These are Secular Popular Revolts....

Muddy · March 1, 2011

Gaddafi is an American puppet?

No! Gaddafi is not an American puppet. Did you not hear him yesterday? All the people of Libya love him. One has to admit the man has always marched to his own drummer. That he is the only one who hears the drum is another question.

Michael Hardner · March 1, 2011

Unless something has already happened people here don't believe it.

Mr. Canada - I'm being very patient with you and giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Once again, you were asked to cite for the information you posted above, and you returned to the thread with nothing in hand.

I thought you were getting better for awhile... but I'm getting disappointed again...

blueblood · March 2, 2011

I've been a little skeptical about the spin that's been put on these protests. Were they really crying out for freedom, or were they crying out against Mubarek? Was it really a desire for freedom, or do they really just want a government that's not pals with the US? What does they freedom they're supposedly fighting for actually look like? What really got all those people out in the streets? I'm skeptical of the suspiciously rosy picture the media has painted for me.

And then, of course the fact that the people who went out in the square don't speak for the whole country. The protesters may have caused the fall of the regime, but they won't have the only say in what replaces it.

When the Lara Logan incident left people asking "wait, are these the happy, hopeful freedom-loving protesters we were told about?" we were assured that no, these were different people in the streets... the freedom-loving protesters had been replaced by a different crowd. Well, that different crowd is still out there, and they'll have their say in what happens as well.

Like Mr C, I have a hunch that in a few years we'll look at the Middle East and think "this doesn't look much like the warm-and-fuzzy freedom-loving Middle East they told us was going to happen."

-k

At least give the poor blokes a chance. I think those protestors certainly have eaned the right to determine what kind of country they want. It may or may not be "west friendly", and that is their prerogative whether the west likes it or not. However what these protests show is that ordinary people can change a govt. It all depends if whatever govt comes in can offer a better quality of life than before. I think China can get away with it because of their red hot economy and improving quality of life. I'd be surprised to see a situation in Kuwait

Rue · March 2, 2011

It's just one more third world crap-hole exchanging one form of corrupt government for another...

Yep.

Rue · March 2, 2011

I've been a little skeptical about the spin that's been put on these protests. Were they really crying out for freedom, or were they crying out against Mubarek? Was it really a desire for freedom, or do they really just want a government that's not pals with the US? What does they freedom they're supposedly fighting for actually look like? What really got all those people out in the streets? I'm skeptical of the suspiciously rosy picture the media has painted for me.

And then, of course the fact that the people who went out in the square don't speak for the whole country. The protesters may have caused the fall of the regime, but they won't have the only say in what replaces it.

When the Lara Logan incident left people asking "wait, are these the happy, hopeful freedom-loving protesters we were told about?" we were assured that no, these were different people in the streets... the freedom-loving protesters had been replaced by a different crowd. Well, that different crowd is still out there, and they'll have their say in what happens as well.

Like Mr C, I have a hunch that in a few years we'll look at the Middle East and think "this doesn't look much like the warm-and-fuzzy freedom-loving Middle East they told us was going to happen."

As much as I would like you to be wrong I am afraid you will be right. If we look at past historic patterns this is far from unique and in the past as desports were violently overthrown others soon moved in to take their place.

I am afraid you are right for this reason-anyone can take to the streets and scream and riot. That can be done by anyone. However having the intelligensia and patience to then build democratic insitutions such as indepedent judiciaries free of political influence, democratically elected assemblies, governments that resist coruption and patronage on party lines, etc., all those elements take years to build and in the Middle east there are no institutional precedents to build upon nor are their sufficient numbers of professionals. The tragedy is that dictatorships chase out all their intelligentsia and the majority of them do not return to rebuild the country. The past memories or their currernt life situations often put up to many obstacles to make that possible. The longer someone has been in exile the least likely they will return and that is the pratical reality of dictators, they chase out their future generations and hopes because the kind of people that would bring that are direct threats to the dictators.

