Domino effect

[GuestFellow]

:sl:

Tunisia political turmoil inspires Jordan protesters

Share your views.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

That's like 4-5 countires now... Hope this all turns out for the best, Inshallah!

[SafaAuditore]

The egyptian protests are getting bad as hell.
Chyeaaaa!! I really hope they get rid of Mubarek!! As long as the egyptian guy gets out, we're good =)

[Perseveranze]

"Egyptian Christians said they will guard the Muslims from the police while they on Friday Pray." Amazing solidarity. #Egypt #Jan25

^don't know if it's true.

Live update - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/...s-live-updates

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Hope this spreads to other countries as well like Saudi and Pakistan!

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Please pray for your brothers and sisters, there's alot of violence going on in Egypt atm :(

[Al-Mufarridun]

اللهُمَّ أَعِزَّ الإِسْلامَ وَالمُسْلِمِينَ، اللهُمَّ أَعِزَّ الإِسْلامَ وَالمُسْلِمِينَ،

Allahumma a'izzal-Islama wal-Muslimeen, Allahumma a'izzal-Islama wal-Muslimeen.

اللهُمَّ انْصُرْ دِينَكَ وَكِتَابَكَ وَسُنَّةَ نَبِيِّكَ وَعِبادَكَ المُوَحِّدين

Allahummansur deenaka wa kitabaka wa sunnahta nabiyyika wa ibaadakal-Muwahhideen.

[GuestFellow]

:sl:

There have been protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and in Jordan. All of them have something in common is that they are anti-corruption, dislike their own government supporting the US and dislike Israel. Other than that, there might be a conflict of interests within those countries, where people are deciding on which system of governance should be implemented.

It is good to see the people protesting against their own corrupt government but I think something bad is going to happen. I doubt anything good will come out of this. I highly doubt western countries will sit back and watch this happen throughout the Arab countries, since they can all turn hostile to Israel.

[kashmirshazad]

We have to realise who is behind these protests. They are not 'Islamic warriors' as the media has led us to believe, more than likely they are pro democracy candidates causing and stirring up trouble.

[Perseveranze]

We have to realise who is behind these protests. They are not 'Islamic warriors' as the media has led us to believe, more than likely they are pro democracy candidates causing and stirring up trouble.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Muslim Brotherhood got involved and once that happened did the government take things more seriously. Instantly the top members of the Muslim brotherhood got arrested.

[GuestFellow]

:sl:

We have to realise who is behind these protests. They are not 'Islamic warriors' as the media has led us to believe, more than likely they are pro democracy candidates causing and stirring up trouble.

The protester are against corruption. All of them agree upon this. That is one of the main reasons why they are protesting. There is no unified movement.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Muslim Brotherhood got involved and once that happened did the government take things more seriously. Instantly the top members of the Muslim brotherhood got arrested.

True but there might be a possibility that some members of the public that are not interested in establishing the Caliphate or see the Muslim Brotherhood get elected. There is no one actually leading these protests I think.

I'm not sure what is going to replace these corrupt regimes if removed. That is the main problem. I don't think this is all well planned because there is no single movement.

[glo]

A friend of mine compared what is happening at the moment in the Middle East to the fall of Communism in the later 80's/early 90's. This too was something which had been rumbling for some time - and once one country managed to change, the others followed quite quickly.
I think people began to feel empowered and realised that the common people have the power to change history - even within oppressive political systems.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7972232.stm

[SlaveOfGod]

اللهُمَّ أَعِزَّ الإِسْلامَ وَالمُسْلِمِينَ، اللهُمَّ أَعِزَّ الإِسْلامَ وَالمُسْلِمِينَ،

Allahumma a'izzal-Islama wal-Muslimeen, Allahumma a'izzal-Islama wal-Muslimeen.

اللهُمَّ انْصُرْ دِينَكَ وَكِتَابَكَ وَسُنَّةَ نَبِيِّكَ وَعِبادَكَ المُوَحِّدين

Allahummansur deenaka wa kitabaka wa sunnahta nabiyyika wa ibaadakal-Muwahhideen.

Ameen.

Wow. If they attack Muslims during friday prayer, they've reached an new low in my book.

[titus]

True but there might be a possibility that some members of the public that are not interested in establishing the Caliphate or see the Muslim Brotherhood get elected.

The reports I have seen about Egypt show Christians involved in the protest, and one mentioned that when one man with a beard and white robes stood and started chanting he was pulled down by others and told to keep religion out of it. Also realize that the first domino to fall was Tunisia, which is one of the most secular countries in the region.

It appears to me that this is a movement intended to give the people more of a voice in their government and to rid themselves of autocratic rule. I don't much evidence that it is a religious movement.

[Dagless]

Stuff like this would have happened years ago if the US wasn't giving so much support to these corrupt leaders. Even today Obama was talking about their great relationship. I have no idea what the US will do now. They definitely can't afford to lose Egypt but if they do something too obvious it'll show they don't live up to democratic ideals.
I wonder what Saudi are thinking :D

[titus]

The United States is not to blame for autocratic rule in the Muslim world. Sorry.

As for the reaction of the US government it has been pretty clear. Obama has defended the rights of the protesters and his administration has said it would review the aide given to Egypt if the violence continues against the protesters. Obama has said that Mubarak must avoid violence and take "concrete steps that advance the rights" of Egyptians. He also called for Mubarak to stop blocking the internet and phone service for Egyptians.

I don't think the US government could be much clearer in their stance. Or do you expect them to do more to topple the Egyptian government?

[Dagless]

The United States is not to blame for autocratic rule in the Muslim world. Sorry.

Of course not, the US hasn't helped corrupt puppet dictators gain power... they've never funded said dictators with money and weapons... and they would never stand back and let the dictators wipe out any resistance. No blame whatsoever.

As for the reaction of the US government it has been pretty clear. Obama has defended the rights of the protesters and his administration has said it would review the aide given to Egypt if the violence continues against the protesters. Obama has said that Mubarak must avoid violence and take "concrete steps that advance the rights" of Egyptians. He also called for Mubarak to stop blocking the internet and phone service for Egyptians.

I don't think "reviewing" and saying "take concrete steps" is a very clear reaction. It's just saying what needs to be said. It doesn't really change anything or help either way.

I don't think the US government could be much clearer in their stance. Or do you expect them to do more to topple the Egyptian government?

They've toppled others over far less.

[titus]

How convenient. With comments like that I can see why it is so easy to blame the United States for everything.

If they do interfere in another countries policies then they are meddlers and deserve your hatred. If they don't interfere then that means they don't care and deserve your hatred. No matter what they do everyone can keep hating them and be happy!

