The Middle-eastern riots

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Samalander,

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the current Government of Israel under Netanyahu contain a fundamentalist Jewish political party?

[Thelonious]

The Muslim Brotherhood is the biggest, strongest, most motivated and organized opposition force in Egypt. There is no such thing as a power vacuum. If the current regime is ousted, these guys will definately try to take over.

As for the people's toleration being a must for a regime to survive...well, that just depends on how iron fisted the regime is willing to be to maintain itself. And people who believe they are chosen by God to lead a country, tend to be the most iron fisted of them all.

It doesn't matter how iron-fisted they want to be, if the workers and the army are against them (as is the situation in Tunisia), they can't do jack.

This all reminds me very much of when they ousted Milosevic in Serbia. I don't know what the full consequences of that have been, but I get the impression things have improved over there since.

[Padraig]

2) And they just keep sliding deeper and deeper into fundamentalism.

That's not really true though is it? Sure, Turkey isn't a perfect place but it sure wasn't perfect when it was ruled by the military.

Based on every single instance we have seen to date, of Zealous Islamic regimes coming to power.

The examples been countries that were often ripped apart by meddling from the West or USSR (back in the day)? And then brutal dictatorships were supported because it was decided that they were the "safer choice". Can it surprise us that a brutal regime leads to a brutal movement in response. Although, I don't know whether the Muslim Brotherhood supports stoning women.

Anyhow, there is a huge gulf between Iran and Afghanistan.

[Samalander]

Samalander,

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the current Government of Israel under Netanyahu contain a fundamentalist Jewish political party?

Well, that's a tricky one to answer. There are certainly several Jewish religous parties in the Israeli Parliament, but of them, only two parties that one might term fundamentalist (for different reasons). One of these is in the Opposition, the other is part of the Coalition, but is reluctant to allow it's members to be appointed ministers and thus they do not vote on governmental decisions.

That's not really true though is it? Sure, Turkey isn't a perfect place but it sure wasn't perfect when it was ruled by the military.

The situation is not static. In fact, 5-10 years ago they might have been an excellent example to disprove my doomsaying. But they just keep sliding deeper and deeper into Islamisim as time goes by.

[WhiteHaven]

This seems to be getting no press in Western media, but there are currently 60,000 Egyptian citizens plotting to overthrow their government, with the numbers skyrocketing daily. It's all being organized via a Facebook group due to the censorship and suppression of anti-government protests and activities in Egypt.

60k? Oh yeah success is guaranteed.

[Galactus]

Yeah, Erdogan is dong what turkish politicians have always done: Using somewhat skeezy tactics to beat his opponents. He's not been doing anything particularly islamist. (Which isn't to say that he isn't a corrupt fuckwit with only token respect for democracy)

[Samalander]

1) ...they would dissolve camp David, and that would be a problem for the US and Israel.

2) Citing the Taliban when talking about Arab affairs is the equivalent of invoking Godwin when talking about Euro/Anglo history. It's such a stupid metaphor that it doesn't deserve any attention whatsoever.

3) When you can prove to me that the Muslim Brotherhood ... Please show us proof. You know, sources? Like the one I posted?

4) a. No offense, but you are talking out of your ass, dude.

b. You do realize that the MB has been trying to participate in the process for decades now? And they are still hauled away by Mubarak's goons. Don't get me wrong, they aren't people I'd hang out with. But to say that they are worse than Mubarak whose crimes I've already shown you is so silly.

1) And surely the Egyptian people as well, no?

2) I'm talking about Muslim affairs. It's not a metaphor, it's more of a parallel. You say: "just because nominally those guys` religion is Islam, well, that doesn't mean anything about these guys, anything at all, you hear?". We'll see.

