quote:Confirming what a few have reported this evening: in an action unprecedented in Internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the Internet. Critical European-Asian fiber-optic routes through Egypt appear to be unaffected for now. But every Egyptian provider, every business, bank, Internet cafe, website, school, embassy, and government office that relied on the big four Egyptian ISPs for their Internet connectivity is now cut off from the rest of the world. Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt, Etisalat Misr, and all their customers and partners are, for the moment, off the air.
At 22:34 UTC (00:34am local time), Renesys observed the virtually simultaneous withdrawal of all routes to Egyptian networks in the Internet's global routing table. Approximately 3,500 individual BGP routes were withdrawn, leaving no valid paths by which the rest of the world could continue to exchange Internet traffic with Egypt's service providers. Virtually all of Egypt's Internet addresses are now unreachable, worldwide.
This is a completely different situation from the modest Internet manipulation that took place in Tunisia, where specific routes were blocked, or Iran, where the Internet stayed up in a rate-limited form designed to make Internet connectivity painfully slow. The Egyptian government's actions tonight have essentially wiped their country from the global map.
What happens when you disconnect a modern economy and 80,000,000 people from the Internet? What will happen tomorrow, on the streets and in the credit markets? This has never happened before, and the unknowns are piling up. We will continue to dig into the event, and will update this story as we learn more. As Friday dawns in Cairo under this unprecedented communications blackout, keep the Egyptian people in your thoughts.
That was so painful to watch. To be fair the State Dept Rep obviously has an official line that he has to stick to, but it was still frustrating as all get out, wanting a substantial response to such relevant questions.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Two interesting points made elsewhere:
1. Egypt's Internet move has been compared to Xinjiang in 2009. 2. An interesting piece on AlJazeera (and underscoring, man, our media sucks)
quote:Al Jazeera has been widely hailed for helping enable the revolt in Tunisia with its galvanizing early reports, even as Western-aligned political factions in Lebanon and the West Bank attacked and burned the channel’s offices and vans this week, accusing it of incitement against them. ... “The notion that there is a common struggle across the Arab world is something Al Jazeera helped create,” said Marc Lynch, a professor of Middle East Studies at George Washington University who has written extensively on the Arab news media. “They did not cause these events, but it’s almost impossible to imagine all this happening without Al Jazeera.”
wow. seems to be a significant amount of political unrest in that region atm.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Can someone build massive wi-fi towers near their borders?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yep, I'm on it, Stephan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, we need a Radio Free Middle East for the digital age. I don't think Wi-fi tech is quite there yet.
My question is: What is the United States' response? Does Obama, who went to Egypt in the name of peace and whatever, come out and denounce the uprisings that he more or less said he supported before? Or does he speak in favor of Mubarak, who is technically our ally?
Tricky situation. This is like a repeat of the crap the US used to pull in the 60s and 70s with supporting oppressive regimes (though Mubarak might be comparable milder) because of regional alliances rather than supporting democracies. But there's also the question of what best serves US interests. In a lot of Middle Eastern countries, taking down our oppressive ally in the leadership would likely mean a democratically elected (though I can't imagine all of them would even have elections) Islamic gov't that hated us even more. So what do we do when democracy, the thing we champion, produces negative results for us as a nation?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
The live stream on Al Jazeera (in English) is the best source of news I've found. http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's also this, which makes me give props to MJ.
Good points by Lyrhawn. I am concerned that the American mainstream media keeps referring to the protests and riots in Egypt as being "pro-democracy," which leads many Americans to be sympathetic with them. But it may very well be that what is really going on is a bid by Islamic clerics to goad the population into overthrowing the predominantly secular government of Hosni Mubarak, so Egypt can be taken over by the rule of Islamic fundamentalists.
If the forces of religious despotism win in Egypt, look for a similar "revolution" to take place in Turkey.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Kinda sucks when the bad guys are the ones on our side.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world, except for Egyptians. ... This young century will be liberty's century. By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world. By encouraging liberty at home, we will build a more hopeful America. Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom. This is the everlasting dream of America ... unless it becomes kinda inconvenient. In which case, screw freedom.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Good points by Lyrhawn. I am concerned that the American mainstream media keeps referring to the protests and riots in Egypt as being "pro-democracy," which leads many Americans to be sympathetic with them. But it may very well be that what is really going on is a bid by Islamic clerics to goad the population into overthrowing the predominantly secular government of Hosni Mubarak, so Egypt can be taken over by the rule of Islamic fundamentalists.
If the forces of religious despotism win in Egypt, look for a similar "revolution" to take place in Turkey.
And yet Ron, in a democracy, if that's the government they want, that's the government they should be allowed to have.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, there's that. I remember what Bush did after urging Palestinians to hold elections. After months of saying "democracy, democracy, democracy," they elected Hamas, and he immediately denounced the election, Hamas, and said that Hamas would not be recognized as the legitimate government. We're all for democracy, until we don't like the results.
That's the basis of my conundrum with US foreign policy in this case. Are we really for democracy everywhere even when the results are overwhelmingly likely to make the situation worse for us?
fugu's link was interesting, but I wonder how Copts in general feel about demcoracy in Egypt. It wasn't exactly a picnic when MUbarak wasn't helping them, but will it be any better if a regime unfriendly to Copts is voted into power? In what ways do they hope to see their situation improve when Mubarak is gone and the veneer of secularism goes with him?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Mubarak himself is not out of the picture mind, he's just stating that he is willing to restructure the government. What sort of government that will be is anybody's guess.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's the basis of my conundrum with US foreign policy in this case. Are we really for democracy everywhere even when the results are overwhelmingly likely to make the situation worse for us?
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Consider these words
quote:To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
Propping up the wrong side of history right up until it falls has consequences.
Consider:
quote:It will be remembered (when you ask now and later why they hate us), that Mubrak’s repression took place with the full support of both parties in the US and the Obama administration. Do you know now why whenever a US official, any US official, ever utter the word “democracy”, Arabs get a strong urge to throw up? In Iran, the US covertly smuggled those cute camera pens for demonstrators. They were not cute enough for the Egyptian people.
That's not entirely accurate. Don't get me wrong, we've sent billions to prop Mubarak up, but our support for him hasn't been 100%. Obama has spent the last two years telling Mubarak every chance he got that Mubarak needed to increase the speed of introducing reforms and open the political process more. He pushed every time they were in the same room, and he pushed through the State Department.
Do I think that means we're the good guys? No, not really. But he certainly didn't turn a blind eye.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Talk is cheap. (Billions of dollars aren't)
Hell, every time a US president travels to China they go through the empty ritual of speaking about human rights, but no one really thinks it means squat.
Example:
quote:Dr. ElBaradei: “I am pretty sure that any freely and fairly elected government in Egypt will be a moderate one, but America is really pushing Egypt and pushing the whole Arab world into radicalization with this inept policy of supporting repression.”
(It's a telling change that in the past, protesters in Tiananmen Square would make copies of the Statue of Liberty while now they're basically saying, "get out of the way")
[ January 29, 2011, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::shrug:: If you think it's all the same, then that's that, I suppose.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The founders of democracy in the USA qualified the idea of democracy with the need for voters to be literate and informed. Otherwise there is anarchy. I would question whether a population brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalist extremists qualifies as literate and informed in any way other than "technically."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wonder the same about many conservatives; they still get to vote.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Oh, kmbboots, you're just too fast for the rest of us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The founders of democracy in the USA qualified the idea of democracy with the need for voters to be literate and informed. Otherwise there is anarchy. I would question whether a population brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalist extremists qualifies as literate and informed in any way other than "technically."
They also wouldn't have thought that it was any of our business how Egypt goes about forming its government, so long as they don't interfere with us.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hah, and they say manufacturing in the US is dead ...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The problem is that the largest opposition group in Egypt as well as throughout the Muslim world--The Society of Muslim Brothers--while not itself on the U.S. State Department's Terrorist Organizations List, nonetheless is credited with spawning Hammas and Al Qaeda (though Al Qaeda has denounced the MB for its advocacy of non-violence). It's professed goal is to turn away from "modernism and reformism" and overthrow secular governments in Arab states, and establish an Islamic state, ruled by the Qur'an and Sunnah.
The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt. It's candidates for office get around the ban by running as Independents, according to Wikipedia. It is described as "an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states." It is also said to be "the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group," and the "world's most influential Islamist movement." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood
President Obama has placed himself in a difficult position by expressing support for the rioters in Cairo, despite the fact that the administration of Hosni Mubarak has long been an ally of the USA.
[ January 29, 2011, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The founders of democracy in the USA qualified the idea of democracy with the need for voters to be literate and informed. Otherwise there is anarchy. I would question whether a population brainwashed by Islamic fundamentalist extremists qualifies as literate and informed in any way other than "technically."
What else did the founders of democracy in the USA think about voters?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here are a couple of quotes attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
quote:"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)
". . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right." (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88) Link: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter96/jefferson.html
Another statement attributed to Jefferson: "Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
Of course, that latter provision could be perverted, if a specific population is not encouraged to learn to read (as was the case with most slaves in the Old South, and even of their children after Emancipation), and subsequent literacy tests to limit who is allowed to vote.
The same provision is also perverted if the majority of the news media is significantly biased.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Eh. The Founders were visionaries but they lived in a different time and thought many things that we no longer believe in. Like slavery.
Not such a big deal, imo.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I still trust their vision and overall wisdom far, far more than I do those of the people who now profess to be "Progressives," who seem to be impatient with the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them, and are eager to circimvent it or revise it wholesale.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, because after all, human slavery's got nothing on Progressives! Or genocidal programs against natives. Or no voting for women. Or property requirements for voting. Or, or, or.
That's the sort of thing I was getting at, by the way, Ron, as a means of highlighting how bizarre your demonization of "Progressives" is when juxtaposed by your reverence for the Founding Fathers. Who, incidentally, I have enormous respect for as well-more than you, since I freely acknowledge their faults and bless `em for their virtues, such as according us their descendents with a Constitution that can be changed. (The horror!)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The only people I can think of who are active politically and are actively trying to circumvent the constitution are ... conservatives. They're tea party, in fact.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I can't confirm this, but apparently the Egyptian National History museum was ransacked by looters. I wonder how many Western curators are checking Ebay right now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I heard on NPR this morning that the History Museum was being guarded by bands of volunteer youths who were afraid that looters would destroy things or that nearby fires would consume the museum.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's semi-reassuring to hear.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
This Economist article did what all the others did not - finally clarify what is going on and, most importantly, what the likely repercussions are.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't confirm this, but apparently the Egyptian National History museum was ransacked by looters. I wonder how many Western curators are checking Ebay right now.
