Egypt leaves the Internet, citizens revolt. Update: Internet's back, still revolting.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Then why have the extremists attacked people in , England, Spain, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, Tunisia, Pakistan, Yemen, Morocco, etc etc etc, all in the last 8 years??

I think the problem with this construction is that it glosses over a lot of history and disregards the actions of the freedom loving democratic west over the last few decades.

Of course, on Fox News Sunday Bill Kristol did note that the US intervention in Chile was a success story that the US could emulate in Egypt. I'm sure many Egyptians are excited about that type of success coming soon to a neighbourhood near them...

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by billybob123

I don't want to speak for him, but I believe BTC was saying that Mubarak is an American puppet, not an Israeli puppet.

What I don't get is people say "Egypt can elect who they want, as long as it's ok with us". Doesn't seem then that it's "who they want".

Extremism in the form of suicide bombers comes easily when people have nothing to live for. It's easy to convince people to die for something when it's a viable alternative to living.

Everyone thinks that, do you think that people in the middle east don't dream of an elected US president & congress who will withdraw support for Israel?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think the problem with this construction is that it glosses over a lot of history and disregards the actions of the freedom loving democratic west over the last few decades.

Of course, on Fox News Sunday Bill Kristol did note that the US intervention in Chile was a success story that the US could emulate in Egypt. I'm sure many Egyptians are excited about that type of success coming soon to a neighbourhood near them...

I am aware that this whole thing goes a whole lot deeper and has implications and cross-implications out the wazoo.

What I am taking umbridge with, and always have with these people who want to blame the West for everything, is that Islamic fundamentalism is most certainly not the product of ONLY USA foreign policy. To even imply that is assinine.

And...you watch Fox news? Yikes....not my cup of tea but whatever works.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Everyone thinks that, do you think that people in the middle east don't dream of an elected US president & congress who will withdraw support for Israel?

I'm willing to bet that most people in the Middle East dream of electing their own president who won't imprison or execute them for thinking differently and don't care about who the US president is; all they know is that he is responsible for their misery because of their desire for "stability".

This is finally a chance for Egypt (one of the longest-existing civilizations) to elect a leader who the people choose. It's sad that people qualify that with 'as long as it's who we want'.

Originally Posted by transplant99

What I am taking umbridge with, and always have with these people who want to blame the West for everything, is that Islamic fundamentalism is most certainly not the product of ONLY USA foreign policy. To even imply that is assinine.

Agreed. Similarly, to imply that the USA's foreign policy has nothing to do with fundamentalist and in fact any kind of terror, is equally assinine.

[mikey_the_redneck]

America is most likely supporting this revolution logistically, from behind the scenes. There is alot of American geopolitical interest at stake here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-uprising.html


It looks they are pushing former United Nations bureaucrat Mohammed ElBaradei to take leadership of the revolution.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...ei-egypts-hero

"Perhaps more important was the return to Egypt in February of Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), after a 12-year absence. A lawyer and diplomat by training, ElBaradei has always played the role of the ultimate international bureaucrat -- a somewhat dour technocrat whose ties to his native country seemed purposely tenuous, to allow him to more freely contribute to improving global governance."

Well, we know who the CFR is backing.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What I am taking umbridge with, and always have with these people who want to blame the West for everything, is that Islamic fundamentalism is most certainly not the product of ONLY USA foreign policy. To even imply that is assinine.

And...you watch Fox news? Yikes....not my cup of tea but whatever works.

I agree that islamic fundamentalism* is not the product of only the US. However, I think we'll agree that the "west" has had a disproportionate impact on the history of the region. Where the problem arises is in the chasm between what those in the Middle East have had done to them, and the extent to which the US will even remotely acknowledge any role. For every common person on the proverbial middle eastern street ranting against the US for each of their ills (clearly unfounded), there is an actual politician in the US that pretends like the nation has never meddled in middle east politics (also clearly false). Sadly the person ranting in the middle east is closer to the truth than the politicians in the west.