That's much easier than admitting that the tyrants that run such countries are in place because the people allow it to happen. It's much simpler to have a bogeyman that you can blame everything on. I'm surprised nobody has come on to try and blame Israel for all the violence yet. Surely those filthy Jews... err Zionists have a hand in all this, right people?

I don't think "reviewing" and saying "take concrete steps" is a very clear reaction. It's just saying what needs to be said. It doesn't really change anything or help either way.

You don't think threatening the US's aide to Egypt (which is second only to Israel) is not a clear reaction? What would be clear enough for you? What exactly (if anything) could the US government do that would make you happy?

[Dagless]

How convenient. With comments like that I can see why it is so easy to blame the United States for everything.

If they do interfere in another countries policies then they are meddlers and deserve your hatred. If they don't interfere then that means they don't care and deserve your hatred. No matter what they do everyone can keep hating them and be happy!

That's much easier than admitting that the tyrants that run such countries are in place because the people allow it to happen. It's much simpler to have a bogeyman that you can blame everything on. I'm surprised nobody has come on to try and blame Israel for all the violence yet. Surely those filthy Jews... err Zionists have a hand in all this, right people?

I didn't think stating facts was blaming a bogeyman. The bogeyman itself has admitted doing these things in the past so I don't know what you're trying to refute :S
If they don't interfere it is a good thing. The point is that this won't happen.
As for Israel, zionism, and Jews... well you go and have your rant :)

[Al-Mufarridun]

Alsalamu Alaikum.

The striking thing, from my perspective, is the fact that "the Ummah" that has been chopped into so many pieces in the previous centuries has found itself again, and in of all places, ONLINE. The Electronic Ummah, is a force that has has no boundaries, no borders. Its this Electronic Ummah, that is, in my opinion, the last straw that will break the back of this Dark Age. "The Genie is out of the Box" as the saying goes. This Decade will be a Decade to Remember. May Allah(swt) make it a Decade that will bring with it Justice, Peace and Prosperity to the Oppressed, the Weak, and the Poor. Ameen.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

To give the members a taste of what The Mubarak and the elites who support him are like. Try this. (Apologies for the big image)

[GuestFellow]

I don't much evidence that it is a religious movement.

There might be later onwards but I'm not sure.

I doubt any Caliphate will be established, I suspect the protesters want something different. I'm purely speculating...

[aadil77]

The United States is not to blame for autocratic rule in the Muslim world. Sorry.

As for the reaction of the US government it has been pretty clear. Obama has defended the rights of the protesters and his administration has said it would review the aide given to Egypt if the violence continues against the protesters. Obama has said that Mubarak must avoid violence and take "concrete steps that advance the rights" of Egyptians. He also called for Mubarak to stop blocking the internet and phone service for Egyptians.

I don't think the US government could be much clearer in their stance. Or do you expect them to do more to topple the Egyptian government?

Yep as long as it appears the protestors are pro-democracy, america will be happy

once the protestors turn pro-islamic rule (which is the only system that'll work), america will start world war 3

[Perseveranze]

:sl:



The protester are against corruption. All of them agree upon this. That is one of the main reasons why they are protesting. There is no unified movement.



True but there might be a possibility that some members of the public that are not interested in establishing the Caliphate or see the Muslim Brotherhood get elected. There is no one actually leading these protests I think.

I'm not sure what is going to replace these corrupt regimes if removed. That is the main problem. I don't think this is all well planned because there is no single movement.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

That's true, the situation probably has to get alot worse and in many places for there to be serious call for Caliphate. On top of that, I can't really think of any 1 Muslim role model leader right now that people could all agree upon or look upto.

Allah(swt) plans best though.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

relevant to the current situation. Gives rationale for why western (particularly the USA) strongly support Middle Eastern dictatorships.

[titus]

For one thing I wouldn't get your information from Chomsky. Chomsky is upset that the US had relations with these governments, yet he would also be upset if the US tried to pressure the countries to change their leadership (and the US would be maligned for trying to do any such thing).

For another I don't know many Americans that want the Middle East to remain under dictatorships. In fact most would probably say it is just that form of government that causes most of their problems because dictatorships and corruption go hand in hand. I certainly don't see the US throwing their support behind Mubarak in this situation. Quite the opposite in that they are encouraging Egypt to let the people protest.

LINK

Notice that the strongest support for Mubarak is coming from other countries in the region that have authoritarian rule (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, etc.). Also notice that those nations are using the same excuse that they always fall back on (because they know that many will automatically believe it) which is that it is "infiltrators" that are causing the problem. They know that they can almost always blame some external enemy for anything wrong and that enough of their people will fall for it that they can continue business as normal.

Why should they stop? It works. Look at this forum already. Egyptians and others in the Muslim world are out protesting oppression from their own governments and people here keep wanting to talk about how bad the US government is, and what Chomsky has to say about American relations with Tunisia.

If Muslims want their nations to become powerful then the most important thing they can do is stop this "victimization by external enemies" mindset that they are fed by their governments and realize that the problems are their own governments and their own lack of freedoms. Once they take this initiative, which they may be doing now, and take a stand to solve their own problems then you will see these countries actually reach their potential.

[Dagless]

For one thing I wouldn't get your information from Chomsky. Chomsky is upset that the US had relations with these governments, yet he would also be upset if the US tried to pressure the countries to change their leadership (and the US would be maligned for trying to do any such thing).

Ironically I don't think I've ever seen Chomsky "upset". The man pretty much talks in facts, everything he says is almost always sourced and easily verified. If only your comments were the same. You've already failed in this thread where you denied US placement and support for dictators - which is common knowledge.

For another I don't know many Americans that want the Middle East to remain under dictatorships. In fact most would probably say it is just that form of government that causes most of their problems because dictatorships and corruption go hand in hand. I certainly don't see the US throwing their support behind Mubarak in this situation. Quite the opposite in that they are encouraging Egypt to let the people protest.

Nobody said they did. The government doesn't need public agreement to support dictatorships. The majority of the public won't even know their foreign policies.

Why should they stop? It works. Look at this forum already. Egyptians and others in the Muslim world are out protesting oppression from their own governments and people here keep wanting to talk about how bad the US government is, and what Chomsky has to say about American relations with Tunisia.

Both are important issues. Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot talk about?

[titus]

Ironically I don't think I've ever seen Chomsky "upset". The man pretty much talks in facts, everything he says is almost always sourced and easily verified.

Actually the man often makes erroneous conclusions based on facts. He is quite selective and often omits very pertinent information.

You've already failed in this thread where you denied US placement and support for dictators - which is common knowledge.

I denied that the US has supported dictators? Where did I do that? Please find that quote for me.

