime, but awaits us is even more scary..
To all the freedom romantics out there..this is another Iran in the making..the street wants more Islam more Sharia, more animosity against Christian, Jews etc...make no mistake about it, dictatorship is evil, but in Islamic countries secular dictatorship is a blessing..ask any Iraqi Christian today about Saddam, they were vilifying him when he was in power..Mubarak used us to appease the Islamist but kept us alive, when they take over, and take over they will in free and democratic elections we will go the way of the dragon...Algerian free elections in 1990 produced the most vile Islamist regime and thank God the army buldozzed them..it took 12 year for Algeria to get a sense of normalcy again...Islam is evil and the people who embrace it will always choose it for government..
It is very interesting to note that it is after Friday prayers (and the messages given at mosques) that violence surges.
How can a "religion of peace" produce such a reaction to its teachings?
Maybe we need to look at what spiritual forces are working behind the scenes instigating hatred and violence.
The political bankruptcy which is displayed in the political article above on the part of Roland Shirk, and ALL of the rest of the answers, but especially that of "Freeman" on 11.45pm
There are though strong elements of truth in some in so far as it is obvious that the Muslim Brotherhood began in Egypt with the heavy involvement of the hated Hajj Amin el Hussein, the Arab Palestinian Muslim who travelled to Berlin in order to form a close friendship with Hitler, Eichmann and Himmler. He represents thus the unity of the forces of Islam with the forces of Nazism in the carrying out of the Holocaust against the Jews of Europe. Thus Egypt today represents the greatest danger for the Jews of Israel
But what is left out of the analysis by Shirk and all others is a way to fight against the threat in Egypt from the Muslim Brotherhood
There is much spontaneity in the actions of the masses of the poor Egyptians against the Government there, but spontaneity (if anybody has bothered to read Lenin in "What is to be done") at no time has ever ensured victory in a battle
In fact those spontaneous youth today fighting on the streets will tomorrow be discouraged and give up, or join the Muslim Brotherhood as happened to many in Iran post 1979, or indeed be killed unceremoniously by the forces of the Islam Jihad, and indeed killed after torture by many of those same youth now marchhing side by side with them against Mubarak
You see those spontaneous youth and in so far as they are taking part workers, trade unionists etc, HAVE NO POLITICAL PROGRAMME outside of a general wish for "change"
The political line of Mr Freeman at 11.45 always does crop up in these situations and in times like this. It could not be more deadly!
Allow the Fascist Islamists to win the day he counsels. Allow this in many countries he further avers.
Then out of the horrific despair there will arise a new "saviour", Freeman imagines that history can throw up a Mustafa Kemal Ataturk just when he is needed, and when Mr Freeman wills it no doubt!
Freeman too is a slave to spontaneity which goes hand in glove with his political bankruptcy
Speaking in September 1930 Leon Trotsky was warning of the great danger to the German and international working class from Fascism in Germany, at a very early stage thus warning of the horrible fate also to the Jews of Europe
"http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1931/310414.htm"
4. If the Communist Party, in spite of the exceptionally favorable circumstances, has proved powerless seriously to shake the structure of the Social Democracy with the aid of the formula of “social fascism,” then real fascism now threatens this structure, no longer with wordy formulas of so-called radicalism, but with the chemical formulas of explosives. No matter how true it is that the Social Democracy prepared the blossoming of fascism by its whole policy, it is no less true that fascism comes forward as a deadly threat primarily to that same Social Democracy, all of whose magnificence is inextricably bound up with parliamentary-democratic-pacifist forms and methods of government.
(end extract from 1930)
The above short extract is so far away from Mr Shirk that it is impossible not to smile.
But the same elements are present in the world today as were present in September 1930
1. There is a very severe and seemingly insolveable crisis in world banking, production, employment
2. There is the now very clear alliance of the US Governments (of both the main political parties" with international Fascism, today almost exclusively Fascism is represented by the Islamic Jihad and its Sharia Law, and also between the EU Governments and Sharia, and also between the Stalinist type regimes, Russia and China, and Sharia, as seen in their support for Iran, and their providing to Iran of Nuclear power arms technology
3. There is support for this also from the Stalinist Communist Parties and from the Pro Fascist Islam "Lefts", thus providing no way out whatsoever. This has made the present left the laughing stock of the world!
Meanwhile Mr Shirk as if it thus follows continues his attacks on the ideas of the socialist revolution, and on the history of the socialist revolution, and in his attacks on in particular Leon Trotsky, often through ignoring that historical reality as if it never actually happened!!!, without once ever dealing with any of the political positions which Leon Trotsky fought for
That too is dishonest Mr Shirk.
