The situation in Egypt

[SpellAndShield]

Not sure if anyone brought up the Muslim Brotherhood...

 

I did actually, try reading my post...

 

Ill go ahead and post on that.

 

1. THEY ARE NOT TERRORISTS IN ANYWAY!

 

That's highly debatable, try reading this Wikipedia article on The Muslim Brotherhod

 

2. I do not think they even want to be part of elections.

 

Then you think wrong

 

3. Al Qeuda does not like them, no terrorist group likes them. (they are somewhat neutral with Hamas though.)

 

Hamas is actually an offshoot of the Brotherhood

 

4. Anything that is said about them being violent/starting the protests is entirely propaganda and nothing more.

 

No-one said they started the protests

 

5. They believe in spreading Islam through peaceful means.

 

Oh no they don't. They believe in spreading it by any means possible including Jihad - ""The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

 

Saying the Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over Egypt and be violent is petty equal to saying that the catholic church will take over Italy and be violent.

 

Honestly I m starting to lose hope it will turn out good. I can't believe anyone in the USA could say democratic protests are evil...

 

No-one said that democratic protests are evil, oh and by the way (a) we are not all in the USA and (b) we still have some democracies in Europe, the efforts of the EU notwithstanding.

 

Let us not pretend that the Muslim Brotherhood are benign, they wish for Sharia law and a theocracy.

 

Once more, we are being very naive in expecting the US and other Western Governments to keep out of it. We would not like the results if they did, of that I am quite sure.

 

In most of your posts, including this one, I see that you advocate a type of neocolonialism à la 'the white man's duty' because we (the West) always know better. We might not like the results of what may or may not happen in Egypt or other countries in that area but these problems are there BECAUSE we (the West) insisted on interfering and intervening, propping up dictators and giving them money to suppress their populations. I am not a fan of Islam (or any religion for that matter) but the time has come for us to get our fingers out of other people's business; if we remain involved there WILL BE PERPETUAL problems. We need to sit back and concentrate on ourselves and let other people sort out their own issues.

[Aurielius]

 

In most of your posts, including this one, I see that you advocate a type of neocolonialism à la 'the white man's duty' because we (the West) always know better. We might not like the results of what may or may not happen in Egypt or other countries in that area but these problems are there BECAUSE we (the West) insisted on interfering and intervening, propping up dictators and giving them money to suppress their populations. I am not a fan of Islam (or any religion for that matter) but the time has come for us to get our fingers out of other people's business; if we remain involved there WILL BE PERPETUAL problems. We need to sit back and concentrate on ourselves and let other people sort out their own issues.

 

 

Funny but I read the same post and no where did Ginny advocate that the west should interfere with the current process in Egypt. What I did see is a correction of misconceptions about some of the more radical aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood using their own self professed agenda. The days of blissful isolation that you find so admirable was tried before and ended up in Pearl Harbor. If the west again sits back and refuses to engage in world politics we will suffer the fate of all that refuse to learn from the lessons of history and be doomed to repeat them. The world is too interconnected to depend on oceans to protect us from those that find us an anathema which needs to be destroyed. Ostrich behavior is not really a viable defense strategy unless being diner is the objective.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

No, I do not advocate neocolonialism. I advocate pragmatism, which is an entirely different thing. It is very fashionable to say we should keep out of this, that and the other country, but extremely naive. It's very fashionable to criticise Israel and the USA's support of them and other regimes that they prop up, but without them as buffers, the extremists would be unchecked. Yes, some truly disgusting dictators have been supported, but how many times is what replaced them any better for their own people?

 

I wish to have the liberty for which my forefathers fought, and some of them died doing it, to live the way that I wish to and to have religious freedom. This is not meant to start a religious debate because that is not allowed here, but as a female I would be particularly outraged at the idea of living under Sharia law. Let me refresh your memory;-

 

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

 

I know (due to my work with local groups where I live) Islamic scholars who weep to hear the utterances of such extremists. But the fact is that in a power vacuum, the extremists often shout the loudest and rise to the top. Your statement about "white man's duty" is really quite offensive and utterly inaccurate. I just know what sort of society I don't want to live in, which is one where discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion and sexual orientation is not only permitted but is part of the official line.

 

Hmmm...is it too much to hope for that Mugabe might be next?