I think you have preconceived notions about my thoughts and are injecting those into my posts. You are not really reading or fully comprehending what I am really saying.

Both are important issues. Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot talk about?

Again you put words in my mouth that I never said. I never said they should not be able to talk about it. I simply said that the fact that they are talking about shows how affective this ploy is with many Muslims. They are told so often to find external enemies (real or otherwise) that they ignore the corruption and lack of rights in their own countries.

If the people of those countries want change then they should make change. The people of Egypt finally figured that out. The countries behind the Iron Curtain figured that out 20 years ago. Now maybe other Muslim majority countries under autocratic rule are figuring it out also. The only thing keeping change from happening is the people of those countries, not the United States.

Nobody said they did. The government doesn't need public agreement to support dictatorships.

Maybe you are confusing "support dictatorships" with "have economic and give aid to governments". The United States government fosters relations with whoever is in power with any government, whether they be democracies, dictatorships or monarchies. To do otherwise would be foolish unless that government had policies that went against American interests. Can you name any other countries that do differently?

You seem keen on telling us what the US should not be doing but I have yet to really see you say what you think the US should be doing. You say "don't interfere" but what exactly does that mean? The US's influence is so huge that any move they make will be seen as interfering.

So what move should they make Dagless?

[GuestFellow]

Obama has defended the rights of the protesters and his administration has said it would review the aide given to Egypt if the violence continues against the protesters. Obama has said that Mubarak must avoid violence and take "concrete steps that advance the rights" of Egyptians. He also called for Mubarak to stop blocking the internet and phone service for Egyptians.

Yes, America and Britain have defended the rights of the protesters. I'm certain these countries want the Egyptians to embrace democracy rather than the Sharia. Muslims are hoping the Egyptians establish the Caliphate rather than democracy.

However, the neoconservatives will not tolerate a country that has Sharia laws. If Egypt were to establish the Caliphate, the neoconservatives will put pressure on the US government to topple the regime by whatever means.

The neoconservatives have called for regime change throughout the Arab world and even North Korea. So, I doubt the US truly wants the Egyptians to set up any system that they desire.

The War Party -- Zionism in NeoCon Foreign Policy

^ A documentary by the BBC.

[Dagless]

Actually the man often makes erroneous conclusions based on facts. He is quite selective and often omits very pertinent information.

Plenty consider him to be one of the few truth tellers left. Anyway, that is not for this thread.

I denied that the US has supported dictators? Where did I do that? Please find that quote for me.
I think you have preconceived notions about my thoughts and are injecting those into my posts.
You are not really reading or fully comprehending what I am really saying.

You said:

The United States is not to blame for autocratic rule in the Muslim world. Sorry.

That's much easier than admitting that the tyrants that run such countries are in place because the people allow it to happen. It's much simpler to have a bogeyman that you can blame everything on. I'm surprised nobody has come on to try and blame Israel for all the violence yet.

Maybe you are confusing "support dictatorships" with "have economic and give aid to governments".

I see, so the US overthrowing the elected prime minister of Iran and placing a dictator in his place was "economic and giving aid to governments". The support of the guerrilla army in Nicaragua trying overthrow the government and the CIA secretly planting mines was of course a simple misunderstanding. Recently trying to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas was just strengthening economic relations, the media got it all wrong. There are countless examples of this.. but I guess it's all about giving aid. With aid like that who needs enemies!

You seem keen on telling us what the US should not be doing but I have yet to really see you say what you think the US should be doing. You say "don't interfere" but what exactly does that mean? The US's influence is so huge that any move they make will be seen as interfering.

So what move should they make Dagless?

I'm not sure what was unclear about "don't interfere". Let the Egyptians work it out themselves. Unfortunately, as has been shown with the examples above, if they elect someone who does not serve US interests; they will likely be threatened with war or sanctions.

[titus]

I see, so the US overthrowing the elected prime minister of Iran and placing a dictator in his place was "economic and giving aid to governments". The support of the guerrilla army in Nicaragua to overthrow the government and the CIA secretly planting mines was of course a simple misunderstanding. Recently trying to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas was just strengthening economic relations, the media got it all wrong. There are countless examples of this.. but I guess it's all about giving aid. With aid like that who needs enemies!

Did the US put Mubarak in office? Did the US put Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in office? Did the US put al-Hussein in power in Jordan? Did the US stage a coup to put the house of Saud in charge of Saudi Arabia?

If not, then I was correct when I said that "The United States is not to blame for autocratic rule in the Muslim world. Sorry.". They are not at fault. Muslims have had autocratic rule since the time of Muhammad, through the Ottoman Empire and into present day. The US did not create these governments.

I'm not sure what was unclear about "don't interfere". Let the Egyptians work it out themselves.

If you are not sure what was unclear about "don't interfere" then let me make it more clear for you.

Different Egyptians want the US to do different things, and no matter what they do they will be looked upon as taking sides. If they continue aid they are with Mubarak, if they reduce or stop aid they are siding with the protesters. If they call for Mubarak to step down then they are siding with the protesters. If they stay silent and continue the status quo they are implicitly supporting Mubarak's rule.

As for letting the Egyptians work it out for themselves, what about when the leaders of the opposition ask the US to support them, like they did today? If they refuse they are, again, implicitly supporting Mubarak and rejecting the opposition.

So, to make it more clear, let me ask you:

Should the US continue aiding the current Egyptian government, thereby helping Mubarak or stop aid thereby helping the opposition?
Should the US call for Mubarak to step down as the opposition has asked them to or refuse, thereby appearing to side with Mubarak?

Or is there some neutral course you can see the US taking which you would consider "not interfering" when you have both parties asking the US to take sides?

Unfortunately, as has been shown with the examples above, if they elect someone who does not serve US interests; they will likely be threatened with war or sanctions.

You bet. That is the way it works. Countries are accountable for their actions, regardless if they are democracies or not.

Let me use the analogy of slavery. You can be against slavery, but that does not mean that if slaves are freed that you support them being able to do whatever they want. Even if they are freed they still have a responsibility to society and must abide by the laws and norms of society. Just because they are no longer a slave does not mean they have the right to threaten others or steal.

The same goes with nations. You want them to be free, in that their people choose their governments that decide the policies of that nation, but being a democracy does not give you a free pass to act however you want. You are still responsible for your actions, and if those actions are unacceptable to other nations, especially powerful nations, then they have to expect a reaction.

[Al-Mufarridun]

You Reap what you Sow.

[Dagless]

Did the US put Mubarak in office? Did the US put Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in office? Did the US put al-Hussein in power in Jordan? Did the US stage a coup to put the house of Saud in charge of Saudi Arabia?