What should be done. Well it is absolutely vital that a major struggle is launched inside ther American Movement against Obama and Clinton, and against their political line, which is a political knifing of the secular regime of Mubarak
This is exactly the same as the political knifing of Saddam, and the opening of Iraq up to Sharia law under a pro Iranian (the present) regime
It is the same as their plans to withdraw from Afghanistan leaving Taliban proxies in power (Note Karzai is careful not to condemn stoning for adultery etc)
So in the campaign to stop Rauf building his Mosque on Ground Zero the fight must be allied to the situation where Obama is knifing the Egyptian Mubarak resistance to Sharia
In this respect at least Shirk is very correct. It matters nothing what Christian Copts are doing at present, whether Copts are demonstrating or not demonstrating (what childishness!!!); what matters is that what is happening in this campaign against Mubarak aided by Obama, Clinton and Cameron, is likely to end in the total massacres and obliteration of the whole Christian Coptic minority in Egypt
To all the freedom romantics out there..this is another Iran in the making..the street wants more Islam more Sharia, more animosity against Christian, Jews etc...make no mistake about it, dictatorship is evil, but in Islamic countries secular dictatorship is a blessing..ask any Iraqi Christian today about Saddam...
Very, very true, kafir4life!
the Arab "street", is "Moslem street" or the highway to abattoir.
The Iranian demonstrators were at least seeking Islam Lite in their desire for reform and freedom. Who received no support from Obama.
Now we have Obama supporting revolution where the worst of Islam is the leading opposition with a following of statistically young, poor and uneducated followers.
Something is wrong here. very, very wrong.
When Egypt goes, all the rest will follow.
How can the Saudi's maintain a western lean when the rest of the Islamic Arabs do otherwise?
Coptic Christians in Egypt are just covering their ass...
It's a natural reaction to being surrounded by muslims who can and will turn on the Copts at the whiff of non-acceptance of islam...
Meanwhile Mr Shirk ..continues his attacks on the ideas of the socialist revolution, and on the history of the socialist revolution, and in his attacks on in particular Leon Trotsky, often through ignoring that historical reality as if it never actually happened!!!, without once ever dealing with any of the political positions which Leon Trotsky fought for.
History of socialist revolution?
You mean the paroxysm of hate and madness that left behind 120 million corpses, at least as many broken lives, torture, prisons, fear, famine, gulags, extermination camps...?
The murderous madness conceived, sanctified and carried out by monsters like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, PolPot and the army of their mutants?
Well, if there is something more salient to that "historical reality" that has escaped our attention I will ask you to please hurry and make us aware of it.
Ah, darling Trotsky.
One of the most prominent engineers of red terror who with Hitlerian cynicism taunted those who had qualms about his methods: "... As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the "sacredness of human life". We were revolutionaries in opposition, and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred, we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And that problem can only be solved by blood and iron.
As I wrote about Trotsky some threads ago:
"The persistent myth that Trotsky was anything essentially different from Stalin is as false as "Lenin was different from Stalin". In fact, "Trotsky the different", or "Lenin the different", fables were invented by commies to promote another myth that Stalin had nothing to do with "true communism". More or less like "mohammedan terrorism has nohing to do with "true islam".
The difference between Trotsky and Stalin is only that Trotsky was a miserable coward, who lacked the nerve to face Stalin after Lenin's death despite of being both more "accomplished", popular and politically "better armed" than Stalin. He was endlessly ruthless, cynical and arrogant bastard so long as he could exercise his evil in the shadow of his protector Lenin. With the death of monster-Lenin he - the accomplished mass murderer - showed his true coward colours by running away without fight."
Om the same thread Felix Quigley Quigly declares proudly: "I do hold very firmly to my views of history which I maintain tend to vindicate the writings and prognosis of Trotsky.
To which I responded:
"What history "tends to vindicate" is in the eye of the beholder.
A Trotskyte will see a vindication of troskyism for the same reason a Leninist, or Stalinist, or Maoist or Nazi see history's "tendency" to vindicate, respectively, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, or Hitlerism.
They do it "per definition", so to speak, and it would be very unreasonable to expect them to do otherwise.
As it happens, the "rest of us" is not terribly impressed by the discoveries of historical "vindication of writing and prognoses" by these monsters reported by their apologists.