From what I heard hardly anything was stolen, vandals just ran in and smashed a bunch of antiquities. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, apparently, citizens grabbed and apprehended a lot of the city vandals on motorbikes and found most of them were carrying government arms and id's, probably acting as provocateurs. An age-old story!
also, al jazeera has definitely done its job a little too well for mubarak:
Rakeesh and Sam, "progressives" had nothing to do with abolishing slavery--that was the work of religious conservatives. As for the way native Americans were treated, this is decried mainly by people who believe American should stand for and do what is good and right according to the Christian outlook, people who sent missionaries to the tribes to equip them to stand up to abusive government. It is always conservatives who want the Constitution applied to everyone. Classic "Liberals" were actually what we would today call Libertarians, (whom self-proclaimed progressives would regard as ultra-conservative). Modern leftist "progressives" merely hijacked the term "liberal." As for granting the voting franchise to women, it is conservatives who want the rights and principles contained in the Constitution expanded to include everyone, because it is conservatives who believe in empowering the individual and protecting the individual against expansive big government. It is religious conservatives who uphold the principles taught by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) This is what has transformed America for the good in the past century and a half. Not socialism, not leftist propaganda.
Conservatism does not in this country refer to resisting change. It only means resisting those changes that are based on wrong theories of government, and protecting what is right and good, such as the proven principles contained in the Bill of Rights, and the economic system of capitalism, which best allows the individual to succeed and improve his lot and even move up in class. (Upward mobility in class is a largely American invention, which we model to the world.) Only modern "liberals" and progressives have ever wanted to set aside the the U.S. Constitution with a total revision that would not put so many barriers in the way of their implementing their unproven (and in many cases already disproven) leftist theories of big, collectivist government.
One way you can tell that left-leaning modern liberals never had anything to do with adding worthwhile amendments to the Constitution, is that it takes a 2/3 majority in Congress, and ratification by a 3/4 majority of states, to amend the Constitution, and modern liberals have never comprised more than about 20% of the population--usually closer to 15%. Conservatives have always outnumbed them about 2:1, and moderates tend to listen to conservatives more than they do to the America-bashing, military-bashing, capitalism-bashing propaganda of liberals.
[ January 30, 2011, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:As for the way native Americans were treated, this is decried mainly by people who believe American should stand for and do what is good and right according to the Christian outlook, people who sent missionaries to the tribes to equip them to stand up to abusive government.
Congratulations! Your historical fantasy has reached offensively false levels. There's too much wrong with this to even begin, especially given that the tribe conversion efforts mostly impugned upon them that they were lesser beings, like the blacks. But still, in some cases, trainable for service labor.
Wait, that's more than this is worth. Do yourself a favor and shut up about the native americans. Stick to your fantasies about liberals without trivializing the tragedy of an entire race of people for the sake of your fictional narratives.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh and Sam, "progressives" had nothing to do with abolishing slavery--that was the work of religious conservatives. As for the way native Americans were treated, this is decried mainly by people who believe American should stand for and do what is good and right according to the Christian outlook, people who sent missionaries to the tribes to equip them to stand up to abusive government. It is always conservatives who want the Constitution applied to everyone. Classic "Liberals" were actually what we would today call Libertarians, (whom self-proclaimed progressives would regard as ultra-conservative). Modern leftist "progressives" merely hijacked the term "liberal." As for granting the voting franchise to women, it is conservatives who want the rights and principles contained in the Constitution expanded to include everyone, because it is conservatives who believe in empowering the individual and protecting the individual against expansive big government. It is religious conservatives who uphold the principles taught by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) This is what has transformed America for the good in the past century and a half. Not socialism, not leftist propaganda.
Conservatism does not in this country refer to resisting change. It only means resisting those changes that are based on wrong theories of government, and protecting what is right and good, such as the proven principles contained in the Bill of Rights, and the economic system of capitalism, which best allows the individual to succeed and improve his lot and even move up in class. (Upward mobility in class is a largely American invention, which we model to the world.) Only modern "liberals" and progressives have ever wanted to set aside the the U.S. Constitution with a total revision that would not put so many barriers in the way of their implementing their unproven (and in many cases already disproven) leftist theories of big, collectivist government.
One way you can tell that left-leaning modern liberals never had anything to do with adding worthwhile amendments to the Constitution, is that it takes a 2/3 majority in Congress, and ratification by a 3/4 majority of states, to amend the Constitution, and modern liberals have never comprised more than about 20% of the population--usually closer to 15%. Conservatives have always outnumbed them about 2:1, and moderates tend to listen to conservatives more than they do to the America-bashing, military-bashing, capitalism-bashing propaganda of liberals.
EPIC FAIL
REBOOTING HISTORY NOW . . .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Samprimary, as offensive and wrong as Ron's ideas of history are in many places, telling him to shut up is both over the line and counter productive, I think.
Ron,
I want to be very clear on what claims you're making, because you have a history around here of dodging wording later: you're crediting the abolition of slavery to religious conservatives? A strange claim indeed, given how often support for slavery or black inferiority was found in the Bible.
No. The truth, Ron, is more complicated. Abolitionists came from a variety of backgrounds, including MANY New England liberal types. This is a fact, one which any person with a passing knowledge of human slavery in the USA knows. Do you choose to dispute it?
Missionaries were sent to natives to convert them, not help them against the government-which in fact often worked with missionaries. Another fact. Do you want to dispute that specific claim?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rakeesh, I do dispute everything you said. You appear to have been taught a false history. A VERY false history. For one thing, the "liberals" of nearly two centuries ago were not modern liberals, they were what today would be called libertarians. Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
You are also making things up when you say I have a history of "dodging wording later." That is your mistaken interpretation. You cannot and have never been able to refute what I actually say, so you have to mischaracterize what I say, and then falsely claim victory later, despite the fact that I have answered your arguments--at least the ones that were not too silly to dignify with a response.
Yes, it is true that SOME SOUTHERN SLAVEHOLDERS tried to wrest the Bible to give support to slavery. That just shows the strong hold the Bible had over the populace, that they thought it was necessary to try that. (The Bible used to be taught in public schools.) BUT IT WAS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES WHO INTERPRETED THE BIBLE CORRECTLY, IN CONTEXT, WHO DEMOLISHED THOSE FALSE CLAIMS and laid the true foundation for the Abolitionist movement--which had its greatest strength in churches, not on the streets. It is no coincidence that nearly all the "stops" on the Underground Railroad were in the homes of fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians, many of them Seventh-day Adventists. For that reason, the lady known as "Sojourner Truth," who repeatedly conducted escaping individuals and families along the Underground Railroad, remained a friend of Adventists all her life, sometimes speaking at Adventist "Camp Meetings," even though she herself never joined the church.
As for what missionaries taught the Indians, again you are ignorant of history. Missionaries are the ones who teach natives to read and write, modern methods of agriculture, and other skills valuable for coping with modern society. In some primitive communities where there was no written language, missionaries created them. Missionaries established virtually all the hospitals and treatment clinics in third world countries, as well as schools and colleges and universities. They did not just try to "convert the natives." What a biased, disparaging, anti-religous thing to say! Virtually all the natives of sub-Saharan Africa were taught to read and write by missionaries, and the same is true of South and Central America, as well as all around the world. If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
There was a movie out some time ago (The Mission) which depicted in somewhat romanticized fashion the faithfulness of some Catholic missionaries, who stood by the natives even against the political intriguing of their own church when it conspired with colonial governments to exploit the natives.
Go back a hundred years ago, and the word "missionary" had a triple halo around it in the minds of most people. Only in recent times have "Missionary Colleges" changed their names to place-name universities.
I can only shake my head and lament at the utter ruin that is modern eduction, that you don't even know about real history.
By the way, Sam, I am one-eighth native American (Cherokee) myself, so don't presume to tell me to shut up about such matters. I am far better informed than you are about them.
[ January 30, 2011, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This whole situation just make me so sad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't confirm this, but apparently the Egyptian National History museum was ransacked by looters. I wonder how many Western curators are checking Ebay right now.
If you scroll down most of the way they show the "human wall" of people who linked arms to try and keep people out of the museum. Good on them, even if vandals did end up getting in there.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
Said one cowboy to another, "I think it would be nice,
if we could take these injuns and convert them all to Christ;
See, they are all disgusting, and bringing me great pain,
and if they don't believe me, we'll put a bullet in their brains!"
--Five Iron Frenzy "Old West"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
Generally these days I don't like to do point/counter-point with people, but I'm going to make a minor exception in this case, only because it's a matter of history.
quote:You appear to have been taught a false history. A VERY false history. For one thing, the "liberals" of nearly two centuries ago were not modern liberals, they were what today would be called libertarians. Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
Rakeesh is more right than wrong. What do you mean by 90% of people were in religious professions? 90% of people back then were farmers. The other 10% were religious professions, and skilled and unskilled trades. Until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, America was very much an agrarian nation, which meant almost everyone was a farmer except the very few who got into a trade.
quote:BUT IT WAS RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES WHO INTERPRETED THE BIBLE CORRECTLY, IN CONTEXT, WHO DEMOLISHED THOSE FALSE CLAIMS and laid the true foundation for the Abolitionist movement--which had its greatest strength in churches, not on the streets.
Religious history is difficult to parse, and I'll admit readily that I'm not totally up on all the specific doctrines and denominations of Second Great Awakening history and what went along with it, but I'm well above average when it comes to 19th Century American history in general. What you refer to as "religious conservatives" are more accurately described as what I'd call "Lyman Beecher" religious types. They were old-school, and were certainly not the founders of the abolitionist movement. People like Beecher's kids, Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent radical preacher known for being anti-slavery, and his sister, Harriet Beecher-Stowe, were the radicals. They wouldn't have used the term "liberal" back then because it didn't exist in the same way that it does today, and really, neither did "progressive," but if we're applying 20th century ideas and terms to the 19th century, they certainly would have fallen under that umbrella. The abolitionist movement was fueled to a great degree by religion, but by religious radicals, not conservatives. Lyman Beecher after all is partly responsible for founding Oberlin College. After he refused to allow students to discuss abolition and slavery, they left his more conservative school to found the radical Oberlin so they would be free to discuss whatever they wanted. I think you have the situation somewhat backwards.
In general, it was what you might consider "progressives" who were responsible for creating the pressure for abolitionism in America. Now, certainly there were those like the Free Soil Party who were more of a big tent organization comprised even more so of racists who wanted to limit slavery merely because they didn't want any blacks in their state at all, but the real abolitionist freedom movement was highly radical.
quote:As for what missionaries taught the Indians, again you are ignorant of history. Missionaries are the ones who teach natives to read and write, modern methods of agriculture, and other skills valuable for coping with modern society. In some primitive communities where there was no written language, missionaries created them. Missionaries established virtually all the hospitals and treatment clinics in third world countries, as well as schools and colleges and universities. They did not just try to "convert the natives." What a biased, disparaging, anti-religous thing to say! Virtually all the natives of sub-Saharan Africa were taught to read and write by missionaries, and the same is true of South and Central America, as well as all around the world. If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
I think you sort of steam rolled over the real damage that missionaries did in Native American communities. Everything you described that missionaries did was part of a concerted effort to get Indians to abandon their own culture and assimilate into American culture. Going to school, for Indians, meant learning how to cook American food, dress like an American, and think like an American. It wasn't just education for the sake of education, it was about indoctrination towards assimilation. You're also ignoring the fact that by the time we're talking about, where it's mostly the Plains indians we're discussing, they weren't, by and large, farmers to begin with. They were nomadic hunter societies forced to live on reservations and forced to farm. Learning "modern farming" might have been a technological advancement, but it was yet another part of the destruction of their original culture.