A bit sad when your defense is naming countries which haven't been completely screwed over in every way :D Supporting them with money and weapons is hardly that different. I don't think you'll ever be able to argue the US does not support corrupt dictatorships while it is doing so. Maybe try arguing when it's stopped?

If you are not sure what was unclear about "don't interfere" then let me make it more clear for you.

Different Egyptians want the US to do different things, and no matter what they do they will be looked upon as taking sides. If they continue aid they are with Mubarak, if they reduce or stop aid they are siding with the protesters. If they call for Mubarak to step down then they are siding with the protesters. If they stay silent and continue the status quo they are implicitly supporting Mubarak's rule.

As for letting the Egyptians work it out for themselves, what about when the leaders of the opposition ask the US to support them, like they did today? If they refuse they are, again, implicitly supporting Mubarak and rejecting the opposition.

So, to make it more clear, let me ask you:

Should the US continue aiding the current Egyptian government, thereby helping Mubarak or stop aid thereby helping the opposition?
Should the US call for Mubarak to step down as the opposition has asked them to or refuse, thereby appearing to side with Mubarak?

Or is there some neutral course you can see the US taking which you would consider "not interfering" when you have both parties asking the US to take sides?

I don't see what aid or anything else has to do with it since this will come about AFTER someone is in power. By then they can form whatever relations they wish. The point is that the US have a long history of either illegally supporting those they want in power or trying to illegally overthrow those they don't.

You bet. That is the way it works. Countries are accountable for their actions, regardless if they are democracies or not.

Let me use the analogy of slavery. You can be against slavery, but that does not mean that if slaves are freed that you support them being able to do whatever they want. Even if they are freed they still have a responsibility to society and must abide by the laws and norms of society. Just because they are no longer a slave does not mean they have the right to threaten others or steal.

The same goes with nations. You want them to be free, in that their people choose their governments that decide the policies of that nation, but being a democracy does not give you a free pass to act however you want. You are still responsible for your actions, and if those actions are unacceptable to other nations, especially powerful nations, then they have to expect a reaction.

That's an inaccurate analogy as well as being complete rubbish. Overthrowing other nations governments is illegal and Nicaragua in the example I gave actually took it to the International Court of Justice, which in turn voted in their favour and told the US to stop it's operations there.

[titus]

Dag,

We are talking about Egypt. Not Nicaragua. If you want to talk about.

Yes, the US government has a history of creating dictators, but that is completely irrelevant to my posts.

You took issue when I said that the US did not create these autocracies in the Muslim world. You then bring up Nicaragua and Iran, both irrelevant to both my comment and todays governments.

I don't see what aid or anything else has to do with it since this will come about AFTER someone is in power.

The US is giving Mubarak's government aid now. Do you think think they should continue this or not?

That's an inaccurate analogy as well as being complete rubbish. Overthrowing other nations governments is completely illegal

Maybe if you realized my analogy had absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing another country then you would understand the analogy better.

The analogy was more about the how the US dealt with Hamas (which you brought up). In this analogy the Palestinians were the slaves that were freed when they were able to elect their own leaders.

[Dagless]

Dag,

We are talking about Egypt. Not Nicaragua. If you want to talk about.

It's called a recurring theme.

Yes, the US government has a history of creating dictators, but that is completely irrelevant to my posts.

It's very relevant to mine.

You took issue when I said that the US did not create these autocracies in the Muslim world. You then bring up Nicaragua and Iran, both irrelevant to both my comment and todays governments.

I had to show the recurring theme because you don't seem to understand supplying money and weapons to these nations is counted as support.

The US is giving Mubarak's government aid now. Do you think think they should continue this or not?

I think it's clear what the people want.

The analogy was more about the how the US dealt with Hamas (which you brought up). In this analogy the Palestinians were the slaves that were freed when they were able to elect their own leaders.

Ok so the US wanted the Palestinians to vote democratically and be free. They CHOSE to vote for Hamas, unfortunately this was not acceptable so the US tried to overthrow Hamas and placed sanctions on the Palestinian people. How does this analogy in any way show the US in a positive light?

[titus]

I think it's clear what the people want.

Tell me then.

They CHOSE to vote for Hamas, unfortunately this was not acceptable so the US tried to overthrow Hamas and placed sanctions on the Palestinian people. How does this analogy in any way show the US in a positive light?

Who said I was trying to show the US in a positive light? You really are completely missing the points I am trying to make and way off the mark when it comes to trying to figure out my intentions.

I am just saying that just because a country is a democracy does not mean that all other democracies have to support what they do. If the people choose to elect into office a group that is considered to be a terrorist organization by the most powerful nation in the world, along with the European Union, Canada, Japan, etc. then they should expect a reaction. Just as, in my analogy, that just because a slave is freed does not mean he can pick a fight with whoever he wants and should expect no reaction. If you think that just because a country is a democracy then the US or any other democratic nation has the duty to cooperate with them then you are greatly mistaken.

[Dagless]

Who said I was trying to show the US in a positive light? You really are completely missing the points I am trying to make and way off the mark when it comes to trying to figure out my intentions.

I am just saying that just because a country is a democracy does not mean that all other democracies have to support what they do. If the people choose to elect into office a group that is considered to be a terrorist organization by the most powerful nation in the world, along with the European Union, Canada, Japan, etc. then they should expect a reaction. Just as, in my analogy, that just because a slave is freed does not mean he can pick a fight with whoever he wants and should expect no reaction. If you think that just because a country is a democracy then the US or any other democratic nation has the duty to cooperate with them then you are greatly mistaken.

Nobody is saying they should support it but they have a long history of hindering it by threats, sanctions, or illegal means.

[titus]

Then make the case for them being the bad guy in the situations in which they deserve it. I don't see how they can be considered the bad guy in this case (Egypt), though.

I would still like to hear what you have to say about what the Egyptian people want the US to do since you say it is clear.

[Dagless]

Then make the case for them being the bad guy in the situations in which they deserve it. I don't see how they can be considered the bad guy in this case (Egypt), though.

If you scroll right up to the top, my initial comment was only that this would have probably happened much earlier without the support. I also don't consider them the bad guy in every case.

I would still like to hear what you have to say about what the Egyptian people want the US to do since you say it is clear.

Last I saw they wanted the US to stop supporting him. As time goes on I think they probably will.

[GuestFellow]

If they don't interfere then that means they don't care and deserve your hatred.

Can you give me an example of this? XD

[Darth Ultor]

I hope the King of Saudi Arabia will swing from a rope

[Woodrow]

Perhaps in 5 or 6 hundred years future historians will be able to give an accurate assessment of today's world and point out all of the errors that have been made. But that is of no benefit to the people of now.