Rather, we are more concerned that history never "tends" to forget the murder of countless millions innocents, horrendous suffering and destruction these mass murderers caused man. As far as wickedness goes Trotsky was among peers. What the creep lacked was their nerve.
Staringattheview,
For anyone familiar with your work, your comment should settle the issue. For those who haven't visited Staring at the View, you're missing a treat. "Quotable" has some of the best commentary on Islam and modern Islamic society on the web. One big plus is his fluent Arabic and lengthy translations of Arabic media. And no, he's not an apologist for Islam. Completely the opposite, he offers a sustained and devastating critique.
Friday prayers are magical aren't they?
'When the cats away, the mice will play'...As soon as the secular oppressive gov is out of the way, the mice will inherit power and superiority...it will only take a short time for the mice to morph into rats...Then they will fight among each other...They are fighting each other now, it will only get worse when the cats are destroyed or chased away, and the rats seek to consolidate their power...
As far as Rasool Obama, he is a sociopath, maybe a psychopath, meaning, he has no remorse...He has an ideology to push and remorse gets in the way...Some psychopaths get themselves incarcerated, others who also have no moral compass, are found in abundance in politics, the used car business, the snake oil salesman business, and as talking heads on cable TV... the liberal world is full of them...
Rasool Obama is just 'King of the Hill', at the moment, a roll model for other aspiring psychopaths to look up to...
This piece may prove prophetic. According to sources, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon warned President George W. Bush to not occupy Iraq, yet if he 'insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world'. "In terms of culture and tradition, the (Muslim) Arab world is not built for democratization," Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Danny Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.
The pen is mightier than the sword?
Among men who have a more or less mind/spirit in balance this is probably true. This was certainly true of the ancient Greeks (especially Athenians) to whom we owe more than we acknowledge (democracy, reason, science, love of thought and rationality, beauty,truth, etc.) by constant repetition of Judaeo-Christian heritage. The Renaissance came about when the ancient Greek texts were rediscovered.
The Muslim, Hindu, and much of the African world have the mind/spirit balance totally out of wack in a negative and destructive way and that explains everything including poverty and the high unemployment of the large and restive young people coming from their outsize families. It also explains why reason and truth can make little headway against the coming swarms of killer jihadees.
What is to done about them?
Forget human rights and mindless compassion for a while,end immigration from those lands and begin mass deportations. Isolate them from the rest of the world and let them wallow in their ignorance until they disappear from hunger, disease, and nature. Once that is done we can renormalize our societies.
What is to be done in the rational West?
Rework the balance of individual/society rights more in favor of society.
Emphasize Ancient Greek heritage versus Judaeo-Christian heritage so as to draw Atheists, Gays,and Feminists to our side. Start in the schools.
Rediscover our spiritual side to bring the mind/spirit trade-off into greater balance which will save us from the seduction of rampant materialism.
I am a Christian.
Capt. Hammer,
Our agreement on this goes both ways. I like your distinction between the personal and the collective. I also think there is a distinction between internal religion and external religion. In Christianity, how people behave is important, but it is driven by inner transformation. Since the heart is what is important, forcing people into "faith" is counterproductive. This was the criticism of the Inquisition while it was happening. A Christian worldview creates a pluralistic society where people are free to follow their consciences in matters of faith.
Islam is exactly the opposite. Islam is all about conforming behavior and political power. All the claptrap about "inner jihad" is absolute bunk. Islam is about enforcing a social and political order at the point of a sword. Islam cannot tolerate pluralism, which of course is the problem with the revolution in Egypt.
Roland Shirk's analysis suffers from being skewed, or rendered incomplete, because it reads like a solution in search of a problem. Here, the thesis is that the absence of Christianity itself is the problem. This is precisely the same incomplete analysis offered by Islamists, all the problems of the world are explainable with reference to the absence of Islam.
It becomes too hard to glean, or extract, much of anything useful from it. It must be no less challenging for the members of the youth bulge in Egypt to make sense of the situation other than the most readily available explanation offered to them in Friday prayers.
This analytical flaw is not isolated to religion. Ordinary secular politicians do it all the time. Though when it is secular it is slightly less absurd (or more readily observable as absurd) and can be objected to without any immediate personal risk from claims of disloyalty or offense to someone's religious belief.
Discussing belief is like discussing the contents of a perfect vacuum, there is nothing there to animate or confine the analysis other than the boundaries of man's boundless creativity.
