What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Egypt blowing up (again) (2 Viewers)

Down goes Morsi!
And his supporters come out swinging.

30 dead, hundreds hurt in Egypt unrestCAIRO — Medical officials say at least 12 people have been killed in clashes between supporters and opponents of the ousted president in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria, bringing nationwide toll to 30.

Emergency services official Amr Salama says the 12 died when hundreds of Islamists descended on a rally by opponents of ousted President Mohammed Morsi in the city, opening fire with guns.

He says clashes erupted, and police joined on the side of the Morsi opponents.

Salama says he saw one man die when he went to the roof of a building, raised an Egyptian flag and shouted insults against Morsi. Morsi backers went to the roof and stabbed him and threw him off the building.

The state news agency MENA also confirmed 12 dead in the city.

The violence comes in the wake of Egyptian troops firing on mostly Islamist protesters marching on an opposition headquarters Friday, where at least one was killed as the crowd demanded restoration of ousted President Mohammed Morsi.

Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood's general guide, led the crowd of tens of thousands in a chant of "Free revolutionaries, we will continue the path." Badie had been taken into custody by security forces soon after the military ousted Morsi, who also belongs to the Brotherhood, but was released earlier in the day.

In a speech to the pro-Morsi crowd, Badie vowed an end to "military rule," saying that Morsi is the only president of Egypt.

The shooting earlier occurred when hundreds of Morsi supporters marched on the Republican Guard building, where the former president was staying at the time of his ouster before he was taken into military custody in an unknown location. The crowd approached a barbed-wire barrier where troops were standing guard around the building.

When one supporter hung a Morsi sign on the barrier, the troops tore it down and told the crowd to stay back. A protester hung a second sign, and the soldiers opened fire on the crowd, an Associated Press photographer at the scene said. Several protesters fell bloodied to the ground.

At least one had a gaping, bleeding exit wound in the back of his head. Fellow protesters carried the body into a nearby building and covered his head with a blanket, declaring him dead, according to AP Television News footage.

Protesters pelted the line of troops with stones, and the soldiers responded with volleys of tear gas, but the clashes appeared for the moment to ease with midafternoon prayers.

The shooting risks escalating Egypt's division, with supporters of Morsi — largely Islamists — rejecting the army's ousting of the country's first freely elected president Wednesday night and installation of a new civilian administration. The protester casualties are likely to further fuel calls by some in the Islamist movement for violent retaliation.

The first major Islamic militant attack came before dawn Friday in the tumultuous Sinai Peninsula, killing at least one soldier. Masked assailants launched a coordinated attack with rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns on the airport in el-Arish, the provincial capital of northern Sinai, as well as a security forces camp in Rafah on the border with Gaza and five other military and police posts, sparking nearly four hours of clashes.

The Brotherhood called for Friday's protests, which took place at several sites around the capital and in other cities. Brotherhood officials emphasized strongly to their followers that their rallies should be peaceful.

A crowd of tens of thousands of Morsi supporters filled much of a broad boulevard outside a Cairo mosque several blocks away from the Republican Guard headquarters, vowing to remain in place until Morsi is restored. The protesters railed against what they called the return of the regime of autocrat Hosni Mubarak, ousted in early 2011.

"The old regime has come back ... worse than before," said Ismail Abdel-Mohsen, an 18-year old student among the crowds outside the Rabia al-Adawiya Mosque. He dismissed the new interim head of state sworn in a day earlier, senior judge Adly Mansour, as "the military puppet."

The crowd began to march on the headquarters of the Republican Guard, many chanting, "After sunset, President Morsi will be back in the palace."

The military forced out Morsi on Wednesday after millions of Egyptians turned out in four days of protests demanding his removal and saying he had squandered his electoral mandate by putting power in the hands of his own Muslim Brotherhood and other, harder-line Islamists. In the 48 hours since, the military has moved against the Brotherhood's senior leadership, putting Morsi under detention and arresting the group's supreme leader and a string of other figures.

But there are serious fears that more extremist groups who gained considerable influence during Morsi's year in office will lash out with a campaign of violence.

Islamic militants hold a powerful sway in the lawless and chaotic northern Sinai. They are heavily armed with weapons smuggled from Libya and have links with militants in the neighboring Gaza Strip, run by Hamas. After the attack, Egypt indefinitely closed its border crossing into Gaza, sending 200 Palestinians back into the territory, said Gen. Sami Metwali, director of Rafah passage.

