Islamists murder secular opposition politicians in Tunisia, Libya

I don't really have time to follow all the back and forth here but I do have a question for Treeman.

You are advocating essentially the US helping to reimpose a secular dictatorship in Egypt and it seems like more broadly secular dictatorships across the Middle East. Given that Syria is in a civil war, while Libya and Egypt possibly falling back into them if that happens would you support the US military taking action in those countries?

 

I did say no, I wouldn't support military action anywhere in the ME right now. The only area where I'd say it might be necessary would be to destroy Iran's nuke program. Aside from that, they aren't worth another dead American soldier.

We tried the grand freedom experiment in Iraq and the Iraqis made a mess of it. The people of the ME are simply not ready for freedom or the responsibility that comes with it at this point. Maybe in the future, but not right now. If given freedom they will simply elect Islamist governments that will impose another type of tyranny on them, and likely be even less friendly to their neighbors and us.

There are other ways that we can exert influence.

 

I stated I would provide it to Tree.

I don't know how you thought giving someone who follows me through threads and lobs personal insults more personal data was a good idea

 

I don't need it. He can have it.

 

I simply don't buy into the concept that the people are an ever-lasting problem. People can be changed. Nothing changes people more than a democratic process---it might take a long time, but now is the time to start. I don't think secular dictatorships can be held forever, and I doubt their return on stability---the few routes the MB had with democratic discourse moderated it somewhat, and in the end, you can see what a dictator's overthrow has wrought in terms of banned parties springing forward---not even taking into account the brutality it took to enforce this action.

By employing your argument, you ensure that nothing changes. Sure, you might get parties you like in power, but the Egyptian yearning for democracy and change is there---you cannot repress it for the short-term mess democracy inevitably causes as you yourself have admitted, if you want to reap the long term benefit of a stable dialogue of different voices.

I also believe the liberals have a better argument, it's just a matter of getting that argument and chopping it up to make it more compelling for all. though that is some personal bias, I suppose.

 

yeah, much as I value your internet privacy, I value mine too.

Case in point of why I told you to never submit things publically, because well, some people will follow you to your house, and others will probably find you and post random insults. true story.

 

Give the Libyan Politicians a can of Arizona Iced Tea and some Skittles, that will get Obama's attention.

 

People can be changed, but these particular people are not ready for it right now. Secular dictatorships are not necessarily permanent fixtures, but they are preferable to Islamist dictatorships, which is what you end up with if you give the current people a fully democratic choice.

MB moderated its discourse? WTF are you talking about? They tried to turn Egypt into an Islamic dictatorship. That is why Morsi was thrown out - enough people decided that wasn't what they wanted, and the military agreed with them. (BTW, the military are the only ones[/]i capable of giving the liberals there - and true democracy, in time - a chance; without the military's support the liberals will just end up getting steamrolled by the MB).

Er, no, by employing my argument we endure that nothing changes right now[/i[], and that the liberals there get another crack at it in the future. The military has already projected future elections, as I posted earlier. Do it right now the the Salafists will just take it all or the MB will win again, likely a split between the two, and then you're right back where you started.

Uh, no, the Egyptian yearning for an Islamist state is more powerful than their yearning for true freedom. That is why they ended up electing the MB and Salafists in the first place.

The liberals in Egypt (and again, I am not referring to the Leftists/Communists/Socialists, I am referring to those who actually want freedom) DO have a better argument to make - from the Western perspective. The rest of the country doesn't think that way right now, their priorities are different from ours. They value adherence to Islamic principles and law as more important than true freedom. THAT is exactly why they will simply end up with another form of dictatorship if they get a vote today.

They simply aren't ready for freedom right now.

 

Gotta work.

 

This is simply where we shall have to agree to disagree, and there is nothing much to it. I can rely on the history of military coups including the one that brought Mubarak et. al to power as my prop, you can claim the election of the MB should have never happened, and we can go on and on, but the fact is, we disagree on this, and this point of contention is hard to go about finally resolving until 10 or even 20 or maybe 50 years after the revolution.