3) Well, obviously, they have not gained power for themselves in Egypt yet, so any parallel I might try to draw will not be "proof". However, Hamas is pretty much the same in terms of religous ideology. Let's have a look at what they already tried to do to their own population (while still in conflict with us AND the secular wing of their society. Expect no such opposition for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt):

"Since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, some of its members have attempted to impose Islamic dress or the Hijab head covering on women. Also, the government’s "Islamic Endowment Ministry" has deployed Virtue Committee members to warn citizens of the dangers of immodest dress, card playing and dating" (from wikipedia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#In_the_Gaza_Strip

Good times...(Why doesn't my government warn me of the dangers of dating? They just don't care, the callous bastards :tantrum:)

4) a. Experts tell us that when people use the term "no offense", they are just trying to disarm their verbal opponent from claiming intentional offense, when the real intent, in fact, is to cause offense.

b. Well, of course they do. Any and all means to reach power. Exactly the same as Hamas (and are you going to call that a stupid metaphor as well? I dare you), who got a parliamentary majority through a Democratic election and used it to seize power by force, which they do not intend to relinquish, like, ever.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Salamandar you are either completely ignorant of the history and political/cultural realities of the Middle East and central Asia or you just have some bias against Islam in general (I expect a healthy combination of both).

You seem to be asserting that Islam and democracy are incompatible which is both incredibly naive and arrogant.

Since you brought Turkey up and claimed that it's becoming "more and more Islamist" I'm going to focus on that. What elements of the AKP do you think are extremist and hard line? I can't think of any at all. They are a lot more democratic than the militantly secular CHP and MHP who have imposed laws that in the US would be blatant violations of the first amendment (for the record, I think every country should have some equivalent of the first amendment) such as banning the wearing of headscarves in public places (which, btw, excludes many rural women from public office or at least forcing them to choose between a political career or their religion which no one should have to do). The AKP is also highly responsible for the privatization and growth of the Turkish economy, unlike the CHP and MHP who tend to be more for state-sponsorship. They're pretty much like pre-Regan Republicans in the US. I'm a gay atheist and I would vote for them as their actions and agenda have proven them to be more democratic and more beneficial for the Turkish economy than their secular opponents.

I rather suspect that something similar will happen in Egypt* (even though it would not be in American or Israeli interests).

*Assuming, of course, that people tend to elect more religious parties into office, which may not necessarily be the case.

[Galactus]

There's also the interesting question of democracy in general (Hamas situation is somewhat... Specific, considering the international situation and their history as an armed resistance group, Egypt *might* turn out to be similar, but that depends entirely on the road to power)

But an interesting question would indeed be if it is preferably to have a democray that passes bad laws or an autocracy that does not.

[Mad Monkey]

But an interesting question would indeed be if it is preferably to have a democray that passes bad laws or an autocracy that does not.

Unfortunately, that is not really the issue that either Egypt or Tunisia are dealing with right now. Their governments are oligarchic, inept, and repressive. Their economies are in the toilet and the governments seem to have no idea what to do (and in some cases fail to even acknowledge that there is a problem that can't be resolved by extending their emergency powers).

[Padraig]

In fact, 5-10 years ago they might have been an excellent example to disprove my doomsaying. But they just keep sliding deeper and deeper into Islamisim as time goes by.

As for All-for-Joffrey said, that's not true either. There are a lot of wrongs in Turkey. The current government is trying to fix some of them and (like all governments) it has created more. By getting the army out of government, it seems to have done more positive things than negatives right now.

I'm also curious about the idea of Iran sliding deeper and deeper into Islamism though. I always thought it has up and down periods.

But what really bothers me is that it should be clear that military dictatorships are not long term viable solutions to be problems in the Middle East. Sooner or later they are going to collapse under their own corruption or when the current dictator dies. I see little point in fighting against it. Its just holding off the inevitable. In fact, fighting the inevitable ensures that groups like Hamas end up wrestling their way out of the mire rather than more benign groups.

[Rane]

Well, of course they do. Any and all means to reach power. Exactly the same as Hamas (and are you going to call that a stupid metaphor as well? I dare you), who got a parliamentary majority through a Democratic election and used it to seize power by force, which they do not intend to relinquish, like, ever.

Of course, they only did that once they caught wind of the Fatah's plans (with US and Israel support) to screw them over.

[Samalander]

1) You seem to be asserting that Islam and democracy are incompatible

2) which is both incredibly naive and arrogant.

3)... such as banning the wearing of headscarves in public places (which, btw, excludes many rural women from public office or at least forcing them to choose between a political career or their religion which no one should have to do).

