...
RW>> Mmmm, so far what I"ve been able to glean from various
RW>> sources have mentioned muslim on Christian violence as one
RW>> of the catalysts that set all this off in Egypt, and that
RW>> points directly to the MB and the Qaedas.
BK>> I haven't seen that. Do you have a link? I did see Islamic
BK>> clergy gathering around Christian churches to protect them.
RW> sOme of that noted in this article too. Sorry no link,
RW> came from MEmphis Commercial appeal, iirc wire story, a
RW> Sunday edition when this first started a couple weeks ago.
I can't see why Muslim on Chriatian violence would have anything
at all to do with the revolution. I wonder if anti-Islam people
are playing this up. Or supporters of the (now former) dicator.
BK>>> The Caliphate would be another dictatorship, and the people want
BK>>> democracy.
RW>> Many do, but there's the mb fly in the ointment.
BK>> I suspect the MB would not like a Caliphate, that would mean they
BK>> are ruled from somewhere else, probably Saudi Arabia. Oh, and until
BK>> a few decades ago Egyptians denied they were Arabs, they called
BK>> themselves Egyptians.
RW> This is also true. I'd like to come right out and support
RW> a democracy movement over there, meaning that whole part of
RW> the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular"
RW> revolutions is something like Iran.
Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did
turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of
Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back
by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came
after that.
RW> THIs libertarian did
RW> *not* support the Bush doctrine, I don't support in any way
RW> propping up repressive governments with troops or money.
RW> Not a dime, not a drop of American blood. LET those people
RW> all kill each other in the name of their religion.
Let those government all be told, if they require US
intervention, the price will be democracy. Any dictatorship that
requires the US to intervene against an invader will find it
self a democracy afterwards. Under US guarantee, so they can't
expect to come back afterwards.
>
RW>> Acknowledged and agreed. You notice in the joint committee
RW>> report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,
RW>> because they don't really want to acknowledge that publicly.
RW>> Anybody who's read on the subject a bit knows what was
RW>> being obliquely referenced in the joint committee report,
RW>> but heavily redacted from the public version.
BK>> Just read Greg Palast.
RW> DOn't think I ever have, but read widely on the subject
RW> over the years, the history is quite plain to anyone who
RW> bothers to acquire real information.
Oh, yeah. If you follow it for years you see what is unknown is
really obvious, but you have to pay attention.
...
BK>>> They missed it because it's Saudi, and the Saudis have the oil.
BK>>> Therefore they buy the politicians.
RW>> NOt even all of the FBI counterterror folks were aware of
RW>> it however. See above.
BK>> With Saudis involved they wouldn't be allowed to be.
RW> OF course not, and that's why I have my doubts about this
RW> "groundswell for democracy" even though articles I've read
RW> just yesterday, NEw YOrk TImes large type weekly dated iirc
RW> last Friday stated the MB wants to see Mubarak ousted first
RW> then see what comes from there.
Mubarak has been torturing leaders of the MB. So they want him
gone in any case. I don't doubt the groundswell for democracy,
mostly because it started with Tunisia and has spread from
there. It exploded so fast I don't believe the MB had even a
chance to understand what was happening. No one did.
Not only was it unpredicted, I doubt it could have been
predicted by any reasonable process. Sudan had had trouble for a
long time, but the seperation of the South was voted this year.
Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had
successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have
been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make
changes.
All in two months. The Muslim Brotherhood almost certainly is
wandering around in shock at how this happened.
RW> The question is what
RW> they'll do if they get their wish. WIll they work with
RW> secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all
RW> the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their
RW> ISlamic law? That's the question we should be asking, and
RW> keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.
That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that
should decide our actions at this point. We need to support
democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our
needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq
and Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us.
It's how we lost in Vietnam.
We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people
there.
BTW, the idea that Islamic law is bad is something to wonder at.
There is little if anything in Islamic law that isn't also in
Jewish and Christian law. Cutting off people's hands and
beheading them is not Islamic, it's Arabic. And it's also found
in Christian history. As is stoning. Which comes from the Jewish
tradition.
On top of that, there is no "Sharia". There are many Sharias.
Every Islamic community defines it's own Sharia. And Sharia is
only applicable to Muslims. A Muslim cannot, under Islamic
teaching, impose Sharia on a non-Muslim.
Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we
can make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own
religious teachings and traditions.
Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious
traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient
ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of
Islamic fundamentalism.
BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn
... I have a firm grip on reality. Now I can strangle it!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)
|