-k

bloodyminded · March 5, 2011

I've been a little skeptical about the spin that's been put on these protests. Were they really crying out for freedom, or were they crying out against Mubarek? Was it really a desire for freedom, or do they really just want a government that's not pals with the US? What does they freedom they're supposedly fighting for actually look like? What really got all those people out in the streets? I'm skeptical of the suspiciously rosy picture the media has painted for me.

And then, of course the fact that the people who went out in the square don't speak for the whole country. The protesters may have caused the fall of the regime, but they won't have the only say in what replaces it.

When the Lara Logan incident left people asking "wait, are these the happy, hopeful freedom-loving protesters we were told about?" we were assured that no, these were different people in the streets... the freedom-loving protesters had been replaced by a different crowd. Well, that different crowd is still out there, and they'll have their say in what happens as well.

Like Mr C, I have a hunch that in a few years we'll look at the Middle East and think "this doesn't look much like the warm-and-fuzzy freedom-loving Middle East they told us was going to happen."

-k

No one is suggesting that an excellent future is a done deal.

But of course, anyone who suggests that "the devil we know"--tyrants who are friendly to the powerful Western nations--is preferable (as some are doing, including here on this board), is engaging, quite explicitly, in moral relativism.

Bob · March 13, 2011

It's a very unconvincing article written by some old white man who more than likely only communicated with English-speaking Egyptians - in other words, more privileged and more educated Egyptians who are more likely to "moderate" in the common understanding of the term with respect to Muslims in the Middle East.

Given the fact that these countries are almost exclusively Islamic, and that Muslims in the Middle East are unquestionably more religious than their Christian counterparts in the Western world by any barometer, how can there be any doubt that there is a strong Islamic component to these current events? In and of itself, I don't see anything particularly wrong with that - what would we expect, a Christian revolution?

To delude oneself into thinking that these are "secular" uprisings, which may be true in some cases, is an exercise in ignoring reality. I'm not sure what Robert Fisk's intentions are, whose credibility seems to be derived from him having been in Cairo during the demonstrations (perhaps in his hotel room for 99.9% of his time there), but he is trying to play down something that a lot of us have legitimate concerns about - just what kind of uprisings are these? What do these groups really want? And how will it affect us?

I'll pass on Fisk's suggestion that these are pro-democratic "secular" movements. Maybe they are, in some ways and/or in some places, but Fisk is certainly in no position to be examining these issues. No offense bloodyminded, but that article is completely useless.

Bob · March 13, 2011

All backed by corrupt governments in the west.

And by "backed", you mean the "corrupt governments in the West" committed the incredible crime of doing business for essentials - such as securing oil for our own countries. It's sad how it never gets old to see simplistic statements from simple persons (like you, GostHacked) taking little cheap shots at "the West" and suggesting that somehow we're all responsible for the circumstances in the Arab and Muslim countries. As if there's ever been this simple choice between freedom and tyranny, and the West chose tyranny. As if the West can just make up its mind as to what kind of governments it want to see in the Middle East and manifest its desires at the snap of its fingers. Of course, the West should stand on principle and stop buying oil from dictatorships in the Middle East/Northern Africa and starve its economy so that everyone ends up in poverty. At least then, the West could insulate itself from infantile criticisms from persons like you.

Ridiculous, but not unexpected from the likes of GostHacked.

Bob · March 13, 2011

Why not?

Are you serious? Highly religious people tend to be diametrically-opposed to secular perspectives and values. How can you not understand this? Oh, I'll answer my own question - you don't know anything about highly religious people, especially not highly-religious Muslims in the Middle East. You think they're just like your buddy Abdul who you buy gas from at Petro-Canada on Sunday nights. You met one secular Muslim in Canada, and you've met 'em all, eh?

Bob · March 13, 2011

The Americans did !

I sure hope this is a joke, because the values that informed the American revolution many years ago are certainly quite different than the values informing street uprisings today in Cairo and other parts of the Middle East. This isn't about nuance, either, these are unbelievably huge fucking differences. I won't even waste my time elaborating, as I'll continue to assume, for your own sake, that you were making a simplistic joke for the sake of making a joke.... right?