You have a very interesting view of history that I haven't found much any evidence of in my own studies. Again, the religious angle isn't really my forte when it comes to 19th C American History, but I know enough about it to know you're off the mark. You're right about placing such high importance of the religious community in the north in the abolitionist struggle, but I think you're way off the mark in your characterization of that community.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
That as near as happened regardless of who did what. The native American population was reduced by up to 80% in the century following contact with the west. This is not about judgement, just the facts of the matter. Today North American native populations are probably similar to pre-Colombian numbers, but bear little cultural similarity to the people who once inhabited the continent. The idea that missionaries "saved" cultures is ludicrous. Nobody saved those cultures. They were destroyed, despite whatever intentions anybody may have had to the contrary. While you can say that perhaps a few of those families and communities that were spared destruction were able to adapt to living in their new circumstances, and *have* a culture because of missionaries, but that doesn't make it *their* culture. There's also a reason why the majority of native languages in the Americas are now dead, and missionaries were a part of that too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have an Egyptian friend who is very sad that the two options he seems to have consist of: 1) supporting a thuggish, inefficient dictatorship; 2) turning into Iran.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Not to get into the missionaries to the Native Americans or importance of the founders in modern discourse, but I think Ron had a valid point. There's a meaningful difference between a democracy like the United States and one in which there's no freedom of the press, and no reliable information about the candidates. I have no idea what an Egyptian democracy would look like but I think it's reasonable to say that you can have a country that allows you to vote for any candidate and even counts fairly and still be shy of a real democracy.
Hobbes Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have an Egyptian friend who is very sad that the two options he seems to have consist of: 1) supporting a thuggish, inefficient dictatorship; 2) turning into Iran.
I'm sure glad I'm not Egyptian, but I totally sympathize with his pain. Even as an American it's impossible to really choose a side. People SHOULD have the right to protest and demonstrate against a corrupt government BUT letting those demonstrations turn violent or letting the "rule of mob" establish a government instead is also bad. I wish I could just bury my head in the sand completely sometimes!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: By the way, Sam, I am one-eighth native American (Cherokee) myself, so don't presume to tell me to shut up about such matters. I am far better informed than you are about them.
Being part of a race doesn't magically assure you some or any valid historical knowledge about what happened with that race. You would be a perfect example of that even if you were 100% cherokee, with what you're saying so far.
quote:Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
Source or reference anything that gives this as a factual assertion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron,
quote:For one thing, the "liberals" of nearly two centuries ago were not modern liberals, they were what today would be called libertarians. Secondly, 90% of the population nearly two centuries ago was religious in profession.
Where do I say they were, first of all? You were the one that brought that strange standard into the discussion, not me. But no, they wouldn't be called libertarians because they also had a host of other ideas which would be considered in the modern day extremely objectionable-like nearly everyone else from one and a half centuries ago.
That's just another reason why it's absurd to project in the way you're doing.
Second, I think you just made that figure up, but I don't dispute that a very overwhelming majority of the American population was religious in the mid 19th century. That's got nothing to do with your laying the abolition of slavery at religious conservative feet, though.
Because, again, that movement sprang from many sources.
quote: You are also making things up when you say I have a history of "dodging wording later." That is your mistaken interpretation. You cannot and have never been able to refute what I actually say, so you have to mischaracterize what I say, and then falsely claim victory later, despite the fact that I have answered your arguments--at least the ones that were not too silly to dignify with a response.
No, Ron. We've been over this. Recently, in fact, when you claimed my (and others') arguments were 'too silly to dignify with a response', they were in fact extremely relevant and unanswered by you. I'd offer to quote exchanges proving this, but it's been done, and recently.
But I see where the root of your argument lies: you basically go through history, find good and heroic people, and claim them as religious conservatives in some form or another, completely disregarding whatever labels they earned in their own context, which in the case of abolitionists was as a matter of factual record most emphatically not 'religious conservative', Ron.
That's a ridiculous, transparent means of cherry-picking. 'Conservative' is a relative term. It's not a number fixed against some other fixed number, and all human beings throughout history fall at some point on it. Your political and religious vanity is appealed to by this method, though, and I have little hope that it will be shaken by any kind of reasoning, or even by the kinds of standards you profess to believe in elsewhere-such as using the context of the Bible to judge itself.
It's funny how things shift for you, isn't it? Context is so important sometimes, but then over here in this discussion, well, context doesn't matter at all. Those abolitionists, they're religious conservatives, not radicals.
quote:As for what missionaries taught the Indians, again you are ignorant of history. Missionaries are the ones who teach natives to read and write, modern methods of agriculture, and other skills valuable for coping with modern society. In some primitive communities where there was no written language, missionaries created them. Missionaries established virtually all the hospitals and treatment clinics in third world countries, as well as schools and colleges and universities. They did not just try to "convert the natives." What a biased, disparaging, anti-religous thing to say! Virtually all the natives of sub-Saharan Africa were taught to read and write by missionaries, and the same is true of South and Central America, as well as all around the world. If it weren't for missionaries siding with the natives, their cultures would have been overwhelmed and subsumed, probably completely wiped out.
No, Ron. Stick to the topic at hand. We're not discussing sub-Saharan Africa or anywhere else, first of all. Second, yes, missionaries taught natives many things, but it was so very, very often conditional teaching, and quite frequently it wasn't very voluntary at all. It's not voluntary when the state compels a child's attendance, for example, or robs a nation's people of the ability to feed itself compelling them to rely on missionary charity, which is tied very closely to conversion and acceptance of foreign domination.
And for the record, I didn't say the missionaries were there just to convert, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. I only correctly identified their primary goal, and rejected your absurd assertion that there was some sort of subversive anti-government aim going on in any meaningful way by which missionaries in the 17-19th centuries would attempt to help natives stand up to the American government...rather than assimilate into it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Not to get into the missionaries to the Native Americans or importance of the founders in modern discourse, but I think Ron had a valid point. There's a meaningful difference between a democracy like the United States and one in which there's no freedom of the press, and no reliable information about the candidates. I have no idea what an Egyptian democracy would look like but I think it's reasonable to say that you can have a country that allows you to vote for any candidate and even counts fairly and still be shy of a real democracy.
Hobbes
The issue, of course, goes far beyond one of simple legislation or current political practices. Egypt has educational and cultural issues tied up with misinformation about and fear of the west- some of that gleaned from a healthy dose of the paranoia of their neighbors. That makes actual participation in democracy, and an actual urgency to reform information delivery and transparency sort of difficult.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I should say that I may have been wrong in the way I spoke of missionaries being concerned with saving/preserving cultures. There is nothing sacred about culture. It is the survival of the people themselves that matters. When members of Western Civilization come upon a people who know only a primitive lifestyle--maybe believing in animism, or worshipping devils out of fear, or even going so far as to offer human sacrifices, then we are doing that people a great favor by introducing them to a better culture, one inwhich they do not struggle with basic survival, and contend with hostile tribes, and with being old when they are 40, and dying by the time they are 50. I think missionaries would be remiss in not teaching people a better way to live at the same time they are teaching them a better way to believe about ultimate reality.
If representatives of a truly advanced, interstellar civilization were to come to our planet, with a culture where everyone lives forever, and has everything they need and want--I think we would all want someone to teach us how we could function in that culture.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
What if they were athiests?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I fail to see the correlation with "animism" or "worshipping devils" (i.e. "non-Christian") and any of the struggles you described. Human sacrifice I might give you, but give me one citation that this was a common aspect of Native American culture. The Dark Ages were filled with Christians who fought pointless wars with other factions (tribes) and died before they hit 50.
In other words, the Indians didn't have a relatively crappier standard of living because they were godless heathens, but rather because they hadn't undergone the technological and political arms race that Europeans had in the previous 300 years. The religious beliefs of both sides had little to do with their difference in technological sophistication. One side had medicine, guns, and agriculture (not to mention a host of communicable diseases for which they had already developed herd immunity), and the other side didn't.
Let me turn your analogy back on you. If our modern, secularized culture were to develop a time machine and invite the American settlers of the West to learn our ways, your own argument would necessarily state that it is our religious beliefs (or rather, the lack thereof) that are responsible for our greater longevity and generally happier lifestyles, rather than, say, 150 years of technological advancement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Egyptian military released a statement earlier today saying that they would not interfere with the people's freedom of expression, nor would they stop the protests. Looks like this could go on as long as the people have the will to keep it up, or until Mubarak does something to really placate them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I should say that I may have been wrong in the way I spoke of missionaries being concerned with saving/preserving cultures. There is nothing sacred about culture. It is the survival of the people themselves that matters. When members of Western Civilization come upon a people who know only a primitive lifestyle--maybe believing in animism, or worshipping devils out of fear, or even going so far as to offer human sacrifices, then we are doing that people a great favor by introducing them to a better culture, one inwhich they do not struggle with basic survival, and contend with hostile tribes, and with being old when they are 40, and dying by the time they are 50. I think missionaries would be remiss in not teaching people a better way to live at the same time they are teaching them a better way to believe about ultimate reality.
If representatives of a truly advanced, interstellar civilization were to come to our planet, with a culture where everyone lives forever, and has everything they need and want--I think we would all want someone to teach us how we could function in that culture.
If the survival of the people is all that really matters, and not the culture, then they were doing just fine before Europeans arrived. Warring with neighboring tribes is a problem? I think I'd take a war (if we're talking about the survival of a race) between tribes in America over World Wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. Modern society has found impressive ways of wiping out other societies and races. I'm curious as to why you think a race of people are safer in modern society than they were in their "primitive" one. Then there's the fact that American attempts to integrate and assimilate Indians into our culture resulted in even more of their deaths.
None of that is even tangling with your whole 'culture is irrelevant" thing, which I take big issue with. You're curiously close to "white man's burden" paternalistic exhortations that got us into quite a bit of trouble in places like the Philippines, and that have historically not been a positive force in American society.
You and Rudyard Kipling would have been good friends.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Story about the looters who broke into the museum, and the band of youths who formed a human chain to prevent the looters from escaping with their loot.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Jordan's king just fired the cabinet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mubarak will not seek reelection.
That's pretty big.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Bets on whether this will placate or encourage demonstrators?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Encourage.
But I wish they'd see it as a win and start planning for elections. They basically won. El-baradei is widely considered the odds-on favorite in a free election, and he's highly favored by the protesters and opposition. Having Mubarak just leave and leaving a huge vacuum in power could be disastrous.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Would be. Considering some polls suggest that the Egyptian population is just about ready to elect a totalitarian islamist regime which would end the treaty with Israel. If they did that, the US political strategy in the region, such as it ever was, could be completely routed.