The youth bulge, 16 to 30 year-olds, is enough to explain at least one possible cause for general unrest. The recent explosion of births likewise could foretell a condition of general unrest that will last for at least an entire generation. How shall be we respond domestically to such a (foreign) population explosion? Shall we close our doors, as a first step?
Christianity is skewed toward treatment of women as captive breeders, but with less ferocity than that of Islamists.
Eastview and lorri,
The revolution is indeed not about the US or Israel. These people are severly oppressed and finally they direct their anger where it belongs - at their rulers. These tyrants have used Israel and the US for decades to redirect the people's rage from themseleves to an external "enemy", but finally it can't save them, though make no mistake - the people will still hate the west, the US and Israel.
There's no doubt that the people revolt against oppression and are not screaming for sharia to replace the relatively secular existing order, nor are they coming out en mass just because they want to destroy Israel - that's not what bothers them most at this moment. The problem is that the only really strong and organized opposition force in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood and that according to polls a majority of Egyptians support various aspects of sharia law and support generally using sharia as a source of legislation, whether exclusively or in addition to other sources. And that's why, lorri, pro-democracy forces will not come on top, at least not democracy as we know it. Irnaian style "democracy", where the candidates need to be approved by the mullahs and where people at best get to choose between different kinds of Islamists is not democracy as we know it.
Maybe there's more of a chance in Tunisia, but Egypt will go to the Islamists one way or another because no other opposition force is strong enough and because the majority of the people are not democracy-oriented in the way we understand democracy in the west. Of course, everyone wants to be free, everyone wants to have a say in the policies of his own state and have a share in its power and resources, and everyone wants free speech for themselves. This is self evident. The question is not whether one wants to be free to, say, express whatever one wants - every healthy person would want that - the question is whether one is willing to extend the same freedom to others even if they say things he/she regards objectionable. That's what westerners don't understand because you're so used to living in a democracy and being surrounded by democratic states that you take all of this for granted. The overwhelming majority of westerners are willing to take whatever verbal or non-physically-violent offence from their opponents and detractors and not silence them, jail them, physically attack them or kill them because you know their freedom of experssion guarantees your own, and this freedom is more important to you than almost anything else. But for most Muslims religion is more important, it's sacred, and thus there will be a law against blasphemy - and that is where it begins. One wants freedom for him/herself, but will limit the freedom of the opposition and of anyone who behaves in a way considered "inappropriate", and then will see his/her own freedoms curtailed by those s/he opposes if they have the power to do so - and that is why there is no freedom. In order to have freedom one has to respect the freedom of others even if they offend him/her.
I'm not "right wing" - not that I consider it a curse word, which the fake "liberals" succeeded in turning it into - I'm originally center-left. But there should be a distinction between ideology and assessment of reality. The fake "liberals" of our time (many of which are far leftists posing as mainstream liberals and not classical liberals) remake reality in the image of their dogmas, ideology, wishful thinking and political agenda. I can't be part of that anymore because if you see sheep as wolves and wolves as sheep you will be eaten alive. The closer you are to the center of activity, the less you can afford to indulge in wishful thinking and denial if you want to live. The Middle East is not like 21st century Europe or North America. The Middle East is a jungle where the strongman rules and if you want to know anything about the Middle East you should study it on its own terms and not through the projections of a westerner born, raised and educated in a democratic society that evolved from a different culture. Otherwise you will make many mistakes that might prove devastating not just to the poeple here, but also to you and your country.
You already gave Lebanon to the Iranian-Syrian axis exactly because you DIDN'T support the more democracy-inclined and pro-western forces where they DID exist. Because you elected for president a fool who takes his ideas for foreign policy from a 60s musical and therefore he "thought" that "reaching out" to the most violent extremists would somehow advance peace. Why did the Druze leader Walid Junblat change sides to the Hizaballah=Syria-Iran camp when only a while before that he insulted Assad in the most offensive terms? Why did he later publically apologize and now supports a government dominated by Hizballah? Is it because he loves Assad? Or maybe because the non-Muslim Druze are very eager to strengthen the fanatic theocrats of Hizballah? It was because your genius president "reached out" to Iran and Syria and supposedly to the Muslim world at the expense of all your regional allies, thereby weakening these allies and strengthening your enemies. So Junblat estimated that the free Lebanon movement lost the battle for Lebanon and Syria won, so he'll better get with the program or else the vulnerable Druze community might suffer the consequences. And just in case he didn't get the message loud and clear enough, in 2008 Hizaballah tried to take over the Druze mountain in Lebanon. The west did nothing. So what could Junblat do? The Druze are a small religious minority, so they tend to join the strong side as part of their age old survival strategy in this harsh and cruel jungle. So where the Druze go would often be an indication for where the wind blows, and today it certainly blows in the direction of the Islamists.