For today we can only go by the lessons of history. In simplicity when the people of a nation feel overly dominated and unfairly treated by their leaders, revolutions take place. Revolutions do not always result in the change of leadership or the formation of better government. No human can accurately predict the outcome of any revolution. But there can be a reasonable expectation that one result is going to be massive destruction and a need for rebuilding. There can be an expectation that during the time of revolution a country is ill-prepared to protect itself from outside forces. There can be an expectation that standing in the sidelines are those who seek to take advantage of any weakness that presents itself.

We can be reasonably assured that if a revolution fails, the situation will be worse than prior conditions. At the same time unless a revolution has been carefully planned and good leaders have been selected prior to the revolution, there will be no winning of a revolution, just new faces they will produce no change and just leave the impoverished even more impoverished than prior.

Sadly I see no organization behind any of today's revolutions. It seems to be more an out cry of anger and no goals for construction. The future for those who will have to live in the aftermath does not seem to be very bright, in my opinion. The end result may very well be a need for more outside interference, not the reduction the revolutionaries seem to be wanting.

[titus]

If they don't interfere then that means they don't care and deserve your hatred.

Can you give me an example of this? XD

If the US maintains the status quo during these protests and does not stop aid to Mubarak's government then they will be seen as supporting Mubarak. It will mean they are hypocrites when it comes to supporting democracy, and instead are simply helping to maintain a brutal dictatorship.

[titus]

Sadly I see no organization behind any of today's revolutions. It seems to be more an out cry of anger and no goals for construction.

The call for a voice in government is pretty clear. The leaders don't have to be selected now. All that needs to be done is have a system in place in order for the people to be allowed to choose their government.

If some group is able to take control of the government without any type of election then yes, Egypt could be in for a bleak future. Even with elections it won't be easy, but at least the people will know they are being heard and that they have the power to remove from office those that they feel cannot do the job right.

[GuestFellow]

If the US maintains the status quo during these protests and does not stop aid to Mubarak's government then they will be seen as supporting Mubarak. It will mean they are hypocrites when it comes to supporting democracy, and instead are simply helping to maintain a brutal dictatorship.

Didn't the US say that they support the protesters? It means the US supports democracy. It not actually getting involved, the US government gave its opinion.

If they don't interfere then that means they don't care and deserve your hatred.

Can you give me an historical example where people disliked America because it did not get involved? I mean actually getting involved and not simply issuing a statement.

[SafaAuditore]

Nooo too many people are dying!! The dastarb mubarek is still standing while cold bodies are filling up the freezers!! What the hell?!?!?! Someone needs to assassinate him!!

[titus]

Didn't the US say that they support the protesters? It means the US supports democracy. It not actually getting involved, the US government gave its opinion.

The US also threatened to remove aid, so yes it is supporting the protestors by threat of action. By supporting one side over another it is getting involved. Mubarak knows that he cannot use the US and their money as a safety net, and that will have a huge impact on what course of action he decides to take.

Can you give me an historical example where people disliked America because it did not get involved? I mean actually getting involved and not simply issuing a statement.

The US has been roundly criticized for its inaction with Rwanda. Bill Clinton even apologized later for it.

There has also been extensive criticism of the way that the US and other powerful countries handled the situation in Darfur, which was basically to do nothing.

More than one Muslim on this forum in the past has brought up the inaction of the the US in Sudan to "prove" that the US hates Muslims.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another good video discussing how the US domination of the Middle East has been shaken by the peoples uprising



Also of interest is the Israeli reaction -

Israel urges world to curb criticism of Egypt's Mubarak

Jerusalem seeks to convince its allies that it is in the West's interest to maintain the stability of the Egyptian regime.

Israel called on the United States and a number of European countries over the weekend to curb their criticism of President Hosni Mubarak to preserve stability in the region.

Jerusalem seeks to convince its allies that it is in the West's interest to maintain the stability of the Egyptian regime. The diplomatic measures came after statements in Western capitals implying that the United States and European Union supported Mubarak's ouster.

Israeli officials are keeping a low profile on the events in Egypt, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even ordering cabinet members to avoid commenting publicly on the issue.

Senior Israeli officials, however, said that on Saturday night the Foreign Ministry issued a directive to around a dozen key embassies in the United States, Canada, China, Russia and several European countries. The ambassadors were told to stress to their host countries the importance of Egypt's stability. In a special cable, they were told to get this word out as soon as possible.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...barak-1.340238

[Darth Ultor]

"People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people." -V-

[SafaAuditore]

I can already see the spikey wire stabbing the skin on the neck of mubarek and all his evil followers. I can picture people taking turns and shooting him after he's dead, same way they did to stalin.
Why the hell is no other world leaders doing ANYTHING about this crap?! These videos are hidden and the internet in the country was cut off, and everyday i see a new one of the bi*** president's cop cars running over protesters completely heartless!!! Wataf?!?!?!

[aadil77]

In desperate times, people always turn to the Al-Mighty, this is the peak time when muslims egypt will get their priorities right - insha'Allah

[GuestFellow]

Someone needs to assassinate him!!

It sounds like a job for Ezio Auditore XD.

[سيف الله]

Salaam

The zionists and the west are now busy trying to find their "right" candidate to rule egypt.

Mubarak who rules egypt for 32 years certainly is zionist-friendly, to say the least. He even was willing to block out the palestinians and made them suffer even more at behest of israel.
Egypt is also given a lot of money by USA every year to be friendly to Israel, most of those money is likely to be kept by Mubarak and his families/cronies.

Yes, its interesting how ‘restrained’ euroamerican elites have been. Privately they are lamenting the inevitable fall of their ‘favourite’.

However some are so upset that they dont even pretend to hide it. There terrified a government will come into being that they can manipulate and control. Take this demented piece from 'peace maker' Blair.

Tony Blair: Mubarak is 'immensely courageous and a force for good'

Former PM praises Egyptian president over role in peace negotiations and warns against a rush to elections that could bring Muslim Brotherhood to power

Tony Blair has described Hosni Mubarak, the beleaguered Egyptian leader, as “immensely courageous and a force for good” and warned against a rush to elections that could bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power.

The former prime minister, now an envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, praised Mubarak over his role in the negotiations and said the west was right to back him despite his authoritarian regime because he had maintained peace with Israel.

But that view is likely to anger many Egyptians who believe they have had to endure decades of dictatorship because the US put Israel’s interests ahead of their freedom. Speaking to Piers Morgan on CNN, Blair defended his backing for Mubarak.

“Where you stand on him depends on whether you’ve worked with him from the outside or on the inside. I’ve worked with him on the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians so this is somebody I’m constantly in contact with and working with and on that issue, I have to say, he’s been immensely courageous and a force for good,” he said.