Morsi supporters say the military has wrecked Egypt's democracy by carrying out a coup against an elected leader. They accuse Mubarak loyalists and liberal and secular opposition parties of turning to the army for help because they lost at the polls to Islamists. Many Morsi supporters have also seen it as a conspiracy against Islam.

30 dead, hundreds hurt in Egypt unrest
AP Photo: Khalil Hamra
People carry the body of a man shot by Egyptian troops in Cairo on July 5.

_h17_w0_m6_otrue_lfalse.jpg
20 min ago By Maggie Michael and Tony G. Gabriel of Associated PressSHARE
5
TWEET
3
EMAIL

CAIRO — Medical officials say at least 12 people have been killed in clashes between supporters and opponents of the ousted president in the Mediterranean coastal city of Alexandria, bringing nationwide toll to 30.

Emergency services official Amr Salama says the 12 died when hundreds of Islamists descended on a rally by opponents of ousted President Mohammed Morsi in the city, opening fire with guns.

He says clashes erupted, and police joined on the side of the Morsi opponents.

Salama says he saw one man die when he went to the roof of a building, raised an Egyptian flag and shouted insults against Morsi. Morsi backers went to the roof and stabbed him and threw him off the building.

The state news agency MENA also confirmed 12 dead in the city.

The violence comes in the wake of Egyptian troops firing on mostly Islamist protesters marching on an opposition headquarters Friday, where at least one was killed as the crowd demanded restoration of ousted President Mohammed Morsi.

Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood's general guide, led the crowd of tens of thousands in a chant of "Free revolutionaries, we will continue the path." Badie had been taken into custody by security forces soon after the military ousted Morsi, who also belongs to the Brotherhood, but was released earlier in the day.

In a speech to the pro-Morsi crowd, Badie vowed an end to "military rule," saying that Morsi is the only president of Egypt.

Tran unknown location. The crowd approached a barbed-wire barrier where troops were standing guard around the building. Related: Analysis: Egypt risks Islamist splits, violence after Morsi fall

Gallery: Turmoil in Egypt after Morsi's forced removal

When one supporter hung a Morsi sign on the barrier, the troops tore it down and told the crowd to stay back. A protester hung a second sign, and the soldiers opened fire on the crowd, an Associated Press photographer at the scene said. Several protesters fell bloodied to the ground.

At least one had a gaping, bleeding exit wound in the back of his head. Fellow protesters carried the body into a nearby building and covered his head with a blanket, declaring him dead, according to AP Television News footage.

Protesters pelted the line of troops with stones, and the soldiers responded with volleys of tear gas, but the clashes appeared for the moment to ease with midafternoon prayers.

The shooting risks escalating Egypt's division, with supporters of Morsi — largely Islamists — rejecting the army's ousting of the country's first freely elected president Wednesday night and installation of a new civilian administration. The protester casualties are likely to further fuel calls by some in the Islamist movement for violent retaliation.

The first major Islamic militant attack came before dawn Friday in the tumultuous Sinai Peninsula, killing at least one soldier. Masked assailants launched a coordinated attack with rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-aircraft guns on the airport in el-Arish, the provincial capital of northern Sinai, as well as a security forces camp in Rafah on the border with Gaza and five other military and police posts, sparking nearly four hours of clashes.

AP Photo: Virginie Nguyen Hoanghttp://news.msn.com/world/turmoil-in-egypt-after-morsis-forced-removal

Click photo to view image gallery
The Brotherhood called for Friday's protests, which took place at several sites around the capital and in other cities. Brotherhood officials emphasized strongly to their followers that their rallies should be peaceful.

A crowd of tens of thousands of Morsi supporters filled much of a broad boulevard outside a Cairo mosque several blocks away from the Republican Guard headquarters, vowing to remain in place until Morsi is restored. The protesters railed against what they called the return of the regime of autocrat Hosni Mubarak, ousted in early 2011.

"The old regime has come back ... worse than before," said Ismail Abdel-Mohsen, an 18-year old student among the crowds outside the Rabia al-Adawiya Mosque. He dismissed the new interim head of state sworn in a day earlier, senior judge Adly Mansour, as "the military puppet."

The crowd began to march on the headquarters of the Republican Guard, many chanting, "After sunset, President Morsi will be back in the palace."