And why did Hariri junior himself hug and kiss with Ahmadinejad when he came for a visit in Lebanon? Was it an expression of friendship and heartfelt reconciliation? After all the Iranian regime supports and enables the Syrian domination of Lebanon and supports the Iranian agent, Hizaballah, and therefore has a hand in the murder of Rafic Hariri, Saad Hariri's father, so do you think Hariri junior likes Ahmedinajad, or maybe he realized he doesn't have much choice since the west abandoned him?
Ahmedinajad's visit to Lebanon, right across our border, also sent a message to Israel, and trust me some Arabs in Israel took note.
But then you wouldn't know any of this because your media and intellectual elites are delirious.
So now all your regional allies or relative allies, all the pragmatic and relatively pro-western despots are perceived as weak, and suddenly you have this wave of uprisings across the Middle East. So of course, we all want it to lead to the emergence of real democracy in the Middle East, but what are the chances for a long term democracy in Egypt where the strongest opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood?
You wrote: "Of course, everyone wants to be free..."
How do you know this? Everyone 'should' want to be free. How can you be free when you are filled with hate?
Millions of Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama. Rather than outrage, approximate fifty percent of Americans approve of the job this autocrat is doing; Americans approve of B. Hussein striping us of our rights and our freedoms. How can we say Americans want to be free?
Wonderful information, Thomas_h,
Trotsky spent the last part of his life sniping at Stalin, literally green with envy at Stalin's ability to actually employ terror methods. Trotsky's present-day followers resemble a cult very strongly, separating themselves from mainstream communists with obscure policy differences largely opaque to anyone outside of the gifted circle.
Trotsky was like Che Guevara: a serial killer with government carte blanche who could write passably well, and who has engendered a cult-following.
I am surprised to see all the Jihad Watch regulars criticize this piece. You all remind me of a caller to Mark Steyn - sitting in for R. Limbaugh. The caller ended with, 'it can't get any worse in the next couple of years' of Obama's rule. Steyn responded (paraphrasing), 'Oh yes it can get worse. It can get much worse'.
lorri,
I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. The question of whether Obama is a secret Muslim or not is a red herring compared to discussions of real policy.
I'm not quite so optimistic as you that the Egyptian demonstrators will get any type of representative government for their pains. But, I do think the US should stay out of it, except for advice. We should maintain any support we are now giving, since a precipitous withdrawal of support at this time would be extremely destabilizing, and would deprive the present government of the opportunity to arrange a reasonable transition within a social structure.
Obviously, it would be catastrophic for US interests if Egypt went Islamist, but it would be even more catastrophic to become embroiled in the fight there. The last thing the US needs to do is to become associated with any government in an Islamic country. That leads to the spectacle of US silence when our client states such as Afghanistan and Iraq persecute Christians and other non-Muslims. At least when Pakistan implements the usual Muslim atrocities, the prestige of the US is not sucked in.
ethoman,
I agree with much of what you say. I disagree with your contention that we should attempt to make a Middle Eastern transition bloody and costly. Muslims are people also. I would hope that the US would do everything in its power to minimize violence and bloodshed. If they kill each other off, so be it. But, that should be in spite of US efforts, not because of it.
Also, I disagree that the US should not consider allowing in Christians from Muslim countries except in an exchange for Muslims. I advocate full rights for Muslim citizens, except I agree that any naturalized citizen advocating a political overthrow, peaceful or not, of our secular government, should have his citizenship revoked and be deported. But, I see great benefits to the US to allow non-Muslim refugees from Muslim countries to immigrate. Of course, by definition, doctrinaire communists advocate an overthrow of our democratic government, and should not be allowed in.
Let's see how the hot Islamists act when they actually face the prospect of going back to their Islamic paradise.
Tens of thousands of Christians in Cairo and Alexandria are flooding the streets. They also, as a friend mentioned above, met at their local church and started the peaceful demonstrations from there.
When the Egyptian army opened fire, tear gas, and started using violence to stop the protesters from demonstrating, it was then that they were met with violence from the other side.
The Israeli-backed dictatorships in the Middle East are falling one by one. Ben ali, Hosni, and soon, the PM in Jordan, the president in Yemen, and the Saudi unroyal family. You think Arabs are violent? You haven't seen anything yet, your media lied to you, they weren't. But now, they are ;)
When you say, "stay out of it," I don't know how the US can remain neutral. Did Obama stay out of the people's protest against the Mullahs of Iran?
