tvashtarkatena Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Who was it that preferred to quench his newly minted swords in the bellies of Nubian slaves? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Pro-government thugs have faded back today. Anti-government demonstrators have not. Pro-government thugs might leave their police and government ID cards (confiscated by anti-government protesters) at home next time if they want to continue to claim a lack of affiliation with the Mubarak regime. Edited February 4, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
billcoe Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 wide brush stroke maybe, but I'd vote for Rob for Pope. Tough to win against the opposition as Soros is running for that job. Here's his take from a Washington Post op-ed piece today: "Why Obama has to get Egypt right By George Soros Thursday, February 3, 2011 Revolutions usually start with enthusiasm and end in tears. In the case of the Middle East, the tears could be avoided if President Obama stands firmly by the values that got him elected. Although American power and influence in the world have declined, our allies and their armies look to us for direction. These armies are strong enough to maintain law and order as long as they stay out of politics; thus the revolutions can remain peaceful. That is what the United States should insist on while encouraging corrupt and repressive rulers who are no longer tolerated by their people to step aside and allow new leaders to be elected in free and fair elections. That is the course that the revolution in Tunisia is taking. Tunisia has a relatively well-developed middle class, women there enjoy greater rights and opportunities than in most Muslim countries, and the failed regime was secular in character. The prospects for democratic change are favorable. Egypt is more complex and, ultimately, more influential, which is why it is so important to get it right. The protesters are very diverse, including highly educated and common people, young and old, well-to-do and desperately poor. While the slogans and crowds in Tahrir Square are not advancing a theocratic agenda at all, the best-organized political opposition that managed to survive in that country's repressive environment is the Muslim Brotherhood. In free elections, the Brotherhood is bound to emerge as a major political force, though it is far from assured of a majority. Some have articulated fears of adverse consequences of free elections, suggesting that the Egyptian military may seek to falsify the results; that Israel may be adamantly opposed to a regime change; that the domino effect of extremist politics spreading to other countries must be avoided; and that the supply of oil from the region could be disrupted. These notions constitute the old conventional wisdom about the Middle East - and need to be changed, lest Washington incorrectly put up resistance to or hesitate in supporting transition in Egypt. ad_icon That would be regrettable. President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America's leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood's cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system. As regards contagion, it is more likely to endanger the enemies of the United States - Syria and Iran - than our allies, provided that they are willing to move out ahead of the avalanche. The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the sole representative of the Jewish community. The main danger is that the Obama administration will not adjust its policies quickly enough to the suddenly changed reality. I am, as a general rule, wary of revolutions. But in the case of Egypt, I see a good chance of success. As a committed advocate of democracy and open society, I cannot help but share in the enthusiasm that is sweeping across the Middle East. I hope President Obama will expeditiously support the people of Egypt. My foundations are prepared to contribute what they can. In practice, that means establishing resource centers for supporting the rule of law, constitutional reform, fighting corruption and strengthening democratic institutions in those countries that request help in establishing them, while staying out of those countries where such efforts are not welcome. The writer is chairman of the Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Foundations, which support democracy and human rights in more than 70 countries. " Good chance of success that the Lion will lay down with the lamb he says, and he'll put some money in the pot to make it happen. He says. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 The popular assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood will play a major role in Egyptian politics isn't really borne out by that group's rather lackluster history of influence in that country. So far, Obama seems to be 'getting it right', but he only needs to for our benefit. In reality, the U.S. has very little influence in Egyptian affairs right now. Quote
ivan Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 So far, Obama seems to be 'getting it right', but he only needs to for our benefit. In reality, the U.S. has very little influence in Egyptian affairs right now. word. best thing we can do is stay out of it unless they ask for help, and even then we need to be way, way in the background. i've never met nor hung out w/ any egyptians i can remember - anybody got personal stories? they don't seem as prone to fanaticism - the whole ability to make peace w/ a mortal enemy after decades of war seems a good sign of national intelligence Quote
Crux Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#41417998 Quote
Jim Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 The popular assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood will play a major role in Egyptian politics isn't really borne out by that group's rather lackluster history of influence in that country. Can't say I can provide any insight for which political group will rise to the top after all this, but the reason the Brotherhood, or any other political group, had no traction was 'cause they got beat to a bloody pulp if they showed any organizational skill. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 If you step back a bit, the Muslim Brotherhood is the oldest modern Islamicist group. It's history of influence in Middle Eastern politics is muted at best. Quote
j_b Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 i've never met nor hung out w/ any egyptians i can remember - anybody got personal stories? they don't seem as prone to fanaticism - the whole ability to make peace w/ a mortal enemy after decades of war seems a good sign of national intelligence Many(likely most) Egyptians disagree with Mubarak's policies toward Palestine and Israel. I haven't met many Egyptians but they didn't seem any less or more prone to fanaticism than anybody else. Quote