Related: Morsi's ouster: Was it a coup or not?

The military forced out Morsi on Wednesday after millions of Egyptians turned out in four days of protests demanding his removal and saying he had squandered his electoral mandate by putting power in the hands of his own Muslim Brotherhood and other, harder-line Islamists. In the 48 hours since, the military has moved against the Brotherhood's senior leadership, putting Morsi under detention and arresting the group's supreme leader and a string of other figures.

But there are serious fears that more extremist groups who gained considerable influence during Morsi's year in office will lash out with a campaign of violence.

AP Photo: Hatem Moussa
Islamic militants hold a powerful sway in the lawless and chaotic northern Sinai. They are heavily armed with weapons smuggled from Libya and have links with militants in the neighboring Gaza Strip, run by Hamas. After the attack, Egypt indefinitely closed its border crossing into Gaza, sending 200 Palestinians back into the territory, said Gen. Sami Metwali, director of Rafah passage.

Morsi supporters say the military has wrecked Egypt's democracy by carrying out a coup against an elected leader. They accuse Mubarak loyalists and liberal and secular opposition parties of turning to the army for help because they lost at the polls to Islamists. Many Morsi supporters have also seen it as a conspiracy against Islam.

Related: US touts democracy as Egyptian military takes over

Many protesters on Friday held copies of the Quran in the air, and much of the crowd had the long beards of ultraconservative men or the encompassing black robes and veils worn by women, leaving only the eyes visible. One protester shouted that the sheik of Al-Azhar — Egypt's top Muslim cleric, who backed the military's move — was "an agent of the Christians" — reflecting a sentiment that the Christian minority was behind Morsi's ouster.

The protesters set up "self-defense" teams, with men staffing checkpoints touting sticks and homemade body shields. There was no significant presence of military forces near the protests.

The night before, the military spokesman issued a statement urging all protesters to remain peaceful. In a message to Morsi's opponents, Col. Ahmed Mohammed Ali warned against "gloating," vengeance or attacks on Brotherhood offices, saying there must not be an "endless cycle of revenge."

The military has a "strong will to ensure national reconciliation, constructive justice and tolerance," he wrote in an official Facebook posting. He said the army and security forces will not take "any exceptional or arbitrary measures" against any political group.

But the Brotherhood has been furious over the arrests of its top leaders, as well as the closure of its TV station Misr25, its newspaper and three other Islamist television stations. It called the moves a return to Egypt's "dark, repressive, dictatorial and corrupt ages."

"We refuse to participate in any activities with the usurping authorities," the Brotherhood said in a statement, read Thursday by senior cleric Abdel-Rahman el-Barr to the crowd outside the Rabia al-Adawiya Mosque.

Morsi has been under detention in an unknown location since Wednesday night, and at least a dozen of his top aides and advisers have been under what is described as "house arrest," though their locations are also unknown.

Besides the Brotherhood's top leader, General Guide Mohammed Badie, security officials have also arrested his predecessor, Mahdi Akef, and one of his two deputies, Rashad Bayoumi, as well as Saad el-Katatni, head of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, and ultraconservative Salafi figure Hazem Abu Ismail, who has a considerable street following.

Authorities have also issued a wanted list for more than 200 Brotherhood members and leaders of other Islamist groups. Among them is Khairat el-Shater, another deputy of the general guide who is widely considered the most powerful figure in the Brotherhood.

The arrest of Badie was a dramatic step, since even Mubarak and his predecessors had been reluctant to move against the group's top leader. The ranks of Brotherhood members across the country swear a strict oath of unquestioning allegiance to the general guide, vowing to "hear and obey." It has been decades since a Brotherhood general guide was put in a prison.

Badie and el-Shater were widely believed by the opposition to be the real power in Egypt during Morsi's term.
http://news.msn.com/world/egypt-clashes-kill-10-in-islamist-pushback?ocid=ansnews11

 
Christo said:
MaxThreshold said:
Christo said:
MaxThreshold said:
Taking down the Muslim Brotherhood is a good thing, right?
Not on a theoretical level, if that's what the majority of Egyptians want.
I thought the majority of Egyptians wanted something else? Isn't that why the military stepped in?
Sure, the military overthrows the elected government because it's what the majority of the people want. They never have their own interests in mind,
They are primarily interested in keeping their gravy train rolling.