June 28, 2009,on CBS’ Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked Obama spokeswoman Susan Rice if the United States considers the Iranian government legitimate and if officials are prepared to talk to Iran. Susan Rice told Schieffer: "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people and obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CRITICAL ISSUE (emphasis mine) in terms of our dealings with Iran. We are concerned for our own national interests to ensure that Iran doesn’t pursue its nuclear program. We didn’t have diplomatic relations with Iran before the election. Obviously, we don’t’ have them at present."
Thus appeasing Iran's Mullahs took (takes) precedence over supporting their ouster. Now you think the administration should stay out of it?
Hi wildjew,
Your remembrance of Sharon's warning is interesting. I have yet to see any action of Obama's that has been as devastating to the US as the Bush presidency. This is not praise for Obama, incidentally. It's simply that the bar is very, very low.
If Obama simply more-or-less leaves the situation in Egypt alone, he will probably be doing as well as can be done for American interests. I have no doubt that the police and army there have got to use force. However, I think the days of dictatorship are over. There will either be an Islamic Republic or perhaps a true republic. The US has limited influence on that, and should focus on not making matters worse.
Also, we should begin making plans so as to not admit Muslim refugees from Egypt. If a Muslim government forms, there will be winners and there will be losers. The losers will appeal to our sympathy and will claim to be Muslim reformers. They can do so elsewhere.
Maybe you are right but Obama appears to be taking the side of the uprising against President Mubarak, from what I have read and am reading. Michael Savage played some clips of Obama on the Egyptian chaos last night which seemed to indicate Obama is on the side of the revolution.
Yesterday Drudge featured a UK Telegraph report, "Egypt protests: America's secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising." This could be a replay of what we saw with Carter and Iran. I'm not sure it is wise to take the side of (even a popular) uprising against a government, unless the government is threatening to annihilate a neighbor, or it is committing criminal acts against its citizens and is thus not a civilized or a 'legitimate' government as is the case with Iran's current government. Obama, by all accounts, supports Iran's genocidal regime. This bodes ill for all his dealings with Islam, don't you think?
Hi wildjew,
Let's begin from one fact. The US singlehandedly toppled a democratically-elected government in Iran, and installed the Shah. This is mainstream history. The Shah pursued our interests in Iran for many years. He also suppressed the mullahs, protected religious minorities, allied himself with Israel, and insisted on Western-style rights for women.
So, what's not to like? The Shah was also a vicious tyrant who used a secret police known worldwide for their brutality. When he fell, he fell hard. It's true that President Carter pulled the rug out from the Shah in a manner most likely to devastate US interests, not to mention open the way for Islamists. But, the Shah's days were limited. The US should have avoided any precipitous changes in its support.
Then, you have the case of George Bush, who not only deposed Saddam Hussein using doctored evidence. He and his representatives consciously dismantled all the mechanisms by which Iraqi society could defend itself: police, army, and government bureaucracy. Iraq is now a suburb of Iran.
With this history, do you want the US blundering around in Egypt, trying to dictate policy and choose sides? The best we can do is not pull the rug out from Mubarek by precipitous changes in our policy. We can protect ourselves by defending our own borders, and giving some support to friends like Israel, who basically do their own work. But, for us to be totally identified with a regime is almost always counterproductive.
Trotsky's present-day followers resemble a cult very strongly, separating themselves from mainstream communists with obscure policy differences largely opaque to anyone outside of the gifted circle.
Perfectly said! I have emailed it to my trotskyist acquaintances. They hate it! Good for you, Ronald.
If Obama supports the Iranian regime, it is indeed a poor omen for everyone. However, he is maintaining and extending sanctions against Iran, and the stuxnet worm that devastated Iran's nuclear program was obviously done with the compliance of the US. So, I would question a statement saying Obama supports the Iranian government, although he obviously has many questionable policies.
Let me add to my post before. As supportive as the Shah was for US interests while he was in power, we wound up with a government in Iran that was far more destructive of US interests than any leftist, social democratic, secular government (exactly the government the CIA overthrew) could ever be. We gave up the stability of a democratic government for the short-term benefits of a tyranny. It is difficult to imagine a move that was more costly to US interests.