The only good out here is for the people to somehow be persuaded to elect a moderate voice to make a smooth transition towards democracy. But there's no indication that they *want* to, only that they want an end to the current situation. Nothing good here, either way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Electing el-baradei would be fine for everyone involved from what I've read, and he enjoys widespread popularity. I've also read that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't nearly as radical as they are being portrayed in Western media. Former Al Qaeda members who were in the Brotherhood left because it was too secular and too moderate for their radicalism.
I think there's a chance that this might end up not exploding into chaos. I'm worried about what flash elections that happen tomorrow would elect. Most people when asked who their favored replacement for Mubarak is have no answer. They want him gone, as you say, and figure Democracy will sort the rest out. But, when you float them specific names and ask who they support, el-baradei rises to the top.
He's not necessarily pro-United States, but he's not an enemy either, and he wouldn't antagonize Israel either. The possibility of a war between Israel and Egpyt, almost regardless of who wins an election, is incredibly slight.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade)
[ February 02, 2011, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Nice to see the voice of reason enter the discussion. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
On the radio this morning there was some polls presented that had some pretty interesting results:
Something like 74% of Egyptians polled would prefer a Shuria compliant state and government to the one they currently have
Also, 89% approve of the death penalty for anyone that would like to convert to Christianity or Judaism.
I do not know if the polling was biased in any way, but I found it interesting.
There have also been claims that during all of this confusion in Egypt that there have been weapons being smuggled into the Gaza Strip. Again, I just heard this on the radio so I do not know if it is true or not. I'll search to see if any of the claims are substantiated.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Geraine, I think at least an important point to remember about those polls is that while a large percentage of people may state their support for something, that doesn't really indicate the likelihood that it will happen- especially in a state that has not had democracy in half a century. The first thing any new government in Egypt would be looking for is allies. Siding against the Americans and against Israel would be, well, a problematic move, especially considering the support the US has been willing to offer its friends in the region.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
You are right Orincoro. I think the biggest fear is that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to take over and eventually set up a Caliphate. If this happened I don't know if they would really care to have the US as an ally. I don't believe for a second that will happen though.
I went to the radio stations website, and the guest that gave those polling stats was part of a Zionist organization, so that explains the polling.
I have nothing against Israel, but I do think that at times things get blown out of proportion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
1, 2, 3 Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Lisa: When a certain other poster referred to "a tribal mentality" when discussing the Jews, I stepped in an in no uncertain terms told them to stop immediately.
How then can I let you say something just a terrible about the country of Egypt and its people? If you want to discuss a lack of education, or the effects of a totalitarian regime on the general populace, go right ahead. If you want to state that Egyptians by nature are inferior or uncivilized, that is unacceptable. Please stop.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My friend Cathy is a teacher in Cairo. She just updated her facebook status, so the internet is back up.
She says the people there have been wonderful, and they are going to resume school soon.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Anderson Cooper and his CNN crew were set upon by supporters of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Wednesday afternoon as demonstrations in Cairo took a violent turn a week into a nationwide pro-democracy uprising there.
.../...
"Where we are is rather precarious right now. I'm in an area where I can see what's happening in the square," he said. "But I honestly don't know when I can leave this building. I have no idea what's going to happen in the next couple of hours."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is why I wanted them to start toning things down after they got a concession from Mubarak. I actually think the news hurt things a little bit by spreading the rumor that the military might speed the exit of Mubarak if the protesters kept it up.
In the grand scheme of things, for the regions most populous country, even hundreds of thousands of protesters shouldn't be enough to speak for everyone, and you had to know there was an opposition. Though, in this case I'd be willing to be that the opposition Pro-Mubarak protesters were off-duty cops or something sent in under the guise of protesters to give it legitimacy.
So it's time to ask the question again? Will this encourage protesters or slow them down?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Though, in this case I'd be willing to be that the opposition Pro-Mubarak protesters were off-duty cops or something sent in under the guise of protesters to give it legitimacy.
I've heard allegations of that, but not any confirmation.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Not to get into the missionaries to the Native Americans or importance of the founders in modern discourse, but I think Ron had a valid point. There's a meaningful difference between a democracy like the United States and one in which there's no freedom of the press, and no reliable information about the candidates. I have no idea what an Egyptian democracy would look like but I think it's reasonable to say that you can have a country that allows you to vote for any candidate and even counts fairly and still be shy of a real democracy.
Hobbes
The issue, of course, goes far beyond one of simple legislation or current political practices. Egypt has educational and cultural issues tied up with misinformation about and fear of the west- some of that gleaned from a healthy dose of the paranoia of their neighbors. That makes actual participation in democracy, and an actual urgency to reform information delivery and transparency sort of difficult.
Sorry I was so long in responding to this. I absolutely agree. My original post was in direct response to Ron, but I think the larger vision I draw from this is that maybe our number one goal in Egypt and in general shouldn't be to have open elections as soon as possible. Maybe other reforms have to proceed that for it to be helpful instead of hurtful. I'm thinking specifically of an increase in personal freedoms (such as freedom of the press, but general civil rights) and education. Meaning I doubt a direct transition to democracy would result in anything approaching success. However, I'm conservative enough that in general I'm not comfortable with my government messing around with the government of other countries so I'm not really advocating a specific role for the US in this. Rather talking about goals and paths to those goals.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Between this and its self-imposed fallout with Turkey, Israel's world is getting smaller and much hairier.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Between this and its self-imposed fallout with Turkey, Israel's world is getting smaller and much hairier.
I don't think that's anything to be surprised about. They want what they want and are located in an area with people with extremely opposite wants. Since BOTH sides seem to be completely allergic to the word "compromise", it seems inevitable.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Two members of my church were vacationing in Egypt when the riots started, and found themselves trapped when Egypt closed the Cairo airport. We had prayer for them last week. I just saw them at church today, so they got out. The U.S. Embassy has been arranging special flights. One of the men told me that they kept themselves ready to go at a moment's notice, and when they received word from the embassy that a flight was available, they saw their chance, and jumped at it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Glad your friends are safe, Ron.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I don't think that's anything to be surprised about. They want what they want and are located in an area with people with extremely opposite wants. Since BOTH sides seem to be completely allergic to the word "compromise", it seems inevitable.
Not even really all about the compromise, either. This comes at a long chain of self-inflicted image problems that were completely unnecessary and, as time goes on, will force future compromise Israel could have and wanted to avoid.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Nothing good here, either way.
I agree completely. I hate to see the people of Egypt suffering under a corrupt, oppressive government. But I'd hate to see them trapped in something much worse.
I feel for the women of Egypt especially. Despite the above-mentioned poll, I don't think the majority of Egyptians want Sharia law.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Right, Pippin--I just wish the people of Egypt had a third choice other than the ones they have now, between a secular tyranny and a religious tyranny. Neither of those two choices will result in genuine freedom.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No real expert that I've seen analyze the situation thinks there's much of a chance of Egypt heading the route of an Iranian-style theocracy.
I think the fears about it are overblown.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm not afraid the people are actually going to get out the vote for that kind of thing. I'm afraid that if you gave it 20 more years, that's what you might get out of it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think the Muslim Brotherhood is more pervasive throughout all the Islamic countries, and more stealthy, than some of you are giving them credit for being.
As for Iran, remember that by many accounts the majority of the country never wanted a theocracy, and still today prefer the ways of the West. People never freely choose tyranny. Tyranny is always thrust upon them, by stratagem and stealth (as in Chilé under Allendé), or by shooting their way into power (like the Bolsheviks who overthrew the Kerensky Republic in Russia).
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No real expert that I've seen analyze the situation thinks there's much of a chance of Egypt heading the route of an Iranian-style theocracy.
I think the fears about it are overblown.
I think the real fear is that there won't BE any sort of real popular vote on the idea. In times of uproar, thugs tend to have the upper hand. Just because one guy stops rigging the elections doesn't mean that someone else won't step in to do it another way (or even get rid of elections all together). Who do you think Egyptians would trust to be a fair arbitrator? Certainly NOT the U.S., so who?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
Most of what I've read about the Muslim Brotherhood says that they aren't nearly as radical as a lot of media sources are painting them as. The "muslim" in their name is sort of incidental. When Mubarak banned opposition groups, the one place he couldn't tamp down political organization was inside the mosques, so that's where political groups met and organized. Remember that members of actual radical groups in the Middle East LEFT the Muslim Brotherhood because it was TOO secular and TOO moderate.
DDDaysh -
Yeah, that's a legitimate fear. Most experts don't seem to hope that a genuine full-fledged democracy will flower overnight, but they also hope and think that this could be a genuine first step on that long road. I guess we won't know for sure until September rolls around, but there are a lot of positive indicators. As far as who could be trusted as a fair OUTSIDE facilitator of the election? The Swiss maybe? They've acted as a trusted go-between from Egypt to Israel and the US in the past. Maybe the Saudis, but I don't know if I would trust them from an American viewpoint.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parsimony: Said one cowboy to another, "I think it would be nice,
if we could take these injuns and convert them all to Christ;
See, they are all disgusting, and bringing me great pain,
and if they don't believe me, we'll put a bullet in their brains!"
--Five Iron Frenzy "Old West"
Brilliant and topically relevant to historical revisionists like ron.
*slow clap*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mubarak welshes on stepping down, vows in televised address, essentially, that he is one with egypt as long as he's breathing. The protesters grow in size and fury.
There's unconfirmed reports right now of Mubarak and his family leaving cairo amid the unrest.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
And he's gone!
Mubarak just stepped down and handed power to the military.
Too bad he handed power over to the military. Militaries aren't known facilitating the peaceful change of power.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I attended a diplomatic panel and brieing on monday in Prague where it was nearly universally agreed by the panel that the military would be the best solution to an interim government to fill a power vacum. I can see why it doesn't look like the ideal choice, but the military in Egypt still has the respect of the people, and if the step-down is structured properly, with cooperation between the US, Turkey and the Egyptian military, this is an ideal way of holding things together for the number of months necessary to structure a new government.
The alternative could have been a disaster in the civilian government completely collapsed on itself, and the military *took* power, rather than having it handed to them with the understanding that it is an transitional measure.
Really, the problem over the past week has been exactly this: who was going to fill the vacuum while the transition happened, so that the transition could happen? Many agreed from the beginning that the military was the only force in Egypt capable of doing this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
CNN is doing interviews en masse on the streets of Cairo, and almost every single person has said they are glad that the military is taking over. My initial reaction was negative, that this might have all been a ploy by the military to seize power, but, the people trust them, and I expect tomorrow and the next day we'll start seeing how the mechanics work out of building a democracy from scratch.
Reports say that Iranian opposition figures are calling for protests on Monday, and that many have been arrested preemptively.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It was really inevitable that Mubarak would have to step down. The military refused to fire on the very citizens it was sworn to protect. So the only other way to restore order was for Mubarak to resign.
I have to compare this to the pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmin Square in China. The Chinese Military refused to fire on their own children. We all remember the striking photo of the elderly man who faced down a tank. But then the ruthless rulers of the last bastion of communist tyranny brought in a division of soldiers from Mongolia, who were perfectly willing to shoot down Chinese people. Thus the pro-democracy movement was crushed.