 
I would hope that the Egyptian people have learned enough from this to never elect an Islamist again. I think it's great that the Muslim Brotherhood got their chance and were exposed as the religious autocrats they are.

 
Oof. Giving Morsi legitimacy is blowing up in our faces.

The biggest question, IMO, is just how much of the country do the protesters that got Morsi ousted actually represent and was Morsi's election in the first place actually legitimate?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They don't want democracy:

Freedom and democracy. How I have come to loathe this phrase. Two-lofty-words-and-a-conjunction bandied around by handmaidens of Empire: verbal grenades that can gut entire nations. When I hear “freedom and democracy” I instinctively look for cover - just as “Allahu Akbar” yelled loudly enough can now make Arabs and Muslims hit the ground fast.“Freedom and democracy” is the battle cry for every single western regime-change operation I can remember. Operations that leave innocent civilians dead, cities destroyed - anarchy, corruption and criminality in their wake.

In the Middle East, these are dangerous words that have filtered into our vocabulary. People here, intoxicated with their faux revolutions, now spout this silly foreign phrase with the same shrill, mad-eyed, self-righteous conviction as do Americans before they bomb us into ‘freedom.’

But Arabs and Muslims should dig deep into their recent memory:

The first words uttered by you as you rose up against your US-backed dictators were “honor and dignity” – not “freedom and democracy.” How did that fact get lost in the mayhem to follow?

And why on earth would this distinction make any difference?

For one, ‘freedom and democracy’ has always suggested western-style standards for governance and social liberties alien to the Mideast. We’re just not there yet – not on those terms anyway - and we’re not likely to be. Many regional states are just entering the nascent phase of what will undoubtedly be a rocky political evolutionary process – with each nation creating wholly indigenous models of governance, as unique as their individual cultures and histories. What if some towns would like their political process determined by an old-fashioned cockfight? What if a strongman is the only way to prevent the disintegration of a nation-state or the outbreak of ethnic and sectarian carnage? What if people genuinely don’t give a toss about gay and lesbian rights, preferring – imagine that – to find employment and feed their kids first? Women’s suffrage? Gender-integrated football stadiums? Childcare in the workplace? Worker’s rights? Important stuff, but... Feed. Child. First.

And then there’s that other unfortunate association: freedom and democracy brings with it a cornucopia of weapons, military bases, bombs hailing from skies heaving with US-made drones, financial assistance tied to all shades of silliness.

Freedom and democracy is extremely discerning. It seems to altogether bypass friendly dictatorships, only landing with uncanny accuracy on the heads of those opposed to Empire - civilians included.

And it is a foreign-imposed concept, presupposing, for instance, that elections are all-important. Except, even Empire doesn’t believe that. Why else dismiss Palestinian elections with a Hamas victor, or Iranian elections when the candidate doesn’t suit, or Russian parliamentary ones that ‘smack’ of fraud?

Yet Empire’s silence is deafening when a friendly monarch passes the mantle to his son, when a client state doesn’t care about popular legitimacy, when a military ally with big budgets for US-made weapons rejects elections outright.

Honor and dignity is none of those things. It doesn’t mean elections, it doesn’t mean individual rights. It is unselfish and broad – it understands what is right, what is important, what is a priority. It will wait a bit longer for jobs, stability, electricity, but it demands one immediate correction: the state must recognize and act upon popular will.

What’s the difference you still say?

Freedom-and-democracy embraces US-Israeli hegemony and GCC petrodollars. Honor-and-dignity does not.

Freedom-and-democracy thinks there are “processes” to remedy the colonization of Palestinian land. Honor-and-dignity knows there is only one: decolonization.

Freedom-and-democracy seeks to vilify, marginalize and criminalize groups, sects and nations in the Middle East. Honor-and-dignity seeks collaboration and harmonious relations, even among those marked by differences.

Freedom-and-democracy is governed by militarization – it seeks military bases, weaponizes its allies, draws red lines, makes threats, retaliates disproportionally, punishes with ease, targets the vulnerable. Honor-and-dignity believes in soft power, engagement and mediation with brothers.

Freedom-and-democracy has always supported dictatorship and brutality. Honor-and-dignity wants that to stop.

Freedom-and-democracy gives you a truckload of money in exchange for implementing a political, social and economic blueprint with the assistance of foreign advisors and NGOs. Honor-and-dignity is determined to learn from its own mistakes.