Bob · March 13, 2011

Can I have source for that ?

I don't have an opinion, but as I said America managed okay.

Oh my god. You weren't joking. You were serious when you suggested that there are strong parallels between the American revolution of the 18th century and these events we're seeing now in Egypt, Libya, and other Arab/Muslim countries. Your position boils down to - since these are both examples of unrest and rejection of the status quo from the residents of the land, and since (according to you) they're both motivated by "highly-religious" persons, that the outcomes will be similar given the fact that they are both informed by common values. This has got to be one of the most monumentally stupid things anyone has ever said in this forum in a long while. Please take a moment to think about it and reflect so that I and other people don't end up wasting our time spelling out the obvious.

In reply to a post from Mr.Canada where he suggested that many in Egypt favour Sharia law (isn't that common knowledge?), you asked for "proof". I thought I posted this data awhile ago, in fact I think I made a thread about it - here it is. Here are some statistics that caught my eye:

This PEW Research poll may put doubt into the minds of those thinking that Egypt is on its way to a liberal, pluralistic democracy via the rioters/demonstrators....

82% of Egyptians are in favour of stoning adulterers.

77% of Egyptians are in favour of whippings and/or cutting off the hands of criminals who commit theft/robbery.

84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for those who leave Islam.

bloodyminded · March 13, 2011

It's a very unconvincing article written by some old white man who more than likely only communicated with English-speaking Egyptians - in other words, more privileged and more educated Egyptians who are more likely to "moderate" in the common understanding of the term with respect to Muslims in the Middle East.

Given the fact that these countries are almost exclusively Islamic, and that Muslims in the Middle East are unquestionably more religious than their Christian counterparts in the Western world by any barometer, how can there be any doubt that there is a strong Islamic component to these current events? In and of itself, I don't see anything particularly wrong with that - what would we expect, a Christian revolution?

To delude oneself into thinking that these are "secular" uprisings, which may be true in some cases, is an exercise in ignoring reality. I'm not sure what Robert Fisk's intentions are, whose credibility seems to be derived from him having been in Cairo during the demonstrations (perhaps in his hotel room for 99.9% of his time there), but he is trying to play down something that a lot of us have legitimate concerns about - just what kind of uprisings are these? What do these groups really want? And how will it affect us?

I'll pass on Fisk's suggestion that these are pro-democratic "secular" movements. Maybe they are, in some ways and/or in some places, but Fisk is certainly in no position to be examining these issues. No offense bloodyminded, but that article is completely useless.

No offense taken, and I have some sympathy with your view here, as a generality--but Fisk is not a FOX news or Times of London reporter (nor even a typical Indepedent reporter); he has spent years at a stretch living in predominantly aRab coutnries. He has spent a lot more time around Arabs than have the majority of Israeli of=r western diplomats...far more.

This fact too does not for a second make his analysis correct; but he is not some Western reporter, far removed, talking out of his ass.

Like Thomas Friedman is; and David Horowitz; and Charles Krauthammer; and Michael Moore; etc etc.

bloodyminded · March 13, 2011

Are you serious? Highly religious people tend to be diametrically-opposed to secular perspectives and values. How can you not understand this? Oh, I'll answer my own question - you don't know anything about highly religious people, especially not highly-religious Muslims in the Middle East. You think they're just like your buddy Abdul who you buy gas from at Petro-Canada on Sunday nights. You met one secular Muslim in Canada, and you've met 'em all, eh?

Highly religious people can and do have secular motivations. Al the time.

Ask the people of the two most religious nations in the West: Canada and the United States.

bloodyminded · March 13, 2011

Oh my god. You weren't joking. You were serious when you suggested that there are strong parallels between the American revolution of the 18th century and these events we're seeing now in Egypt, Libya, and other Arab/Muslim countries. Your position boils down to - since these are both examples of unrest and rejection of the status quo from the residents of the land, and since (according to you) they're both motivated by "highly-religious" persons, that the outcomes will be similar given the fact that they are both informed by common values. This has got to be one of the most monumentally stupid things anyone has ever said in this forum in a long while. Please take a moment to think about it and reflect so that I and other people don't end up wasting our time spelling out the obvious.