But now we will see how long it takes for the Muslim Brotherhood to turn Egypt into a theocracy governed by Sharia law and regards Western Civilization as their sworn enemy, and tears up its treaties with Israel. The military is just a caretaker, and the main political force in Egypt, as well as in many Arab lands, is the Muslim Brotherhood, which hates America and spawned Al Qaeda and Hamas. They will most likely be the ones to form a new government.
Egypt already had a democracy in outward form. They have a constitution, elections, and a president. Of course, the problem was that president has been president for 30 years. I wonder if the new government, when it is formed, will agree to term limits. If it does not, then we will know for sure that the Egyptians have traded a secular tyranny for a religious tyranny. If history is any guide, the latter will be worse than the former.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:the main political force in Egypt, as well as in many Arab lands, is the Muslim Brotherhood
That's not even remotely true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: We all remember the striking photo of the elderly man who faced down a tank.
Why elderly? He is unknown but usually considered to be a student. So at least he looked young enough to be a student.
This is a small thing, but typical of why I tend to think you are mostly just making stuff up.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:the main political force in Egypt, as well as in many Arab lands, is the Muslim Brotherhood
That's not even remotely true.
You need to listen to Samp Ron. TMB isn't small time by any stretch, but they are not even remotely in a position to step in either by force or even subterfuge.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Prediction: no one on this board will ever be able to persuade Ron that the Muslim Brotherhood (note how scary that group sounds!) aren't a bunch of Sharia-lusting thugs. At least not to the extent of actually admitting it in plain English, and that he was mistaken about it. Never-no amount of informed commentary will suffice, because there will always be some commentator that can be turned to in spite of dozens or even scores of other voices that will be listened to instead.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Seriously Ron, the scenario you just presented as fact is totally divorced from any honest assessment of the situation that I've heard or read in the last two weeks. Where are you getting your facts from, if anywhere?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, Ron's statement may be false, but to me it looks like you're trying to imply that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't want Sharia? Most sources I have read generally agree that they do.
If I recall correctly one of their official stated goals is to replace existing governments with Sharia through nonviolent means. The "nonviolent" part is obviously up for debate and I think reasonable and relatively well-informed people could disagree as to how nonviolent they really are, but it's been my impression that the "Sharia" part is pretty much just a fact.
Did you have some reason to think otherwise, or am I misreading you?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I hate the idea of term limits, with them we wouldn't have had Trudeau for so long.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rakeesh, Ron's statement may be false, but to me it looks like you're trying to imply that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't want Sharia? Most sources I have read generally agree that they do.
If I recall correctly one of their official stated goals is to replace existing governments with Sharia through nonviolent means. The "nonviolent" part is obviously up for debate and I think reasonable and relatively well-informed people could disagree as to how nonviolent they really are, but it's been my impression that the "Sharia" part is pretty much just a fact.
Did you have some reason to think otherwise, or am I misreading you?
In fairness, that IS a stated goal of theirs. But I think you have to view it in a sort of relative context to what we have here in America. Groups that argue about school prayer, "In God We Trust" on our money, and other attempts to integrate Christianity formally into the government, or even putting the 10 Commandments on the steps of a state government buildings, I think we're talking something more in lines with this, rather than an armed attempt to force strict codes of behavior under threat of death for violating.
Recently there was a bruhaha about the DNI saying that they were largely secular, and it was proved wrong with a spokesman from the MB saying flat out that it was the ultimate goal of theirs, but he followed that immediately but saying it wasn't an immediate goal, and that if they could eventually convince the Egyptian people that it was a good idea, then why not?
Lots of people are pointing to the fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad were splinter groups of MB as proof of their radicalization, but that ignores the fact that Hamas and IJ LEFT the Muslim Brotherhood because they weren't radical enough! When you get into the details I don't think it works as well.
Plus you have to realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is only the force it is because it developed in mosques, which were the only place for political organization under Mubarak, since it was the only place he wouldn't crackdown on organizers. Now that people have freedom of organization, who knows what will happen?
Rough guess polling on Egpyt has put popular support for the Muslim Brotherhood somewhere around 20%, and that's before any viable alternatives really even crop up, as will happen over the course of the year. It's kind of an all or nothing prospect here. The military will NOT let the Muslim Brotherhood just slink in and seize power. If they want power, they'll have to get it in an election, and if the military waits a year to let groups organize, then they'll have some real competition.
Fears of the Brotherhood appear to be overblown by most estimates I've seen. Are they Islamic? Sure. But so what? Aren't there a TON of religious based political groups in America? Do they have power? Yes! Do they have a strangle hold on power in America? Not really. They've managed to turn a few social issues into political hot potatoes, but other than that they're just another interest group.
By and large, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the non-violent part until they step out of line.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: If I recall correctly one of their official stated goals is to replace existing governments with Sharia through nonviolent means. The "nonviolent" part is obviously up for debate and I think reasonable and relatively well-informed people could disagree as to how nonviolent they really are, but it's been my impression that the "Sharia" part is pretty much just a fact.
Sorry, I wasn't clear but you make a good and fair point bringing it up, Dan-I was criticizing Ron for the implied characterization altogether as Sharia-lusting thugs. That is folks who will go for the Sharia thuggishly, violently.
It sounds to me as though you personally dispute the non-violent part yourself, but perhaps I'm misreading. If so, can I ask why?
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
By and large, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the non-violent part until they step out of line. [/QB]
That's a very good point Lyrhawn. I honestly haven't done too much study on the Muslim Brotherhood (apart from blips I hear on NPR), but I have to agree with you in principal.
Just because someone classifies themselves as Muslim and wants a government in line with Muslim law does NOT make them a terrorist. Unless they're actually being violent, then they should get the benefit of the doubt.
It sort of goes back to how people will become what you expect them to be. If everyone treats them as if they're violent thugs, then it's really easy for them to actually become violent because they no longer have anything external to lose.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Lyrhawn: You say that Hamas is a splinter group that left MB because they weren't radical enough. Everything I've read indicates that Hamas is more a Palestinian "wing" of MB, operating in Israel, and that they still have strong ties together. Which, to me, would do a lot to invalidate the whole "nonviolent means" claim MB makes.
Rakeesh: See above, really. I don't think I consider myself well informed enough to dispute the nonviolent claim per se. But from the somewhat limited reading that I have done, I definitely consider myself skeptical.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That isn't the impression I've gotten. But I'm happy to read any information you'd like to put in front of my eyes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I honestly don't remember offhand the original sources that told me that (and have to much on my plate today to really go hunting), though a quick browse through the wiki entry on MB seems to confirm it. Obviously, that's wikipedia, so, take it with however many grains of salt you generally apply to wikipedia.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It seemed to me at the time that the people who coined the term "the domino effect" were overlooking the fact that the only motivation that could bring about such dramatic social change was that people will organize and fight for freedom and/or progress. It didn't make sense that if one country was overtaken by an evil dictatorship that other countries would fall in the same direction, unless there is something fundamentally satisfying that underlies the change.
Another way of saying this is that I believe that in the free market of social change, good regimes will win out, and bad regimes may not disappear as fast as we'd like, but eventually they will come to an end. Also "the arc of history bends toward justice."
The Berlin wall was an example of this, when it fell away from soviet communism/oppression. This (and solidarity in Poland) was the beginning of a chain reaction of countries leaving the soviet bloc. There were some bad eggs in that chain reaction, but overall, I think progress was made.
Glenn Beck has lately been promoting the domino effect rhetoric with respect to Egypt and Islamic countries in general (including India, apparently), but Iran seems be be the most nervous of these countries, and it's not because they are going to be overthrown by an islamic revolution. Quite the opposite, in fact. My tendency is to think that if Egypt is the beginning of a domino effect, that it will tend away from oppressive regimes, not toward them. And given that the most visible examples we have of an Islamic Caliphate are the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Iranian situation, the ripple will NOT be in that direction.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Glenn Beck has lately been promoting the domino effect rhetoric with respect to Egypt and Islamic countries in general (including India, apparently)
The last clip I saw of him, Beck was suggesting that most of Europe, including Spain, Italy, the UK (because student university fee protests = islamification) and even Ireland were already on fire from from Islamic rioting in the streets and would soon be part of this 'Caliphate'.
Dude is a nutter.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote: Glenn Beck has lately been promoting the domino effect rhetoric with respect to Egypt and Islamic countries in general (including India, apparently)
The last clip I saw of him, Beck was suggesting that most of Europe, including Spain, Italy, the UK (because student university fee protests = islamification) and even Ireland were already on fire from from Islamic rioting in the streets and would soon be part of this 'Caliphate'.
Dude is a nutter.
IRELAND is going to be part of a 'Caliphate'??? I think that would probably take something along the lines of the Crusades to accomplish!
Seriously, do you have a link or anything for that? It would be interesting to read his logic (for lack of a better word).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The algerian government was jealous of all this internet-shutting-downery Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Seriously, do you have a link or anything for that? It would be interesting to read his logic (for lack of a better word).
He's just manic. A little insane, a great deal conspiratorial and paranoid.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The algerian government was jealous of all this internet-shutting-downery
Naaaah, Samp, the internet in Algeria was just running really crappy.
So they tried turning it off and on again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
(That's a link)
OK. I'm just...there's got to be a Glenn Beck fan here, or someone who sticks up for Glenn Beck fans, who can explain to me why I ought to have any shred of respect for the part of a person that brings them to the Glenn Beck part of the media market. Because I just don't get it.
And yes, I'm aware that was a snippet, but you know what? That snippet was completely dishonest. Every single bit of it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Does the TOS say we aren't allowed to make personal attacks on Glenn Beck? Or just people who are here on the forum? (Seriously. Just asking.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It would be pretty strange if we weren't, given Card's political essays.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Does the TOS say we aren't allowed to make personal attacks on Glenn Beck? Or just people who are here on the forum? (Seriously. Just asking.)
It occurs to me that a personal attack would have to involve the notional presense of the party being attacked. Glenn Beck is not here. Also the attacks were clearly directed at his behavior, except for what Samp said. But since we aren´t having this discussion *with* Beck, I think Impeachment of his character is entirely fair game. If it weren´t, that would be a strange precident on this forum.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Anyway, I was pretty careful with my choice of words. The part of Beck's I can only characterize it as rant was completely dishonest. Linking protests throughout Europe to what was going on in Egypt was 100% dishonest, and I don't have any respect for an attitude that gets its news from that sort of outlet.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
There isn't anything wrong with excoriating Glenn Beck for the things he is saying. I wouldn't be comfortable with the following scenarios.
1: Somebody here stands up for Glenn Beck and attempts to defend him, and is then insulted and belittled by other posters.
2: Glenn Beck himself joins this forum, and people proceed to insult and belittle him.
3: Mr. Card asks that people specifically avoid saying disparaging things about Glenn Beck. I can't imagine this happening but I was ruminating.
Stating that you intend to do something illegal to Glenn Beck or another poster because or opinions they hold is of course never tolerated.