4) I'm a gay atheist and I would vote for them ...

1) Political Islam, to be precise. But yes, in the long run, that's exactly what I am asserting. Thank you for paying attention!

2) :stunned:

3) But that's terrible! What kind of unenlightened third world dictatorship would do that?

Oh...wait...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/02/world/main597565.shtml

4) You do know what the position of political Islam is on gays, right? Just checking...

1) By getting the army out of government, it seems to have done more positive things than negatives right now.

2) I'm also curious about the idea of Iran sliding deeper and deeper into Islamism though. I always thought it has up and down periods.

3) But what really bothers me is that it should be clear that military dictatorships are not long term viable solutions to be problems in the Middle East. Sooner or later they are going to collapse under their own corruption or when the current dictator dies. I see little point in fighting against it. Its just holding off the inevitable. In fact, fighting the inevitable ensures that groups like Hamas end up wrestling their way out of the mire rather than more benign groups.

1) Well, that's rather subjective. Other people might say the opposite.

2) I said Turkey. Pay attention.

3) So what should be done? You advocate doing nothing and hoping for the best (praying?). Then, all you are going to get are Theocratic dictatorships who replace the Military dictatorships. You think the people will just cry out for a Western style Democracy?

[Galactus]

3) So what should be done? You advocate doing nothing and hoping for the best (praying?). Then, all you are going to get are Theocratic dictatorships who replace the Military dictatorships. You think the people will just cry out for a Western style Democracy?

If they want a theocratic dictatorship then give it to them, people tire of their regimes eventually and try something new *shrugs*.

[Padraig]

1) Well, that's rather subjective. Other people might say the opposite.

Other people. Like yourself? :P I knew that. I'm not sure why of course.

2) I said Turkey. Pay attention.

There is no need for silly comments like that. You mentioned Iran earlier. I deliberately seperated my Turkey comment from my Iran one just to differentiate the two.

Then, all you are going to get are Theocratic dictatorships who replace the Military dictatorships.

No. As we discussed, its you that thinks that that's the only choice (not me). But I do think the danger of ending up with theocratic dictatorships is higher the longer military dictatorships lasts. And similarly the theocratic dictatorships will probably be more extreme.

What kind of unenlightened third world dictatorship would do that?

Its a very controversial thing in Turkey and France. Whatever your views on it, Turkey removing the ban could not be said to be extreme since its normal in nearly every European country.

[Samalander]

If they want a theocratic dictatorship then give it to them, people tire of their regimes eventually and try something new *shrugs*.

Well, that's a very...interesting...attitude.

However, since such choices tend to have regional and global geo-political ramifications that reach my doorstep (and yours?), I'd rather go with "let's try to prevent that from happening".

1) No, it's not even close to a parallel. It's not even in the same game, let alone ballpark. You're trying to equate two different belief systems that do not share geographical, cultural or linguistic similarities. The fact that you would equate the MB with the Taliban in terms of religious beliefs is insulting to my intelligence, and is probably the most ignorant thing you have ever written on this board. I suggest you recant.

2) Please show me where the MB has beaten or oppressed women who aren't wearing a hijab in Egypt. Please.

3) Fine, in all offense, you're talking about stuff you know nothing about. :laugh:

You have asserted that:

4. The Muslim brotherhood is antidemocratic, but they are now involved legitimately in the democratic process, like, right this minute, but somehow the fact that they are involved in the democratic process means that they aren't actually democratic, but are worse than the alternative of a dictatorship that doesn't even nominally believe in democracy. WTF? The first of their 15 principles is that the people are the source of law.

5. By a popular of ousting Mubarak, the MB would have "absolute power", which you haven't established since I've mentioned kefaya, which is much more popular among the youth (the largest group in Egypt).

6. The MB would enact draconian rules, when they have never done anything of the sort in any area of Egypt ever.

1) There is such a thing as global political Islam. Of course it's not going to be applied exactly the same everywhere. But after you sample it here and there similarities do pop up. No recanting.