My dear stupid Muslim Arab,
Don't start with us because unlike your dictators who attempted in the past, you don't know what you're messing with. Be warned that if you push us Jews to a corner where Arab/Muslim conquest of Israel becomes a real possibility, we will use anything available in our arsenal to prevent our genocide and you will suffer millions of casualties, one million after the other until you drop your guns and stop the attack. Israel is OURS! So stick to your 14 million square kilometers of land with all its oil and leave us in peace in our tiny sleeve of desert or you will bitterly regret ever trying, you greedy domineering racist bastards.
I'm not sure I want to revisit the US and British overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mosaddegh. While I agree with you, Bush gave false justifications for the Saddam's overthrow, it seems to me Bush's mistake was his attempt to impose western-style democracy in a region that is not prepared for democracy. I cannot say I agree with Churchill's dictum, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I believe other forms of government have proven better than democracy when there was a beneficent ruler. The problem is finding a God-fearing, beneficent ruler. Greek philosophers understood democracy turns into mob-rule and despotism given time, as we have witnessed in the US with the rise of George W. Bush - a man whose family is in bed with our Saudi enemies - and now even worse, Barack Hussein Obama. What kind of a people could elect and (worse) support Barack Hussein Obama?
My problem with American policy in the Middle East is that it is essentially dedicated to Israel's destruction at the hands of the Islamic jihadists. Let's be honest with one another. A Muslim-terror state in Israel's strategic heartland -which is official US policy - WILL be a Muslim-terror state dedicated to Israel's destruction. This immoral aim has been US policy for decades. Bush codified this wicked aim in the Republican national party platform, late August 2004, for the first time in the history of the Republican party.
Obama is pursuing Bush's destructive policy with a racist vengeance, even going so far as to demand Jews not be permitted to build an apartment or a synagogue in Israel's eternal capital; David's capital. Can you imagine a US president telling any other nation, "You cannot build new homes in your capital." ?
I don't expect America or American policy to succeed or prosper in light of this immoral US policy. Do you?
How can we expect that good will ultimately come out of evil? How can we expect evil leaders -- elected and supported by the American people; leaders like George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama -- to achieve good things in the world?
Good for you, Doom-and-gloom,
You take care of it. The Muslim rage against Israel is obviously fueled by their hatred of any non-Muslim authority in what they consider to be Muslim regions.
Most important, Israel does it's own work, and has a functioning government that is stable and independent of the US. The US has in the past served to support Israel against the collective ill-will of the UN.
Islam is not a version of, or an incomplete expression of, Judeo-Christian Hebraic-Hellenic European civilization. Islam is unique, and that means it's not so easy to gain an understanding of what it's about. Understanding Islam takes a special real effort. Drawing parallels , and seeing supposed similarities with European religion, or European theology, or European political philosophy is to no avail even though it's easy enough. If Islam has its own political philosophy it will be something based in and developed from their own Islamic beliefs and their own history, from their own experience of political trial and error. Now whether in fact Islam does have such an Islamic political philosophy remains to be shown. Does it? I'm not aware of it.
European and Anglo-American political philosophy (and the perverted version of it we know as Marxism-Luxemburgism-Leninism) is inevitably misleading if used as a guide to understand Islam. And also it's evidently not workable wherever it has been borrowed (stolen) by Muslims and applied to their own societies.
With all due respect, Roland, I have to disagree with you.
The problem with long-time dictators like Mubarek is that they become isolated from reality. The best description of the aging-dictator syndrome I have seen is in an out-of-print book "Tyranny: a study in the abuse of power" by Maurice Latey. The problem is that Mubarek's base of support is very narrow, just like the Shah of Iran.
In fact, the government of Egypt has cracked down on the Muslim brotherhood at least twice. Once was by Nasser after an assassination attempt. Another time was after the assassination of Anwar Saddat.
The Indonesian crackdown on communists was not done by Sukarno alone. In fact, the real fighting was done by the army, which was likely dominated by Muslims, although probably secular Muslims. Sukarno was also becoming isolated, but the communists overplayed their hand.
The bottom line is that Mubarek needs to go, and any subsequent government needs a network of supporters, although not necessarily reflective of the demographics. The army would be a very desirable candidate.
You can always see the difference between merely despotic regimes and true dictatorships in the way they deal with these protests. In Iran, China, the USSR, they go straight to live rounds and are not afraid to kill en masse in order to stay in power. Those that are protesting side by side with the Muslim Brotherhood should know that it can always get worse, always.
History already have the fall of Kerensky, the fall of Batista, the fall of Lon Nol, and the fall of the Shah to teach us a lesson, let’s not add another one to the list.