[SpellAndShield]

 

In most of your posts, including this one, I see that you advocate a type of neocolonialism à la 'the white man's duty' because we (the West) always know better. We might not like the results of what may or may not happen in Egypt or other countries in that area but these problems are there BECAUSE we (the West) insisted on interfering and intervening, propping up dictators and giving them money to suppress their populations. I am not a fan of Islam (or any religion for that matter) but the time has come for us to get our fingers out of other people's business; if we remain involved there WILL BE PERPETUAL problems. We need to sit back and concentrate on ourselves and let other people sort out their own issues.

 

 

Funny but I read the same post and no where did Ginny advocate that the west should interfere with the current process in Egypt. What I did see is a correction of misconceptions about some of the more radical aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood using their own self professed agenda. The days of blissful isolation that you find so admirable was tried before and ended up in Pearl Harbor. If the west again sits back and refuses to engage in world politics we will suffer the fate of all that refuse to learn from the lessons of history and be doomed to repeat them. The world is too interconnected to depend on oceans to protect us from those that find us an anathema which needs to be destroyed. Ostrich behavior is not really a viable defense strategy unless being diner is the objective.

 

This is a typical neoconservative/neoliberal (same thing) argument; what I and others advocate is not tantamount to isolation. Aganst whom are we defending ourselves? Are our shores under imminent attack? Even you have to admit that our military adventurism has precious little to do with defence. What you are saying is: we act as ostriches do if we do not maintain 1,100 military bases in 130 countries, fight costly, useless foreign wars and bride and punish foreign dictators whilst they grind their populations to dust. There is room for diplomacy but none of what we do now can be called that. I freely admit I have no interest in remaining the hegemon of the world and the profits of the Military Industrial Complex do not benefit me so I also have no interest in feeding them too. Our foreign interventionist policy only encourages radicalism and the consolidation of that radicalism. I do not even know how or where to begin in addressing your claim that 'blissful isolation' led to Pear Harbour. That would need to be addressed separately. We have enough problems at home; we do not need to compound them further by becoming involved in every conflict on earth.

[SpellAndShield]

No, I do not advocate neocolonialism. I advocate pragmatism, which is an entirely different thing. It is very fashionable to say we should keep out of this, that and the other country, but extremely naive. It's very fashionable to criticise Israel and the USA's support of them and other regimes that they prop up, but without them as buffers, the extremists would be unchecked. Yes, some truly disgusting dictators have been supported, but how many times is what replaced them any better for their own people?

 

I wish to have the liberty for which my forefathers fought, and some of them died doing it, to live the way that I wish to and to have religious freedom. This is not meant to start a religious debate because that is not allowed here, but as a female I would be particularly outraged at the idea of living under Sharia law. Let me refresh your memory;-

 

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

 

I know (due to my work with local groups where I live) Islamic scholars who weep to hear the utterances of such extremists. But the fact is that in a power vacuum, the extremists often shout the loudest and rise to the top. Your statement about "white man's duty" is really quite offensive and utterly inaccurate. I just know what sort of society I don't want to live in, which is one where discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion and sexual orientation is not only permitted but is part of the official line.

 

Hmmm...is it too much to hope for that Mugabe might be next?

 

Neither the UK nor the USA are under threat of coming under Sharia law. The way you describe it, it sounds as if they were in Parliament/Congress and had a majority. Nothing could be further from that. We empower radicalism by our occupation and intervention. If we left them alone, they could become so involved in their own internal squabbles that they would forget about us for quite some time.

[ginnyfizz]

Aganst whom are we defending ourselves? Are our shores under imminent attack? <snip> We have enough problems at home; we do not need to compound them further by becoming involved in every conflict on earth.

 

Yes our shores and your shores are under attack, and from within, and they are intent on causing you even more problems at home. To use a Parliamentary term, I refer my Honourable Friend to the quote that I have already referenced twice. I also remind you of what happened in the USA coming up to ten years ago and the numerous smaller atrocities suffered in Europe since. THAT is why we interfere, sometimes hamfistedly, and sometimes catastrophically, but we cannot always do nothing. The radicalism of populations and communities predates any Western interference in countries outside of their own, and passivity never did any good. Such as in the days when the Ottoman Empire came close to overthrowing the Holy Roman Empire...in Wallachia, up popped one Vlad Tepes who decided he wasn't having any of it, and resist the Ottomans he did, not that I am advocating his uniquely unpleasant methods.