Freedom-and-democracy knows what’s best for you. Honor-and-dignity wants to decide for itself.

Freedom-and-democracy fears your independence – thinks you are “not ready” for it. Honor-and-dignity can’t stand still from wanting to taste it, lick it, embrace it, implement it.

Freedom-and-democracy violates your border, guns cocked. Honor-and-dignity knows it must shoot you dead or you will never learn.

Freedom-and-democracy thinks it is free and democratic. Honor-and-dignity notices an interesting trend: the more freedom-and-democracy talks about “freedom and democracy,” the more it legislates against freedoms and undermines democracy back home.

Real ‘freedom’ in the Middle East means honor and dignity. Real ‘democracy’ in the Middle East starts with honor and dignity. Arabs nailed it the first time around.

Honor-and-dignity doesn’t mean elections and governments that operate within the exact same geopolitical and economic parameters of yesterday. Honor-and-dignity means good governance in a just societyunder the rule of law based on consensus - homegrown, indigenous solutions that are unique to each country.

The new governments of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen don’t stand a chance – they operate within the old parameters that acknowledge western hegemony, GCC dominance in regional affairs, and the economics of disparity. They play with Israel and pretend Palestine does not exist. They vacillate between paralysis and aggression against the only Resistance this region has ever had. They thrive on yesterday’s divide-and-rule and have warped ideas about brotherhood. And they rig systems today to ensure their continued dominance tomorrow.

You cannot have honor and dignity with a dependent economy – it will hamper your independence. You cannot have honor and dignity with foreign military bases in your country – it will cripple your independence. You cannot have honor and dignity with a colonial state in your midst subverting all efforts at regional reconciliation, killing Arabs with impunity, wagging its tongue at your impotence – it will destroy your independence.

Please leave us be, FreedumbAndDemocrazy. If you don’t, Honor and Dignity will be forced to teach you the meaning of Consequence in a way it would rather not. Leave the Mideast to chart its own course, discover its own strengths and make its own mistakes. Do it now.

And take your conditional aid and military bases with you too.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/freedumbanddemocrazy

 
Oof. Giving Morsi legitimacy is blowing up in our faces.

The biggest question, IMO, is just how much of the country do the protesters that got Morsi ousted actually represent and was Morsi's election in the first place actually legitimate?
I've seen nothing to suggest that Morsi's victory was illegitimate so we were right to recognize his legitimacy. I heard from a number of people who voted for Morsi that they didn't expect him to try to make Egypt into a theocracy. Naive/stupid perhaps but it seems like some Morsi supporters didn't know what they were getting into when they voted for him. If only 2% of Morsi voters had voted differently then he wouldn't have been elected.

 
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.

 
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.

 
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.
It's almost like you didn't read the article.

 
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.
The article Christo posted addresses this question better than I can. I would only add that during the Cold War, we had different priorities over the question of democracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.
It's almost like you didn't read the article.
I read the article but it was blathering about 'honor and dignity' prevailing over 'Western standards of democracy'. In her mind it's fine for countries to come up with any sort of 'democracy' they want even if it alienates/disinfranchises minorities and then goes on to call it a 'just society':

Honor-and-dignity means good governance in a just society under the rule of law based on consensus - homegrown, indigenous solutions that are unique to each country.
Funny thing is that I don't see her running off from her cushy life in 'Western standard of democracy' England to live in one of these 'honor and dignity' democracies.

 
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.
It's almost like you didn't read the article.
I read the article but it was blathering about 'honor and dignity' prevailing over 'Western standards of democracy'. In her mind it's fine for countries to come up with any sort of 'democracy' they want even if it alienates/disinfranchises minorities and then goes on to call it a 'just society':

Honor-and-dignity means good governance in a just society under the rule of law based on consensus - homegrown, indigenous solutions that are unique to each country.
Funny thing is that I don't see her running off from her cushy life in 'Western standard of democracy' England to live in one of these 'honor and dignity' democracies.
First off, when you quote her, it's important to concentrate on the phrase "rule of law"- that is what prevents the mistreatment of minorities which you are concerned about. Certainly democracy doesn't prevent it, as Iran is only the latest of many historical examples.Second, she's not necessarily being a hypocrite- the type of society she is seeking has yet to arise in the Muslim world, unfortunately. That doesn't mean it's not achievable, and a better goal to strive for than pure democracy.

