Originally posted by inimalist
actually, I asked him to back up the claim that these movements are going to lead to the TalibanI'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?
Uhhh...Hamas in Palestine?
Regardless it brings us full circle to my original question and my points from that. That simply denying the possibility that it might is completely pointless.
Originally posted by jaden101
Uhhh...Hamas in Palestine?
can you explain how Hamas is the same as the Taliban? (though, ya, tbh, I came up with that answer myself after I asked it. I dont see Hamas as even close to the same, but lets have at it)
also, there are very significant issues involved in the election of Hamas, the civil war that followed in gaza, etc.
god, this is going to sound pompus, but I mean it as a general question, not as a gotcha, have you seen anything on the Palestinian Papers?
Originally posted by jaden101
Regardless it brings us full circle to my original question and my points from that. That simply denying the possibility that it might is completely pointless.
I'm not denying the fact that it is possible, I'm saying, in pretty much every case we have seen, a very unlikely outcome, at least when we talk about the nations that have had revolutions thus far.
Like, Abdul Aziz conquored SA for wahabbi islam, and eventually fought against the mosque because he wanted to reform, the Taliban movement surfaced as an islamic movement to fill the void in post soviet afghanistan, and the iranian revolution saw islam as a form of protest. The protests we have seen so far arent in this vein at all, and even in the most devout of places, on the penisula (Yemen), the clerics are late to the show.
I guess, my reaction to this is similar to how I would react if someone was like: "zomg! western deomcracy is going to produce nazis." Like, we can both agree that America or any other western democracy is probablyfar away from electing Nazis, why cant we agree that islamo-fascist states aren't what muslims want to vote for
can you explain how Hamas is the same as the Taliban? (though, ya, tbh, I came up with that answer myself after I asked it. I dont see Hamas as even close to the same, but lets have at it)
So you don't see them both as extremist organisations that have committed atrocities in the name of religion against those of other faiths? You don't see them as mentioned above and becoming the controlling force in their respective parts of the world and neither being a force for good primarily because of their skewed view of their own religion?
also, there are very significant issues involved in the election of Hamas, the civil war that followed in gaza, etc.
And we cannot discount the fact that in a country like Egypt...Just because their tyrannical leader has been ousted that the transition to democracy and freedom will come with smooth sailing and without more blood shed.
I'm not denying the fact that it is possible, I'm saying, in pretty much every case we have seen, a very unlikely outcome, at least when we talk about the nations that have had revolutions thus far.
Even in recent history there are hardly any shining beacons of success in Africa or the Arab world of countries who have gone through civil wars or uprisings and have come out as free, democratic and successful countries. Somalia, Liberia, Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan...None of those have exactly been success stories and they went through their revolutions and uprisings before the increasing trend towards extremist Islam groups becoming more prevalent.
god, this is going to sound pompus, but I mean it as a general question, not as a gotcha, have you seen anything on the Palestinian Papers?
I've only briefly seen some of the latest furore surrounding the concessions being offered but haven't looked into it all that much.
I guess, my reaction to this is similar to how I would react if someone was like: "zomg! western deomcracy is going to produce nazis." Like, we can both agree that America or any other western democracy is probablyfar away from electing Nazis, why cant we agree that islamo-fascist states aren't what muslims want to vote for
Again it's pretty clear that Bicnarok's post was even close to being "OMGZ THE EVIL ISLAMISTS WILL TAKE OVER"
He's simply asking the question of whether it's possible but you're admitting to reacting as if he's saying it was a forgone conclusion when he wasn't even close to arguing that.
Originally posted by inimalist
Damn, those people are hairy...
Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, we'll see about that one... unlike Mubarak I don't think he will ever give up power willingly... in fact there are reports of him using artillery on protesters...
Ben Ali and Mubarak both went though a few stages:
1) Ignore it.
2) Use force.
3) Making a speech in which you explicitly do not concede any ground to the protesters and hope they don't notice.
4) Flee.
Gadaffi (or his son?) has already gotten to the speech and Reuters reported that parts of the military had turned on Gadaffi. Of course, like in Egypt, the military has basically been in power anyway.
Something interesting, to me, about these protests. We live in an age where recording equipment is amazingly common and yet the best images we can get are shaky low-res videos and photos snapped after the fact. I realize these aren't wealthy countries but I've sort of hoped that in the 21st century we'd be able to see these kinds of things and get some idea of what happened.
I mean there are thousands of hours of video from WWII and Vietnam but these riots, which have the potential to alter the Middle East and Persia just as much seem like they might leave just a few choice photo ops. Maybe it's just my use of internet news, maybe the footage is going up on TV.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Mubarak, Qadaffi, Castro, Jong Il....why is it that SOB's like those always live to ripe-old ages, yet guys like JFK and Bobby get assassinated young.Just one of those questions for the ages I guess...
Actually a good point, as long as you aren't intentionally leaving out MKL, X and Ghandi.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaJack and Bobby were Zionist Freemasons with ties to the Illuminati. That's why.
Mubarak, Qadaffi, Castro, Jong Il....why is it that SOB's like those always live to ripe-old ages, yet guys like JFK and Bobby get assassinated young.Just one of those questions for the ages I guess...
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You know, why do people love JFK so much? From what I've seen from various documentaries and the like... the man was actually kind of a scumbag. Politically and morally.
Yeah, he cheated on his wife. He also had some skeletons in his closet (as did every other man who presided from the Oval Office). He may not have been Gandhi (who also got shot), but he certainly isn't near any those modern-day Caligula's I named. I think most American politicians are scumbags, but they definitely aren't in the same league as Jong Il or Qaddafi, that's for damn sure. I can think of 2 US presidents I would consider downright bloodthirsty: Andrew Jackson (against Native Americans) and James K. Polk (against Mexicans; U.S. Grant and Lincoln both referred to Polk as "immoral" for instigating the Mexican-American War), but there were none in the 20th Century who could be labeled "tyrants". Unless you're one of those people who think Truman was a monster for dropping the A-bomb.
And people love JFK, because he's one of those great "what if" stories where people can speculate about all day long. He was also a young, popular, non-WASP.
Originally posted by skekUng
Actually a good point, as long as you aren't intentionally leaving out MKL, X and Ghandi.
Yeah. MLK is an excellent example. Gandhi wasn't young when he was gunned down, but still fitting. Malcolm-X was an ******* though. A racist, Afro-Centrist thug who doesn't deserve to be counted among the likes of MLK or Gandhi. He got what was coming to him.