“Inside Egypt, and I have many Egyptian friends, it’s clear that there’s been a huge desire for change.”

Asked if the west had not been an obstacle to change, Blair defended the policies of his and other governments.

“I don’t think the west should be the slightest bit embarrassed about the fact that it’s been working with Mubarak over the peace process but at the same time it’s been urging change in Egypt,” he said.

Blair argued that the region has unique problems that make political change different from the democratic revolutions in eastern Europe. He said the principal issue was the presence of Islamist parties that he fears will use democracy to gain power and then undermine the freedoms people seek.

“It’s perfectly natural for those from the outside to want to support this movement for change at the same time as saying let’s be careful about this and make sure that what happens in this process of change is something that ends in free and fair elections and a democratic system of government and it doesn’t get taken over or channelled in to a different direction that is at odds with what the people of Egypt want,” he said.
Blair said that meant there should not be a rush to elections in Egypt.

“I don’t think there’s a majority for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. On the other hand, what you’ve got to watch is that they are extremely well-organised and well-funded whereas those people who are out on the street at the moment, many of them will be extremely well-intentioned people but they’re not organised in political parties yet. So one of the issues in the transition is to give time for those political parties to get themselves properly organised,” he said.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/if-...et-launcher-2/

[Perseveranze]

I GOT THIS MESSAGE, AND WANT TO SHARE.


Bismilaah, wa salaatu wa salaam 'ala rasul ilaah,

Within the teachings of Islaam is the solution for all things pertaining to the success and peace of the Muslims here on earth. Islaam is perfect and complete! Allaah subhanahu wa ta'ala says in what means:

This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion. (Qur'an 5-3)

Therefore, we do not need to resort to un-Islaamic practises such as protests and multi-partisan democratic politics to solve our problems when we already have the divine solution with us from the One on top the Seven Heavens walhamdulilah. In fact, these un-Islamic practices will only increase us in humiliation, weakness and division. Keep in mind, for something to be called Islaamic then legally it must have proof from the authentic texts otherwise it cannot be called Islaamic.

Since these issues are filled with emotion which the shayateen of jinn and men love, it can be very difficult to overcome these emotions and grasp the truth, so the key is to make sincere du'aa to Allaah for guidance for ourselves and this ummah and to go back to the Quran and Sunnah from the understanding of the Salaf for knowledge not speaking from our own whims, thoughts and desires, and further to keep our hands firmly with the righteous pious scholars of today who studied the Quran and Sunnah for 20, 30, 40 plus years may Allaah preserve them.

Please read the statements of the noble mashayikh below. Barak Allaahu feekum.

________________________________________

Question [Sh. Abdul-Rahman Al-Ajlaan]:
"With all of the of the problems that we are presently facing in the world what is the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa'a in this situation on protesting and overthrowing of a nation's president? Specifically in Egypt. Does this fall under overthrowing the ruler [as in the ahadeeth] or not? May Allah reward you. And if your answer is no could you please explain to me why?"

Answer: (This is from what I remember because I didnt have a recorder)
This is not correct and protesting does not have any place in Islam. From it only comes an abundance of harm and evil. From bloodshed to stealing of wealth etc. And this affair is for those who have power to make an actual change, not for every single person. For some people might truly have a pure intention and want good for his country while others just want chaos and evil. If there is a ruler of a country who needs to be changed it is for the people of deliberation and council, those who have the power, to change things.
Nor have we seen in the history of Islam this ever taking place. And where it did, for example here in Saudi Arabia, it was done by one man (a great scholar) not the public. So it is upon the people to be patient and remain so. I ask Allah to guide you and I to the truth.

________________________________________

Question [Sh. Luhaydaan]:
"With all of the of the problems that we are presently facing in the world what is the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jamaa'a in this situation on protesting and overthrowing of a nation's president? Specifically in Egypt.

Answer: (The call was unclear and the Shaykh was talking very softly, as usual,)
No this is not good (upright) and they should not do this. Because these things lead to stealing of wealth and other evil acts.

Question: So does this follow under overthrowing the ruler?

Answer: No it doesnt but nevertheless the people shouldnt do it and should remain patient. They should call upon Allah to rectify and change their situation.

________________________________________

Me: Shaykh, with you is Abdul-Malik the American!
Shaykh Wasiullah 'Abbaas: May Allah grant you life! Where are you these days?
Me: Wallahi Shaykhana, I am arround just busy with school. Also, I have a daughter now and I have to provide for her as well.
Shaykh: Masha Allah Jayyid!
Me: Baarik Allahu Feek can I ask you a question?
Shaykh: Go ahead
Me: With all of the problems that we have presently in the world what is the position of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama'a on protests and over throwing the president .... (the shaykh cut me off)
Shaykh: This is an error! And it is not for you and everyone else to be dealing with these affairs as in Egypt now. For from these things come a great abundance of evil. People are stealing, killing, and setting things on fire. They even set the Saudi Airlines on fire there. What is this?! This is idiocy. What does Saudi Airline have anything to do with anything?! No, this is an error and not from Islam and people should not be doing it.


Translated by:
Abdul-Malik Merchant
Umm al-Qura University
Makkah Al-Mukarramah, KSA
Saffar 28, 1432 —February 1 2011

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75517

[Darth Ultor]

How is it un-Islamic to protest oppression? And does it specifically say in the Quran or Hadith that multi-party democratic governments are haraam?

[aadil77]

How is it un-Islamic to protest oppression? And does it specifically say in the Quran or Hadith that multi-party democratic governments are haraam?

Typical response from saudi puppet scholars, they don't want their puppet king abdullah being toppled.

About the government, not sure, I know councils have been a part of islamic govts

[Darth Ultor]

That doesn't really answer my question.

[ardianto]

That doesn't really answer my question.

Aadil had answer your question, but I understand if you don't understand.

I explain. Remember Gulf War that started when Iraq invade Kuwait ?. This invasion made Saudi king so scared, and he asked help to American to fight Iraqis. His decision to ask help from America caused pro and contra. There where Ulama (Muslim scholars) who did not agree because American are non Muslim. But there where Ulama who agreed and supported Saudi king decision.

Ulama who disagree criticise Saudi king. Of course, Ulama who support Saudi king were not silent. They made a counter attack with innovate some rule that prohibit Muslims disobey the ruler even if the ruler oppressed the people. And some of them accused Ikhwanul Muslimin behind those critics. This was the beginning of conflict between Ikhwanul Muslimin supporters and Saudi king supporters.

Of course, it's not true if make protest to oppressor is un-Islamic. Also not true if the only right government system in Islam is monarchy, like claim from some Saudi king supporters.

