Arab Uprising

I find the Arab (and persian) uprising very interesting, these events could change history in a big way, espcially if the Islamists get a hold of most of the countries.

I wonder which countries will achieve the leap to freedom, and which ones will get shot down over the abyss. Looks like Bahrain, Libya and no suprise, Iran are taking a very agressive approach to the protestors.

How far will the protestors go, will they risk heavy losses and conflict or get beaten into submission?

I wonder what is behind all this, surely it isn´t just a chain reaction causes by Tunisia´s succesfull revolution?

And of course what could be the outcome of all this, democracy is always being touted as good thing. But if the people elect a bunch of religous nut cases like the Taliban, this could have nasty side effects. Resulting in an Islamic holy war.

What do you´s think?

when have groups like the Taliban ever won an election?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Resulting in an Islamic holy war.

If they want to Jihad each other, then let them Jihad each other. Then again, that will upset the price of oil even further and I don't want to pay more than the $3.50 a gallon I am now.

Should just build Disneylands all over the desserts, that will keep them content and passive. Let them drink Coca-Cola I say.

Originally posted by inimalist
when have groups like the Taliban ever won an election?

So because something like that hasn't happened means it cant happen?

Denying that extremist Islam is having a greater influence and more worryingly, a general population more sympathetic to their cause, in the Arab world is just as dangerous a rhetorical stance as scaremongering by saying that they definitely will take control of all these countries.

No point in ignoring the possibility that some of these countries might become more radicalised.

Also worth pointing out that democratization of these countries may have 2 polar opposite affects....1 is that extremist organisations may be brought into the mainstream political debate and therefore their views might be listened to and dealt with without the need for them to resort to violence...Which is a good thing...But it might also mean that bringing them into the democratic fold helps them legitimise their skewed view. which does nothing to help rid the world of these frankly racist groups.

Same thing applies anywhere in the world...Here in the UK, on the one hand I don't think it's right to deny free speech but I also think that allowing groups like the BNP to stand for election hasn't really worked the way the mainstream parties hoped...It was thought that allowing them on programmes such as Newsnight would show them up for the bumbling racist idiots that they are but if anything it just opened up their views to more people and have since become more popular because of it which has lead to increased polarisation of the UK.

Originally posted by jaden101
So because something like that hasn't happened means it cant happen?

Denying that extremist Islam is having a greater influence and more worryingly, a general population more sympathetic to their cause, in the Arab world is just as dangerous a rhetorical stance as scaremongering by saying that they definitely will take control of all these countries.

No point in ignoring the possibility that some of these countries might become more radicalised.

Also worth pointing out that democratization of these countries may have 2 polar opposite affects....1 is that extremist organisations may be brought into the mainstream political debate and therefore their views might be listened to and dealt with without the need for them to resort to violence...Which is a good thing...But it might also mean that bringing them into the democratic fold helps them legitimise their skewed view. which does nothing to help rid the world of these frankly racist groups.

Same thing applies anywhere in the world...Here in the UK, on the one hand I don't think it's right to deny free speech but I also think that allowing groups like the BNP to stand for election hasn't really worked the way the mainstream parties hoped...It was thought that allowing them on programmes such as Newsnight would show them up for the bumbling racist idiots that they are but if anything it just opened up their views to more people and have since become more popular because of it which has lead to increased polarisation of the UK.

ok, but the mere possibility of something surely doesn't warrant "omgz, arabs are getting democracy, the west is screwed"

Violent responses to protests:

Bahrain

YouTube video

Lybia

YouTube video

so, I'm thinking, now that these leaders can see the writing on the wall, response to protests is going to be increasingly violent. Its like a cornered dog.

Hearts and minds with people fighting for freedom everywhere, as always.

Also, an excellent look at social media's role in Tunisia et al:

YouTube video

Islamists are not going to gain control just because it happened in Iran... for god's sake, Iran isn't even an arab country (its persian) and culturally has very little in common with the arab states other than "those guys who aren't christians out there".

US still not clear on support for protests:

YouTube video

"we want democracy, but we really don't want it to upset the fact that we assume we own the world when it comes to foreign, energy and resource policy"

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but the mere possibility of something surely doesn't warrant "omgz, arabs are getting democracy, the west is screwed"

And that's what you read into Bicnarok's post?

Says more about your fears than his.

Originally posted by jaden101
And that's what you read into Bicnarok's post?

Says more about your fears than his.

actually, I asked him to back up the claim that these movements are going to lead to the Taliban

I'd make the same challange to you

it should be a fairly easy claim to back up, where have groups like the Taliban been elected?