Anyone know where Tariq Ramadan (grandson of Hassan al Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Robert's and Hugh's favorite Muslim "intellectual") is these days? He was recently admitted to the U.S. by the Obama administration after being banned for many years. Surely he must be huddling somewhere with his MB buddies in Egypt to try to exploit the situation somehow.
I'll answer my own question: Is there a uniquely Islamic political philosophy? Yes, and I guess it's what's called "Islamism". I guess the Muslims would analyze and judge their own political events using the political science of "Islamism" as their criteria and standard. Why not?
Can we set a constraint on suggestions about what Egypt should do to what one could do in the US, consistent with a vision of durable democracy?
Can any state even go so far, politically, as to refuse to allow state incorporation of any Muslim Brotherhood affiliated entities? This is far less drastic than:
The devil is in the details. So long as the Muslim Brotherhood sticks to a gradual takeover then they could simply repeat it here in the US, and then wholly disregard the US Constitution because there would be no one left with the power-of-votes to oppose such action.
It is nice to think globally, but we need an action plan locally:
1) Refuse to allow state incorporation of any Muslim Brotherhood affiliated entities.
Can we even do that?
I have yet to see any action of Obama's that has been as devastating to the US as the Bush presidency.
That statement right there tells me that you are not paying attention...at all.
I just don't know what to say to such an uninformed statement.
Marisol wrote:
A democracy is only as good as the values that inform its participants. This fact seems lost on most people.
.......................
Very, very true, Marisol.
A "revolution" can be anything from the American Revolution to the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution to Iran's "Islamic Revolution".
They are, one must note, *not* of a piece.
Intriguing question.
Tariq Ramadan is very influential among European Muslims. I attended meetings with him as speeker, in Rotterdam. With big audiences of mostly Muslims, mostly young, many students, and interested Rotterdammers. And he endorsed the notion that Islam & Democracy need not be incompatible. And got much applauded for it. At the time I believed in him as a good bridgebuilder, as did many Dutch politicians.
Since then it was learned in Rotterdam that he was in league with the Iranian regime on TV and that his views on homosexuality were offensive against and protested against by homosexuals. At times his double standards and deceit, ambiguity were exposed.
But it would be interesting what his real influence in a real new situation in an Islam-majority-nation would be if he engaged himself there in the political process. Respected and supposedly democracy-friendly that he is (considered).
If they are reconstituting the Caliphate then that process should be made as difficult as possible, due to the fact that we are people too, and since the power of a Caliphate is inversely proportional to what we consider humanity and freedom it should be resisted by any and all means. Unfortunately this will be bloody and costly for the loser, which will either be us or the Caliphate. I wouldn't confuse this with human rights or let compassion cloud a rational observations. I chose us.
In regards to Muslims here in the west and theoretical exchanges with non-Muslims in the East, I agree that Muslims whom want secularism should stay, however I realise this is heresy in regards to Islamic theology. There should be no choice for Muslims that espouse non-heretical Islamic viewpoints in regards to Islam and secularism, a trade of populations would be more natural than some might think.
hahahaha, an American who praises Chinese actions in 1989. thought i would never ever hear/read that. So you people are desperate enough to follow the most benevolent Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Almost as if i am reading A left wing blog... there is hope for you yet.
Mr. Shirk
I know a Chinese man, Fang Zheng, whose legs were crushed by a tank in the Tienanmen Square massacre that you advised Mubarak to try against Egyptians on your JW 1/28 posting.
I have been privileged to get to know Fang Zheng and hear his story.
http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2009/s09100037.htm
Mr. Zheng continued to go on without his legs to stay a star athlete in a wheelchair. Not the totalitarian tanks or the totalitarian regime made him give up his dream on freedom. The people of China have not all given up on the dream of freedom, despite the efforts of their totalitarian government to deny them the right to learn about the Egypt protests.
I have have been blessed enough to see a man who legs were ripped out from a dictator's tanks in Tienanmen Square (who you advised Mubarak to remember) to get new legs in America.
Today, I have been blessed to see in Egypt a people who lost their courage for freedom for 30 years rise up to try to reclaim their country.
All the hate, fear, and oppression will ultimately not win against the human spirit. In the end, it will be love that will ultimately win and the growth of human freedom and dignity for all people as our natural human rights.
Who knows what Egypt has in front of it?
But for today, at least on this day, Egyptians, like Fang Zhang, can stand on their feet again.