As for Fox News, I watch and read as much as I can. It's not a personal preference. I want to punch Bill Kristol every time I see his smirking face, but his disastrous impact on US policy is undeniable. I feel I need to at least be aware of the bile he spews.

* I think it's a dumb term that is greatly overexaggerated and simply plays to a narrative. Western media used the Muslim Brotherhood to play the role as the scary incarnation of islamic fundamentalism that we were all to fear in Egypt. That portrayal hit reality smack in the face.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Of course, on Fox News Sunday Bill Kristol did note that the US intervention in Chile was a success story that the US could emulate in Egypt. I'm sure many Egyptians are excited about that type of success coming soon to a neighbourhood near them...

Yeah, we should ask Chileans about the thousands of people who disappeared under Pinochet and how successful their eradication of communism under Allende went. Sometimes I am honestly left speechless at what comes out of political peoples' mouths.

[transplant99]

No question the US has played a role in how they are perceived in the middle east. They have stuck their noses in places they should not have, but that is neither here nor there when discussing who should guide Egypt now. As much as an ally Mubarek has been to the west in general and the US specifically, the US has also propped up that entire country at times. More than that however is the fact that Israel and Egypt have been able to stay at peace with one another for over 30 years. An amazing stretch considering the history between them. That also must continue for the good of all, but partuicularly for the people of Egypt as they stand to lose the most if that changes.

If those who believe that the USA has backed the oppresion of people in the middle east, or anywhere for that matter, just because it worked for them, I think that is also an over simplification and point back to my "make a deal with the devil you know" analogy. The US, Canada, Europe...whatever the case may be, cannot afford any extremists in control of government in Egypt. None of them.

No one country should be able to decide who runs another and what is entirely best for the people of that country. However, the US, Israel, and anyone else who has a vested interest in peace remaining in place there, has every right to oppose any selected that could mean trouble for themselves in the future. It's only prudent both practically and politically.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood. I certainly believe they would be a large problem in short order. they are, at best, still a very very shady group. They have spawned many of the more famous self declared jihadists of the past, and I have little doubt have members right now that want nothing more than to eradicate Israel, the US and any other "non-muslim" nation.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by transplant99

However, the US, Israel, and anyone else who has a vested interest in peace remaining in place there, has every right to oppose any selected that could mean trouble for themselves in the future. It's only prudent both practically and politically.

While I agree with you, and politically it's not as simple as we think, couldn't you say the same thing about Pakistanis, Afghanis, Yemenis, Somalis, Iraqis and others I'm probably forgetting about where the US military is or has recently been engaged in war, playing the same role in interfering in US elections? It would be unheard of.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood. I certainly believe they would be a large problem in short order. they are, at best, still a very very shady group. They have spawned many of the more famous self declared jihadists of the past, and I have little doubt have members right now that want nothing more than to eradicate Israel, the US and any other "non-muslim" nation.

I think a key fact that everyone seems to be skipping over, is that Ayman al-Zwahiri (the guy I'm assuming you're referring to as the "spawned jihadist" [my paraphrasing - and if I'm incorrect I apologize]) quit the Brotherhood because they renounced violence. Hasn't Al Qaeda denounced the Brotherhood because of that?

I am sure if you scoured the Republican party in the US, you'd find plenty of religious nutjobs who want to eradicate any non-white types as well - but as you and I both know, they're the nutjob fringe element and have very little if any outcome on the direction of the party. The same is probably true with the Brotherhood. Though, of course, we could both be wrong, and something completely unexpected could happen.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by billybob123

I think a key fact that everyone seems to be skipping over, is that Ayman al-Zwahiri (the guy I'm assuming you're referring to as the "spawned jihadist" [my paraphrasing - and if I'm incorrect I apologize]) quit the Brotherhood because they renounced violence. Hasn't Al Qaeda denounced the Brotherhood because of that?

I am sure if you scoured the Republican party in the US, you'd find plenty of religious nutjobs who want to eradicate any non-white types as well - but as you and I both know, they're the nutjob fringe element and have very little if any outcome on the direction of the party. The same is probably true with the Brotherhood. Though, of course, we could both be wrong, and something completely unexpected could happen.

