So you admit your statement is irrelevant, and you have already tried to retreat from it by calling it a throwaway statement, and you weren't claiming anything. But you are saying you "stand by it".
You wish. You haven't even seen me start hurling personal insults. You really overestimate your own relevance. I am merely having fun exposing your idiocy.
Yep, you haven't brought anything forth that is conclusive. I myself regard it as an argument not worth defending in the interests of the point at hand, but in the interests of watching you degenerate into a .gif-piling stew of personal rage, it's worth a shot.
I have. Denial is not a river in Egypt. A discussion about whether Islamist parties "embrace democracy, and propel it forward", as you falsely claimed, is certainly on point for this thread. Unfortunately, you have been unable to present anything to support this false claim - on the contrary, you yourself posted a study which confirms that an organization that restricts its membership to "people fitting particular criteria — often, one must be male, a Muslim or indeed a ‘special Muslim’ in the sense of holding a particular interpretation of Islam and its role in public life" and which does not practice internal democracy to start with (not even mentioning the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is closely linked to terrorism) does, in fact, not "embrace democracy, and propel it forward".
Speaking of those ownages you give me, you still haven't replied to the following... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=215535&page=3&highlight=drunk How does a study that show three Islamist democratic parties working in growing democracies after authoritarian regimes not show that Islamists can embrace democracy? Your only conjucture is that they are the shadow force that will seize power, like Emperor Palpatine or some s**t, and that is based on...??? The only conclusion you have made is "let's wait and see."
I am with ATW on this one, how can you argue the numerous Muhajadeen and Fatwa moslems sitting there calling for our freedom. They just don't like us because of our freedoms and want to oppress women and children there...change or progression needs to be made, i don't think ATW not liking that is any reason to get mad at him. Get mad at the terrorist why dont you! thats the real problem. None of them=no more occupy lands and have to babysit!
The funny thing is I probably don't like extreme Islamic movements anymore than ATW. I'd call a spade a spade more often on that if we had posters with similar posting traits to ATW extolling the merits of the Taliban (last I checked, we don't).
What exactly do you want me to respond to? I provided plenty of facts in that thread. Do you want me to respond to your demonization of the US government? What do you expect me to say? There have certainly been isolated violations of the law and of codes of conduct by government agents and military, and I hope they are dealt with according to the letter of the law. I do not think they are representative of a systemwide approach or of an ideology, which distinguishes them from what is happening e.g. in Syria. Although you desperately try to make it seem differently, I strongly view the USA as the good guys. That view is not changed by isolated transgressions which people like you and propagandists of Al Qaeda try to paint as representative of US policy. Are you saying that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is "embracing democracy, and propelling it forward"? Yes or no answer, please.
well, good to know. From what I can tell from the situation, it's unclear, but I lean towards yes. It is much clearer in Indonesia. Now, your turn.
The point here is that you have an agenda to paint isolated transgressions as representative of what the USA stands for. Picking a regrettable case like the one you found to portray the USA as evil (which is what you are doing) is stupid. Can I vouch for every single US government agent? No. Can I clearly see that compared to governments in the Arab world, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, the USA are morally superior? Yes. Yet, you blame the USA for everything and go to lengths to even make it seem like the USA are responsible for the failures of these governments. Since you presented the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) in Indonesia as a shining example for Islamists "embracing democracy, and propelling it forward", let's educate you a bit (although this is not the original topic of the thread, which you keep derailing by references to Indonesia and then asking if "we can get back on point"). Not from some obscure source, but from a Yale publication. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/indonesian-democracy’s-enemy-within Yeah, defending terrorism is really a way to embrace democracy. Secret cells, indoctrinated and sponsored by Saudis. Yeah, sounds like "propelling democracy forward". Umm yes, Islamic caliphate. That certainly sounds like "embracing democracy, and propelling it forward" to you, right? Do you understand what the goal of an Islamic caliphate means? Are you in support of that? You must understand that even though the means differ, if the ultimate goal - an Islamic caliphate - is the same, that means they do not want democracy. They merely differ from their openly violent sister organizations in how they want to achieve the goal.
Oh, moral superiority to degenerating Third World nations on the verge of collapse because of war initiated by the party that is morally superior is THE benchmark.
Well, you clearly haven't looked up what a caliphate actually is, so you can go ahead and google that now.
So you are saying that the governments of these countries would be morally superior to the US government, if the US government had not started actions against them? Is that what you are saying? Please spell it out.
It is plainly obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and that you are trying to retreat from the discussion by speaking in vague generalities. Answer the question: Do you think that having the end goal of an Islamic Caliphate means "embracing democracy, and propelling it forward"?