 

"Neither the UK nor the USA are under threat of coming under Sharia law"

 

Oh, REALLY? It has been seriously proposed in Britain that certain enclaves should be allowed to operate under Sharia law. It hasn't happened yet, luckily. And the fact that they are not in Parliament or Congress with a majority is really quite irrelevant, as the extremists do not acknowledge the democratic process anyway. Sitting on our butts and saying "not our business" has brought the enemy to the gates far too often (see above references....)

[SpellAndShield]

Aganst whom are we defending ourselves? Are our shores under imminent attack? <snip> We have enough problems at home; we do not need to compound them further by becoming involved in every conflict on earth.

 

Yes our shores and your shores are under attack, and from within, and they are intent on causing you even more problems at home. To use a Parliamentary term, I refer my Honourable Friend to the quote that I have already referenced twice. I also remind you of what happened in the USA coming up to ten years ago and the numerous smaller atrocities suffered in Europe since. THAT is why we interfere, sometimes hamfistedly, and sometimes catastrophically, but we cannot always do nothing. The radicalism of populations and communities predates any Western interference in countries outside of their own, and passivity never did any good. Such as in the days when the Ottoman Empire came close to overthrowing the Holy Roman Empire...in Wallachia, up popped one Vlad Tepes who decided he wasn't having any of it, and resist the Ottomans he did, not that I am advocating his uniquely unpleasant methods.

 

"Neither the UK nor the USA are under threat of coming under Sharia law"

 

Oh, REALLY? It has been seriously proposed in Britain that certain enclaves should be allowed to operate under Sharia law. It hasn't happened yet, luckily. And the fact that they are not in Parliament or Congress with a majority is really quite irrelevant, as the extremists do not acknowledge the democratic process anyway. Sitting on our butts and saying "not our business" has brought the enemy to the gates far too often (see above references....)

 

The American 9/11 happened BECAUSE the US had military bases in Saudi Arabia, BECAUSE of its unilateral support of Israel, etc. We were doing A LOT, quite the opposite of nothing. None of these things has happened in a vacuum. If you really want to trace the origins of today's problems look to our ousting of Mosaddegh by our CIA in 1953 because the UK did not want to let him nationalise the oil supply. Don't you see? Blow Back is a household word now and all we do is engage in behaviour that encourages Blow Black after Blow Back. Do we need to run the world? Fortunately for you, the politicians think along your lines so we will continue to bungle our way ahead. Defending home values, btw, at home is something very different to becoming involved in conflicts abroad. I would stand with anyone in any Western country against a (theorised) onslaught of radical Islam.

[ginnyfizz]

Defending home values, btw, at home is something very different to becoming involved in conflicts abroad.

 

Not so -how do you explain 1939 in that case? Britain and France declared war because of the invasion of Poland by Hitler's forces. They did so because they knew that the monstrosity of Nazism threatened civilization as we know it, not just the nation of Poland. And it's glad that I am that they did so, since I would not be here if they hadn't.

 

As my good friend Aurelius says, those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. Whether is is the Ottomans sixty miles from the gates of Vienna, the Nazis glowering across a narrow strip of ocean, or more modern conflicts in the Middle East/ Afghanistan, ignoring it in the hope that it will go away isn't the answer. It won't. Say the USA stops arming Israel to the teeth and interfering, do you seriously think that would bring peace? Hell would freeze over sooner.

 

Frankly if it a choice between one of our politicians running the world, even if it is President Obama, and the likes of the unlovely Ahmedinajad...I'd have to go for Obama.

[SpellAndShield]

Defending home values, btw, at home is something very different to becoming involved in conflicts abroad.

 

Not so -how do you explain 1939 in that case? Britain and France declared war because of the invasion of Poland by Hitler's forces. They did so because they knew that the monstrosity of Nazism threatened civilization as we know it, not just the nation of Poland. And it's glad that I am that they did so, since I would not be here if they hadn't.

 

As my good friend Aurelius says, those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. Whether is is the Ottomans sixty miles from the gates of Vienna, the Nazis glowering across a narrow strip of ocean, or more modern conflicts in the Middle East/ Afghanistan, ignoring it in the hope that it will go away isn't the answer. It won't. Say the USA stops arming Israel to the teeth and interfering, do you seriously think that would bring peace? Hell would freeze over sooner.

 

Frankly if it a choice between one of our politicians running the world, even if it is President Obama, and the likes of the unlovely Ahmedinajad...I'd have to go for Obama.