Yes on the surface they do preach non violent methods of change. Im sure that many, if not most, actually adhere to that belief as well. But when guys like Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and Qutb were all members at one point, I have to believe that many more like them are still involved, especially now with a chance to gain power.

And just to add...these are just my beleifs based on what I read. I just happen to think that many in the intelligence game would also have similar views based on several different events. Just yesterday families of a bunch of the imprisoned MB overpowered guards (using violence apparently) at a prison and allowed them to escape. Just a small example, but one all the same.

[SebC]

Some rights are more important than democracy. I just hope Egypt doesn't replace a tyrant with a tyranny of the majority.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes on the surface they do preach non violent methods of change. Im sure that many, if not most, actually adhere to that belief as well. But when guys like Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and Qutb were all members at one point, I have to believe that many more like them are still involved, especially now with a chance to gain power.

This train of thought renders itself insensitive to facts.

Originally Posted by transplant99

And just to add...these are just my beleifs based on what I read. I just happen to think that many in the intelligence game would also have similar views based on several different events. Just yesterday families of a bunch of the imprisoned MB overpowered guards (using violence apparently) at a prison and allowed them to escape. Just a small example, but one all the same.

This could simply be true events that are unrelated.


As I occasionally joke with the people in the lab after a seminar, "why let the data get in the way of a good story?"

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

This train of thought renders itself insensitive to facts.



This could simply be true events that are unrelated.


As I occasionally joke with the people in the lab after a seminar, "why let the data get in the way of a good story?"

I assume from your reply you are prepared to support your position with a wealth of facts?

The facts are an organization with the primary purpose of establishing sharia law, segregration of men and women, the prohibition of dancing and other pastimes etc. cannot and is not compatible with the world view of billions of people in the rest of the world. How that can be the primary focus of a political party is beyond belief. And just to make the record clear, I am not against Islam, I am against religion, period. But I also understand human realities so I know religion is not going anywhere, the next best thing is secularism and tolerance for others beliefs. The MB does not stand for tolerance, Islamic fundamentalism does not stand for tolerance.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I assume from your reply you are prepared to support your position with a wealth of facts?

Please logically think through what I wrote. Who is making the claims? And, therefore, who shoulders the burden of proof for their claims?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

This train of thought renders itself insensitive to facts.

Hardly. More of a case of "reality is a bitch". It's more than a coincidence that the list of former MB members is a laundry list of eventual terrorists.

I am not painting everyone of the members the same way, but when I see the history of Al-Queda and the Taliban and what they acheived in Afgahnistan, I don't want to sit idly by and watch it repeat in a country that has about a billion times more resources at their disposal. Sharia law in and of itself is a brutal thing to base a political party on IMO.

Thier motto alone is cause for concern...no?

- Allah is our objective.
- The Prophet is our leader.
- Qur'an is our law.
- Jihad is our way.
- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope

Hassan al-Banna started this whole thing 80 years ago with this as part of their collective ambitions...

Jihad in its literal significance means to put forth one's maximal effort in word and deed; in the Sacred Law it is the slaying of the unbelievers, and related connotations such as beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their shrines, and smashing their idols." and "it is obligatory on us to begin fighting with them after transmitting the invitation [to embrace Islam], even if they do not fight against us

So apparently this "neutral" group is based upon a belief to kill me and anyone else who doesn;t believe in their ways. Has that changed since its inception? I have no idea, but I would be awfully damn wary of them moving forward...elected or not.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Thier motto alone is cause for concern...no?

- Allah is our objective.
- The Prophet is our leader.
- Qur'an is our law.
- Jihad is our way.
- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope

As a matter of fact, no. Which part of this is objectionable? I am far from being religious, as oilyfan is, in fact I am also essentially anti-religion when it comes to my life. However, where is the objectionable nature of their motto?