Outside all that, I can't imagine that I would be required to discipline posters for saying negative things about people period. My job would get extraordinarily busier if I was. We couldn't even use Hitler, the Nazi party, Stalin, or Mao anymore as a benchmarks for bad behavior.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
This from Wickipedia:
quote:The Society of the Muslim Brothers (often simply الإخوان Al-Ikhwān, The Brotherhood or MB) is an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states. The group is the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group,[1] and the "world's most influential Islamist movement."[2] The Brotherhood has as its slogan "Islam is the solution."
Samprimary, Rakeesh, Blackblade, and anyone else who questions the facts I present: You are the ones who need to back up your supposed facts when you contradict any I present. I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
kmboots, I resent your intimation that I ever fake anything, or ever have knowingly provided any facts that were wrong. I referred to the man who faced down the Chinese tank as elderly because that is how he was described by social historians William Strauss and Neil Howe in their book: Generations, The History of America's Future, in making their point about how members of his generation command respect of younger generations. However, after checking Wickipedia and other sources on the Internet, I see that some are saying that "tank man" was a younger person, whose identity is unknown for certain (though some guesses have been made.) Strauss and Howe's book was published in 1991 (the Tiananmen protest took place in 1989, only two years before), so they may not have had the information that became available later.
It shows a certain viciousness on the part of those willing to jump on me because of an incidental reference to the man who faced down the Chinese tanks as being "elderly." You make a major case out of this one word, reinforcing each other in what frankly seems to me to be pure hateful hysteria. Why should I ever take seriously anything you people have to say, when you show yourselves to be so lacking in self-discipline or common basic decency?
If you think you have a legitimate correction to make on a MINOR point like this, why not treat it as such, as you would with anyone else? Instead you use this as an excuse for defaming my character and motives, once again, like you always do.
I challenge you to recognize your moral obligation to give me the apology that you clearly owe me for your determined and methodical and continued efforts to slander me, for no valid reason at all--except perhaps for the fact that I maintain an anti-evolution and pro-Creation position which some of you manifestly cannot stand to have anyone champion in an articulate and logical manner.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You are the ones who need to back up your supposed facts when you contradict any I present. I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
Hee.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Also the attacks were clearly directed at his behavior, except for what Samp said.
I am talking about his behavior. On his television show, he frequently exhibits signs of literal hypomania.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This from Wickipedia:
quote:The Society of the Muslim Brothers (often simply الإخوان Al-Ikhwān, The Brotherhood or MB) is an Islamist transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states. The group is the world's oldest and largest Islamic political group,[1] and the "world's most influential Islamist movement."[2] The Brotherhood has as its slogan "Islam is the solution."
Samprimary, Rakeesh, Blackblade, and anyone else who questions the facts I present: You are the ones who need to back up your supposed facts when you contradict any I present. I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
The quote you have presented calls the Muslim Brotherhood the "largest political opposition organization" in many arab states.
That does not in any way, shape, or form back up what you said, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is "the largest political force in Egypt." It's not. Not even beyond the NDP and the military that has supplanted them in rulership of the country during this coup. Even the New Wafd Party is going to have more representation in the upcoming elections. Centrists will have more draw than MB revolutionaries.
You're wrong, again. And I bet you are completely incapable and unwilling to catch on to why Wikipedia calling them the largest political opposition group in the middle east does not back up calling them the largest political force in egypt. At all. Let me guess. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Once again you display your ignorance Sam. The fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood has been officially banned in Egypt for years. That does not mean they have been driven out or reduced in numbers; it only means they have become covert. It also means it is the only organization that the previous administration of Mubarak saw as a serious threat. Many current office holders and many candidates for office are believed to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but are keeping quiet about it. The military may have guns and tanks, but not the numbers to qualify as a majority.
Even though the Muslim Brotherhood claims to promote peaceful, non-violent change, they did nonetheless spawn Al Qaeda and Hamas, who of course differ from the surface appearance of the MB being against violence. Remember too that most Islamists are told that it is OK to lie to "infidels," meaning everyone else.
I have said this before, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. If you really want to have a clear understanding of history and of politics, you have to learn to read between the lines, because very few people in politics and involved in making history tell the truth overtly; everything is propaganda, unless a free press finally does its job (which unfortunately it does not always do, because the press has its majority biases too).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You are contorting away from my point. You aren't even addressing it at all in order to pretend that I wasn't aware of and/or that my argument was hinged around the Muslim Brotherhood being a banned party in Egypt. You're even talking to me like I'm a person who credulously accepts everything the MB says even though it couldn't possibly be more unrelated to anything I'm saying. I am not even using Muslim Brotherhood statements as any part of what I have said here at all. It's staggering.
The quote you have presented calls the Muslim Brotherhood the "largest political opposition organization" in many arab states.
That does not in any way, shape, or form back up what you said, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is "the largest political force in Egypt." It's not.
Let me say that again IN BOLD.
The quote you have presented calls the Muslim Brotherhood the "largest political opposition organization" in many arab states.
That does not in any way, shape, or form back up what you said, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is "the largest political force in Egypt." It's not.
You. Can. At. Least. Read. English. Please. Start. Addressing. My. Actual. Points. Not ones you have invented for me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Week-Dead Possum: Also the attacks were clearly directed at his behavior, except for what Samp said.
I am talking about his behavior. On his television show, he frequently exhibits signs of literal hypomania.
Well, yeah, I know, It's just not exactly his behavior you're critiquing so much as an actual thought disorder. The man is almost certainly bipolar.
ETA: Ack, why do you have to post videos of him? It's like watching someone with cerebral palsy trying to open a jar of pickles. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's just... uncomfortable. There's actually something deeply wrong with Glenn Beck, and it has little to do with his politics. He is emotionally disturbed.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
So how large is the Muslim Brotherhood's presence in influencing the current revolution in Egypt right now? Are they going to promote democracy, or are they taking a more fundamentalist approach? Are they good for Egypt or bad?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I demonstrably have a much better knowledge of history than you do. Your apologies are expected.
However, after checking Wickipedia and other sources on the Internet, I see that some are saying that "tank man" was a younger person, whose identity is unknown for certain (though some guesses have been made.) Strauss and Howe's book was published in 1991 (the Tiananmen protest took place in 1989, only two years before), so they may not have had the information that became available later.[/QB]
So your defense - your proof that you know history better - is that you can quote some people who wrote a book and may not have had the information when they did. So as long as there is a single incorrect report of a historical event to reference, it's OK to tout that as fact even if more and better information come later?
I'm going to run that by they very next historian I can and watch how hard they laugh.
Maybe instead of telling everyone they owe you an apology you can grow a pair and say something like "oops, my mistake. I was basing that off of what looks to be out of date information. Thanks for the correction".
I know, I know... that would be awfully close to admitting fallibility so I shouldn't hold my breath.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In the longer term I think probably the answer is a qualified "good." They represent at best a better organized pro-reform movement than any other in the country, which quality could help them become a platform from which reformers could gain some clout and organizational stability to stand upon.
I think the important thing to remember is that they do not represent the whole reform movement in Egypt- they just have a recognizable brand. As soon as some sort of democratic process gets off the ground, people are going to start competing and teaming up in new ways, and the best that can be hoped for the MB is that they serve as a positive example of peaceful organization, and possibly bring to the public eye some key reformers who will be able to bring the process forward in a productive way. As soon as more people are involved in the reform process, I think political exigency is going to temper the conservative aspects of the MB's platform almost right away- the first thing any successful government in Egypt *has* to do is establish its relationship with the US and regain its footing in regards to US/Turkish foreign policy. Turning away from the west now would be a major mistake, and I think there are plenty of reformers who are going to realize it.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: So how large is the Muslim Brotherhood's presence in influencing the current revolution in Egypt right now? Are they going to promote democracy, or are they taking a more fundamentalist approach? Are they good for Egypt or bad?
That sort of depends on what you believe the Muslim Brotherhood is. Are they an Islamic group that wants people to CHOOSE to live under Sharia (as in, choose a Sharia based government)because they believe it will lead to the most prosperity for the nation. Are they merely a group of terrorist thugs who want to impose their fanatical ways on everyone else by using Sharia as a guise for controlling everyone who doesn't agree with them? Are they something in between, and if so, where on the continuum do they fall?
That question seems to be unanswered as of yet, or at least no one agrees what the answer is.
[ February 13, 2011, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: DDDaysh ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ron, are you a professional basketball player? Because that is some excellent pivoting away from the original point you were making which is what I was takin' issue with, if you're interested in challenging what I actually said. (Specifically that TMB in Egypt doesn't have a history of violent, nefarious government overthrow efforts with the ultimate aims of hatin' America n' stuff)
Which now that you've been called on it by no less than three or four people (mostly Samprimary), you'll either dig in deeper or pretend it never happened as has proven your pattern repeatedly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
I don't even know where to begin with what you've said. However, I'm sure you realize that quoting Wikipedia isn't the best place to start. The place is anathema to real historians (a club that you apparently think you're part of). We don't mind going there for a quick reference or to get an idea on where else to go, but it's not a place you rely on, certainly not as proof to a doubting audience, for total fact.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Amen.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: I'm not sure why you are asking for an apology? If I'm wrong, then you are doing me a favor by pointing that out. Same goes for you if I'm right. I'm not sure why either us would need to apologize unless one of us said something they regret saying.
I don't ever regret being wrong, I regret not doing something about it when I can.
As to your original assertion. The Muslim Brotherhood's control over Arab states has zilch to do with Egypt. Egyptians don't even like being called Arabs, it's insulting. Further, Egypt social dynamics are quite divergent, (something we would expect is true of two different states in the US to say nothing of two different nations) from their neighbors.
As for proof, well lets look at a Muslim Brotherhood members response to concerns they want to turn Egypt into Iran.
Why would he even need to say that if Egypt is already full of slathering Islamophiles? Clearly there is enough of a secular sentiment in Egypt that at the very least the MB can't get all the power after proper elections, let alone just walk in and grab the reigns.
So then now lets hear what the MB itself has stated its goals are regarding Egypt. What the MB wants.
Now I'm sure you will notice they reject the premise that a secular Democracy is necessary for Egypt. That makes sense since they believe that there are certain guiding principles in their religion that are universally accepted amongst Egyptians. Sorta like our founding fathers with their whole God given rights agenda.
But they also reject the premise that you have to have purely secular government or a total autocratic theocracy. In any case, I'm sure they will have some influence on the new government as their supporters are not non existent. But lets be clear about some things. The MB was not the chief architect of this revolution. So they can't claim the credit and use that as a means to catapult to the top of government. Egypt has had a strong secular tradition for a long time already, sorta like Turkey, but not as extreme.
Are there religious nut jobs in Egypt who want the whole country to become like Iran, but for Sunnis? Of course there are. Just as we have some radicals here who think the entire United States belongs to Jesus, and so long as Americans become less and less committed to some branch of Christianity (which branch it is has never been firmly established.) we are going to be punished with natural disasters until we are either all dead, or all converted.