History is rife with totalarian regimes being born out of discontent with the old totalaritan regime

Iran ousted the Shah and got Kohmeni.
Cuba ousted Batista and got Castro
Russia ousted the Czar and got Lenin/Stalin

These proststs aren't so much about the "lack of freedom" as they are high food prices and high unemployment.

Whichever faction offers the most "stability" will come to power...and there's a good chance god (allah) will fill that role.

Originally posted by jaden101
And that's what you read into Bicnarok's post?

Says more about your fears than his.

I have no fears🙂 Just think this whole are or situation could be an important part in history, and seeing as most people want to be free it surely can only go in one direction. Just hope loads of people don´t get massacred because of it.

Originally posted by Bicnarok

I wonder what is behind all this,

George Soros

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
...and there's a good chance god (allah) will fill that role.

source?

Originally posted by inimalist
source?

My opinion. It doesn't have to be the Imans directly but Saudi Arabia, which technically is a Monarchy, is in reality a theocracy. It's laws are based on the Quran, as are those of post Taliban Afghanistan and many other Muslim countries. I simply do not believe true democracy is possible...for any culture, even western ones...ours is controlled by bankers and other corporate interests so we basically aren't free either. Much of that part of the world is very deeply steeped in religion though Sunnis (as most of the protestors are) are less likely to follow religious leaders absolutely as opposed to Shiites, which Iranians primarily are.

Time will tell and nobody knows what's going to come of this...or maybey someone does...and that's the scary part.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
though Sunnis (as most of the protestors are) are less likely to follow religious leaders absolutely as opposed to Shiites, which Iranians primarily are.

where do you get this idea from?

Originally posted by inimalist
where do you get this idea from?

From a conversation I had with two Muslim co workers right after 09/11. One was an Iranian Shiite who had fled Iran shortly before the Iranian revolution in 1979. The other was a Lebenase Sunni who's family had come to the US in the late 80s. At the time I had no idea the two even existed seperate from each other. They explained a lot to me about the beliefs of Islam how it began, how the two split apart, and the differences between them. Shias are taught to believe that religious leaders per the will of God have absolute authority over evryday life. Sunnis tend to view their religious leaders as spiritual leaders and guides. They view each other as heretics. In spite of this the two were friends and got along fine...in the setting of an American place of business. I got the distinct impression that both felt the US got what it had coming on 09/11 but were careful about how they related their feelings about it because they were talking to me. Both HATED Israel and as one called it.."It's the 51st state".

Fair enough

I'd say the history of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan suggest that this "hyper-religiosity" isn't unique or more rabid in Shia though.

most 9/11 hijackers were sunni, AQ is a sunni organization, Wahabbis are sunni, Taliban are sunni, etc

Originally posted by inimalist
Fair enough

I'd say the history of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan suggest that this "hyper-religiosity" isn't unique or more rabid in Shia though.

most 9/11 hijackers were sunni, AQ is a sunni organization, Wahabbis are sunni, Taliban are sunni, etc

I concur, which is why I feel there is a real danger of Islamic leaders taking over some of the countries where all this protesting is happening. Mabey I'm wrong...but I feel all these western "experts" predicting what is going to happen are as about as accurate as I am. Things often have a way of turning out as we least expect.

from what I can tell, most western "experts" see it the way you do

even people who are experts in a lot of these places have no idea what is to come, its just that, in almost all cases (even Yemen, where the clerics are only now getting involved in the protests or rather in trying to mediate them) it is not an Islamic movement that is taking hold here, which is in stark contrast to what was seen when revolutions or other types of action saw places like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan taken over by religious zealots.

Like, I'd never argue that the protests on the peninsula (Bahrain) wouldn't become Islamicized, because of the Saudi influence, but the ones we have seen so far (Egypt, Tunisia, now in Lybia) are not going to turn into radical islamic rule and almost certainly will fall into another military dictatorship that has to contend with the mosque, that is, if democracy doesn't take.

Basically, none of these dictators were challanging people's identity as Muslims, which is what happened in Iran, and Islam isn't a major part of the identity of those seeking political change, as it was in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. For that reason, there is no impetus to make Islam any more important in people's lives, no motivation to Islamicize the movements themselves.

What we will see, especially in places like Egypt, is political Islam. Like, it was funny to see people treat the Muslim Brotherhood as if they were the Islamic Jihad, but in any real sense, the brotherhood will likely be a major political party in Egypt, which is ultimately a good thing. They aren't actually a "radical" organization (the same way American politicians aren't radical Christians, even though they would say God helps in their decisions) so much as they are guided by strict interpretations of Muslim doctrine, and they will now be within the fold of the system, not against it. Having Islam as an option for political involvement actually cuts against AQ and IJ type groups, because they say straight up that violence is the only way for Muslims to get recognition.