2) They are still in the making nice stage, where they want to get elected before imposing this stuff on the population. I noticed you were quick to berate me for the Taliban comparison, but you said not a word about the Hamas comparison. They too, waited to be in power before starting this up in earnest.

3) I watched "Charlie Wilson's War", just like everybody else.

4) The fact that they are an Islamic (fundamentalist) movement means they are antidemocratic. The fact they are now involved legitimately in the democratic process, just means they know how to use available means to reach power.

5) The Kefaya are going to have to grow some serious teeth and claws if they plan to go toe-to-toe with the Muslim Brotherhood for national control of country (which is what will happen if the current regime falls). Do they have what it takes to lead or are they just a populist movement doomed to fade once their role has been played?

6) See 2. Of course, when you are in the oppressed opposition, you are not going to be enacting anything. Once you get the absolute power, then it's party time, baby!

1) There is no need for silly comments like that. You mentioned Iran earlier. I deliberately seperated my Turkey comment from my Iran one just to differentiate the two.

2) No. As we discussed, its you that thinks that that's the only choice (not me). But I do think the danger of ending up with theocratic dictatorships is higher the longer military dictatorships lasts. And similarly the theocratic dictatorships will probably be more extreme.

3) Its a very controversial thing in Turkey and France. Whatever your views on it, Turkey removing the ban could not be said to be extreme since its normal in nearly every European country.

1) Yes, but I only mentioned Turkey in regards to the Islamistic slide. Iran is already deep in it. No sliding necessary.

2) Is that like a rule or something? Why do other places in the world can shake off military dictatorships and embrace Democracy, but around here they run to zealous interperation of religion, instead?

3) First step: Remove the Ban.

Second step: Secular Minority feels unconfortable, pressured to wear headgear.

Final step: Religous headgear becomes mandatory.

* This can happen in Turkey nation-wide or in France on an individual school basis.

Yeah, it's almost like religion, you know, became a rallying point against, you know, occupying powers or dictatorship pressed on a population by outside forces or outright imperialism.

OMG, OMG, OMG! Don't tell me, I know this one!

The faith of Islam... Rallying point... It's on the tip of my tongue, really...Against outright imperialism...Outside forces...It's that catchy word...Stupid memory...What was it?!?!...

Islamic revolution....Got it!

JIHAD!

[The Iceman of the North]

Well, that's a very...interesting...attitude.

However, since such choices tend to have regional and global geo-political ramifications that reach my doorstep (and yours?), I'd rather go with "let's try to prevent that from happening".

Yeah, who cares about democracy in other countries as long as they don't bother us.

Israel have an interesting attitude to democracy. "We are a democracy, which is the best form of government, unless the people don't like us, then of course a dictatorship is preferable."

[Samalander]

Israel have an interesting attitude to democracy. "We are a democracy, which is the best form of government, unless the people don't like us, then of course a dictatorship is preferable."

Not true. Real Democracies don't, as a rule, wage war on one another. Ever. Look it up.

So, we would be more than happy if all our neighbours embraced real Democracy, as opposed to whatever shabby trappings of Democracy they cobbled together for appearance sake.

[Maltaran]

Not true. Real Democracies don't, as a rule, wage war on one another.Ever. Look it up.

:bs: In WW2, Finland was a democracy, and fought against the UK and USA, which were also democracies.

[Samalander]

So, what I'm asking from you is:

1. Evidence that the Muslim brotherhood will act undemocratically once they are in office, ie, some kind of documentation.

2. Evidence that the MB is the preeminent opposition group within Egypt and that Mubarak's fall will mean that they come to power automatically.

3. Evidence that upon their ascent to power, the MB will immediately put hijabs on every woman and beards on every man.

1) You want me to give you proof about something that hasn't happened yet, where the party in question has, at this point, every incentive to hide and obfuscate the evidence of their future misdeeds. Be serious. My Bottom line: If it walks like a duck, and talks like an Islamist, it's an islamist duck!

2) Fine, they are nobodys. A glitch in History.

Non-entities. Have it your way.

3) I tell you what. Give me just one example of any Islamist political party, anywhere in the world, coming into absolute power, where this didn't happen. Then, I'll be more inclined to listen.