Kimmo Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 muslim brohood was the most represented political body after mubarak allowed a semblance of a political process a few years ago, right? winning what, 20% representation at some level. leading mubarak to clamp down last year, defrauding the election process entirely, yes? i'm not sure what this says about the political future, but i completely doubt the muslim brohood will be irrelevant. Quote
Jim Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 If you step back a bit, the Muslim Brotherhood is the oldest modern Islamicist group. It's history of influence in Middle Eastern politics is muted at best. Which free and democratic Middle East regime might you be referring to? Quote
Kimmo Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 although this entire speculation is silly at best, a bunch of americans who have no direct experience with the region.... Quote
j_b Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) So far, Obama seems to be 'getting it right', but he only needs to for our benefit. In reality, the U.S. has very little influence in Egyptian affairs right now. BS. Egypt gets between $1.5-2 billion/year in US aid. 2/3 of which is military aid, which should provide plenty of leverage with the Egyptian military (where power resides at the moment). Edited February 4, 2011 by j_b Quote
Jim Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 although this entire speculation is silly at best, a bunch of americans who have no direct experience with the region.... I send my tax money there! Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I'd be more worried about what Opus Dei is up to... I found this segment on Maddow more entertaining: Caliphate! Quote
j_b Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 muslim brohood was the most represented political body after mubarak allowed a semblance of a political process a few years ago, right? winning what, 20% representation at some level. leading mubarak to clamp down last year, defrauding the election process entirely, yes? i'm not sure what this says about the political future, but i completely doubt the muslim brohood will be irrelevant. religious infrastructure helped them withstand political repression a lot better than the secular left wing opposition. It may be that they'd represent fewer in a plural democracy than at present. Also, only ~20% of eligible adults participated in 2005 so the numbers aren't very meaningful. Quote
Jim Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I'd be more worried about what Opus Dei is up to... I found this segment on Maddow more entertaining: Caliphate! That's a good one! Those guys with the robes, camels, and curved swords will be showing up any minute! Quote
Kimmo Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 religious infrastructure helped them withstand political repression a lot better than the secular left wing opposition. It may be that they'd represent fewer in a plural democracy than at present. Also, only ~20% of eligible adults participated in 2005 so the numbers aren't very meaningful. i'd say the fact that the muslim brotherhood garnered as much support as they did is quite meaningful. they were an outlaw party during the elections, facing monumental challenges from the government, with widespread fraud, yet they still managed to have a sizable contingency elected. in an entirely "open" election process (with massively moneyed western-backed candidates in opposition!), how would they do? i have no idea, but i wouldn't bet against them (in a 90% muslim country). and having the muslim brotherhood in power should be a concern to anyone who cares about human rights, women's rights, democracy, and other such core values. the taliban were not a very pretty group of individuals. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) religious infrastructure helped them withstand political repression a lot better than the secular left wing opposition. It may be that they'd represent fewer in a plural democracy than at present. Also, only ~20% of eligible adults participated in 2005 so the numbers aren't very meaningful. i'd say the fact that the muslim brotherhood garnered as much support as they did is quite meaningful. they were an outlaw party during the elections, facing monumental challenges from the government, with widespread fraud, yet they still managed to have a sizable contingency elected. in an entirely "open" election process (with massively moneyed western-backed candidates in opposition!), how would they do? i have no idea, but i wouldn't bet against them (in a 90% muslim country). and having the muslim brotherhood in power should be a concern to anyone who cares about human rights, women's rights, democracy, and other such core values. the taliban were not a very pretty group of individuals. Yes, because, as you have so adroitly pointed out, with the aid of FOX, Muslim Brotherhood = Taliban. Edited February 7, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
Kimmo Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Yes, because, as you have so adroitly pointed out, with the aid of FOX, Muslim Brotherhood = Taliban. didn't need FOX Ruse for this one; wikipedia does a pretty good job of corroborating other books i've read about the Muslim Brohood. It's called Sharia. No Dancing, for example. maybe you have some authoritative sourcing for how they might really be a secular moderate voice if given power? i'd like to read it if you do.... maybe they plan on starting a Muslim Sisterhood to share power with. Quote
prole Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 You'd be better off reading about other nations in the Middle East past and present in which democratic reforms, the creation of strong secular institutions and building capacities amongst moderate and left elements in those societies have both moderated the power of radical organizations and undermined their appeal. The containment through autocracy/occupation model has done the opposite. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Given the ample girth of our population, a prohibition on dancing would be a good thing. An anti-spandex rider would also be welcome. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Kimmo has kindly shared the new word 'sharia' with us, likely just one of many pearls harvested from his copious research. Quote
billcoe Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 You can only pick one. A) Brotherhood. B) Jews. Not too hard to choose. No choice and not picking isn't a choice. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.