In reply to a post from Mr.Canada where he suggested that many in Egypt favour Sharia law (isn't that common knowledge?), you asked for "proof". I thought I posted this data awhile ago, in fact I think I made a thread about it - here it is. Here are some statistics that caught my eye:

This PEW Research poll may put doubt into the minds of those thinking that Egypt is on its way to a liberal, pluralistic democracy via the rioters/demonstrators....

82% of Egyptians are in favour of stoning adulterers.

77% of Egyptians are in favour of whippings and/or cutting off the hands of criminals who commit theft/robbery.

84% of Egyptians support the death penalty for those who leave Islam.

And what do you suppose were the views on similar matters from 18th century Revolutionaries?

Please. Michael Hardner's point was dead on.

Bob · March 13, 2011

Highly religious people can and do have secular motivations. Al the time.

Ask the people of the two most religious nations in the West: Canada and the United States.

So you think "highly-religious" means the a similar thing in the context of the American Revolution of the 18th century and current uprisings in Arab/Muslim countries? A "highly-religious" pilgrim from Old America is quite different than a "highly-religious" Muslim Brotherhood supporter. How can you not understand this?

Sorry, but this attempts to draw meaningful parallels between these two events and two types of peoples is so unbelievably fucking stupid. Michael Hardner started this stupidity, but you're going along with it. It's really, really, really stupid.

dre · March 13, 2011

The way these protests started was secular in nature I think... young educated people were actually willing to take to the streets over their own dismal economic prospects. For the most part it wasnt about democracy, or freedom, or politics, it was about the lack of decent jobs for people that had spent most of their lives in school based on the belief it would help them earn a good living. The bill of sale wound up being false... so now theyre pissed.

The problem of course is that even if they manage to keep deposing these thugs they might not have a lot of control over who fills the power vacuum after. It will be whoever is best equipped/positioned to step in, and those groups might actually be more theocratic than the thugs that got deposed.

In the long term though I would say that it probably WILL lead to a trend of these countries becoming more secular, simply because religious government is unlikely to provide a remedy for the core problem which is economics. If these guys keep throwing out governments over poor economic performance it will probably lead to a more secular political system in the long term simply because religious governments are much less likely to deliver any kind of economic progress.

It was economic progress that lead to the end of the church as a civil authority in the west as well.

eyeball · March 14, 2011

Oh my god. You weren't joking. You were serious when you suggested that there are strong parallels between the American revolution of the 18th century and these events we're seeing now in Egypt, Libya, and other Arab/Muslim countries. Your position boils down to - since these are both examples of unrest and rejection of the status quo from the residents of the land, and since (according to you) they're both motivated by "highly-religious" persons, that the outcomes will be similar given the fact that they are both informed by common values. This has got to be one of the most monumentally stupid things anyone has ever said in this forum in a long while.

One common value and parallel is how in both revolutions the residents of the land are choosing self determination as opposed to the determination of outsiders. The local tyrants in charge of the American colonies who worked for King George parallel the tyrants of the ME countries who worked for Uncle Sam - colonies of a different sort but in reality the difference is in name only.

And by "backed", you mean the "corrupt governments in the West" committed the incredible crime of doing business for essentials - such as securing oil for our own countries. It's sad how it never gets old to see simplistic statements from simple persons (like you, GostHacked) taking little cheap shots at "the West" and suggesting that somehow we're all responsible for the circumstances in the Arab and Muslim countries. As if there's ever been this simple choice between freedom and tyranny, and the West chose tyranny. As if the West can just make up its mind as to what kind of governments it want to see in the Middle East and manifest its desires at the snap of its fingers. Of course, the West should stand on principle and stop buying oil from dictatorships in the Middle East/Northern Africa and starve its economy so that everyone ends up in poverty. At least then, the West could insulate itself from infantile criticisms from persons like you.

I have no doubt whatsoever there were very similar self-aggrandizing pronouncements from King George's apologists about the burden of having to deal with his uncouth colonies in such brutal fashion.