Allah (the same God in which Christians and Jews believe)?
The Prophet? (much like Christian organizations like the Knights of Columbus believe in Jesus as their leader)
Qu'ran? Have you read it?
Jihad? Most people misinterpret this word.
Death in the name of God? Who doesn't want to die in service of their deity of choice? One is making a slight jump to assume this means terrorism, which, by the way, the brotherhood has renounced.

Where's the need for concern?

Hassan al-Banna started this whole thing 80 years ago with this as part of their collective ambitions...



So apparently this "neutral" group is based upon a belief to kill me and anyone else who doesn;t believe in their ways. Has that changed since its inception? I have no idea, but I would be awfully damn wary of them moving forward...elected or not.

80 years ago, before the party renounced violence.

You wouldn't want to deal with a religiously-driven political entity who has renounced terrorist violence in order to be taken seriously?

Also, that being said, you're not Egyptian, so your opinion (and mine) on the role of the MB in Egypt's future is rather irrelevant, one would think.

[SebC]

I dislike theocracies, even non-violent ones.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hardly. More of a case of "reality is a bitch".

I agree. Reality is a bitch.

I'm just noting certain admissions in your previous post that suggest your points are simply self-perpetuating opinion rather than a diligent analysis and interpretation of existing facts. For example:

"But when guys like Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and Qutb were all members at one point, I have to believe that many more like them are still involved, especially now with a chance to gain power."

You "have to believe"? Why do you have to believe as such? Absent proof that there are more like this in the MB, you're simply making an assumption. Which is obviously your prerogative... but that renders this your personal opinion rather than being discursive.

As to this other point:

"I just happen to think that many in the intelligence game would also have similar views based on several different events. Just yesterday families of a bunch of the imprisoned MB overpowered guards (using violence apparently) at a prison and allowed them to escape. Just a small example, but one all the same."

What proof do you have to imply a linkage? Seems to me that you have a personal assumption (the italic part), then a fact (in bold; i didn't know it was family members facilitating but I'll give it to you). You're clearly implying a linkage between these two "facts" when you offer no such proof. That is why I said your assertion was two events that were unrelated absent proof of linkage.


I'm not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is the next incarnation of the Red Cross. However, your reasoning is mostly a personal feeling and is not factually compelling.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I agree. Reality is a bitch.

I'm just noting certain admissions in your previous post that suggest your points are simply self-perpetuating opinion rather than a diligent analysis and interpretation of existing facts. For example:

"But when guys like Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, and Qutb were all members at one point, I have to believe that many more like them are still involved, especially now with a chance to gain power."

You "have to believe"? Why do you have to believe as such? Absent proof that there are more like this in the MB, you're simply making an assumption. Which is obviously your prerogative... but that renders this your personal opinion rather than being discursive.

As to this other point:

"I just happen to think that many in the intelligence game would also have similar views based on several different events. Just yesterday families of a bunch of the imprisoned MB overpowered guards (using violence apparently) at a prison and allowed them to escape. Just a small example, but one all the same."

What proof do you have to imply a linkage? Seems to me that you have a personal assumption (the italic part), then a fact (in bold; i didn't know it was family members facilitating but I'll give it to you). You're clearly implying a linkage between these two "facts" when you offer no such proof. That is why I said your assertion was two events that were unrelated absent proof of linkage.


I'm not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is the next incarnation of the Red Cross. However, your reasoning is mostly a personal feeling and is not factually compelling.

So let me get this straight, you aren't actually offering any opinions, just critiquing logic? Seems a bit academic and frankly useless...

If you are not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is the next incarnation of the Red Cross, what are you saying?

[CaptainCrunch]

It sounds like the opposition is trying to coordinate a million person march tomorrow.

The army is hedging their bets, the common soldier has been ordered to be fairly passive.

Some other big issues.

Banks are closed, there's no money to buy food.

But it doesn't matter there's no food.

The Stock Exchange is closed.

It sounds like the trains are shutting down tomorrow.

Egypt is well on the way to anarchy if the President doesn't quite.