But I wouldn't start sweating until we see a new constitution, and can read what it says.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I challenge you to recognize your moral obligation to give me the apology that you clearly owe me for your determined and methodical and continued efforts to slander me, for no valid reason at all--except perhaps for the fact that I maintain an anti-evolution and pro-Creation position which some of you manifestly cannot stand to have anyone champion in an articulate and logical manner.
This is mindboggling.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
just_me, it might have been that simple had it not for people insulting my character and claiming that I "make things up" and that getting things wrong is what I always do about everything, and that if I do not answer someone's ridiculous and insulting diatribe, it means either that I am "running away," or trying to pretend it never happened.
Some of these characters have been repeating the same lying slanders about me for so long, others are duped into thinking there might be some truth in what they are saying, when in fact there is none. They hate me because I have shown I can answer their pro-evolution arguments, and have posed pro-creation arguments that are uncomfortably challenging for them to address, let alone answer. They would rather duck what I say and respond merely by claiming that I must be ignorant or dishonest. That is the way they almost always wind up responding to my posts. Let me call "tank man" elderly, and they make a federal case out of it, as if it proves every lying slander they have ever posted about me.
All they really prove is that they desperately need to be sanctified by taking heed to God's Word.
BlackBlade, I will simply repeat that you have to read between the lines, and you cannot take what various spokespersons for the MB or Islam say at face value, since their Imams have told them it is OK to lie to "infidels" (everyone else). You need to investigate a few more news sources.
I cited Wickipedia, because it was representative of what most other internet sites say on the subject. Granted, Wickipedia is not very authoritative. But I have no problem with quoting it if it seems in line with other sources. At least most people are familiar with the site, and know it is not identifiably conservative. That would be one of the likely criticisms were I to quote from Fox News Channel, even though "fair and balanced" Fox News is probably the least biased (hence highest-rated) news source on the planet. Did you know that a recent poll shows that FNC's Bill O'Reilly has four times the ratings as MSNBC's Chris Matthews (ol' Tinglefoot)?
I hope you are right, and that neither the MB nor any other overtly Islamic organization winds up taking over Egypt. But the majority of the Iranian people have long preferred Western culture and wanted a secular state, and they still got a radical Islamic theocracy rammed down their throats. Of course, Iranians are mostly Persians, not Arabs. But will that make enough of a difference?
None of us can know for certain what will become of Egypt, and the course its government will take in the future. But the history of the Middle East is not encouraging for the emergence of a pro-Western, secular state. Remember Anwar Sadat, one of the true heroes of Middle Eastern history; remember also who killed him, and why.
Here's the answer:
quote:The attackers included four enlisted men, an army major and a lieutenant. The major and two enlisted men were killed in the swarm around the reviewing stand, once other members of the military realized what was taking place. The rest were arrested. The attackers would eventually come to be identified as Islamist nationalists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood under the name of Islamic Jihad.
[ February 14, 2011, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: It's wrong to assume that every single Muslim organization has the same Imams, and that all of them instruct their followers to lie so as to avoid detection until the world encompassing caliphate can be established.
The idea that the majority of Muslims do not value honesty is to be frank insulting. I've read the news articles about certain Imams saying it is permissible for Muslims to lie to infidels, or to murder them, or to commit crimes against them, so long as the motive is the spread of Islam, but that is one sliver of extremism that you can find in any ideology. Just look at the mindset of somebody who loads a gun and murders a doctor who performs abortions so as to "save" the lives of the unborn.
People who have violence or hate on their mind will often find that in order to get followers, you have to at least attempt to justify deviant behavior so as to make it palatable. The Muslim Brotherhood are not all liars, but I will grant you that by believing that, it conveniently narrows down your options as to how to respond to them. For example Glenn Beck telling you that progressives are all liars and they want to turn our country into some sort of Nazi Germany Maoist China amalgamation.
But anyway, I wasn't taking what they were saying at face value, I'm telling you to judge what they are saying by the context in which it is being said. Even if they have super secret motives, we can still read the constitution that is written and judge for ourselves.
Sadat's assassination was several decades ago, and in large part because of his later willingness to deal with Israel. Not because he wasn't Muslim enough.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I was on the wrong account, so I deleted and reposted it. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade--fine, as long as we do check for ourselves, and not take everything at face value. Note the quote I appended to my last post, about the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the assassination of Anwar Sadat.
This is WHY when Hosni Mubarak assumed power after the assassination of Anwar Sadat, he banned the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: even though "fair and balanced" Fox News is probably the least biased (hence highest-rated) news source on the planet.
I don't want to derail this thread, but - as you must know, as an historian, Ron - the fact that a source of information is popular does not mean that it is unbiased.
It often simply means that a lot of people share that bias, or are simply unaware of it because they have no opinion of their own on the subject.
For example - my dad is very happy watching Fox News in the US, because he's not an American and has little interest in US politics. But he gets pretty mad watching Sky News in the UK whenever they try to pull the same kind of pro-conservative tactics, because he is familiar with the politics and he recognizes what they are doing.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It was not just one isolated, extremist Imam who said that it is OK for Moslems to lie to non-Moslems. The Koran and other Moslem historical sources also teach this:
quote:Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.” Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.” Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘...I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’” Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom you have a treaty, retaliate by breaking off relations with them.” Qur’an 8:30 “Allah is the best schemer.” Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.” Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’” Qur’an 13:27 “Say, ‘God leads whosoever He wills astray.’ Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ --link: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070526172805AAeOx3m
Contrast that with the teaching of Jesus: "The truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Also note the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." (Exodus 20:16)
[ February 14, 2011, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Moreover, it is also recorded where God has told someone to lie or deceive. In Exodus 3:18, God commanded Moses to request of Pharaoh permission to worship three days in the wilderness. Clearly, the sacrifice wasn’t the real reason for their leaving, and although Pharaoh refused, it was still obviously a deception. In 1 Samuel 16:2, God instructed Samuel to take a heifer as an offering with him to Bethlehem specifically so that Saul would not suspect that Samuel’s true reason for going was to anoint David as King.
If that’s not enough, there are occasions where God Himself is deceptive! In John 7:2-10, Jesus' brothers suggest that Jesus go to the Jew's feast of Tabernacles so that his disciples could see his works (for they did not believe in him). Jesus said, "My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready. . . Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. . . But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." Also, in Ezekiel 14:9, God says. "And if the prophet be deceived when he that spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him and destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." Similarly, 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 states, ". . . And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: . ."
link Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
At what part Ron at the 'Fox and Friends' clip shown in this video is Fox "Fair and Balanced"?
And just to make sure you understand, basically the interviewer gives absolutely no attempt to hide the fact that she has clearly picked a side on the issue.
Merely asking questions from both sides is not the same thing as journalistic integrity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I challenge you to recognize your moral obligation to give me the apology that you clearly owe me for your determined and methodical and continued efforts to slander me, for no valid reason at all--except perhaps for the fact that I maintain an anti-evolution and pro-Creation position which some of you manifestly cannot stand to have anyone champion in an articulate and logical manner.
Or, if you want me to think you credible, you could stop talking out of your hat.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But the history of the Middle East is not encouraging for the emergence of a pro-Western, secular state.
Western powers have a history of imposing and/or supporting their dictators of choice in the region. When the revolution inevitably comes, it's hardly reasonable to expect the resulting government to be pro-Western (see: Iran).
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It was not just one isolated, extremist Imam who said that it is OK for Moslems to lie to non-Moslems. The Koran and other Moslem historical sources also teach this:
quote:Qur’an 9:3 “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations.” Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.” Ishaq:519 “Hajjaj said to the Apostle, ‘...I must tell lies.’ The Apostle said, ‘Tell them.’” Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom you have a treaty, retaliate by breaking off relations with them.” Qur’an 8:30 “Allah is the best schemer.” Ishaq:323 “I am the best of plotters. I deceived them with My guile so that I delivered you from them.” Ishaq:365/Tabari VII:94 “Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’” Qur’an 13:27 “Say, ‘God leads whosoever He wills astray.’ Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ --link: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070526172805AAeOx3m
Contrast that with the teaching of Jesus: "The truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)
Also note the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." (Exodus 20:16)
Not a single one of those quotes says its ok to lie to "infidels" specifically or as a matter of course. Also they all look to be taken out of context. Not to mention Yahoo Answers is a horrible source, less credible than Wikipedia and only slightly more credible than Youtube comments.
Try again.
[ February 14, 2011, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Misha McBride ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: When the revolution inevitably comes, it's hardly reasonable to expect the resulting government to be pro-Western (see: Iran).
Or for that matter, if we got a secular and democratic Egypt, I'd chalk that up as a win. I could care less if it's "pro-Western."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Granted, Wickipedia is not very authoritative.
*whisper* It's "Wikipedia," because it is an encyclopedia that is a wiki.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, OK, however Wickedpedia is to be spelled. I'll bet I have a lot fewer misspellings than most posters.
Bella, the point of being "fair and balanced" is not that every commentator is neutral, but rather that commentators of both liberal and conservative biases are presented. This helps discerning viewers to appreciate that there is more than one side to an issue--unlike MSNBC and their ilk, who would have you believe that their liberal view is the only view. This is why Fox News is so popular. Fox is not just a conservative viewpoint newssource--it only seems that way, because other newssources are so uniformly biased to the left. Most of them do not even hint that there is a conservative viewpoint.
Mucus, in what way would it be a win if Egypt turns out to be anti-West and anti-Israel, and maybe renews its warfare with Israel? How would it be good for the people to be put on a course that would inevitably lead to major conflict?
As for God being deceptive, you fail to recognize that God frequently accepts responsibility for what He allows to happen (even though it is not His fault)--such as "strong delusion" coming on those who reject the truth. That is what the rejectors of truth have chosen for themselves!
The death of Saul is an interesting example. At one point, it says that God killed King Saul, for consorting with the Witch of Endor. At another point it says that the Philistines killed King Saul. The actual narrative of the event shows that Saul was mortally wounded by arrows fired by Philistine archers, and fell on his own sword rather than fall into the hands of his enemy while still alive. So Saul actually killed himself. But in a sense, all three statements are true.
God told Moses to tell Pharoah to let the children of Israel go three days out into the wilderness so they can sacrifice to God. We can only speculate what might have happened had Pharoah agreed. Remember the principle that many of God's prophecies are conditional--God will revise the fate He promised, based on the behavior of the people. This is fair and compassionate. God did intend all along for Moses to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. But that was because He knew all along that Pharoah would stubbornly resist to the bitter end. God gave Pharoah every chance to make a wise choice. So also Jesus washed the feet of Judas the very night Judas would betray Him, and Jesus knew he was going to do it. He still gave Judas a chance to repent.
Misha, that listing came from similar listings of quotes available on many websites. Now, if you can show that these quotations are false, you might have something.
I think you are not recognizing the clear implications of these passages. I believe they were originally compiled by someone taking issue with the swearing in of a Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, so they focus on whether oaths are binding for Muslims. But the principle is the same. The honor of one's word does not apply when speaking to non-Muslims. So this has been interpreted by various imams, who know the Koran better than you or I do.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Can we keep Ron from derailing this thread any further and go back to discussing Egypt...
