Domino effect

[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]

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 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