 

treeman, please. While I agree with parts of this post, your comment about the Egyptian people was both wildly inaccurate, and uncalled for. It demeans the rest of your post to the point where if people ignored it, I wouldn't blame them. I agree with both your take on the folks behind tossing Mubarak, and why the Muslim Brotherhood were able to take the election victory, despite being a minority in the country. Maybe that's the part you missed. The MB is a minority party. The majority of the Egyptian people want the freedom to do as they please within fair laws, the right to elect their own government, and jobs, with the attendant chance to better their lives. In short, although on the surface, apparently, to people like yourself, they seem far different, when you get down to basics, the bulk of the Egyptian people want essentially what we Americans want. You sell them short and do both them and yourself a disservice, in my humble opinion.

 

It is very obvious that you do not have the slightest clue about what the Holy Bible commands. You obviously have no idea what the differences are between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. You obviously have no idea that the Old Testament is basically the Jewish Torah.

I can't stand when atheist cherry pick something from the Old Testament to make Christianity look bad when they don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Northside it would really do you some good to read the Bible but keep in mind the Bible is separated into two parts. The Old Testament is B.C. (Before Christ) and the New Testament is A.D. (Anno Domini and I am quite certain you know the translation). Jesus changed EVERYTHINGand he can change you too if you give him a chance.

 

You are speaking of a technicality. The Muslim Brotherhood brought in 37.5% of the vote in 2011, the Salafists brought in 27.8%. I lump those two together because they represent the parties that desire strict adherence to sharia. The Salafists are Taliban-types, even worse than the MB. Total you're looking at over 65% of the electorate who thought it would be a good idea to put such people into power. THAT is a majority. Problem is, with the MB in trouble now, who do you think that their disaffected voters will turn to next time? They are conservative muslims who want hardline sharia. They are very likely to turn to the Salafists over the liberals. So next time you would likely see a reversal of those percentages, or something approximating it. The Salafists would hold the largest bloc, and in order to form a unity government in a parliamentary system, who do you think they will turn to as a partner?

They will turn to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The liberal parties and Leftists were fractured, and still are. The largest liberal party managed to grab 9.2% of the vote. They've got a LONG way to go to compete with the MB and the Salafists.

They may want jobs, the right to elect their government, and a chance for a better life, but the majority WANTS to live under sharia. That is WHY they voted for MB (and the Salafists) in the first place. That was the MB's main selling point. I think you fail to understand how powerful the motivation and desire to live according to Allah's will is among that population. They are not like us. They have a level of devoutness that even our most devout Christians would finds difficult to match. And it is very widespread, especially among the men who constitute the main body of the electorate.

They ARE far different from us. They are utterly foreign, almost alien. A nonbeliever such as yourself would not understand their piety and their desire to live under God's rules. You CAN"T understand it really until you've lived among them. They are most certainly not like us.

They want the THINGS that we have. They want to be like us in some ways. In other ways we are as foreign to them as they are to us. Sure, just like any other human beings they want the best for their children, they want to be prosperous, they want to be comfortable, they want wealth. And yes, they do want the right to choose their own leaders. But the desire to live according to God's Law - sharia - is overpowering. It is intoxicating to them. They do not want our version of rule of law, they want theirs. They may want democracy, but their democracy is not going to look like ours. It will look more like Iraq's.

You say I do myself a disservice by thinking they do not want what we want. I say you do yourself one by thinking that they do. THAT is exactly the naivete that I was talking about earlier.

 

I have to disagree. I think you generalize hugely here. In my opinion, the MB got a lot of votes originally because many Egyptians didn't see them as being a threat to a secular society and voted for them. It isn't like they have a world of experience with the democratic process. I also think some of the more hardline MB supporters voted for the extreme Nour party, which increased their numbers. Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I've been to Egypt, and know some Egyptians here in the States. One of my son's best friends is the son of Egyptian immigrants. You could say I've had in interest in the country for a long time. Their biggest problems are too many people, not enough jobs, and a terrible economy. What that country needs is some success in solving those problems and I think we will then see a largely secular Egypt emerge, in my humble opinion. My greatest fear is widespread, extended violence ruining any chance they have of curing their problems. That fear remains and recent events do nothing to help matters.