Doesn't anyone else find it hard to believe that the military will surrender control of the country after 6 months?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
SoaP, yes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ron -
quote:Bella, the point of being "fair and balanced" is not that every commentator is neutral, but rather that commentators of both liberal and conservative biases are presented.
List for me please the commentators with a liberal bias. And then explain to me how they balance out the entire cast of Fox and Friends, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Huckabee, and whatever other conservative commentators I'm forgetting.
SoaP -
Possibly not, but in reality, I think the better question is to ask whether or not 6 months is a realistic time frame to complete all the tasks that have to be completed before a civilian government takes over.
They need to write a new constitution, elect a new parliament and end elect a new president. And they need to basically invent a political process for the entire country, from scratch. Does that sound like a realistic 6 month time frame job? Most people are saying it'll take a year.
Do I think they WOULD hand over power? Kind of a crapshoot at this point, but I know that a lot of protesters are refusing to leave Tahrir Square until they do...however many months away that is. But they've already met several key demands of the protesters. There's been a lot of good faith efforts and actions on their part.
The track record for the region certainly seems to suggest that them willingly handing over power is less likely, but, if they hold on too long, there's either going to be a brutal repression, or the people unseat another despot.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
When it comes to the Egyptian military, you also have to remember its a conscript army. The people are the military, the military are the people- many of those in Tahrir Square have probably already served in it. That military refused to fire on protesters when given the orders to do so by Mubarak. I doubt they'd be more co-operative for another would be despot.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: When it comes to the Egyptian military, you also have to remember its a conscript army. The people are the military, the military are the people- many of those in Tahrir Square have probably already served in it.
Power corrupts.
See: history of USSR. See also: Animal Farm.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Power corrupts.
See: history of USSR. See also: Animal Farm.
Sure. And I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I'm saying that so far the Egyptian army (and I mean rank-and-file, not the higher ups) has shown itself very unwilling to do harm to its own people. Any general wanting to become Supreme Leader of Egypt is going to have to figure out a way to persuade soldiers who have already disobeyed shoot to kill orders that they should now murder civilians, and I honestly don't see that happening.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do we actually know the specifics of what the military was ordered to do and at what level the order was refused? I wasn't aware we knew the specifics. I think that'll be fascinating story some day if it's ever told.
I think it's safe to assume that the generals, who are by and large Mubarak clones and appointees, didn't refuse the order.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do we actually know the specifics of what the military was ordered to do and at what level the order was refused? I wasn't aware we knew the specifics. I think that'll be fascinating story some day if it's ever told.
I think it's safe to assume that the generals, who are by and large Mubarak clones and appointees, didn't refuse the order.
quote:Last night, a military officer guarding the tens of thousands celebrating in Cairo threw down his rifle and joined the demonstrators, yet another sign of the ordinary Egyptian soldier's growing sympathy for the democracy demonstrators. We had witnessed many similar sentiments from the army over the past two weeks. But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.
Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people.
Thus when General Hassan al-Rawani told the massive crowds yesterday evening that "everything you want will be realised – all your demands will be met", the people cried back: "The army and the people stand together – the army and the people are united. The army and the people belong to one hand."
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ron -
quote:Bella, the point of being "fair and balanced" is not that every commentator is neutral, but rather that commentators of both liberal and conservative biases are presented.
List for me please the commentators with a liberal bias. And then explain to me how they balance out the entire cast of Fox and Friends, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Huckabee, and whatever other conservative commentators I'm forgetting.
SoaP -
Possibly not, but in reality, I think the better question is to ask whether or not 6 months is a realistic time frame to complete all the tasks that have to be completed before a civilian government takes over.
They need to write a new constitution, elect a new parliament and end elect a new president. And they need to basically invent a political process for the entire country, from scratch. Does that sound like a realistic 6 month time frame job? Most people are saying it'll take a year.
Do I think they WOULD hand over power? Kind of a crapshoot at this point, but I know that a lot of protesters are refusing to leave Tahrir Square until they do...however many months away that is. But they've already met several key demands of the protesters. There's been a lot of good faith efforts and actions on their part.
The track record for the region certainly seems to suggest that them willingly handing over power is less likely, but, if they hold on too long, there's either going to be a brutal repression, or the people unseat another despot.
What I'm most worried about is the way the military went about their takeover. They simply 'dissolved' the country's Parliament and 'suspended' the Constitution. They essentially have all the power in the country at the moment.
What's most important is that how well they govern during these next 6 months. If they gain legitimacy during that time-span, I think they'll do their best to hold on to as much power as they can, and we can kiss our democracy dreams goodbye.
I just hope the people of Egypt don't settle for another authoritarian regime.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dissolving the parliament and suspending the constitution were two of the demands made by the protesters.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Dissolving the parliament and suspending the constitution were two of the demands made by the protesters.
Oh haha, shows how much I know. I just don't like the fact that the only people with any real power left over from Mubarak's old regime are the ones with the guns.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, in what way would it be a win if Egypt turns out to be anti-West and anti-Israel, and maybe renews its warfare with Israel?
a) Many countries are neither "anti-West" nor "pro-Western" b) Many countries manage to not be "pro-Western" yet don't end up shooting at Israel
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
SoaP - I share your concerns about the military, since, in general, militaries are not known for giving up power when they've taken over a country.
On the other hand, who COULD they have picked that you would believe would hand the reigns over? As Rivka points out, power corrupts. I'm not sure there's anyone you really could put in the transitional job that anyone would really totally trust to ever hand power back to "the people".
In this case, the military (so far) seems to be the only force in Egypt with sufficient strength and authority to do the job with any amount of support from the people. So far they've done a reasonably good job of trying to listen to the "voice of the country". So, we'll see how things stand in a year. I don't have really high hopes, but I certainly don't have a better solution either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My God, how did this not get more air time? This is horrible.
Thank goodness the soldiers were there to save her, but geez.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lyrhawn, I decline your request that I list all the liberal commentators on Fox News Channel. If you want to make a point about this, then the proper way would be for YOU to do the homework, and list the commentators who appear and whether they represent liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, views. I think you might surprise yourself. Whenever there is any issue, Fox News almost always presents opposing viewpoints. See for yourself.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
And with that answer, Ron, you have proven all detractors of Fox News correct.
Seriously? You couldn't even think of ONE liberal commentator?
ETA: Okay, I had to run out for an hour. But what I meant to say was - as an historian, you'll know all about this Ron - it's not massively convincing when you just make an unfounded statement, and when someone asks for some evidence for or information about said statement, you reply 'I am correct. Now get your own information.'
That just makes everyone assume that, in fact, you can't back up your ideas because they are groundless.
And what happened to that journalist is just terrible. Poor woman.
[ February 16, 2011, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: My God, how did this not get more air time? This is horrible.
Well, it did get some attention... Rosen apologizes... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, I decline your request that I list all the liberal commentators on Fox News Channel. If you want to make a point about this, then the proper way would be for YOU to do the homework, and list the commentators who appear and whether they represent liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, views. I think you might surprise yourself. Whenever there is any issue, Fox News almost always presents opposing viewpoints. See for yourself.
I'll spot you Alan Colmes, even though I'm not sure how often he's actually on the network anymore.
Other than that, I've got nothing. I think by your rules for this little game, I guess I win.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
In the times I've seen Alan Colmes (which admittedly wasn't much), he represented the liberal side pretty pathetically.
I'd term him a "professional strawman" based on what I saw. His job was to lose to Hannity in debate, which admittedly was probably pretty hard.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's gotta be a sucky job.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He got to wear a pretty cool tie.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: He got to wear a pretty cool tie.
Yeah, but he had to lose to Hannity and his boring ties.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the record, protests have spread to Yemen, Bahrain, and Libya with police firing on crowds (and ambulances) in Bahrain.
Bahrain shooting.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I wonder how many of these protests will actually result in a coup. History will look back on this period and examine it quite a bit. It's funny to see how a revolt in a tiny powderkeg country like Tunisia can set an entire region on fire.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Here are some liberal commentators on Fox News from a quick search:
Juan Williams Alan Combs Bernie Sanders Al Sharpton Bob Beckel Kirsten Powers Mora Liasson Patrick Cadell Dennis Kucinich Charles Rangle
Greta Van Sustren and Geraldo Riveria are also moderate leftists, and each hosts a show on weeknights.
I watch during the weekdays, usually early in the morning, and I can attest that I've seen these commentators on Fox News numerous times.
However, I think anyone claiming Fox News isn't biased is missing the point. They are. But all news will have a slant one way or another, even if the information is relatively accurate, because each news organization can pick and choose which items of news they'll emphasize and which they'll ignore.
I don't have a problem with bias itself. I do have a problem when people won't admit it or get huffy when they notice bias from an opposing viewpoint. It's much, much harder to spot bias when it's snuggled so closely to your side of the issue.
Fox news isn't necessarily fair, but I do think they balance out the left-leaning media to a degree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dennis Kucinich is a Fox News commentator? Really? In what capacity? I'm not saying he isn't; I'm just astounded to hear that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
FoolishTook -
Are you just listing liberals who have been on the network as guests before? I'm talking about people on the year round payroll with their own shows and mouthpieces. You're talking about hired strawmen.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Are you just listing liberals who have been on the network as guests before? I'm talking about people on the year round payroll with their own shows and mouthpieces. You're talking about hired strawmen.
I'm talking about regular guests on the channel. Whether or not they are on Fox News's payroll, I have no idea. Apart from Greta Van Sustren and Geraldo Riveria, they don't actually have shows.
I didn't realize you were asking for liberals with actual one hour programs on Fox News, which is an entirely different ballgame, and much easier to figure out for yourself. Just a touch of knowledge about how Fox News actually works would have answered this one for you.
I know of one conservative show on MSNBC, and that's Morning Joe, with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Willie Geist, and an occasional guest spot carved out for Pat Buchanan. It's not really a conservative with a mic and the floor. It's a mixed bag of conservatives/liberals duking it out.
I'm curious to know how many paid conservatives there are at CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the myriad of nationally known papers and news magazines circulating out there.
Despite all the tantrums leftists are throwing over Fox News (and the existence of conservative talk), you still have something of a monopoly on media and entertainment.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not even close. None of them come close to the rhetoric I hear on a regular basis when I am forced to listen to Fox News at work.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That was so painful to watch. To be fair the State Dept Rep obviously has an official line that he has to stick to, but it was still frustrating as all get out, wanting a substantial response to such relevant questions.
And figures. This illustrates what a short leash he had.
quote:P.J. Crowley is abruptly stepping down as State Department spokesman under pressure from the White House, according to senior officials familiar with the matter, because of controversial comments he made about the Bradley Manning case.
quote:Speaking to a small group at MIT last week, Crowley was asked about allegations that Manning is being tortured and kicked up a firestorm by answering that what is being done to Manning by Defense Department officials "is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."
quote:I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)