[Darth Ultor]

A council of Muslim clerics can be just as bad as a King or dictator. Those with power use that power. I think the best system is democracy, because while it is corrupt, there are ways that you can get rid of the President or Prime Minister. Either by a vote or by impeachment.

[جوري]

A council of Muslim clerics can be just as bad as a King or dictator. Those with power use that power. I think the best system is democracy, because while it is corrupt, there are ways that you can get rid of the President or Prime Minister. Either by a vote or by impeachment.

what is your definition of a democracy? Today I was watching the turd Alan Dershwoitz spew his usual crap about democracy and how Egyptians will enable the 'Muslim Brotherhood' to enforce burka and other nonpolitical volatile B.S when an Egyptian activist told him what do you think is happening in Egypt o what democracy is? The people are electing their representative.. of course he doesn't think that should happen unless it is the same regime that caters to amero/Israeli interests.. because 'democracy' can only be democratic if it is autocratic catering to the comforts of Israel over an entire Muslim/Arab population .. a council of Muslim clerics so long as chosen by the people makes it democratic.. How they handle such an honor is no different than any other leaders in history.. and history has had its fill of benevolent or corrupt leaders.. you think netanyahu is righteous? or the fat turd that preceded him? Israel is as much a 'democracy' as south Africa is a democracy or Egypt for that matter..

all the best

[ardianto]

I think the best system is democracy, because while it is corrupt, there are ways that you can get rid of the President or Prime Minister. Either by a vote or by impeachment.

That's because you never lived under dictator regime.

How can people impeach the president if the president rule the parliament ?. How can people vote for new president in the president never give a chance to other canditates to compete in fair election ?.

I lived under Soeharto regime. If Indonesian people could impeach him and could vote for other president, Indonesian people did not need to launch The 98 Reformation that ended with fall of Soeharto regime.

(I was an anti-Soeharto protester in 1998. :D)

[Ramadhan]

(I was an anti-Soeharto protester in 1998. )

Same here. :)
I was one of the thousands that took over the parliament building (Gedung DPR MPR) for a week, not unlike what the egyptians are doing in Tahrir Square.

[جوري]

Same here. I was one of the thousands that took over the parliament building (Gedung DPR MPR) for a week, not unlike what the egyptians are doing in Tahrir Square.

It is a shame that Muslims can't reach out to each other and get this wobbly legs of this empire up on its feet again...

:w:

[MuslimDownunder]

I think tunisia was an isolated domino that fell.

Egypt on the other hand has all the dominos ( the other arab leaders) right next to it. if mubarak falls then they pretty much all fall. It'd say king abdullah is the second one in line.

No No Mubarak!!!!

[جوري]

I think tunisia was an isolated domino that fell. Egypt on the other hand has all the dominos ( the other arab leaders) right next to it. if mubarak falls then they pretty much all fall. It'd say king abdullah is the second one in line. No No Mubarak!!!!

isn't it sad? I think Saudi's are timid though although admittedly their own economic conditions are deteriorating so that maybe an impetus for them to want to change..

I keep wondering if this is the catalyst for those 'end of the world events' in the east which when they happen will fall like pearl beads one by one.. this certainly is the age of oppression and injustice.. and it makes me sad..

[Aprender]

That's because you never lived under dictator regime.

How can people impeach the president if the president rule the parliament ?. How can people vote for new president in the president never give a chance to other canditates to compete in fair election ?.

I lived under Soeharto regime. If Indonesian people could impeach him and could vote for other president, Indonesian people did not need to launch The 98 Reformation that ended with fall of Soeharto regime.

(I was an anti-Soeharto protester in 1998. :D)

Well in American democracy we have term limits so that even if they do create a corrupt "regime" so to speak they only have 8 years to enforce it, and that's only if the electoral college puts them back in for that second term. I think what you mean is though is that sometimes if we do get one "corrupt" person out of there another one who is equally corrupt can come back in...which has happened.

Wow. I'm not familiar with the Soeharto regime. I was only 8 years old back in 1998 but I'll look into it. My aunt lived in Indonesia at that time. I'll be sure to ask her about it to get more information. I love it when I know people who participated in a historical event like that.

[Aprender]

isn't it sad? I think Saudi's are timid though although admittedly their own economic conditions are deteriorating so that maybe an impetus for them to want to change..

I keep wondering if this is the catalyst for those 'end of the world events' in the east which when they happen will fall like pearl beads one by one.. this certainly is the age of oppression and injustice.. and it makes me sad..

Couldn't have said it better. It is very sad indeed. Here in the U.S. many of my college age friends are completely unaware of what's going on in Egypt. I mentioned it today asking for them to say a prayer for our brothers and sisters and Egypt and a few of them thought a natural disaster occurred there. They just didn't understand why it was relevant news even after I explained it. Sometimes I wonder about my generation... =/

[Dagless]

what is your definition of a democracy? Today I was watching the turd Alan Dershwoitz spew his usual crap about democracy

I doubt anyone takes him seriously. The only thing I associate with him is when Finkelstein owned him. Don't get me wrong, I've seen him proved wrong many times but I've never seen anyone get completely destroyed like that.

I wonder if Mubarak will just sit there until he's physically thrown out.

[Darth Ultor]

what is your definition of a democracy?
all the best

A country with rule of the people, by the people, for the people. A system where each district elects someone to represent their interest in government. If one runs for President or Prime Minister, he or she is to represent the interest of the people as that person was voted in by popular majority. And they would have limited terms of a few years. That's all.

[Dagless]

A system where each district elects someone to represent their interest in government. If one runs for President or Prime Minister, he or she is to represent the interest of the people as that person was voted in by popular majority.

This means that it's possible for the majority to lose and also for minorities to have no say.

[جوري]

A country with rule of the people, by the people, for the people. A system where each district elects someone to represent their interest in government. If one runs for President or Prime Minister, he or she is to represent the interest of the people as that person was voted in by popular majority. And they would have limited terms of a few years. That's all.

Indeed and aside from the geo/political and socio/economic conditions and issues that need representation and to be addressed, there is also the law, and the law should cater to the majority.. the majority 90% are Muslims-- current Egyptian law only caters to Amero/Israeli interests and the 'ruling family' simply have a look at articles 75 and 76 that people are protesting against (amongst others) in the current constitution which surprisingly can only be amended by the president and while he is in office!

all the best

[جوري]

I doubt anyone takes him seriously. The only thing I associate with him is when Finkelstein owned him. Don't get me wrong, I've seen him proved wrong many times but I've never seen anyone get completely destroyed like that. I wonder if Mubarak will just sit there until he's physically thrown out.

he managed to get Finkelstein and another professor whose name I forget thrown out of a university after he didn't like the book they'd written.. He is such a stinking turd.. it is amazing because Finklestein himself is a Jew I really have such respect for him.. I don't understand why many of them play that holocaust card? Surely the holocaust wasn't brought to them courtesy of Muslims rather the 'civilized west' the only place that has ever received them with a fair degree of tolerance was the Muslim world (prior to its secularization) now they'd subdue the will of an entire people 2/3 of them below the age of 30 and 90% of them though college graduates are unemployed.