 

D&D should be renamed to, "Every time a Muslim does something wrong, create a new thread"


Seriously, I see a lot of complaining and demonizing, but very little productive debate over the past 10 years on ATW's crusade against Islam. Too bad he can only resort to insults when he's been schooled.

 

Why does a debate need to be "productive" when discussing Islam or religion in general in the D&D? Have ANY topics discussed in the D&D had a conclusive ending that accomplished something? I have been a critic of ATW many times and we have had several heated exchanged before but I believe there is nothing wrong or immoral about condemning a religion if at the same time you do not automatically condemn a individual just because they are following a certain religion.

The fact remains that unfortunately it is EXTREMELY easy to find a recent article of a recent terror event or human rights violation that is associated with Islam.

 

Uh... It's THE central tenet of their platform. If this is what you think then you must think that the Egyptian people are even dumber than I do.

Yeah, those are the Salafists. Who do you think they'll vote for next time? And who do you think that the religious conservatives who want sharia but and voted MB the first time around but don't want MB rule anymore will vote for next time around?

(quote]Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I've been to Egypt, and know some Egyptians here in the States. One of my son's best friends is the son of Egyptian immigrants. You could say I've had in interest in the country for a long time. [/quote]

Just as you likely give my experience little weight, I must take the polls over your anecdotal experience. There are certainly good Egyptians who want freedom - real freedom - but the mass of the people I think are confused. All that they know for sure is that they have to do God's will.

Those are certainly big problems, but their biggest problem is their desire to live under sharia. It's kept the entire region stuck in the middle ages culturally for over a millennia.

The regime that puts bread on the table has the best chance of seeing that come to fruition long term. Bread is, BTW, a huge problem there. More precisely, the lack of it. But how likely do you think the MB is to bring about that needed change? What odds do you give a MB - or Salafi - led Egypt has of developing into a prosperous, relatively secular nation? With that leadership I'd put those odds at zero to nothing.

Heh, that is the history of the entire region. The modern Western view is that the stability we are used to is the norm. That is not the case in their culture. Arab history is a history of violence and tribal war. Egypt is somewhat different in that unlike the artificial countries of the peninsula and the Holy Land, Egypt has a national identity stretching back for thousands of years, so they at least have that to fall back on. But like all Arab states they are factionalized and will find sectarian lines to bicker across. Strife and violence are the norm there. It's just a little more punctuated and noticeable with the cameras watching.

 

Finally. I knew it would happen at some point. We agree on something.

 

I have a question to pose the liberals here.

Suppose that a Republican of the type that you hate the most - fiscally and socially conservative, evangelical to the core - won election as the POTUS, and had large blocs in Congress as well. He one day decides that the judiciary is unnecessary, and says that henceforth all cases in the court system will be decided by him. He makes no bones about the fact that his desire is that the nation must abide by biblical law, and he is going to remodel the nation's legal system according to a strict adherence to those laws. He has taken the Constitution and wiped his ass with it. He also decided to give himself the power to pass legislation without any judicial oversight. Let's say there is some outrage, so this guy says that he annuls his earlier decisions, but the results stand. The nation is left scratching their heads while he tries to purge the military and places his lackeys into positions of power in an attempt to prevent a coup.

The American people at this point sao "Ummm... No" and rise up, and the military decides it doesn't like what's going on and deposes him from the White House, promising new elections when things calm down.

This is in a nutshell what just happened in Egypt. What part of this do you REALLY find disagreeable? Other than the violence, which is always disagreeable, but I think it's something our Founders expected us to have to do from time to time...

Do you REALLY not get why this is happening?