What's really most incredible about the crimes the US and it's western pals committed is that off all the world's nations the US should have known better. I mean, why do you think it's beacon shone so brightly in the first place?

As for all the religion...it just makes everything else worse.

Edited March 14, 2011 by eyeball

bush_cheney2004 · March 14, 2011

...What's really most incredible about the crimes the US and it's western pals committed is that off all the world's nations the US should have known better. I mean, why do you think it's beacon shone so brightly in the first place?

This is your oft repeated mistake....there is no "beacon"...and there never was.

bloodyminded · March 14, 2011

So you think "highly-religious" means the a similar thing in the context of the American Revolution of the 18th century and current uprisings in Arab/Muslim countries? A "highly-religious" pilgrim from Old America is quite different than a "highly-religious" Muslim Brotherhood supporter. How can you not understand this?

Sorry, but this attempts to draw meaningful parallels between these two events and two types of peoples is so unbelievably fucking stupid. Michael Hardner started this stupidity, but you're going along with it. It's really, really, really stupid.

So...are you saying it's stupid? Try to be more clear.

Mr.Canada · March 14, 2011

So...are you saying it's stupid? Try to be more clear.

This poster actually lives in Israel. I think he would a have a much better understanding of what actually occurs there then the rest of us who only watch/read the news or get third hand info. I think it would be fair to say that.

Bob · March 14, 2011

This poster actually lives in Israel. I think he would a have a much better understanding of what actually occurs there then the rest of us who only watch/read the news or get third hand info. I think it would be fair to say that.

We're talking about something different here, though. We're talking about the people who are in the streets in Cairo demonstrating/rioting. I certainly don't have any special insights into these events that most others don't, but I know enough to be skeptical of claims that these persons are motivated by the ideals of democracy, pluralism, and liberty. I also highly doubt they can be described as "secular" as the term is understood in North America.

We're not really talking about what goes on in Israel, unless of course you'd like to talk about Arab (Palestinian) motivations and sentiments in Israel, which I am very familiar with.

My intuition may be wrong, and time will tell, but I have serious reservations about motivations of "the Arab street" for change.

eyeball · March 14, 2011

We're talking about something different here, though. We're talking about the people who are in the streets in Cairo demonstrating/rioting. I certainly don't have any special insights into these events that most others don't, but I know enough to be skeptical of claims that these persons are motivated by the ideals of democracy, pluralism, and liberty.

Right now they're mostly motivated by the desire to get out from under the thumb of tyranny. First things first. They have to get to a point where they have the room and time to let these ideals flourish.

I also highly doubt they can be described as "secular" as the term is understood in North America.
We're not really talking about what goes on in Israel, unless of course you'd like to talk about Arab (Palestinian) motivations and sentiments in Israel, which I am very familiar with.

My intuition may be wrong, and time will tell, but I have serious reservations about motivations of "the Arab street" for change.

If I lived in your part of the world I'd be a lot more worried about the precarious state of the global economy not to mention the huge environmental deficit that's leaning against it. These have been allowed to deteriorate for so long now that the options for change are squeezed even more tightly. This is where the parallels to the 18th century really break down. There is basically no planet left for the taking to facilitate the building of a new society and a new world.

Religion as I said, only compounds the challenge of getting through these bottlenecks.

bloodyminded · March 15, 2011

This poster actually lives in Israel. I think he would a have a much better understanding of what actually occurs there then the rest of us who only watch/read the news or get third hand info. I think it would be fair to say that.

Ah. So if a Palestinian were to come here and assert something very different from Bob's perspective, you would agree with him, also. And thanks to the existence of two opposing "truths" that you must accept, the "Does not compute" trigger would explode your head.

Edited March 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

Bob · May 12, 2011

Here is an interesting YouTube channel that I think many of you will appreciate. The channel is journeymanpictures. There are quite a few videos on this channel which seem to come from amateur/freelance photo-video journalists. I find it a left-leaning channel, but whatever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbI64UAam24&feature=relmfu

Edited May 12, 2011 by Bob