Mubarak is playing it smart, he is disgustingly smart and experienced and now the western media is playing along to marginalize what is going on to break these protests from within.. their cunning truly as described in the Quran as if it would move mountains from its ability.

:w:

[Ramadhan]

Mubarak is playing it smart, he is disgustingly smart and experienced and now the western media is playing along to marginalize what is going on to break these protests from within.. their cunning truly as described in the Quran as if it would move mountains from its ability

Sadly, I think Mubarak is succeeding in buying time by doing talks with the opposition groups.

I hope the real resistance on the streets are unwavering in their demand that Mubarak must go now.

[جوري]

Sadly, I think Mubarak is succeeding in buying time by doing talks with the opposition groups. I hope the real resistance on the streets are unwavering in their demand that Mubarak must go now.

I don't think people understand what 'revolution' means.. it means there are no talks they want these whole regime toppled.. I am really sad though as I feel you maybe right.. the west will have its way.. let's make du3a and qyam elyel for them please..

:w:

[titus]

This means that it's possible for the majority to lose and also for minorities to have no say.

But if the right systems are put in place then that is minimized. That is also why democracy requires an educated and socially conscious populace, otherwise it can turn into an oppression by the majority of the minority.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”... Winston Churchill

[Woodrow]

But if the right systems are put in place then that is minimized. That is also why democracy requires an educated and socially conscious populace, otherwise it can turn into an oppression by the majority of the minority.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”... Winston Churchill

Reminds me of something I heard from when I was a kid during the time Stalin was still alive. I recall somebody once saying that Russia can conquer the US without a war as one day we will elect a communist President and end up under Communism without even knowing it.

[TheTruthFromGod]

The arabic revolution has been deliberatly provoked to permit the emergence of the Dajjal, watch on Youtube a video I've done on this subject:

The Arabic Revolution: last step to the Reign of the Dajjal Maitreya Raj Patel( 2episodes)

[titus]

I recall somebody once saying that Russia can conquer the US without a war as one day we will elect a communist President and end up under Communism without even knowing it.

Not with the system. The president doesn't have that much power because there are too many checks and balances. The people would have to elect a communist president, communist House, communist Senate and communist state governments without knowing it, and that won't happen.

In the Arab world at the moment the big question is what form of government are they going to end up with? Will it be truly democratic in that autocratic rule cannot take place? Or will it be just another ruse to put someone else in power for the rest of their life?

[Ramadhan]

Not with the system. The president doesn't have that much power because there are too many checks and balances.

Not if the "checks and balances" are actually in collusion with the president.

case in point: George Bush jr who lied through his teeth in order to invade and occupy Iraq, in the process killing a million people (albeit not his own) and spent trillions of dollars.

In the Arab world at the moment the big question is what form of government are they going to end up with? Will it be truly democratic in that autocratic rule cannot take place?

whatever system they choose, i hope it's gonna be a system that implement syariah.
This world does not last, after life does.

[جوري]

In the Arab world at the moment the big question is what form of government are they going to end up with? Will it be truly democratic in that autocratic rule cannot take place? Or will it be just another ruse to put someone else in power for the rest of their life?

Depends on how much western powers under the leadership of the Zionist cockroach state play their cards here..So far they've been playing the 'Islamists' card around the clock on the media while handling with velvet gloves their long time comrade who kills his countrymen at whim. The west doesn't want a 'democracy' for the middle east, they want these despotic rule that enables them to kill Muslims and nab their wealth.. let's not have pretenses here, since they speak it in those exact words around the clock in various news channels..

I do believe that there is no going back now.. people know and have always known the west and the cockroach state for what they truly are and their intentions are crystal.. and it was a matter of breaking the fear that has kept them in a pressure cooker with these despots sitting on the lid for so long..

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Short and punchy video from Robert Fisk

[جوري]

I totally love Robert Fisk.. may he join others like the former PM sister in law in becoming a Muslim!

:w:

[سيف الله]

Captive Nation - Egypt And The West

In 1886, Tolstoy wrote:

‘Slavery has long been abolished. It was abolished in Rome, and in America, and in Russia, but what was abolished was the word and not the thing in itself.’ (Tolstoy, What Then Must We Do?, Green Classics, 1991, p.104)

In 2011, ‘the thing in itself’ is alive and well in Egypt. What an extraordinary spectacle it is - a dictatorship behaving as though an entire people were its personal property. Henchmen aside, the people have spoken, almost as one, and their demands are very clear. The blunt government response, in effect: We react as we want. If we don’t want to, we don’t have to. Why? Because we have a monopoly of violence.

A government thus stands exposed for what it is, a parasite feeding off the people it claims to represent.

And what of the West? Obama - Washington's bargain basement bodhisattva - said:

‘We pray that the violence in Egypt will end and that the rights and aspirations of the Egyptian people will be realised and that a better day will dawn over Egypt and throughout the world.’

Tolstoy, again, had the perfect retort:

‘I came to the simple and natural conclusion that if I pity a tired horse on which I am riding, the first thing I must do if I am really sorry for it, is to get off and walk on my own feet.’ (Tolstoy, op. cit., p.111)

But this the US elites pulling Obama’s strings will never do of their own volition – they have been riding the tired horse far too long. Thus, Hillary Clinton said of the Egyptian dictator on March 10, 2009:

‘I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States.’

It goes on to say . . . . . . .

On January 30, 2011, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a report, ‘“Work on Him Until He Confesses” - Impunity for Torture in Egypt.’

The report observes:

‘According to Egyptian lawyers and domestic and international human rights groups… law enforcement officials have used torture and ill-treatment on a widespread, deliberate, and systematic basis over the past two decades to glean confessions and information, or to punish detainees. The United Nations Committee Against Torture has confirmed the systematic nature of torture in Egypt.’

Abuses include ‘beatings, electric shocks, suspension in painful positions, forced standing for long periods, waterboarding, as well as rape and threatening to rape victims and their family’.

The horrors constitute ‘an epidemic of habitual, widespread, and deliberate torture perpetrated on a regular basis by security forces against political dissidents, Islamists allegedly engaged in terrorist activity, and ordinary citizens suspected of links to criminal activity or who simply look suspicious’.

Our search of the LexisNexis database found that HRW’s report has so far received three mentions in the national UK press.

http://www.medialens.org/