 

You obviously see these things in a vacuum; yes it was necessary to oppose Germany during WW2, however without the Treaty of Versailles and its rather draconian measures there never would have existed the political environment for the likes of a Hitler to come to power, because Germany was forced into hyperinflation to pay off its debts as stipulated in the Treaty. Likewise you are continually ignoring the fact that terrorism only exists in the Middle East because we have continually interfered there. Iran was a democratic nation in 1953, yet WE turned them into the nation it is today. Mistake and after mistake and yet people believe we should continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

 

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. The consequences may be unintended or they may be used to promote job security. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1] Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences—reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence—the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.

 

Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace; and banana republic juntas who kill American reporters.

 

In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état.[2][3] Examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support for Afghan insurgents to fight an anti-Communist proxy guerilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; some of the beneficiaries of this CIA support joined al-Qaeda's terrorist campaign against the United States[4].

 

In the 1980s blowback was a central theme in the legal and political debates about the efficacy of the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated public and secret support of anti-Communist counter-revolutionaries (usually the losers of civil wars). For example, by secretly funding the secret war of the militarily-defeated, right-wing Contras against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, wherein the Reagan Administration sold American weapons to US enemy Iran to arm the Contras with Warsaw Pact weapons, and their consequent drug-dealing in American cities.[clarification needed] Moreover, in the case of Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States’ secret military attacks against Sandinista Nicaragua, because the countries were not formally at war.

 

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine note that blowback is inevitable and that such unilateral intervention causes Third World civil wars to expand beyond their borders and risks the long-term safety of Americans who may be killed in the resulting violence.[5] Reagan Doctrine advocates, principally the Heritage Foundation, replied that support for anti-Communists would topple Communist régimes without retaliatory consequences to the United States and help win the global Cold War.

[SpellAndShield]

Defending home values, btw, at home is something very different to becoming involved in conflicts abroad.

 

Not so -how do you explain 1939 in that case? Britain and France declared war because of the invasion of Poland by Hitler's forces. They did so because they knew that the monstrosity of Nazism threatened civilization as we know it, not just the nation of Poland. And it's glad that I am that they did so, since I would not be here if they hadn't.

 

As my good friend Aurelius says, those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes. Whether is is the Ottomans sixty miles from the gates of Vienna, the Nazis glowering across a narrow strip of ocean, or more modern conflicts in the Middle East/ Afghanistan, ignoring it in the hope that it will go away isn't the answer. It won't. Say the USA stops arming Israel to the teeth and interfering, do you seriously think that would bring peace? Hell would freeze over sooner.

 

Frankly if it a choice between one of our politicians running the world, even if it is President Obama, and the likes of the unlovely Ahmedinajad...I'd have to go for Obama.

 

You obviously see these things in a vacuum; yes it was necessary to oppose Germany during WW2, however without the Treaty of Versailles and its rather draconian measures there never would have existed the political environment for the likes of a Hitler to come to power, because Germany was forced into hyperinflation to pay off its debts as stipulated in the Treaty. Likewise you are continually ignoring the fact that terrorism only exists in the Middle East because we have continually interfered there. Iran was a democratic nation in 1953, yet WE turned them into the nation it is today. Mistake and after mistake and yet people believe we should continue to make the same mistakes over and over.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29

 

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. The consequences may be unintended or they may be used to promote job security. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1] Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences—reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence—the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.

 

Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace; and banana republic juntas who kill American reporters.

 

In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état.[2][3] Examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support for Afghan insurgents to fight an anti-Communist proxy guerilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; some of the beneficiaries of this CIA support joined al-Qaeda's terrorist campaign against the United States[4].

 

In the 1980s blowback was a central theme in the legal and political debates about the efficacy of the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated public and secret support of anti-Communist counter-revolutionaries (usually the losers of civil wars). For example, by secretly funding the secret war of the militarily-defeated, right-wing Contras against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, wherein the Reagan Administration sold American weapons to US enemy Iran to arm the Contras with Warsaw Pact weapons, and their consequent drug-dealing in American cities.[clarification needed] Moreover, in the case of Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States’ secret military attacks against Sandinista Nicaragua, because the countries were not formally at war.

 

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine note that blowback is inevitable and that such unilateral intervention causes Third World civil wars to expand beyond their borders and risks the long-term safety of Americans who may be killed in the resulting violence.[5] Reagan Doctrine advocates, principally the Heritage Foundation, replied that support for anti-Communists would topple Communist régimes without retaliatory consequences to the United States and help win the global Cold War.

 

Unintentional double post. Sorry.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Stardusk