 
I see democracy as an endgame, rather than as the means to achieve liberty, which is how almost all of our Presidents, and our State Department, perceive it.

In order for democracy to be a good thing, you have to have the following FIRST, in no particular order:

A sound economy, in which most people have work and there is no general fear of starvation.

An educated society, in which the majority are reasonably literate.

A belief among the majority of the people in certain fundamental libertarian values: the rule of law, freedom of expression, individual liberties.

Only when these elements already exist can democracy achieve generally positive results. Without them, the results are going to be awful.

 
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.
It's almost like you didn't read the article.
I read the article but it was blathering about 'honor and dignity' prevailing over 'Western standards of democracy'. In her mind it's fine for countries to come up with any sort of 'democracy' they want even if it alienates/disinfranchises minorities and then goes on to call it a 'just society':

Honor-and-dignity means good governance in a just society under the rule of law based on consensus - homegrown, indigenous solutions that are unique to each country.
Funny thing is that I don't see her running off from her cushy life in 'Western standard of democracy' England to live in one of these 'honor and dignity' democracies.
She lives in Beirut.

 
Honor-and-dignity means good governance in a just society under the rule of law based on consensus - homegrown, indigenous solutions that are unique to each country.
Funny thing is that I don't see her running off from her cushy life in 'Western standard of democracy' England to live in one of these 'honor and dignity' democracies.
First off, when you quote her, it's important to concentrate on the phrase "rule of law"- that is what prevents the mistreatment of minorities which you are concerned about. Certainly democracy doesn't prevent it, as Iran is only the latest of many historical examples.Second, she's not necessarily being a hypocrite- the type of society she is seeking has yet to arise in the Muslim world, unfortunately. That doesn't mean it's not achievable, and a better goal to strive for than pure democracy.
Nazi Germany had a rule of law. ;)

I disagree with her entire premise that are equally good types of democracies. If a democracy doesn't protect minorities it's not truly a democracy.

 
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.
It's almost like you didn't read the article.
I read the article but it was blathering about 'honor and dignity' prevailing over 'Western standards of democracy'. In her mind it's fine for countries to come up with any sort of 'democracy' they want even if it alienates/disinfranchises minorities and then goes on to call it a 'just society':

Honor-and-dignity means good governance in a just society under the rule of law based on consensus - homegrown, indigenous solutions that are unique to each country.
Funny thing is that I don't see her running off from her cushy life in 'Western standard of democracy' England to live in one of these 'honor and dignity' democracies.
She lives in Beirut.
Wherever she lives she's a real piece of work:

HuffPo Contributor: ‘Why Should I Care’ About Death of Ambassador StevensSeptember 13, 2012 | Filed under 9/11,######s,corruption,Culture Of Corruption,Deaths,Democrats,Foreign Affairs,Global Politics,HuffPo,Islam,Islamic Fascism,Liberals,Media,Media Whores | Posted by Warner Todd Huston
Former Huffington Post contributor Sharmine Narwani took the occasion of the murder of our ambassador to Libya to launch into an anti-American diatribe that culminated in her asking why she is supposed to care about Ambassador Chris Stevens’ death or that of the other two killed with him.

Sharmine Narwani, who is also a correspondent for Al Jezeera and an associate at St Antony’s College, Oxford University, took to her Twitter account on Wednesday after it was reported that Ambassador Stevens was murdered by a rioting Islamist crowd in Benghazi, Libya.

100s of 1,000s of Arabs & Muslims slaughtered by American troops. Tell me again why I should care about whatshisname-plus-three?
Almost immediately Twitter followers began to attack the former HuffPo blogger for her callousness. But Narwani was unapologetic. At one point she asked a detractor why he questioned her “logic” just because it was different from his. “His life,” she said of the ambassador, “does not hold any more weight than another.”

But here’s the actual logic to Narwani’s points. If she feels that ambassador Stevens’ death is somehow equal with everyone else’s and yet is so dismissive of his death, then logic states she is equally dismissive of all deaths. You can’t be dismissive of one death if you think all deaths are equal without being dismissive of all!

Logic is obviously not Narwani’s strong suit.

