Yes, but there is a big difference between the regular person who happens to be a moderate Muslim and wants to live a peaceful, prosperous life and the ideological figures from the Muslim Brotherhood who want to install an Islamic Caliphate and who vehemently oppose a secular democracy. The regular person who started the Arab spring was the "Facebook youth" and the regular worker. At the start of this movement was not Islamic ideology. Whether that "Facebook youth" and the regular worker were Muslims was not at the core of their motivation to start the Arab spring. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?
They've made a mockery of American democracy, so you can say that their actions have led some like China to wonder whether an alternative model is better.
I'm not claiming anything, merely observing you trying to snip away at some obscure point that gets us nowhere (again).
It's hilarious and embarrassing at the same time how extreme leftists like Northside Storm (even though in his case, it is less an ideological thing like with glynch but more a person sitting in his mom's basement, looking for attention) try to blame everything on the USA, even terrorism against the USA. At the same time, this kind of thinking is disgusting, and a slap in the face of victims of Islamofascist terrorism. It paints people like Zawahiri, who are responsible for the death of many, as victims who were merely reacting to things done to them by the evil USA.
I accept your surrender (which is how this ends every time). You can obviously not debunk what I posted, because it is the truth.
ohhh, I love it when people call my kind of thinking disgusting, it feels all 1984ish. Maybe if the government weren't busy f**king around in places where they shouldn't be, innocent people wouldn't have to die. There's a thought.
Good grief. Yep, the ChiComs would have no global ambitions had it not been for American conservatives.
I debunked your ridiculous statement You have not been able to present anything to support this idiotic claim. Thanks for playing.
http://lowyinstitute.richmedia-server.com/sound/Zealous_democrats_Executive_summary.pdf But here, in order to inform you a bit more about progressive Islamist parties that have embraced democracy... http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/as.2011.51.5.971 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperous_Justice_Party
I wasn't really claiming anything with that, just a throwaway argument that was secondary to my main one about American foreign policy. I certainly don't want to argue Islamist parties are good for democracy or the region in the long run. I see you've failed to address the main point at all, which is common for you. In your strive to get personally even with me for some reason that eludes me, I do wish to remind you that addressing points rather than the person is preferable at times.
More hilarious self-ownage by Northside Storm. Your desperate googling after I called you out obviously didn't leave you enough time to actually read the paper you posted which you thought would bolster your idiotic statements. From the paper: Yep, certainly sounds like What the executive summary of the paper you posted actually says (and I did take the time to read it) is that having to operate under democratic rules and trying to do this distinguishes these Islamist movements to some extent from people like Al Qaeda (duh) and may help to gradually make them more moderate in the long run.
So are you apologizing for your false, idiotic statement that you tried to defend in vain, and are you retracting it? Sounds like it from the above, but you should spell it out, then.
Man, your personal grudge is hilarious. Can you be any more bitter? The reason why I posted this paper is because of the fact that it brings three cases in progressive scenarios where Islamists can be seen to push forward on democracy. Yes, they are limited by internal constraints, but all three systems have certainly not been pulled back from the brink, and all three have grown as a result. It was merely meant as an introduction to the Prosperous Justice Party, which if you read the rest of the post, is the bulk of my argument. Anyways, I can admit to the fact that I did not read the paper beyond the three scenarios. I'll be the bigger man, and not say I was drunk
no, I think engaging with you at this level, where you are hurling personal conjunctures and personal insults rather than anything worth debating is funny, so in the interests of that, I stand by my irrelevant statement.
Not bitter at all, why would I be? You have been exposed every single time you tried be a smart-ass on here, so I understand that you are bitter because of that. That is not what the paper says. You should work on your reading comprehension if you ever want to get a degree from your locally renowned university.
Hey, ATW, you know in an argument when you start hurling personal insults, you lose right? Just saying. You seem to have a really easy anger level to manipulate.