Editor’s Note: Huffington Post contacted us to note that Sharmine Narwani is no longer a contributor to the Huffington Post Blog as of last year. A look at her archive page confirms that she has not posted since 2011. I’ve updated the wording in the text to reflect this new information, but not the post title to avoid changing permalinks. It’s worth noting that there is no indication on her archive page that she’s no longer an active contributor.
I guess after this all blew over she got her job back.

 
cstu, I don't understand why you think any of your objections to or attempts to marginalize what she's written have anything to do with the point I was making when I posted her article. Whether or not you agree with what she's saying, the fact of the matter is that a lot of people in the ME believe what she does. They want us out. They want Israel gone. They want to determine for themselves what their countries look like.

 
cstu, I don't understand why you think any of your objections to or attempts to marginalize what she's written have anything to do with the point I was making when I posted her article. Whether or not you agree with what she's saying, the fact of the matter is that a lot of people in the ME believe what she does. They want us out. They want Israel gone. They want to determine for themselves what their countries look like.
I agree with the general principle that we should allow countries to determine their own destiny but we aren't in Egypt - we have no military bases there.

They are also welcome to refuse the aid we send them. However, as long as they keep accepting money from us it will come with some strings attached. Now that they are a democracy they can vote whether to accept our money, it's up to them.

 
cstu, I don't understand why you think any of your objections to or attempts to marginalize what she's written have anything to do with the point I was making when I posted her article. Whether or not you agree with what she's saying, the fact of the matter is that a lot of people in the ME believe what she does. They want us out. They want Israel gone. They want to determine for themselves what their countries look like.
I agree with the general principle that we should allow countries to determine their own destiny but we aren't in Egypt - we have no military bases there.

They are also welcome to refuse the aid we send them. However, as long as they keep accepting money from us it will come with some strings attached. Now that they are a democracy they can vote whether to accept our money, it's up to them.
And they may SAY they don't want aid from the US, but you can guarantee that they will get it from somewhere else (Iran, Russia, whatever) if not from us - with strings attached.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GREAT posting Christo. That should be required reading for every US President, and for every member of our State Department.

Ever since Woodrow Wilson, our solution to every international crisis has been to call for democracy. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama are all equally guilty of this as are almost all of our leaders before them. The results have been disastrous. Democracy, as an ideal by itself, is morally neutral. Without an educated society, sound economic conditions, and most of all a fundamental respect for the rule of law and individual rights, it will inevitably lead to bad things.
How often has the U.S. actually supported democracy rather than dictators? We talk a good game about democracy but our actions favor dictatorships.
It's almost like you didn't read the article.
I read the article but it was blathering about 'honor and dignity' prevailing over 'Western standards of democracy'. In her mind it's fine for countries to come up with any sort of 'democracy' they want even if it alienates/disinfranchises minorities and then goes on to call it a 'just society':

Honor-and-dignity means good governance in a just society under the rule of law based on consensus - homegrown, indigenous solutions that are unique to each country.
Funny thing is that I don't see her running off from her cushy life in 'Western standard of democracy' England to live in one of these 'honor and dignity' democracies.
She lives in Beirut.
Yeah but she lives on the West Side of Beirut.
 
"We will not leave until Mursi returns. Otherwise we'll die as martyrs," said 55-year-old Hanim Ahmad Ali Al-Sawi, wearing a veil over her face in the searing midday sun. "This was a coup against democracy."
Where was this guy when Morsi was attempting to install himself as dictator?

 
"We will not leave until Mursi returns. Otherwise we'll die as martyrs," said 55-year-old Hanim Ahmad Ali Al-Sawi, wearing a veil over her face in the searing midday sun. "This was a coup against democracy."
Where was this guy when Morsi was attempting to install himself as dictator?
Ever read War and Peace, or Les Miserables? For years after Napoleon became an emperor, his supporters associated him with democracy because he had emerged from the Revolution. Same for the supporters of Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe. This is a typical response.
 
Yea, that's a good article. How similar are the arrests morsi made in relation to speaking against the president to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts?

 
And, sadly, it looks like the unrest is providing opportunities for more Christian cleansing. This seems to be one of the big hallmarks of the Arab Spring and its aftermath.

 
And, sadly, it looks like the unrest is providing opportunities for more Christian cleansing. This seems to be one of the big hallmarks of the Arab Spring and its aftermath.
I love how Obama says he didn't choose side when he totally accepted Morsi. Spineless.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top